It doesn't sound like this is a fire hazard, I don't see any reason why you couldn't take it on a plane. You're right about the dead man's switch though - that does seem like the only way that you could plausibly get away with destroying evidence like that. I don't know why the parent even asked that question, of course it's destroying evidence if the cops pull you over and then you... destroy evidence.
Well, continuing the parallel between country and union - not really, it depends on the industry. Much as how rich countries make it tough to immigrate, unions in industries with a surplus of workers make it tough to join the union. For basically the same reason.
It's funny, there was a story just the other day about H1-B visas which inspired exactly the opposite response in most of the comments. When the union is the country, and the scabs they're keeping out are foreigners, the union is great (as long as you don't call it a union, even though it's doing exactly the same thing).
She was not a good candidate! That should have been obvious to the big money contributors, it should have obvious to the other politicians that were going to have to back her candidacy, and it should have been obvious to the party.
If you're genuinely confused about all of this: everything that you've said regarding her eligibility as candidate is a negative, you've considered none of the positive reasons why the DNC / contributors / others would consider her to be a good candidate. She checks most of the classic political boxes, in another era not so long ago she would have made a very fine candidate based on her positive qualities - enough to overcome any of the negatives or perceived negatives that you mention.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be how it works anymore and the DNC hasn't caught on to that yet.
This is absolutely not true: 'That relationship has never been too friendly, with former president Hiroshi Yamauchi saying in 2000 that third-parties are "not helping the industry at all."' I'm not familiar with that quote, and I recognize that there's a difference between being friendly towards third parties and getting a lot of third parties developing for your platform. So pointing to the broad support which Nintendo has received for many of its platforms isn't necessarily disproving anything, but I do know that the original NES was created specifically with third party devs in mind - one of the requirements when developing the hardware was that dev kits should cost no more than $100, in order to make it as accessible as possible to outside developers.
Now, that's going back quite a few years, it's true, but so is quoting a company president from 2000, who has been replaced twice since then.
It was a voice vote - unanimous / bipartisan in the house. I'm curious why it's only senate republicans opposing this, and not house republicans, but it does seem to be a partisan issue. Just not in the house, for some reason.
That's not how it works. The law only prohibits hiring decisions which are made to the detriment of someone in a protected class, if that decision is made because of that person's membership in that class. It is perfectly legal to make hiring decisions based on race, age, gender, etc., provided that you don't run afoul of this issue.
Well... it kinda depends on what you're trying to do. Privacy Badger is about protecting your privacy, Adblock just blocks ads. There's some overlap there, but they're not the same thing. That said, I don't think that Privacy Badger is foolproof. It's not the only thing that I use. If you want a blocklist-based privacy filter though, I still wouldn't go with Ghostery. Try Disconnect.
Ghostery is produced by a for-profit company with some dubious motives. It's closed source, and it does collect information, but maybe that information isn't so bad? I don't know, I don't want to slander them unfairly and I do think that the information collection is optional. It also uses a block list to determine what to block which... while not terrible, is not the best approach I think. You just wind up playing wack-a-mole and something's always going to slip through.
Privacy Badger is produced by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is open source, and uses a pattern-recognition approach in determining what to block.
Ghostery [mozilla.org] DON'T UPDATE. New versions don't allow sufficient user control.
USE THIS: ghostery-5.4.10-sm+an+fx.xpi Link: Version 5.4.10 [mozilla.org]
I'd suggest not using Ghostery at all, and going with Privacy Badger instead.
If you actually read the paper you linked, it's way more interesting and way less simple than you're suggesting with your claim that "Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form." First: the paper notes that these results are inconsistent with results from a couple of other similar studies, and speculates that perhaps the reason is regional - all of the test subjects in this study were British, while a similar study conducted in the US showed a 12% decrease in mortality among vegetarians.
Second: while the overall mortality was similar among the tested groups, when they picked out eighteen common causes of death and looked just at those (cancers, heart problems, etc.) the groups which ate little or no meat all had lower mortality by 7-10%. So, somehow, British people who eat less meat are more likely to die for unusual reasons.
"END OF STORY," you say, while linking the same article that the other guy did. Couldn't possibly be more to it than that, that's the end of the story. Never mind that it's a single succinct paragraph in an article about something else. Never mind that there are plenty of other articles going into greater depth on the subject, and showing that the first one really misrepresented the situation. Never mind that even if all of that business were true, it still wouldn't approach Trump's sweeping ban on everyone from seven countries regardless of their immigration status. Never mind all that. End of story.
Okay, thanks for answering my question anyway. Apparently that article is indeed where that rumor started (link), though the only thing that actually happened was that they stopped taking new applications for a while while they redid the existing applications. There were no bans, and new refugees continued come in during this time.
