"...it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare..."
If you're charging for access to X (for any given X), you're not sharing, you're selling (or leasing). And you don't get to be exempt from consumer protection regulations just because you're doing your selling on the web.
...but some European countries (France is another one) have all these stupid little "we're special...and we don't understand the internet" rules...
Sounds like these nations understand the internet quite well. They understand that it's not magic and does not relieve companies of their responsibilities to operate in an accountable manner. "But...we do it the internet!" is not a legal escape clause, as companies like Uber are finally being taught.
ISIS has been very clear about their desire to attack America and the West.
A desire motivated in large part by over a century of America and the West (mostly the thrice-dammned British Empire) screwing around with imperialist games the Middle East. Let's go pour some more gasoline on that fire, I'm sure we'll put it out eventually.
If I ask for money or something else from YOU, as a payment for some favor, that's extortion and the burden of guilt is on ME.
No, it's not extortion. "Pay me or else I will do <unpleasant thing>" is extortion. "If you pay me, I will do <pleasant but illegal/unetical thing>" is soliciting a bribe.
[FDR said it eighty years ago ] "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"
Well, that and federal troops coming to lock you in concentration camps and steal your home. But only if you're of Japanese ancestry, so, no worries my fellow white folks!
Do you know how many courts have ruled it self-defense to react to the police with lethal force if they try to arrest you wrongfully? In America we have dozens of these cases at state and federal levels
Can you cite one from the 20th century? I've only seen 19th century cases on this. Thanks.
I find it interesting how everyone emphasizes freedom of speech yet freedom to trade is heavily restricted but is not considered a basic human right.
Because it's not. Trade exists only where property exists. Property exists only where a state exists -- "ownership" is exactly and only the ability to call on state force to maintain your control of something. Trace any claim of "property" back and you find a state-issued piece of paper, a land or resource deed.
Used properly, property and trade are ways that we help protect basic human rights. They are not rights in themselves. Our neglect of that principle is at the root of many of the world's problems today.
"The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal governmentâ(TM)s dietary guidelines."
This is not a low-fat diet. The 30% recommendation was an incredibly tepid compromise: the standard American diet is around 35% fat. So this its along the lines of telling peoople "Oh, you smoke 35 cigarettes a week? Try to keep it to 30."
For comparison, the Ornish plan is around 10% calories from fat.
So this study compared a high-fat, high-sugar diet (no restrictions on an America's sugar intake == high sugar) with a higher-fat, no-sugar diet. The usual crap research that people tout as showing low-carb diets useful.
...if the Chinese government wants records for an American citizen's account at Bank of America, then America will have no reason to protest since BofA has offices in China, and the principle of extra-territorial subpoenas has been established. If Microsoft loses this case, it will be a terrible precedent, and a victory for oppressive governments all around the world.
So don't do business with banks that have offices in other countries. Move your business to your local credit union. Demonstrating that big banks can be legally required to divulge your data to governments in any country where they operate sounds like a way to break banks' power a bit, and thus a win for humanity.
There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.
No. There is not. There is copyright law, there is patent law, there is trademark law. None of these relate to "property". Calling them "intellectual property" is inaccurate, an attempt to obfuscate.
Bwahaha you slackjawed imbecile, you realise you've just described the actual outcomes of everything marxist?
Bwa-ha-ha you slack-jawed imbecile, you realize there are more possible ways to structure an economy than capitalist so-called "free markets", and Marxism-degraded-into-Stalinism-or-Maoism, right?
On maybe, like most Americans brought up on a century of Red Scares, you don't.
The argument is that a concerted push to end sexism *just for women* is itself sexist.
Yes, it is. But for any given instance of sexism against women, some making a push to end it will be motivated only to end sexism against women, and some will be motivated to end all sexism. Thus one cannot determine merely from participation in, or advocacy for, a specific attempt to end an instance of misogynist sexism, whether one is merely misandrist or is truly in favor of equality.
How many women fly fish? Not many. Guess how much sexism there is keeping women from fly fishing? Zero.
You post about how it's important to provide evidence for a hypothesis, then spit out a hypothesis about sexism with zero evidence for it. That's so remarkably thick-headed I have to think that maybe you're engaged in some sort of meta-troll? If not, then let me point out that a minute with the search engine of your choice can help prevent you saying stupid things:
Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?
I see no "force" here. I see no objectification here. You are using hotbutton keywords that have no relevance.
If a certain group of people don't feel invited to your thing, it's entirely appropriate to re-write your invitation. If your infrastructure isn't supportive of a certain demographic, it's entirely appropriate to remediate that.
OTOH, if (at TFA suggests) you've got a demographic that's socialized to avoid conflict, and you've got a project that inherently involves conflict between different POV, you've got a problem.
