Except smoking is proven to cause harm to the person next to you.
No, it's not. Did you read the WHO report? You're only believing that because someone else said it (who didn't read the report). The biggest study to date found no statistically significant increase in risk.
Not an inconvenience, not a rudeness, but an actual harm. What makes you think that you are able to harm others with no restrictions? I'd be for a removal of all smoking laws if I was allowed to pull a cigarette out of someone's mouth or hand and put it out in their eye.
Actually I'd say that would at the very least be battery, which is against the law already, regardless of what you stick in their eye...
Afrer all, if they can cause me some harm, why could you possibly think it bad for me to cause them harm as well?
If you think their smoking is harmful, why are you sitting next to them? If they've tied you down and are blowing smoke in your face, then they're guilty of false imprisonment... Otherwise you're free to NOT breathe in their smoke by moving away.
Contrary to common belief, California's original anti-smoking law in bars etc. was passed as a workplace safety law, not a law to enforce general public health. The idea is that for waiters/waitresses, bartenders, etc., prolonged and repeated exposure to secondhand smoke is more dangerous to them than it is to their employers or customers.
Not how it was sold in my state.
This is one place where the marketplace is unlikely to lead to adequate protection. Owners of bars and restaurants do not have enough of an incentive to protect the long-term health of their employees, and low-paid service employees do not have the leverage to force it to happen. Many employers believed that they would lose business if they banned smoking -- and had a few acted individually as you suggest, they very well may have lost too many customers to competitors who did not protect their employees.
Except non-smoking establishments DID exist, as did places (especially bars) that catered specifically TO smokers. Even in restaurants that allowed smoking, often they would not allow pipe or cigar smoke. On the flip side, a local establishment called "Cafe Cottage" tried to attract pipe and cigar smokers.
But because smoking was banned industry-wide (something only the government could have made happen), there was no relative disadvantage as there would have been if only a few bars acted in their employees' interests.
So because we take away EVERYONE'S freedom equally, that makes it okay?
Secondhand smoke is a prototypical example of an externality in economic theory: smokers cause negative health outcomes for others, but smokers do not pay the price for their negative effects. And laissez-faire markets do not do a good job of managing externalities.
It's a (supposed) price that you choose to pay. If you don't like smoking, take your business to another establishment. If you don't feel comfortable working in an environment that allows smoking, then don't. As I pointed out to someone else: I used to be allergic to peanuts. That's a very dangerous allergy. While I had that allergy, I did not visit restaurants that allowed patrons to thrown their shells all over the floor. I didn't demand peanuts be properly contained (or banned) so that I could visit that restaurant.
At the end of the day, if smoking is so bad, just ban it outright. But they won't do that, they need the tax revenues.
To be fair that was some kind of failure going on there. Whether that failure was an ordinary market failure (i.e. business just all cater to smokers for some weird reason) or legislative, (i.e. without the laws banning smoking businesses didn't have the right to disallow patrons from engaging in it).
No, there were already plenty of non-smoking establishments in existence. Some people just cannot STAND someone else doing something they disagree with. Locally several restaurants lost a lot of money in the first six months or so that the law was in effect.
1) Spitting has been proven to spread disease, smoking has not (Even the WHO admitted their study did not find any statistically significant increase in risk from secondhand smoke). 2) If a proprietor wants to allow spitting, that's none of my damn business. *I* won't eat there, but if other people don't mind it that's not my problem. I didn't like restaurants that allowed people to throw peanut shells on the floor when I used to be allergic to peanuts. I didn't eat at them. 3) Littering is in public, usually on public land. I'm also fine with bans on smoking in public (ie: government) buildings. Not in a private establishment.
...with smoking. And yet for some reason people feel that they need to force the government to step in and enforce such rules en masse, instead of letting individual businesses decide for themselves...
Sorry dude, you DO NOT have the right to enter my living room unless I grant you that right.
No, you can't give me the RIGHT to enter your living room. You can, however, allow me the privilege of entering your living room. It's an important difference.
This is how press passes are used, they're issued by entities in a manner simular to tickets to allow the holders access to areas/events that the general public does not have the right to access (or maybe has to pay to access).
