Seems more like they're applying internet cafe browser caching to search results. Your search terms sort of resemble a block of 10% or more of searches for terms more or less like what you entered, so here are the most popular results based on what other people were looking for.
So, someone who smoked a little pot. Or jaywalked when John Q Law was having a bad morning. Or was guilty of the horrible crime of getting too hot and heavy with his two weeks underaged girlfriend. Or even better was randomly accused of rape by some woman he didn't even have relations with. Or even better just had the temerity to open their mouth at an inconvenient juncture.
Or whatever.
The law is an ass and the world isn't divided into monsters and non convicts.The sooner you and the rest of the Americans get that the better off the universe will be.
Better to let ten guilty go free than wrongly punish one innocent. If everyone can check whether or not you have a criminal record and will judge you accordingly, where's the incentive not to be a recidivist? I mean everyone already thinks that's what you are. Confirmation bias is a horrible force when applied to real live people.
That comes down to whether or not the person is an ongoing menace as I said. Not to mention that someone convicted of fraud, imprisoned for fraud, who continues to engage in fraud hasn't been "fixed" by the prison system, so different approaches to rehabilitation should be looked at.
In terms of interstellar planetary observations we're not even at the peering through hand-ground lenses in a medieval observatory stage yet, we're still trying to squint-count the pleiades on a windblown steppe as a test of eyesight. These are part of many tiny progressive advances that will ultimately lead to things like a constellation of observation satellites in a globe around the sun using its gravitational field to magnify distant worlds to an incredible extent. Taken individually it mightn't look like much but it all adds up over time.
Also, anything involving you being incarcerated is not an issue of "privacy". It's a matter of public record and needs to be open and available for public audit.
Although I've never been incarcerated and it's highly unlikely that I ever will be, I don't think a criminal record should be a permanent millstone around anyone's neck. If you've done your time and are no longer a threat to anyone or anything, it should need a court order to turn up criminal records. Time done, move on. Anything else is vengeance, not justice.
No Ireland still gets to vote on issues which would amend the Irish constitution, that continues to remain in force and was mostly the reason we got a vote on these treaties in the first place as I recall. The politicians can agree to whatever they want but if it means changing a word of Bunreacht na hEireann they have to run it by the people first. Which while awesome is mostly used by the population to strategically force the politicians to get a better deal rather than specifically opting out of European affairs.
I think the powers that be in the EU were either talking about or had enacted measures so that only a majority of countries needed to ratify treaties or something out of bitterness at the rampant and unchecked democracy in Ireland. Still, they wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge even if the government agreed to them.
Also, was anyone else disappointed that Mr. Cameron wasn't on that sub when it imploded?
What grievous offence has he committed upon your person that you'd wish him a horrendous death and his body likely never recovered? I quite liked Aliens myself.
Quote the opposite I'd say, these people are likely to be lionised in China and have their careers furthered by being prosecuted. And if they really want to go abroad they can have new identities manufactured wholesale by their government. Global politics are a whole other level.
It always seems to come from people who were born into wealth or privilege.
Okay, so straight in with the ad-homs, right.
It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Aaand we're off. Women as historical slaves. Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?
If the woman was a slave, that would make the man the mint julep sippin' massa, right? Except was there ever one single white slave owner who ever died to save the lives of his black slaves? Who ever gave up a space in a lifeboat to his black slave and chose to go down with a ship in their stead? Who ever stood with a rifle between his black slaves and an enemy to defend their lives, rather than his right to own them?
Can you even imagine a white slave owner working 16 hours in a field while his black slave stayed inside most of the day and kept his house tidy, then coming home and sharing the fruits of his labors with his black slave?
Did a black woman who was the sexual partner of a white slave owner have any expectation of respect, lifelong provision or shelter, or of sharing the benefits of his quality of life and his social status? Or was she just an object of the moment, free to be used and cast aside at will? Did a black man who was obligated to obey his owner's wife have any legal right or recourse when she pointed a finger and claimed he raped her? Or was he swinging from a tree within hours?
