You mean like kids at a soccer game? Or kids at a concert? You have read the terms of going to a concert, right? Do they ever pan the crowd at football games? Never, right?
People don't have to ask you to take your picture. And they don't have to tell you what they are taking a picture of. Grow up. Why would you think people can't do those things legally?
You seem to miss a key part the NY Times article makes that they say comes out of the GAO report:
The accounting office said similar pranks were reported in prior transitions, including the one from Mr. Bush's father to Mr. Clinton in 1993. ''We were unable to conclude,'' it said, ''whether the 2001 transition was worse than previous ones.''
After all of this, they can't definitively say it is any worse than any previous transition?
What, like more than the +4,000 troops we've lost in the two wars we started and the +38,000 crippled/paraplegics?
How could it possibly result in more lives lost than those missteps? Please, fill me in on how closing Gitmo is going to do that and cost us more than $600 billion dollars.
Are we going to lose more lives than building strong alliances with other countries that help us gather intel against terrorists?
Seriously, though. If our strategy is to destroy Al Qaeda and other terror networks, then we should have kept our eye on the ball. Secure Afghanistan. Stabilize Pakistan and drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of the tribal regions like Waziristan.
Don't give me this at-all-costs bullshit about closing Gitmo. Of course it might cause some deaths--in the same way that giving people a fair trial might lead to some deaths because criminals will sometimes go free to commit more crimes.
How do you monitor what they do offline? It's the same thing. Computer setup by the kitchen....how hard is it to see nude pictures, while you are cooking and glancing over??
You argue from ignorance/lack of imagination. If *I* can't think of an easy solution, there is no solution or it should be everyone else's problem, but not MINE.
Of course you can't give them a blanket "GOOD" label, but you can't put MS and google in the same category.
One company has done everything in its power to screw over the consumer (via monopoly rents) and hasn't given a damn about goodwill. The other one doesn't have a history of negative behavior.
There is only one area that the church gets in politics for, and that is things regarded as a threat to the family, which is most important to the church.
Which is why they are crazy and non-rational. They clearly have a religion based on pumping out as many children as possible. Having the heathens enter into 'families' that aren't reproducing HELPS them!!
And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!
Surely no one today would recommend reviving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone, when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices?
I'm guessing you are from one of the flyover states and never thought about how taxes are done when you deal with domestic partner situations?
This is just a cooperation pushing its personal politics and just because many agree with it does not make that any more acceptable.
Yeah, if corporations keep pushing "personal" politics, they might some day try to get Congress to give them tax breaks, limited monopolies, and/or other special benefits. Google is setting a terrible and self-serving precedent here1!!!!
Alright, I've seen this reasoning a half dozen times. It's idiotic, and unimaginative. Israel clearly is not at risk in this endeavor; three of those five people were lost to friendly fire incidents
Of course it is idiotic--that was the point. You posted your objection being the imbalance of people dying as the problem. Your expanded explanation makes sense of your reasoning.
War is always murder. That is the means used to make a country forcefully submit.
But you have to admit it is pretty close to asking for war when a country's stated policy is that it wants to destroy your country. Not to say at all that Israel has the high moral ground in this situation or anything, but Hezbollah knew before the rocket attacks, that they would get crushed if they awoke Israel to military action.
You poke the bear at your own peril. Don't act surprised when you get hurt by it.
And so is the desire to remove anonymity. Both are acceptable.
I was assuming you were saying it isn't important because of this comment. There have been some public figures stating that there should be no anonymity on the internet.
The people that should be held accountable for libel are those that provide "credibility escalation" (like privilege escalation) by reporting on the rumors giving them the appearance of more weight.
On the other hand, identities are practical knowledge that people put to use every day in making judgments.
You are correct. However, why don't we let the person on the internet choose if they want to be anonymous or not and let the reader determine the credibility of anonymous persons on the internet?
As for protecting your safety, I submit that is far overblown. Lots of people use their real names online. Actual attacks are rare.
I would temper your statement with the fact that the people who use their real names online are not representative of having all anonymous comments assigned to a meatspace identity. They filter what they say or choose to not bring up topics that might lead to repercussions (harm and safety not being limited to physical harm). For example, how many people filling out performance reviews of their managers that they have to sign end up being harmed by their managers? I would say, not very many because they know their manager will see the reviews and they only write positive comments. So to say that not many people are harmed by being identified with their speech fails to take into consideration the "honest" speech that only happens anonymously.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you need a phone to take pictures? What about a little camera?
You mean like kids at a soccer game? Or kids at a concert? You have read the terms of going to a concert, right? Do they ever pan the crowd at football games? Never, right?
People don't have to ask you to take your picture. And they don't have to tell you what they are taking a picture of. Grow up. Why would you think people can't do those things legally?
