Technically, you don't. But the sales clerks were pushy about it. I think they got in trouble if they had any transactions without personal information. For me, it was all about time efficiency. Take a few seconds to give them false information or stand there and argue with them for a lot longer. The one that got me out the door faster was the the route I took. As they stopped stocking the parts I wanted to buy, I stopped going to their stores. So did pretty much everyone else from what I gather.
"Clever. Still... anybody with that kind of record is gonna make a mistake. I want all party members in the tri-state district to monitor the city, county and state police on their CBs. Sooner or later Mr. Blues is gonna fuck up, and when he does... he better pray the police get to him before we do."
IANAL but I thought any type of coercion would qualify. Threatening people with an expensive lawsuit if they didn't pay seems to me to violate at least the spirit of the law.
I knew that my information would get out eventually. In the last 15 years I would only go in to buy specific things (none in the last 5+ years). Every time I would pay cash and give the clerk false information. I'm so very glad I did.
State Attorney General Roy Cooper claims, "the FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State's political subdivisions."
Not to mention that municipal broadband providers won't kick back as much in campaign finance support as the major cable companies. The FCC is really going to cut into that revenue stream pretty heavily with these rules.
Given that they're all probably not disabled, I'm wondering what grounds they have to sue in the first place. But that's why they offer a "settlement" that's less than the cost to defend the suit, so the case never sees the inside of a courtroom. In effect, though, they're using the legal system to extort money out of people and depending on the particulars, that may qualify under RICO statutes. In theory, they might actually be breaking the law.
Back in the days of the Pentium 3 or 4. Again, I ask what speed concern would you have with one of those processors? I mean, sure, if you were dealing with an 8086 or something like that speed is an issue. But most tasks run just fine on a Pentium grade processor so long as you don't have a GUI filled with bloat.
Nifty idea's for sure. Maybe it's not a fad. Is the George Foreman Grill a fad? I mean everyone and their sister has or had one at some point. It did great and still makes money but how much is it used?
It's great if you're cooking for just one person on a regular basis. Typical dinner for me is a reasonable size slab of meat on the foreman, steam some veggies in the microwave, throw a frozen biscuit in the toaster oven and I have an easy dinner without having to get the whole kitchen dirty.
Just channel surf some night when you have insomnia. The infomercials selling specialty cooking hardware are on every channel. Sure, some are the "replace everything in your kitchen with this one device" but others a "why waste time doing it by hand when you can just use our device to do it easily in half the time"
Now that they've got this thing working, what would be really cool is if they could come up with a way of getting it to run on different processor architectures, in case x86 loses out to ARM in the long run.
All they have to do is translate the part of the OS written in x86 assembler...
I hear your point, but it's still not valid to force people into this.
Is it valid for you to force your diseases on the population without their consent? I would say no.
People must be free to do even stupid things, or we don't really have freedom. You cannot protect everybody from foolishness though some law, you cannot legislate morality. You must allow freedom, even if you don't agree with the reasons people use for doing what they do.
Again, the issue in this case is that your stupidity has significant impact on others, up to and including death. Now, if this issue only affected the individuals involved directly, it would be completely different. If you want to tell your kid that the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed the universe out of his nose and you're all waiting for the coming of the great white handkerchief, that's fine by me. It only affects you and your poor kid. If you want to make your kid wear specific types of clothes and magic underwear, that too is fine. It's just between you and your kid.
Where the line gets drawn is where you start impacting others without their consent. And while refusing to vaccinate your kid is orders of magnitude below strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up a market, it's still you doing something that has the potential to kill someone who doesn't want to be affected by you in that way.
Make a choice that only affects yourself? Fine. Do whatever makes you happy. Start affecting other people (who don't share your beliefs) against their will? Sorry. I can't support that.
Look, I strongly argue with people I know who refuse to vaccinate. I think they are usually misinformed and are making a mistake. However, I also recognize that THEY have the choice, and where I encourage them to vaccinate their kids, I must support their right to choose differently than I would.
Again, by not vaccinating your kids, you are taking away choice from other people beyond yourself and your kid(s). They don't want the disease you're carrying around. And the only way to stop you from passing it on is either vaccination or internment in an isolation camp. Which of those two options is less egregious?
Making sure people have freedom of choice is fine. But you have to look at the larger picture and see how one choice takes away choices from others.
Of all the learning disabilities, willful ignorance is the most difficult one to overcome. If someone believes that vaccines are unsafe, there's little you can do to convince them otherwise. Throw as many legitimate peer reviewed studies as you can find at them, they will flatly ignore them. Point out the egregious and obvious flaws in whatever pseudoscience they present and they will accuse you of being a shill for the pharmaceutical company. They are the immovable object and nothing you say will get through.
You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be)
That's not the word I would use to describe them.