Yeah, women weren't slaves (except the ones that were actual slaves of course) and it's pretty horrifyingly racist that someone would diminish the experiences of actual slaves by such a comparison.
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband?
Yes, that was the point I was making. Wives in comparison to husbands, people of equivalent social status except one has more priveleges than the other, and it turns out that it wasn't the husband. This came from a woman of the time incidentally, and an awful lot of women agreed with her. Of course they were probably also incensed at the attitudes of the suffragettes towards poor folk and those of colour.
For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband.
So any unmarried women rapidly died off in poverty?
People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
And do you think that was because they hated women or didn't want to have to deal with long absences if she got pregnant? There's usually a practical reason for all of this stuff once you scratch the surface and dispense with the hysterics.
Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.
Which applied to men also. Third level education was for rich people back then.
yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Okay, so you know you're wrong and don't want to hear that. At least you admitted it up front I guess.
Almost no bank would grant a loan for business or property without the written permission of her husband, unless she was a blood relative of one of the bank's officers.
I'm self employed and the banks won't give me a loan for property because of the erratic nature of being self employed. The banks don't hate me or treat me this way because of my gender, they just weigh up the chances of getting their money back and decide they can do better elsewhere. Trying to paint this as misogyny or misandry is ridiculous.
I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers. I would strongly question the narrative that second wave feminism "liberated" women or did much more than take credit for social changes which were well under way regardless due to increasing average wealth and the invention of labour saving domestic devices.
Going back even further, the book "No Votes for Women" explores some of the realities at the time of the Suffragettes and raises the point that we should be perhaps less asking how shitty conditions were for women in the past but rather asking how comparitively shitty it was for men - the answer is usually quite a bit more:
"Almost immediately after the April committee meetings, Helena Gilder detailed the reasons she opposed woman suffrage in a long letter to her dearest friend , Mary Hallock Foote...
She , like many other anti-suffragists, believed in an inextricable link between military service and voting; only a person able to sacrifice himself on the battlefield earned the right to vote."
"In view of the privileges they already had women did not need political rights. Mariana Van Rensselaer articulated her particular views about women in articles for the New York World in May and June 1894;...She considered the enfranchisement of millions of women a risk not worth taking. Women already held more privileges than men under the law.
Specifically, Van Rensselaer wrote, a woman had control of her earnings, her personal property, and any real estate she owned. She could carry on a business or profession, she had no responsibility for her husband’s debts, and she was not required to support him.
She could sue and be sued, and she could make contracts. She had no obligation to serve on juries. With her husband she had equal rights to their children and, yet, he was obligated to support her and her children. Women were entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, while a man could not ask for alimony.
She was entitled to one third of her husband’s real estate upon his death, but he was not entitled to her property after death if there were no children. Van Rensselaer concluded that the distribution of labor and privileges between women and men seemed fair, that the different roles of women and men were critically important, and that it was “slander” to claim that men did not already take good care of women."
Or just get an actual dog. Preferably two. Best damn burglar deterrent in the known universe and they'll make their presence known very quickly. All this high tech finagling has nothing on man's best friend./thread
I haven't actually met most people so I can't really say what they consider, although well done on finding the time to post here what with your busy schedule meeting them by the way. From those I've spoken to they generally seem to feel that inflation will eat away at the last decades of their mortgages, which is probably true to an extent. Short term pain, long term gain.
Get a house TODAY you don't need to save up your money! Mortgages let you have immediate comfort now.
So does renting, without decades of debt slavery and possible depreciation of the asset if you ever want to sell it on. In fact mortgages reduce your immediate comfort more than renting if the cost of the interest is greater than the rent.
If short term comfort was all that mattered to people nobody would ever take out mortgages, so, er, yeah.
This article says is that even if we and all of our works vanished tomorrow, it still wouldn't make a difference. Despite which most if not all developed nations have goals to reach in terms of renewable energy generation, and many of them are reaching or exeeding their goals. In a hundred years I'd be surprised if fossil fuels are in use at all to be honest.
