Banning Flash is not contradictory to having it made open source so as to enable web preservation. From a security perspective, it might actually be quite desirable--you enable smooth conversion into modern formats now, without the problems and security risks of using back-engineered tools that may let the security flaws of the original slide through, and later use of Flash as an instructional tool. You can show it to students, and let them see for themselves the trainwreck, instead of having them know it only through legends which they might not believe.
You are certainly in the mythical "security" unicorn region if you believe that further gains in security can be somehow made by burning it and salting the ground, so to speak.
This isn't mutually incompatible. I've seen those studies too, and what I remember is that what seems to drive it is that customers perceive it as a deal--which you can blow pretty damn easily by admitting to price abuse or by being caught engaging in it.. You're going to be hurt more by a reputation for ripping off customers than you are going to be hurt by having your sale prices being only a small amount less than your regular prices.
After all, most people aren't obsessive geeks focused on price alone. As long as they're actually lower--or you're pretty openly using the sale to give people the old price for a bit longer before the new price kicks in--then you're in the clear. (The major time I've seen the second happen, I'm rather certain the store itself wasn't the one raising the price but the manufacturer. They put it on sale pretty much whenever they've an excuse--the old price was that product's Goldilocks spot.)
Depends on the pay scheme. Your standard established delivery service drivers get paid well; if to-your-door delivery is a standard thing for the business, it's probably safe to expect they pay decent wages for it too. (Still, offering a can of cold soda on a hot day or a takeaway cup of hot coffee is not rude, especially if they regularly deliver to you.) Gig economy, food delivery, businesses branching out into delivery, and anything extra from the first group? Tip.
Time-wise, the company fell apart when they stopped the price abuse. For whatever that's worth, correlation vs causation etc, but shoppers weren't at all happy per the JCP financial docs.
If it is causation, actually, I'd say that it suggests less that consumers want sales, and more that getting caught committing it in any way breaks customer trust. If you're ending the practice and not because your predecessor left in a scandal over that? Spin it as "Every day is a sale at Foo Store!"--not "We've been gouging you in the past but we're not gonna keep doing it, honest!" I mean, does that second quite sound believable?
Implants have currently the best success rate when it comes to female contraception--better than anything short of a hysterectomy--and the main problem is that the cost of having to take them out later isn't apparently mentioned, which suggests two basic problems of varying significance. "Removal costs money" is something that ought to be covered in obtaining informed consent.. Designing it so it'll be completely absorbed into the body when spent, however, would have distinct benefits--especially if that doubles as a way for a woman to tell how much longer her implant is likely to remain effective.
There's other methods of birth control which not only do not screw with the environment but are a lot safer for women. If you tried getting your standard version of the Pill through the FDA now, about the only thing that'd actually get it approved would be feminists claiming that it's getting blocked because apparently it's misogyny to insist that a medicine that's intended at least mostly for women stand up to the same level of scrutiny as any other medicine.
A surprising number of pharmaceuticals get dumped out of the body in urine pretty much intact. There's little to no effort to actually remove these from sewage during the treatment process. A lot of the indicators are that this is actually one of the nastier overall types of pollution--but, well, actually doing something about it would require personal sacrifice by the privileged classes, instead of symbolic acts, virtue-signalling, or pushing the sacrifices onto the less-privileged.
Of course, if you want a very safe, very reliable, very environmentally-friendly form of birth control? Get a vasectomy.
And, of course, you can always bring up the sheer usefulness of allowing some flavor of portable apps to be used, since usually machines locked down that badly also won't keep individual user settings--I am pretty sure that the main place I've worked with computers this locked down, what you actually were getting each and every time is a Windows image (that they kept needing to update, srsly?) loaded from some overloaded basement server plus access to a personal downloads folder. No evidence was ever found for a personal settings folder being something you got to have.
I have some still-functional laptops with old versions of Windows--and at least one is pretty much a scan station. If I get bored enough I'll see if I can run that scanner on a Linux box, since it's a good flatbed scanner and finding those can be a PITA when you don't want/need an AIO monstrosity.
I've usually found it's as easy as burning a livedisk or creating a live USB, changing the boot order so it'll boot from there (a good general plan anyway), and installing. Dual boot is an option, and may be what I move to since quite a few places are being reluctant to accept that people with Linux computers will be needing on the system.