This is why it was lawful when President Obama banned all Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011.
There was no refugee ban under Obama, I don't know where you all are getting this from. There was a period in 2011 when vetting was increased for refugees from Iraq, and... that's it. At no point was there a ban, at no point were Iraqi refugees prohibited from entering the country, there was never a time when Iraqi refugees were not entering the country.
That other stuff will probably come, in fact I think some of that was part of the ACLU's argument which won a stay in New York. This was a judge in Washington and was addressing an issue within his jurisdiction, within the boundaries of what was presented to him.
The fact that these were H-1B workers seems like a flamebait headline - losing 76 employees, all at once and without warning (surprise!), would have been a big issue regardless of the terms of their employment. And also: 5,000 people losing their jobs all of a sudden, without warning - that's a big deal too. Yet it seems like the submitter is trying to spin this as a positive because these particular employees are part of the H-1B program.
I'm sure I'm not alone in not being interested in using multiple services and dealing with multiple friends lists etc.
This is a universal problem. There are only two ways to around it: give a monopoly to a single company, thereby allowing them to charge whatever they want and set any rules they like on which games they'll allow to be sold. Or second: do the same thing but with a nonprofit consortium, who will handle all of the distribution for the for-profit publishers. This second option shuts out independent developers, allowing the companies which control the consortium to charge whatever they want to those too small to be members. It also has the problem of not making buckets of money for the gatekeeper company like the first option does, so... no one wants to do it. Instead, they all want to fight for a piece of that walled garden pie.
Or, there's a third way: stop tying your purchases to your friends list. Handle your communications through a third party platform or service, and just use these stupid distribution programs for your games. If you buy DRM free games, you don't even have to worry about the stupid distribution programs - you can just keep the install files on disc and quit screwing around with this crap.
Er... Um... huh. This is a weird thing to respond to.
I'm not going to do a super long post here, but: "the effective ingredient in them is probably the belladonna rather than the homeopathic ingredients" is wildly off the mark. The point of homeopathic medications is that the active ingredients, including the belladonna, are present in such tiny amounts that they don't do anything. You can put poison in these things because there isn't enough to matter.
This is why the FDA doesn't regulate them: because they don't do anything. This is also why over-the-counter homeopathic remedies for infants weren't removed: because they don't do anything, so they aren't dangerous. In principle you can give your baby as much as you want, because it doesn't matter.
The problem here is a manufacturing defect, some of the pills contain too much poison. When you say that you want to know "what the current consistency of the belladonna levels in the product is" what you're asking is: "What are the odds that my baby will die if I give it some of these pills?" We don't know what the answer to that is, and you may find that frustrating but... what number is low enough for you here? If the FDA comes out and says, "0.0001%" are you going to shrug and say, "That's fine."?
Interestingly, this isn't the first time that this product has been scrutinized by the FDA over this issue. Link.
How many people are you counting as being part of the oil industry? Are you including gas station attendants? Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the US, and they only have 75,300 employees. (number from Wikipedia)
The thing about oil, part of the reason why it's so profitable, is that it doesn't take a lot of people. You drill a hole and wait. Exxon is also near the top in the world among companies in terms of revenue per employee.
If their measure is the willingness of the government to carry out the will of the people, it's probably mostly about the election of a president by a minority of the population. Though I'm sure that the supreme court thing factors in somewhere.
All FCC commissioners are presidential appointees, but only three of those are allowed to be from the president's party. You might think that the president would seek out sympathetic members of the opposing party, but since they're in a minority, and so don't have a lot of power, and since all of the commissioners need to be approved by the senate (and to maintain the appearance of bipartisanship), the two minority commissioners are typically opposition party mainliners.
In other words, the fact that Obama appointed this guy means nothing. Also, all this nice talk about closing the "digital divide" is just a prelude to saying that regulations are what are really holding us back from a digital utopia and that gutting net neutrality is the only real answer. Ajit Pai has been consistently against net neutrality and against reclassifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.
The interviewer clearly thought that he meant to eliminate it entirely, and then in response to being questioned on that he says "We can leave a little bit." That's a conciliatory statement. He's not hellbent on destroying every last shred of the EPA, but he stated a preference to do so.
Further: "leaving a little bit" does not make for an effective regulatory body. Even if there does remain a shred of EPA left after all of this is said and done, the original point of this thread, namely that this gag order is a genuine cause for concern, remains true.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, ha. Thanks for clearly that up for me, that's exactly what I thought.
Was wondering how he was selling this, independent of the walled garden...
