Regardless, I think you've proven my point. You behave like a child, so you get treated like one. Hell, your post below is somewhere between chimpanzee and toddler. If you weren't wearing a diaper, you would already have thrown poo at me.
I imagine that depends on the details of how the law is written. Unless it specifies otherwise, I would assume that if they hit the wrong target, then they'd be civilly liable under regular tort laws.
Though IMO this could be viable if it was restricted to surveillance, and only against foreign targets that don't have any kind of extradition treaty with the US.
I dunno, I'm within the top 30% of income earners in my state, so probably more than most I imagine. I know plenty of people that are older than me and don't even have half of my income.
Believe me, I can way more than afford TV on my $80k/year income, I just think TV is crap. Essentially it comes down to this: 500 channels and nothing good is on, and you have to waste a third of your time watching commercials. Even when you can skip commercials with DVRs, it's just annoying. And besides that modern TV providers rarely support third party DVRs these days, and their in-house DVRs very often forbid skipping commercials.
So fuck TV, it's just something old people do.
BTW, I legally became an adult in the year 2000, so I'm a millennial. But I'm also 35, and TFA seems to say millennials have to be 17 to 34, which is odd because the definition of millennial is somebody who became an adult after the turn of the millennium, which I certainly did. Maybe I'm a borderline case, I'm not sure.
The real problem is employers who treat their employees like children. "Bring a note from the doctor." Kind of like when you were a kid and if you missed school you had to "bring a note from your parents."
Well, given you behave like one, it kind of makes sense.
I'm one of those crazy "free speech under all circumstances" types that the EU dispises, but even I know that some speech is just noise.
If somebody is trying to make a salient point without making obvious logical errors, then that speech is acceptable no matter how disagreeable the content might be, but if somebody is just randomly babbling (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) or is saying something without any meaningful purpose, then it's worth moderating in order to make it easier for the listener or reader to see the more meaningful speech.
Then why is it so hard to understand the issue? To use one of your conservative tropes, if you don't want to play by the rules, then you don't get to play.
I'm not a conservative, dingbat. In fact I don't conform with your stupid one dimensional understanding of politics.
If there is any argument against this very rational and LEGAL position, might I remind you that it sounds like you'd like to be a special snowflake in a safe space. We know that couldn't be true, right?
The problem with ADA is that even if you fully comply with the laws, people will still sue you, even for really minor things like having a handicap sign a half of an inch too low (literally, this has happened.) In literally thousands of cases, businesses get sued by somebody who they can prove never even went there, but they settle anyways because it would cost more to fight it.
Politicians and business leaders across America counter that ADA compliance cases are about extortion rather than equal access, because lawyers like Weitz often recruit serial litigants and seek reimbursements for $400-an-hour legal fees for boilerplate filings.
Clint Eastwood fought such a lawsuit and won, but it cost him more than he would have had to pay out otherwise:
After only four hours deliberation, the eight-member jury agreed with Eastwood's attorney that Diane zum Brunnen, 51, had not actually tried to use the Mission Ranch resort's facilities in 1996 -- so she wasn't denied access.
However, jurors did find that the inn should provide a ramp to the registration office, a second disabled-access guest room and signs about access accommodations -- improvements Eastwood said were already in the works.
Anyways, it's not as if would be airbnb customers are SOL, they could always go to an actual motel.
How many businesses settle ADA lawsuits because it's cheaper than fighting them? Avoiding lawsuits to begin with by rejecting them seems understandable. Not everybody wants to install wheelchair ramps in their house.
Typically if you are on the clock while driving, then the employer is liable for any damages not covered by your insurance. It varies by state, but in most cases that's how it works.
If you're an independent contractor, (i.e. Uber) then you alone are liable.
The only way it could be a reduction in tax revenue is if the unemployment permanently raised. As of now, there's no indication that this will be the case. Every 20 years or so this issue comes up, and each time people flip out about it for nothing.
Incoming "just because we recovered in the past doesn't mean we will this time", but it's a bullshit argument that just assumes that people will just stop trying to obtain an income, and if that is the case, then the UBI proposal is doomed to lazy fucks.
