Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.
I understand that you think that, but that's the thing with real life, it doesn't care what you think.
If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.
YES. I've got a MSWind95 machine that's going to stay running until it dies because I've got some data in applications that cannot be transferred. I've got an Apple Sys 10.4 that's warehoused and will never be upgraded (not that it can be any more) because it has proprietary file format data only accessible with programs that don't run on any modern system.
I seen something similar, a guy I know had a CNC Milling App written in DOS which he had to keep and old 1980's era PC around for. But when people complain about propriety formats, they are generally targeting MS (It's one of the classic 'I hate MS because...' arguments).
So while I agree proprietary is bad with bespoke stuff, especially small operators that go out of business, have you ever had issue with any MS files? (namely doc, xls, pps/ppt)?
And since Office has allowed you to save in open formats for the last 12 years or so, this attack vector against MS is no longer a valid one.
It has been documented time and time again that Windows 10 logs and sends information to MS
By whom?
A quick read of this method shows that it is flawed (of course turning off ports will cause Windows to try again on different ports).
I prefer someone I trust, a professional with a reputation and financial stake in the game, than "some guy on the internet".
With this story it appears to do it even when configured not to.
As above, his method is flawed so any other claims can be dismissed. My guy says it can be configured to be disabled. Who to believe?
What you seem to miss is that a lot of these random people making the reports actually are...
Paranoid?
I don't dismiss that the telemetry thing is a big concern, and we're not going there yet. But I've spoken to people I know (people with Federal government security clearances) who are doing their own tests and seem to be confident that it's not a threat.
I'll always trust those people than "Some guy on the Internet".
Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.
Nope, that is backed by science. Try again Strawman.
Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe.
I never claimed that, Strawman.
I said I drive as fast as I want and I haven't crashed in 30 years. I'd like to know how does this fit in with your "speed kills" hypothesis? As on the surface it seems to blow a big hole in it.
If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.
Wrong again. Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.
"The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so."
You made the first claim and are still yet to back it up with anything other than opinion
You then backed it up with another claim
"this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting"
This also hasn't been backed up by anything yet.
If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion.
Yes you posted actual research to something other than the topic at hand, as I already pointed out.
I posted a reference to the scientific method because you seem to not know how it works.
Like every other "speed kills" dogma I've ever seen, it's pseudo-science at it's finest.
Sometimes, but a little common sense goes a long way. Here are a few of the "good ideas" management has had at places I've worked that have failed spectacularly, after having had them pointed out ahead of time and been burned at the stake for it:
Ok I'll see if I can add some insight here. I'm not saying these are acceptable explanations, just trying to give you a different opinion
1.) Allowing their in-house cloud infrastructure that ran critical lockbox services for two dozen banks to run off a single homebuilt SAN with a failing RAID controller for months because they didn't want to pay for a new SAN (or even a replacement controller until the customers started talking about legal action for all the downtime), but we still had cash for a lavish two-day Christmas party.
Ops guys are always asking for stuff. How do you decide what is needed vs what is wanted? No matter what you decide, you'll get it wrong sometimes (as above). It's easy to ask for millions of dollars of gold plated solutions, then bitch when one thing goes doesn't get approved, but not all businesses have unlimited money so have to choose their battles.
For me I would still choose a Christmas party over a SAN upgrade, as one is guaranteed to cause trouble, whereas the other is only a maybe.
2.) Basing a new high-profile product release around the use of a complex proprietary third-party library that they had not licensed and had no documentation for, and expecting the integration to go smoothly on target for a release six weeks later.
This sound like every business I've ever worked for.
Given the choice of doing things right and taking ages, and missing a limited window of opportunity, or going to market half-baked and winging it, and possibly making it work, I will choose the latter every time.
Every successful business does this (Apple, MS, Google etc).
3.) Bringing a customer in for an on-site acceptance test, when the machine was missing a power supply and RF driver, and thus was not functional *at all*. Bonus points: the customer was from Japan and flew all the way to Florida for this acceptance test.
This doesn't sound like a management problem to me. This is pure Ops.
I get that it's hard to predict the future, and some decisions are hard to make ahead of time because there's not enough information available. That isn't what I'm talking about.
No but what techies tend not to appreciate is that management is about making business decisions, and businesses have competing priorities. With every decision there is a loser, so whoever that is blames management for not giving them what they want.
eg can you imagine if the company announced they are cancelling the annual Christmas party in order to upgrade some IT thing that no-one else knows what it does? Yeah you'd get a working SAN, but every other person in the company would probably resign. No manager will ever make that choice.
