I don't think the costs need to be socialized as you put it.
I think that if you give me a stupid order that is expensive you had better damn well pay for it.
That is what I think. You want to call that socializing? Fine. use your politically appropriate buzz words that make everything right if that is what makes you feel good. It does nothing for me. Those words rather than being a comfort are a warning to people like me to watch our wallets.
My only hope is that if the government has to bare enough of the expenses the cost alone will encourage the legislature to put in some loop holes... or just bulldoze half of san francisco and rebuild it so its ADA compliant.:D
ehm, that's not really important to me. What is important is writing, dialogue, plot, world building, immersion.
Those have taken a hit. ME2 was quite good but since then I've seen a lot of crap out of bioware.
ME3 was completely unacceptable and the fact that they didn't realize it spoke very poorly for their ability to manage a narrative. it was incompetent story telling.
You conclude the ME series, all those saved games imported from one game into the next with THREE endings... Red, Green. Blue. Other than that, pretty much the same. Just a color change. Utterly fucking stupid.
The fallout method of dealing with complex multithreaded plot resolutions is probably still the most reasonable. In that franchise, they just quickly summarize what happens as a result of your various actions. No animations. No complicated renderings of any description. They just have their writer work out the result, hand that to their narrator if it is even narrated, and then flash that on the screen long enough for you to figure out what happened.
that isn't ideal but in fallout there can be MANY variations on the game's ending... that's FO 1, 2, 3, and 3 NV. Too many things happen for you to be able to manage that with a scripted animated ending for each option.
And bioware didn't even do that much. They just boiled everything down to 3 endings which were Red, Green, and fucking Blue.
There's no defense for that. None of your choices mattered up to the end. You can choose red green or blue indifferent to anything else you did prior to that point. Importing your old game files which people saved through the various versions has no effect on fucking anything.
The entire thing was a huge disappointment for a reason. And that doesn't even get into issues with the DLC in ME3 where they stripped critical game elements out of the story arc OUT of the game and then forced you to buy the DLC to get them back.
Giant fuck yous to EA.
I don't want to be an EA hater... but seriously lenny, stop fucking killing rabbits.
Uhm... ME2 had the most interesting characters and had real drama in it. There was that whole tension between the Illusive man, the citadel, etc. ME1 was a lot simplier in its plot.
As to ME3, that was utter shit and everyone agrees... mostly because of the ending but really if you look into the situation more you'll find out that they switched writers for ME3 and that is why the story doesn't really relate or feel like part of the previous two games.
As to DA 1-3.
DA1 was pretty good. It was nice and dark and had an interesting tension between the wizard's guild... forget what they were called, and the wild wizards/witches. DA2 is widely regarded to be a rip off joke because of the reused areas, short game play, and filler plot. There really wasnt' anything you learned in DA2... there was no plot development.
As to DA3, I haven't played it yet. I've heard mixed reviews on it.
In any case, Bioware is not what they were. I've been playing Kotor and Kotor 2 recently via GoG and Kotor 2 especially is really good if you get the restoration patch that re-adds most of the content that was stripped from the game at release because they ran out of time.
Bioware's titles have gotten more thematically simplistic and shallow over time. It isn't that I've changed, you can go back and play the older games and there is a big difference. They used to hire real writers for these things and that has increasingly gone out of fashion with bioware which becomes obvious if you pick up subtle nuances in phrasing, language, and insinuation. The writing use to have multiple dimensions of meaning and increasingly it is very playschool. Big bright colors on big simple shapes.
The company is a shriveled husk at this point. Mass Effect 2 was the last game they made before being so mangled and digested that they're unrecognizable.
Only company making games in that genre that I give a damn about at this point is Obsidian.
It is sad that EA is Lenny from Of Mice And Men.... always talking about the cute rabbits... loving them... and cuddling them... and them squeezing the life out of them and wonder what happened to the rabbit.
I respect EA's ability to make money. Largely from their sports franchises from what I can figure out. But they've killed so many studios.
Westwood was strangled to death... Maxis appears to be dead... they just can't help themselves.
In regards to negative externalizes, they cannot be quantified accurately unless you're willing to go into depth well beyond YOUR patience.
I am incredibly patient and I could write literally hundreds of pages on this issue and follow all the tangents to their logical conclusions. But you would drop off long before that would happen and I would feel dishonored by that action.
Given that you will inevitably do that... do not annoy me by citing things you lack the stamina to discuss in detail.
I do not say this as an insult but as a prophecy seen through experience with previous participants over many years. I have no interest in going into matters that you will only reference vaguely and then refuse to elaborate upon.