...which is a completely irrelevant way to measure quality of tech. The success or failure of a company has more to do with its ability to manipulate markets than with the quality of its products. MS got its market dominance by making a deal with IBM, not by creating a great product. Apple got its market dominance by cultivating an image, not by creating a great product.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right?
There is no such thing as a "private contract". A contract, by nature, is an agreement that the state will enforce. State actions are not private. If two people make an agreement and will never disclose that agreement to anyone else under any circumstances, then a court will never see it, and it is in no meaningful way a contract.
Of course that only goes double when one of the parties is a government agency. Nothing a government agency does is private.
But I shouldn't be forced to hire them or make them my friends.
No one is forcing you to make anyone your friend.
Commerce, on the other hand, by its nature involves the state. (At least beyond the trivial. Your lemonade stand generally flies under the radar here.)
If you want the state to issue a charter for your corporation or register your partnership, if you want to call the cops to use force against people your want removed from your place of business, if you want the government to enforce your business contracts, if you want to engage in interstate commerce and use the economic infrastructure that the state has created, you don't get to complain that the state is interfering with your "private choices" when it requires that your business not be racist, sexist, etc.
Please stop spreading the mis-definition that claims that private interests with control over information flow cannot engage in censorship.
A website or a store deciding that they do to carry a product is not.
If they decide "we won't carry this because our customers won't buy this", it's not censorship. If they decide "we won't carry this because we object to it", it is censorship.
I sure as fuck chose my lifestyle, thanks. Three bad engagements to women, and I made up my mind to date men after that.
Sounds like you're a bisexual person who made a choice to date only men. Ok, fine. Congratulations, even. But most of us could no more choose which gender to date, and to be sexually attracted to, than we could choose which sort of music we like.
Is it possible to write code for the browser without using jQuery?
Yes, dammit, it is. 90% of Javascript use is Javascript abuse, and 90% of legitimate Javascript use doesn't need a fscking bloated framework. Stop it already, anyone with a clue is running some sort of script blocker and your page just isn't important enough to make them choose to open holes in it for you.
If science some day proves that people with blue eyes have faster reaction times than people with brown eyes, and we don't factor that into hiring decisions where reaction times can mean the difference between life and death...
...then you'd be doing the only sane thing. If you need people with quick reaction times, measure their fscking reaction times, not their eye color, even if there is some statistical relationship between eye color and reaction times.
If you need someone to be able to lift 100 pounds for some job, test their ability to lift 100 pounds, not their gender or their skin tone or anything else that may or may not have a statistical relationship to their ability to lift heavy loads.
The only sane and ethical path would be to ignore any such statistical relationships and test the relevant characteristics in each individual person.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're charging for access to X (for any given X), you're not sharing, you're selling (or leasing). And you don't get to be exempt from consumer protection regulations just because you're doing your selling on the web.
Sounds like these nations understand the internet quite well. They understand that it's not magic and does not relieve companies of their responsibilities to operate in an accountable manner. "But...we do it the internet!" is not a legal escape clause, as companies like Uber are finally being taught.
A desire motivated in large part by over a century of America and the West (mostly the thrice-dammned British Empire) screwing around with imperialist games the Middle East. Let's go pour some more gasoline on that fire, I'm sure we'll put it out eventually.
No, it's not extortion. "Pay me or else I will do <unpleasant thing>" is extortion. "If you pay me, I will do <pleasant but illegal/unetical thing>" is soliciting a bribe.
Well, that and federal troops coming to lock you in concentration camps and steal your home. But only if you're of Japanese ancestry, so, no worries my fellow white folks!
Can you cite one from the 20th century? I've only seen 19th century cases on this. Thanks.
Maryland's Eastern Shore is an island (well, a peninsula) of old-fashioned ignorance.
If the author of a Tea Party manifesto were treated this way, local reporters would be up in arms. But here the author is a black man.
Because it's not. Trade exists only where property exists. Property exists only where a state exists -- "ownership" is exactly and only the ability to call on state force to maintain your control of something. Trace any claim of "property" back and you find a state-issued piece of paper, a land or resource deed.
Used properly, property and trade are ways that we help protect basic human rights. They are not rights in themselves. Our neglect of that principle is at the root of many of the world's problems today.
This is not a low-fat diet. The 30% recommendation was an incredibly tepid compromise: the standard American diet is around 35% fat. So this its along the lines of telling peoople "Oh, you smoke 35 cigarettes a week? Try to keep it to 30."
For comparison, the Ornish plan is around 10% calories from fat.
So this study compared a high-fat, high-sugar diet (no restrictions on an America's sugar intake == high sugar) with a higher-fat, no-sugar diet. The usual crap research that people tout as showing low-carb diets useful.
