In related news, Coca Cola announces its regret at PepsiCo's decision and urges that the advertising technology proposed by Pepsi be fully developed. A spokesperson noted "It would be great for business!"
It is unclear which company's business would benefit the most.....
I work at a landfill. Plastic plates, cups and cutlery aren't even on the radar.
Now, plastic bags, plastic wrap, and chip/crisps/cookie/biscuit bags...ban those if you really want to have a positive effect on the environment.
That's it. Just a simple "no".
The inhabitants of Portlandia are free to believe in their confectionery fantasies. No one else has to entertain them. The FCC merely has to say "no". "No, the government will not participate in your bizarre beliefs. Look how far that's gotten you with your anti-vaccine stance. Yeah....so, no. You got a problem with it? You provide the hard, peer-reviewed evidence with replicable results that support your stance and then the government will take your concerns under advisement. Until then?
No."
My gut reaction was that Elizabeth Warren needs to shut the heck up and the government needs to stay mind its own business so companies can mind their own.
Then I started thinking about the breakup of Ma Bell and how that unleashed tremendous innovation and creation of new services in telecommunications technologies and availability. Then there is the example of the airline monopolies being broken apart in a similar fashion. While no one enjoys air travel, anymore, at least it's cheap and widely available, something that couldn't be said when the monopolies existed.
But those two industries had been in existence far longer than the companies Warren wants to gut.
I think there is still plenty of time and room for innovation and growth under their current structures (well...maybe not Apple); breaking them up is inevitable and has successful precedents, but it's too soon.
I believe that just about every legitimate website or social media platform has a privacy notice and usually requires explicit acceptance of its Terms of Service Agreement. No one reads them but they provide the legal justification for those sites to collect the information.
We consent to that collection.
Yeah, so....not tobacco. Nicotine? Sure. Undeniable and verifiable.
Tobacco? Not such much.
Just another sorry and sordid example of what passes for "journalism" these days. I swear, yellow journalism was once a thing and it still is, only it can reach many,many more people much more quickly than ever before.
The lawsuit is excellent news. I recently had need to access specific federal court records but the cost of doing so deterred me. There's also an outrageous fee of $11 per document for certifying it as a "true copy" (similar to a notary public stamp). When you include grand jury testimony, witness depositions, courtroom dialog, evidentiary material etc., a federal case can easily run into thousands of pages...at ten cents per page and $11 per page for certification as true copies.
These records should be free or made available for a low, flat fee per hundred pages, say 20 cents per hundred, and $11 should cover all of the pages.
I'm pretty sure there exists a Dilbert cartoon where Wally is being accused of using his computer to look at porn and one of his "defenses" is that, technically, it's all just ones and zeros until the computer is turned on?
Some public policies in this country are setting precedents that are immoral, unethical and, sadly, not illegal. This is one. This has appalling implications for the future of this nation, if you think about it.
Incarceration is supposed to be its own punishment, sufficient to the crime. Educate yourself on the cost of making phone calls from prison: https://www.prisonphonejustice...
Now look at prison commissary practices and some of the companies that are profiting by selling 30 cent ramen noodle packages for a dollar: https://www.keefegroup.com/ and https://www.prisonpolicy.org/r.... Don't be fooled by the specific product prices in the example. Commissary prices are grossly inflated compared to those available in a competitive retail environment. Plus, inmates are paid slave wages: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/b...
Twelve cents an hour is common in federal prisons.
Now we hear about the unethical practice of creating voiceprints with neither knowledge nor consent of those being voiceprinted. It's shameful. Immoral, unethical, shameful.
By the way, if you're one of those single-note, hard-core, "fuck them they committed a crime" type of people, just move on, OK? You have no idea what you're talking about and I won't waste my time engaging with you. Go take your unvaccinated children on a playdate, or something.
I agree it's almost impossible to prove who was infectious and spread the disease. But it's incontrovertible that if someone has not been vaccinated and does contract the disease, they are culpable.
If they've been vaccinated and still get sick, that's just bad luck, but not criminally irresponsible.