Isn't that what I just said?
A press pass is NOT some goverment issued ID, and also press passes seem to have nothing to do at all this this story.
I was responding to someone's allegation that a piece of paper somehow gets you more rights than you have the day you're born.
No, it's not unusual. It's a pretty common thing. It's getting more common, yes, and that's why reporters are asking for a shield law. But Branzburg v. Hayes was decided back in 1972, and the Supreme Court said that reporters have to answer a grand jury the same as any other citizen. The first amendment applies to everyone equally, just because you give yourself a special title ("journalist") doesn't get you more first amendment protection than other people.
Judges are usually respectful of a reporter's desire for confidentiality
Didn't a New York Times reporter just go to jail for not naming a source? I think you're mistaken. Granted, she just wanted a book out of the deal...
Press passes are issued by some organization and only give the wearer privileges with regards to that organization. If you get an event press pass, you're treated as press for that event. If the police give you a press pass, you can cross police lines. Neither an event organizer or the police are required to give a pass to anyone. If a newspaper gives you a press pass, no one is under any obligation to honor it, it only carries the weight of the reputation of the entity who printed it. Same with professional press organizations.
Regardless, you can't give yourself a press pass (or at least one anyone will respect), someone has to recognize you as Press. Which means "editorial" style bloggers will probably not earn the privilege but ones that do actual journalism have a chance. And that's what it is, a privilege, that can be taken away. A right can't be taken away (except through criminal proceedings), nor bestowed by a piece of paper.
Except if they'd have been honest in the first place, then their employees wouldn't have invested so heavily in the company.
You know, I bet Bill Gates isn't even 90% invested in Microsoft.
And yes, LOTS of people wouldn't of invested in Enron if it wasn't for their rosy financial reports. I fail to see why singling out their employees over other investors who were hurt over all of this, as well, is at all valid.
The company was built on lies, and perpetuated by lies, until the executives knew that the shit was due to hit the fan - at which point they bailed themselves out and pretended to be innocent.
No, Enron was built on delivering a service. The lies only came into play AFTER the company had been ridiculously successful.
Of course, that kind of honesty would place the burden of risk on the executives, which clearly we don't expect in this country any more.
Yeah because not a single Enron executive went to jail for this... Oh, wait...
And yet that's exactly what the person I was responding to wanted them to do, tell their employees the truth so they could "get out". The proper thing to do would have been no to lie to ANYONE.
I don't see how that differs from lying to your employees so that they think the stock is worth much more than it really is.
The difference is they lied to EVERYONE. That's illegal, but it would have been MORE illegal for them to lie to the public and tell their employees the truth, that gives the employees an advantage due to insider information. And yet that's what you want them to have done, told their employees the truth so they could "bail out" while still telling the public everything is great. That's insider trading.
The only good solution would of been for them to be honest to EVERYONE, but that wouldn't of helped their employees any as by being honest, the stock price still would have plummeted before employees could get out, but at least that's the legal and ethical thing to do.
At the end of the day, employees shouldn't of been 100% invested in just their own company.
If they'd have been forthcoming with their employees that the world was not all roses, they could have had a chance to get out without needing "illegal insider trading".
That's pretty much the definition of insider trading.
Well I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but there's lots of news articles that quote that she was named after Princess Zelda. Haven't found the actual quote from Robin, though...
Also in a movie of his, a toy used as a prop is a Production Model Evangelion toy from Robin Williams' personal collection. He's a geek.
1) This isn't about Windows Update, this is about WSUS. They're seperate things. 2) Admins are claiming even with WSUS configured to not auto-accept ANY updates, it's still getting downloaded and applied.
Except that it's installing itself even when WSUS is configured not to auto-accept any updates. Not that you'd bother to read the article or the 200 comments saying as much...
Not a realistic option. Graphics card support, IDEs, libraries we have to use, etc. just aren't there in Linux. I wish it was, because X is a lot smarter than Windows about how to use the memory on our multiple video cards (why Windows thinks that having a second window rendered by a second card, but storing all the textures/display lists/etc. in the first card's memory is a good idea I'll never understand).