As to mercenary companies fighting wars, don't be absurd. A mercenary company has not stood against a credible national military and withstood it in centuries. I suspect there were some in the 14th century that were credible but that was owed more to the incompetence of the local national mlitaries than it was to the competence of the mercenaries. The Italian city states as I remember made heavy use of such mercenary bands as they were seen more cost effective than state military forces that had to be paid even in peace time.
So far as I remember, the whole thing was a long education in the weaknesses and fallicies of relying on such forces. For one thing, they're not prepared to die which means they retreat and route much more easily. For another, they don't attack heavily defended positions because the casualities will be too high. For another, they have no incentive to actually end the war because they get paid to fight wars. For another, mercenary bands often collude to extort money from their patrons. One mercenary band talks to another and they agree to drag a war out or let one side win one day and the other win the next. That general lack of loyalty makes them ill suited to fight wars.
Mercenaries can be used for some things quite effectively though. Defending fixed positions is one thing especially against any kind of enemy that is unlikely to offer them quarter. Then the mercenaries with their backs against the wall and no where to run will fight as hard as any nationalized army. Not initiative needs to be taken on their part since they're defending and since their lives are on the line you can expect them to fight to the last man.
They're also reasonable at defending convoys and such which is another thing backwater is tasked with. Mostly defending things. You have some armed people guarding some oil wells or a supply convoy or something. Mercenaries are quite good at that but that is a far cry from fighting a war.
If I had to pit the national army of any two bit dictator on this planet against the combined mercenary forces of the world, I'd probably bet on that lone dictator every time.
As to your claim that I am a corporate apologist, how many people have corporations killed versus how many people have governments killed?
I'll accept your claim that I am a corporate apologist if you'll accept that you're an apologist for tyrants, genocidal maniacs, mass rapists, mass murderers, governments that literally impale and crucify their victims, etc.
You want to feed me hyperbole? I will skull fuck you with your own hypocrisy. You're so unbelievably naive as to what you discuss that the very idea that you presume to contradict me is laughable. You know nothing of history. You know nothing of the present. You are another sad witless ideologue parroting bullshit fed into his tiny little skull... and far too stupid and shallow to know it.
... is the best solution. Nothing gets them to fix the bug besides liability. The fear of lawsuits, embarrassment, etc... that gets them to take it seriously. Nothing else.
MS had some bugs that they knew about for a decade that they didn't patch.
I have a college education. Login so I can tell it is you. There's no point trolling me under the AC title, it is always really obvious who is doing it. You're very distinctive. *rolls eyes*
The education bubble has been something people have been talking about for years. It is coming. What am I getting from most of these classes that I couldn't get from a good online course? Or better yet an online course with some sort of proctor in a class room that managed the class? professor isn't going to grade my work anyway. So what is the difference?
That way at least you might get a top class lecturer.
If you let me take naked pictures of you when we're in a relationship... then you can't retroactively withdraw your permission to have those pictures.
So... I have every right to have them.
The question then becomes, do I have the right to put them on the internet without your approval? That is a little dicey because I don't think the legal system gives you more right to naked pictures of yourself then just pictures of yourself period. They're both just "pictures".
I think the big mistake is having naked pictures in the first place. If you're uncomfortable with your naked body being digitally spread around, then maybe don't take have those pictures taken even by someone you currently trust.
That is my response whenever I see some person whining about their naked body on the internet... I just think "well, you were stupid enough to let it happen."...
Is that insensitive? If I had a daughter, that's what I'd tell her. I'd say "see that actress complaining about her naked body on the internet? What is the best way to avoid that happening to you?"... and the answer is "don't get naked pictures taken". If you're naked and a camera comes out, cover up and get mad. Or if you don't care because you haven't bought into the cultural shame of being naked... then who cares. Either way. If you have the shame, don't let the pictures be taken. If you don't, then no issue either way.
Also you don't need to have someone's actual naked photos to do revenge porn.
... what the internet is in the first place. You can't stop ISIS from bragging about torturing people on the internet and this ignorant has been thinks she can ban a book from the internet?
Just speak when spoken to Feinstein.
Comments like hers are worse than that dumb comment about the internet being "tubes". That guy at least wasn't sitting there trying to hold a 21st century book burning.
You think we've come farther and every so often you're reminded that vast portions of society including many people sadly in the halls of power are no different from our ignorant, hateful, shit covered ancestors.
What a fucking disgrace. I can't wait until she's gone.
1. As to something regulating within its mandate. I didn't say it didn't. However, saying something is right because that is the law is saying something is valid law because it is valid law.
Legally that is valid position. But morally or ethically you can't just say "this is a given".