The best I can say about so-called anti-vaxxers is that they are ignorant and uneducated. But I'll give them the benefit of doubt. Perhaps some do hold religious or moral objections to vaccinations. Well and good. But there should be consequences associated with behavior that affects society in general. Think of drunk driving laws.
If a child who has not been vaccinated contracts a disease the vaccine could prevent, the parent(s) should be prosecuted for criminal endangerment. In fact, it should be as automatic as failing a sobriety test. If your kid gets measles and has not been vaccinated, you should face fines and possible jail time, increasing with successive occurrences.
Please don't toss out the red herring of health care access. Lack of it does not apply to early childhood vaccines.
Couple of things, here:
1. The high cost of operating an aircraft is likely the reason most people do not obtain a pilot's license and explains the relatively high dropout rates of those who do take aviation courses.
2. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) specifically allow pilots to determine their own course and heading while maintaining full and complete responsibility for safe flight operations. Flight paths are not restricted, except that restricted airspace (over military bases for instance) must still be observed.
3. Landowners in the U.S. enjoy ownership of the airspace above their property but only to the extent that the airspace is connected to the use of the property; think tall trees or multi-story buildings. Navigable airspace is generally considered not to be part of a landowner's rights. The takeaway on that is as long as drones do not operate too close to the ground (a fuzzy concept at this time, to be sure), it's legal to fly them over any non-restricted airspace (military bases, again).
I'd cite references but this is all easily found on the Internet via reputable sources.
Tens of millions of people in the U.S. drive automobiles and other vehicles every day. The potential for accidents, even fatal ones, is omnipresent.
Operators must take driver education courses; they must be licensed; they must carry insurance; there are criminal penalties for reckless operation. Plus, there are rules: signs, designated lanes, speed limits, etc. Why should aerial drone operations be any different?
Too many people are losing their fricking minds over the prospect of a sky filled with purposeful drones when that's exactly what we have on the ground, already.
The technology is new but it's not the problem; the problem is how we humans determine its most beneficial use and, in the case of aerial drones, that requires regulation similar to that governing the operation of automobiles.
I work at an award-winning landfill. My county encourages recycling and makes it easy to do. That said, plastic water bottles...heck, plastic bottles of any kind are the third worst pollutant, in my opinion. The blow around and last practically forever. The second worst is Styrofoam. You have no idea. At least it eventually disintegrates into tiny little beads, not that those are great but at least they can't be seen. The worst is plastic bags/plastic wraps of all sorts but especially plastic shopping bags. These things blow everywhere eventually become brittle from UV exposure but never truly deteriorate.
Solutions? Huge deposit fees, like half the cost of the product. Two dollars for a bottle of water? Make that three but you get a dollar back when you return the bottle. Plastic bags? Similar concept. Dollar a bag, for example, refundable upon return of the bag. Styrofoam? Cellulose packing peanuts that dissolve in water already exist. Let's ramp up that technology and eliminate Styrofoam.
My God, man, where do you live? Move away from there! My parents were "offered" the chance to buy a refurbished box outright for about $80 or continue to pay monthly rental fees which, by the way, were increasing soon. This, from Verizon directly. The math was simple and swapping the boxes took little time. $600 for a cable box? smh
My approach isn't for everyone, of course. But it works for individuals, and that's a huge chunk of the target market for spammers and robocallers and could be enough to make their business model unprofitable.
I guess I'm missing something. I have a very simple rule that blocks 100% of telemarketing calls, political calls, non-profit calls, and even plain old wrong number calls: if I don't recognize the number or it hasn't been added to my contacts, I ignore the call. If it's a legitimate call, they'll leave a voice message and then I'll know to add the number to my contacts.
Spoof away, I don't care. I need no legislation, no technology, no outside intervention to eliminate telemarketing calls. I just ignore them. If I have time, I'll even answer the call then immediately hang up. Let them think there's something wrong with the line.
Didn't notice it, at all. I use Outlook configured for my Gmail account. Google seems to think this is unsecure and doesn't like it but I know what I'm doing and chances are that anyone else doing the same is conscious enough of the security issues to make it secure, as I have.