Aside from one machine where getting into the BIOS is requiring tracking down an old-fashioned keyboard to borrow (the USB keyboard it has doesn't get read until later in the boot process, I'm rather mystified), I've had no problems...and I'm not a software-type computer geek.
In general, this is a problem SaaS must fix to survive--especially when alternate software that isn't SaaS exists, and your customers can jump ship if you sufficiently annoy them. It might easily enough get you out of being the 'safe' choice for somebody to suggest buying when it's time to get new software, if you dick around with the UX sufficiently regularly.
Linux is leaving behind the old "complete non start for anyone who doesn't know exactly what they're doing." I've had somebody who is very much a non-techie happily working on an account set up for them on a Linux box nearly a decade ago. I'm relatively certain that even then, I could have let that person run updates--though, admittedly, nothing on that box was being deliberately kept on an old version...
Yeah, my concern here is that they seem to have gone straight to asking Glassdoor to give them the names directly. I'd have started with accepting the deal Glassdoor offered, with the understanding that I may need to subpoena those who don't come forward--and would like to know of those who don't agree to talk to me, how many of those had been a 'No' vs 'No response.' (The latter group may simply have thought Glassdoor's email was spam, while the former I'd probably be best off not calling as a witness unless I absolutely got to.) At all points, I'd make every effort to ensure all of them were assured that as much anonymity as possible would be provided to them...and be honest about what could be had there.
From the look of it, this is a criminal investigation into the company reviewed--I think that, actually, it would have been better for Glassdoor to argue that unless the court is issuing summons or subpoenas for these people, it is inappropriate to be compelling Glassdoor to reveal their names at this point.
It also seems like a generally stupid thing to do overall; these are people who are hoped to be useful witnesses for the government. This is going to be more likely to have them hostile, especially since some of them might have been quite willing to drop their anonymity to the investigators once they found out about it.
That solution isn't likely to be feasible to actually implement, especially with Firefox's plans for limiting what you can do to the UX via extensions. Pale Moon looks like it won't be doing that, but an extension that lets do that smoothly & well (doing the 3rd part with sessions isn't a Good Idea, actually) doesn't yet exist.
Though, some of the situations, 1600+ whatever there is actually precisely what you need. After all, yes, 1600+ people lined up outside my office might be a bit clunky, it can be distinctly more efficient than having to call all of them up one at a time to assign them to tasks--I can get on a PA system, ask them all at once who has what skill set, tell each group what to do at the same time, and get the entire thing done in maybe an hour instead of taking multiple days. 1600+ post-its on my whiteboard might also work very well if I'm trying to keep track of what solutions have been tried and what the results are, and updating a spreadsheet of this in real-time isn't an option--and if that's not an option, neither would be checking it. (Though I'd not precisely want to trust the glue on post-its to survive this; a corkboard-and-pin system is more robust, even if it would take slightly more effort to move something from the "Not Tried" stack to the "Tried, [Result Classification]" one.)
Oh, and some of us are in fields where "1600+ file folders in the inbox" is more than likely what will get us a job in the first place, because insane backlog is pretty much the only way anybody is going to hire you--they're be in too much need of extra staff to keep up the 'entry level job, must have 2+ years experience' nonsense.
It's actually been my impression that sites run faster with add-ons disabled. I don't have hard data, though, so don't give any weight to what I write. What I suspect - a wild guess, mind you - is that for example older versions of EFF Privacy Badger are single-threaded, so they actually slow you down more by blocking three hundred trackers spread across forty tabs than you would be if you just let all those advertising networks run their code.
Depends on the add-ons you're using...and how trustworthy those advertising networks are. Malware infections tend to slow computers down, and would it particularly hurt sites or ad networks to start making it be standard policy that ads capable of injecting malware just don't get in? (I'm not going to ask that they vet where the links go, that does seem a bit too labor-intensive and easily abused, but it shouldn't be difficult to just refuse to run ads that have the technical capability of loading programs on somebody's computer without their permission/knowledge.)
NoScript deserves particular mention here, as it definitely makes sites with javascript written by an alleged programmer run faster...by letting you keep those buggy scripts from running at all.
You know they have this other new feature that lets you group all those pages without needing any memory, CPU, or screen space. They call this cool new feature "bookmarks". You should check it out.
Ah, I can see that you've never actually had multiple research projects running at the same time!
The browsers I've worked heavily with, Firefox and Chrome, are actually pretty damn lousy if you want to find a specific bookmark quickly by means other than typing key words from the URL or title into the address bar.