No they are stuck in the 1990s
Their rant about Linux is the same argument that was true back in the mid 1990s however Linux has matured sense then.
I heard these same arguments back in the 90's
The fact is that outside the hardcore dev shops where everyone is techy and can manage their own machine, Windows works better for Desktop/Back Office. The place I'm currently working is full Linux front of house, but even the dev teams choose Apple or Windows desktops because even they can't deal with Linux on the desktop. We have dozens of different architects, developers, and other technical consultants and not one Linux desktop in the whole place (they have free choice. They do have Linux dev servers for dev/test, but for everyday tasks (email, documentation etc) no-one uses Linux)
Linux's biggest strength is also is biggest weakness. In server land you want open, configurable, flexible, but in desktop you want uniform and standardised, and MS wins hands down.
I'm not sure how any company or business that deals with information that requires security by law could be using Windows 10.
Those businesses probably don't get their security advice from Reddit user forums, and instead rely on security professionals who can vouch whether any given product is secure or not.
I've spoken to our security consultants about it and they have cleared it as safe to use (and I trust them over blog posts).
At work we are still on Windows 7 with little chance going over to 10 because of stuff like this. (I would prefer Linux, but our management is stuck in the 1990s)
Is your management stuck in the 1990's or are they just stuck in the habit of making business decisions rather than ideological ones?
The way I see it:
- Linux is a great server OS, but weak on the desktop
- MacOS is strong on the desktop, but weak on the server
- Windows is average everywhere
This is Slashdot and you have to say that, but the fact is the Microsoft is strong with the back-office offering. Directory Services, DNS, DHCP, File, Print, Email server, and Desktop OS with Office Apps and full user machine management via Group Policy and SCOM.
In my experience, there are far too many in management at all levels that can't deal with the blow to the ego of being told that choices that they've made aren't good ones.
It's easy to pick good and bad ideas after the fact. It's picking them in advance that is difficult.
Sure you can block one IP address at a time. Then they'll switch to a range of IP addresses
Might be easier just to whitelist addresses instead. My browsing habits have slowly whittled down to a few regulars, Slashdot, wikipedia, youtube, and a few local resources etc. It wouldn't be too hard to have a browser plug-in that updates your router whitelist, and block everything else en masse.
You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.
They aren't waiving anything because they don't exist at that point in time. If you need examples, take every warzone, riot, revolution ever in human history. Hint, there wasn't much kumbaya, but there was lots of killing and oppression. Where are your examples?
My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point.
Yes your idea, not some universal law of nature. That is my point.
You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.
No confusion. 'Rights' are a concept explicitly used in the context of rules or law. None of that exist without a society and someone to govern it and enforce it.
Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.
None of that give you special rules or rights when you are facing raw nature. A tiger won't stop and check your cognitive ability before eating you, because in the jungle nobody has rights. Do you get that now?
No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.
Yes Rambo, and so do you. We all do, because no matter how tough you think you are, or how many movies you've watched, there is always someone tougher waiting around the corner.
I suggest you get out form behind the keyboard and expose yourself to the real world sometime. You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down. These right aren't natural, they are constructed by the organised societies we create specifically for this purpose.
So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?
Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights. Just ask a Lion or Zebra all about it next time you see one.
If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live.
There are no rights, don't you get that? Everyone tries to kill everyone, that is how the jungle works.
You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's.
Says who? Who does the Zebra speak to about infringements of these rights?
That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally.
You appear to not understand what these words mean.
If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people,
Oh it's quite rational, because in the jungle it's kill or be killed. Or do you think all animals in the Jungle are also irrational and should maybe all just gather around the fire and sing kumbaya together?
then you have waived your own right to your life.
There are no rights. That is my point.
Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.
I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that. Which is why I support the idea of a strong government. It helps keep me and my family alive (among a host of many other things)
It has "Bitcoin" in the title. Of course it got picked up.
Don't you know the rules?
Every day, there's gotta be at least one Forbes submission make it up, one hackaday, one from whatever site itwbennett is pushing these days (I don't click those links), and one Bitcoin story.
It's like clockwork. Things are a little shaken up with week what with all the changes happening around here, but they'll get their groove back soon enough.
Don't forget 3D printing and Drones. How will we ever survive without another story about 3D printing?
Imagine if someone bought a 3D printed drone using Bitcoin? Would the universe end?
If you had a ten thousand dollars of manure you could probably move that to dollars by selling it as fertilizer. If you haf ten million dollars of it, good luck finding a buyer without tanking the market.
