Society needs revenge for certain crimes, for the sake of all our mental health.
Quite the opposite, actually. The quest for revenge is detrimental to one's mental health.
Can you provide any rationale for why we should care so much about the comfort of a serial killer?
Because we're supposed to be better than serial killers, we're supposed to be humane individuals. Because maybe we got the wrong guy, and it's worse to torture the wrong guy than to just lock up the wrong guy (though that's still very very bad). Because if we're going to imprison that serial killer with other people, people who are not serial killers and will eventually return to society, it's important how that serial killer acts towards fellow inmates. Because if we're interested in how to keep people from turning into serial killers, it's important to study that serial killer, to interview them in an atmosphere of some trust.
Non-violent offenders shouldn't be facing prison time at all, let alone solitary.
No jail time for burglars, then? Or car thieves or bank robbers who bust in after closing time? Interesting.
and the patron's vision turns out to have been bad enough to bring the ADA into play.
The ADA doesn't justify a videocamera attached to prescription lens any more than it justifies a sword attached to a cane. If my (hypothetical) bar has a "no weapons" policy[*], your sword cane gets checked at the door. If my bar has a "no videocamera" policy, your Glass gets checked at the door or stays in your purse or backpack. If you neglected to bring a non-sword cane or a non-Glass set of eyeglasses, that's your own stupid fault.
([*]Putting aside the fact that your sword cane may be illegal under state or local law anyway.)
...the anti-technology brigade...
There's nothing anti-technology about being opposed to the rude and stupid use of tech. Or do you think being opposed to NSA wiretapping is "anti-technology"?
Customers have NO RIGHT to kick anyone out of a bar. Only the staff as the right to do ask you to leave. Has the staff asked the person to put way GoogleGlass that would have been fine.
Anyone can suggest to anyone else that they leave a place. I can't kick someone out of my favorite dive bar (unless the staff asks me to help remove an undesirable, and on one or two occasions when a fight broke out in front of me I've taken that request as implicit), but I can certainly say, "I think your behavior is making people uncomfortable and IMHO you ought to go elsewhere." If they don't like me saying that, they can complain to the staff, who can kick me out.
That said, if the situation went down as claimed, the other patrons stepped over the line in this case.
What idiot thinks he is private on a sidewalk, a bar, or a grocery store!
What idiot doesn't understand that one of these things is not like the others, that one of these places often has a large individual (or several such individuals) stationed near the door to control access and to remove -- by force if necessary -- undesirable patrons?
A city sidewalk is public property. A grocery store is private property but is not restrictive as to who may enter. A bar is private property and is restrictive as to who may enter. There are radically different social expectations as to how people behave in each.
I read this article and my reaction is I doubt this was about Google glass at all.
Funny, I read the article and my reaction was, gee, what a douchebag, reacting to people who displayed a desire not to be filmed by threatening to film them. I don't see how you can read that as not being about the social conventions, or lack thereof, regarding ubiquitous cameras (e.g. Google glass).
It's important so people should understand it [or at least STFU if they don't actually understand economics] and I want them to.
Economics -- or at least its mainstream theories -- believes in a world where there are no limits to growth, where the conversion of irreplaceable natural resources into useless consumer crap destined for the landfill is "progress", and where human beings are rational actors. The most importan thing to understand about economics is that it's as disconnected from reality as astrology.
For example, the software can easily show that *none* of the students in a particular classroom have mastered a particular concept, such as adding fractions.
Not quite. The software can easily show that none of the students in a particular classroom passed a section of some test. But whether that test actually measures the ability to (e.g.) add fractions, is another question.
Quantifying things is easy. You can do it with a random number generator. Quantifying things in a meaningful and useful way is hard.
Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich
That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?
TFA article does not use the term "popular resistance", but properly labels it "not-in-my-backyard" resistance. TFA notes that "Germanyâ(TM)s Energiewende, or energy transformation, has enjoyed widespread citizen support.".
Submitter and editors either do not know what "popular resistance" means, or deliberately spun this post.
G+ is the best social media tool I have ever used.
Easy to organize, easy to filter, easy to read specific people, and isn't full of crap.
Isn't full of crap because it's not full of content. And a social media platform run by a corporation whose business model is to spy on you to produce a profile that allows them you target ads to you all over the net...unwise to use. At least FB only is pitching you ads on its own site.
Congress has the authority to regulate certain aspects of interstate travel that relate to commerce.
Airlines by nature engage in interstate commerce. (Perhaps there are a handful of strictly intra-state carriers, but let's leave aside edge cases for now.) Congress can, under its deliberately broad Constitutional power to regulate commerce, regulate the fsck out of airlines.
You use a credit card at a cash machine and you are charged a cash advance interest rate immediately.
