The US public is much more comfortable with depictions of violence than sex. That's just the way it is. And saying "fuck" twice gets you an R rating - it's the way it works. I can see why you dislike that.
However, it is hardly an abdication of parental responsibilities to have rating agencies at all; nobody can possibly prescreen everything before showing it to their kids.
a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking
Often stated, rarely proven. "Proper" news organizations aren't exactly paragons of virtue here, as anyone with detailed knowledge of a complicated story will tell you. Sometimes, they'll just publish anything at all - this example by CBS is just one of the most egregious.
There's just one problem I can see with the anonymous website where you buy drugs: sooner or later, at least some of these guys will get busted (either for online or offline activities). And when they do, your address (hey, they had to ship it to you) is going to be on their computer. Hell, maybe some of these guys are setting themselves up to blackmail people who think they can get off easy by buying drugs online.
Traditional drug dealers may be harder to find, but you're just another anonymous face passing them cash.
Generally limited to 3x actual damages, IIRC (though IANAL). If the business had to pay up front for the advertising, they'd have a stronger claim, but since it's no cost to the business until the Groupon runs... I wouldn't count on winning much. Maybe if you just wanted satisfaction in small-claims court you could get it, but even that's probably not worth it.
Who cares about lung cancer? Worry about emphysema - it strikes a lot more people than lung cancer does. Imagine yourself slowly... slowly... slowly suffocating.
You need a real desire to quit and a sufficiently strong stimulus to keep you off the stuff for a month or so (in my case, a drug test for life insurance) to get over the physical dependence hump. I quit one day and haven't touched tobacco since. Won't, either, unless I find out I've got a terminal disease. There's a reason that stuff's addictive.
Snus beats smoking cigarettes or chewing/dipping American tobacco, but e-cigs are better still (they're just nicotine). Nicotine isn't really good for you, but the harm from the drug itself pales compared to the harm from the delivery system.
Only if you've got natural game. Some do, some don't. Game training works, though what you use it for is up to you.
Still, I'd say it's not that it's a subtle signal that they put out (ah, such a teenage thing) with plausible deniability - it's that it's a risky but pleasurable behavior. Someone who engages in one will often engage in others. Lois Griffin was right: if she smokes, she pokes.
I have a problem with the whole idea of checkpoints where agents of the state can stop you and search you and your vehicle without probable cause, but that's an argument for a different day.
The value of the FST in front of a camera is that if it goes to trial, there is an actual record of someone's behavior for a jury to see. Are they stumbling? Slurring their words? That's a pretty good clue that someone is impaired. Not only that, it helps cover the situation of people who are high on something other than alcohol.
If you blow 0.79, the cop may dream up all sorts of things to write you up for - but DUI won't be one of them. If you blow 0.80, he can and probably will. That's the situation we're talking about here - the incredibly arbitrary nature of BAC standards.
A better standard would be a really good field sobriety test based on reaction times administered in front of a dash camera.
If you think that drinking a beer at 16 is such a strong sign of irreparable moral turpitude that huge amounts of life should simply be closed to you, you should know that you are way, way out on a limb.
Personally, I could not care less about my doctor's or lawyer's (or accountant's, for that matter - another regulated profession) teenage adventures in alcohol consumption.
Depends on where you live. I've only been through two or three DUI checkpoints in my life, and their locations were predictable (e.g., at river crossings from a wet county into a dry county) - but they certainly weren't advertised in any meaningful sense. (I suspect that the local govt may have ignored the rule about publicizing, or may have run them in the classifieds if they didn't.)
Outside of major cities, there are almost no pedestrians to hit, and anyone drunk enough to do that is definitely drunk enough to be driving on the wrong side of the road. The BAC keeps getting dropped because it's "for the children".
There is a strong moralizing element playing here, to the point where (famously) one of the founders of MADD left the organization because it had effectively changed its goal from temperance to abstinence. If you want to talk about the alcohol levels that really make people noticeably worse drivers, it's up where the original levels were - around 0.14-0.15. That's the knee in the curve of BAC vs incident rate.
IMHO, the proper way to deal with it is to keep the original high levels for prima facie proof of DUI and to develop good, solid field sobriety tests that can be recorded on cops' dash cams to deal with people who are under the limit but obviously impaired (because ultimately, it's all about impairment). Barring that, we need to have a lesser offense than a "true" DUI (which in principle can prevent someone from becoming a doctor or lawyer at 26 because he blew a 0.03 at age 16) to apply to people at the bottom end of the spectrum.
The statistics have a lot of noise in them - the average college graduate is different from the average HS grad in ways that go well beyond four more years of formal education. However, accepting the premise that the education and the degree are responsible for the additional earnings, there are a lot of schools whose costs are fast approaching the entire net present value of the additional earnings over a lifetime.
Furthermore, many students attend college but depart without any degree at all. Clearly, some are so ill-prepared that sending them off to acquire student loan debt for a year or two does them a tragic disservice - all the more so because they are likely to come from the lower end of the economic spectrum and so be less able to handle that debt.
Depends on the industry. My father-in-law is a salesman in the clothing industry, where salesmen often represent more than one company and sell to the same clients over and over again regardless of what company they're selling. His relationship is with the customers, much more than with the companies. The companies just pay him his commission to have access to his set of accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but "never let your child use the Internet, at all, without you sitting right there" is a wildly impractical idea.
The US public is much more comfortable with depictions of violence than sex. That's just the way it is. And saying "fuck" twice gets you an R rating - it's the way it works. I can see why you dislike that.