Not everyone has Outlook, true, but other email clients exist that will connect with Gmail's servers so that users can avoid the so-called "features" imposed upon the standard Gmail interface.
And, oh hey, Alphabet? The day you "force" me to use your interface and no longer support alternatives? That's the day I drop you like a mic at a slam poetry contest.
Really, no further comment or analysis needed. This is not a case of "he said, she said". The chips exist, or do not. Given Bloomberg's reputation, it should have been a simple matter for the reporter(s) to track down and prove the existence of them. Any competent editor reviewing the piece should have required the same. I'm not saying the reporting is incorrect, just that it's uncorroborated and God knows we've seen enough of that sort of witch hunt, lately! Prove it by displaying the physical existence of such a chip, or retract and shut up.
We're waiting.
"So no: there will be no law that says you can't have an all female board, because there's no widespread bias against men when selecting board members."
I was with you until this. Did you mean 'So no: there will be no law that says you can't have an all male board, because there's no widespread bias against females when selecting board members', in the context of the rest of your post?
Also, I wonder if your opinion changes if you replace "black" with "female" or "women", etc.? Mind you, I think this is a stupid, counter-productive law that has the potential of replacing qualified individuals with unqualified ones simply because of the shape of their sex organs (let's leave gender identity out of the discussion for now, please God?). And if that's not a textbook definition of sexism/discrimination/bigotry, then the liberal Democrats/Fascists have failed to shape the debate toward their goals of confusing the shizznit out of everyone so they can seize power. Oh, sorry, did I type that out loud?
What I meant to say is that legislating preference to individuals on any basis other than sheer merit is purely discriminatory by any definition and should be repudiated and scorned by a liberal democratic republican society such as we once were...sorry, did it again...such as we are.
Slashdot Mirror
-Obligatory zombie comment- -Reasoned scientific response- -ZOMG!- -sigh- -Rational scientific observation- -ZOMG bacon!- -Wait, what?- -ZOMG bacon!- -OMG! ZOMG bacon!- -I know, right?- -Zombie BLT?- -Braaaiiiinnnnssss- -Braaaiiiinnnnnsssss- (Top that, George Romero! :) )
In related news, Coca Cola announces its regret at PepsiCo's decision and urges that the advertising technology proposed by Pepsi be fully developed. A spokesperson noted "It would be great for business!" It is unclear which company's business would benefit the most.....
I work at a landfill. Plastic plates, cups and cutlery aren't even on the radar. Now, plastic bags, plastic wrap, and chip/crisps/cookie/biscuit bags...ban those if you really want to have a positive effect on the environment.
Sources, or it's just your opinion.
Stop providing evidence to the contrary, you'll melt the special snowflakes!
That's it. Just a simple "no". The inhabitants of Portlandia are free to believe in their confectionery fantasies. No one else has to entertain them. The FCC merely has to say "no". "No, the government will not participate in your bizarre beliefs. Look how far that's gotten you with your anti-vaccine stance. Yeah....so, no. You got a problem with it? You provide the hard, peer-reviewed evidence with replicable results that support your stance and then the government will take your concerns under advisement. Until then? No."
My gut reaction was that Elizabeth Warren needs to shut the heck up and the government needs to stay mind its own business so companies can mind their own. Then I started thinking about the breakup of Ma Bell and how that unleashed tremendous innovation and creation of new services in telecommunications technologies and availability. Then there is the example of the airline monopolies being broken apart in a similar fashion. While no one enjoys air travel, anymore, at least it's cheap and widely available, something that couldn't be said when the monopolies existed. But those two industries had been in existence far longer than the companies Warren wants to gut. I think there is still plenty of time and room for innovation and growth under their current structures (well...maybe not Apple); breaking them up is inevitable and has successful precedents, but it's too soon.
I believe that just about every legitimate website or social media platform has a privacy notice and usually requires explicit acceptance of its Terms of Service Agreement. No one reads them but they provide the legal justification for those sites to collect the information. We consent to that collection.