Not necessarily. It's a hack, but when I was in Japan I found the best way to get cash was to make an advance payment on my Discover card -- thus giving me a negative balance, -- and then take out a cash advance. No fees or interest and a good exchange rate.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
Other estimates -- highly controversial ones, to be sure -- put the annual number of DGUs in the millions.
More importantly, those homicides by firearm are mostly being committed by people who already have criminal records. People who are legally barred from getting guns. But laws keep bad guys away from guns as well as drug laws keep junkies away from heroin; and keeping good citizens -- the sort who are unlikely to murder anyone but might come to someone's aid -- away from guns is not only a waste of resources and corrosive to liberty, it's counter-productive to crime prevention.
Firearms accidents are actually rare and you are far more likely to drown or die in a fire than be accidentally shot to death. Suicide is sad but the means are irrelevant, people manage to kill themselves quite well in Japan despite a lack of guns. And comparing DGU "in the home" with felonious shootings "in or around a home" -- a lovely bit of rhetorical misdirection and intellectual dishonesty.
Take your leftist anti gun rhetoric somewhere else.
Point of order: there's nothing "leftist" about anti-gun rhetoric. As the socialist writer George Orwell noted, "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
The men and women at NSA, CIA, and DOD are protecting you against monsters.
The U.S.'s brutal and stupid foreign policy, carried out by the NSA, CIA, DOD, et al., does at least as much -- possibly more -- to create monsters than protect us from them. It's a wonderful cycle for the military/industrial/security complex: the complex fscks over nation A, nation A gets angry and makes aggressive noise, the complex points at nation A and says, "See? See? Danger! Feed the complex so we can protect you!"
Of course kicking the hornet's nest and then telling people, "Hey, we need to go kick hornet's nests because look at how dangerous these hornets are!" is hardly an American invention. But we are the current masters of it for sure.
A small part of it is under copyright protection or other NDA -- and that's dumb, and the cure is copyright reform that frees all publicly funded research, and a research funding process that doesn't rely on making researchers cover costs by selling their data. Copyright corrupts science. But Congress isn't doing that, and we can't make other countries do it.
Since the early 1980s, some NMSs, other organizations and individual scientists have given or sold us (see Hulme, 1994, for a summary of European data collection efforts) additional data for inclusion in the gridded datasets, often on the understanding that the data are only used for academic purposes with the full permission of the NMSs, organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold....Some date back at least 20 years. Additional agreements are unwritten and relate to partnerships we've made with scientists around the world and visitors to the CRU over this period. In some of the examples given, it can be clearly seen that our requests for data from NMSs have always stated that we would not make the data available to third parties....The inability of some agencies to release climate data held is not uncommon in climate science. The Dutch Met Service (KNMI) run the European Climate Assessment and Dataset (ECA&D, http://eca.knmi.nl/) project. They are able to use much data in their numerous analyses, but they cannot make all the original daily station temperature and precipitation series available because of restrictions imposed by some of the data providers...The problem is a generic issue and arises from the need of many NMSs to be or aim to be cost neutral (i.e. sell the data to recoup the costs of making observations and preparing the data).
We receive numerous requests for these station data...These data are not ours to provide without the full permission of the relevant NMSs, organizations and scientists.
And some of the data has been lost to bit rot, like a lot of computer data from decades ago. No surprise.
But the idea that there's some dark secret that a cabal of climate scientists are hiding is the usual denialist gibberish.
..because "corporate backing" rules out "liberal," right?
Yes, pretty much. "Liberal" is supposed to imply at least a bit of leftism, and leftism mean policies that benefit ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control capital. Anything that benefits well-to-do stockholders at the expense of working people is a right-wing policy.
Things like the ACA aka "Obamacare" is exactly what the NOT CONSERVATIVES do when they have an iron grip on Capital Hill.
The American population is essentially either taking welfare or working for the Gubment.
That's the Fox News view of the world, sure. In actual reality, American workers are more productive, yet thanks to conservative economic policies have been losing income (measured in constant dollars) since the Reagan era. The number of people employed by the federal government is lower than it was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. The number state or local government employees per capita grew a little from 1980 to 2008, almost entirely because of more teachers being hired, but declined from 2008 to 2011.
So, in reality, Americans are working more productively, getting paid less, and fewer of them are working for the government.
But keep the American voter ignorant and angry, and they'll re-elect you, even as you fsck them over.
Why? Why the hell should that be the case? If I pour loads of MY time and MY effort and MY resources into creating something, then it's MY creation and I want to keep it then I can, because it's MINE.
If you want to keep your precious idea, Gollum, don't tell it to anyone. No one has a right to beat it out of you.
But once you tell someone your idea, you don't have a right to have the state use the threat of force to prevent that person from sharing it.
