Looks like the EU just found out about the wisdom of the US 4th amendment to be secure in their persons, houses, papers vs big government or a politico-economic union tyranny.
"Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[3] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
More like the US hasn't quite learned the lesson, or has begun to forget it.
For someone who claims to not be a politician, Trump is very good as politician-speak - the art of telling people you'll do things with no intentions/plans/ability to follow through on it.
Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference? How long until people realize that President Trump won't be able to do half the things he claims he'll do?
If he pulled off half of what he claims, he would be 10x better than any previous candidate.
If he pulls off half of what he claims the US economy will tank.
While I don't think the idea makes a lot of sense (Pinkdot anyone?), it is pretty cool.
Serious question: why send these from a warehouse? Why not load a flat bed truck up with 50 or so, and drive it to the closest point that all 50 deliveries share and then release them from the back of the flat bed all at the same time. The video linked in the post shows a drone being launched from a warehouse; not too many people live near amazon warehouses.
Because, at least for now driving requires a human and Amazon probably wants to eliminate humans from the equation - excepting the customer of course.
And, if you are even a bit of a tinkerer or garage mechanic you also know that harbor freight crap is generally inferior to Snap On or MAC.
I disagree...last time I tried to use a MAC hammer the screen broke and the Thunderbolt port stopped working, and it didn't even drive the nail in properly.
If you're going to suggest an app, Signal is the one. For one, it's open source. Second, it's backed by the EFF and a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden.
I don't like this kind of stuff very much. It seems like this administration is willing to get us involved in every conflict on the globe... but not very much involved. Enough to piss all the locals off, but not enough to affect the outcome of whatever is going on. I'd rather see the US adhere to the so-called "Powell Doctrine" (much older than Powell) - stay out of other peoples' business until significant national interests are really at stake. And if you have to go to war you don't do it half-assed.
The target countries specified are part of the larger war being fought against Al-Qaeda and Daesh (IS) :
"...he thinks even advanced aliens wouldn't be able to build something capable of covering a fifth of a star in just a century. What's more, such an object should radiate light absorbed from the star as heat, but the infrared signal from Tabby's star appears normal, he says."
Our grandparents couldn't imagine the technology that our children use today without thought.
How much hubris does it take to believe that we know what kind of technology 'advanced' aliens - or even the grandchildren of our grandchildren - will be able to achieve?
Humans place a premium on their own life but we aren't talking about suicide here
We are talking about individual action which doesn't disprove the general rule. Individual suicide doesn't disprove human premium on self-life, individual female-icide doesn't disprove society's premium on female life.
Society's disapproval of suicide via religion edicts, and sometimes even laws prohibiting suicide demonstrate society's attitude. Laws/policies/rules from legislators/organizations removing women from dangerous jobs demonstrate society's attitude.
You're reaching. There is no aspect of suicide that is applicable to this discussion.
This is a statement based on empirical evidence of the actual situation, not on a general feeling that it should be the case due to laws: There is such a serious gender imbalance (fact), caused by gendercide in the society (fact), therefore the society is not protecting females (inescapable conclusion).
Laws are created by a few and are obviously not being followed by many - in this case enough to create said imbalance.
I want the best people to come to my country. I want doctors and engineers and hard workers. I don't give two shits if they're muslim or christian or buddhist or atheist. If I go to a doctor to get heart surgery, I don't care if the doctor is a muslim, I care if he's a good doctor. And so what if he's muslim anyway. His kids or his grandkids will be atheist, like everyone else's kids.
Yes but you're making the assumption of integration, which is desirable but which is, unfortunately, not happening.
I am not against immigration with integration. I am against the too rapid immigration without integration that is happening in Europe today and that will, if allowed to continue without said integration, impose its culture on my children.
"If integration is such a failure, explain why England and Anglo cultures are still around? We've been integrating for literally centuries. When a new group of immigrants comes over, they slowly become part of the fabric of a nation. If they don't it is almost always the fault of the host nation for forcing them into ghettos and disallowing them the chance to participate in a nations culture."
