In the US it varies by state, but no: there's a whole host of things which can get you registered as a sex offender. When I lived in Louisiana I had a neighbor who was registered as a sex offender - the description on the card that he had to give to people was that he had "committed a crime against nature." In reality, he had paid a prostitute for oral sex. No children involved.
There's some rhetoric floating around making the claim that the majority of people who have committed sexual crimes are that way by nature. In other words: the sex offender label is an inseparable part of their character, rather than just a description of something which they did in their past.
If you watch this lecture by David Lisak, for example, while he exudes rigor and professionalism, he does seem to hold to this viewpoint and does his best to defend it. The only qualifier in that lecture is a single sentence about prison, perhaps, changing people in this respect.
It feels like a familiar line of thinking, though I'm not sure what to call it. It's not eugenics, since no one is claiming that this is purely a genetic problem. Though Lisak, above, does claim that it's established at a young age.
Trader Joe's is substantially cheaper than Whole Foods right now. Cutting prices wouldn't be terrible, but it will likely come along with changing their inventory from the unique (and expensive) items which they have currently, to the staple brands that you can get at any grocery store. As you say: there's no need for another Safeway. (Or Kroger, or whatever. I've never been to a Safeway.)
Censure is a rebuke, it's a response - it comes after the negative action. Censorship is the correct word for what the parent is describing, where Nintendo prevented certain types of speech on their platform. When Nintendo did it to their own games that was self-censorship (the worst kind of censorship, since it's invisible), when Nintendo did it to other developers trying to publish on their platform it was just regular censorship.
What you seem to be suggesting is that because other platforms existed, and publishers could have taken their games to those other platforms, then being blocked from one platform doesn't count as censorship. You must be blocked form all platforms. In other words, speech isn't censored so long as it is possible, somehow, to still speak in some way. Whispering in your lover's ear, for example, while the radio plays loudly in the background so the spooks can't hear you.
By that logic, censorship basically can't exist. That definition is just far too restrictive.
Have you considered that maybe this is being "politically correct," and maybe that just isn't what you think it is? Oftentimes when something gets politicized and turned into an insult, people lose track of its inoffensive origins.
Also, ThatOnePrivacyGuy (who mostly does VPN reviews) has a section on his website for email services. I like his reviews, he seems to have a good approach to all of this.
Where does this subsidies rumor keep coming from? Yes the subsidies may have been the deciding factor at first, but they did their job and drove down costs as the new technologies gained wider adoption. It's been years now since then. Here, the Energy Information Administration publishes an annual forecast on the costs of different sources of energy. You can see that the cost ($/MWh) before subsidies is lower for onshore wind than anything save geothermal and basically tied with natural gas (but only natural gas plants which do not capture carbon emissions). And the cost for photovoltaic solar before subsidies is just above that, more expensive than hydroelectric but still cheaper than nuclear, biomass, etc.
There's some variation there depending on how you measure, you can see there are multiple charts, but in none of those are solar or wind dependent on subsidies to be more cost effective than most of their competition.
The court has certainly been asked to weigh in on the issue before, they declined to do so. This is typical for the supreme court. And yes, I'm aware of the rhetoric: "Now that we have decided something to be true, it has always been true." And in the future when/if they change it again, it will have always been true then as well.
What? No, of course not - it's an amendment. It enumerates some rights, but what those rights are has changed as the interpretation of the amendment has changed.
Every mass shooting starts a gun control debate. There's a checklist around here somewhere... Let me see if I've got this right:
"Here we have a typical example of a responsible gun owner."
"Now is not the time to discuss gun control, we need to wait until people forget about this."
"Why has no one declared this to be an act of terrorism yet?"
"This is obviously some deeply disturbed person with a history of mental health problems."
"This is why gun free zones don't work."
"This is why gun free zones aren't big enough."
It goes on. People are treating this particular mass shooting like it's different from all the other mass shootings because I guess it's more obviously political, since there are politicians involved, but these are always politically motivated.