Overall, Firefox's bookmarks work better than Chrome's for the suggested use--I can go through to find the useful pages for my research project and just bookmark the entire window with a name for the folder that I pick at the time of bookmarking. Chrome? If it has that capability, it's well-hidden--and it tends to stuff my bookmarks into folders randomly, actually.
Neither has particularly good options for sorting through massive amounts of bookmarks. Chrome's bookmark manager doesn't seem to realize you might want to quickly find and move a lot of bookmarks, Firefox's will cough and die horribly in the versions I was even willing to attempt this in. (It took the browser down with it.)
Using tabs for the same purpose may require more memory/CPU/screen space, but in exchange for that? I can quickly and easily check through what could easily be dozens of pages I've got pulled up just for the paper I'm working on writing, without having to fight the occasionally-very-wonky bookmarks to cough 'em up. That's assuming I'm dealing with a page that's worth bookmarking--some search engines, bookmarked results pages will give you errors when you attempt to retrieve them & some sites have the lovely habit of bouncing you to a landing page if you try to get in via a bookmark...and when you're done convincing it you've an account it will dump you onto the main page instead of where you were trying to go.
That said, I would certainly vastly appreciate it if at least some problems with bookmarks I covered here got handled--it'd be distinctly useful if you could set rules so bookmarks might get automatically tagged and/or sorted into specific folders, for example, or a by-folder export-as-HTML-list option was given...and as far as I care, any feature which can only be accessed via a secret hotkey combo like ctrl-option-cokebottle doesn't count. (Features obtainable by easily-found extensions, however, do count here.)
I'm really curious as to how anybody can confuse voluntaryism with randoid. Has 'randoid' become a generic insult?
Voluntaryism pretty much holds that the state per se is not the problem but rather its monopoly of force--it's anarchist/libertarian, and basically holds that you should have to actually convince people to do things and not, well, threaten them into it. At least with forced charity, it definitely has a point--especially since it may not always be wise to shift responsibility for a problem away from 'society at large' onto 'the state,' because that tends to make things like "But does it work?" somebody else's problem.
So, for example, that poor kid the $1 taken from me is supposed to be benefiting? May only get pennies' worth of actual benefit from it, with most of the benefit going to the various third parties, and that benefit may be useless to the kid. The state's efforts to help rarely get the same level of scrutiny for effectiveness (in any sense of the word) that private charities generally get on a regular basis now...
Since apparently you missed it the first time: The victim is the one who gets to decide if assault charges (sexual, whatever) are going to be filed. The prosecutor is unlikely to even know about the case if the victim say "Nope, not going to file charges." What the prosecutor gets to do is decide if the this case is worth taking to court, but once they're filed there will be record of them & sometimes what it ultimately takes is having a serial sexual assault case.
That can make it easier to get the accused to take a plea deal, ultimately, and in some places a longer sentence can be gotten if you can demonstrate that it's not just a one-off.
So, while they may be particularly hard crimes to prove in court, but the idea that a victim is going to potentially be pressured to testify merely because they let somebody know it happened is really bad. That can and does result in them not being willing to seek medical help--and some of the injuries can be fatal if left untreated.
Which would be mentioned as either the criminal charges being dropped or pending, respectively. Moreover, sexual assault is one of the list of charges where the victim gets to make the call on if they want to press charges in the first place--if the victim says no, it literally doesn't matter how good the case could have been, and the prosecutor will never see it.
Therefore, all kinds of states of those criminal charges are possible, including 'not existing at all.' However, if they exist, there's still a problem because the summary should have at least a brief mention of their existence & status.
I'm trying to extrapolate some coherent point from this post. It's difficult, but seems like some common... thoughts... should be addressed:
The liberals were the fascists in the Nazi party (Nazi meaning new socialist)
Where the heck does this come from?? Every single iota of non-biased information I've ever seen points to the opposite. Eg Wikipedia:
"National Socialist" is the opposite of "New Socialist"? Okay, I'm going to fetch popcorn. (For the record, I'd say that they are more proof that the horseshoe theory has a point--the far fringes of the traditional left/right spectrum are, if you ignore the jargon, more alike than different. And the argument of "That can't be wrong they still fight" is hilarious, because people will fight over very minor differences and stupid things in general.)
there is the notion of 'The who can't, teach'. Meaning being an educator is a dead last choice.