There is a difference between a culture who is willing to integrate and a culture who expects everyone else to adapt to them. When the percentage of the latter in a community is small, the children, at least, will integrate over time. When you get enough of the latter together in a community they then refuse to integrate with the existing community - when the percentage is high enough not only do they refuse to integrate but they expect the integration to be reversed and the community to adopt the immigrant culture.
When you have a great influx of immigrants they tend to stay together in the same areas. This is not 'forcing them into ghettos' but a self-made situation where people who speak the same language, have the same religion, etc. want to live near others of the same.
Here in France there is, and has been for quite awhile, an ongoing effort to keep ghettos from forming. Developers of new housing estates are required to provide some percentage of the new construction as social housing and low income families are then distributed across the country instead of being localized.
So no, I do not agree that the problem we see today is necessarily the fault of host countries, unless the fault is to allow such rapid immigration of a culture that refuses to integrate with the existing culture whenever enough of them are present in an area to put pressure on each other to conform to their religious constraints.
You think muslims around the world are all part of some grand conspiracy to 'take revenge' for the crusades? No, they're just people who see the much greater opportunities and wealth available in European countries compared to the shitholes they live in, and make the rational decision to move there for personal gain.
As for the 'decline' of Europe, they may be decreasing in number, sure, but they are definitely increasing in wealth (positive economic growth) with the effect that wealth and power is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Raw population size is a poor measure of the well-being of a country, otherwise India and China would be the best places to live.
In democratic countries votes count which means that in certain towns of Europe the vote is already dominated by Muslims.
The greater the change in population growth rates, the more this will continue and the Muslim culture will become more and more dominant.
I mean, whatever you and your family want to do with your body is fine with me, but this is just idiotic from an environmental perspective. The environmental value of your body's chemical components is totally negligible compared to what you consume over your lifetime. I mean, I eat my weight's worth of food in a few months, so returning my body's nitrogen to the farmland is almost worthless. My share of fossil fuel burning is about 17 tonnes of carbon per year, so cremating the couple of kilograms of carbon I contain makes no difference.
The only real environmental problem with burial is that it ties up valuable urban land in a cemetery forever. Which is definitely an issue, but it's easy to solve: just get yourself cremated. This composting thing is expensive, unsafe, and a waste of time.
Multiply these figures by the approximate number of people who died per day last year (153,424) and the numbers are no longer negligible.
Are you suggesting that the owners of businesses should not be responsible for the actions of those businesses?
Go back and re-read what I wrote. If I invest $1000 in a company's stock, let's say a pharmaceutical corp, and it's found out that their drug kills people, and the value of my stocks plummet, shouldn't that be enough? I'm not in the board room making decisions, I don't have access to research, etc. Don't you think I would have paid enough of a penalty by my investment losing value?
I did read what you wrote and I generalized very deliberately.
Let's say that instead of being publicly traded that pharmaceutical company was owned by a single person. That person would be held responsible for the actions of the company, unless that person were deliberately deceived by those working for them.
A corporation is often controlled by one or more voting majority shareholders. Ethically I see no reason to treat them any differently than a small business owner in the same situation.
If I've understood correctly, you believe that a financial penalty is sufficient whereas I believe that investors would be a lot more conscious and careful about what their companies were doing if there were the specter of real consequences for 'wrongdoing' by that company.
The current state of things is that companies and the owners (shareholders) of those companies have no risk other than financial which by itself is not sufficient. Companies build their models including the risk of getting caught and having to pay off the government. Executives rely on the government being willing to be bought off and rarely have any personal consequences resulting from their decisions. Stock may not even lose value because if the executives have done their job correctly the loss risk has already been built into the business model. Worst case the stock will drop for some time but how many companies ever actually go out of business because of something like this?
I think you're right about minority shareholders not having visibility or control but something has to change somewhere because at the moment no one involved has any real fear of real consequences.