Even if it's done pre-puberty, the male frame still remains intact. Your body frame develops in the womb, and that includes a larger brain to accommodate a larger musculoskeletal system. If such a person died and only their bones were found, an anthropologist would identify them as their birth gender.
well not only warrantless but if the informant is paid by cases found, then.. well, you'll see where it goes.
There's already a lot of other precedent that if the person is acting on behalf of the government, then they are a de-facto government agent.
A really common scenario is when the police bust somebody, and in exchange for a much lighter sentence, he has to become a CI and catch some of his cohorts in the act and have them busted. But in many cases, these CI's don't actually know anybody who they can catch, so they talk somebody else into breaking the law in spite of all of that person's objections. That person will easily get the charges dropped due to entrapment, because the CI was a de-facto government agent, even though he wasn't a police officer.
Paying these guys to do the FBI's bidding easily makes them a government agent.
I agree that they shouldn't allow men to compete in women's sports, and nor should mtf trannies. If women want to compete in men's sports, that's fine, but if you have a male frame, regardless of your gender identity, then that gives you an unfair advantage against women.
I know Blarbara Hudson, aka Mr Garrison, will come in here and shit on the floor because he thinks mtf trannies should be able to compete in women's Olympics, but he should know good and well that even with his genitals removed, he still has a male frame.
It's an issue if you believe that the primary beneficiaries of such a rule are heterosexual males that will use this as an excuse to enter female bathrooms and use the law as an excuse.
Honestly, I couldn't care less if a woman comes into the men's room. I would be concerned for women's sake about men coming into their restroom, but there doesn't seem to be any big resistance to that, so this is pretty much a non-issue.
Nonetheless, people seem to drastically overestimate the rate of sex-related crimes, and the simple fact is that most people just don't do that. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to view it that way for issues that have nothing to do with either bathrooms or trannies.
One of the things they're doing that they tout as innovation, which just makes no sense to me at all, is continuum. Sure, it sounds nice to essentially have a desktop computer in a phone, but honestly, how often would you actually use that? In order to do so, you'd have to carry around a bunch of dock accessories in your pocket on the very, very off chance that you'll actually find a monitor to connect to that doesn't already have a bunch of stuff connected to it that you have to remove before you can use it.
It just by far makes more sense to carry around a laptop, which has the added benefit of much more powerful hardware, and the ability to run pretty much any application you want instead of just crappy UWP apps.
Besides, it's been done before by different Android OEMs, and it never proved to be popular.
It looks like that just circumvents SafetyNet, which means it hides root from Play Services. The problem is not every app goes that route, for example the app Good or the HRblock tax app.
Also it doesn't look like it does anything to make OTA android patches work. It looks like it has some tricks for custom roms, but I by far prefer to use stock Nexus images.
I could be wrong though, but from what I'm reading about it, it doesn't seem to solve all of the limitations I need to work around.
Google, is actually on its second, and a third is in production. It bought Android and had a version in development before it did. They have another one in development now.
I figured somebody would say that, and that isn't accurate. An unreleased product isn't a product, it's a prototype. It's perfectly normal for prototypes to go under major revisions before they are released. As for Fuschia, nobody really knows whether that will see the light of day, and if it does, it's more than likely going to retain app compatibility.
When I say iteration in this context, I mean they broke compatibility with existing implementations. And with that in mind, Microsoft is currently on iteration number 4 (windows mobile with PE binaries, windows phone 7 with an early pre-RT framework, windows phone 8 with an incompatible but newer RT framework, and windows phone 10 with the UWP framework) and it sounds like they're about to have iteration 5 soon.
What makes this particularly embarrassing is that they've gone through 3 of these iterations within the last 5 years, whereas iOS is 10 years old and Android is 9 years old. That, and the fact that they knew the transition from 7 to 8 was going to break things long before they even released 7, which is a mean thing to do to your own fans.
My company has it as an asset. They have two payroll budgets, one of which is the time off budget. If you take any time off, they don't pay you from the regular payroll budget and instead pay you from the time off budget, giving the regular payroll budget a surplus.