As to naturally occurring terrain not being covered by the mandate, roads are not naturally occurring terrain. You don't have to build a road perpendicular to the peak of the hill or mountain. Think of mountain roads. Do they just go straight up the mountain or do they zig zag about? They zig zag. Why? To account for the steep grade, they don't go straight up the mountain.
So in SF, you could tear up all the streets on those hills because they're not ADA compliant, and then build a much gentler grade street that either zig zagged or spiraled up the hill at a gentle grade. Any buildings in the way of that road would have to be demolished and you could rebuild those structures as you see fit where ever the road was not.
This would be quite expensive but no expense is unreasonable when the ADA is relevant. You can't say "that would cost more than X". Compliance has no limiting cost factor. You have to comply or you get your license pulled.
Same deal. No cost is too high.
There's no reason why every road couldn't be ADA complaint.
Your statement that because the law doesn't apply to something it is suddenly not a moral or ethical need for them to apply is tautology. You're saying the law itself is some given of the universe.
Prior to the ADA these things were not required... it was not within the mandate of the government to require such things. And yet now it is... why is that? Because laws change and you can change them to say whatever you want.
You could say Tuesdays are silly hat days. Is it right to say that everyone must wear a silly hat on a Tuesday or be executed on the spot? That's what the new law says so according to you that must be reasonable.
That is why tautology is bullshit.
Keep up... don't make me carry you in this discussion.
Well, whether I have to build the 30k ramp or not, I'm going to be compassionate because I'm a genuinely nice person.
I really am. I don't need validation on that point. I know what I am. I am a good guy.
But it definitely means that people don't have to help these people as much directly because there is a certain amount of infrastructure that means people can basically ignore the guy.
That over time could get people to take for granted that disabled people don't need help. I personally am not going to have that problem because as I said, there are people in my family with serious disabilities and I know they need help. My uncle can't really do anything without help. He has fairly advanced MS. He's on a permanent IV drip, he uses a catheter permanently, and while he used to be able to use a motorized chair, he really has to just be wheeled around now because he can't use the control stick on the chair anymore.
So I understand that situation. But for all his disabilities, he wouldn't demand that a business spend 30k to make the place marginally more useful to him. He'd instead simply ask someone to help him up the stairs.
Most places for utility reasons have some way of getting heavy things into and out of the building. If you need to bring appliances in or furnature then there is typically a way to do that. Sometimes that is just some big strong guys to carry stuff. Sometimes there is a ramp that sits in a back room and is rolled out on need. And sometimes there is a back door that is more level with the street. There are ways into most places with or without the ADA that are typically quite workable for someone in a wheel chair. My uncle has entered many restaurants through the kitchen because the service entrance was easier to get through than the front door. No big deal.
He didn't care. The restaurant didn't care. Why does society care?
That's life when your nervous system stops working.
It is a litigious society because it is a republic and republic means "rule by law"... we do not have a democracy... or a rule by majority.
We are ruled by law. It is the way our society is structured. And the law is only a problem when the law is written by a team of concussed monkeys on LSD.
You say the problem is with the legal system ignoring that the legal system is a product of laws and the ADA is a law.
Change the ADA to less odious and we can move on to the next issue.
I can't make you not disabled and it isn't my fault you are disabled. Blame God.
that you need help is not my fault. And you being uncomfortable with asking for help does not mean you inherent the right to get government to put a gun in my face and say "spend the 30k to remodel or I'll put you down".
Here is a compromise.
Have the government pay for the remodel. Then the cost of the whole thing shows up not on my balance sheet but on the government's balance sheet.
That's the best offer I'm giving you with a smile. Everything beyond that is extortion.
I've offered to push you up a steeper ramp. I've offered to help carry you into a place or offer any other physical assistance as required.
You say the place has to be remodeled at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars? Who pays for that? You? The government?
Am I just the sap that gets fucked in this little morality play while you get to pretend you're not an asshole?
It is a joke. And everyone knows it is a joke. The lawyers know it is a joke. The politicians know it is a joke. The people in wheel chairs know it is a joke.
The only people that don't seem to get it are a few retards with their heads so far up their own asses that they can't see what is actually going on here.
At the very least put some flexibility into the law to address unreasonable circumstances and make it harder for asshole slimy lawyers to sue random people to extort settlements that are paid ON TOP of any remodel costs.
Exactly. They're saying they would rather have a guy point a gun in my face and have me spend 30k remodeling than ask for some help.