So don't do business with banks that have offices in other countries. Move your business to your local credit union. Demonstrating that big banks can be legally required to divulge your data to governments in any country where they operate sounds like a way to break banks' power a bit, and thus a win for humanity.
No. There is not. There is copyright law, there is patent law, there is trademark law. None of these relate to "property". Calling them "intellectual property" is inaccurate, an attempt to obfuscate.
No it's not, not when they themselves are talking about getting to 100% in one swell foop, about building cars with no steering or brake controls.
Bwa-ha-ha you slack-jawed imbecile, you realize there are more possible ways to structure an economy than capitalist so-called "free markets", and Marxism-degraded-into-Stalinism-or-Maoism, right?
On maybe, like most Americans brought up on a century of Red Scares, you don't.
Yes, it is. But for any given instance of sexism against women, some making a push to end it will be motivated only to end sexism against women, and some will be motivated to end all sexism. Thus one cannot determine merely from participation in, or advocacy for, a specific attempt to end an instance of misogynist sexism, whether one is merely misandrist or is truly in favor of equality.
You post about how it's important to provide evidence for a hypothesis, then spit out a hypothesis about sexism with zero evidence for it. That's so remarkably thick-headed I have to think that maybe you're engaged in some sort of meta-troll? If not, then let me point out that a minute with the search engine of your choice can help prevent you saying stupid things:
Angling and Sexism
SEXISM in FISHING ADVERTISING, SHOWS & MAGAZINES
Wanton Sexism in Fly Fishing (What is Going On?)
Bait Shop Sexism
I see no "force" here. I see no objectification here. You are using hotbutton keywords that have no relevance.
If a certain group of people don't feel invited to your thing, it's entirely appropriate to re-write your invitation. If your infrastructure isn't supportive of a certain demographic, it's entirely appropriate to remediate that.
OTOH, if (at TFA suggests) you've got a demographic that's socialized to avoid conflict, and you've got a project that inherently involves conflict between different POV, you've got a problem.
...which is a completely irrelevant way to measure quality of tech. The success or failure of a company has more to do with its ability to manipulate markets than with the quality of its products. MS got its market dominance by making a deal with IBM, not by creating a great product. Apple got its market dominance by cultivating an image, not by creating a great product.
I care about the covert surveillance which enables targeted ads.
I care about powerful corporate and political interests attempting to manipulate my decisions. That's nothing less than mind control, black magic.
The ads themselves? Adblock Plus removes them from my sight anyway.
There is no such thing as a "private contract". A contract, by nature, is an agreement that the state will enforce. State actions are not private. If two people make an agreement and will never disclose that agreement to anyone else under any circumstances, then a court will never see it, and it is in no meaningful way a contract.
Of course that only goes double when one of the parties is a government agency. Nothing a government agency does is private.
No one is forcing you to make anyone your friend.
Commerce, on the other hand, by its nature involves the state. (At least beyond the trivial. Your lemonade stand generally flies under the radar here.)
If you want the state to issue a charter for your corporation or register your partnership, if you want to call the cops to use force against people your want removed from your place of business, if you want the government to enforce your business contracts, if you want to engage in interstate commerce and use the economic infrastructure that the state has created, you don't get to complain that the state is interfering with your "private choices" when it requires that your business not be racist, sexist, etc.
No. It doesn't. "censor...To review in order to remove objectionable content from correspondence or public media, either by legal criteria or with discretionary powers".
Please stop spreading the mis-definition that claims that private interests with control over information flow cannot engage in censorship.
If they decide "we won't carry this because our customers won't buy this", it's not censorship. If they decide "we won't carry this because we object to it", it is censorship.
Sounds like you're a bisexual person who made a choice to date only men. Ok, fine. Congratulations, even. But most of us could no more choose which gender to date, and to be sexually attracted to, than we could choose which sort of music we like.
When newspaper articles are written so as to be conducive to advertizing, they are fiction of the worst sort.
Yes, dammit, it is. 90% of Javascript use is Javascript abuse, and 90% of legitimate Javascript use doesn't need a fscking bloated framework. Stop it already, anyone with a clue is running some sort of script blocker and your page just isn't important enough to make them choose to open holes in it for you.
Now get off my lawn.
...then you'd be doing the only sane thing. If you need people with quick reaction times, measure their fscking reaction times, not their eye color, even if there is some statistical relationship between eye color and reaction times.
If you need someone to be able to lift 100 pounds for some job, test their ability to lift 100 pounds, not their gender or their skin tone or anything else that may or may not have a statistical relationship to their ability to lift heavy loads.
The only sane and ethical path would be to ignore any such statistical relationships and test the relevant characteristics in each individual person.