You're not comparing the same thing. If you liquidate the same proportion of *ANY* market, it will have the same effect. If Apple tired to liquidate it's entire stock holding you don't think it too would tank?
Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.
Or maybe it is you that needs to think a bit harder?
So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and...
And I murder the other 9, yeah carry on...
chant something they think is important (you know... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves?
They have no rights because they are all dead. I killed them all!
You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?
You have no rights if you are dead, which is what you would be if there was no government. Do you get that?
If the response after the sexual activity is to get up, put clothes back on, head out, and pretend that nothing happened, that doesn't mean that rape didn't happen. The only point at issue is if consent was given (and it can be implied by activity). If consent was not given, it's rape.
What if the "victim" wrote on their facebook page afterwards, "that was the best night ever, I loved every minute of it". This would not be useful in determining consent?
The statement "Activities after rape should not be used to determine if rape occurred" is just wrong. All information should be available to determine the facts.
Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes:
Um are we even having the same discussion?
Now let me break it down since you clearly missed it:
You: "As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting."
This is called a claim. Using the scientific method, there is now a burden of proof on you to back this claim up with some evidence.
Nothing you have posted backs this up, in fact most of what I saw in *your* links concurs that street design has the biggest impact in road improving safety. The 85% rule is still applies.
the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.
Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash. And like most ideologists, your first reaction when faced with questioning of your religion was a personal attack. How is that working out for you?
Its main problem, of course, is application availability. Microsoft (and W10M users) is hoping that developers will embrace the Windows 10 Universal app platform,
I think they've missed the boat on that one. I'm working on a big project that includes a new App (not my team, but I'm across the work). Due to the effort/costs involved, the rule our devs have adopted is only Apps for platforms with at least 10% market share. Which makes sense from a cost/benefit point of view, but if everyone has a similar view it means the likes of Winmobile and Blackberry are dead in the water.
Slashdot Mirror
This is indeed the bottom line, isn't it?
Um no, but keep on with the strawmen, if it makes you feel better about your inability to argue the point.
No it isn't. If you ever had experience with SCO-Unix you wouldn't say such foolishness
Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.
I understand that you think that, but that's the thing with real life, it doesn't care what you think. If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.
YES. I've got a MSWind95 machine that's going to stay running until it dies because I've got some data in applications that cannot be transferred. I've got an Apple Sys 10.4 that's warehoused and will never be upgraded (not that it can be any more) because it has proprietary file format data only accessible with programs that don't run on any modern system.
I seen something similar, a guy I know had a CNC Milling App written in DOS which he had to keep and old 1980's era PC around for. But when people complain about propriety formats, they are generally targeting MS (It's one of the classic 'I hate MS because...' arguments). So while I agree proprietary is bad with bespoke stuff, especially small operators that go out of business, have you ever had issue with any MS files? (namely doc, xls, pps/ppt)? And since Office has allowed you to save in open formats for the last 12 years or so, this attack vector against MS is no longer a valid one.
It has been documented time and time again that Windows 10 logs and sends information to MS
By whom? A quick read of this method shows that it is flawed (of course turning off ports will cause Windows to try again on different ports). I prefer someone I trust, a professional with a reputation and financial stake in the game, than "some guy on the internet".
With this story it appears to do it even when configured not to.
As above, his method is flawed so any other claims can be dismissed. My guy says it can be configured to be disabled. Who to believe?
What you seem to miss is that a lot of these random people making the reports actually are...
Paranoid?
I don't dismiss that the telemetry thing is a big concern, and we're not going there yet. But I've spoken to people I know (people with Federal government security clearances) who are doing their own tests and seem to be confident that it's not a threat.
I'll always trust those people than "Some guy on the Internet".
Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.
Nope, that is backed by science. Try again Strawman.
Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe.
I never claimed that, Strawman.
I said I drive as fast as I want and I haven't crashed in 30 years. I'd like to know how does this fit in with your "speed kills" hypothesis? As on the surface it seems to blow a big hole in it.
If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.
Wrong again. Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.
"The fact that 85% of the people that drive by my house decide to drive like reckless idiots doesn't magically make it safer for them to do so."
You made the first claim and are still yet to back it up with anything other than opinion
You then backed it up with another claim
"this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting"
This also hasn't been backed up by anything yet.
If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion.
Yes you posted actual research to something other than the topic at hand, as I already pointed out. I posted a reference to the scientific method because you seem to not know how it works.
Like every other "speed kills" dogma I've ever seen, it's pseudo-science at it's finest.