The world is changing. I for one am rather glad of past changes as I'd have some difficulty typing under several kilometers of ice. The problem which will arise due to sea level changes are more due to a global assumption that the state of affairs which exists today is somehow "normal" or "in balance". It's not and it never has been, there is no natural balance, and the sooner we adjust our societies to work with rather than try to withstand enormous generational adjustments, the better.
One thing it's not however is the end of the world, far from it.
The low birth rate is a complex subject but boils down to economics. Children are expensive.
The herbivore lifestyle, from what I've learned of it (I'm renting a room out to a Japanese language student), is more than just about not having children. Men are eschewing long term relationships entirely, not to mention simply not taking part in the pressurised Japanese society of yesteryear. They don't have high paying jobs but are rather staying afloat and going cycling in the countryside.
Men now have better entertainment options, as odd as that sounds, with the internet and various clubs, so prefer to have lots of money to spend on themselves instead of a wife and family
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that men are spending all their money on entertainment, if anything whiling away the hours is far cheaper these days than ever before. Plus I mean you have to ask what's going on when computer games are more attractive than the local womenfolk. Remember this is the country that invented the boyfriend shaped pillow.
The way to solve it is to make make having children a lot cheaper.
Again, money isn't really the issue here as far as I can tell. It's a profound rejection of the demand to be the best, to be a wallet, to be a dumb cog in the machine without being recognised and appreciated for it, and if the numbers returned by surveys are to be believed the Japanese economy is going to be in really serious trouble without them.
There are too many hungry people willing to do your job for you to get away with complacency, and trying to keep your skills a secret will just make the transition to homelessness or welfare recipient that much more painful when the levee fails.
Socioeconomic commentary like the above works better when the companies involved aren't being brought up before the courts on charges of artifically trying to keep worker wages depressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems more like they're applying internet cafe browser caching to search results. Your search terms sort of resemble a block of 10% or more of searches for terms more or less like what you entered, so here are the most popular results based on what other people were looking for.
Still beats me why reddit is getting a single pageview.
"a known convict"
So, someone who smoked a little pot. Or jaywalked when John Q Law was having a bad morning. Or was guilty of the horrible crime of getting too hot and heavy with his two weeks underaged girlfriend. Or even better was randomly accused of rape by some woman he didn't even have relations with. Or even better just had the temerity to open their mouth at an inconvenient juncture.
Or whatever.
The law is an ass and the world isn't divided into monsters and non convicts.The sooner you and the rest of the Americans get that the better off the universe will be.
Better to let ten guilty go free than wrongly punish one innocent. If everyone can check whether or not you have a criminal record and will judge you accordingly, where's the incentive not to be a recidivist? I mean everyone already thinks that's what you are. Confirmation bias is a horrible force when applied to real live people.
That comes down to whether or not the person is an ongoing menace as I said. Not to mention that someone convicted of fraud, imprisoned for fraud, who continues to engage in fraud hasn't been "fixed" by the prison system, so different approaches to rehabilitation should be looked at.
America, land of the free, where every sentence is a life sentence.
I thought UNIX/LINUX were a hardcore part of enterprise groups pretty much from the start.
In terms of interstellar planetary observations we're not even at the peering through hand-ground lenses in a medieval observatory stage yet, we're still trying to squint-count the pleiades on a windblown steppe as a test of eyesight. These are part of many tiny progressive advances that will ultimately lead to things like a constellation of observation satellites in a globe around the sun using its gravitational field to magnify distant worlds to an incredible extent. Taken individually it mightn't look like much but it all adds up over time.
Also, anything involving you being incarcerated is not an issue of "privacy". It's a matter of public record and needs to be open and available for public audit.
Although I've never been incarcerated and it's highly unlikely that I ever will be, I don't think a criminal record should be a permanent millstone around anyone's neck. If you've done your time and are no longer a threat to anyone or anything, it should need a court order to turn up criminal records. Time done, move on. Anything else is vengeance, not justice.
Very shellfish of them. ...thank you, I'll be here all night, try the veal!
