Picking up a hitchhiker or letting someone use your cell phone is way different than renting out your apartment to someone for a few months. Anyone who has known or been a landlord can probably tell you stories for hours about the troubles they've had.
When people move in somewhere, they treat it like it's completely theirs to do with as they please. Even worse, a lot of people treat it like they own it but they know they'll lose it in a few months anyway, so they have no problem writing on the walls, letting food rot in the carpet, or water overflow in the bathroom.
Going by my experience/gut feeling (ie, completely pulling numbers out of my ass) I'd say your chance of getting killed by a hitchhiker is about 0.00001%, your chance of having your phone stolen by someone using it is about 5%, and your chance of someone mistreating your apartment while renting it is about 20%. Also, when you have your phone stolen you're out maybe a few hundreds bucks, but when your apartment is trashed you're out tens of thousands.
But why should one even have to spend time or thought to avoid a name like this? It's clear it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ice Age movies, or even the Ice Age itself, if you assume that just by creating a movie in an era and giving it the name of that era, you now own it and all related names.
For me it opened dozens of windows when it started, played the first 30 seconds or so in the same tiny window in the middle with nothing else happening, and then I closed it because I was sick of waiting for something to happen (that I assumed at that point was nothing more interesting than a few windows floating around my screen playing video).
No, I wouldn't feel the same if I were the innocent person, just like if my family were murdered I'd probably feel a murderous rage myself even though I'm against the death penalty.
However, if you seriously believe 1,000,000 guilty people should go free to prevent 1 innocent person from being in prison, there would quite literally be not a single person in prison. In fact, going by those numbers, there are probably enough innocent people already prison at this moment to free every guilty person that ever was, is, or will be in the entire timespan of humanity (and probably aliens on other planets as well).
I agree with you in theory. I believe in "beyond all reasonable doubt" and would definitely let someone free who was "probably guilty" because we couldn't be certain. All I'm saying is that when you scale up your numbers to impossibly unrealistic levels, you hurt our argument. The Due Process Model would certainly not produce better than 1,000,000:1 odds, because it still has humans at its core, and humans are fallible.
No they don't, the (loaded and horrible) question itself implied that evolution was the politically charged issue, and not creationism. When you watch this, you'll hear nearly every single candidate there specifically point out that it should be one option of many taught and that they don't personally believe in evolution. They nearly all believe that creationism should absolutely be taught, but that it's generally good if kids also have the option of learning about evolution too.
A bit, but if you want something to make an impact, you need the media on your side. The best way to get the media on your side is to please a few specific outlets with major scoops.
It's the reason WikiLeaks operates the way it does... people are risking (in some cases) their lives to release the data, they want it to make an impact. If they think it's just going to end up on page 12 after the local bake sale, why bother?
I agree with you in theory, but I have to disagree with the number "million". If you actually believe it's better to let a million guilty people go free than convinct one innocent person, we might as well not even have court or justice systems and just live in anarchy, because there is no possible way to do anywhere near those numbers.
I think one confusion is that when most people use the word "homeopathy" they aren't referring to literal homeopathy (ie, diluting a tiny amount of something down to a few molecules). Homeopathy, for most people I've met, refers to all herbal or natural medicine. For example, taking cranberry pills for a UTI, or drinking tea with honey is considered homeopathy.
Try googling various homeopathy-related phrases and you'll find that, barring the Wikipedia entry that always comes up first, most of them are about herbal medicine and remedies in general, many of which are verified by medical research.
Nope, it's only "prescribe". Using subscribe in that instance is about on par with a kid asking to have pasketti for dinner or saying supposably instead of supposedly.
To further clarify the different situation teachers are in, they are also temporary caretakers for the minors in the classroom. Children necessarily have limited rights in some areas. A 6-year old can't be given all the same rights as an adult, or it would never survive to adulthood to begin with (or end up a severely antisocial adult).
It is consistent, you're just missing some things. There is difference that is unfortunately too subtle for you to pick out yourself.
An elementary school teacher is supposed to be the absolute ruler of their own classroom (to a point). When a teacher is disrespected, especially loudly while they're trying to work, it both interferes/disrupts their work, as well as undermines the power that they are supposed to have over their classroom.