And to think at one time ReiserFS used to murder all of the other FSs....
Notice how no one links to the GAO report?
You seem to miss a key part the NY Times article makes that they say comes out of the GAO report:
After all of this, they can't definitively say it is any worse than any previous transition?
If anything, your source has hurt your argument.
What, like more than the +4,000 troops we've lost in the two wars we started and the +38,000 crippled/paraplegics?
How could it possibly result in more lives lost than those missteps? Please, fill me in on how closing Gitmo is going to do that and cost us more than $600 billion dollars.
Are we going to lose more lives than building strong alliances with other countries that help us gather intel against terrorists?
Seriously, though. If our strategy is to destroy Al Qaeda and other terror networks, then we should have kept our eye on the ball. Secure Afghanistan. Stabilize Pakistan and drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of the tribal regions like Waziristan.
Don't give me this at-all-costs bullshit about closing Gitmo. Of course it might cause some deaths--in the same way that giving people a fair trial might lead to some deaths because criminals will sometimes go free to commit more crimes.
How do you monitor what they do offline? It's the same thing. Computer setup by the kitchen....how hard is it to see nude pictures, while you are cooking and glancing over??
You argue from ignorance/lack of imagination. If *I* can't think of an easy solution, there is no solution or it should be everyone else's problem, but not MINE.
Mirrors are not a backup...a raid array isn't either.
Fixed.
How about a murderer versus someone who might scam you some day?
Because that is what we are comparing here. Unless you are trying to say there has never been any corporation that wasn't evil.
Of course you can't give them a blanket "GOOD" label, but you can't put MS and google in the same category.
One company has done everything in its power to screw over the consumer (via monopoly rents) and hasn't given a damn about goodwill. The other one doesn't have a history of negative behavior.
Which one would a rational person trust more?
Which is why they are crazy and non-rational. They clearly have a religion based on pumping out as many children as possible. Having the heathens enter into 'families' that aren't reproducing HELPS them!!
The bible says a lot of things you feel free to ignore. Walter Wink says it best: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink
That way it's easy to avoid temptation which might weaken your marriage. Just think how strong your marriage would be in Iran!
I'm guessing you are from one of the flyover states and never thought about how taxes are done when you deal with domestic partner situations?
Yeah, if corporations keep pushing "personal" politics, they might some day try to get Congress to give them tax breaks, limited monopolies, and/or other special benefits. Google is setting a terrible and self-serving precedent here1!!!!
somewhat an argument from lack of imagination.
I can't think of any other way to solve this problem so just live with it and do {overly burdensome alternative}.
You are probably self-medicating for ADD.
The second thing that could be confusing is when they say "Magic Yellow Line." They aren't referring to *real* magic.
Why don't they just use Word if they need a database??
http://www.neopoleon.com/home/blogs/neo/archive/2003/09/29/5458.aspx
Of course it is idiotic--that was the point. You posted your objection being the imbalance of people dying as the problem. Your expanded explanation makes sense of your reasoning.
War is always murder. That is the means used to make a country forcefully submit.
But you have to admit it is pretty close to asking for war when a country's stated policy is that it wants to destroy your country. Not to say at all that Israel has the high moral ground in this situation or anything, but Hezbollah knew before the rocket attacks, that they would get crushed if they awoke Israel to military action.
You poke the bear at your own peril. Don't act surprised when you get hurt by it.
And so is the desire to remove anonymity. Both are acceptable.
I was assuming you were saying it isn't important because of this comment. There have been some public figures stating that there should be no anonymity on the internet.
The people that should be held accountable for libel are those that provide "credibility escalation" (like privilege escalation) by reporting on the rumors giving them the appearance of more weight.
Conditional probability that they are lying about this too?
You are correct. However, why don't we let the person on the internet choose if they want to be anonymous or not and let the reader determine the credibility of anonymous persons on the internet?
I would temper your statement with the fact that the people who use their real names online are not representative of having all anonymous comments assigned to a meatspace identity. They filter what they say or choose to not bring up topics that might lead to repercussions (harm and safety not being limited to physical harm). For example, how many people filling out performance reviews of their managers that they have to sign end up being harmed by their managers? I would say, not very many because they know their manager will see the reviews and they only write positive comments. So to say that not many people are harmed by being identified with their speech fails to take into consideration the "honest" speech that only happens anonymously.
Except it is much more complicated than you portray. Look both words up in wikipedia.
You are portraying "strong atheism" and "weak agnosticism". Sorry, but the words have come a long way from their greek and french roots.
So, if they "spend" Israeli troops on bayonet charges and lose more soldiers they can continue the fight because it will not be as lopsided?
bzzzt. wrong.
The news never needs model releases for newsworthy pictures.
The child porn statue doesn't require community standards, only the obscenity statute.