For primary and secondary education, sure, but at a university level that is not at all true.
It can also depend a lot on what your goals are--for example, if you want to improve the understanding of statistics (and reduce the abuse of them) in your particular field, you're pretty much going to be stuck trying to move the ocean by hand with an unlined sieve unless you teach.
I'm stunned by how out of date your claims are--have you never heard of rape shield laws? It probably doesn't quite matter anymore, given that I'd suspect that letting your lawyer bring up any bit of the alleged victim's reputation aside from things directly relevant to their credibility would get the jury pissed off with you...and, really, anything there that'd be worth that risk would probably have the prosecution not inclined to bother with the case unless it's part of a set.
But, I am glad to hear nobody you know has been sexual assaulted in the past quarter century or so. I wish I could say the same.
Moving on from there: A victim is probably going to have to testify in civil court, too, though as noted the level of proof wanted is lower--and, to be blunt, parts of this have the distinct feel of an attempt to get the case tried in the court of public opinion. That's never a good sign: the court of public opinion is still very much attached to the whole 'women as victims' narrative, and biased to attack people who even dare mention that false accusations of sex crimes are a known problem.
Oh, and nasty secret about civil court and the media: Make the right kinds of accusations, and the costs to the defendant of letting the case reach court will be sufficiently high that they'll settle--even if they know the plaintiff's case is a steaming pile of manure, because the media isn't going to cover that part. So, effectively, a trial in the court of public opinion robs the accused of their day in court...but at least lynching isn't the problem it used to be.
I'm quite aware of that part and in fact was presuming the reader was not enough of an idiot to need reminding. However, sexual assault is one of the places where the person who gets to make the call on filing the initial charges is typically the victim and not the prosecutor. It won't even get to where you've got a prosecutor looking at the evidence if you don't do that. You also can proceed with the civil side of the case before the criminal side reaches court, assuming it ever will.
The bottom line here is that when you only see evidence that the civil side exists when there ought to be a criminal side as well, the result is that it smells fishy. It doesn't really matter what the claims are...well, aside from the fact that they're ones which ought to be in both.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of you with Windows: Media Player Classic runs Flash stored locally.
That's a false dichotomy.
Banning Flash is not contradictory to having it made open source so as to enable web preservation. From a security perspective, it might actually be quite desirable--you enable smooth conversion into modern formats now, without the problems and security risks of using back-engineered tools that may let the security flaws of the original slide through, and later use of Flash as an instructional tool. You can show it to students, and let them see for themselves the trainwreck, instead of having them know it only through legends which they might not believe.
You are certainly in the mythical "security" unicorn region if you believe that further gains in security can be somehow made by burning it and salting the ground, so to speak.
This isn't mutually incompatible. I've seen those studies too, and what I remember is that what seems to drive it is that customers perceive it as a deal--which you can blow pretty damn easily by admitting to price abuse or by being caught engaging in it.. You're going to be hurt more by a reputation for ripping off customers than you are going to be hurt by having your sale prices being only a small amount less than your regular prices.
After all, most people aren't obsessive geeks focused on price alone. As long as they're actually lower--or you're pretty openly using the sale to give people the old price for a bit longer before the new price kicks in--then you're in the clear. (The major time I've seen the second happen, I'm rather certain the store itself wasn't the one raising the price but the manufacturer. They put it on sale pretty much whenever they've an excuse--the old price was that product's Goldilocks spot.)
Depends on the pay scheme. Your standard established delivery service drivers get paid well; if to-your-door delivery is a standard thing for the business, it's probably safe to expect they pay decent wages for it too. (Still, offering a can of cold soda on a hot day or a takeaway cup of hot coffee is not rude, especially if they regularly deliver to you.) Gig economy, food delivery, businesses branching out into delivery, and anything extra from the first group? Tip.
Time-wise, the company fell apart when they stopped the price abuse. For whatever that's worth, correlation vs causation etc, but shoppers weren't at all happy per the JCP financial docs.
If it is causation, actually, I'd say that it suggests less that consumers want sales, and more that getting caught committing it in any way breaks customer trust. If you're ending the practice and not because your predecessor left in a scandal over that? Spin it as "Every day is a sale at Foo Store!"--not "We've been gouging you in the past but we're not gonna keep doing it, honest!" I mean, does that second quite sound believable?