Yeah, so....not tobacco. Nicotine? Sure. Undeniable and verifiable. Tobacco? Not such much. Just another sorry and sordid example of what passes for "journalism" these days. I swear, yellow journalism was once a thing and it still is, only it can reach many,many more people much more quickly than ever before.
The lawsuit is excellent news. I recently had need to access specific federal court records but the cost of doing so deterred me. There's also an outrageous fee of $11 per document for certifying it as a "true copy" (similar to a notary public stamp). When you include grand jury testimony, witness depositions, courtroom dialog, evidentiary material etc., a federal case can easily run into thousands of pages...at ten cents per page and $11 per page for certification as true copies. These records should be free or made available for a low, flat fee per hundred pages, say 20 cents per hundred, and $11 should cover all of the pages.
I'm pretty sure there exists a Dilbert cartoon where Wally is being accused of using his computer to look at porn and one of his "defenses" is that, technically, it's all just ones and zeros until the computer is turned on?
Some public policies in this country are setting precedents that are immoral, unethical and, sadly, not illegal. This is one. This has appalling implications for the future of this nation, if you think about it. Incarceration is supposed to be its own punishment, sufficient to the crime. Educate yourself on the cost of making phone calls from prison: https://www.prisonphonejustice... Now look at prison commissary practices and some of the companies that are profiting by selling 30 cent ramen noodle packages for a dollar: https://www.keefegroup.com/ and https://www.prisonpolicy.org/r.... Don't be fooled by the specific product prices in the example. Commissary prices are grossly inflated compared to those available in a competitive retail environment. Plus, inmates are paid slave wages: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/b... Twelve cents an hour is common in federal prisons. Now we hear about the unethical practice of creating voiceprints with neither knowledge nor consent of those being voiceprinted. It's shameful. Immoral, unethical, shameful. By the way, if you're one of those single-note, hard-core, "fuck them they committed a crime" type of people, just move on, OK? You have no idea what you're talking about and I won't waste my time engaging with you. Go take your unvaccinated children on a playdate, or something.
I agree it's almost impossible to prove who was infectious and spread the disease. But it's incontrovertible that if someone has not been vaccinated and does contract the disease, they are culpable. If they've been vaccinated and still get sick, that's just bad luck, but not criminally irresponsible.
The best I can say about so-called anti-vaxxers is that they are ignorant and uneducated. But I'll give them the benefit of doubt. Perhaps some do hold religious or moral objections to vaccinations. Well and good. But there should be consequences associated with behavior that affects society in general. Think of drunk driving laws. If a child who has not been vaccinated contracts a disease the vaccine could prevent, the parent(s) should be prosecuted for criminal endangerment. In fact, it should be as automatic as failing a sobriety test. If your kid gets measles and has not been vaccinated, you should face fines and possible jail time, increasing with successive occurrences. Please don't toss out the red herring of health care access. Lack of it does not apply to early childhood vaccines.
Yes! This! Windows is full of so much crap that I don't need or want and it's impossible to disable/uninstall/delete much of it, Whortana included.
Couple of things, here: 1. The high cost of operating an aircraft is likely the reason most people do not obtain a pilot's license and explains the relatively high dropout rates of those who do take aviation courses. 2. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) specifically allow pilots to determine their own course and heading while maintaining full and complete responsibility for safe flight operations. Flight paths are not restricted, except that restricted airspace (over military bases for instance) must still be observed. 3. Landowners in the U.S. enjoy ownership of the airspace above their property but only to the extent that the airspace is connected to the use of the property; think tall trees or multi-story buildings. Navigable airspace is generally considered not to be part of a landowner's rights. The takeaway on that is as long as drones do not operate too close to the ground (a fuzzy concept at this time, to be sure), it's legal to fly them over any non-restricted airspace (military bases, again). I'd cite references but this is all easily found on the Internet via reputable sources.
Tens of millions of people in the U.S. drive automobiles and other vehicles every day. The potential for accidents, even fatal ones, is omnipresent. Operators must take driver education courses; they must be licensed; they must carry insurance; there are criminal penalties for reckless operation. Plus, there are rules: signs, designated lanes, speed limits, etc. Why should aerial drone operations be any different? Too many people are losing their fricking minds over the prospect of a sky filled with purposeful drones when that's exactly what we have on the ground, already. The technology is new but it's not the problem; the problem is how we humans determine its most beneficial use and, in the case of aerial drones, that requires regulation similar to that governing the operation of automobiles.