Most businesses are quite happy to give you a hand if you need it. So for example, if I had a steep ramp that requires someone pushing you up it to get you up... why is that a problem? I'd help anyone that needed a hand up that whenever it was needed. Again, number of people that would even want to use the ramp due to disability would be perhaps two people a year. A steep ramp is cheap. I can do that for you. And if you need a hand, you can get that.
If you're so proud that you can't ask for help, then be so proud as to not ask the government to point a gun in my face.
It is a contradiction to say you lose face by asking for help but you don't lose face by getting the government to force me. It is the same thing only instead of being nice and respectful you're being an asshole.
I'm pretty sure beetles existed before humans ever lit a branch of fire much less refined oil.
So no. Beetles exist.
Your logic assumes that anything that happens has to be the fault of human beings which ignores that there are vast natural processes on this planet that existed before humans ever evolved.
to make your argument you're going to have to associate in a factual way any such incident with human activity. Absent that, your opinion is an opinion.
What is more, looking at just ONE YEAR of canopy cover change isn't really useful. What you want to see if what happens over larger spans of time. Say 10 or 20 years. And that would give you a better idea what is deforestation and what is normal changes in canopy cover. If an area hasn't had trees on it for 20 years, than the forest is probably not coming back there. But if the trees are gone one year and back two years late?... that's not something anyone needs to worry about.
The forest is not changing to grasslands. It is largely unchanged. There's no logging. There's no fires. Trees do fall over and rot on occasion but nothing unusual.
I don't think they have changed though... I mean, the forest is on average as dense as ever. A given tree is going to fall over now and then... but that's normal. The mushrooms go nuts on it... turn the tree to a rich mulch... and lots of saplings grow up in its place. That's a healthy forest.
That's true, you don't need to run seperate cable for every company. I'm totally there with you. But I want to be able to do it if I want to do it. If your beef with me is that I'm not for sharing cable bandwidth... I'm actually okay with your idea as well, so long as you're not blocking my idea at the same time. I don't see why we can't have both ideas at once. Force them to share cable bandwidth... fine... but let a company run its own cable if the existing cable operator has shitty copper cable.
See? Your argument is that it would be stupid financially and logistically to do it. Okay... but why are you making it illegal to do it? The government doesn't make things illegal because they're uneconomical.
Yet you're saying they do... that doesn't make any sense. Why would the government make running competing cable illegal simply because they think it is uneconomical? they dont' do that with anything else.
I am arguing that in fact it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with small town politics, pay outs, handouts, and kickbacks. To the extent that economics are involved, it appears to have more to do with corruption.
It is that or a misunderstanding that the cable is a utility simply because it is running a pipe under the street. Not all things that go through pipes are inherently utilities.
I don't get why we can't treat the conduits like roads or streets. A private person or company can run a car or a truck down the street whenever they want. You need a driver's license and you need to pay some taxes. But if you do that, you can drive down the road whenever you want. I want the conduits to be that way.
I want the city to issue a license and charge a fee for anyone that wants to run the cable in their conduit. And if you've done both, then you should be able to run a cable down the street with full right of way in that pipe. And when you get to a house or business that needs to be connected to that pipe, I want to be able to break out of that pipe a regular access or output point... and then connect to that business or residence directly without having to go through any other interlocutor.
You're being naive. Most areas in the country are locked down by one of the major political parties. The red party or the blue party. And the most active voters will only vote for red or blue.
What is more, the issues a government is elected on are so diverse that any one issue is not going to cause the government to lose its job even if it were in a purple area where people could go either way.
When you're in charge of health, crime, roads, schools, parks, water, power, etc.... any one thing is not going to cause you lose your position even in a competitive district.
Which means every time you add an additional responsibility to the government, their accountability for that issue and every other issue is reduced. The less responsibility government is, the more accountable they are for their actions.
Do you see?
So you say I don't live in a democratic area and you live in America... tell me your city right now and I'll demonstrate your situation is either precisely as I have described or I'll show it to be a statistical outlier with the majority of the country living in gerrymandered districts dominated by the red or blue team and where even if it is purple no one is going to vote the existing government out of power simply because they've fucked the internet up.
If you don't think I know what I am talking about, you are in for a rude shock.
Slashdot Mirror
Sharing your bank account information with someone opens the possibility that they're going to drain your account and go to Cabo on the money.
Your comparison is actually pretty good. Restrict your nude photos to the sorts of people you'd give your banking information and you should be fine.
I don't give my banking information to anyone. I also don't give anyone nude photos. Why did this sound like a good comparison to you?
I don't think the costs need to be socialized as you put it.
I think that if you give me a stupid order that is expensive you had better damn well pay for it.
