General skills, aka the ability to succeed in society without reverting to drug abuse, are considered when a company is hiring.
Chemcial tests can't tell whether a person is absuing drugs, only if they are using them. (It is a prohibitionist fiction that the use of certain drugs is inherently abuse.)
If the only way you can tell whether someone is using drugs is through chemical tests, ipso facto it is not affecting their performance on the job.
My small pocket sized wifi cellular router only costs $45 for 3 GB no matter how long it takes to use that 3 GB (no time span requirement, just however long it takes to use the traffic amount)...
Who??? Give! You can't tell us about that and not tell us where to sign up.
All well and good, but doesn't exactly solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
Sure it does. (Not that one small pilot project solves the problem, I mean if the tech is scaled up.) It's carbon-neutral just like biofuels are, it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere: it only puts in what it took out to make the fuel in the first place. (I suppose your could even use it to remove CO2, to get us back to 350ppm via carbon sequestration -- make up a bunch of "blue crude" and then stick it underground, running an oil well in reverse.) The problem with greenhouse gas emissions is fossil carbon, which puts in carbon that was captured millions of years ago.
What rational argument is there that makes it right to strip ownership from the copyright holder after a few decades? Does real estate become public domain after 100 years of ownership?
You have confused ideas with property. The only rational argument for using state force to punish people or make them pay for making a copy of a work is that doing so promotes the creation of more works. That excuse falls off rather rapidly once the author is dead.
A song is not real estate -- if I go into Bob Dylan's house it affects his life, if I sing one of his songs it doesn't -- and so your comparison makes no sense.
We trade "freedom" for "security" every day; it's called civilization
If you're trading freedom for security, you're doing it wrong. They are mutually dependent. You have both or neither, not one or the other.
What does it mean to not be free? It means you can't live your life as you want because someone -- the state, the group with a "monopoly on violence", where one exists -- will use violence to stop you. You don't have security when you are subject to state violence that restricts freedom.
And what is the reason we desire security? Because we can only live as we choose -- we can only live freely -- when others do not violently impose their will upon us. You don't have freedom when you are subject to violence that threatens your security.
The question then becomes, how do we organize to defend ourselves against violence, while at the same time not creating an organization that commits violence? The modern police state fails this challenge.
No. The UK started it with the Balfour Declaration, then the Zionist Organization followed by with an invasion. Arabs started to resist the invasion, and the cycle began, with many sins since then by many players. But the origin was British colonialism and Jewish millenarianism. And the recent and ongoing brutality has been primarily of Israeli origin.
Who are the terrorists? The ones launching cowardly, hidden attacks, or the ones defending themselves?
To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view. Some of these threats are simply extraordinarily disgusting.
"Targeted"? What exactly do you mean by that?
If you mean that people disagree loudly and vigorously when they speak, well, welcome to being an adult.
If you mean that people threaten them, an actual, credible threat is a crime. And in such instance Twitter should be forwarding info to help the police to catch the criminal.
But hyperbolic speech -- even speech you or I may find "extraordinarily disgusting" -- is not a credible threat. If you don't want to read disgusting speech, Twitter lets you block people. We've had the solution for dealing with asshats on-line since the glory days of USENET. It sounds like this: plonk.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while MLK was all about social justice, he wouldn't have been happy to be called a "warrior".
The term is well-known. Saith the wik,
In internet culture, the term has been used as a pejorative for someone campaigning against things they perceive to be instances of racism, sexism, homophobia or other social injustice. Frequently initialized as "SJW", it is used to accuse opponents of sanctimony, to insinuate pretense, as a pejorative, and as a general shorthand for a person believed to be overreacting to social issues. Although most commonly used to cast negative implications, some have attempted to reappropriate the term as a neutral or positive source of identity.
I'm all for social justice myself. But the fact that someone is arguing for social justice doesn't mean they have their facts or their reasoning straight. Heck, the fact that someone thinks they're arguing for social justice doesn't mean they are actually arguing for social justice, as opposed to riding a self-righteousness high.