However, it is hardly an abdication of parental responsibilities to have rating agencies at all; nobody can possibly prescreen everything before showing it to their kids.
a citizen journalist is going to be less careful about sources and fact checking
Often stated, rarely proven. "Proper" news organizations aren't exactly paragons of virtue here, as anyone with detailed knowledge of a complicated story will tell you. Sometimes, they'll just publish anything at all - this example by CBS is just one of the most egregious.
You don't have to touch the drivers. Obtain root. Install Kindle .apk. Done.
I know we really go for bad car analogies around here, but that's a completely awful one.
There's just one problem I can see with the anonymous website where you buy drugs: sooner or later, at least some of these guys will get busted (either for online or offline activities). And when they do, your address (hey, they had to ship it to you) is going to be on their computer. Hell, maybe some of these guys are setting themselves up to blackmail people who think they can get off easy by buying drugs online.
Traditional drug dealers may be harder to find, but you're just another anonymous face passing them cash.
That's kind of what I thought. Thanks for the more-professional info.
Generally limited to 3x actual damages, IIRC (though IANAL). If the business had to pay up front for the advertising, they'd have a stronger claim, but since it's no cost to the business until the Groupon runs... I wouldn't count on winning much. Maybe if you just wanted satisfaction in small-claims court you could get it, but even that's probably not worth it.
Who cares about lung cancer? Worry about emphysema - it strikes a lot more people than lung cancer does. Imagine yourself slowly... slowly... slowly suffocating.
You need a real desire to quit and a sufficiently strong stimulus to keep you off the stuff for a month or so (in my case, a drug test for life insurance) to get over the physical dependence hump. I quit one day and haven't touched tobacco since. Won't, either, unless I find out I've got a terminal disease. There's a reason that stuff's addictive.
Snus beats smoking cigarettes or chewing/dipping American tobacco, but e-cigs are better still (they're just nicotine). Nicotine isn't really good for you, but the harm from the drug itself pales compared to the harm from the delivery system.
Only if you've got natural game. Some do, some don't. Game training works, though what you use it for is up to you.
Still, I'd say it's not that it's a subtle signal that they put out (ah, such a teenage thing) with plausible deniability - it's that it's a risky but pleasurable behavior. Someone who engages in one will often engage in others. Lois Griffin was right: if she smokes, she pokes.
For what? The damages are going to be too small to pay lawyer's fees.
IIRC the key distinction is audio recording. This is why security cameras do not have audio.
I have a problem with the whole idea of checkpoints where agents of the state can stop you and search you and your vehicle without probable cause, but that's an argument for a different day.
The value of the FST in front of a camera is that if it goes to trial, there is an actual record of someone's behavior for a jury to see. Are they stumbling? Slurring their words? That's a pretty good clue that someone is impaired. Not only that, it helps cover the situation of people who are high on something other than alcohol.
If you blow 0.79, the cop may dream up all sorts of things to write you up for - but DUI won't be one of them. If you blow 0.80, he can and probably will. That's the situation we're talking about here - the incredibly arbitrary nature of BAC standards.
A better standard would be a really good field sobriety test based on reaction times administered in front of a dash camera.
A guy who tries to get me to search Bing for "you're dumb" with a source tag of IE8? That's rich.
If you think that drinking a beer at 16 is such a strong sign of irreparable moral turpitude that huge amounts of life should simply be closed to you, you should know that you are way, way out on a limb.
Personally, I could not care less about my doctor's or lawyer's (or accountant's, for that matter - another regulated profession) teenage adventures in alcohol consumption.
Depends on where you live. I've only been through two or three DUI checkpoints in my life, and their locations were predictable (e.g., at river crossings from a wet county into a dry county) - but they certainly weren't advertised in any meaningful sense. (I suspect that the local govt may have ignored the rule about publicizing, or may have run them in the classifieds if they didn't.)
Outside of major cities, there are almost no pedestrians to hit, and anyone drunk enough to do that is definitely drunk enough to be driving on the wrong side of the road. The BAC keeps getting dropped because it's "for the children".
There is a strong moralizing element playing here, to the point where (famously) one of the founders of MADD left the organization because it had effectively changed its goal from temperance to abstinence. If you want to talk about the alcohol levels that really make people noticeably worse drivers, it's up where the original levels were - around 0.14-0.15. That's the knee in the curve of BAC vs incident rate.
IMHO, the proper way to deal with it is to keep the original high levels for prima facie proof of DUI and to develop good, solid field sobriety tests that can be recorded on cops' dash cams to deal with people who are under the limit but obviously impaired (because ultimately, it's all about impairment). Barring that, we need to have a lesser offense than a "true" DUI (which in principle can prevent someone from becoming a doctor or lawyer at 26 because he blew a 0.03 at age 16) to apply to people at the bottom end of the spectrum.
There's always work available in undesirable places. The question is whether it's worth the money.
In my case (not IT), it was - my town is a dump, but I'm earning twice what I would in a nice place, and the cost of living (esp housing) is low.
The statistics have a lot of noise in them - the average college graduate is different from the average HS grad in ways that go well beyond four more years of formal education. However, accepting the premise that the education and the degree are responsible for the additional earnings, there are a lot of schools whose costs are fast approaching the entire net present value of the additional earnings over a lifetime.
Furthermore, many students attend college but depart without any degree at all. Clearly, some are so ill-prepared that sending them off to acquire student loan debt for a year or two does them a tragic disservice - all the more so because they are likely to come from the lower end of the economic spectrum and so be less able to handle that debt.
AtomicParsley will strip those names out, at least in theory.
Depends on the industry. My father-in-law is a salesman in the clothing industry, where salesmen often represent more than one company and sell to the same clients over and over again regardless of what company they're selling. His relationship is with the customers, much more than with the companies. The companies just pay him his commission to have access to his set of accounts.
Never claimed they were perfect.