That is what I think. You want to call that socializing? Fine. use your politically appropriate buzz words that make everything right if that is what makes you feel good. It does nothing for me. Those words rather than being a comfort are a warning to people like me to watch our wallets.
My only hope is that if the government has to bare enough of the expenses the cost alone will encourage the legislature to put in some loop holes... or just bulldoze half of san francisco and rebuild it so its ADA compliant. :D
Either way. I'll be happy.
I am not trolling. I've been playing bioware games since the early days and they're not what they were.
ehm, that's not really important to me. What is important is writing, dialogue, plot, world building, immersion.
Those have taken a hit. ME2 was quite good but since then I've seen a lot of crap out of bioware.
ME3 was completely unacceptable and the fact that they didn't realize it spoke very poorly for their ability to manage a narrative. it was incompetent story telling.
You conclude the ME series, all those saved games imported from one game into the next with THREE endings... Red, Green. Blue. Other than that, pretty much the same. Just a color change. Utterly fucking stupid.
The fallout method of dealing with complex multithreaded plot resolutions is probably still the most reasonable. In that franchise, they just quickly summarize what happens as a result of your various actions. No animations. No complicated renderings of any description. They just have their writer work out the result, hand that to their narrator if it is even narrated, and then flash that on the screen long enough for you to figure out what happened.
that isn't ideal but in fallout there can be MANY variations on the game's ending... that's FO 1, 2, 3, and 3 NV. Too many things happen for you to be able to manage that with a scripted animated ending for each option.
And bioware didn't even do that much. They just boiled everything down to 3 endings which were Red, Green, and fucking Blue.
There's no defense for that. None of your choices mattered up to the end. You can choose red green or blue indifferent to anything else you did prior to that point. Importing your old game files which people saved through the various versions has no effect on fucking anything.
The entire thing was a huge disappointment for a reason. And that doesn't even get into issues with the DLC in ME3 where they stripped critical game elements out of the story arc OUT of the game and then forced you to buy the DLC to get them back.
Giant fuck yous to EA.
I don't want to be an EA hater... but seriously lenny, stop fucking killing rabbits.
Uhm... ME2 had the most interesting characters and had real drama in it. There was that whole tension between the Illusive man, the citadel, etc. ME1 was a lot simplier in its plot.
As to ME3, that was utter shit and everyone agrees... mostly because of the ending but really if you look into the situation more you'll find out that they switched writers for ME3 and that is why the story doesn't really relate or feel like part of the previous two games.
As to DA 1-3.
DA1 was pretty good. It was nice and dark and had an interesting tension between the wizard's guild... forget what they were called, and the wild wizards/witches. DA2 is widely regarded to be a rip off joke because of the reused areas, short game play, and filler plot. There really wasnt' anything you learned in DA2... there was no plot development.
As to DA3, I haven't played it yet. I've heard mixed reviews on it.
In any case, Bioware is not what they were. I've been playing Kotor and Kotor 2 recently via GoG and Kotor 2 especially is really good if you get the restoration patch that re-adds most of the content that was stripped from the game at release because they ran out of time.
Bioware's titles have gotten more thematically simplistic and shallow over time. It isn't that I've changed, you can go back and play the older games and there is a big difference. They used to hire real writers for these things and that has increasingly gone out of fashion with bioware which becomes obvious if you pick up subtle nuances in phrasing, language, and insinuation. The writing use to have multiple dimensions of meaning and increasingly it is very playschool. Big bright colors on big simple shapes.
The company is a shriveled husk at this point. Mass Effect 2 was the last game they made before being so mangled and digested that they're unrecognizable.
Only company making games in that genre that I give a damn about at this point is Obsidian.
It is sad that EA is Lenny from Of Mice And Men.... always talking about the cute rabbits... loving them... and cuddling them... and them squeezing the life out of them and wonder what happened to the rabbit.
I respect EA's ability to make money. Largely from their sports franchises from what I can figure out. But they've killed so many studios.
Westwood was strangled to death... Maxis appears to be dead... they just can't help themselves.
In regards to negative externalizes, they cannot be quantified accurately unless you're willing to go into depth well beyond YOUR patience.
I am incredibly patient and I could write literally hundreds of pages on this issue and follow all the tangents to their logical conclusions. But you would drop off long before that would happen and I would feel dishonored by that action.
Given that you will inevitably do that... do not annoy me by citing things you lack the stamina to discuss in detail.
I do not say this as an insult but as a prophecy seen through experience with previous participants over many years. I have no interest in going into matters that you will only reference vaguely and then refuse to elaborate upon.