No. Even in India, it is illegal to employ women for certain identified "dangerous" jobs e.g. mining under the surface. Armed forces employ negligible women, and mostly in non-combat roles.
No what?
You're not saying anything that contradicts what I wrote.
The only way to even dream of making companies not do this is to make the decision makers and eventually the shareholders liable for crimes against humanity personally
Can all Americans who had the right to vote during the 2005 election please make their way to the local incarceration centre? Your crime is being the decision makers who elected someone known to support the use of torture... apparently this is the only way to change things, so nothing personal.
I voted against Bush. Twice.
I am not against the idea of people being held accountable for the results of their voting although that will also never happen.
The only way to even dream of making companies not do this is to make the decision makers and eventually the shareholders liable for crimes against humanity personally, without the possibility of the corporation buying off the government as they do for such things now.
Shareholders are held accountable by losses in stock value. That should be the limit of accountability for them, otherwise it would be almost impossible for anyone to invest. Are you going to go after a teacher because they have 3% of their TIAA-CREF retirement in a mutual fund that happens to have CISCO as a part of the fund?
Are you suggesting that the owners of businesses should not be responsible for the actions of those businesses?
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like the EU just found out about the wisdom of the US 4th amendment to be secure in their persons, houses, papers vs big government or a politico-economic union tyranny.
"Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[3] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
More like the US hasn't quite learned the lesson, or has begun to forget it.
...it is unlikely that the cost of the iPhone will go up as a result..
This may be true for Apple but it wouldn't be true for all the other companies that would be hit by such a tax.
For someone who claims to not be a politician, Trump is very good as politician-speak - the art of telling people you'll do things with no intentions/plans/ability to follow through on it.
Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference? How long until people realize that President Trump won't be able to do half the things he claims he'll do?
If he pulled off half of what he claims, he would be 10x better than any previous candidate.
If he pulls off half of what he claims the US economy will tank.
In the 1960’s, people could be openly bigoted and sexist. Today, they’ve all just moved into the closet.
You evidently haven't been paying much attention to the US presidential campaign.
While I don't think the idea makes a lot of sense (Pinkdot anyone?), it is pretty cool.
Serious question: why send these from a warehouse? Why not load a flat bed truck up with 50 or so, and drive it to the closest point that all 50 deliveries share and then release them from the back of the flat bed all at the same time. The video linked in the post shows a drone being launched from a warehouse; not too many people live near amazon warehouses.
Because, at least for now driving requires a human and Amazon probably wants to eliminate humans from the equation - excepting the customer of course.
And, if you are even a bit of a tinkerer or garage mechanic you also know that harbor freight crap is generally inferior to Snap On or MAC.
I disagree...last time I tried to use a MAC hammer the screen broke and the Thunderbolt port stopped working, and it didn't even drive the nail in properly.
You were holding it wrong
If you're going to suggest an app, Signal is the one. For one, it's open source. Second, it's backed by the EFF and a number of luminaries not the least of whom is Edward Snowden.
https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/...
Which is excellent but what if you want to communicate with someone who doesn't have an iphone?
I don't like this kind of stuff very much. It seems like this administration is willing to get us involved in every conflict on the globe... but not very much involved. Enough to piss all the locals off, but not enough to affect the outcome of whatever is going on. I'd rather see the US adhere to the so-called "Powell Doctrine" (much older than Powell) - stay out of other peoples' business until significant national interests are really at stake. And if you have to go to war you don't do it half-assed.
The target countries specified are part of the larger war being fought against Al-Qaeda and Daesh (IS) :
Somalia
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Yemen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
"Just exactly how can first-person video of what a cop sees cost someone their life if revealed?"
Cheating husband/wife/etc.
Undercover police/agent/wire wearing informant
I don't have statistics to answer the 'how likely' but certainly such people do end up occasionally getting killed so the risk is real.
"...he thinks even advanced aliens wouldn't be able to build something capable of covering a fifth of a star in just a century. What's more, such an object should radiate light absorbed from the star as heat, but the infrared signal from Tabby's star appears normal, he says."