Come on folks, all this hateful rhetoric needs to come to a full and final stop.
The specific targeting of the right needs to end.
Oh yeah, that's really helping. "Come on everyone, let's all get together and agree that it's that half of the country who are to blame for everything."
"Never" is a long time. Individual ownership of firearms has only been a constitutional right since 2008 - given that this is something which has changed only recently, assuming that it can never change again seems like folly.
People who were there say it is so. That should be enough in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
That is not the evidence that you linked. You gave links to an accusation and to an incredibly overblown reaction to a hiring manager commiserating with an applicant (not actually saying anything about sexism at Uber). And "Hearsay should be enough to assume guilt in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? That's what you're going with? "Everybody knows" it must be true, therefore it's true?
If you want to make a blanket statement like, "there's lots of sexism in Silicon Valley," you can maybe get away with that. With no evidence, it may or may not be true but you're (probably) harming no one with your claim so there's little reason to demand a high burden of proof. When you say, "Somebody accused so-and-so of a heinous deed, let's assume their guilt." you're violating one of our basic tenants of justice.
Be careful of the word liberalism: it means something different in the United States. Using the word "liberal" in a positive way will get your argument summarily dismissed by a large number of people, even if you're using the word in a way which they otherwise would not protest.
That's a good point. A university isn't just about research and classes, the school is to some degree there to help people who are young and dumb grow into people who are less dumb. And that sometimes means stopping them when they do something stupid, including when they invite someone to the school who preys on the gullible. Saying, "Yes I'm a con artist, but I'm a political con artist so you can't touch me." should not be a defense.
Okay. I mentioned Los Angeles because it's the same way, though it additionally has a problem (I'm told) with geography trapping the pollution in one place.
This isn't about CO2. Capturing carbon requires mass, since that's where the carbon goes. Trees can capture carbon way more efficiently than moss can. Moss can capture particulate pollution pretty well though, and that tends to be a problem in cities.
This does make sense in that respect, but with a few notable exceptions (Los Angeles) it's probably way more efficient to address the sources of the particulate pollution - usually coal power plants in/near the city.
If you read the article you would see that no: Merck, who profits from this $156k/year drug, only supplied it. The study was funded by philanthropies (sic).
You're making an assumption of guilt. The primary cause of of the request was the politicization of the investigation, which requires no conduct on the part of the accused. The secondary cause of the request was the existence of the investigation, which again does not require any conduct on the part of the accused. That's the whole point of an investigation - determining guilt. The tertiary cause was the reason for the investigation - accusations from Clinton's political rivals. After that would be Clinton's alleged guilty conduct.
Though you seem to be suggesting that having an email server at all was the reason for the investigation. Or maybe using it for some classified documents. Or whatever that other stuff was that people were throwing at her. This is not the case, that was uncontested. No investigation necessary.
It had nothing to do with Clinton's conduct. This was only about how the investigation (or "matter" or whatever) was described to the public.
It's true that this was an attempt to reduce the public's impression of the severity of the matter (or "investigation" or whatever), but you're at least two steps removed from Clinton herself, or her conduct.
Unfortunately, it's not politicians allowing this to happen. It's the Supreme court. Here, this is the most relevant decision. Though there are a set of decisions related to that.
... Is what I was going to say. Actually, I'm reading a little more on this and apparently it goes back to the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which allows for contractually-based forced arbitration. The recent rulings seem to be about extending this to class-action lawsuits. i.e.: AT&T is using the arbitration clause to not only force individuals into arbitration, but to preclude any class-action suits against them. Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm reading that wrong.
So I guess we could blame present day politicians for failing to get rid of a century-old law, but that seems kind of arbitrary. Maybe we should just point out that this law is a harmful one, and ask that it be removed without placing blame.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think regular rape gets you on the list.
In the US it varies by state, but no: there's a whole host of things which can get you registered as a sex offender. When I lived in Louisiana I had a neighbor who was registered as a sex offender - the description on the card that he had to give to people was that he had "committed a crime against nature." In reality, he had paid a prostitute for oral sex. No children involved.