Police are not supposed to be our rulers. They are public servants who are supposed to "serve and protect". The same (in theory) goes for all of our public officials all the way up to the president. If you shouting "I smell bacon" directly disrupts the job an officer is doing, then I agree it should be punished (although not by lying like in the original poster's story). If you're just insulting a cop, and not disrupting or threatening one, then no there absolutely should not be any negative effect for it.
I would call NoScript nagware more than anything else. I imagine he's made at least ten times that from donations, seeing as every new version (which is about every couple of weeks) takes you to his website where he's begging for cash (and covered in ads). Also, he's been involved in probably more scandals than any other plugin created, including things like default whitelisting of many sites including advertisers, circumventing AdBlock Plus to display his own ads, and his general belligerent attitude in several other run-ins with other developers.
For the reason that this is already essentially commercial nagware, I'd say this is stupid, but I guess $10k isn't a lot of money for something used by millions of people.
I agree that it's sad, but when all the normal channels (the justice system) completely ignore any wrongdoing by the powerful, what do you expect? Vigilante justice against powerful people (or corporations) who are otherwise untouchable is just going to get worse over time.
The NCAA isn't a "corporation" it's an association. The "crackdown on freedom of speech" includes monitoring to make sure the college student players are not taking money/gifts under the table, discussing drug use or underage alcohol consumption, etc. You know, things that they agree to when they sign up to be non-professional sports player in university.
Yeah, they'll probably also get caught using it for making themselves look better, but in general it's about protecting the (often immature and stupid) players themselves from scandal as much as it is protecting the organization.
I can't comprehend why people shop at Walmart to save a few pennies, then complain that the experience was bad. You're not paying for a good experience, you're paying the bare minimum by supporting extremely abusive and borderline illegal corporate practices.
I'm not going to spin it as a bad thing, I think almost any charity is great. You can say a lot of bad things about the first half of Gates' life, but at least he seems to be trying to do right at this point. I do have a couple of thoughts that might come across as negative though.
First, will this entire system be run by Kenyans, trained for the task, or will this be yet another area where they're totally dependent on outside funding, ready to crumble to the ground once it dries up? Unless this system ends up completely in the hands of a capable native population, it's just like a large-scale version of food drops. That is, fantastic today, but when the drop doesn't arrive tomorrow they're back to starving. Also, when things are just provided, it disrupts local sustainable efforts to do the same thing. Unless this sanitation system also includes building local universities that provide adequate training in all associated technologies (repairmen, managers, engineers, security, etc), this will just be offensive and useless in 10 years.
Second, there are hundreds of charities that can and do drop $10 million on large projects. There are hundreds of -individuals- in the US alone that can afford that. Between Buffet and Gates, they're sitting on over EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS. Why not focus attention on billion-dollar-sized projects that are beyond the scope of any organization in the world (outside of major governments)? 80 billion dollars produces over a million dollars per day in interest alone. Why even get the German goverment involved in a project that's essentially pocket change?
Again, I'm not knocking this, I think it's a great thing that will literally save thousands of lives, and improve the quality of life of potentially millions of others. I've just felt ever since Gates started this whole charity kick that if he would just "think bigger" he could accomplish something that will be written in history books for centuries, cast as a saint, and with good reason. As it is, for the four years he's devoted himself to charity, he hasn't done anything more interesting than hundreds of other charitable organizations, he's just got more publicity because of who he is.
First of all, this data would need to have a value over $5000 for that to come in to effect. Regardless, I'm curious about whether or not "possession of stolen goods" has ever been tested in court with intangible data such as this.
I've said this many times before, but that line of reasoning makes me sick to my stomach. Don't piss of the people in charge or they will punish us worse? Are we slaves afraid of our master?
If this fans the flames, great, at least it will push the corruption and tyranny faster so that people will notice it rather than continuing to allow it to creep along giving people time to grow accustomed to it.
You basically said that population controls such as China's one-child-per-couple are a good idea. Ignoring any ethical arguments (of which there are many), I just pointed out a factual logistics problem with it. You then completely ignored my point by focusing on China itself and hand-waving the issue away.