You don't like it, then change the law. Don't go crying because the cop did their job.
In a sane society, it is the job of a cop to use the law as a tool to keep the peace and protect people's rights, not to enforce every minor idiotic whim of those mentally and morally twisted enough to secure for themselves a place in the legislature. Separation of powers has a purpose.
And what gives you the prerogative to be the freeloader? Obviously not everyone can be.
But I want everyone to be a "freeloader". I want everyone to block ads, at least ads-as-they-are-now, intrusive and tracking. Then when the system falls apart we can replace it with something better. (And almost anything would be better. Perhaps a combination of non-intrusive and non-tracking sponsorships along with a fee charged every ISP and distributed to content creators via statistics sampled from a set of volunteers, a la the Nielsen ratings.)
...it's about the fact that culturally we (usually) are comfortable about men being pushy about their salary, while women tend to be treated negatively if they do the same thing.
Or perhaps because we generally socialize men to be more assertive from childhood, when women attempt to negotiate they have less experience and do a poorer job. (And then there's the un-PC possibility that men are, on average, more assertive for biological reasons that no amount of socialization will change.)
Negotiating is a subtle skill and I'm not convinced that we can say that two people who are both attempting it are "doing the same thing" without very careful observation.
As another poster pointed out, it's just posturing for anyone to say they are going to shoot down the drones.
Not from the ground. From another drone. Don't even need to shoot, just get above it and drop something sufficiently nasty on its rotors. Collect the wreckage and sell what's salvageable...maybe even in your Amazon store.
Photographer refuses to take photographs at a non-white wedding because of "religious" beliefs. Will take photos of any white ceremony.
And? Can the couple still get married? Can they find a photographer? Pretty sure they can. The photographer's bigotry does not pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg. It does not interfere with anyone's rights. Let him turn down paying customers and give opportunity to his competition, it's sort of a self-limiting problem.There is no need for any action here, any more than if a Catholic music composer accepts a commission from the diocese but doesn't accept a commission from the local synagogue (or from the Westborough Baptist Church).
Explain to us then the rational opposing position then. Explain to us the pro-discrimination position whereby we should be permitted to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation when none of those things should matter.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all things except what the state have decided are proper should be forbidden.
Yes, among enlightened people race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation should not matter. That does not imply that unenlightened people should be subject to criminal prosecution or lawsuits.
You should be permitted to discriminate in some areas because you should be permitted to do anything you want that does not interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Housing is a fundamental right, so you shouldn't be legally able to discriminate in renting out a house. But hiring a specific person to take your wedding pictures is not a fundamental right, so a photographer should be legally able to turn down a paying customer for whatever reason they want, even bigotry.
Doing the math with the wrong numbers isn't informative. You've ignored the atmospheric losses suffered by ground-based systems -- clouds, dust, the opacity of air. I think you're also being much more generous in estimating the potential lifetime of ground-based systems than space-based ones, which skews your numbers.
The fact that no attack occured gives the talking heads leeway to claim there was no "terrorist attack."
A terrorist is a person who attempts to bring about political change by "illegitimate" (i.e., non-state) violence.
Mass murder is only terrorism if it is an attack on a political entity, or is an attempt to scare a nation's population into something.
Unless someone says, "We're going to keep crash your planes until you do such-and-such", this isn't terrorism. There's no attempt to bring about political change involved, only murder, motive unknown.
Here is what is also true: greenpeace and other "green" organizations have been found to be taking millions of dollars in money from Russian oil interests, through shell corporations
Hey, you left out your link to a reliable source for this claim.
According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010.
A total over an unstated number of years is meaningless. According to Forbes -- hardly a lefty source, and this is a denialist article -- the U.S. Government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies over 20 years between 1989 and 2009. That's $1.6 billion a year. About $5 per American per year. Accoridng to the GAO (notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks) federal climate change acivities in 2010 were $8.8 billion, but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that. Figure a quarter to a third of it is climate research. So we're looking at something on the order of $2 or $3 billion a year spent by the federal government on climate change research.
Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.
The Army's R&D budget -- not the whole military, just the Army -- is around $21 - 32 billion.Climate research funding is chump change. I kind of liked this line of bullshit better when it was "those scientists telling us smoking causes cancer are just riding the research gravy train!" At least it was a fresh and audacious sort of intellectual dishonesty then. Now it's just pathetic.
Unless you are in a concentration camp, suicidal ideation and behavior is a mental health symptom.
Really? So, say, a terminal cancer patient who's in constant pain and wants to die is not of sound mental health?
Or maybe you'd like to revise that statement and say that there are other conditions besides "concentration camp" where suicide may be a rational response?
So I'm sorry to inform you of this, but when it comes to violent crime the world does not work the way you think that it does. When an armed person is suddenly and without prior warning in your home, you are in a combat situation. And in a combat situation, seconds matter.
Whether the risk of being prepared for such a situation does or does not outweigh the risks of having an unlocked gun around depends on your risk of home invasion, who lives in the house, who visits the house, and so on. A universal assessment is impossible. But in making the choice you need to be aware that there is a tremendous selection bias in the stories that are covered in the media: defensive firearms use does not receive nearly the coverage that the accidental shooting of a kid does, but is orders of magnitude more common.
Why would the college have any reason to discipline the students, especially if this is a public college
A fraternity is an officially recognized campus group. On some campuses they even have special housing. Yanking that privilege when the group behaves like a bunch of assholes is not censorship. It's not the same as belonging to Joe Bob's Gaming and Bar-B-Q society which meets every Sunday in Joe Bob's garage.
Chanting about lynching could be seen as a credible threat of violence against African Americans. It is a grey area and would depend on context.
For a student to saying "I don't like black people" is asinine and ignorant...but certainly not a crime and should not be a disciplinary offense. (For a professor or a TA to express such bigotry is a different matter. Still not a crime but a bigot isn't qualified to do that job.)
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of business is required to have showers?
You have an odd definition of "plenty".
If his problem in CA was with the federal ADA, that law doesn't change in TX. (The various fringe theories of some Texans notwithstanding.)
Chemcial tests can't tell whether a person is absuing drugs, only if they are using them. (It is a prohibitionist fiction that the use of certain drugs is inherently abuse.)
If the only way you can tell whether someone is using drugs is through chemical tests, ipso facto it is not affecting their performance on the job.
Who??? Give! You can't tell us about that and not tell us where to sign up.
Sure it does. (Not that one small pilot project solves the problem, I mean if the tech is scaled up.) It's carbon-neutral just like biofuels are, it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere: it only puts in what it took out to make the fuel in the first place. (I suppose your could even use it to remove CO2, to get us back to 350ppm via carbon sequestration -- make up a bunch of "blue crude" and then stick it underground, running an oil well in reverse.) The problem with greenhouse gas emissions is fossil carbon, which puts in carbon that was captured millions of years ago.
Xposed Framework + XPrivacy. Boom.
You have confused ideas with property. The only rational argument for using state force to punish people or make them pay for making a copy of a work is that doing so promotes the creation of more works. That excuse falls off rather rapidly once the author is dead.
A song is not real estate -- if I go into Bob Dylan's house it affects his life, if I sing one of his songs it doesn't -- and so your comparison makes no sense.
Famous Copyright Infringement Plagiarism cases in Music
Music Lawsuits: Blurred Lines Thoughts
HTH. HAND.
If you're trading freedom for security, you're doing it wrong. They are mutually dependent. You have both or neither, not one or the other.
What does it mean to not be free? It means you can't live your life as you want because someone -- the state, the group with a "monopoly on violence", where one exists -- will use violence to stop you. You don't have security when you are subject to state violence that restricts freedom.
