The right to carry firearms does not grant the right to use them irresponsibly. These idiots should be held accountable not for firing their weapons but for negligence, the same as if they started the fires with careless campfires.
So... when does higher education bubble burst? Everyone is expecting it to. It makes no sense that while the economy is tanking, colleges can just continue to charge more money at rates considerably higher than cost of living adjustments...
They can for as long as there are 'enough' students, domestic or otherwise, to keep them in business.
Free education is a benefit to society, but in America there's too much anti-socialism and anti-service sentiment at this point so yes, we're seeing a reversion to the middle ages where only the wealthy could afford education.
According to Marriam Webster online morality has several definitions, one of which is "conformity to ideals of right human conduct" which might eventually have some bearing on human rights. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
Relatively speaking, the US grants better human rights than China does so yes, this does actually make sense though it might not be exactly what the parents intend.
"...I challenge you to a) take more than 5 kids outside and try to keep a lesson run coherently with all the sundry distractions and b) try to do it in the middle of winter."
Snowball fight trajectories must be useful for something....
There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical).
Which is, of course, the reason that there are so many drones operating in the US now, not to mention the police tanks, etc.
I live in France now, though I am American by birth. The system here works very well.
University level education is almost completely free for students here. There are a certain number of places for any given program and students take competitive exams which determine their chances of getting into the program and school that they want. Students take this very seriously and work extremely hard in what we would call high school. The better they do, the more likely they are to get where they want to get to.
The society benefits because the population is highly educated in fields which are needed, with very few having the slashdot invented degree in 'underwater basketweaving'. The students benefit because they come out of school with the means to earn a living without having so much debt crippling them that they cannot get ahead of it.
Of course the far right Americans will cry 'socialism' and 'unfair taxes' but hey, you get what you ask for.
Only 137 entries in the database at the moment, evidently. Probably only showing what's been reported via the site itself, at least at this point, via the complain submission section http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
How much risk should people have to incur with their lives or their health to save money for corporations? They are only able to expect options for mitigating the damage that would not require putting someone's life or property in immediate danger; some of the options available such as fireproofing could actually reduce the hazards to human life in the present or in the future.
Excellent. Whatever the published standards for fireproofing are, they should certainly be adhered to. We're not talking about fireproofing though, but rather about taking the time to evacuate material objects versus the risk to human life for those charged with the duty by the company they work for.
If you are in a PRE-evacuation zone, then by definition, evacuation of humans is not yet critical, it is still safe for humans to be in the area: it would be an opportune period of time to take advise of the cautionary note and evacuate valuable assets in anticipation of a later necessity to completely evacuate humans and pets. Who decides what is sufficient and what is reasonable? The insurance company that values shareholder value (ie money) over lives that they're not insuring? The insurance adjuster will make a decision on the matter, ACCEPT or DENY the claim.
My personal experience with insurance adjusters (aka experts) is that they DENY everything but whatever. The point again is that you're putting the decision about personal safety (in the form of pressure for people to stay and evacuate insured material objects) into the hands of a company that cares only about money.
If you disagree, you have legal arbitration options.
Unless you're dead, in which case your options are somewhat more limited.
They will consider things like... how much warning did you have... and what did you do with that advance warning time? If you did not take the appropriate prepratory or mitigation actions: it's something you have to justify at that time.
Again you use a non-quantifiable word 'appropriate' which is too subjective to negate the risk to human life in the current discussion, and you are still leaving that decision not in the hands of people who care about the people in question, but in the conference rooms of an insurance company that, again, only cares about money.
What is the limit of what is reasonable? One week? One day? One hour? One minute? Sufficient time to act, with sufficiently strong evidence that action is required. One hour is probably not sufficient time to mitigate much damage. If you left your car in the driveway, and evacuated on foot, for no good reason, and the car was destroyed in the blaze, they might exclude the damage to your car, because a reasonable person would have driven the car out of harm's way.
So if you have to walk out and you decide not to carry your desk computer with you they wouldn't insure it?
I would say that they would attempt to not pay, as insurance companies attempt to not pay for anything at all. They might even win in court because they tend to have rather a lot of lawyers but that doesn't mean that it's right.