Sometimes, but a little common sense goes a long way. Here are a few of the "good ideas" management has had at places I've worked that have failed spectacularly, after having had them pointed out ahead of time and been burned at the stake for it:
Ok I'll see if I can add some insight here. I'm not saying these are acceptable explanations, just trying to give you a different opinion
1.) Allowing their in-house cloud infrastructure that ran critical lockbox services for two dozen banks to run off a single homebuilt SAN with a failing RAID controller for months because they didn't want to pay for a new SAN (or even a replacement controller until the customers started talking about legal action for all the downtime), but we still had cash for a lavish two-day Christmas party.
Ops guys are always asking for stuff. How do you decide what is needed vs what is wanted? No matter what you decide, you'll get it wrong sometimes (as above). It's easy to ask for millions of dollars of gold plated solutions, then bitch when one thing goes doesn't get approved, but not all businesses have unlimited money so have to choose their battles.
For me I would still choose a Christmas party over a SAN upgrade, as one is guaranteed to cause trouble, whereas the other is only a maybe.
2.) Basing a new high-profile product release around the use of a complex proprietary third-party library that they had not licensed and had no documentation for, and expecting the integration to go smoothly on target for a release six weeks later.
This sound like every business I've ever worked for.
Given the choice of doing things right and taking ages, and missing a limited window of opportunity, or going to market half-baked and winging it, and possibly making it work, I will choose the latter every time.
Every successful business does this (Apple, MS, Google etc).
3.) Bringing a customer in for an on-site acceptance test, when the machine was missing a power supply and RF driver, and thus was not functional *at all*. Bonus points: the customer was from Japan and flew all the way to Florida for this acceptance test.
This doesn't sound like a management problem to me. This is pure Ops.
I get that it's hard to predict the future, and some decisions are hard to make ahead of time because there's not enough information available. That isn't what I'm talking about.
No but what techies tend not to appreciate is that management is about making business decisions, and businesses have competing priorities. With every decision there is a loser, so whoever that is blames management for not giving them what they want.
eg can you imagine if the company announced they are cancelling the annual Christmas party in order to upgrade some IT thing that no-one else knows what it does? Yeah you'd get a working SAN, but every other person in the company would probably resign. No manager will ever make that choice.
No they are stuck in the 1990s Their rant about Linux is the same argument that was true back in the mid 1990s however Linux has matured sense then.
I heard these same arguments back in the 90's
The fact is that outside the hardcore dev shops where everyone is techy and can manage their own machine, Windows works better for Desktop/Back Office. The place I'm currently working is full Linux front of house, but even the dev teams choose Apple or Windows desktops because even they can't deal with Linux on the desktop. We have dozens of different architects, developers, and other technical consultants and not one Linux desktop in the whole place (they have free choice. They do have Linux dev servers for dev/test, but for everyday tasks (email, documentation etc) no-one uses Linux)
Linux's biggest strength is also is biggest weakness. In server land you want open, configurable, flexible, but in desktop you want uniform and standardised, and MS wins hands down.
suddenly the incentive for Linux distributions to go serious UI
Linux has been trying to go serious UI for the last 25 years. Don't hold your breath...
I'm not sure how any company or business that deals with information that requires security by law could be using Windows 10.
Those businesses probably don't get their security advice from Reddit user forums, and instead rely on security professionals who can vouch whether any given product is secure or not.
I've spoken to our security consultants about it and they have cleared it as safe to use (and I trust them over blog posts).
At work we are still on Windows 7 with little chance going over to 10 because of stuff like this. (I would prefer Linux, but our management is stuck in the 1990s)
Is your management stuck in the 1990's or are they just stuck in the habit of making business decisions rather than ideological ones?
Once a company chooses Unix, it is hard to imagine they would go back, except at the point of a gun.
A lot of companies gave up on Unix and migrated to Linux...
I decided that proprietary file formats were totally unacceptable.
In what way? I mean we hear this argument a fair bit, but does it really cause anyone that much grief?
The way I see it: - Linux is a great server OS, but weak on the desktop - MacOS is strong on the desktop, but weak on the server - Windows is average everywhere
This is Slashdot and you have to say that, but the fact is the Microsoft is strong with the back-office offering. Directory Services, DNS, DHCP, File, Print, Email server, and Desktop OS with Office Apps and full user machine management via Group Policy and SCOM.
In my experience, there are far too many in management at all levels that can't deal with the blow to the ego of being told that choices that they've made aren't good ones.