There's some rhetoric floating around making the claim that the majority of people who have committed sexual crimes are that way by nature. In other words: the sex offender label is an inseparable part of their character, rather than just a description of something which they did in their past.
If you watch this lecture by David Lisak, for example, while he exudes rigor and professionalism, he does seem to hold to this viewpoint and does his best to defend it. The only qualifier in that lecture is a single sentence about prison, perhaps, changing people in this respect.
It feels like a familiar line of thinking, though I'm not sure what to call it. It's not eugenics, since no one is claiming that this is purely a genetic problem. Though Lisak, above, does claim that it's established at a young age.
Trader Joe's is substantially cheaper than Whole Foods right now. Cutting prices wouldn't be terrible, but it will likely come along with changing their inventory from the unique (and expensive) items which they have currently, to the staple brands that you can get at any grocery store. As you say: there's no need for another Safeway. (Or Kroger, or whatever. I've never been to a Safeway.)
Censure is a rebuke, it's a response - it comes after the negative action. Censorship is the correct word for what the parent is describing, where Nintendo prevented certain types of speech on their platform. When Nintendo did it to their own games that was self-censorship (the worst kind of censorship, since it's invisible), when Nintendo did it to other developers trying to publish on their platform it was just regular censorship.
What you seem to be suggesting is that because other platforms existed, and publishers could have taken their games to those other platforms, then being blocked from one platform doesn't count as censorship. You must be blocked form all platforms. In other words, speech isn't censored so long as it is possible, somehow, to still speak in some way. Whispering in your lover's ear, for example, while the radio plays loudly in the background so the spooks can't hear you.
By that logic, censorship basically can't exist. That definition is just far too restrictive.
Have you considered that maybe this is being "politically correct," and maybe that just isn't what you think it is? Oftentimes when something gets politicized and turned into an insult, people lose track of its inoffensive origins.
"Tyranny" leads to a low birth rate? Come on, at least keep it plausible.
A couple more: countermail.com, neomailbox.com
Also, ThatOnePrivacyGuy (who mostly does VPN reviews) has a section on his website for email services. I like his reviews, he seems to have a good approach to all of this.
Where does this subsidies rumor keep coming from? Yes the subsidies may have been the deciding factor at first, but they did their job and drove down costs as the new technologies gained wider adoption. It's been years now since then. Here, the Energy Information Administration publishes an annual forecast on the costs of different sources of energy. You can see that the cost ($/MWh) before subsidies is lower for onshore wind than anything save geothermal and basically tied with natural gas (but only natural gas plants which do not capture carbon emissions). And the cost for photovoltaic solar before subsidies is just above that, more expensive than hydroelectric but still cheaper than nuclear, biomass, etc.
There's some variation there depending on how you measure, you can see there are multiple charts, but in none of those are solar or wind dependent on subsidies to be more cost effective than most of their competition.
The court has certainly been asked to weigh in on the issue before, they declined to do so. This is typical for the supreme court. And yes, I'm aware of the rhetoric: "Now that we have decided something to be true, it has always been true." And in the future when/if they change it again, it will have always been true then as well.
You seem to be talk about gun ownership rather than about rights. Yes those things are related, but it's not the same discussion.
What? No, of course not - it's an amendment. It enumerates some rights, but what those rights are has changed as the interpretation of the amendment has changed.
Every mass shooting starts a gun control debate. There's a checklist around here somewhere... Let me see if I've got this right:
"Here we have a typical example of a responsible gun owner."
"Now is not the time to discuss gun control, we need to wait until people forget about this."
"Why has no one declared this to be an act of terrorism yet?"
"This is obviously some deeply disturbed person with a history of mental health problems."
"This is why gun free zones don't work."
"This is why gun free zones aren't big enough."
It goes on. People are treating this particular mass shooting like it's different from all the other mass shootings because I guess it's more obviously political, since there are politicians involved, but these are always politically motivated.