And the government absolutely has the right... no, the duty, to pass legislation like this. What differentiates this from a real "religious freedom" issue is the consequences of not vaccinating your kids. It's not just you and your kids who are effected when you make that choice. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. But you involuntarily effect others with your decision. You become carriers for diseases that have the potential to KILL OTHER PEOPLE. It's no different than you going outside and shooting a gun in a random direction. Sure, most of the time you won't hit anything. But that one time you do, it's pretty serious. The potential consequences of you and your kids running around without being vaccinated are serious. And, according to the first amendment, you can't force your religious beliefs on others. Giving them a disease because your religion told you not to get vaccinated is a pretty egregious violation of other people's rights.
The only mob stupidity are the people who arbitrarily reject science that is incredibly well documented with study after study. Vaccines are safe and effective. No legitimate study has shown otherwise since vaccines were first administered. The only shaky information is spread by the people with unfounded distrust of vaccines.
There are some legitimate concerns about child vaccination.
Any legitimate concerns about child vaccinations have been addressed for a very long time now. Every study that comes out continues to prove how safe and effective vaccines are. They prove beyond any legitimate doubt that vaccines are so effective that the very small segment of the population that cannot tolerate them are effectively shielded by the herd immunity. There are absolutely no legitimate studies that question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
On the other hand, there is an epidemic of willful ignorance when it comes to vaccinations. A large segment of the population flat out refuses to believe that they've been duped by someone trying to sell something. They refuse to admit that the science is overwhelming and undeniable. They flat out refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face. But, sadly, that's a disease that is impossible to overcome.
Except that you're not actually forced to get the vaccine for your kids. You can still choose not to vaccinate your kids. You just won't be able to send them to a public school and will have to find an alternative way to educate them. Which is easier in CA than it is in many other states given the support CA gives to alternate education (including home schooling).
Beyond that, there are many conflicting rights with respect to vaccinations. Which rights should take precedence? (yes, I know the answer you will give, the ones you think are most important without considering anyone else). Freedom is great but as the analogy goes, you can swing your fist around anywhere you want but your rights end where someone else's face begins. Choosing not to vaccinate may seem like an "I can waive my fist around wherever I want" type of argument but as soon as you give a disease to someone else, you've "hit their face". And since there's really no way to prevent a contagious person from spreading a disease to others the only real choices are to lock them away from everyone else or get them to not be contagious in the first place. And getting a vaccine that has been proven safe for everyone but the few with real immune deficiencies makes a lot more sense than locking up people in concentration camps for not getting vaccinated, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, you don't. But the sales clerks were pushy about it. I think they got in trouble if they had any transactions without personal information. For me, it was all about time efficiency. Take a few seconds to give them false information or stand there and argue with them for a lot longer. The one that got me out the door faster was the the route I took. As they stopped stocking the parts I wanted to buy, I stopped going to their stores. So did pretty much everyone else from what I gather.
"Clever. Still... anybody with that kind of record is gonna make a mistake. I want all party members in the tri-state district to monitor the city, county and state police on their CBs. Sooner or later Mr. Blues is gonna fuck up, and when he does... he better pray the police get to him before we do."
They would know me as Charles (Chuck) U. Farley. I made up the street address every time.
IANAL but I thought any type of coercion would qualify. Threatening people with an expensive lawsuit if they didn't pay seems to me to violate at least the spirit of the law.
I knew that my information would get out eventually. In the last 15 years I would only go in to buy specific things (none in the last 5+ years). Every time I would pay cash and give the clerk false information. I'm so very glad I did.
State Attorney General Roy Cooper claims, "the FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State's political subdivisions."
Not to mention that municipal broadband providers won't kick back as much in campaign finance support as the major cable companies. The FCC is really going to cut into that revenue stream pretty heavily with these rules.
I missed that. His disability would change my assumptions.
Given that they're all probably not disabled, I'm wondering what grounds they have to sue in the first place. But that's why they offer a "settlement" that's less than the cost to defend the suit, so the case never sees the inside of a courtroom. In effect, though, they're using the legal system to extort money out of people and depending on the particulars, that may qualify under RICO statutes. In theory, they might actually be breaking the law.
Being an insomniac drove me to streaming a long time ago. But the memories of Jack LaLanne's power juicer will haunt me for the rest of my life.
I suggest you make your joke funnier so you don't get heckled the second time. ;)
Back in the days of the Pentium 3 or 4. Again, I ask what speed concern would you have with one of those processors? I mean, sure, if you were dealing with an 8086 or something like that speed is an issue. But most tasks run just fine on a Pentium grade processor so long as you don't have a GUI filled with bloat.
Nifty idea's for sure. Maybe it's not a fad. Is the George Foreman Grill a fad? I mean everyone and their sister has or had one at some point. It did great and still makes money but how much is it used?
It's great if you're cooking for just one person on a regular basis. Typical dinner for me is a reasonable size slab of meat on the foreman, steam some veggies in the microwave, throw a frozen biscuit in the toaster oven and I have an easy dinner without having to get the whole kitchen dirty.
Just channel surf some night when you have insomnia. The infomercials selling specialty cooking hardware are on every channel. Sure, some are the "replace everything in your kitchen with this one device" but others a "why waste time doing it by hand when you can just use our device to do it easily in half the time"
And that's an issue with modern processors... how?
Now that they've got this thing working, what would be really cool is if they could come up with a way of getting it to run on different processor architectures, in case x86 loses out to ARM in the long run.