No Ireland still gets to vote on issues which would amend the Irish constitution, that continues to remain in force and was mostly the reason we got a vote on these treaties in the first place as I recall. The politicians can agree to whatever they want but if it means changing a word of Bunreacht na hEireann they have to run it by the people first. Which while awesome is mostly used by the population to strategically force the politicians to get a better deal rather than specifically opting out of European affairs.
I think the powers that be in the EU were either talking about or had enacted measures so that only a majority of countries needed to ratify treaties or something out of bitterness at the rampant and unchecked democracy in Ireland. Still, they wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge even if the government agreed to them.
Wan't there some standard exception for oil rigs, prisons, schools etc in the normal licensing?
Also, was anyone else disappointed that Mr. Cameron wasn't on that sub when it imploded?
What grievous offence has he committed upon your person that you'd wish him a horrendous death and his body likely never recovered? I quite liked Aliens myself.
Quote the opposite I'd say, these people are likely to be lionised in China and have their careers furthered by being prosecuted. And if they really want to go abroad they can have new identities manufactured wholesale by their government. Global politics are a whole other level.
Ireland's doing okay, thanks. Not exactly booming for sure but ruined the country isn't.
It always seems to come from people who were born into wealth or privilege.
Okay, so straight in with the ad-homs, right.
It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Aaand we're off. Women as historical slaves. Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?
If the woman was a slave, that would make the man the mint julep sippin' massa, right? Except was there ever one single white slave owner who ever died to save the lives of his black slaves? Who ever gave up a space in a lifeboat to his black slave and chose to go down with a ship in their stead? Who ever stood with a rifle between his black slaves and an enemy to defend their lives, rather than his right to own them?
Can you even imagine a white slave owner working 16 hours in a field while his black slave stayed inside most of the day and kept his house tidy, then coming home and sharing the fruits of his labors with his black slave?
Did a black woman who was the sexual partner of a white slave owner have any expectation of respect, lifelong provision or shelter, or of sharing the benefits of his quality of life and his social status? Or was she just an object of the moment, free to be used and cast aside at will? Did a black man who was obligated to obey his owner's wife have any legal right or recourse when she pointed a finger and claimed he raped her? Or was he swinging from a tree within hours?
Yeah, women weren't slaves (except the ones that were actual slaves of course) and it's pretty horrifyingly racist that someone would diminish the experiences of actual slaves by such a comparison.
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband?
Yes, that was the point I was making. Wives in comparison to husbands, people of equivalent social status except one has more priveleges than the other, and it turns out that it wasn't the husband. This came from a woman of the time incidentally, and an awful lot of women agreed with her. Of course they were probably also incensed at the attitudes of the suffragettes towards poor folk and those of colour.
For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband.
So any unmarried women rapidly died off in poverty?
People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
And do you think that was because they hated women or didn't want to have to deal with long absences if she got pregnant? There's usually a practical reason for all of this stuff once you scratch the surface and dispense with the hysterics.
Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.
Which applied to men also. Third level education was for rich people back then.
yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Okay, so you know you're wrong and don't want to hear that. At least you admitted it up front I guess.
Almost no bank would grant a loan for business or property without the written permission of her husband, unless she was a blood relative of one of the bank's officers.
I'm self employed and the banks won't give me a loan for property because of the erratic nature of being self employed. The banks don't hate me or treat me this way because of my gender, they just weigh up the chances of getting their money back and decide they can do better elsewhere. Trying to paint this as misogyny or misandry is ridiculous.
Almost no career advancement p
I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers. I would strongly question the narrative that second wave feminism "liberated" women or did much more than take credit for social changes which were well under way regardless due to increasing average wealth and the invention of labour saving domestic devices.
Going back even further, the book "No Votes for Women" explores some of the realities at the time of the Suffragettes and raises the point that we should be perhaps less asking how shitty conditions were for women in the past but rather asking how comparitively shitty it was for men - the answer is usually quite a bit more:
"Almost immediately after the April committee meetings, Helena Gilder detailed the reasons she opposed woman suffrage in a long letter to her dearest friend , Mary Hallock Foote...
