Asking what port 8443 is for wasn't a stupid question - if it's not in/etc/services, it's not a standard port number.
Asking what any port is for isn't a stupid question, for that matter./etc/services only tells you what it often is. I've seen 80/tcp with a sshd on it, and I'm sure many others have, too.
You make a decent case that your dad is a good player, but that your brother learned from him doesn't make him a good player. It could simply be that he never picked up the skill. Believe me, there's a huge difference in knowing the mathematically correct play and having the discipline to do it. There is definitely a difference over tournament play vs cash games. I find that my style of play shifts over time, so I'm usually good at one, but not the other. Right now I'm playing well in tournaments and being a slight loser in cash. It's far more likely your brother is just a decent tournament player and a losing cash game. Phil Hellmuth is well known as a great tournament player, but not that great of a cash game player. Your brother's Pharm D is irrelevant, by the way. I know MDs who are bad. Being good requires some combination of intelligence, knowledge, and discipline.
My 700k hands were on Full Tilt. I played Bodog years ago and was able to win there, too. If you're sufficiently better than the average player, (better enough to cover rake) you win in the long run. I promise you I've never met a poker player who thinks they're worse than me. EVERYONE thinks they're good, it seems. My answer is always "show me your graph". If you win, you're good. If you don't, you're not. You are right that it takes a LOT of time to get good at it, and if you don't actually enjoy playing, doing so is a waste of your time.
Poker is always a game theory problem. Statistics only tells you the range of cards your opponent might hold. You still have to determine your response based on what you think their actions will be. I've played a lot of heads up NLHE, for example, and there how your opponent is going to play matters often more than the cards you hold.
I hold a graduate degree myself, by the way. I'm also a well read, fairly experienced, winning online player. I've never heard anything like it being well known that collusion was a problem. You'll see threads about it from time to time on the major web sites (2+2, etc) where someone will post suspect play and ask if it looks like collusion. There are more people posting nonsense theories lacking any mathematical rigor which usually come down to "I can't win, so it must be rigged!" or "I lost this hand where I was a 98% favorite to win, it must be rigged!" Just check out the "rigged megathread" on 2+2. I even had someone accuse me of colluding in a tournament and vow to report me. I wasn't, of course, and I never heard a word from the site, so I gather they agreed.
I won't say it never happens. I do actually believe it does. I just also believe it's a minor problem at best, that sites do look out for it and that it's pretty easy to catch.
Actually, estimates are that about 20-25% of online players are winning players. There are sites that track all online play at some of the major sites, so data like this isn't that hard to come by. Pokertableratings.com and sharkscope.com, for example.
If that sounds low, consider a lot of people play with money they don't care about (me) and that those numbers are monstrously larger than the percentage of undeniably legal, US run lotteries where far less than 1% of players are winners over time. Consider also that the 75% who lose have the opportunity to learn to play better and not lose. The 99+% of lottery players have no such opportunity.
Played perfectly, it's a game of chance. Played imperfectly, it's a game of here-take-all-my-money.
It's gambling.
Steve's going to need some king-hell lawyers to get around an argument so simple I can slam-dunk it on the Internet.
You did no such thing. You merely spouted nonsense about "played perfectly". The only way to play perfectly is to precisely know your opponents strategy. If your opponent is remotely good, their strategy is constantly adapting to what they think YOUR strategy is. The only way to KNOW your opponents strategy is to play them over a very long series (50,000 or so hands, I'd say) AND be sure they're not changing it. Just think about it. YOU just played 50,000 hands, studied their strategy, and are about to alter YOUR strategy in order to beat them. Why do you presume they're not doing the same? They are. Start again.
Any serious player will know poker is a game of skill in the long run. Period. Poker is very much one of those games you learn in minutes and master in decades, if ever.