To return to your example of the person leaving the car, if the person in question left the car there would always be a reason for it and even if there were not, a person being unreasonable (ie mentally ill or otherwise of reduced mental capacity) shouldn't be a justification to not pay out for something that the company has charged and received money to insure.
A day or two's advance notice is sufficient time to hire a bunch of help to haul lots of stuff out of harms way.
Maybe, and maybe not. Depends on the availability of the 'help', the transportation method (ie if there's a u-haul left to rent) and how much 'stuff' we're talking about. These values are never going to be constant and thus cannot be clearly stipulated.
Hauling stuff may not actually be necessary -- taking actions to "fireproof" the place as
Build your entire environment into standard shipping 'containers' that can be lifted onto a container moving truck and if the order comes to evacuate, the container(s) go on the truck(s) and off you go.
That being said I am completely with those who say leave the hardware behind and get out.
Your insurance company will pay to replace anything that's damaged by the fire.
Insurance does not cover any damage that should have been prevented or was caused as a result of culpable negligence, when the org intentionally passed up a reasonable opportunity to mitigate or prevent the damage.
If you had an opportunity to mitigate or prevent the fire damage because there was sufficient warning, and you intentionally avoided mitigating the damage, that a reasonable person would have taken actions to prevent, then your reckless inaction likely means that the insurance company is not obligated to pay for the fire damage that resulted from your inaction.
You use words that are not quantifiable.
Who decides what is sufficient and what is reasonable? The insurance company that values shareholder value (ie money) over lives that they're not insuring?
What is the limit of what is reasonable? One week? One day? One hour? One minute?
How much risk should people have to incur with their lives or their health to save money for corporations?
Is this computer gear worth the lives of the people loading the u-haul die because someone misjudges the speed that the fire is moving?
No, I agree with those who say that when there is an evacuation that people should evacuate - not waste time loading computer equipment into moving vans.
"Would you rather hear the hard truth about why your startup didn't get funded or some vague dismissal?"
Only a complete idiot would prefer a vague dismissal. If you know what's wrong you can fix it and move ahead. If you hear that the idea is great but the team is wrong, you can fix the team.
Maybe these smart, hardworking people should think of going into business then, instead of working for someone else. There seems to be no shortage of investment money available for people with ideas.
It's not like you have to actually tell the potential employer you have a PhD. Tell them what you have / know that is applicable to the job, nothing more, nothing less. And don't put your life on facebook for the world to see.
It is time to make a global law. Every transaction should be subjected to a randomised delay between 1 and 2 seconds . Problem solved, smart people can start doing something useful again.
Why so fast? The point of stock markets is to invest money to give capital to companies right?
Bring it down to a speed normal human beings can actually participate in. Why keep it at a level only investment banks can use. Make the limit 1 or 2 hours, not seconds.
No I seriously doubt anyone would bother to watch me and I don't have to know anything about the military to know that you can only give witness for what you yourself have or have not experienced directly.
In telecoms we have 'legal intercept' though it's often called by some bullshit name to keep people ignorant of it. Once it's installed no one in the support infrastructure has to do anything and most people working with the network have no idea that it's there...and yet it's there, and it can be used to tap traffic / conversations.
Not saying this is the case in your situation - I don't know shit about your situation - only that not everyone has the level of visibility, be it technical or otherwise, to know exactly what's going on with their own equipment / systems.
At the age of five I found that a burning toaster makes a hell of a contrail sailing out the window to land in the yard below, subsequently and completely accidentally further incinerating the plastic slide there...
Slashdot Mirror
The right to carry firearms does not grant the right to use them irresponsibly. These idiots should be held accountable not for firing their weapons but for negligence, the same as if they started the fires with careless campfires.
The FSF should sue Microsoft for loss of donations and ask for punitive damages for monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.
So... when does higher education bubble burst? Everyone is expecting it to. It makes no sense that while the economy is tanking, colleges can just continue to charge more money at rates considerably higher than cost of living adjustments...
They can for as long as there are 'enough' students, domestic or otherwise, to keep them in business.
Free education is a benefit to society, but in America there's too much anti-socialism and anti-service sentiment at this point so yes, we're seeing a reversion to the middle ages where only the wealthy could afford education.