Our grandparents couldn't imagine the technology that our children use today without thought.
How much hubris does it take to believe that we know what kind of technology 'advanced' aliens - or even the grandchildren of our grandchildren - will be able to achieve?
Humans place a premium on their own life but we aren't talking about suicide here
We are talking about individual action which doesn't disprove the general rule. Individual suicide doesn't disprove human premium on self-life, individual female-icide doesn't disprove society's premium on female life.
Society's disapproval of suicide via religion edicts, and sometimes even laws prohibiting suicide demonstrate society's attitude. Laws/policies/rules from legislators/organizations removing women from dangerous jobs demonstrate society's attitude.
You're reaching. There is no aspect of suicide that is applicable to this discussion.
This is a statement based on empirical evidence of the actual situation, not on a general feeling that it should be the case due to laws: There is such a serious gender imbalance (fact), caused by gendercide in the society (fact), therefore the society is not protecting females (inescapable conclusion).
Laws are created by a few and are obviously not being followed by many - in this case enough to create said imbalance.
Okay thanks for the clarification but I have to disagree.
While the Indian government puts a premium on protecting girls (perhaps because of the gender imbalance), perspective parents evidently do not.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/11/...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
Humans place a premium on their own life but we aren't talking about suicide here.
I want the best people to come to my country. I want doctors and engineers and hard workers. I don't give two shits if they're muslim or christian or buddhist or atheist. If I go to a doctor to get heart surgery, I don't care if the doctor is a muslim, I care if he's a good doctor. And so what if he's muslim anyway. His kids or his grandkids will be atheist, like everyone else's kids.
Yes but you're making the assumption of integration, which is desirable but which is, unfortunately, not happening.
I am not against immigration with integration. I am against the too rapid immigration without integration that is happening in Europe today and that will, if allowed to continue without said integration, impose its culture on my children.
Unless that culture results in lower birthrates, then the killing, raping, misogynistic homophobic culture is better - in an evolutionary sense.
Buillshit. The planet is overpopulated as it is. We don't need more people - we need better people.
"If integration is such a failure, explain why England and Anglo cultures are still around? We've been integrating for literally centuries. When a new group of immigrants comes over, they slowly become part of the fabric of a nation. If they don't it is almost always the fault of the host nation for forcing them into ghettos and disallowing them the chance to participate in a nations culture."
There is a difference between a culture who is willing to integrate and a culture who expects everyone else to adapt to them. When the percentage of the latter in a community is small, the children, at least, will integrate over time. When you get enough of the latter together in a community they then refuse to integrate with the existing community - when the percentage is high enough not only do they refuse to integrate but they expect the integration to be reversed and the community to adopt the immigrant culture.
When you have a great influx of immigrants they tend to stay together in the same areas. This is not 'forcing them into ghettos' but a self-made situation where people who speak the same language, have the same religion, etc. want to live near others of the same.
Here in France there is, and has been for quite awhile, an ongoing effort to keep ghettos from forming. Developers of new housing estates are required to provide some percentage of the new construction as social housing and low income families are then distributed across the country instead of being localized.
So no, I do not agree that the problem we see today is necessarily the fault of host countries, unless the fault is to allow such rapid immigration of a culture that refuses to integrate with the existing culture whenever enough of them are present in an area to put pressure on each other to conform to their religious constraints.
You think muslims around the world are all part of some grand conspiracy to 'take revenge' for the crusades? No, they're just people who see the much greater opportunities and wealth available in European countries compared to the shitholes they live in, and make the rational decision to move there for personal gain.
As for the 'decline' of Europe, they may be decreasing in number, sure, but they are definitely increasing in wealth (positive economic growth) with the effect that wealth and power is becoming concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals. Raw population size is a poor measure of the well-being of a country, otherwise India and China would be the best places to live.
In democratic countries votes count which means that in certain towns of Europe the vote is already dominated by Muslims.