And what is the reason we desire security? Because we can only live as we choose -- we can only live freely -- when others do not violently impose their will upon us. You don't have freedom when you are subject to violence that threatens your security.
The question then becomes, how do we organize to defend ourselves against violence, while at the same time not creating an organization that commits violence? The modern police state fails this challenge.
No. The UK started it with the Balfour Declaration, then the Zionist Organization followed by with an invasion. Arabs started to resist the invasion, and the cycle began, with many sins since then by many players. But the origin was British colonialism and Jewish millenarianism. And the recent and ongoing brutality has been primarily of Israeli origin.
There is nothing "cowardly" about hiding. That's how you win a battle. It's why we invented camouflage. That's the same charge the British leveled against American colonial fighters, that they wouldn't stand out in the open wearing bright colors and be shot like Real Men.
And the Palestinians have been on the defensive since 1917, that's the historical fact.
"Targeted"? What exactly do you mean by that?
If you mean that people disagree loudly and vigorously when they speak, well, welcome to being an adult.
If you mean that people threaten them, an actual, credible threat is a crime. And in such instance Twitter should be forwarding info to help the police to catch the criminal.
But hyperbolic speech -- even speech you or I may find "extraordinarily disgusting" -- is not a credible threat. If you don't want to read disgusting speech, Twitter lets you block people. We've had the solution for dealing with asshats on-line since the glory days of USENET. It sounds like this: plonk.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while MLK was all about social justice, he wouldn't have been happy to be called a "warrior".
The term is well-known. Saith the wik,
I'm all for social justice myself. But the fact that someone is arguing for social justice doesn't mean they have their facts or their reasoning straight. Heck, the fact that someone thinks they're arguing for social justice doesn't mean they are actually arguing for social justice, as opposed to riding a self-righteousness high.
In a sane society, it is the job of a cop to use the law as a tool to keep the peace and protect people's rights, not to enforce every minor idiotic whim of those mentally and morally twisted enough to secure for themselves a place in the legislature. Separation of powers has a purpose.
But I want everyone to be a "freeloader". I want everyone to block ads, at least ads-as-they-are-now, intrusive and tracking. Then when the system falls apart we can replace it with something better. (And almost anything would be better. Perhaps a combination of non-intrusive and non-tracking sponsorships along with a fee charged every ISP and distributed to content creators via statistics sampled from a set of volunteers, a la the Nielsen ratings.)
Or perhaps because we generally socialize men to be more assertive from childhood, when women attempt to negotiate they have less experience and do a poorer job. (And then there's the un-PC possibility that men are, on average, more assertive for biological reasons that no amount of socialization will change.)
Negotiating is a subtle skill and I'm not convinced that we can say that two people who are both attempting it are "doing the same thing" without very careful observation.
Not from the ground. From another drone. Don't even need to shoot, just get above it and drop something sufficiently nasty on its rotors. Collect the wreckage and sell what's salvageable...maybe even in your Amazon store.
They're talking 25 kg / 55lbs pound load here, so you're off by more than an order of magnitude.
Why is there a line to be drawn?
And? Can the couple still get married? Can they find a photographer? Pretty sure they can. The photographer's bigotry does not pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg. It does not interfere with anyone's rights. Let him turn down paying customers and give opportunity to his competition, it's sort of a self-limiting problem.There is no need for any action here, any more than if a Catholic music composer accepts a commission from the diocese but doesn't accept a commission from the local synagogue (or from the Westborough Baptist Church).
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all things except what the state have decided are proper should be forbidden.
Yes, among enlightened people race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation should not matter. That does not imply that unenlightened people should be subject to criminal prosecution or lawsuits.
You should be permitted to discriminate in some areas because you should be permitted to do anything you want that does not interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Housing is a fundamental right, so you shouldn't be legally able to discriminate in renting out a house. But hiring a specific person to take your wedding pictures is not a fundamental right, so a photographer should be legally able to turn down a paying customer for whatever reason they want, even bigotry.