As to mercenary companies fighting wars, don't be absurd. A mercenary company has not stood against a credible national military and withstood it in centuries. I suspect there were some in the 14th century that were credible but that was owed more to the incompetence of the local national mlitaries than it was to the competence of the mercenaries. The Italian city states as I remember made heavy use of such mercenary bands as they were seen more cost effective than state military forces that had to be paid even in peace time.
So far as I remember, the whole thing was a long education in the weaknesses and fallicies of relying on such forces. For one thing, they're not prepared to die which means they retreat and route much more easily. For another, they don't attack heavily defended positions because the casualities will be too high. For another, they have no incentive to actually end the war because they get paid to fight wars. For another, mercenary bands often collude to extort money from their patrons. One mercenary band talks to another and they agree to drag a war out or let one side win one day and the other win the next. That general lack of loyalty makes them ill suited to fight wars.
Mercenaries can be used for some things quite effectively though. Defending fixed positions is one thing especially against any kind of enemy that is unlikely to offer them quarter. Then the mercenaries with their backs against the wall and no where to run will fight as hard as any nationalized army. Not initiative needs to be taken on their part since they're defending and since their lives are on the line you can expect them to fight to the last man.
They're also reasonable at defending convoys and such which is another thing backwater is tasked with. Mostly defending things. You have some armed people guarding some oil wells or a supply convoy or something. Mercenaries are quite good at that but that is a far cry from fighting a war.
If I had to pit the national army of any two bit dictator on this planet against the combined mercenary forces of the world, I'd probably bet on that lone dictator every time.
As to your claim that I am a corporate apologist, how many people have corporations killed versus how many people have governments killed?
I'll accept your claim that I am a corporate apologist if you'll accept that you're an apologist for tyrants, genocidal maniacs, mass rapists, mass murderers, governments that literally impale and crucify their victims, etc.
You want to feed me hyperbole? I will skull fuck you with your own hypocrisy. You're so unbelievably naive as to what you discuss that the very idea that you presume to contradict me is laughable. You know nothing of history. You know nothing of the present. You are another sad witless ideologue parroting bullshit fed into his tiny little skull... and far too stupid and shallow to know it.
Their heads are soft and full of shit... I am not afraid.
The bullying laws are on questionable constitutional grounds. You're coming very close to challenging the first amendment with that stuff.
I mean, what is bullying and what is not? Couldn't I cite almost anything as bullying to ME and thus get it shut down?
I'll do that after I personally colonize Mars. Have to keep my priorities straight.
... is the best solution. Nothing gets them to fix the bug besides liability. The fear of lawsuits, embarrassment, etc... that gets them to take it seriously. Nothing else.
MS had some bugs that they knew about for a decade that they didn't patch.
You jump right to setting their nuts on fire.
I have a college education. Login so I can tell it is you. There's no point trolling me under the AC title, it is always really obvious who is doing it. You're very distinctive. *rolls eyes*
The education bubble has been something people have been talking about for years. It is coming. What am I getting from most of these classes that I couldn't get from a good online course? Or better yet an online course with some sort of proctor in a class room that managed the class? professor isn't going to grade my work anyway. So what is the difference?
That way at least you might get a top class lecturer.
If you let me take naked pictures of you when we're in a relationship... then you can't retroactively withdraw your permission to have those pictures.
So... I have every right to have them.
The question then becomes, do I have the right to put them on the internet without your approval? That is a little dicey because I don't think the legal system gives you more right to naked pictures of yourself then just pictures of yourself period. They're both just "pictures".
I think the big mistake is having naked pictures in the first place. If you're uncomfortable with your naked body being digitally spread around, then maybe don't take have those pictures taken even by someone you currently trust.
That is my response whenever I see some person whining about their naked body on the internet... I just think "well, you were stupid enough to let it happen."...
Is that insensitive? If I had a daughter, that's what I'd tell her. I'd say "see that actress complaining about her naked body on the internet? What is the best way to avoid that happening to you?"... and the answer is "don't get naked pictures taken". If you're naked and a camera comes out, cover up and get mad. Or if you don't care because you haven't bought into the cultural shame of being naked... then who cares. Either way. If you have the shame, don't let the pictures be taken. If you don't, then no issue either way.
Also you don't need to have someone's actual naked photos to do revenge porn.
Grab a random porn pic and photoshop a face on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And how can that be illegal? I mean, messed up... but illegal to use photoshop?
... what the internet is in the first place. You can't stop ISIS from bragging about torturing people on the internet and this ignorant has been thinks she can ban a book from the internet?
Just speak when spoken to Feinstein.
