If you send something to someone using MS, who exactly is violating your privacy? I'd argue it's the person you're sending it to, rather than MS. Joe Blow has granted them the right to read anything sent to him without even consulting you first, no? I mean, certainly criticize MS for asking for that in the first place, but they aren't the ones sharing your messages with a third party.
You can feel however you like. I feel it's unreasonable to complain about the ToS of a voluntary service with plenty of competitors. If this was a monopoly situation, I'd sympathize with your concerns a lot more.
You have the right to consider it a violation of privacy; everyone has the right to be wrong. If you agreed to let them look at anything you send, it's pretty silly (and wrong) to consider it an invasion of privacy if they actually do, since you told them they could.
Of course, you are free to skip MS entirely. If they then read what you send (to someone likewise not using MS-based email), that would absolutely be an invasion of privacy. And if they didn't tell you that they would read stuff, and did it anyway, that would likewise be a violation.
If you send Joe Blow a letter using my service, and in the ToS you agreed I could open it and look at whatever I wanted to see if there was illegal activity going on, you can't really complain.
A "free market" is not one with no government interference at all. It is one where buyers and sellers are allowed to set prices without government interference.
Regulations are why it's taken so long for a competitor to arise. The solution to bad regulation shouldn't be more regulation, it should be fixing the bad parts.
Two corrections - 1), polio still exists, although it's mostly eradicated, and 2) the only reason we've gotten this far in eradicating it was a huge push from two global superpowers and then further private charity.
Moreover, his successes (and humanity's gains from them) don't argue against a patent system, as they still happened within it. We should be using as many tools as possible to do great things like this; patents of some sort do spur innovation (we can argue about details of the system, to be sure) but they don't necessarily stop altruistic people like Salk from doing great things either.
Society doesn't *give* you the protection necessary to keep it. You pay for that. You also pay for infrastructure. It's not a debt if I pay taxes (voluntarily or not) for those things. Moreover, when you say society *allows* you to make your money, you make it sound like this is some sort of magnanimous decision. It's not. It's how things would be in the absence of intervention.
One big advantage that European countries have is that they're allowed to negotiate drug prices with companies, while the US Gov. is not. America is subsidizing drug prices in Europe and Canada. With regards to infant mortality rates - that's largely explained by different reporting standards. Many EU countries don't count births before a certain gestational period as "live births", and thus don't show up in infant mortality rates, while the US does count them.
But if the baking soda from this plant replaces baking soda produced by conventional means, there's still fewer net emissions, as the baking soda people would have used before would still have contributed to emissions. Now they can make those two emissions categories overlap, thus reducing the total.
Presumably sexism for casting decisions isn't all that prevalent. If your script has a woman protagonist, for instance, you'd have to be awfully sexist to try to cast a man in that role instead.
There's no call for gun BANS. Only better gun control.
This is absolutely wrong. Not only do people call for completely banning specific guns (like the AR-15), plenty of people call for banning guns in private hands entirely.
Why do you assume TVs are insured? They simply aren't, for most people. Moreover, I can't be sure that the robber only wants the TV, and in any case, they have no right to be in my house. If they refuse to leave when told to, I have every right to use force to make them.
Just like everyone would have been free to ignore the Executive Order to go to the internment camps for Japanese-Americans in WWII, right? That was just mental masturbation too, huh?
I do think Trump is a racist. I do not think he's an anti-Semite (what with his daughter converting to Judaism and all), and I don't think he will make racism a large part of his presidency; I think he's a nationalist first and foremost. Moreover, I think someone as dumb as Richard Spencer isn't a great judge of the current White House priorities. As far as I've heard (and a quick Google search confirms) he's not been granted any power. I'm sure he believes "his people" have won the White House, but that doesn't mean he's right. It'd be a different story if Trump was saying it, but at least he has denounced that sort of thing.
I take some of the alt-right at their word; they are racist (but deny being neo-Nazis; I guess you don't take them at their word on that) but Trump isn't saying that. He's saying - whether you believe him or not, and I am doubtful - that he's for all Americans regardless of race.
Either way, if they do start actually heading down the road towards new internment camps, I'll be right there with you trying to stop it. But I think we're still early enough along that conversation can have a meaningful impact.
No, you can convince them to be less racist. Yes, if the neo-Nazis gain a lot of power, then - and only then - is violence the best way to deal with them. It's far preferable, however, to convert them before it gets to that point. Minds can be changed. You're just too fucking eager to incite violence.
You mean you, personally, can't debate them. They can, and should, be debated. But sure, keep trying to pretend you're on the good side when you think someone should be beaten for having an opinion.
False. If you're going to call someone an ignorant fuckwit, at least be sure you aren't being one yourself. The First Amendment to the US Constitution only applies to Congress. It does not cover Executive Orders, nor Supreme Court rulings; it only covers one arm of the state. Technically, the POTUS can issue Executive Orders restricting free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
If you send something to someone using MS, who exactly is violating your privacy? I'd argue it's the person you're sending it to, rather than MS. Joe Blow has granted them the right to read anything sent to him without even consulting you first, no? I mean, certainly criticize MS for asking for that in the first place, but they aren't the ones sharing your messages with a third party.