Here's the deal. Many players record every hand they play, leading to a giant database that can be statistically analysed to determine if the deck is stacked. Some people believe it is mostly due to biases we're all known to have. The statistically unlikely losses stick in our memory, so we think "we always lose", when we don't. People will be convinced they lose more with AA vs KK than they should. I had about 700,000 hands in a database and looked at things like that. I found that I got AA about as often as I should. I found I won and lost with it about as often as I should. In short, I didn't find any evidence at all of the site cheating, and them doing so would be stupid for exactly that reason. It's relatively easy to prove. All you need is a statistician. The people who claim online poker is rigged never have a database to point at. They never have analysis. They have bogus claims. I'm sorry to burst anybody's conspiracy bubble, but all evidence points to it actually being a fair game.
Odds are your brother was simply a bad player. Don't take it personally, most poker players are bad. Most who think they're good are bad. Poker really is a game of skill. There's a lot of well known and well studied strategy that rests on game theory, statistics, combinatorics, etc. Drop an inexperienced player into a setting with people who know this and they will generally lose, not because anyone's cheating, but because they'll be recognized as really bad players and the really good players will play in such a way as to exploit their errors.
I friend of mine goes to casinos a lot and thought he was a good poker player. I watched him play online and he was bad in almost every way you can be bad. He played too many hands, min bet, never more, and was a calling station (someone who calls bets way, way more than they should). Predictably, he lost.
I actually like TED and Dan Pink quite a bit, but all these studies share a common fault.
They don't reflect the real work world at all. The real work world is not a series of a couple minute puzzles for trivial money. I will grant results like those are interesting, but it's imperative to test them against the real circumstances we're dealing with.
Personally, I am motivated by rewards. I do work harder when I know there's a carrot (a raise, a real shot at a promotion, interesting or challenging work). I also know when those things are clearly not available, I redirect my efforts to places I will get a reward.
He totally missed on Encarta vs Wikipedia. "Well compensated managers" is the norm. Well compensated based on results, or just well compensated? I suspect the latter.
Because the world is interested in the answer. Apple isn't. If Apple was interested in having him back, he'd be back already, dontcha think?
Seriously, if all you bring is knowing about Apple's products and Apple's competitor's products, they already have people who do that. What else ya got?
Not overreacting at all. This is a poor implementation of a good idea. It's well known that to be effective bonuses have to be valluable to the employee (I won't work harder for a bottle of bubble bath), credible (if I accomplish something extraordinary for you, you'll actually follow through and give me the reward) and attainable (this thing you want me to do is actually something I -can- do).
They get 3/3 for everyone working on the project. 2/3 for everyone not.
I've been in that position myself, where there was a bonus if we reached certain metrics, like customer satisfaction. Problem? A large fraction of the company was research (me) and never, and I do mean never, dealt with customers. Giving me a bonus because the customer facing side did a good job is a waste of money.
Too big to fail, too big to punish, too big to hold accountable.
Farces all. No company, hell, no country for that matter, is any of those.
If we truly believe any of that nonsense, ALL such companies are too big to be allowed to exist, and should be broken into pieces small enough where entire economies are not dependent on their existence.
Interesting. Here's a question to ponder, how is US going to pay the debt to China? 1. commodities? Australia covers most of the mineral sector, thank you; as for agri-exports, there are countries with lower prices.
Seriously? Money. That's how these things work. China buys our debt in money, we give them more money later. We are, all the time, paying our debt to China and selling them more. If China had any doubt whatsoever they were going to be paid, they wouldn't be buying the debt.
That's something people seem to misunderstand about other countries "buying" us. Other countries put their money here because it's risk-adjusted return is worth it. The return isn't that great right now, but the risk is effectively zero. Now, if you were China with an economy going gangbusters, why would you not invest all the money they invest here in your own economy? I sure would. Unless...
Figure out the unless and you'll learn something important.
I worked in one of those. It wasn't the superior research skills of the Chinese, it was racism. Once, it was a balance of lots of nationalities, then they hired someone who only hired Chinese.
There were a lot of people who did really good work there, certainly including the Chinese members, but any time you have a top notch place composed entirely of one nationality, you know it's not merit driving hiring. And yes, I'd say that for an all caucasian crew as well.
