Look, rape happens all the time. It happens more often in economically disadvantaged communities, and by family members, but we don't talk about that. We talk about frat guys, or jockeys, or the people we "least expect," because that makes headlines. Rape is not an epidemic on college campuses, although there is an epidemic of paranoia. Most guys are scared shitless of possibly doing something uncool, let alone "creepy," let alone being accused of rape. If we want to deal with the real epidemic of rape and sexual assault, then we should create programs in grade school for students to tell an adult about what happens at home. If we teach children and young teenagers that they won't be ignored, and that someone cares about them, then they won't be afraid to report things when they're adults on college campuses. Most rapes and sexual assaults are committed by people who themselves were abused or assaulted, who never found resolution. If we get to those people before they get the chance to victimize others, then we've made everyone safer. I'm not one to beat the "think of the children" drum, but this is a problem that's rooted in childhood, so that's where our focus should be.
You start with a true statement, and then go on to make a baseless and unsubstantiated attack. First, you really can't claim to know what an entire segment of the population thinks. (If you do, Randi would be happy to hear from you.) Second, I think Socialists would argue that the distinction is very important -- central to their beliefs, in fact.
What? It's the manufacturer creating a flawed product that hurts the brand, but let's blame the victim and pretend it's not. How do niche users hurt the brand? The people hurting the brand are, arguably, people who say "this doesn't play my AAA game," or "I have artifacts when I use this card," not the guys posting their OSS linux problems.
It costs more time and money to make things so opaque. The people who care (AMD, Intel) will reverse engineer that shit anyway. Some guy in his basement writing drivers is not your competition, but he is a potential customer.
Your point is valid, but it's a bit like claiming that I have biked farther and for more time than any other person on the planet who lives in my apartment. It's true, but it's also sort of stupid to make such a narrowly tailored claim.
If you think the average person has a desktop background that differs from stock, let alone a space-themed background, then there's a good chance your sample size is far, far too small.
But why? It seems counter to business interests. The more people using your hardware, the better, yes? So why try to restrict that in any way whatsoever?
I don't want to defend Thompson at all. I do think that if people are committing criminal acts, like fraud, or intimidation, or harassment, or contempt, then we already have laws to deal with that, and we should use those laws. We don't need an extrajudicial process -- the judicial system should eat its own dog food.
Jefferson wasn't perfect. I'm not saying we should disregard his reasoning, just that we shouldn't automatically accept it on the face either. In recognition of the fact that it was written by imperfect people, our Constitution itself was designed to be changeable. We've sort of forgotten that since we started elevating it to a holy text (apropo of the discussion), but it's supposed to be a living document, not the 10 commandments.
What? There's no license to be a teacher, or a banker, or a police officer. At least not where I live. There are job requirements, but not licenses. If you're going to conflate job requirements with licenses, then everything requires a license.
Look, I'm not saying that I would ever hire a lawyer that wasn't certified in some way, I'm just saying that it seems unnecessary to mandate it. If the bar was effective at keeping bad lawyers out, then we wouldn't have bad lawyers (ha), and if we believe in a free market (which, the last time I checked, lawyers charge money), then the market should be able to sort it out on its own. I am, in fact, in favor of regulation of industries, but the bar seems like a relic of a bygone era when only "gentlemen" were permitted to do certain things. It may be more meritocratic and less political these days, at least as far as getting admitted -- though law firms themselves are nothing if not political -- but it still reeks of elitism. And it's certainly done nothing to prevent incestuous relationships between public defenders and DAs and judges.
I think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater at some point, such as when the baby is dead and stinking up the whole place. Our tax code is a dead baby. There is no part of it worth keeping. There, I've said it.
The obvious solution is to remove tax exempt status for religious institutions altogether. It's not just Scientology taking advantage of this, it's so-called megachurches and televangelists too. If they want to have a charitable division, fine, but a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
The concept of mandatory bars and disbarring seems, ironically, to be unamerican. I can see having bar membership as an optional accreditation. We have ASE certified mechanic, or CCNA IT guys. Actually disallowing someone from doing a job, though, merely because someone else says they're unqualified seems incongruent with basic capitalism and free market principles.