Doing the math with the wrong numbers isn't informative. You've ignored the atmospheric losses suffered by ground-based systems -- clouds, dust, the opacity of air. I think you're also being much more generous in estimating the potential lifetime of ground-based systems than space-based ones, which skews your numbers.
It may be that the gains are small enough to not justify the launch costs, though that depends on how much we value land taken up by solar arrays.
A terrorist is a person who attempts to bring about political change by "illegitimate" (i.e., non-state) violence.
Mass murder is only terrorism if it is an attack on a political entity, or is an attempt to scare a nation's population into something.
Unless someone says, "We're going to keep crash your planes until you do such-and-such", this isn't terrorism. There's no attempt to bring about political change involved, only murder, motive unknown.
Hey, you left out your link to a reliable source for this claim.
A total over an unstated number of years is meaningless. According to Forbes -- hardly a lefty source, and this is a denialist article -- the U.S. Government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies over 20 years between 1989 and 2009. That's $1.6 billion a year. About $5 per American per year. Accoridng to the GAO (notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks) federal climate change acivities in 2010 were $8.8 billion, but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that. Figure a quarter to a third of it is climate research. So we're looking at something on the order of $2 or $3 billion a year spent by the federal government on climate change research.
For comparison, the Iraq war was is estimated to have cost $1,100 billion in total.
Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.
The Army's R&D budget -- not the whole military, just the Army -- is around $21 - 32 billion.Climate research funding is chump change. I kind of liked this line of bullshit better when it was "those scientists telling us smoking causes cancer are just riding the research gravy train!" At least it was a fresh and audacious sort of intellectual dishonesty then. Now it's just pathetic.
How do people still believe "no warming" bullshit? There is no pause. Please stop speading misinformation. Thank you.
Really? So, say, a terminal cancer patient who's in constant pain and wants to die is not of sound mental health?
Or maybe you'd like to revise that statement and say that there are other conditions besides "concentration camp" where suicide may be a rational response?
You do realize that when you make a statement like that, it takes only a single counterexample to prove you wrong?
Like this: The mother tells 7 Action News she "didn't have time to get scared." When she heard the door to her home on Woodrow Wilson being kicked in, she immediately warned the three teenage intruders and then opened fire.
Or this: "Apparently the homeowner has been the victim of burglary recently so he was on alert, he was on edge, and as soon as he heard glass breaking he armed himself to protect himself and his 11-year-old child who was in the home."
Or this: "Police said Henry broke into the house and began to attack Moreno until her daughter, Jayda Milsap, 11, shot Henry twice with a handgun." Now there's a story about kids and guns you probably didn't see on the news. If this mom had kept her gun locked so her daughter couldn't get to it, they both might be dead now.
So I'm sorry to inform you of this, but when it comes to violent crime the world does not work the way you think that it does. When an armed person is suddenly and without prior warning in your home, you are in a combat situation. And in a combat situation, seconds matter.
Whether the risk of being prepared for such a situation does or does not outweigh the risks of having an unlocked gun around depends on your risk of home invasion, who lives in the house, who visits the house, and so on. A universal assessment is impossible. But in making the choice you need to be aware that there is a tremendous selection bias in the stories that are covered in the media: defensive firearms use does not receive nearly the coverage that the accidental shooting of a kid does, but is orders of magnitude more common.
A fraternity is an officially recognized campus group. On some campuses they even have special housing. Yanking that privilege when the group behaves like a bunch of assholes is not censorship. It's not the same as belonging to Joe Bob's Gaming and Bar-B-Q society which meets every Sunday in Joe Bob's garage.
Chanting about lynching could be seen as a credible threat of violence against African Americans. It is a grey area and would depend on context.
For a student to saying "I don't like black people" is asinine and ignorant...but certainly not a crime and should not be a disciplinary offense. (For a professor or a TA to express such bigotry is a different matter. Still not a crime but a bigot isn't qualified to do that job.)