We favor solutions that spew millions of tons of crap in the air that indirectly kills a lot of people all over the world, or deep underground, over solutions that very rarely spew a little crap in the air and kill a small number of people right nearby. We prefer this only because one is dramatic.
Personally, given that we need to generate TWhs of electricity, I'd rather lose 0.04 lives than 161. I have little doubt the public will continue to behave like frightened sheep. Every single person who engages in this hand-wringing over nuclear's risks while ignoring those of every other method of power generation is responsible.
The idea is fine. Roll together a bunch of mortgages (debt obligations) backed by property (collateralized) and you have a security. It's actually a useful idea because it gives banks another market to sell these to. It gives people with money to invest another place to invest it.
The problem was basically fraud. Wrapping steaming piles of dog crap together and claiming they weren't risky was an outright lie. CDOs plus outrageous lies were the problem. I still remember well just being amazed at things like low-doc and no-doc loans. I remember applying for a loan from my bank and they offered me more than double what I could actually afford.
We want to blame the finance guys, but the problem was banks giving loans to people they knew couldn't repay them because they could just sell the loan to someone else and not care. The problem was the liars who falsely represented those CDOs that were composed of crap as being safer than they were. The problem was investors not doing due diligence, seeing anybody with a pulse getting $100k+ in money to buy a house, even if they didn't have a job and NOT being damn sure those types of loans weren't in the CDOs they were buying. The problem was investors not seeing a massive streak of systemic risk running through adjustable mortgage rate backed securities. When rates go up, defaults go up on ALL of them. Systemic risk, which is exactly what bundling things together is supposed to mitigate.
People, the very same issue would exist if this happened with savings accounts. There's nothing wrong with savings accounts, but if a chain of people did stupid things with the money in them causing it all to be lost, would we be up in arms that savings accounts are bad, or would we be up in arms about the criminals who misused them? I hope the latter.
I RTFA expecting, like most of you, to want to rip this guy a new one, but here's the thing.
He didn't say he won't hire.net developers. He said he considers it a liability and will want to know why you chose to learn it. He never said there were no good reasons. Hell, a lot of you have posted some. I don't know.net, but if it's what I had to learn to get something done that my client needed, it's what I would do.
So, dearest editors, how about not massively misrepresenting what people are saying? That, or let someone else do it.
That's because the $1/song is a nonsense number people like to make up. That's a decent estimate of the price to buy (ok, buy a license, I hate that legalese as much as anyone) a song legally, which is completely unrelated to the penalty under the law for copyright violation. It shouldn't be $150k or $130k or whatever it is, but it also shouldn't be the same as the price for doing the legal thing in the first place because then there is zero deterrence in the penalty.
I just thought of this, and hadn't seen anyone else mention it. What happens to the used book market? Instantly, a lot of people who have property of some value now will have its value erased. There's a book I want to read that's out of print but usually around $30. I'll buy it eventually. The instant it goes on the net for free, the value of a used copy goes to zero for me.
Well, you don't gain $1200 that you maybe shouldn't anyway, which is a different thing entirely.
I have to agree with those that say Google doesn't get a pass here. Either the law changes so anyone including me can copy and offer for free certain works, or nobody does. Google has violated copyright on what, 15 million works? They have wholesale copied them. There's really no defense. They did something blatantly illegal because they thought it was a good idea. Statutory damages should be around $200 billion. Hey, we could use that to fund the latest war we've gotten ourselves in.
Maybe I'm on the wrong website. This used to be one of the places that believed big companies weren't supposed to get to thumb their nose at the law while the little guys get crushed under it.
It's close, though. If the cop spends some time talking you into it, like for example if GP had eventually given in and accepted the pics, that would have been entrapment. The idea was the police's, he was clearly unwilling to commit the crime when first approached, and they persuaded him to do it.
Unlike some others, I won't speculate if it's true or not, but it's pretty clear this is not what happened in this case. After all, the defence was that OMG, the blushing emoticons were ANIMATED!!!! I think that were his story yours (and true) the entrapment defence would be successful.
As for no needles, if your kid is in the public school system your kid needs to be immunized.