Netcraft says, "Microsoft gained a staggering 48 million sites this month, increasing its total by 19% â" most of this growth is attributable to new sites hosted by Nobis Technology Group." I have no idea WFT Nobis Technology Group is, but that suggests that what is essentially one large installation swings Netcraft's idea of "the most common web server."
And that's a broken way of counting. If ten servers using Server A serve ten sites each, and one server with Server B serves 1,000 sites,Server A is still the most common web server, with ten times the installation base of Server B.
It can calculate probabilities on the basis of collected data. However, it cannot predict the future.
Isn't "predicting the future" exactly calculating probabilities of future events on the basis of collected data? What else do we mean when we say "the National Weather Service is predicting 1-3 inches of snow in the Baltimore region"?
Slashdot Mirror
Quite the opposite, actually. The quest for revenge is detrimental to one's mental health.
Because we're supposed to be better than serial killers, we're supposed to be humane individuals. Because maybe we got the wrong guy, and it's worse to torture the wrong guy than to just lock up the wrong guy (though that's still very very bad). Because if we're going to imprison that serial killer with other people, people who are not serial killers and will eventually return to society, it's important how that serial killer acts towards fellow inmates. Because if we're interested in how to keep people from turning into serial killers, it's important to study that serial killer, to interview them in an atmosphere of some trust.
No jail time for burglars, then? Or car thieves or bank robbers who bust in after closing time? Interesting.
The ADA doesn't justify a videocamera attached to prescription lens any more than it justifies a sword attached to a cane. If my (hypothetical) bar has a "no weapons" policy[*], your sword cane gets checked at the door. If my bar has a "no videocamera" policy, your Glass gets checked at the door or stays in your purse or backpack. If you neglected to bring a non-sword cane or a non-Glass set of eyeglasses, that's your own stupid fault. ([*]Putting aside the fact that your sword cane may be illegal under state or local law anyway.)
There's nothing anti-technology about being opposed to the rude and stupid use of tech. Or do you think being opposed to NSA wiretapping is "anti-technology"?
Anyone can suggest to anyone else that they leave a place. I can't kick someone out of my favorite dive bar (unless the staff asks me to help remove an undesirable, and on one or two occasions when a fight broke out in front of me I've taken that request as implicit), but I can certainly say, "I think your behavior is making people uncomfortable and IMHO you ought to go elsewhere." If they don't like me saying that, they can complain to the staff, who can kick me out.
That said, if the situation went down as claimed, the other patrons stepped over the line in this case.
What idiot doesn't understand that one of these things is not like the others, that one of these places often has a large individual (or several such individuals) stationed near the door to control access and to remove -- by force if necessary -- undesirable patrons?
A city sidewalk is public property. A grocery store is private property but is not restrictive as to who may enter. A bar is private property and is restrictive as to who may enter. There are radically different social expectations as to how people behave in each.
Funny, I read the article and my reaction was, gee, what a douchebag, reacting to people who displayed a desire not to be filmed by threatening to film them. I don't see how you can read that as not being about the social conventions, or lack thereof, regarding ubiquitous cameras (e.g. Google glass).
Economics -- or at least its mainstream theories -- believes in a world where there are no limits to growth, where the conversion of irreplaceable natural resources into useless consumer crap destined for the landfill is "progress", and where human beings are rational actors. The most importan thing to understand about economics is that it's as disconnected from reality as astrology.
Not quite. The software can easily show that none of the students in a particular classroom passed a section of some test. But whether that test actually measures the ability to (e.g.) add fractions, is another question.
Quantifying things is easy. You can do it with a random number generator. Quantifying things in a meaningful and useful way is hard.
Corporate officers can't profit either. But employees -- especially top management -- can make out like bandits. Most don't, of course, but employees of a non-profit can make $1,000,000+ salaries quite legally.
But The Color Run is not a non-profit.
That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?
TFA article does not use the term "popular resistance", but properly labels it "not-in-my-backyard" resistance. TFA notes that "Germanyâ(TM)s Energiewende, or energy transformation, has enjoyed widespread citizen support.".
Submitter and editors either do not know what "popular resistance" means, or deliberately spun this post.
Isn't full of crap because it's not full of content. And a social media platform run by a corporation whose business model is to spy on you to produce a profile that allows them you target ads to you all over the net...unwise to use. At least FB only is pitching you ads on its own site.
Airlines by nature engage in interstate commerce. (Perhaps there are a handful of strictly intra-state carriers, but let's leave aside edge cases for now.) Congress can, under its deliberately broad Constitutional power to regulate commerce, regulate the fsck out of airlines.
Not necessarily. It's a hack, but when I was in Japan I found the best way to get cash was to make an advance payment on my Discover card -- thus giving me a negative balance, -- and then take out a cash advance. No fees or interest and a good exchange rate.