It's easy to pick good and bad ideas after the fact. It's picking them in advance that is difficult.
Sure you can block one IP address at a time. Then they'll switch to a range of IP addresses
Might be easier just to whitelist addresses instead. My browsing habits have slowly whittled down to a few regulars, Slashdot, wikipedia, youtube, and a few local resources etc. It wouldn't be too hard to have a browser plug-in that updates your router whitelist, and block everything else en masse.
You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.
They aren't waiving anything because they don't exist at that point in time. If you need examples, take every warzone, riot, revolution ever in human history. Hint, there wasn't much kumbaya, but there was lots of killing and oppression. Where are your examples?
My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point.
Yes your idea, not some universal law of nature. That is my point.
You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.
No confusion. 'Rights' are a concept explicitly used in the context of rules or law. None of that exist without a society and someone to govern it and enforce it.
Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.
None of that give you special rules or rights when you are facing raw nature. A tiger won't stop and check your cognitive ability before eating you, because in the jungle nobody has rights. Do you get that now?
No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.
Yes Rambo, and so do you. We all do, because no matter how tough you think you are, or how many movies you've watched, there is always someone tougher waiting around the corner.
I suggest you get out form behind the keyboard and expose yourself to the real world sometime. You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down. These right aren't natural, they are constructed by the organised societies we create specifically for this purpose.
So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?
Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights. Just ask a Lion or Zebra all about it next time you see one.
If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live.
There are no rights, don't you get that? Everyone tries to kill everyone, that is how the jungle works.
You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's.
Says who? Who does the Zebra speak to about infringements of these rights?
That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally.
You appear to not understand what these words mean.
If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people,
Oh it's quite rational, because in the jungle it's kill or be killed. Or do you think all animals in the Jungle are also irrational and should maybe all just gather around the fire and sing kumbaya together?
then you have waived your own right to your life.
There are no rights. That is my point.
Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.
I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that. Which is why I support the idea of a strong government. It helps keep me and my family alive (among a host of many other things)
It has "Bitcoin" in the title. Of course it got picked up.
Don't you know the rules?
Every day, there's gotta be at least one Forbes submission make it up, one hackaday, one from whatever site itwbennett is pushing these days (I don't click those links), and one Bitcoin story.
It's like clockwork. Things are a little shaken up with week what with all the changes happening around here, but they'll get their groove back soon enough.
Don't forget 3D printing and Drones. How will we ever survive without another story about 3D printing?
Imagine if someone bought a 3D printed drone using Bitcoin? Would the universe end?
If you had a ten thousand dollars of manure you could probably move that to dollars by selling it as fertilizer. If you haf ten million dollars of it, good luck finding a buyer without tanking the market.
You're not comparing the same thing. If you liquidate the same proportion of *ANY* market, it will have the same effect. If Apple tired to liquidate it's entire stock holding you don't think it too would tank?
Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.
Or maybe it is you that needs to think a bit harder?
So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and ...
And I murder the other 9, yeah carry on...
chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves?
They have no rights because they are all dead. I killed them all!
You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?
You have no rights if you are dead, which is what you would be if there was no government. Do you get that?
If the response after the sexual activity is to get up, put clothes back on, head out, and pretend that nothing happened, that doesn't mean that rape didn't happen. The only point at issue is if consent was given (and it can be implied by activity). If consent was not given, it's rape.
What if the "victim" wrote on their facebook page afterwards, "that was the best night ever, I loved every minute of it". This would not be useful in determining consent?
The statement "Activities after rape should not be used to determine if rape occurred" is just wrong. All information should be available to determine the facts.
Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes:
Um are we even having the same discussion?
Now let me break it down since you clearly missed it:
You: "As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting."
This is called a claim. Using the scientific method, there is now a burden of proof on you to back this claim up with some evidence.
Nothing you have posted backs this up, in fact most of what I saw in *your* links concurs that street design has the biggest impact in road improving safety. The 85% rule is still applies.
the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.
Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash. And like most ideologists, your first reaction when faced with questioning of your religion was a personal attack. How is that working out for you?
Its main problem, of course, is application availability. Microsoft (and W10M users) is hoping that developers will embrace the Windows 10 Universal app platform,
I think they've missed the boat on that one. I'm working on a big project that includes a new App (not my team, but I'm across the work). Due to the effort/costs involved, the rule our devs have adopted is only Apps for platforms with at least 10% market share. Which makes sense from a cost/benefit point of view, but if everyone has a similar view it means the likes of Winmobile and Blackberry are dead in the water.