Sure, and I don't have a problem with that part. The part I'd have a problem with is vaccinated by the public school system without my consent or supervision. Ever see someone drawing blood where they'll put on gloves, clean the spot, then rip the finger off their glove and touch the spot where they're going to draw from (thereby un-cleaning it and transferring whatever they got from the last patient to you)? I have, and I've called people on that in well-regarded hospitals and shown them in their own hospital's regs where that's prohibited. It doesn't happen as much anymore, in fact I haven't seen it in the last 10 years or so, but it used to be not that uncommon.
I'm supposed to trust cash-strapped SCHOOLS not to screw up and use the same needle on more than one student or follow appropriate bloodborne pathogen protocol? No, I don't think so. My local district requires vaccinations or the student is barred from attending. I have no issues with that, just don't go poking holes in my kids unless there's a true medical emergency.
Where did I ever say I expect kids to be their only line of defense? I neither said it nor believe it. What I do believe is that schools have zero authority beyond school grounds or during school functions (field trips, for example, or bussing to and from school). Just because a problem exists doesn't give random people or groups authority to interfere in others lives. Schools sometimes seem to think they're The Kid Police. They are not. It's no more appropriate for them to do this than for me to declare that I'm going to begin supervising teachers starting tomorrow and suspending those who aren't up to my standards. Should someone be doing that? Absolutely. Do I have the authority? No.
As many have pointed out, adults have recourse that kids don't generally have. THAT is the problem. Fix the problem. If an adult was subjected to the typical bullying experience, they'd get a restraining order and the idiot would wise up or go to jail. It's about time we get through our heads that kids are people, too, and deserving of every protection you or I have.
I believe school health officials are permitted to give vaccines too.
Not in my corner of the world. I can assure you the day my kids' school tells me they're going to stick a needle in my child, they'll be getting an instant phone call warning them that breaching my child's skin will be considered an act of violence and I'll respond accordingly. My kids are sent to school for an education. For all other purposes, hands off.
Slashdot Mirror
Asking what any port is for isn't a stupid question, for that matter. /etc/services only tells you what it often is. I've seen 80/tcp with a sshd on it, and I'm sure many others have, too.
You make a decent case that your dad is a good player, but that your brother learned from him doesn't make him a good player. It could simply be that he never picked up the skill. Believe me, there's a huge difference in knowing the mathematically correct play and having the discipline to do it. There is definitely a difference over tournament play vs cash games. I find that my style of play shifts over time, so I'm usually good at one, but not the other. Right now I'm playing well in tournaments and being a slight loser in cash. It's far more likely your brother is just a decent tournament player and a losing cash game. Phil Hellmuth is well known as a great tournament player, but not that great of a cash game player. Your brother's Pharm D is irrelevant, by the way. I know MDs who are bad. Being good requires some combination of intelligence, knowledge, and discipline.
My 700k hands were on Full Tilt. I played Bodog years ago and was able to win there, too. If you're sufficiently better than the average player, (better enough to cover rake) you win in the long run. I promise you I've never met a poker player who thinks they're worse than me. EVERYONE thinks they're good, it seems. My answer is always "show me your graph". If you win, you're good. If you don't, you're not. You are right that it takes a LOT of time to get good at it, and if you don't actually enjoy playing, doing so is a waste of your time.
Poker is always a game theory problem. Statistics only tells you the range of cards your opponent might hold. You still have to determine your response based on what you think their actions will be. I've played a lot of heads up NLHE, for example, and there how your opponent is going to play matters often more than the cards you hold.
I hold a graduate degree myself, by the way. I'm also a well read, fairly experienced, winning online player. I've never heard anything like it being well known that collusion was a problem. You'll see threads about it from time to time on the major web sites (2+2, etc) where someone will post suspect play and ask if it looks like collusion. There are more people posting nonsense theories lacking any mathematical rigor which usually come down to "I can't win, so it must be rigged!" or "I lost this hand where I was a 98% favorite to win, it must be rigged!" Just check out the "rigged megathread" on 2+2. I even had someone accuse me of colluding in a tournament and vow to report me. I wasn't, of course, and I never heard a word from the site, so I gather they agreed.