Come on folks, all this hateful rhetoric needs to come to a full and final stop.
The specific targeting of the right needs to end.
Oh yeah, that's really helping. "Come on everyone, let's all get together and agree that it's that half of the country who are to blame for everything."
"Never" is a long time. Individual ownership of firearms has only been a constitutional right since 2008 - given that this is something which has changed only recently, assuming that it can never change again seems like folly.
People who were there say it is so. That should be enough in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
That is not the evidence that you linked. You gave links to an accusation and to an incredibly overblown reaction to a hiring manager commiserating with an applicant (not actually saying anything about sexism at Uber). And "Hearsay should be enough to assume guilt in the absence of evidence to the contrary"? That's what you're going with? "Everybody knows" it must be true, therefore it's true?
If you want to make a blanket statement like, "there's lots of sexism in Silicon Valley," you can maybe get away with that. With no evidence, it may or may not be true but you're (probably) harming no one with your claim so there's little reason to demand a high burden of proof. When you say, "Somebody accused so-and-so of a heinous deed, let's assume their guilt." you're violating one of our basic tenants of justice.
Be careful of the word liberalism: it means something different in the United States. Using the word "liberal" in a positive way will get your argument summarily dismissed by a large number of people, even if you're using the word in a way which they otherwise would not protest.
That's a good point. A university isn't just about research and classes, the school is to some degree there to help people who are young and dumb grow into people who are less dumb. And that sometimes means stopping them when they do something stupid, including when they invite someone to the school who preys on the gullible. Saying, "Yes I'm a con artist, but I'm a political con artist so you can't touch me." should not be a defense.
Simple solution: stop being left-handed.
Okay. I mentioned Los Angeles because it's the same way, though it additionally has a problem (I'm told) with geography trapping the pollution in one place.
This isn't about CO2. Capturing carbon requires mass, since that's where the carbon goes. Trees can capture carbon way more efficiently than moss can. Moss can capture particulate pollution pretty well though, and that tends to be a problem in cities.
This does make sense in that respect, but with a few notable exceptions (Los Angeles) it's probably way more efficient to address the sources of the particulate pollution - usually coal power plants in/near the city.
If you read the article you would see that no: Merck, who profits from this $156k/year drug, only supplied it. The study was funded by philanthropies (sic).
I don't... we were talking about whether or not the word that the FBI used was related to Clinton's conduct.
You're making an assumption of guilt. The primary cause of of the request was the politicization of the investigation, which requires no conduct on the part of the accused. The secondary cause of the request was the existence of the investigation, which again does not require any conduct on the part of the accused. That's the whole point of an investigation - determining guilt. The tertiary cause was the reason for the investigation - accusations from Clinton's political rivals. After that would be Clinton's alleged guilty conduct.
Though you seem to be suggesting that having an email server at all was the reason for the investigation. Or maybe using it for some classified documents. Or whatever that other stuff was that people were throwing at her. This is not the case, that was uncontested. No investigation necessary.
It had nothing to do with Clinton's conduct. This was only about how the investigation (or "matter" or whatever) was described to the public.
It's true that this was an attempt to reduce the public's impression of the severity of the matter (or "investigation" or whatever), but you're at least two steps removed from Clinton herself, or her conduct.
Unfortunately, it's not politicians allowing this to happen. It's the Supreme court. Here, this is the most relevant decision. Though there are a set of decisions related to that.
... Is what I was going to say. Actually, I'm reading a little more on this and apparently it goes back to the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which allows for contractually-based forced arbitration. The recent rulings seem to be about extending this to class-action lawsuits. i.e.: AT&T is using the arbitration clause to not only force individuals into arbitration, but to preclude any class-action suits against them. Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm reading that wrong.
So I guess we could blame present day politicians for failing to get rid of a century-old law, but that seems kind of arbitrary. Maybe we should just point out that this law is a harmful one, and ask that it be removed without placing blame.