During recessions, they sometimes force you to take a week of time off if you have more than three weeks worth saved up so they can match revenues to expenses. They haven't done that in a long time though.
Google is trying to create whole new market segments, and if those market segments don't feel like big winners, then they ditch them. Essentially the same concept as the myriad of startups that fail. That, and Google wants to out-facebook Facebook, so they also routinely discard social media projects that are only moderately successful, even if they're quite profitable.
Microsoft is trying to force its way into an already saturated market that is seeing limited growth by throwing shitloads of money at it, and they keep hoping that gimmicky features will somehow make them stand out, only to find out that those features don't work. For example, they forewent a notification shade saying that the tiles were better, and then realized that tiles sucked for that purpose so they added a notification shade years later.
Actually I wanted to ask whether its software makeup is free of the pesky "cannot-remove-the-google-crap"
Or you could just disable it, and you'll never even notice that it is there unless you go way deep into the settings menu.
requires you to root and flash it, but if it fails already at the hardware level
Personally, I'm less and less interested in rooting phones. Rooting is good for adding features that aren't included stock, which was important in the early days because a lot of phones were outright incapable of doing certain things without going beyond the software stack. But these days, not only are the phones quite feature packed, but the UI is well designed too. The only reason I root is so I can use my call recording app and CF.lumen. Most phones can record calls except for the Nexus and Pixel line, unfortunately, but newer versions of Android make CF.lumen irrelevant. My current phone is a Nexus 6P, and more than likely I won't need to root with whatever I have next (which I'll probably upgrade to when the 6P stops getting updates.)
And good riddance to be honest. Rooting means you have to manually intervene every month in order for your phone to be able to take updates, which is annoying, and some apps do different things to detect root, which you have to do some hackery to get around.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless, I think you've proven my point. You behave like a child, so you get treated like one. Hell, your post below is somewhere between chimpanzee and toddler. If you weren't wearing a diaper, you would already have thrown poo at me.
I imagine that depends on the details of how the law is written. Unless it specifies otherwise, I would assume that if they hit the wrong target, then they'd be civilly liable under regular tort laws.
Though IMO this could be viable if it was restricted to surveillance, and only against foreign targets that don't have any kind of extradition treaty with the US.
I dunno, I'm within the top 30% of income earners in my state, so probably more than most I imagine. I know plenty of people that are older than me and don't even have half of my income.
Believe me, I can way more than afford TV on my $80k/year income, I just think TV is crap. Essentially it comes down to this: 500 channels and nothing good is on, and you have to waste a third of your time watching commercials. Even when you can skip commercials with DVRs, it's just annoying. And besides that modern TV providers rarely support third party DVRs these days, and their in-house DVRs very often forbid skipping commercials.
So fuck TV, it's just something old people do.
BTW, I legally became an adult in the year 2000, so I'm a millennial. But I'm also 35, and TFA seems to say millennials have to be 17 to 34, which is odd because the definition of millennial is somebody who became an adult after the turn of the millennium, which I certainly did. Maybe I'm a borderline case, I'm not sure.
The real problem is employers who treat their employees like children. "Bring a note from the doctor." Kind of like when you were a kid and if you missed school you had to "bring a note from your parents."
Well, given you behave like one, it kind of makes sense.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/b2...
I'm one of those crazy "free speech under all circumstances" types that the EU dispises, but even I know that some speech is just noise.
If somebody is trying to make a salient point without making obvious logical errors, then that speech is acceptable no matter how disagreeable the content might be, but if somebody is just randomly babbling (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) or is saying something without any meaningful purpose, then it's worth moderating in order to make it easier for the listener or reader to see the more meaningful speech.
Then why is it so hard to understand the issue? To use one of your conservative tropes, if you don't want to play by the rules, then you don't get to play.
I'm not a conservative, dingbat. In fact I don't conform with your stupid one dimensional understanding of politics.
If there is any argument against this very rational and LEGAL position, might I remind you that it sounds like you'd like to be a special snowflake in a safe space. We know that couldn't be true, right?
