Today, if someone crosses the border from north to south into Mexico they will be met by the Mexican Army, arrested and likely confined, possibly for a long time. There is no possibility that someone is going to stay there unmolested - the people will turn the "invader" in if they manage to elude the Army and the police. This is the complete opposite of what happens to a border crosser going from south to north - which means pretty much we deserve exactly what we are getting.
Have you ever actually been to Mexico, or are you just reciting a joke you heard once at a Tea Party? Crossing into Mexico doesn't even require sneaking -- just walk right through the border crossing station. There *might* be a guard there, and in some rare cases he might actually be doing more than a cursory random inspection of bags. The reason you never see a line going south at any of the border crossings is *not* because there aren't just as many people crossing in that direction; it's because the "security" you cite is demonstrably absent.
That's not to be confused with committing a crime in Mexico, which will likely result in the consequences you describe. But crossing the border is trivial, and gaining permanent residency is only slightly more involved. Most people are pleasant, though you may encounter implicit or overt hostility in some areas -- away from tourist towns in particular. But that's no different than a foreigner in *any* country.
I agree that we're getting what we deserve -- but I heartily disagree that what we're getting is detrimental on the whole. Illegal immigration is a minor annoyance at worst, and beneficial to the economy at best. Even the idea that it takes away jobs is fallacious, because jobs are not a fixed value. Immigrants create added demand for existing goods and services, just like anyone else. People -- even Mexicans -- need to eat, so they buy food. They also procure other basic necessities such as water, shelter, transportation, and eventually fulfill higher level desires, all of which contributes to the demand for "legitimate" jobs; skilled or not. They are certainly less damaging than our mutual ancestors were, and their offspring are assimilated into our Borg collective more readily than immigration provocateurs would like to admit. Sure, many immigrants, legal or illegal, send money back to their relatives, and some may end up moving back at some point. The net result, however, is beneficial for everyone in the long run, because increased prosperity for our neighbor increases both our security and the market for our products.
Complaining that you can't get a job as a consequence of immigration is like complaining that you can't get a girlfriend as a consequence of alternative suitors. It is the very sense of entitlement, of anti-free market sentiment, that those opposing illegal immigration so often decry in every other context. In a word, it's hypocritical.
It's much easier to tell others to stand on principle than to do it oneself.
Personally, I have no problem with Google following the law in this case. If the law was to sacrifice a baby for each search result returned then that's one thing, but censorship is, at worst, an inconvenience. Moreover, every country has some form of censorship, and crossing that line can and does result in imprisonment. The argument over where and how to draw the line is appropriate, but it's also one that each sovereign nation must make for itself. I have no problem with voicing our opinion, as we're fortunately free to do, but at the end of the day China must decide for itself.
Only if you're counting each of the 50, nifty, United States as its own country. Pretty much everywhere else in the world charges little to nothing for SMS. Or "setup" fees. Or incoming calls for that matter. Whether it's medicine, cellphones, or the internet, "Pay more for less!" is the motto of the US corporation.
But on the upside, at least all those massive profit margins have given us a flourishing economy. Oh, wait...
Well if full-duplex is your definition of multitasking, you'll be pleasantly surprised to know that the iPhone already multitasks just as well as the StarTac.
Exactly. This same ruling has been the bane of medical marijuana efforts vis-a-vis the DEA, as well as countless other seemingly local matters that are extrapolated into Federal affairs -- quite literally. By the rationale of Wickard v Filburn, for those unaware, anything that affects or potentially affects supply and demand on a national level (which is literally everything), is subject to the Interstate Commerce clause, and thus falls under Federal jurisdiction. If you're growing wheat locally, consuming it locally, and disposing of it locally, you're affecting demand for products from out of state. If you're growing marijuana locally, then you're affecting the government's ability to regulate the market for marijuana nationally (where elimination is a form of regulation). Likewise, if you're performing a procedure in Colorado, you're affecting the government's ability to eliminate the market for that treatment on a national scale.
This is clearly beyond the intent of the framers, as indicated by all available documents of the period, but laws often have unintended consequences. Many people blame the USSC, although essentially they did their job: They said, "Well, this is simply an unintended consequence of the law, but the law is still valid." The real problem, as always (in a democracy) lies with an electorate which either does not know or does not care about the rights they are willfully surrendering. The feet of Congress should be held to the fire to narrow their jurisdiction and to tailor laws as specifically and narrowly as the Supreme Court tends to tailor its decisions these days.
I'm not condoning misuse of personal information by any means, but anyone who uses a shared password for all of their accounts is making themselves an easy target, as are those who provide their password(s) to a third party to "retrieve contacts" or the like. Just because a site is legit doesn't mean that there aren't people working for the site (or running it, as the case may be) who are less than scrupulous. Would you give your banker the keys to your house and car just because you trust him with your deposits? Or give your mechanic your PIN just because you trust him with your car? Most people would not, yet they do the online equivalent every day, and the effects can be nearly as damaging. Sure, you could try to sue the company for damages after the fact, but a) these things can be very difficult to prove, and b) lawsuits can't put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. What's done is done.