Implants have currently the best success rate when it comes to female contraception--better than anything short of a hysterectomy--and the main problem is that the cost of having to take them out later isn't apparently mentioned, which suggests two basic problems of varying significance. "Removal costs money" is something that ought to be covered in obtaining informed consent.. Designing it so it'll be completely absorbed into the body when spent, however, would have distinct benefits--especially if that doubles as a way for a woman to tell how much longer her implant is likely to remain effective.
There's other methods of birth control which not only do not screw with the environment but are a lot safer for women. If you tried getting your standard version of the Pill through the FDA now, about the only thing that'd actually get it approved would be feminists claiming that it's getting blocked because apparently it's misogyny to insist that a medicine that's intended at least mostly for women stand up to the same level of scrutiny as any other medicine.
A surprising number of pharmaceuticals get dumped out of the body in urine pretty much intact. There's little to no effort to actually remove these from sewage during the treatment process. A lot of the indicators are that this is actually one of the nastier overall types of pollution--but, well, actually doing something about it would require personal sacrifice by the privileged classes, instead of symbolic acts, virtue-signalling, or pushing the sacrifices onto the less-privileged.
Of course, if you want a very safe, very reliable, very environmentally-friendly form of birth control? Get a vasectomy.
And, of course, you can always bring up the sheer usefulness of allowing some flavor of portable apps to be used, since usually machines locked down that badly also won't keep individual user settings--I am pretty sure that the main place I've worked with computers this locked down, what you actually were getting each and every time is a Windows image (that they kept needing to update, srsly?) loaded from some overloaded basement server plus access to a personal downloads folder. No evidence was ever found for a personal settings folder being something you got to have.
I have some still-functional laptops with old versions of Windows--and at least one is pretty much a scan station. If I get bored enough I'll see if I can run that scanner on a Linux box, since it's a good flatbed scanner and finding those can be a PITA when you don't want/need an AIO monstrosity.
I've usually found it's as easy as burning a livedisk or creating a live USB, changing the boot order so it'll boot from there (a good general plan anyway), and installing. Dual boot is an option, and may be what I move to since quite a few places are being reluctant to accept that people with Linux computers will be needing on the system.
Aside from one machine where getting into the BIOS is requiring tracking down an old-fashioned keyboard to borrow (the USB keyboard it has doesn't get read until later in the boot process, I'm rather mystified), I've had no problems...and I'm not a software-type computer geek.
In general, this is a problem SaaS must fix to survive--especially when alternate software that isn't SaaS exists, and your customers can jump ship if you sufficiently annoy them. It might easily enough get you out of being the 'safe' choice for somebody to suggest buying when it's time to get new software, if you dick around with the UX sufficiently regularly.
Linux is leaving behind the old "complete non start for anyone who doesn't know exactly what they're doing." I've had somebody who is very much a non-techie happily working on an account set up for them on a Linux box nearly a decade ago. I'm relatively certain that even then, I could have let that person run updates--though, admittedly, nothing on that box was being deliberately kept on an old version...
Yeah, my concern here is that they seem to have gone straight to asking Glassdoor to give them the names directly. I'd have started with accepting the deal Glassdoor offered, with the understanding that I may need to subpoena those who don't come forward--and would like to know of those who don't agree to talk to me, how many of those had been a 'No' vs 'No response.' (The latter group may simply have thought Glassdoor's email was spam, while the former I'd probably be best off not calling as a witness unless I absolutely got to.) At all points, I'd make every effort to ensure all of them were assured that as much anonymity as possible would be provided to them...and be honest about what could be had there.
From the look of it, this is a criminal investigation into the company reviewed--I think that, actually, it would have been better for Glassdoor to argue that unless the court is issuing summons or subpoenas for these people, it is inappropriate to be compelling Glassdoor to reveal their names at this point.
It also seems like a generally stupid thing to do overall; these are people who are hoped to be useful witnesses for the government. This is going to be more likely to have them hostile, especially since some of them might have been quite willing to drop their anonymity to the investigators once they found out about it.
That solution isn't likely to be feasible to actually implement, especially with Firefox's plans for limiting what you can do to the UX via extensions. Pale Moon looks like it won't be doing that, but an extension that lets do that smoothly & well (doing the 3rd part with sessions isn't a Good Idea, actually) doesn't yet exist.