It doesn't sound like this is a fire hazard, I don't see any reason why you couldn't take it on a plane. You're right about the dead man's switch though - that does seem like the only way that you could plausibly get away with destroying evidence like that. I don't know why the parent even asked that question, of course it's destroying evidence if the cops pull you over and then you... destroy evidence.
Well, continuing the parallel between country and union - not really, it depends on the industry. Much as how rich countries make it tough to immigrate, unions in industries with a surplus of workers make it tough to join the union. For basically the same reason.
It's funny, there was a story just the other day about H1-B visas which inspired exactly the opposite response in most of the comments. When the union is the country, and the scabs they're keeping out are foreigners, the union is great (as long as you don't call it a union, even though it's doing exactly the same thing).
She was not a good candidate! That should have been obvious to the big money contributors, it should have obvious to the other politicians that were going to have to back her candidacy, and it should have been obvious to the party.
If you're genuinely confused about all of this: everything that you've said regarding her eligibility as candidate is a negative, you've considered none of the positive reasons why the DNC / contributors / others would consider her to be a good candidate. She checks most of the classic political boxes, in another era not so long ago she would have made a very fine candidate based on her positive qualities - enough to overcome any of the negatives or perceived negatives that you mention.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be how it works anymore and the DNC hasn't caught on to that yet.
This is absolutely not true: 'That relationship has never been too friendly, with former president Hiroshi Yamauchi saying in 2000 that third-parties are "not helping the industry at all."' I'm not familiar with that quote, and I recognize that there's a difference between being friendly towards third parties and getting a lot of third parties developing for your platform. So pointing to the broad support which Nintendo has received for many of its platforms isn't necessarily disproving anything, but I do know that the original NES was created specifically with third party devs in mind - one of the requirements when developing the hardware was that dev kits should cost no more than $100, in order to make it as accessible as possible to outside developers.
Now, that's going back quite a few years, it's true, but so is quoting a company president from 2000, who has been replaced twice since then.
It was a voice vote - unanimous / bipartisan in the house. I'm curious why it's only senate republicans opposing this, and not house republicans, but it does seem to be a partisan issue. Just not in the house, for some reason.
That's not how it works. The law only prohibits hiring decisions which are made to the detriment of someone in a protected class, if that decision is made because of that person's membership in that class. It is perfectly legal to make hiring decisions based on race, age, gender, etc., provided that you don't run afoul of this issue.
Well... it kinda depends on what you're trying to do. Privacy Badger is about protecting your privacy, Adblock just blocks ads. There's some overlap there, but they're not the same thing. That said, I don't think that Privacy Badger is foolproof. It's not the only thing that I use. If you want a blocklist-based privacy filter though, I still wouldn't go with Ghostery. Try Disconnect.
Ghostery is produced by a for-profit company with some dubious motives. It's closed source, and it does collect information, but maybe that information isn't so bad? I don't know, I don't want to slander them unfairly and I do think that the information collection is optional. It also uses a block list to determine what to block which... while not terrible, is not the best approach I think. You just wind up playing wack-a-mole and something's always going to slip through.
Privacy Badger is produced by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is open source, and uses a pattern-recognition approach in determining what to block.
Ghostery [mozilla.org] DON'T UPDATE. New versions don't allow sufficient user control. USE THIS: ghostery-5.4.10-sm+an+fx.xpi Link: Version 5.4.10 [mozilla.org]
I'd suggest not using Ghostery at all, and going with Privacy Badger instead.
If you actually read the paper you linked, it's way more interesting and way less simple than you're suggesting with your claim that "Meat isn't bad for you, in any way shape or form." First: the paper notes that these results are inconsistent with results from a couple of other similar studies, and speculates that perhaps the reason is regional - all of the test subjects in this study were British, while a similar study conducted in the US showed a 12% decrease in mortality among vegetarians.
Second: while the overall mortality was similar among the tested groups, when they picked out eighteen common causes of death and looked just at those (cancers, heart problems, etc.) the groups which ate little or no meat all had lower mortality by 7-10%. So, somehow, British people who eat less meat are more likely to die for unusual reasons.
"END OF STORY," you say, while linking the same article that the other guy did. Couldn't possibly be more to it than that, that's the end of the story. Never mind that it's a single succinct paragraph in an article about something else. Never mind that there are plenty of other articles going into greater depth on the subject, and showing that the first one really misrepresented the situation. Never mind that even if all of that business were true, it still wouldn't approach Trump's sweeping ban on everyone from seven countries regardless of their immigration status. Never mind all that. End of story.
Okay, thanks for answering my question anyway. Apparently that article is indeed where that rumor started (link), though the only thing that actually happened was that they stopped taking new applications for a while while they redid the existing applications. There were no bans, and new refugees continued come in during this time.
This is why it was lawful when President Obama banned all Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011.