I won't say it never happens. I do actually believe it does. I just also believe it's a minor problem at best, that sites do look out for it and that it's pretty easy to catch.
No, I do mean long term win rate, not on any given night. I'm one of them, and I don't cheat.
Actually, estimates are that about 20-25% of online players are winning players. There are sites that track all online play at some of the major sites, so data like this isn't that hard to come by. Pokertableratings.com and sharkscope.com, for example.
If that sounds low, consider a lot of people play with money they don't care about (me) and that those numbers are monstrously larger than the percentage of undeniably legal, US run lotteries where far less than 1% of players are winners over time. Consider also that the 75% who lose have the opportunity to learn to play better and not lose. The 99+% of lottery players have no such opportunity.
You did no such thing. You merely spouted nonsense about "played perfectly". The only way to play perfectly is to precisely know your opponents strategy. If your opponent is remotely good, their strategy is constantly adapting to what they think YOUR strategy is. The only way to KNOW your opponents strategy is to play them over a very long series (50,000 or so hands, I'd say) AND be sure they're not changing it. Just think about it. YOU just played 50,000 hands, studied their strategy, and are about to alter YOUR strategy in order to beat them. Why do you presume they're not doing the same? They are. Start again.
Any serious player will know poker is a game of skill in the long run. Period. Poker is very much one of those games you learn in minutes and master in decades, if ever.
Not interesting, not right, basically nonsense.
Here's the deal. Many players record every hand they play, leading to a giant database that can be statistically analysed to determine if the deck is stacked. Some people believe it is mostly due to biases we're all known to have. The statistically unlikely losses stick in our memory, so we think "we always lose", when we don't. People will be convinced they lose more with AA vs KK than they should. I had about 700,000 hands in a database and looked at things like that. I found that I got AA about as often as I should. I found I won and lost with it about as often as I should. In short, I didn't find any evidence at all of the site cheating, and them doing so would be stupid for exactly that reason. It's relatively easy to prove. All you need is a statistician. The people who claim online poker is rigged never have a database to point at. They never have analysis. They have bogus claims. I'm sorry to burst anybody's conspiracy bubble, but all evidence points to it actually being a fair game.
Odds are your brother was simply a bad player. Don't take it personally, most poker players are bad. Most who think they're good are bad. Poker really is a game of skill. There's a lot of well known and well studied strategy that rests on game theory, statistics, combinatorics, etc. Drop an inexperienced player into a setting with people who know this and they will generally lose, not because anyone's cheating, but because they'll be recognized as really bad players and the really good players will play in such a way as to exploit their errors.
I friend of mine goes to casinos a lot and thought he was a good poker player. I watched him play online and he was bad in almost every way you can be bad. He played too many hands, min bet, never more, and was a calling station (someone who calls bets way, way more than they should). Predictably, he lost.
I actually like TED and Dan Pink quite a bit, but all these studies share a common fault.
They don't reflect the real work world at all. The real work world is not a series of a couple minute puzzles for trivial money. I will grant results like those are interesting, but it's imperative to test them against the real circumstances we're dealing with.
Personally, I am motivated by rewards. I do work harder when I know there's a carrot (a raise, a real shot at a promotion, interesting or challenging work). I also know when those things are clearly not available, I redirect my efforts to places I will get a reward.
He totally missed on Encarta vs Wikipedia. "Well compensated managers" is the norm. Well compensated based on results, or just well compensated? I suspect the latter.
Because the world is interested in the answer. Apple isn't. If Apple was interested in having him back, he'd be back already, dontcha think?
Seriously, if all you bring is knowing about Apple's products and Apple's competitor's products, they already have people who do that. What else ya got?
Not overreacting at all. This is a poor implementation of a good idea. It's well known that to be effective bonuses have to be valluable to the employee (I won't work harder for a bottle of bubble bath), credible (if I accomplish something extraordinary for you, you'll actually follow through and give me the reward) and attainable (this thing you want me to do is actually something I -can- do).