I don't understand your question about a point in history where things were different, because literally the only times in history where things have ever even worked out at all similar to what you propose (tremendous decrease in youth population in relation to the elderly) is after a major war, and there HAVE been the exact problems I brought up. What society in the last 1000 years has had the policy of killing off their elderly and redistributing their wealth?
If you still want to focus on "China [or any country] has a retirement program?" it's not even a matter of a retirement program. Imagine a first world nation that the elderly have actually saved private pensions themselves and can afford to not die in the streets like you propose. The outcome is a society nearly entirely geared towards elderly care. How stable does that sound?
The "good reason" in my mind is to prevent a rehash of the pre-USB cell-phone charger fiasco, where every company has their own proprietary cable. Only this time, it's even worse, because every company is calling it by a name they licensed from someone else.
Yeah, they struck out at a legitimate cable, but if they don't, then what footing will they have when others start doing the same thing and point to that as an example of something that was allowed?
Now, the entire idea behind licensing standards is a different story altogether, one that I find kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, if someone wants to make an "HDMI-compatible" cable in whatever format they want, all power to them.
I get your point, but in most of Europe religions are still exempt from taxes. Not only that, but Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Poland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Scotland, England, and many others have a specific religion that has been officially recognized, whether as their "state church" or in their laws or constitution. They might be "treated equally" right now, but if the countries had a political/religious shift similar to what the US has gone through in the last thirty years, they have a running head start towards favoring one specific religion, which is quite scary.
I say this as an American who has lived in Europe for 4 years, prefers it here, and never plans to return to the US.
I've heard people say that back in the Old Testament, God had to be like that to get his point across to people. Then as society changed (or, as He changed society) he could soften up a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Picking up a hitchhiker or letting someone use your cell phone is way different than renting out your apartment to someone for a few months. Anyone who has known or been a landlord can probably tell you stories for hours about the troubles they've had.
When people move in somewhere, they treat it like it's completely theirs to do with as they please. Even worse, a lot of people treat it like they own it but they know they'll lose it in a few months anyway, so they have no problem writing on the walls, letting food rot in the carpet, or water overflow in the bathroom.
Going by my experience/gut feeling (ie, completely pulling numbers out of my ass) I'd say your chance of getting killed by a hitchhiker is about 0.00001%, your chance of having your phone stolen by someone using it is about 5%, and your chance of someone mistreating your apartment while renting it is about 20%. Also, when you have your phone stolen you're out maybe a few hundreds bucks, but when your apartment is trashed you're out tens of thousands.
But why should one even have to spend time or thought to avoid a name like this? It's clear it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ice Age movies, or even the Ice Age itself, if you assume that just by creating a movie in an era and giving it the name of that era, you now own it and all related names.
For me it opened dozens of windows when it started, played the first 30 seconds or so in the same tiny window in the middle with nothing else happening, and then I closed it because I was sick of waiting for something to happen (that I assumed at that point was nothing more interesting than a few windows floating around my screen playing video).
No, I wouldn't feel the same if I were the innocent person, just like if my family were murdered I'd probably feel a murderous rage myself even though I'm against the death penalty.
However, if you seriously believe 1,000,000 guilty people should go free to prevent 1 innocent person from being in prison, there would quite literally be not a single person in prison. In fact, going by those numbers, there are probably enough innocent people already prison at this moment to free every guilty person that ever was, is, or will be in the entire timespan of humanity (and probably aliens on other planets as well).
I agree with you in theory. I believe in "beyond all reasonable doubt" and would definitely let someone free who was "probably guilty" because we couldn't be certain. All I'm saying is that when you scale up your numbers to impossibly unrealistic levels, you hurt our argument. The Due Process Model would certainly not produce better than 1,000,000:1 odds, because it still has humans at its core, and humans are fallible.
No they don't, the (loaded and horrible) question itself implied that evolution was the politically charged issue, and not creationism. When you watch this, you'll hear nearly every single candidate there specifically point out that it should be one option of many taught and that they don't personally believe in evolution. They nearly all believe that creationism should absolutely be taught, but that it's generally good if kids also have the option of learning about evolution too.