I used a dedicated e-mail account just to establish my Facebook account, with separate pseudorandom passwords for each login. That may be going a bit farther than most people want to go, but the ability to prevent a cascading effect from any single security compromise is important to me.
Here's a jimmy joke about your momma that you might not like: Mutual exclusivity is not required for exclusive distribution of a value; nor does nonexclusive distribution imply that minority values are significant. In other words, shut the fuck up.
I realize you probably inserted "/watch" after the fact, but it got me thinking.. It's weird that listening requires a preposition while watching does not. They both imply paying attention, either visually or auditorily, yet "I'm watching to you listen me," looks like utter nonsense.
Unfortunately, most publishers don't see the options as DRM vs no DRM, but as DRM vs "Fuck you, we're only making console games then. Have fun playing nothing!"
Indeed. Here in Colorado they just passed a so-called "Amazon" bill, which aims clamp down on people who don't pay use tax for online purchases, which according to tax data, is almost everyone. Instead of requiring businesses to collect and remit CO sales tax directly, they require them to notify the customer(s) of the amount spent that year and a reminder to pay their state taxes, along with providing the state of CO with customer information. The new law applies to all companies doing more than $100k gross sales to residents of CO, and went into effect on March 1.
I don't know about writing, but it's got to be the earliest example of Easter Eggs, both literal and metaphorical. IMO, they should also win Best Hiding Spot, since it took 60,000 years to find them.
If she really tweeted her child's abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that you are using the word abortion in a manner inconsistent with its definition.
Is Linux a great operating system, or the GREATEST operating system? Also is Microsoft still the single largest corporate contributor to the NAMBLA Defense Fund? I want my leaflets to be as.. oh shit, MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!
Eh.. it depends. If his concerns would be assuaged by evidence, then he should put in an offer contingent upon satisfactory results from a site survey performed by a company chosen by him, at cost to the seller. (Google turned up this in NY).
Slashdot Mirror
My response then was "If they said yes to a random guy walking up to them asking for sex, then I sure as hell *DON'T* want to sleep with them!!!"
That's what we call rationalizing.
Ah yes, the Reverse Lightning Project. We'll show those clouds who's boss!
Today, if someone crosses the border from north to south into Mexico they will be met by the Mexican Army, arrested and likely confined, possibly for a long time. There is no possibility that someone is going to stay there unmolested - the people will turn the "invader" in if they manage to elude the Army and the police. This is the complete opposite of what happens to a border crosser going from south to north - which means pretty much we deserve exactly what we are getting.
Have you ever actually been to Mexico, or are you just reciting a joke you heard once at a Tea Party? Crossing into Mexico doesn't even require sneaking -- just walk right through the border crossing station. There *might* be a guard there, and in some rare cases he might actually be doing more than a cursory random inspection of bags. The reason you never see a line going south at any of the border crossings is *not* because there aren't just as many people crossing in that direction; it's because the "security" you cite is demonstrably absent.
That's not to be confused with committing a crime in Mexico, which will likely result in the consequences you describe. But crossing the border is trivial, and gaining permanent residency is only slightly more involved. Most people are pleasant, though you may encounter implicit or overt hostility in some areas -- away from tourist towns in particular. But that's no different than a foreigner in *any* country.
I agree that we're getting what we deserve -- but I heartily disagree that what we're getting is detrimental on the whole. Illegal immigration is a minor annoyance at worst, and beneficial to the economy at best. Even the idea that it takes away jobs is fallacious, because jobs are not a fixed value. Immigrants create added demand for existing goods and services, just like anyone else. People -- even Mexicans -- need to eat, so they buy food. They also procure other basic necessities such as water, shelter, transportation, and eventually fulfill higher level desires, all of which contributes to the demand for "legitimate" jobs; skilled or not. They are certainly less damaging than our mutual ancestors were, and their offspring are assimilated into our Borg collective more readily than immigration provocateurs would like to admit. Sure, many immigrants, legal or illegal, send money back to their relatives, and some may end up moving back at some point. The net result, however, is beneficial for everyone in the long run, because increased prosperity for our neighbor increases both our security and the market for our products.
Complaining that you can't get a job as a consequence of immigration is like complaining that you can't get a girlfriend as a consequence of alternative suitors. It is the very sense of entitlement, of anti-free market sentiment, that those opposing illegal immigration so often decry in every other context. In a word, it's hypocritical.
It's much easier to tell others to stand on principle than to do it oneself.
Personally, I have no problem with Google following the law in this case. If the law was to sacrifice a baby for each search result returned then that's one thing, but censorship is, at worst, an inconvenience. Moreover, every country has some form of censorship, and crossing that line can and does result in imprisonment. The argument over where and how to draw the line is appropriate, but it's also one that each sovereign nation must make for itself. I have no problem with voicing our opinion, as we're fortunately free to do, but at the end of the day China must decide for itself.