They get 3/3 for everyone working on the project. 2/3 for everyone not.
I've been in that position myself, where there was a bonus if we reached certain metrics, like customer satisfaction. Problem? A large fraction of the company was research (me) and never, and I do mean never, dealt with customers. Giving me a bonus because the customer facing side did a good job is a waste of money.
Yeah, and the earth is more than 6000 years old. You know it and I know it, but the average USian considers that knowledge to be heresy.
As a USian (oh, what the hell, i don't care which term you use), that's nonsense. Most of us are religious, but most of us are not stupidly so.
Too big to fail, too big to punish, too big to hold accountable.
Farces all. No company, hell, no country for that matter, is any of those.
If we truly believe any of that nonsense, ALL such companies are too big to be allowed to exist, and should be broken into pieces small enough where entire economies are not dependent on their existence.
Interesting. Here's a question to ponder, how is US going to pay the debt to China?
1. commodities? Australia covers most of the mineral sector, thank you; as for agri-exports, there are countries with lower prices.
Seriously? Money. That's how these things work. China buys our debt in money, we give them more money later. We are, all the time, paying our debt to China and selling them more. If China had any doubt whatsoever they were going to be paid, they wouldn't be buying the debt.
That's something people seem to misunderstand about other countries "buying" us. Other countries put their money here because it's risk-adjusted return is worth it. The return isn't that great right now, but the risk is effectively zero. Now, if you were China with an economy going gangbusters, why would you not invest all the money they invest here in your own economy? I sure would. Unless...
Figure out the unless and you'll learn something important.
I worked in one of those. It wasn't the superior research skills of the Chinese, it was racism. Once, it was a balance of lots of nationalities, then they hired someone who only hired Chinese.
There were a lot of people who did really good work there, certainly including the Chinese members, but any time you have a top notch place composed entirely of one nationality, you know it's not merit driving hiring. And yes, I'd say that for an all caucasian crew as well.
Awesome. Then we can just copy their IP for a change.
Aww, go ahead and mod me troll. You know it's true.
Because it's safer than what we do now.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976/comments/2e70ae944fb511e0ae0c000255111976
We favor solutions that spew millions of tons of crap in the air that indirectly kills a lot of people all over the world, or deep underground, over solutions that very rarely spew a little crap in the air and kill a small number of people right nearby. We prefer this only because one is dramatic.
Personally, given that we need to generate TWhs of electricity, I'd rather lose 0.04 lives than 161. I have little doubt the public will continue to behave like frightened sheep. Every single person who engages in this hand-wringing over nuclear's risks while ignoring those of every other method of power generation is responsible.
The idea is fine. Roll together a bunch of mortgages (debt obligations) backed by property (collateralized) and you have a security. It's actually a useful idea because it gives banks another market to sell these to. It gives people with money to invest another place to invest it.
The problem was basically fraud. Wrapping steaming piles of dog crap together and claiming they weren't risky was an outright lie. CDOs plus outrageous lies were the problem. I still remember well just being amazed at things like low-doc and no-doc loans. I remember applying for a loan from my bank and they offered me more than double what I could actually afford.
We want to blame the finance guys, but the problem was banks giving loans to people they knew couldn't repay them because they could just sell the loan to someone else and not care. The problem was the liars who falsely represented those CDOs that were composed of crap as being safer than they were. The problem was investors not doing due diligence, seeing anybody with a pulse getting $100k+ in money to buy a house, even if they didn't have a job and NOT being damn sure those types of loans weren't in the CDOs they were buying. The problem was investors not seeing a massive streak of systemic risk running through adjustable mortgage rate backed securities. When rates go up, defaults go up on ALL of them. Systemic risk, which is exactly what bundling things together is supposed to mitigate.
People, the very same issue would exist if this happened with savings accounts. There's nothing wrong with savings accounts, but if a chain of people did stupid things with the money in them causing it all to be lost, would we be up in arms that savings accounts are bad, or would we be up in arms about the criminals who misused them? I hope the latter.
Seriously. I'll do it.
I RTFA expecting, like most of you, to want to rip this guy a new one, but here's the thing.