A bit, but if you want something to make an impact, you need the media on your side. The best way to get the media on your side is to please a few specific outlets with major scoops.
It's the reason WikiLeaks operates the way it does... people are risking (in some cases) their lives to release the data, they want it to make an impact. If they think it's just going to end up on page 12 after the local bake sale, why bother?
I agree with you in theory, but I have to disagree with the number "million". If you actually believe it's better to let a million guilty people go free than convinct one innocent person, we might as well not even have court or justice systems and just live in anarchy, because there is no possible way to do anywhere near those numbers.
No, it would be noble if they weren't also working to make it legally impossible for anyone to make a competing library.
I think one confusion is that when most people use the word "homeopathy" they aren't referring to literal homeopathy (ie, diluting a tiny amount of something down to a few molecules). Homeopathy, for most people I've met, refers to all herbal or natural medicine. For example, taking cranberry pills for a UTI, or drinking tea with honey is considered homeopathy.
Try googling various homeopathy-related phrases and you'll find that, barring the Wikipedia entry that always comes up first, most of them are about herbal medicine and remedies in general, many of which are verified by medical research.
Nope, it's only "prescribe". Using subscribe in that instance is about on par with a kid asking to have pasketti for dinner or saying supposably instead of supposedly.
To further clarify the different situation teachers are in, they are also temporary caretakers for the minors in the classroom. Children necessarily have limited rights in some areas. A 6-year old can't be given all the same rights as an adult, or it would never survive to adulthood to begin with (or end up a severely antisocial adult).
It is consistent, you're just missing some things. There is difference that is unfortunately too subtle for you to pick out yourself.
An elementary school teacher is supposed to be the absolute ruler of their own classroom (to a point). When a teacher is disrespected, especially loudly while they're trying to work, it both interferes/disrupts their work, as well as undermines the power that they are supposed to have over their classroom.
Police are not supposed to be our rulers. They are public servants who are supposed to "serve and protect". The same (in theory) goes for all of our public officials all the way up to the president. If you shouting "I smell bacon" directly disrupts the job an officer is doing, then I agree it should be punished (although not by lying like in the original poster's story). If you're just insulting a cop, and not disrupting or threatening one, then no there absolutely should not be any negative effect for it.
I would call NoScript nagware more than anything else. I imagine he's made at least ten times that from donations, seeing as every new version (which is about every couple of weeks) takes you to his website where he's begging for cash (and covered in ads). Also, he's been involved in probably more scandals than any other plugin created, including things like default whitelisting of many sites including advertisers, circumventing AdBlock Plus to display his own ads, and his general belligerent attitude in several other run-ins with other developers.
For the reason that this is already essentially commercial nagware, I'd say this is stupid, but I guess $10k isn't a lot of money for something used by millions of people.
I agree that it's sad, but when all the normal channels (the justice system) completely ignore any wrongdoing by the powerful, what do you expect? Vigilante justice against powerful people (or corporations) who are otherwise untouchable is just going to get worse over time.
The NCAA isn't a "corporation" it's an association. The "crackdown on freedom of speech" includes monitoring to make sure the college student players are not taking money/gifts under the table, discussing drug use or underage alcohol consumption, etc. You know, things that they agree to when they sign up to be non-professional sports player in university.
Yeah, they'll probably also get caught using it for making themselves look better, but in general it's about protecting the (often immature and stupid) players themselves from scandal as much as it is protecting the organization.
See: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation+and+Governance/Eligibility+and+Recruiting/index.html
Because it's ridiculously quick and easy to move a site to a different host or domain name and inform the users of the move.
Or you could just go to Walgreen's.
I can't comprehend why people shop at Walmart to save a few pennies, then complain that the experience was bad. You're not paying for a good experience, you're paying the bare minimum by supporting extremely abusive and borderline illegal corporate practices.
I'm not going to spin it as a bad thing, I think almost any charity is great. You can say a lot of bad things about the first half of Gates' life, but at least he seems to be trying to do right at this point. I do have a couple of thoughts that might come across as negative though.