The greater the change in population growth rates, the more this will continue and the Muslim culture will become more and more dominant.
I guess this is how the long term "revenge" for the crusades will happen.
Muslims seeking revenge against Europeans for the crusades is like Japanese seeking revenge against the U.S. for their defeat in WWII.
How about Muslims seeking revenge against Europeans for colonization? I can tell you that is a very sharp thorn at the moment, at least in France.
This is why I don't and never will have a banking app on any mobile device.
Unless paired with a physical token...?
I mean, whatever you and your family want to do with your body is fine with me, but this is just idiotic from an environmental perspective. The environmental value of your body's chemical components is totally negligible compared to what you consume over your lifetime. I mean, I eat my weight's worth of food in a few months, so returning my body's nitrogen to the farmland is almost worthless. My share of fossil fuel burning is about 17 tonnes of carbon per year, so cremating the couple of kilograms of carbon I contain makes no difference.
The only real environmental problem with burial is that it ties up valuable urban land in a cemetery forever. Which is definitely an issue, but it's easy to solve: just get yourself cremated. This composting thing is expensive, unsafe, and a waste of time.
Multiply these figures by the approximate number of people who died per day last year (153,424) and the numbers are no longer negligible.
Are you suggesting that the owners of businesses should not be responsible for the actions of those businesses?
Go back and re-read what I wrote. If I invest $1000 in a company's stock, let's say a pharmaceutical corp, and it's found out that their drug kills people, and the value of my stocks plummet, shouldn't that be enough? I'm not in the board room making decisions, I don't have access to research, etc. Don't you think I would have paid enough of a penalty by my investment losing value?
I did read what you wrote and I generalized very deliberately.
Let's say that instead of being publicly traded that pharmaceutical company was owned by a single person. That person would be held responsible for the actions of the company, unless that person were deliberately deceived by those working for them.
A corporation is often controlled by one or more voting majority shareholders. Ethically I see no reason to treat them any differently than a small business owner in the same situation.
If I've understood correctly, you believe that a financial penalty is sufficient whereas I believe that investors would be a lot more conscious and careful about what their companies were doing if there were the specter of real consequences for 'wrongdoing' by that company.
The current state of things is that companies and the owners (shareholders) of those companies have no risk other than financial which by itself is not sufficient. Companies build their models including the risk of getting caught and having to pay off the government. Executives rely on the government being willing to be bought off and rarely have any personal consequences resulting from their decisions. Stock may not even lose value because if the executives have done their job correctly the loss risk has already been built into the business model. Worst case the stock will drop for some time but how many companies ever actually go out of business because of something like this?
I think you're right about minority shareholders not having visibility or control but something has to change somewhere because at the moment no one involved has any real fear of real consequences.
So what you are telling us is that you are storing your data in the cloud?
Not only that but it does actually rain in his DC
No. Even in India, it is illegal to employ women for certain identified "dangerous" jobs e.g. mining under the surface. Armed forces employ negligible women, and mostly in non-combat roles.
No what?
You're not saying anything that contradicts what I wrote.
Can all Americans who had the right to vote during the 2005 election please make their way to the local incarceration centre? Your crime is being the decision makers who elected someone known to support the use of torture... apparently this is the only way to change things, so nothing personal.
I voted against Bush. Twice.
I am not against the idea of people being held accountable for the results of their voting although that will also never happen.
The only way to even dream of making companies not do this is to make the decision makers and eventually the shareholders liable for crimes against humanity personally, without the possibility of the corporation buying off the government as they do for such things now.
Shareholders are held accountable by losses in stock value. That should be the limit of accountability for them, otherwise it would be almost impossible for anyone to invest. Are you going to go after a teacher because they have 3% of their TIAA-CREF retirement in a mutual fund that happens to have CISCO as a part of the fund?
Are you suggesting that the owners of businesses should not be responsible for the actions of those businesses?
...once they let him out of whatever Third World hellhole US intelligence is currently using to warehouse inconvenient people.
Nah they'll just hire him.