All they have to do is translate the part of the OS written in x86 assembler...
So is processing power.
I'm under 45. How will people over 45 react differently than me?
I hear your point, but it's still not valid to force people into this.
Is it valid for you to force your diseases on the population without their consent? I would say no.
People must be free to do even stupid things, or we don't really have freedom. You cannot protect everybody from foolishness though some law, you cannot legislate morality. You must allow freedom, even if you don't agree with the reasons people use for doing what they do.
Again, the issue in this case is that your stupidity has significant impact on others, up to and including death. Now, if this issue only affected the individuals involved directly, it would be completely different. If you want to tell your kid that the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed the universe out of his nose and you're all waiting for the coming of the great white handkerchief, that's fine by me. It only affects you and your poor kid. If you want to make your kid wear specific types of clothes and magic underwear, that too is fine. It's just between you and your kid.
Where the line gets drawn is where you start impacting others without their consent. And while refusing to vaccinate your kid is orders of magnitude below strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up a market, it's still you doing something that has the potential to kill someone who doesn't want to be affected by you in that way.
Make a choice that only affects yourself? Fine. Do whatever makes you happy. Start affecting other people (who don't share your beliefs) against their will? Sorry. I can't support that.
Look, I strongly argue with people I know who refuse to vaccinate. I think they are usually misinformed and are making a mistake. However, I also recognize that THEY have the choice, and where I encourage them to vaccinate their kids, I must support their right to choose differently than I would.
Again, by not vaccinating your kids, you are taking away choice from other people beyond yourself and your kid(s). They don't want the disease you're carrying around. And the only way to stop you from passing it on is either vaccination or internment in an isolation camp. Which of those two options is less egregious?
Making sure people have freedom of choice is fine. But you have to look at the larger picture and see how one choice takes away choices from others.
There's nothing abstract about the idea of vaccinations. It's very well documented science.
Of all the learning disabilities, willful ignorance is the most difficult one to overcome. If someone believes that vaccines are unsafe, there's little you can do to convince them otherwise. Throw as many legitimate peer reviewed studies as you can find at them, they will flatly ignore them. Point out the egregious and obvious flaws in whatever pseudoscience they present and they will accuse you of being a shill for the pharmaceutical company. They are the immovable object and nothing you say will get through.
You may think people with religious objections to vaccination (one or all of them) are nuts (and they may very well be)
That's not the word I would use to describe them.
And the government absolutely has the right... no, the duty, to pass legislation like this. What differentiates this from a real "religious freedom" issue is the consequences of not vaccinating your kids. It's not just you and your kids who are effected when you make that choice. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. But you involuntarily effect others with your decision. You become carriers for diseases that have the potential to KILL OTHER PEOPLE. It's no different than you going outside and shooting a gun in a random direction. Sure, most of the time you won't hit anything. But that one time you do, it's pretty serious. The potential consequences of you and your kids running around without being vaccinated are serious. And, according to the first amendment, you can't force your religious beliefs on others. Giving them a disease because your religion told you not to get vaccinated is a pretty egregious violation of other people's rights.
The only mob stupidity are the people who arbitrarily reject science that is incredibly well documented with study after study. Vaccines are safe and effective. No legitimate study has shown otherwise since vaccines were first administered. The only shaky information is spread by the people with unfounded distrust of vaccines.
Vaccines have been in common use for many decades. If there were unknown problems, they would have shown up long before now.
There are some legitimate concerns about child vaccination.
Any legitimate concerns about child vaccinations have been addressed for a very long time now. Every study that comes out continues to prove how safe and effective vaccines are. They prove beyond any legitimate doubt that vaccines are so effective that the very small segment of the population that cannot tolerate them are effectively shielded by the herd immunity. There are absolutely no legitimate studies that question the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
On the other hand, there is an epidemic of willful ignorance when it comes to vaccinations. A large segment of the population flat out refuses to believe that they've been duped by someone trying to sell something. They refuse to admit that the science is overwhelming and undeniable. They flat out refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face. But, sadly, that's a disease that is impossible to overcome.
Except that you're not actually forced to get the vaccine for your kids. You can still choose not to vaccinate your kids. You just won't be able to send them to a public school and will have to find an alternative way to educate them. Which is easier in CA than it is in many other states given the support CA gives to alternate education (including home schooling).
Beyond that, there are many conflicting rights with respect to vaccinations. Which rights should take precedence? (yes, I know the answer you will give, the ones you think are most important without considering anyone else). Freedom is great but as the analogy goes, you can swing your fist around anywhere you want but your rights end where someone else's face begins. Choosing not to vaccinate may seem like an "I can waive my fist around wherever I want" type of argument but as soon as you give a disease to someone else, you've "hit their face". And since there's really no way to prevent a contagious person from spreading a disease to others the only real choices are to lock them away from everyone else or get them to not be contagious in the first place. And getting a vaccine that has been proven safe for everyone but the few with real immune deficiencies makes a lot more sense than locking up people in concentration camps for not getting vaccinated, don't you think?