There was no refugee ban under Obama, I don't know where you all are getting this from. There was a period in 2011 when vetting was increased for refugees from Iraq, and... that's it. At no point was there a ban, at no point were Iraqi refugees prohibited from entering the country, there was never a time when Iraqi refugees were not entering the country.
That other stuff will probably come, in fact I think some of that was part of the ACLU's argument which won a stay in New York. This was a judge in Washington and was addressing an issue within his jurisdiction, within the boundaries of what was presented to him.
The fact that these were H-1B workers seems like a flamebait headline - losing 76 employees, all at once and without warning (surprise!), would have been a big issue regardless of the terms of their employment. And also: 5,000 people losing their jobs all of a sudden, without warning - that's a big deal too. Yet it seems like the submitter is trying to spin this as a positive because these particular employees are part of the H-1B program.
I'm sure I'm not alone in not being interested in using multiple services and dealing with multiple friends lists etc.
This is a universal problem. There are only two ways to around it: give a monopoly to a single company, thereby allowing them to charge whatever they want and set any rules they like on which games they'll allow to be sold. Or second: do the same thing but with a nonprofit consortium, who will handle all of the distribution for the for-profit publishers. This second option shuts out independent developers, allowing the companies which control the consortium to charge whatever they want to those too small to be members. It also has the problem of not making buckets of money for the gatekeeper company like the first option does, so... no one wants to do it. Instead, they all want to fight for a piece of that walled garden pie.
Or, there's a third way: stop tying your purchases to your friends list. Handle your communications through a third party platform or service, and just use these stupid distribution programs for your games. If you buy DRM free games, you don't even have to worry about the stupid distribution programs - you can just keep the install files on disc and quit screwing around with this crap.
Huh. If I'm not racist, but I start calling myself racist anyway, does that mean that racist doesn't mean racist anymore?
Maybe a better question is: why would I adopt a name like that, if I didn't believe in something about it?
Er... Um... huh. This is a weird thing to respond to.
I'm not going to do a super long post here, but: "the effective ingredient in them is probably the belladonna rather than the homeopathic ingredients" is wildly off the mark. The point of homeopathic medications is that the active ingredients, including the belladonna, are present in such tiny amounts that they don't do anything. You can put poison in these things because there isn't enough to matter.
This is why the FDA doesn't regulate them: because they don't do anything. This is also why over-the-counter homeopathic remedies for infants weren't removed: because they don't do anything, so they aren't dangerous. In principle you can give your baby as much as you want, because it doesn't matter.
The problem here is a manufacturing defect, some of the pills contain too much poison. When you say that you want to know "what the current consistency of the belladonna levels in the product is" what you're asking is: "What are the odds that my baby will die if I give it some of these pills?" We don't know what the answer to that is, and you may find that frustrating but... what number is low enough for you here? If the FDA comes out and says, "0.0001%" are you going to shrug and say, "That's fine."?
Interestingly, this isn't the first time that this product has been scrutinized by the FDA over this issue. Link.
How many people are you counting as being part of the oil industry? Are you including gas station attendants? Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the US, and they only have 75,300 employees. (number from Wikipedia)
The thing about oil, part of the reason why it's so profitable, is that it doesn't take a lot of people. You drill a hole and wait. Exxon is also near the top in the world among companies in terms of revenue per employee.
If their measure is the willingness of the government to carry out the will of the people, it's probably mostly about the election of a president by a minority of the population. Though I'm sure that the supreme court thing factors in somewhere.
All FCC commissioners are presidential appointees, but only three of those are allowed to be from the president's party. You might think that the president would seek out sympathetic members of the opposing party, but since they're in a minority, and so don't have a lot of power, and since all of the commissioners need to be approved by the senate (and to maintain the appearance of bipartisanship), the two minority commissioners are typically opposition party mainliners.
In other words, the fact that Obama appointed this guy means nothing. Also, all this nice talk about closing the "digital divide" is just a prelude to saying that regulations are what are really holding us back from a digital utopia and that gutting net neutrality is the only real answer. Ajit Pai has been consistently against net neutrality and against reclassifying ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.
Q: Who's going to protect the environment?
Clearly the interviewer believed that he meant to cut it entirely.
The interviewer clearly thought that he meant to eliminate it entirely, and then in response to being questioned on that he says "We can leave a little bit." That's a conciliatory statement. He's not hellbent on destroying every last shred of the EPA, but he stated a preference to do so.
Further: "leaving a little bit" does not make for an effective regulatory body. Even if there does remain a shred of EPA left after all of this is said and done, the original point of this thread, namely that this gag order is a genuine cause for concern, remains true.
It's quoted in the summary. You don't even have to RTFA, it's right there.