What is false? You're ignoring the point that the parent was making: the fact that the constitution doesn't mention airplanes specifically does not mean that traveling by air is not a right. Further: that fact also does not mean that traveling by air is not a right which is protected by the constitution. Just as the constitution does not mention which specific weapons are protected by the second amendment, so too does it not mention which specific methods of travel are protected. (In fact it doesn't specifically mention travel at all, the right to travel is implied.)
I think the point is that being on the terror watch list prevents you from doing other things, benign things like traveling by plane, but it doesn't prevent you from doing the most obvious thing: buying weapons.
Yes the list is extra-judicial and shouldn't exist at all, fine, but that's some pretty twisted legislation which allows arbitrary prevention of travel but not the purchase of firearms.
Some of the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. This is circular logic anyway - when you promote reforestation you're talking about sequestering the CO2 in the forest. It's not some scheme to grow wood and then bury it, the forest itself contains the CO2 and as long as the forest remains standing then that CO2 is contained.
Wonderboy 3 was like that? I cam here to say that I would have preferred to see the Wonder Boy in Monster Land / World spinoffs, for basically that reason, but I never played 3 and if this is the same idea then that'll be really nice.
I'd be willing to accept substantially increased risk if it meant getting away from the TSA. I've been idly thinking about getting a pilot's license for just that reason...
The tin foil hat in me is saying that's obviously the real reason the FAA shot this down - not enough groping. The pragmatist in me says that's probably not true, but the result is the same.
Honestly, I find this to be moderately encouraging. I had expected her to walk away from this scam with hundreds of millions, even though she had produced nothing of value and the existence of Theranos was a net drain on society. The fact that she's getting nothing, as she should, is one of those rare little hopeful moments which indicate that the system is working. At least, it's working on an occasional basis. That's something.
I'm not sure I'd call it defeatism, he's saying that these sorts of stories need to be paired with information about a means to address them. If anything, I'd call that optimistic.
It's not a bad idea, we get deluged with stories like this all the time and if we're to have any hope of getting away from this downward spiral at some point we're going to have to learn to respond. change.org isn't completely useless, those petitions do get referenced in the press every once in a while. A whitehouse.gov petition is a little more direct though.
I think it's pretty clear that he meant the stuff on ingredient labels, isn't it? Around here there's been a near continuous scare about "processed food" and "long lists of ingredients that you don't recognize and can't pronounce." To me it's obvious that these are the harmless chemicals that he's talking about.
The fact that there exist some things in food which can be bad for you is, I hope, a surprise to no one.
So you're saying that we should all start Twitter campaigns about... Who, exactly? The executives, rather than the shareholders? That's what I'm getting from this.
Nokia isn't manufacturing phones anymore, the summary says they're just licensing the brand. It's possible that these new companies will maintain some of Nokia's design practices, but you should assume that they'll maintain the quality.
... "Cheating" on her "boyfriend" with a "games journalist." Those videos that Baldwin watched were talking about cronyism in the gaming media. You're just going to leave that part out?
Where else would the name have come from? Why would he pick the name gamergate if it had nothing to do with gaming? Of course it had to do with gaming, and games journalism.
... That sounds an awful lot like forcing a private party to take responsibility for policing. How do you feel about that when it comes to ISPs? The media companies have been trying to make the ISPs and others, Youtube, etc., responsible for anything illegal that their users do. How about a restaurant? Do you hold a restaurant liable if someone comes in and shoots the customers?
Prior to the TSA the airports screened for weapons, it was a quick and easy metal detector thing. Not perfect, but good enough: it cut down on hijackings by a ton. This was before people considered terrorists who might not care about living. Now the cockpits are secured and there are air marshals, these are sufficient to deter further attempts to use airplanes as weapons. They would not be enough to stop a suicide bomber, but a few bomb-sniffing measures scattered around the airport are really as far as something like that should go. Planes are not the only place where suicide bombers are a threat, and I think (hope) that we have not reached the point where we're so paranoid that we're willing to put up with this crap everywhere on a day-to-day basis.
Well obviously what we need to do is get rid of the TSA, and I don't think that asking people to boycott flying is going to work. It didn't work when the TSA was first introduced and the lines jumped back then, it didn't work when they introduced the stripscanners (even though the early ones were possibly carcinogenic), didn't work with "enhanced patdown", etc. The best we seem to get with a boycott is the TSA makes things much worse, people complain and business slows a little, the TSA partially rolls back the change, and everyone starts flying again. Ignoring the fact that the change was only partially rolled back, so things keep getting worse incrementally.
But demanding that congress gets rid of the TSA and just goes back to metal detectors isn't going to work either, it's too much backpedaling. It would mean admitting a mistake. So I was thinking maybe a market solution would be the right approach: get a few startups offering low security flights, operating from a low security terminal at the airport. If they get a lot of business (and they will) it could drive a larger change as the bigger airlines adopt similar practices for some of their flights.
That is a piss-poor excuse for bad presidents. The president does a lot more than make decisions, this trip to Hiroshima is not "making a decision," it's strengthening our relationship with Japan. It's an act of diplomacy, one of many responsibilities that the president has.