Over 100 comments now, and not one person has mentioned how lifelike and delicious those downscaled chestnuts look. Honestly, it's like nobody bothers to click on TFA anymore.
I'm always amused by cultural differences like this though... you would never see chestnuts used as screen porn in the US. Actual porn, maybe, but not chestnuts.
I did, when I tried it. Chronic, explosive, and gassy. It was awful. I stuck with it for a month, hoping I would adjust, but it didn't happen. The gastrointestinal effects of Xylitol just weren't worth it for me.
What does this mean? Ultimately it means your fridge will get hacked because Whirlpool doesn't have the first goddamned clue about network security. Some jackass will order a bunch of shit you didn't want, or turn on your sprinklers in the middle of the day, or broadcast your "facial recognition" camera to show your wife getting a pearl necklace. The threat is directly proportional to the attack surface, and when everything has an IP, then everything is a potential attack vector.
the phones that allow people messing around in their systems (Jolla, Ubuntu phones, rooted Androids) will just have third-party, non-gov-approved encryption in them and criminals (and people not really comfortable with NSA snooping) will subsequently use these.
They'll prohibit and penalize that by restricting such tools, the same way they did with "circumvention tools" in the DMCA. Banks and those with "legitimate" needs excepted, of course.
1) "Random inspections of vehicle safety and driver sobriety are a reasonable way to ensure that we can use the roadways safely"
Do we have actual evidence of a decline in drunk driving through the use of checkpoints, or is it just accepted because it sounds effective? If they're not effective, then the whole argument is moot. http://www.thecrimereport.org/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2) Balancing tests are only appropriate when there are no other options, such as in the courthouse example you cite. Either there are checkpoints at courthouse entrances OR courthouses are insecure. There is no such mutual exclusivity with DUI checkpoints.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, rape happens all the time. It happens more often in economically disadvantaged communities, and by family members, but we don't talk about that. We talk about frat guys, or jockeys, or the people we "least expect," because that makes headlines. Rape is not an epidemic on college campuses, although there is an epidemic of paranoia. Most guys are scared shitless of possibly doing something uncool, let alone "creepy," let alone being accused of rape. If we want to deal with the real epidemic of rape and sexual assault, then we should create programs in grade school for students to tell an adult about what happens at home. If we teach children and young teenagers that they won't be ignored, and that someone cares about them, then they won't be afraid to report things when they're adults on college campuses. Most rapes and sexual assaults are committed by people who themselves were abused or assaulted, who never found resolution. If we get to those people before they get the chance to victimize others, then we've made everyone safer. I'm not one to beat the "think of the children" drum, but this is a problem that's rooted in childhood, so that's where our focus should be.
You start with a true statement, and then go on to make a baseless and unsubstantiated attack. First, you really can't claim to know what an entire segment of the population thinks. (If you do, Randi would be happy to hear from you.) Second, I think Socialists would argue that the distinction is very important -- central to their beliefs, in fact.
What? It's the manufacturer creating a flawed product that hurts the brand, but let's blame the victim and pretend it's not. How do niche users hurt the brand? The people hurting the brand are, arguably, people who say "this doesn't play my AAA game," or "I have artifacts when I use this card," not the guys posting their OSS linux problems.
It costs more time and money to make things so opaque. The people who care (AMD, Intel) will reverse engineer that shit anyway. Some guy in his basement writing drivers is not your competition, but he is a potential customer.
Your point is valid, but it's a bit like claiming that I have biked farther and for more time than any other person on the planet who lives in my apartment. It's true, but it's also sort of stupid to make such a narrowly tailored claim.
If you think the average person has a desktop background that differs from stock, let alone a space-themed background, then there's a good chance your sample size is far, far too small.
Far too small.
You had me until you said "internet of things."
But why? It seems counter to business interests. The more people using your hardware, the better, yes? So why try to restrict that in any way whatsoever?
I don't want to defend Thompson at all. I do think that if people are committing criminal acts, like fraud, or intimidation, or harassment, or contempt, then we already have laws to deal with that, and we should use those laws. We don't need an extrajudicial process -- the judicial system should eat its own dog food.