The problem with ADA is that even if you fully comply with the laws, people will still sue you, even for really minor things like having a handicap sign a half of an inch too low (literally, this has happened.) In literally thousands of cases, businesses get sued by somebody who they can prove never even went there, but they settle anyways because it would cost more to fight it.
http://www.recordonline.com/ne...
Politicians and business leaders across America counter that ADA compliance cases are about extortion rather than equal access, because lawyers like Weitz often recruit serial litigants and seek reimbursements for $400-an-hour legal fees for boilerplate filings.
Clint Eastwood fought such a lawsuit and won, but it cost him more than he would have had to pay out otherwise:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/...
Note this tidbit:
After only four hours deliberation, the eight-member jury agreed with Eastwood's attorney that Diane zum Brunnen, 51, had not actually tried to use the Mission Ranch resort's facilities in 1996 -- so she wasn't denied access.
However, jurors did find that the inn should provide a ramp to the registration office, a second disabled-access guest room and signs about access accommodations -- improvements Eastwood said were already in the works.
Anyways, it's not as if would be airbnb customers are SOL, they could always go to an actual motel.
How many businesses settle ADA lawsuits because it's cheaper than fighting them? Avoiding lawsuits to begin with by rejecting them seems understandable. Not everybody wants to install wheelchair ramps in their house.
Typically if you are on the clock while driving, then the employer is liable for any damages not covered by your insurance. It varies by state, but in most cases that's how it works.
If you're an independent contractor, (i.e. Uber) then you alone are liable.
The only way it could be a reduction in tax revenue is if the unemployment permanently raised. As of now, there's no indication that this will be the case. Every 20 years or so this issue comes up, and each time people flip out about it for nothing.
Incoming "just because we recovered in the past doesn't mean we will this time", but it's a bullshit argument that just assumes that people will just stop trying to obtain an income, and if that is the case, then the UBI proposal is doomed to lazy fucks.
Even if it's done pre-puberty, the male frame still remains intact. Your body frame develops in the womb, and that includes a larger brain to accommodate a larger musculoskeletal system. If such a person died and only their bones were found, an anthropologist would identify them as their birth gender.
It's an oxymoron because it's full of shit.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
If technology was truly making us all unequal, then none of what he says would be true.
well not only warrantless but if the informant is paid by cases found, then.. well, you'll see where it goes.
There's already a lot of other precedent that if the person is acting on behalf of the government, then they are a de-facto government agent.
A really common scenario is when the police bust somebody, and in exchange for a much lighter sentence, he has to become a CI and catch some of his cohorts in the act and have them busted. But in many cases, these CI's don't actually know anybody who they can catch, so they talk somebody else into breaking the law in spite of all of that person's objections. That person will easily get the charges dropped due to entrapment, because the CI was a de-facto government agent, even though he wasn't a police officer.
Paying these guys to do the FBI's bidding easily makes them a government agent.
I agree that they shouldn't allow men to compete in women's sports, and nor should mtf trannies. If women want to compete in men's sports, that's fine, but if you have a male frame, regardless of your gender identity, then that gives you an unfair advantage against women.
I know Blarbara Hudson, aka Mr Garrison, will come in here and shit on the floor because he thinks mtf trannies should be able to compete in women's Olympics, but he should know good and well that even with his genitals removed, he still has a male frame.
"A republic, if you can keep it."
It's an issue if you believe that the primary beneficiaries of such a rule are heterosexual males that will use this as an excuse to enter female bathrooms and use the law as an excuse.
Honestly, I couldn't care less if a woman comes into the men's room. I would be concerned for women's sake about men coming into their restroom, but there doesn't seem to be any big resistance to that, so this is pretty much a non-issue.
Nonetheless, people seem to drastically overestimate the rate of sex-related crimes, and the simple fact is that most people just don't do that. Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to view it that way for issues that have nothing to do with either bathrooms or trannies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
There's also needless, counterproductive hysteria in this department, namely donglegate and gamergate.