She , like many other anti-suffragists, believed in an inextricable link between military service and voting; only a person able to sacrifice himself on the battlefield earned the right to vote."
"In view of the privileges they already had women did not need political rights. Mariana Van Rensselaer articulated her particular views about women in articles for the New York World in May and June 1894;...She considered the enfranchisement of millions of women a risk not worth taking. Women already held more privileges than men under the law.
Specifically, Van Rensselaer wrote, a woman had control of her earnings, her personal property, and any real estate she owned. She could carry on a business or profession, she had no responsibility for her husband’s debts, and she was not required to support him.
She could sue and be sued, and she could make contracts. She had no obligation to serve on juries. With her husband she had equal rights to their children and, yet, he was obligated to support her and her children. Women were entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, while a man could not ask for alimony.
She was entitled to one third of her husband’s real estate upon his death, but he was not entitled to her property after death if there were no children. Van Rensselaer concluded that the distribution of labor and privileges between women and men seemed fair, that the different roles of women and men were critically important, and that it was “slander” to claim that men did not already take good care of women."
Or just get an actual dog. Preferably two. Best damn burglar deterrent in the known universe and they'll make their presence known very quickly. All this high tech finagling has nothing on man's best friend. /thread
Don't anthropomorphise nature, he hates that.
Skilled JS programmers, or scripters if you prefer, are doing pretty well these days.
I haven't actually met most people so I can't really say what they consider, although well done on finding the time to post here what with your busy schedule meeting them by the way. From those I've spoken to they generally seem to feel that inflation will eat away at the last decades of their mortgages, which is probably true to an extent. Short term pain, long term gain.
Get a house TODAY you don't need to save up your money! Mortgages let you have immediate comfort now.
So does renting, without decades of debt slavery and possible depreciation of the asset if you ever want to sell it on. In fact mortgages reduce your immediate comfort more than renting if the cost of the interest is greater than the rent.
If short term comfort was all that mattered to people nobody would ever take out mortgages, so, er, yeah.
This article says is that even if we and all of our works vanished tomorrow, it still wouldn't make a difference. Despite which most if not all developed nations have goals to reach in terms of renewable energy generation, and many of them are reaching or exeeding their goals. In a hundred years I'd be surprised if fossil fuels are in use at all to be honest.
The world is changing. I for one am rather glad of past changes as I'd have some difficulty typing under several kilometers of ice. The problem which will arise due to sea level changes are more due to a global assumption that the state of affairs which exists today is somehow "normal" or "in balance". It's not and it never has been, there is no natural balance, and the sooner we adjust our societies to work with rather than try to withstand enormous generational adjustments, the better.
One thing it's not however is the end of the world, far from it.
The low birth rate is a complex subject but boils down to economics. Children are expensive.
The herbivore lifestyle, from what I've learned of it (I'm renting a room out to a Japanese language student), is more than just about not having children. Men are eschewing long term relationships entirely, not to mention simply not taking part in the pressurised Japanese society of yesteryear. They don't have high paying jobs but are rather staying afloat and going cycling in the countryside.
Men now have better entertainment options, as odd as that sounds, with the internet and various clubs, so prefer to have lots of money to spend on themselves instead of a wife and family
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that men are spending all their money on entertainment, if anything whiling away the hours is far cheaper these days than ever before. Plus I mean you have to ask what's going on when computer games are more attractive than the local womenfolk. Remember this is the country that invented the boyfriend shaped pillow.
The way to solve it is to make make having children a lot cheaper.
Again, money isn't really the issue here as far as I can tell. It's a profound rejection of the demand to be the best, to be a wallet, to be a dumb cog in the machine without being recognised and appreciated for it, and if the numbers returned by surveys are to be believed the Japanese economy is going to be in really serious trouble without them.
There are too many hungry people willing to do your job for you to get away with complacency, and trying to keep your skills a secret will just make the transition to homelessness or welfare recipient that much more painful when the levee fails.
Socioeconomic commentary like the above works better when the companies involved aren't being brought up before the courts on charges of artifically trying to keep worker wages depressed.