According to Marriam Webster online morality has several definitions, one of which is "conformity to ideals of right human conduct" which might eventually have some bearing on human rights. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
Relatively speaking, the US grants better human rights than China does so yes, this does actually make sense though it might not be exactly what the parents intend.
"...I challenge you to a) take more than 5 kids outside and try to keep a lesson run coherently with all the sundry distractions and b) try to do it in the middle of winter."
Snowball fight trajectories must be useful for something....
There isn't anything legal their citizens could really do. Revolt is pretty much all that's left for radical change (and yes, shutting down or preventing the paranoid state is radical).
Which is, of course, the reason that there are so many drones operating in the US now, not to mention the police tanks, etc.
It's not ice. It's white cheese...
I live in France now, though I am American by birth. The system here works very well.
University level education is almost completely free for students here. There are a certain number of places for any given program and students take competitive exams which determine their chances of getting into the program and school that they want. Students take this very seriously and work extremely hard in what we would call high school. The better they do, the more likely they are to get where they want to get to.
The society benefits because the population is highly educated in fields which are needed, with very few having the slashdot invented degree in 'underwater basketweaving'. The students benefit because they come out of school with the means to earn a living without having so much debt crippling them that they cannot get ahead of it.
Of course the far right Americans will cry 'socialism' and 'unfair taxes' but hey, you get what you ask for.
You're talking about the way things are. I'm talking about the way things should be.
I've given you my opinion on this and I don't think I have much more to say on it.
I do appreciate your responses and the time and effort you've put into them, thank you.
Only 137 entries in the database at the moment, evidently. Probably only showing what's been reported via the site itself, at least at this point, via the complain submission section http://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
Something interesting is that as part of the 'Submit a Complaint' there is a whistleblower function:
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/the-cfpb-wants-you-to-blow-the-whistle-on-lawbreakers/
The insurance company decides, and if you don't like the decisions, then the courts decide (at your expense).
Oh, well that's fair. (and yes I'm being ironic)
Nobody is in danger of dying from the fire in a pre-evacuation zone.
Until the fire gets there.
How much risk should people have to incur with their lives or their health to save money for corporations?
They are only able to expect options for mitigating the damage that would not require putting someone's life
or property in immediate danger; some of the options available such as fireproofing could actually reduce the hazards to human life in the present or in the future.
Excellent. Whatever the published standards for fireproofing are, they should certainly be adhered to. We're not talking about fireproofing though, but rather about taking the time to evacuate material objects versus the risk to human life for those charged with the duty by the company they work for.
If you are in a PRE-evacuation zone, then by definition, evacuation of humans is not yet critical, it is still safe for humans to be in the area: it would be an opportune period of time to take advise of the cautionary note and evacuate valuable assets in anticipation of a later necessity to completely evacuate humans and pets.
Who decides what is sufficient and what is reasonable? The insurance company that values shareholder value (ie money) over lives that they're not insuring?
The insurance adjuster will make a decision on the matter, ACCEPT or DENY the claim.
My personal experience with insurance adjusters (aka experts) is that they DENY everything but whatever. The point again is that you're putting the decision about personal safety (in the form of pressure for people to stay and evacuate insured material objects) into the hands of a company that cares only about money.
If you disagree, you have legal arbitration options.
Unless you're dead, in which case your options are somewhat more limited.
They will consider things like... how much warning did you have... and what did you do with that advance warning time?
If you did not take the appropriate prepratory or mitigation actions: it's something you have to justify at that time.
Again you use a non-quantifiable word 'appropriate' which is too subjective to negate the risk to human life in the current discussion, and you are still leaving that decision not in the hands of people who care about the people in question, but in the conference rooms of an insurance company that, again, only cares about money.
What is the limit of what is reasonable? One week? One day? One hour? One minute?
Sufficient time to act, with sufficiently strong evidence that action is required. One hour is probably not sufficient time to mitigate much damage. If you left your car in the driveway, and evacuated on foot, for no good reason, and the car was destroyed in the blaze, they might exclude the damage to your car, because a reasonable person would have driven the car out of harm's way.
So if you have to walk out and you decide not to carry your desk computer with you they wouldn't insure it?
I would say that they would attempt to not pay, as insurance companies attempt to not pay for anything at all. They might even win in court because they tend to have rather a lot of lawyers but that doesn't mean that it's right.