Comments like hers are worse than that dumb comment about the internet being "tubes". That guy at least wasn't sitting there trying to hold a 21st century book burning.
You think we've come farther and every so often you're reminded that vast portions of society including many people sadly in the halls of power are no different from our ignorant, hateful, shit covered ancestors.
What a fucking disgrace. I can't wait until she's gone.
You don't know what tautology means.
1. As to something regulating within its mandate. I didn't say it didn't. However, saying something is right because that is the law is saying something is valid law because it is valid law.
Legally that is valid position. But morally or ethically you can't just say "this is a given".
As to naturally occurring terrain not being covered by the mandate, roads are not naturally occurring terrain. You don't have to build a road perpendicular to the peak of the hill or mountain. Think of mountain roads. Do they just go straight up the mountain or do they zig zag about? They zig zag. Why? To account for the steep grade, they don't go straight up the mountain.
So in SF, you could tear up all the streets on those hills because they're not ADA compliant, and then build a much gentler grade street that either zig zagged or spiraled up the hill at a gentle grade. Any buildings in the way of that road would have to be demolished and you could rebuild those structures as you see fit where ever the road was not.
This would be quite expensive but no expense is unreasonable when the ADA is relevant. You can't say "that would cost more than X". Compliance has no limiting cost factor. You have to comply or you get your license pulled.
Same deal. No cost is too high.
There's no reason why every road couldn't be ADA complaint.
Your statement that because the law doesn't apply to something it is suddenly not a moral or ethical need for them to apply is tautology. You're saying the law itself is some given of the universe.
Prior to the ADA these things were not required... it was not within the mandate of the government to require such things. And yet now it is... why is that? Because laws change and you can change them to say whatever you want.
You could say Tuesdays are silly hat days. Is it right to say that everyone must wear a silly hat on a Tuesday or be executed on the spot? That's what the new law says so according to you that must be reasonable.
That is why tautology is bullshit.
Keep up... don't make me carry you in this discussion.
Well, whether I have to build the 30k ramp or not, I'm going to be compassionate because I'm a genuinely nice person.
I really am. I don't need validation on that point. I know what I am. I am a good guy.
But it definitely means that people don't have to help these people as much directly because there is a certain amount of infrastructure that means people can basically ignore the guy.
That over time could get people to take for granted that disabled people don't need help. I personally am not going to have that problem because as I said, there are people in my family with serious disabilities and I know they need help. My uncle can't really do anything without help. He has fairly advanced MS. He's on a permanent IV drip, he uses a catheter permanently, and while he used to be able to use a motorized chair, he really has to just be wheeled around now because he can't use the control stick on the chair anymore.
So I understand that situation. But for all his disabilities, he wouldn't demand that a business spend 30k to make the place marginally more useful to him. He'd instead simply ask someone to help him up the stairs.
Most places for utility reasons have some way of getting heavy things into and out of the building. If you need to bring appliances in or furnature then there is typically a way to do that. Sometimes that is just some big strong guys to carry stuff. Sometimes there is a ramp that sits in a back room and is rolled out on need. And sometimes there is a back door that is more level with the street. There are ways into most places with or without the ADA that are typically quite workable for someone in a wheel chair. My uncle has entered many restaurants through the kitchen because the service entrance was easier to get through than the front door. No big deal.
He didn't care. The restaurant didn't care. Why does society care?
That's life when your nervous system stops working.
It is a litigious society because it is a republic and republic means "rule by law"... we do not have a democracy... or a rule by majority.
We are ruled by law. It is the way our society is structured. And the law is only a problem when the law is written by a team of concussed monkeys on LSD.
You say the problem is with the legal system ignoring that the legal system is a product of laws and the ADA is a law.
Change the ADA to less odious and we can move on to the next issue.
*slaps gavel down*
Next case.
I can't make you not disabled and it isn't my fault you are disabled. Blame God.
that you need help is not my fault. And you being uncomfortable with asking for help does not mean you inherent the right to get government to put a gun in my face and say "spend the 30k to remodel or I'll put you down".
Here is a compromise.
Have the government pay for the remodel. Then the cost of the whole thing shows up not on my balance sheet but on the government's balance sheet.
That's the best offer I'm giving you with a smile. Everything beyond that is extortion.
I've offered to push you up a steeper ramp. I've offered to help carry you into a place or offer any other physical assistance as required.
You say the place has to be remodeled at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars? Who pays for that? You? The government?
Am I just the sap that gets fucked in this little morality play while you get to pretend you're not an asshole?
It is a joke. And everyone knows it is a joke. The lawyers know it is a joke. The politicians know it is a joke. The people in wheel chairs know it is a joke.