Battlefield 1 at least has a bit of an excuse. A bit. It's set in World War One.... 1. Get it?
Yeah, that might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the first game was called Battlefield 1942. This should should obviously be called Battlefield 1917 or something.
See, I'd buy this if it weren't for the fact that Battlefield is published by EA. Have they suddenly done an about-face on the DLC crap? I doubt it.
Also, this isn't new: DLC has been a problem for years now. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the entire player base has all of a sudden realized that it's detrimental to gaming. The people saying that it's gotten too sci-fi, away from its roots, seem more likely to be right.
Market-driven... That's an interesting question. I'll agree that that's true, but I'd say it's more supply side than demand side. Conservative listeners like to laugh, but there are very few conservative comedians who are actually funny. Dennis Miller used to be funny but over time he's just gotten angrier, and also more conservative.
Similarly, talk radio is all about yelling. There are plenty of angry progressives, but few progressive figureheads who are capable of directing that anger. Hence the completely ineffectual directionless movements like Occupy.
There are reasons for these things I'm sure, I'll let someone else speculate about that, but while this is market driven what people usually mean when that say that is "driven by demand" and I don't think that's true here. Or at least it's the lessor part of the story.
Ah, I really just put that in as a joke. Nothing wrong with driving a taxi of course, but it's hardly the sort of glamorous or well-paying position which offers a lot of incentive to give up things like privacy.
You're referring to certain very specific medical roles, I assume. I've never heard of medical professionals being fingerprinted as a matter of course. I would certainly be very hesitant to take a job which required biometric identification, I have avoided job listings stating a drug testing requirement for this reason. It's an absolutely unreasonable invasion or privacy for most positions.
I can picture a small number of fairly unique jobs where biometrics are sensible and necessary. In those limited cases, with assurance the the data would be used only for that purpose and would be deleted afterwards, I might consider such a position.
I don't know why you're so interested in my employment though. I don't live in Austin and I don't drive a taxi. My employment has nothing to do with what I said or with this story.
I dislike Uber as much as anyone... as much as most people, but demanding biometric identification which will stay on file forever is not acceptable. Not even if, in exchange, they allow to drive a taxi. Compelling incentive though that may be.
Slashdot Mirror
What is false? You're ignoring the point that the parent was making: the fact that the constitution doesn't mention airplanes specifically does not mean that traveling by air is not a right. Further: that fact also does not mean that traveling by air is not a right which is protected by the constitution. Just as the constitution does not mention which specific weapons are protected by the second amendment, so too does it not mention which specific methods of travel are protected. (In fact it doesn't specifically mention travel at all, the right to travel is implied.)
I think the point is that being on the terror watch list prevents you from doing other things, benign things like traveling by plane, but it doesn't prevent you from doing the most obvious thing: buying weapons.
Yes the list is extra-judicial and shouldn't exist at all, fine, but that's some pretty twisted legislation which allows arbitrary prevention of travel but not the purchase of firearms.
This copyright protection is 33 years old. Should we really be calling it "advanced"?
Some of the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. This is circular logic anyway - when you promote reforestation you're talking about sequestering the CO2 in the forest. It's not some scheme to grow wood and then bury it, the forest itself contains the CO2 and as long as the forest remains standing then that CO2 is contained.
According to the FBI, false claims of rape are 8% of the total. You can decide whether that qualifies as "tiny".
Huh. Well that's not so surprising, that's not a style which really works in the arcade.
Wonderboy 3 was like that? I cam here to say that I would have preferred to see the Wonder Boy in Monster Land / World spinoffs, for basically that reason, but I never played 3 and if this is the same idea then that'll be really nice.
I'd be willing to accept substantially increased risk if it meant getting away from the TSA. I've been idly thinking about getting a pilot's license for just that reason...
The tin foil hat in me is saying that's obviously the real reason the FAA shot this down - not enough groping. The pragmatist in me says that's probably not true, but the result is the same.
Honestly, I find this to be moderately encouraging. I had expected her to walk away from this scam with hundreds of millions, even though she had produced nothing of value and the existence of Theranos was a net drain on society. The fact that she's getting nothing, as she should, is one of those rare little hopeful moments which indicate that the system is working. At least, it's working on an occasional basis. That's something.
I'm not sure I'd call it defeatism, he's saying that these sorts of stories need to be paired with information about a means to address them. If anything, I'd call that optimistic.
It's not a bad idea, we get deluged with stories like this all the time and if we're to have any hope of getting away from this downward spiral at some point we're going to have to learn to respond. change.org isn't completely useless, those petitions do get referenced in the press every once in a while. A whitehouse.gov petition is a little more direct though.
I think it's pretty clear that he meant the stuff on ingredient labels, isn't it? Around here there's been a near continuous scare about "processed food" and "long lists of ingredients that you don't recognize and can't pronounce." To me it's obvious that these are the harmless chemicals that he's talking about.
The fact that there exist some things in food which can be bad for you is, I hope, a surprise to no one.