"Sometimes convenience is just too important and the cost is not." Humanity's epitaph.
I work at an award-winning landfill. My county encourages recycling and makes it easy to do. That said, plastic water bottles...heck, plastic bottles of any kind are the third worst pollutant, in my opinion. The blow around and last practically forever. The second worst is Styrofoam. You have no idea. At least it eventually disintegrates into tiny little beads, not that those are great but at least they can't be seen. The worst is plastic bags/plastic wraps of all sorts but especially plastic shopping bags. These things blow everywhere eventually become brittle from UV exposure but never truly deteriorate. Solutions? Huge deposit fees, like half the cost of the product. Two dollars for a bottle of water? Make that three but you get a dollar back when you return the bottle. Plastic bags? Similar concept. Dollar a bag, for example, refundable upon return of the bag. Styrofoam? Cellulose packing peanuts that dissolve in water already exist. Let's ramp up that technology and eliminate Styrofoam.
My God, man, where do you live? Move away from there! My parents were "offered" the chance to buy a refurbished box outright for about $80 or continue to pay monthly rental fees which, by the way, were increasing soon. This, from Verizon directly. The math was simple and swapping the boxes took little time. $600 for a cable box? smh
My approach isn't for everyone, of course. But it works for individuals, and that's a huge chunk of the target market for spammers and robocallers and could be enough to make their business model unprofitable.
I guess I'm missing something. I have a very simple rule that blocks 100% of telemarketing calls, political calls, non-profit calls, and even plain old wrong number calls: if I don't recognize the number or it hasn't been added to my contacts, I ignore the call. If it's a legitimate call, they'll leave a voice message and then I'll know to add the number to my contacts. Spoof away, I don't care. I need no legislation, no technology, no outside intervention to eliminate telemarketing calls. I just ignore them. If I have time, I'll even answer the call then immediately hang up. Let them think there's something wrong with the line.
Didn't notice it, at all. I use Outlook configured for my Gmail account. Google seems to think this is unsecure and doesn't like it but I know what I'm doing and chances are that anyone else doing the same is conscious enough of the security issues to make it secure, as I have. Not everyone has Outlook, true, but other email clients exist that will connect with Gmail's servers so that users can avoid the so-called "features" imposed upon the standard Gmail interface. And, oh hey, Alphabet? The day you "force" me to use your interface and no longer support alternatives? That's the day I drop you like a mic at a slam poetry contest.
Really, no further comment or analysis needed. This is not a case of "he said, she said". The chips exist, or do not. Given Bloomberg's reputation, it should have been a simple matter for the reporter(s) to track down and prove the existence of them. Any competent editor reviewing the piece should have required the same. I'm not saying the reporting is incorrect, just that it's uncorroborated and God knows we've seen enough of that sort of witch hunt, lately! Prove it by displaying the physical existence of such a chip, or retract and shut up. We're waiting.
"So no: there will be no law that says you can't have an all female board, because there's no widespread bias against men when selecting board members." I was with you until this. Did you mean 'So no: there will be no law that says you can't have an all male board, because there's no widespread bias against females when selecting board members', in the context of the rest of your post? Also, I wonder if your opinion changes if you replace "black" with "female" or "women", etc.? Mind you, I think this is a stupid, counter-productive law that has the potential of replacing qualified individuals with unqualified ones simply because of the shape of their sex organs (let's leave gender identity out of the discussion for now, please God?). And if that's not a textbook definition of sexism/discrimination/bigotry, then the liberal Democrats/Fascists have failed to shape the debate toward their goals of confusing the shizznit out of everyone so they can seize power. Oh, sorry, did I type that out loud? What I meant to say is that legislating preference to individuals on any basis other than sheer merit is purely discriminatory by any definition and should be repudiated and scorned by a liberal democratic republican society such as we once were...sorry, did it again...such as we are.