Though, some of the situations, 1600+ whatever there is actually precisely what you need. After all, yes, 1600+ people lined up outside my office might be a bit clunky, it can be distinctly more efficient than having to call all of them up one at a time to assign them to tasks--I can get on a PA system, ask them all at once who has what skill set, tell each group what to do at the same time, and get the entire thing done in maybe an hour instead of taking multiple days. 1600+ post-its on my whiteboard might also work very well if I'm trying to keep track of what solutions have been tried and what the results are, and updating a spreadsheet of this in real-time isn't an option--and if that's not an option, neither would be checking it. (Though I'd not precisely want to trust the glue on post-its to survive this; a corkboard-and-pin system is more robust, even if it would take slightly more effort to move something from the "Not Tried" stack to the "Tried, [Result Classification]" one.)
Oh, and some of us are in fields where "1600+ file folders in the inbox" is more than likely what will get us a job in the first place, because insane backlog is pretty much the only way anybody is going to hire you--they're be in too much need of extra staff to keep up the 'entry level job, must have 2+ years experience' nonsense.
It's actually been my impression that sites run faster with add-ons disabled. I don't have hard data, though, so don't give any weight to what I write. What I suspect - a wild guess, mind you - is that for example older versions of EFF Privacy Badger are single-threaded, so they actually slow you down more by blocking three hundred trackers spread across forty tabs than you would be if you just let all those advertising networks run their code.
Depends on the add-ons you're using...and how trustworthy those advertising networks are. Malware infections tend to slow computers down, and would it particularly hurt sites or ad networks to start making it be standard policy that ads capable of injecting malware just don't get in? (I'm not going to ask that they vet where the links go, that does seem a bit too labor-intensive and easily abused, but it shouldn't be difficult to just refuse to run ads that have the technical capability of loading programs on somebody's computer without their permission/knowledge.)
NoScript deserves particular mention here, as it definitely makes sites with javascript written by an alleged programmer run faster...by letting you keep those buggy scripts from running at all.
"Organize bookmarks" died horribly for me. I actually have had trying to open the bookmark manager crash Firefox.
You know they have this other new feature that lets you group all those pages without needing any memory, CPU, or screen space. They call this cool new feature "bookmarks". You should check it out.
Ah, I can see that you've never actually had multiple research projects running at the same time!
The browsers I've worked heavily with, Firefox and Chrome, are actually pretty damn lousy if you want to find a specific bookmark quickly by means other than typing key words from the URL or title into the address bar.
Overall, Firefox's bookmarks work better than Chrome's for the suggested use--I can go through to find the useful pages for my research project and just bookmark the entire window with a name for the folder that I pick at the time of bookmarking. Chrome? If it has that capability, it's well-hidden--and it tends to stuff my bookmarks into folders randomly, actually.
Neither has particularly good options for sorting through massive amounts of bookmarks. Chrome's bookmark manager doesn't seem to realize you might want to quickly find and move a lot of bookmarks, Firefox's will cough and die horribly in the versions I was even willing to attempt this in. (It took the browser down with it.)
Using tabs for the same purpose may require more memory/CPU/screen space, but in exchange for that? I can quickly and easily check through what could easily be dozens of pages I've got pulled up just for the paper I'm working on writing, without having to fight the occasionally-very-wonky bookmarks to cough 'em up. That's assuming I'm dealing with a page that's worth bookmarking--some search engines, bookmarked results pages will give you errors when you attempt to retrieve them & some sites have the lovely habit of bouncing you to a landing page if you try to get in via a bookmark...and when you're done convincing it you've an account it will dump you onto the main page instead of where you were trying to go.
That said, I would certainly vastly appreciate it if at least some problems with bookmarks I covered here got handled--it'd be distinctly useful if you could set rules so bookmarks might get automatically tagged and/or sorted into specific folders, for example, or a by-folder export-as-HTML-list option was given...and as far as I care, any feature which can only be accessed via a secret hotkey combo like ctrl-option-cokebottle doesn't count. (Features obtainable by easily-found extensions, however, do count here.)
I'm really curious as to how anybody can confuse voluntaryism with randoid. Has 'randoid' become a generic insult?
Voluntaryism pretty much holds that the state per se is not the problem but rather its monopoly of force--it's anarchist/libertarian, and basically holds that you should have to actually convince people to do things and not, well, threaten them into it. At least with forced charity, it definitely has a point--especially since it may not always be wise to shift responsibility for a problem away from 'society at large' onto 'the state,' because that tends to make things like "But does it work?" somebody else's problem.