You mean ~30 years after he stopped eating bacon?
Speaking as someone who knows squat about cruises - why is Carnival an unacceptable option? And if they're a bad choice then what's a good choice?
So you're saying that we should all start Twitter campaigns about... Who, exactly? The executives, rather than the shareholders? That's what I'm getting from this.
Okay, fair enough. #executivegate
Nokia isn't manufacturing phones anymore, the summary says they're just licensing the brand. It's possible that these new companies will maintain some of Nokia's design practices, but you should assume that they'll maintain the quality.
... "Cheating" on her "boyfriend" with a "games journalist." Those videos that Baldwin watched were talking about cronyism in the gaming media. You're just going to leave that part out?
Where else would the name have come from? Why would he pick the name gamergate if it had nothing to do with gaming? Of course it had to do with gaming, and games journalism.
... That sounds an awful lot like forcing a private party to take responsibility for policing. How do you feel about that when it comes to ISPs? The media companies have been trying to make the ISPs and others, Youtube, etc., responsible for anything illegal that their users do. How about a restaurant? Do you hold a restaurant liable if someone comes in and shoots the customers?
Prior to the TSA the airports screened for weapons, it was a quick and easy metal detector thing. Not perfect, but good enough: it cut down on hijackings by a ton. This was before people considered terrorists who might not care about living. Now the cockpits are secured and there are air marshals, these are sufficient to deter further attempts to use airplanes as weapons. They would not be enough to stop a suicide bomber, but a few bomb-sniffing measures scattered around the airport are really as far as something like that should go. Planes are not the only place where suicide bombers are a threat, and I think (hope) that we have not reached the point where we're so paranoid that we're willing to put up with this crap everywhere on a day-to-day basis.
Well obviously what we need to do is get rid of the TSA, and I don't think that asking people to boycott flying is going to work. It didn't work when the TSA was first introduced and the lines jumped back then, it didn't work when they introduced the stripscanners (even though the early ones were possibly carcinogenic), didn't work with "enhanced patdown", etc. The best we seem to get with a boycott is the TSA makes things much worse, people complain and business slows a little, the TSA partially rolls back the change, and everyone starts flying again. Ignoring the fact that the change was only partially rolled back, so things keep getting worse incrementally.
But demanding that congress gets rid of the TSA and just goes back to metal detectors isn't going to work either, it's too much backpedaling. It would mean admitting a mistake. So I was thinking maybe a market solution would be the right approach: get a few startups offering low security flights, operating from a low security terminal at the airport. If they get a lot of business (and they will) it could drive a larger change as the bigger airlines adopt similar practices for some of their flights.
That is a piss-poor excuse for bad presidents. The president does a lot more than make decisions, this trip to Hiroshima is not "making a decision," it's strengthening our relationship with Japan. It's an act of diplomacy, one of many responsibilities that the president has.
Battlefield 1 at least has a bit of an excuse. A bit. It's set in World War One. ... 1. Get it?
Yeah, that might make sense if it weren't for the fact that the first game was called Battlefield 1942. This should should obviously be called Battlefield 1917 or something.
See, I'd buy this if it weren't for the fact that Battlefield is published by EA. Have they suddenly done an about-face on the DLC crap? I doubt it.
Also, this isn't new: DLC has been a problem for years now. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the entire player base has all of a sudden realized that it's detrimental to gaming. The people saying that it's gotten too sci-fi, away from its roots, seem more likely to be right.
Market-driven... That's an interesting question. I'll agree that that's true, but I'd say it's more supply side than demand side. Conservative listeners like to laugh, but there are very few conservative comedians who are actually funny. Dennis Miller used to be funny but over time he's just gotten angrier, and also more conservative.
Similarly, talk radio is all about yelling. There are plenty of angry progressives, but few progressive figureheads who are capable of directing that anger. Hence the completely ineffectual directionless movements like Occupy.
There are reasons for these things I'm sure, I'll let someone else speculate about that, but while this is market driven what people usually mean when that say that is "driven by demand" and I don't think that's true here. Or at least it's the lessor part of the story.
Ah, I really just put that in as a joke. Nothing wrong with driving a taxi of course, but it's hardly the sort of glamorous or well-paying position which offers a lot of incentive to give up things like privacy.
You're referring to certain very specific medical roles, I assume. I've never heard of medical professionals being fingerprinted as a matter of course. I would certainly be very hesitant to take a job which required biometric identification, I have avoided job listings stating a drug testing requirement for this reason. It's an absolutely unreasonable invasion or privacy for most positions.
I can picture a small number of fairly unique jobs where biometrics are sensible and necessary. In those limited cases, with assurance the the data would be used only for that purpose and would be deleted afterwards, I might consider such a position.
I don't know why you're so interested in my employment though. I don't live in Austin and I don't drive a taxi. My employment has nothing to do with what I said or with this story.
I dislike Uber as much as anyone... as much as most people, but demanding biometric identification which will stay on file forever is not acceptable. Not even if, in exchange, they allow to drive a taxi. Compelling incentive though that may be.