He didn't say he won't hire .net developers. He said he considers it a liability and will want to know why you chose to learn it. He never said there were no good reasons. Hell, a lot of you have posted some. I don't know .net, but if it's what I had to learn to get something done that my client needed, it's what I would do.
So, dearest editors, how about not massively misrepresenting what people are saying? That, or let someone else do it.
That's because the $1/song is a nonsense number people like to make up. That's a decent estimate of the price to buy (ok, buy a license, I hate that legalese as much as anyone) a song legally, which is completely unrelated to the penalty under the law for copyright violation. It shouldn't be $150k or $130k or whatever it is, but it also shouldn't be the same as the price for doing the legal thing in the first place because then there is zero deterrence in the penalty.
I just thought of this, and hadn't seen anyone else mention it. What happens to the used book market? Instantly, a lot of people who have property of some value now will have its value erased. There's a book I want to read that's out of print but usually around $30. I'll buy it eventually. The instant it goes on the net for free, the value of a used copy goes to zero for me.
Well, you don't gain $1200 that you maybe shouldn't anyway, which is a different thing entirely.
I have to agree with those that say Google doesn't get a pass here. Either the law changes so anyone including me can copy and offer for free certain works, or nobody does. Google has violated copyright on what, 15 million works? They have wholesale copied them. There's really no defense. They did something blatantly illegal because they thought it was a good idea. Statutory damages should be around $200 billion. Hey, we could use that to fund the latest war we've gotten ourselves in.
Maybe I'm on the wrong website. This used to be one of the places that believed big companies weren't supposed to get to thumb their nose at the law while the little guys get crushed under it.
It's close, though. If the cop spends some time talking you into it, like for example if GP had eventually given in and accepted the pics, that would have been entrapment. The idea was the police's, he was clearly unwilling to commit the crime when first approached, and they persuaded him to do it.
Cool story, bro.
Unlike some others, I won't speculate if it's true or not, but it's pretty clear this is not what happened in this case. After all, the defence was that OMG, the blushing emoticons were ANIMATED!!!! I think that were his story yours (and true) the entrapment defence would be successful.
Sure, and I don't have a problem with that part. The part I'd have a problem with is vaccinated by the public school system without my consent or supervision. Ever see someone drawing blood where they'll put on gloves, clean the spot, then rip the finger off their glove and touch the spot where they're going to draw from (thereby un-cleaning it and transferring whatever they got from the last patient to you)? I have, and I've called people on that in well-regarded hospitals and shown them in their own hospital's regs where that's prohibited. It doesn't happen as much anymore, in fact I haven't seen it in the last 10 years or so, but it used to be not that uncommon.
I'm supposed to trust cash-strapped SCHOOLS not to screw up and use the same needle on more than one student or follow appropriate bloodborne pathogen protocol? No, I don't think so. My local district requires vaccinations or the student is barred from attending. I have no issues with that, just don't go poking holes in my kids unless there's a true medical emergency.
Where did I ever say I expect kids to be their only line of defense? I neither said it nor believe it. What I do believe is that schools have zero authority beyond school grounds or during school functions (field trips, for example, or bussing to and from school). Just because a problem exists doesn't give random people or groups authority to interfere in others lives. Schools sometimes seem to think they're The Kid Police. They are not. It's no more appropriate for them to do this than for me to declare that I'm going to begin supervising teachers starting tomorrow and suspending those who aren't up to my standards. Should someone be doing that? Absolutely. Do I have the authority? No.
As many have pointed out, adults have recourse that kids don't generally have. THAT is the problem. Fix the problem. If an adult was subjected to the typical bullying experience, they'd get a restraining order and the idiot would wise up or go to jail. It's about time we get through our heads that kids are people, too, and deserving of every protection you or I have.
Not in my corner of the world. I can assure you the day my kids' school tells me they're going to stick a needle in my child, they'll be getting an instant phone call warning them that breaching my child's skin will be considered an act of violence and I'll respond accordingly. My kids are sent to school for an education. For all other purposes, hands off.