One of the things they're doing that they tout as innovation, which just makes no sense to me at all, is continuum. Sure, it sounds nice to essentially have a desktop computer in a phone, but honestly, how often would you actually use that? In order to do so, you'd have to carry around a bunch of dock accessories in your pocket on the very, very off chance that you'll actually find a monitor to connect to that doesn't already have a bunch of stuff connected to it that you have to remove before you can use it.
It just by far makes more sense to carry around a laptop, which has the added benefit of much more powerful hardware, and the ability to run pretty much any application you want instead of just crappy UWP apps.
Besides, it's been done before by different Android OEMs, and it never proved to be popular.
It looks like that just circumvents SafetyNet, which means it hides root from Play Services. The problem is not every app goes that route, for example the app Good or the HRblock tax app.
Also it doesn't look like it does anything to make OTA android patches work. It looks like it has some tricks for custom roms, but I by far prefer to use stock Nexus images.
I could be wrong though, but from what I'm reading about it, it doesn't seem to solve all of the limitations I need to work around.
Google, is actually on its second, and a third is in production. It bought Android and had a version in development before it did. They have another one in development now.
I figured somebody would say that, and that isn't accurate. An unreleased product isn't a product, it's a prototype. It's perfectly normal for prototypes to go under major revisions before they are released. As for Fuschia, nobody really knows whether that will see the light of day, and if it does, it's more than likely going to retain app compatibility.
When I say iteration in this context, I mean they broke compatibility with existing implementations. And with that in mind, Microsoft is currently on iteration number 4 (windows mobile with PE binaries, windows phone 7 with an early pre-RT framework, windows phone 8 with an incompatible but newer RT framework, and windows phone 10 with the UWP framework) and it sounds like they're about to have iteration 5 soon.
What makes this particularly embarrassing is that they've gone through 3 of these iterations within the last 5 years, whereas iOS is 10 years old and Android is 9 years old. That, and the fact that they knew the transition from 7 to 8 was going to break things long before they even released 7, which is a mean thing to do to your own fans.
My company has it as an asset. They have two payroll budgets, one of which is the time off budget. If you take any time off, they don't pay you from the regular payroll budget and instead pay you from the time off budget, giving the regular payroll budget a surplus.
During recessions, they sometimes force you to take a week of time off if you have more than three weeks worth saved up so they can match revenues to expenses. They haven't done that in a long time though.
Crazy that this is Microsoft's 4th iteration of a phone OS. Google and Apple are still on their first.
Why on earth would you test websites on a lumia?
Google is trying to create whole new market segments, and if those market segments don't feel like big winners, then they ditch them. Essentially the same concept as the myriad of startups that fail. That, and Google wants to out-facebook Facebook, so they also routinely discard social media projects that are only moderately successful, even if they're quite profitable.
Microsoft is trying to force its way into an already saturated market that is seeing limited growth by throwing shitloads of money at it, and they keep hoping that gimmicky features will somehow make them stand out, only to find out that those features don't work. For example, they forewent a notification shade saying that the tiles were better, and then realized that tiles sucked for that purpose so they added a notification shade years later.
Actually I wanted to ask whether its software makeup is free of the pesky "cannot-remove-the-google-crap"
Or you could just disable it, and you'll never even notice that it is there unless you go way deep into the settings menu.
requires you to root and flash it, but if it fails already at the hardware level
Personally, I'm less and less interested in rooting phones. Rooting is good for adding features that aren't included stock, which was important in the early days because a lot of phones were outright incapable of doing certain things without going beyond the software stack. But these days, not only are the phones quite feature packed, but the UI is well designed too. The only reason I root is so I can use my call recording app and CF.lumen. Most phones can record calls except for the Nexus and Pixel line, unfortunately, but newer versions of Android make CF.lumen irrelevant. My current phone is a Nexus 6P, and more than likely I won't need to root with whatever I have next (which I'll probably upgrade to when the 6P stops getting updates.)
And good riddance to be honest. Rooting means you have to manually intervene every month in order for your phone to be able to take updates, which is annoying, and some apps do different things to detect root, which you have to do some hackery to get around.