You can feel however you like. I feel it's unreasonable to complain about the ToS of a voluntary service with plenty of competitors. If this was a monopoly situation, I'd sympathize with your concerns a lot more.
You have the right to consider it a violation of privacy; everyone has the right to be wrong. If you agreed to let them look at anything you send, it's pretty silly (and wrong) to consider it an invasion of privacy if they actually do, since you told them they could.
Of course, you are free to skip MS entirely. If they then read what you send (to someone likewise not using MS-based email), that would absolutely be an invasion of privacy. And if they didn't tell you that they would read stuff, and did it anyway, that would likewise be a violation.
If you send Joe Blow a letter using my service, and in the ToS you agreed I could open it and look at whatever I wanted to see if there was illegal activity going on, you can't really complain.
A "free market" is not one with no government interference at all. It is one where buyers and sellers are allowed to set prices without government interference.
Regulations are why it's taken so long for a competitor to arise. The solution to bad regulation shouldn't be more regulation, it should be fixing the bad parts.
Two corrections - 1), polio still exists, although it's mostly eradicated, and 2) the only reason we've gotten this far in eradicating it was a huge push from two global superpowers and then further private charity.
Moreover, his successes (and humanity's gains from them) don't argue against a patent system, as they still happened within it. We should be using as many tools as possible to do great things like this; patents of some sort do spur innovation (we can argue about details of the system, to be sure) but they don't necessarily stop altruistic people like Salk from doing great things either.
Society doesn't *give* you the protection necessary to keep it. You pay for that. You also pay for infrastructure. It's not a debt if I pay taxes (voluntarily or not) for those things. Moreover, when you say society *allows* you to make your money, you make it sound like this is some sort of magnanimous decision. It's not. It's how things would be in the absence of intervention.
One big advantage that European countries have is that they're allowed to negotiate drug prices with companies, while the US Gov. is not. America is subsidizing drug prices in Europe and Canada. With regards to infant mortality rates - that's largely explained by different reporting standards. Many EU countries don't count births before a certain gestational period as "live births", and thus don't show up in infant mortality rates, while the US does count them.
But if the baking soda from this plant replaces baking soda produced by conventional means, there's still fewer net emissions, as the baking soda people would have used before would still have contributed to emissions. Now they can make those two emissions categories overlap, thus reducing the total.
Presumably sexism for casting decisions isn't all that prevalent. If your script has a woman protagonist, for instance, you'd have to be awfully sexist to try to cast a man in that role instead.
There's no call for gun BANS. Only better gun control.
This is absolutely wrong. Not only do people call for completely banning specific guns (like the AR-15), plenty of people call for banning guns in private hands entirely.
Why do you assume TVs are insured? They simply aren't, for most people. Moreover, I can't be sure that the robber only wants the TV, and in any case, they have no right to be in my house. If they refuse to leave when told to, I have every right to use force to make them.
Feel free to not use modern medicine. Or anything scientists have done since da Vinci, since apparently that's the standard we're going with here.
Merck has made 300,000 doses
"Smart bombs" don't select targets, humans do. Humans also give the order to use smart bombs.
From the summary: "weapons systems that would select and attack targets without meaningful human control"
The Reaper does not fall under this category.
Pistols in some form have been around since at least the early 1700s.
Muskets, rifles, pistols, and, last but not least, cannons. It was legal for private citizens to own those at the time as well.
Obligatory SMBC.
Just like everyone would have been free to ignore the Executive Order to go to the internment camps for Japanese-Americans in WWII, right? That was just mental masturbation too, huh?
I do think Trump is a racist. I do not think he's an anti-Semite (what with his daughter converting to Judaism and all), and I don't think he will make racism a large part of his presidency; I think he's a nationalist first and foremost. Moreover, I think someone as dumb as Richard Spencer isn't a great judge of the current White House priorities. As far as I've heard (and a quick Google search confirms) he's not been granted any power. I'm sure he believes "his people" have won the White House, but that doesn't mean he's right. It'd be a different story if Trump was saying it, but at least he has denounced that sort of thing.
I take some of the alt-right at their word; they are racist (but deny being neo-Nazis; I guess you don't take them at their word on that) but Trump isn't saying that. He's saying - whether you believe him or not, and I am doubtful - that he's for all Americans regardless of race.
Either way, if they do start actually heading down the road towards new internment camps, I'll be right there with you trying to stop it. But I think we're still early enough along that conversation can have a meaningful impact.
Don't Germans have to keep their guns at a gun club? How will you shoot people when you don't have guns?
Eh. 6/10 for trolling. Not inflammatory enough to be someone who actually believes this tripe.
No, you can convince them to be less racist. Yes, if the neo-Nazis gain a lot of power, then - and only then - is violence the best way to deal with them. It's far preferable, however, to convert them before it gets to that point. Minds can be changed. You're just too fucking eager to incite violence.
You mean you, personally, can't debate them. They can, and should, be debated. But sure, keep trying to pretend you're on the good side when you think someone should be beaten for having an opinion.
False. If you're going to call someone an ignorant fuckwit, at least be sure you aren't being one yourself. The First Amendment to the US Constitution only applies to Congress. It does not cover Executive Orders, nor Supreme Court rulings; it only covers one arm of the state. Technically, the POTUS can issue Executive Orders restricting free speech.