So, for example, that poor kid the $1 taken from me is supposed to be benefiting? May only get pennies' worth of actual benefit from it, with most of the benefit going to the various third parties, and that benefit may be useless to the kid. The state's efforts to help rarely get the same level of scrutiny for effectiveness (in any sense of the word) that private charities generally get on a regular basis now...
Since apparently you missed it the first time: The victim is the one who gets to decide if assault charges (sexual, whatever) are going to be filed. The prosecutor is unlikely to even know about the case if the victim say "Nope, not going to file charges." What the prosecutor gets to do is decide if the this case is worth taking to court, but once they're filed there will be record of them & sometimes what it ultimately takes is having a serial sexual assault case. That can make it easier to get the accused to take a plea deal, ultimately, and in some places a longer sentence can be gotten if you can demonstrate that it's not just a one-off.
So, while they may be particularly hard crimes to prove in court, but the idea that a victim is going to potentially be pressured to testify merely because they let somebody know it happened is really bad. That can and does result in them not being willing to seek medical help--and some of the injuries can be fatal if left untreated.
Which would be mentioned as either the criminal charges being dropped or pending, respectively. Moreover, sexual assault is one of the list of charges where the victim gets to make the call on if they want to press charges in the first place--if the victim says no, it literally doesn't matter how good the case could have been, and the prosecutor will never see it.
Therefore, all kinds of states of those criminal charges are possible, including 'not existing at all.' However, if they exist, there's still a problem because the summary should have at least a brief mention of their existence & status.
I'm trying to extrapolate some coherent point from this post. It's difficult, but seems like some common ... thoughts ... should be addressed:
The liberals were the fascists in the Nazi party (Nazi meaning new socialist)
Where the heck does this come from?? Every single iota of non-biased information I've ever seen points to the opposite. Eg Wikipedia:
"National Socialist" is the opposite of "New Socialist"? Okay, I'm going to fetch popcorn. (For the record, I'd say that they are more proof that the horseshoe theory has a point--the far fringes of the traditional left/right spectrum are, if you ignore the jargon, more alike than different. And the argument of "That can't be wrong they still fight" is hilarious, because people will fight over very minor differences and stupid things in general.)
there is the notion of 'The who can't, teach'. Meaning being an educator is a dead last choice.
For primary and secondary education, sure, but at a university level that is not at all true.
It can also depend a lot on what your goals are--for example, if you want to improve the understanding of statistics (and reduce the abuse of them) in your particular field, you're pretty much going to be stuck trying to move the ocean by hand with an unlined sieve unless you teach.
I'm stunned by how out of date your claims are--have you never heard of rape shield laws? It probably doesn't quite matter anymore, given that I'd suspect that letting your lawyer bring up any bit of the alleged victim's reputation aside from things directly relevant to their credibility would get the jury pissed off with you...and, really, anything there that'd be worth that risk would probably have the prosecution not inclined to bother with the case unless it's part of a set.
But, I am glad to hear nobody you know has been sexual assaulted in the past quarter century or so. I wish I could say the same.
Moving on from there: A victim is probably going to have to testify in civil court, too, though as noted the level of proof wanted is lower--and, to be blunt, parts of this have the distinct feel of an attempt to get the case tried in the court of public opinion. That's never a good sign: the court of public opinion is still very much attached to the whole 'women as victims' narrative, and biased to attack people who even dare mention that false accusations of sex crimes are a known problem.
Oh, and nasty secret about civil court and the media: Make the right kinds of accusations, and the costs to the defendant of letting the case reach court will be sufficiently high that they'll settle--even if they know the plaintiff's case is a steaming pile of manure, because the media isn't going to cover that part. So, effectively, a trial in the court of public opinion robs the accused of their day in court...but at least lynching isn't the problem it used to be.
I'm quite aware of that part and in fact was presuming the reader was not enough of an idiot to need reminding. However, sexual assault is one of the places where the person who gets to make the call on filing the initial charges is typically the victim and not the prosecutor. It won't even get to where you've got a prosecutor looking at the evidence if you don't do that. You also can proceed with the civil side of the case before the criminal side reaches court, assuming it ever will.
The bottom line here is that when you only see evidence that the civil side exists when there ought to be a criminal side as well, the result is that it smells fishy. It doesn't really matter what the claims are...well, aside from the fact that they're ones which ought to be in both.