Citation? The lowest number I've seen on defensive gun uses is 64,000 year. That's via a methodology expected to undercount, but even if we assume that it's an overcount and take *half* of it, then defensive gun use is likely to be more than three times as common as homicide via firearm.
Other estimates -- highly controversial ones, to be sure -- put the annual number of DGUs in the millions.
More importantly, those homicides by firearm are mostly being committed by people who already have criminal records. People who are legally barred from getting guns. But laws keep bad guys away from guns as well as drug laws keep junkies away from heroin; and keeping good citizens -- the sort who are unlikely to murder anyone but might come to someone's aid -- away from guns is not only a waste of resources and corrosive to liberty, it's counter-productive to crime prevention.
Firearms accidents are actually rare and you are far more likely to drown or die in a fire than be accidentally shot to death. Suicide is sad but the means are irrelevant, people manage to kill themselves quite well in Japan despite a lack of guns. And comparing DGU "in the home" with felonious shootings "in or around a home" -- a lovely bit of rhetorical misdirection and intellectual dishonesty.
Point of order: there's nothing "leftist" about anti-gun rhetoric. As the socialist writer George Orwell noted, "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
The U.S.'s brutal and stupid foreign policy, carried out by the NSA, CIA, DOD, et al., does at least as much -- possibly more -- to create monsters than protect us from them. It's a wonderful cycle for the military/industrial/security complex: the complex fscks over nation A, nation A gets angry and makes aggressive noise, the complex points at nation A and says, "See? See? Danger! Feed the complex so we can protect you!"
Of course kicking the hornet's nest and then telling people, "Hey, we need to go kick hornet's nests because look at how dangerous these hornets are!" is hardly an American invention. But we are the current masters of it for sure.
Almost all of it is in fact available, so this is just more GOP BS.
A small part of it is under copyright protection or other NDA -- and that's dumb, and the cure is copyright reform that frees all publicly funded research, and a research funding process that doesn't rely on making researchers cover costs by selling their data. Copyright corrupts science. But Congress isn't doing that, and we can't make other countries do it.
As the University of East Anglias CRU explains,
And some of the data has been lost to bit rot, like a lot of computer data from decades ago. No surprise.
But the idea that there's some dark secret that a cabal of climate scientists are hiding is the usual denialist gibberish.
Yes, pretty much. "Liberal" is supposed to imply at least a bit of leftism, and leftism mean policies that benefit ordinary working people instead of the aristocrats who control capital. Anything that benefits well-to-do stockholders at the expense of working people is a right-wing policy.
The ACA is modeled on "RomneyCare" and the idea of exchanges was pushed by the Heritage Foundation for years -- as early as 1989, in fact. It's fundamentally a right-wing plan that continues to fatten the wallets of insurance company stockholders and executives, does little to restrain corporations so massive that their profits -- not revenue, but profits -- are larger than some state budgets, maintains the fiction that a market approach is appropriate for health care, and does fskc-all to reign in the medical industry's practice of grossly overcharging people.
That's the Fox News view of the world, sure. In actual reality, American workers are more productive, yet thanks to conservative economic policies have been losing income (measured in constant dollars) since the Reagan era. The number of people employed by the federal government is lower than it was in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. The number state or local government employees per capita grew a little from 1980 to 2008, almost entirely because of more teachers being hired, but declined from 2008 to 2011.
So, in reality, Americans are working more productively, getting paid less, and fewer of them are working for the government.
But keep the American voter ignorant and angry, and they'll re-elect you, even as you fsck them over.
If you want to keep your precious idea, Gollum, don't tell it to anyone. No one has a right to beat it out of you.
But once you tell someone your idea, you don't have a right to have the state use the threat of force to prevent that person from sharing it.
Netcraft says, "Microsoft gained a staggering 48 million sites this month, increasing its total by 19% â" most of this growth is attributable to new sites hosted by Nobis Technology Group." I have no idea WFT Nobis Technology Group is, but that suggests that what is essentially one large installation swings Netcraft's idea of "the most common web server."
And that's a broken way of counting. If ten servers using Server A serve ten sites each, and one server with Server B serves 1,000 sites,Server A is still the most common web server, with ten times the installation base of Server B.
...as long as you are a white middle-class mainstream Christian (Jews are ok now too) of moderate and acceptable political and social views.
No, actually, you don't. With my Dyson, you wash out a filter once every few months.
You're doing it wrong, apparently. I breathed in more dust changing bags than I do emptying my bagless.
YMMV, but I love bagless vacuums. Keeping bags on hand is a total pain in the ass, and the suction decreases as they fill up.
Isn't "predicting the future" exactly calculating probabilities of future events on the basis of collected data? What else do we mean when we say "the National Weather Service is predicting 1-3 inches of snow in the Baltimore region"?
Not unless you care about reliability, no. I never had a POTS call drop out on me.