To return to your example of the person leaving the car, if the person in question left the car there would always be a reason for it and even if there were not, a person being unreasonable (ie mentally ill or otherwise of reduced mental capacity) shouldn't be a justification to not pay out for something that the company has charged and received money to insure.
A day or two's advance notice is sufficient time to hire a bunch of help to haul lots of stuff out of harms way.
Maybe, and maybe not. Depends on the availability of the 'help', the transportation method (ie if there's a u-haul left to rent) and how much 'stuff' we're talking about. These values are never going to be constant and thus cannot be clearly stipulated.
Hauling stuff may not actually be necessary -- taking actions to "fireproof" the place as
Not to mention that in China if the building collapsed afterwards those responsible would most likely be shot.
Just remember, if a company asks you to break the law then you deserve what's coming to you when you get caught.
Well..if the US government (stuxnet for example) can do it (with no declaration of war), then it mustn't be illegal right? /ironyoff
Build your entire environment into standard shipping 'containers' that can be lifted onto a container moving truck and if the order comes to evacuate, the container(s) go on the truck(s) and off you go.
That being said I am completely with those who say leave the hardware behind and get out.
Your insurance company will pay to replace anything that's damaged by the fire.
Insurance does not cover any damage that should have been prevented or was caused as a result of culpable negligence, when the org intentionally passed up a reasonable opportunity to mitigate or prevent the damage.
If you had an opportunity to mitigate or prevent the fire damage because there was sufficient warning,
and you intentionally avoided mitigating the damage, that a reasonable person would have taken actions
to prevent, then your reckless inaction likely means that the insurance company is not obligated to pay
for the fire damage that resulted from your inaction.
You use words that are not quantifiable.
Who decides what is sufficient and what is reasonable? The insurance company that values shareholder value (ie money) over lives that they're not insuring?
What is the limit of what is reasonable? One week? One day? One hour? One minute?
How much risk should people have to incur with their lives or their health to save money for corporations?
Is this computer gear worth the lives of the people loading the u-haul die because someone misjudges the speed that the fire is moving?
No, I agree with those who say that when there is an evacuation that people should evacuate - not waste time loading computer equipment into moving vans.
"Microsoft To Sell Its Own Windows RT Tablet"
Well it's not like they're going to sell someone else's tablet now are they.
"Would you rather hear the hard truth about why your startup didn't get funded or some vague dismissal?"
Only a complete idiot would prefer a vague dismissal. If you know what's wrong you can fix it and move ahead. If you hear that the idea is great but the team is wrong, you can fix the team.
Maybe these smart, hardworking people should think of going into business then, instead of working for someone else. There seems to be no shortage of investment money available for people with ideas.
It's not like you have to actually tell the potential employer you have a PhD. Tell them what you have / know that is applicable to the job, nothing more, nothing less. And don't put your life on facebook for the world to see.
It is time to make a global law. Every transaction should be subjected to a randomised delay between 1 and 2 seconds . Problem solved, smart people can start doing something useful again.
Why so fast? The point of stock markets is to invest money to give capital to companies right?
Bring it down to a speed normal human beings can actually participate in. Why keep it at a level only investment banks can use. Make the limit 1 or 2 hours, not seconds.
No I seriously doubt anyone would bother to watch me and I don't have to know anything about the military to know that you can only give witness for what you yourself have or have not experienced directly.
In telecoms we have 'legal intercept' though it's often called by some bullshit name to keep people ignorant of it. Once it's installed no one in the support infrastructure has to do anything and most people working with the network have no idea that it's there...and yet it's there, and it can be used to tap traffic / conversations.
Not saying this is the case in your situation - I don't know shit about your situation - only that not everyone has the level of visibility, be it technical or otherwise, to know exactly what's going on with their own equipment / systems.
Or something rugged? I have never tried one of these but if I were buying computers for kids I'd try one and see -
https://www.panasonic.com/business/toughbook/laptop-computers.asp
Third, during my 3 years at one of these "drone" bases, I personally never heard anything from any law enforcement or spy agency.
FTFY
At the age of five I found that a burning toaster makes a hell of a contrail sailing out the window to land in the yard below, subsequently and completely accidentally further incinerating the plastic slide there...