Half the noise a car makes comes from the tyres, and that's adequate for the visually impaired. Advocates for the disabled (though not so much the disabled themselves) like to create unnecessary nuisance just to make a political statement.
Why are *any* robocalls allowed? In most (perhaps all) places they fit the definition of criminal harassment, and a computer certainly has no free speech rights.
I doubt if a judge is actually so clueless as to believe something like this. But if he only cared about fooling journalists, then I could see it being used as a pretext
As Scott Adams pointed out once (or something very close), these sorts of preconceptions might be keeping 99.999% of women out, but they're also keeping 99.99% of men out too.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not all or nothing. What he did may be very wrong, but it's not in the same category as actual harassment.
Unless we're talking about a minor, that isn't forcing someone.
It's abusive, for sure, but this is not the same as the people are the actual victims of physical or other coercion.
And is it lighter or heavier than a duck? It might be a witch.
That actually narrows down the voting options very little.
You realize that this hypothetical other employer has exactly the same incentives and goals as the first one, right?
Half the noise a car makes comes from the tyres, and that's adequate for the visually impaired. Advocates for the disabled (though not so much the disabled themselves) like to create unnecessary nuisance just to make a political statement.
If your customers did not understand you, it is your problem whether or not it's your fault.
Unless you're autistic...
Since that's the definition of autistic, yes.
Unfortunately, you're forever blinded to this world.
That was his point.
And it's a loss for the world as well.
He had to work with what the education systems of the time gave him.
Lately means recent by nature
and/or recent with non-punctual aspect.
Lately means recent by nature, not merely recently.
Why is that?
Because technology jobs are better paying.
The "equality" is asymmetric.
No-one objects to robocalls they explicitly consent to. Those are not the problem.
The technology required is the "warrant" - issued by a judge on probable cause. I believe the technology has been around for several hundred years.
I mean, Obama couldn't possibly have been referring to intercepting communications without a lawful warrant, and certainly not without cause, right?
Luckily that never happens on any other continent.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not useless. It creates the illusion that someone is listening to complaints.
It was never their function to *act* on the complaints.
Why are *any* robocalls allowed? In most (perhaps all) places they fit the definition of criminal harassment, and a computer certainly has no free speech rights.
I doubt if a judge is actually so clueless as to believe something like this. But if he only cared about fooling journalists, then I could see it being used as a pretext
Huh? It makes sense in Spain but not in France?
It's not changing the dependency at all, but it is diffusing the burden on the volunteer, which is more dignified for everyone.
Now we can get new patents for all those things "on the Internet" by using "over a radio"!
Children's Aid Society or Child Protection Services or whatever TLA is the style where you live, believe in guilty until proven innocent.
Fundamentally, all their abuses stem from that flawed assumption.
They are the best example of why presumption of innocence is so important. The fact so many people take it for granted changes nothing.
As Scott Adams pointed out once (or something very close), these sorts of preconceptions might be keeping 99.999% of women out, but they're also keeping 99.99% of men out too.