The only people that don't seem to get it are a few retards with their heads so far up their own asses that they can't see what is actually going on here.
At the very least put some flexibility into the law to address unreasonable circumstances and make it harder for asshole slimy lawyers to sue random people to extort settlements that are paid ON TOP of any remodel costs.
Exactly. They're saying they would rather have a guy point a gun in my face and have me spend 30k remodeling than ask for some help.
Most businesses are quite happy to give you a hand if you need it. So for example, if I had a steep ramp that requires someone pushing you up it to get you up... why is that a problem? I'd help anyone that needed a hand up that whenever it was needed. Again, number of people that would even want to use the ramp due to disability would be perhaps two people a year. A steep ramp is cheap. I can do that for you. And if you need a hand, you can get that.
If you're so proud that you can't ask for help, then be so proud as to not ask the government to point a gun in my face.
It is a contradiction to say you lose face by asking for help but you don't lose face by getting the government to force me. It is the same thing only instead of being nice and respectful you're being an asshole.
I'm pretty sure beetles existed before humans ever lit a branch of fire much less refined oil.
So no. Beetles exist.
Your logic assumes that anything that happens has to be the fault of human beings which ignores that there are vast natural processes on this planet that existed before humans ever evolved.
to make your argument you're going to have to associate in a factual way any such incident with human activity. Absent that, your opinion is an opinion.
What is more, looking at just ONE YEAR of canopy cover change isn't really useful. What you want to see if what happens over larger spans of time. Say 10 or 20 years. And that would give you a better idea what is deforestation and what is normal changes in canopy cover. If an area hasn't had trees on it for 20 years, than the forest is probably not coming back there. But if the trees are gone one year and back two years late?... that's not something anyone needs to worry about.
The forest is not changing to grasslands. It is largely unchanged. There's no logging. There's no fires. Trees do fall over and rot on occasion but nothing unusual.
I don't think they have changed though... I mean, the forest is on average as dense as ever. A given tree is going to fall over now and then... but that's normal. The mushrooms go nuts on it... turn the tree to a rich mulch... and lots of saplings grow up in its place. That's a healthy forest.
That's true, you don't need to run seperate cable for every company. I'm totally there with you. But I want to be able to do it if I want to do it. If your beef with me is that I'm not for sharing cable bandwidth... I'm actually okay with your idea as well, so long as you're not blocking my idea at the same time. I don't see why we can't have both ideas at once. Force them to share cable bandwidth... fine... but let a company run its own cable if the existing cable operator has shitty copper cable.
See? Your argument is that it would be stupid financially and logistically to do it. Okay... but why are you making it illegal to do it? The government doesn't make things illegal because they're uneconomical.
Yet you're saying they do... that doesn't make any sense. Why would the government make running competing cable illegal simply because they think it is uneconomical? they dont' do that with anything else.
I am arguing that in fact it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with small town politics, pay outs, handouts, and kickbacks. To the extent that economics are involved, it appears to have more to do with corruption.
It is that or a misunderstanding that the cable is a utility simply because it is running a pipe under the street. Not all things that go through pipes are inherently utilities.
I don't get why we can't treat the conduits like roads or streets. A private person or company can run a car or a truck down the street whenever they want. You need a driver's license and you need to pay some taxes. But if you do that, you can drive down the road whenever you want. I want the conduits to be that way.
I want the city to issue a license and charge a fee for anyone that wants to run the cable in their conduit. And if you've done both, then you should be able to run a cable down the street with full right of way in that pipe. And when you get to a house or business that needs to be connected to that pipe, I want to be able to break out of that pipe a regular access or output point... and then connect to that business or residence directly without having to go through any other interlocutor.
You're being naive. Most areas in the country are locked down by one of the major political parties. The red party or the blue party. And the most active voters will only vote for red or blue.
What is more, the issues a government is elected on are so diverse that any one issue is not going to cause the government to lose its job even if it were in a purple area where people could go either way.
When you're in charge of health, crime, roads, schools, parks, water, power, etc.... any one thing is not going to cause you lose your position even in a competitive district.
Which means every time you add an additional responsibility to the government, their accountability for that issue and every other issue is reduced. The less responsibility government is, the more accountable they are for their actions.
Do you see?
So you say I don't live in a democratic area and you live in America... tell me your city right now and I'll demonstrate your situation is either precisely as I have described or I'll show it to be a statistical outlier with the majority of the country living in gerrymandered districts dominated by the red or blue team and where even if it is purple no one is going to vote the existing government out of power simply because they've fucked the internet up.
If you don't think I know what I am talking about, you are in for a rude shock.