Jefferson wasn't perfect. I'm not saying we should disregard his reasoning, just that we shouldn't automatically accept it on the face either. In recognition of the fact that it was written by imperfect people, our Constitution itself was designed to be changeable. We've sort of forgotten that since we started elevating it to a holy text (apropo of the discussion), but it's supposed to be a living document, not the 10 commandments.
What? There's no license to be a teacher, or a banker, or a police officer. At least not where I live. There are job requirements, but not licenses. If you're going to conflate job requirements with licenses, then everything requires a license.
Look, I'm not saying that I would ever hire a lawyer that wasn't certified in some way, I'm just saying that it seems unnecessary to mandate it. If the bar was effective at keeping bad lawyers out, then we wouldn't have bad lawyers (ha), and if we believe in a free market (which, the last time I checked, lawyers charge money), then the market should be able to sort it out on its own. I am, in fact, in favor of regulation of industries, but the bar seems like a relic of a bygone era when only "gentlemen" were permitted to do certain things. It may be more meritocratic and less political these days, at least as far as getting admitted -- though law firms themselves are nothing if not political -- but it still reeks of elitism. And it's certainly done nothing to prevent incestuous relationships between public defenders and DAs and judges.
Law is a profession where an incompetent or corrupt practitioner can cause customers tremendous (and not readily correctable) harm.
So is teaching. So is banking. So is policing. So is being President.
Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others
How does it do that? And how does it do that in ways that the law does not?
I've heard that before, but repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa...
http://www.cracked.com/article...
It'd be a real shame if anything happened to that nest.
Something like this probably:
https://www.google.com/search?...
Yeah, that's what happens in the majority of states that don't mandate bar membership. Attorneys watch videos and then we force people to hire them.
Good comparison otherwise, though.
I think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater at some point, such as when the baby is dead and stinking up the whole place. Our tax code is a dead baby. There is no part of it worth keeping. There, I've said it.
The obvious solution is to remove tax exempt status for religious institutions altogether. It's not just Scientology taking advantage of this, it's so-called megachurches and televangelists too. If they want to have a charitable division, fine, but a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.
"Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them.
The concept of mandatory bars and disbarring seems, ironically, to be unamerican. I can see having bar membership as an optional accreditation. We have ASE certified mechanic, or CCNA IT guys. Actually disallowing someone from doing a job, though, merely because someone else says they're unqualified seems incongruent with basic capitalism and free market principles.
It was a comparison of judgment. I'll allow it.
Precise but inaccurate. Different.
Over 100 comments now, and not one person has mentioned how lifelike and delicious those downscaled chestnuts look. Honestly, it's like nobody bothers to click on TFA anymore.
I'm always amused by cultural differences like this though... you would never see chestnuts used as screen porn in the US. Actual porn, maybe, but not chestnuts.
I might, if I lived there, or if it affected me. I can't be angry about everything.
I did, when I tried it. Chronic, explosive, and gassy. It was awful. I stuck with it for a month, hoping I would adjust, but it didn't happen. The gastrointestinal effects of Xylitol just weren't worth it for me.
What does this mean? Ultimately it means your fridge will get hacked because Whirlpool doesn't have the first goddamned clue about network security. Some jackass will order a bunch of shit you didn't want, or turn on your sprinklers in the middle of the day, or broadcast your "facial recognition" camera to show your wife getting a pearl necklace. The threat is directly proportional to the attack surface, and when everything has an IP, then everything is a potential attack vector.
the phones that allow people messing around in their systems (Jolla, Ubuntu phones, rooted Androids) will just have third-party, non-gov-approved encryption in them and criminals (and people not really comfortable with NSA snooping) will subsequently use these.
They'll prohibit and penalize that by restricting such tools, the same way they did with "circumvention tools" in the DMCA. Banks and those with "legitimate" needs excepted, of course.
I would argue two points.
1) "Random inspections of vehicle safety and driver sobriety are a reasonable way to ensure that we can use the roadways safely"
Do we have actual evidence of a decline in drunk driving through the use of checkpoints, or is it just accepted because it sounds effective? If they're not effective, then the whole argument is moot.
http://www.thecrimereport.org/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2) Balancing tests are only appropriate when there are no other options, such as in the courthouse example you cite. Either there are checkpoints at courthouse entrances OR courthouses are insecure. There is no such mutual exclusivity with DUI checkpoints.