First, will this entire system be run by Kenyans, trained for the task, or will this be yet another area where they're totally dependent on outside funding, ready to crumble to the ground once it dries up? Unless this system ends up completely in the hands of a capable native population, it's just like a large-scale version of food drops. That is, fantastic today, but when the drop doesn't arrive tomorrow they're back to starving. Also, when things are just provided, it disrupts local sustainable efforts to do the same thing. Unless this sanitation system also includes building local universities that provide adequate training in all associated technologies (repairmen, managers, engineers, security, etc), this will just be offensive and useless in 10 years.
Second, there are hundreds of charities that can and do drop $10 million on large projects. There are hundreds of -individuals- in the US alone that can afford that. Between Buffet and Gates, they're sitting on over EIGHTY BILLION DOLLARS. Why not focus attention on billion-dollar-sized projects that are beyond the scope of any organization in the world (outside of major governments)? 80 billion dollars produces over a million dollars per day in interest alone. Why even get the German goverment involved in a project that's essentially pocket change?
Again, I'm not knocking this, I think it's a great thing that will literally save thousands of lives, and improve the quality of life of potentially millions of others. I've just felt ever since Gates started this whole charity kick that if he would just "think bigger" he could accomplish something that will be written in history books for centuries, cast as a saint, and with good reason. As it is, for the four years he's devoted himself to charity, he hasn't done anything more interesting than hundreds of other charitable organizations, he's just got more publicity because of who he is.
First of all, this data would need to have a value over $5000 for that to come in to effect. Regardless, I'm curious about whether or not "possession of stolen goods" has ever been tested in court with intangible data such as this.
I've said this many times before, but that line of reasoning makes me sick to my stomach. Don't piss of the people in charge or they will punish us worse? Are we slaves afraid of our master?
If this fans the flames, great, at least it will push the corruption and tyranny faster so that people will notice it rather than continuing to allow it to creep along giving people time to grow accustomed to it.
You basically said that population controls such as China's one-child-per-couple are a good idea. Ignoring any ethical arguments (of which there are many), I just pointed out a factual logistics problem with it. You then completely ignored my point by focusing on China itself and hand-waving the issue away.
I don't understand your question about a point in history where things were different, because literally the only times in history where things have ever even worked out at all similar to what you propose (tremendous decrease in youth population in relation to the elderly) is after a major war, and there HAVE been the exact problems I brought up. What society in the last 1000 years has had the policy of killing off their elderly and redistributing their wealth?
If you still want to focus on "China [or any country] has a retirement program?" it's not even a matter of a retirement program. Imagine a first world nation that the elderly have actually saved private pensions themselves and can afford to not die in the streets like you propose. The outcome is a society nearly entirely geared towards elderly care. How stable does that sound?
"useless abominations"?
So what do you propose for using a device from a decade ago with one now (or in the future), that has HDMI input but no composite input?
The "good reason" in my mind is to prevent a rehash of the pre-USB cell-phone charger fiasco, where every company has their own proprietary cable. Only this time, it's even worse, because every company is calling it by a name they licensed from someone else.
Yeah, they struck out at a legitimate cable, but if they don't, then what footing will they have when others start doing the same thing and point to that as an example of something that was allowed?
Now, the entire idea behind licensing standards is a different story altogether, one that I find kind of ridiculous. In my opinion, if someone wants to make an "HDMI-compatible" cable in whatever format they want, all power to them.
I get your point, but in most of Europe religions are still exempt from taxes. Not only that, but Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Poland, Spain, Italy, Greece, Scotland, England, and many others have a specific religion that has been officially recognized, whether as their "state church" or in their laws or constitution. They might be "treated equally" right now, but if the countries had a political/religious shift similar to what the US has gone through in the last thirty years, they have a running head start towards favoring one specific religion, which is quite scary.
I say this as an American who has lived in Europe for 4 years, prefers it here, and never plans to return to the US.
I've heard people say that back in the Old Testament, God had to be like that to get his point across to people. Then as society changed (or, as He changed society) he could soften up a bit.