I happened to be in the lab at 3AM (working on my Master's thesis, sadly I'm still here...) and my workstation popped up a message that updates had been applied and that it would be rebooting in 5. So I saved all my work (thank God I wasn't at the vending machine or in the restroom!) and rebooted the system. When it came back up, Windows Desktop Search was enabled. I right clicked Exit on the little icon and it's still there. I don't have Office (any version) on this workstation and I certainly don't have Windows Live Photo Gallery. On top of that, I don't see any way for an unprivileged user to disable the damn service and that's INFURIATING, as this machine is used to drive a head mounted display for our VR lab and we go out of our way to keep the number of background services running on the machine to a minimum. Microsoft deciding on its own that it knows better than I do what I want to use this machine for is really starting to try my patience...
You think the military rulers of Burma are short of money ?
No, but I think they'd rather spend the money sniffing cocaine off the tits of a $10k/hour prostitute than an overpriced easily broken toy from the US when they can get ten sturdy, equally functional tools practically for free from an old Soviet satellite state.
Please note I am not disparaging US rifles, just pointing out that they're not what most thugs look for in a weapon. They're designed for a well disciplined, organized, and funded fighting force, not murderers, insurgents, and rapists...
With the resources of an entire country at their disposal I rather think not and suggesting that they make carefully balanced purchases based on the relative costs and merits of a product rather than the size of the bribe from the vendor is also a little far fetched.
Actually after looking into it, it looks like they produce a licensed variant of the H&K G3 (which is German) as their main battle rifle, so they don't buy their guns from anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not. Did you read the WHO report? You're only believing that because someone else said it (who didn't read the report). The biggest study to date found no statistically significant increase in risk.
Actually I'd say that would at the very least be battery, which is against the law already, regardless of what you stick in their eye...
If you think their smoking is harmful, why are you sitting next to them? If they've tied you down and are blowing smoke in your face, then they're guilty of false imprisonment... Otherwise you're free to NOT breathe in their smoke by moving away.
Not how it was sold in my state.
Except non-smoking establishments DID exist, as did places (especially bars) that catered specifically TO smokers. Even in restaurants that allowed smoking, often they would not allow pipe or cigar smoke. On the flip side, a local establishment called "Cafe Cottage" tried to attract pipe and cigar smokers.
So because we take away EVERYONE'S freedom equally, that makes it okay?
It's a (supposed) price that you choose to pay. If you don't like smoking, take your business to another establishment. If you don't feel comfortable working in an environment that allows smoking, then don't. As I pointed out to someone else: I used to be allergic to peanuts. That's a very dangerous allergy. While I had that allergy, I did not visit restaurants that allowed patrons to thrown their shells all over the floor. I didn't demand peanuts be properly contained (or banned) so that I could visit that restaurant.
At the end of the day, if smoking is so bad, just ban it outright. But they won't do that, they need the tax revenues.
Yeah, one of them the WHO admitted to not being able to find a statistically significant risk increase from...
No, there were already plenty of non-smoking establishments in existence. Some people just cannot STAND someone else doing something they disagree with. Locally several restaurants lost a lot of money in the first six months or so that the law was in effect.
1) Spitting has been proven to spread disease, smoking has not (Even the WHO admitted their study did not find any statistically significant increase in risk from secondhand smoke).
2) If a proprietor wants to allow spitting, that's none of my damn business. *I* won't eat there, but if other people don't mind it that's not my problem. I didn't like restaurants that allowed people to throw peanut shells on the floor when I used to be allergic to peanuts. I didn't eat at them.
3) Littering is in public, usually on public land. I'm also fine with bans on smoking in public (ie: government) buildings. Not in a private establishment.
...with smoking. And yet for some reason people feel that they need to force the government to step in and enforce such rules en masse, instead of letting individual businesses decide for themselves...
No, it's not unusual. It's a pretty common thing. It's getting more common, yes, and that's why reporters are asking for a shield law. But Branzburg v. Hayes was decided back in 1972, and the Supreme Court said that reporters have to answer a grand jury the same as any other citizen. The first amendment applies to everyone equally, just because you give yourself a special title ("journalist") doesn't get you more first amendment protection than other people.