Only if you're counting each of the 50, nifty, United States as its own country. Pretty much everywhere else in the world charges little to nothing for SMS. Or "setup" fees. Or incoming calls for that matter. Whether it's medicine, cellphones, or the internet, "Pay more for less!" is the motto of the US corporation.
But on the upside, at least all those massive profit margins have given us a flourishing economy. Oh, wait...
Well if full-duplex is your definition of multitasking, you'll be pleasantly surprised to know that the iPhone already multitasks just as well as the StarTac.
Exactly. This same ruling has been the bane of medical marijuana efforts vis-a-vis the DEA, as well as countless other seemingly local matters that are extrapolated into Federal affairs -- quite literally. By the rationale of Wickard v Filburn, for those unaware, anything that affects or potentially affects supply and demand on a national level (which is literally everything), is subject to the Interstate Commerce clause, and thus falls under Federal jurisdiction. If you're growing wheat locally, consuming it locally, and disposing of it locally, you're affecting demand for products from out of state. If you're growing marijuana locally, then you're affecting the government's ability to regulate the market for marijuana nationally (where elimination is a form of regulation). Likewise, if you're performing a procedure in Colorado, you're affecting the government's ability to eliminate the market for that treatment on a national scale.
This is clearly beyond the intent of the framers, as indicated by all available documents of the period, but laws often have unintended consequences. Many people blame the USSC, although essentially they did their job: They said, "Well, this is simply an unintended consequence of the law, but the law is still valid." The real problem, as always (in a democracy) lies with an electorate which either does not know or does not care about the rights they are willfully surrendering. The feet of Congress should be held to the fire to narrow their jurisdiction and to tailor laws as specifically and narrowly as the Supreme Court tends to tailor its decisions these days.
Note that I'm not holding my breath...
I thought the obvious answer would be octa-porn.
And you're free to interpret that any way you like.
I'm not condoning misuse of personal information by any means, but anyone who uses a shared password for all of their accounts is making themselves an easy target, as are those who provide their password(s) to a third party to "retrieve contacts" or the like. Just because a site is legit doesn't mean that there aren't people working for the site (or running it, as the case may be) who are less than scrupulous. Would you give your banker the keys to your house and car just because you trust him with your deposits? Or give your mechanic your PIN just because you trust him with your car? Most people would not, yet they do the online equivalent every day, and the effects can be nearly as damaging. Sure, you could try to sue the company for damages after the fact, but a) these things can be very difficult to prove, and b) lawsuits can't put the genie back in the bottle, so to speak. What's done is done.
I used a dedicated e-mail account just to establish my Facebook account, with separate pseudorandom passwords for each login. That may be going a bit farther than most people want to go, but the ability to prevent a cascading effect from any single security compromise is important to me.
Alcohol actually contributes to insomnia.
Just sayin...
Here's a jimmy joke about your momma that you might not like: Mutual exclusivity is not required for exclusive distribution of a value; nor does nonexclusive distribution imply that minority values are significant. In other words, shut the fuck up.
or listen/watch to the media
I realize you probably inserted "/watch" after the fact, but it got me thinking.. It's weird that listening requires a preposition while watching does not. They both imply paying attention, either visually or auditorily, yet "I'm watching to you listen me," looks like utter nonsense.
The DMCA may be idiotic, but at least it has stopped piracy.
Unfortunately, most publishers don't see the options as DRM vs no DRM, but as DRM vs "Fuck you, we're only making console games then. Have fun playing nothing!"
Mere child's play. Real men telnet on port 443.
Indeed. Here in Colorado they just passed a so-called "Amazon" bill, which aims clamp down on people who don't pay use tax for online purchases, which according to tax data, is almost everyone. Instead of requiring businesses to collect and remit CO sales tax directly, they require them to notify the customer(s) of the amount spent that year and a reminder to pay their state taxes, along with providing the state of CO with customer information. The new law applies to all companies doing more than $100k gross sales to residents of CO, and went into effect on March 1.
I don't know about writing, but it's got to be the earliest example of Easter Eggs, both literal and metaphorical. IMO, they should also win Best Hiding Spot, since it took 60,000 years to find them.
If she really tweeted her child's abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that you are using the word abortion in a manner inconsistent with its definition.
Dear Slashdot,
Is Linux a great operating system, or the GREATEST operating system? Also is Microsoft still the single largest corporate contributor to the NAMBLA Defense Fund? I want my leaflets to be as.. oh shit, MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!
My phone never dials ex-girlfriends thanks to a simple process called "removing their numbers."
The difference between theory and practice is often much larger in practice than in theory.
Nurse: Is there anything you need?
Patient: H.......E.......A.......D
Nurse: Hmph. [Storms out of the room]
Patient: ......^H.......T
Except then he'll have no cell service, not to mention terrestrial television or radio reception.
Eh.. it depends. If his concerns would be assuaged by evidence, then he should put in an offer contingent upon satisfactory results from a site survey performed by a company chosen by him, at cost to the seller. (Google turned up this in NY).
The karma from funny is a lie.