No sex in the champagne room. Sorry.
Didn't a New York Times reporter just go to jail for not naming a source? I think you're mistaken. Granted, she just wanted a book out of the deal...
Press passes are issued by some organization and only give the wearer privileges with regards to that organization. If you get an event press pass, you're treated as press for that event. If the police give you a press pass, you can cross police lines. Neither an event organizer or the police are required to give a pass to anyone. If a newspaper gives you a press pass, no one is under any obligation to honor it, it only carries the weight of the reputation of the entity who printed it. Same with professional press organizations.
Regardless, you can't give yourself a press pass (or at least one anyone will respect), someone has to recognize you as Press. Which means "editorial" style bloggers will probably not earn the privilege but ones that do actual journalism have a chance. And that's what it is, a privilege, that can be taken away. A right can't be taken away (except through criminal proceedings), nor bestowed by a piece of paper.
A press card doesn't grant you any rights that a normal citizen does not enjoy.
You can't grant someone rights. They either have them or they don't.
And yet that's exactly what the person I was responding to wanted them to do, tell their employees the truth so they could "get out". The proper thing to do would have been no to lie to ANYONE.
The difference is they lied to EVERYONE. That's illegal, but it would have been MORE illegal for them to lie to the public and tell their employees the truth, that gives the employees an advantage due to insider information. And yet that's what you want them to have done, told their employees the truth so they could "bail out" while still telling the public everything is great. That's insider trading.
The only good solution would of been for them to be honest to EVERYONE, but that wouldn't of helped their employees any as by being honest, the stock price still would have plummeted before employees could get out, but at least that's the legal and ethical thing to do.
At the end of the day, employees shouldn't of been 100% invested in just their own company.
That's pretty much the definition of insider trading.
Well I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, but there's lots of news articles that quote that she was named after Princess Zelda. Haven't found the actual quote from Robin, though...
Also in a movie of his, a toy used as a prop is a Production Model Evangelion toy from Robin Williams' personal collection. He's a geek.
1) This isn't about Windows Update, this is about WSUS. They're seperate things.
2) Admins are claiming even with WSUS configured to not auto-accept ANY updates, it's still getting downloaded and applied.
Except that it's installing itself even when WSUS is configured not to auto-accept any updates. Not that you'd bother to read the article or the 200 comments saying as much...
They know they sign your paycheck and if you start changing things from the way they want them, they can stop signing it.
Unplugging the goddamn machine?
Not a realistic option. Graphics card support, IDEs, libraries we have to use, etc. just aren't there in Linux. I wish it was, because X is a lot smarter than Windows about how to use the memory on our multiple video cards (why Windows thinks that having a second window rendered by a second card, but storing all the textures/display lists/etc. in the first card's memory is a good idea I'll never understand).
:P
Besides, we use OpenSuSE.
I happened to be in the lab at 3AM (working on my Master's thesis, sadly I'm still here...) and my workstation popped up a message that updates had been applied and that it would be rebooting in 5. So I saved all my work (thank God I wasn't at the vending machine or in the restroom!) and rebooted the system. When it came back up, Windows Desktop Search was enabled. I right clicked Exit on the little icon and it's still there. I don't have Office (any version) on this workstation and I certainly don't have Windows Live Photo Gallery. On top of that, I don't see any way for an unprivileged user to disable the damn service and that's INFURIATING, as this machine is used to drive a head mounted display for our VR lab and we go out of our way to keep the number of background services running on the machine to a minimum. Microsoft deciding on its own that it knows better than I do what I want to use this machine for is really starting to try my patience...
You ruined it, I was going to keep responding completely seriously and see how far he was going to take it. :P
Uranus has rings right now...
No, that's not a joke, I'm serious, it does.
Please note I am not disparaging US rifles, just pointing out that they're not what most thugs look for in a weapon. They're designed for a well disciplined, organized, and funded fighting force, not murderers, insurgents, and rapists...
Actually after looking into it, it looks like they produce a licensed variant of the H&K G3 (which is German) as their main battle rifle, so they don't buy their guns from anyone.