we don't really understand long term climate, or what caused past climate changes
Another lie. Or lack of knowledge.
We may think we know, but without a time machine, we can't really know for certain. These extrapolations are on a scale often beyond human history, and certainly beyond the history of science.
Science is proving hypotheses by experimentation. We can't prove any of these hypotheses because we can't experiment, nor can we go back to when the supposed data was supposedly "recorded" into tree trunks or glaciers.
It's guessing. It may be educated guessing, but it's still guessing, because it's logically and factually unprovable. At the very least, you must admit that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Are you implying that those who bike to work don't need roads? Do you ride nature trails?
Forget going back and forth to work--how do you think all the stuff in your home got to the stores you bought it from? How do you think all the public utilities and services get around?
The entire economy is built around the road system. It's shortsighted, ignorant, and foolish to suggest that roads only benefit those who drive cars, and that therefore only car drivers should pay for them.
Those laws are so irrational. There's no way to prove why someone was fired. And an employer can always come up with some other reason. Best to just let people do what they want--they are going to anyway.
Now that is the kind of post you should never make on the Internet. If I were going to interview you, and knew about this, I'd never interview you in a million years. Who knows what of it might end up posted for the world to see. And hey, you wouldn't want him making the same kind of post about YOU, naming you and saying what a pain you are to interview--even if he was wrong to ask those things.
If you're going to do this, you never names! And you should post as AC too.
You're full of red herrings. Not every job is for a multinational corporation with HR departments.
Hey, have you never heard of at-will employment? An employer should be able to fire any employee for any reason, even if he doesn't like the way they sneeze. It may not be ethical or moral, but it surely shouldn't be illegal.
Yeah, it's not the government's fault, it's those vile, disgusting bigots' fault. I can't stand people like that. ÂIf it wasn't for annoying people we wouldn't need laws!
Overreaching laws are overreaching laws, regardless of whatever circumstances they are intended to address. Not everything that's unethical or immoral should be illegal.Â
As American citizens (or simply as human beings), we need to advocate freedom first and foremost. To a large extent that includes the freedom to do things that aren't nice or good or moral or ethical. ÂReal bigotry is a matter of the heart, and the heart cannot be legislated.Â
I'm not against the Civil Rights Act, but there are limits to how far such anti-discrimination regulation should go. ÂWe're rapidly sliding down the slope right now; it won't be long before we'll have a registered race offenders list, or sexual preference offenders list, or a plain offended-somebody "offenders" list. ÂThe UK is Âvirtually there now.Â
Eventually everything that's not politically correct will be illegal, at least, outside your own home (including on the Internet). Then they'll have to find something else to outlaw.Â
By the way, when you paint entire swaths of people as "vile and disgusting," you're not much better than they are. Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.Â
The changes made by the IETF makeover team included:
- Decreasing the AP receiver sensitivity ([changing] HP/Colubris configuration "distance" from "large" to "small");
- Increasing the minimum data and multicast rate from 1Mbps to 2Mbps;
- Decreasing the transmit power from 20dBm to 10dBm;
- And, turning off the radios on numerous APs to reduce the [RF] noise.
"In the process, we've hacked netdisco [a network management tool that maps MAC addresses to IP addresses to pinpoint switch ports] to be able to discover the hotel infrastructure and rancid [a free tool that monitors a device's configurations and maintains a history of changes in a Concurrent Version System (CVS) repository] to be able to at least minimally work with HP/Colubris APs, and added their private subnet to our management station to facilitate discovery, scripted changes, and monitoring," Elliott wrote, describing something close to a NOC trouble-shooting system put together on the fly.
Also, my FaceBook includes information that is protected under a few employment acts. It includes things like race, sexual preference, age, and religious affiliation. By asking, they are breaking employment law.
Ok, IANAL, but is it illegal to ask, or illegal to make a decision based upon such data? What kind of job application wouldn't ask for age or birthdate? If it was illegal to ask, we'd have people committing crimes by a slip of the tongue during friendly conversation.
Besides, you'd have to prove that looking an a Fb account is the same as asking such questions--but there are lots of other things a potential employer might want to see on there.
I don't support such practices, of course, but I wouldn't say it's illegal for them to ask until it's tested in court.
It will never happen in first-world countries, for one simple reason: litigation. Even if automobile fatalities were reduced by 50%, all it takes is one dumb kid running out into the street, causing an accident that neither human nor robot could avoid. Then the manufacturer and every other company in the supply chain will be sued for millions upon millions. Lawyers will have a field day. Insurance rates will skyrocket. Companies will refuse to shoulder the liabilities, so they won't even make them--it's just too financially risky. Even if they are statistically safer, that won't matter in court when an accident does happen (and they will, because nothing and no one is perfect). A human driver is responsible for his own driving, but the manufacturer will be responsible for its robotic driving, and no car manufacturer with lawyers in their "right" minds would allow such a thing to proceed.
Maybe it could work in other parts of the world, places with less-developed legal systems....
I suppose it's ultimately a matter of opinion, but I don't think it qualifies. The SR-71 was not intended to sneak past radars undetected. And when it's cruising at Mach 3 at 80,000 feet, it will have a large RCS to radars on the ground.
The SR-71's flyovers were not supposed to be secret from the nations they flew over--that's why it was designed to outrun SAMs.
In contrast, the F-117 and B-2 are explicitly intended to fly past radars undetected. That's stealth.
Are you suggesting that the star 13 billion light-years away is moving close enough to c that it's experienced significantly less than 13 billion years relative to our own timeframe?
You seem to be arguing about theory while ignoring reality.
There are limits to how much civilization you can legislate. Legislate too much and you're not civilized anymore, either.
Your comment about the U.S. is silly. Murder is against the law, and no one needs to make a threat in order to commit murder. You imply that freedom of speech leads to murder. I say the opposite: without freedom of speech, the government is free to do whatever it wants, including committing murder, and murdering anyone who talks about it. Without freedom of speech, citizens have no hope of protecting themselves against tyranny. Let's hope the U.K. doesn't get so bad off that you realize this someday.
Sounds to me like the problem is rioting, violence, and hatred--and perhaps alcoholism, to some extent. The solution is not to ban speech. You can't control what people say to each other, and it's wrong to try. There's an underlying problem: that people want to do these evil things, and that they're on a hair trigger.
There's also another underlying problem: the lack of personal responsibility. Just because someone says something hateful doesn't mean you automatically act upon it. You USE YOUR BRAIN. No one forces anyone to commit violent acts or to participate in a riot--it's a choice on the part of the actors. Words do not CAUSE people to act--people CHOOSE to act. And those who ACT are responsible for their ACTIONS.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not?
If I have the right to publish or not, clearly I should have some types of rights to control how it is disseminated after I publish.
Your assertion is unsupported.
Most Star Trek scripts were written by a single author.
It's not necessary for a license to be sold--it may simply be granted, gratis. (cf. GPL, etc)
Ideas cannot be stolen--only discovered, shared, or kept secret. See sig.
With such hard, scientific evidence as that which you cite, how could anyone disagree with you?
Wow, good comeback.
A little googling and you could educate yourself.
we don't really understand long term climate, or what caused past climate changes
Another lie. Or lack of knowledge.
We may think we know, but without a time machine, we can't really know for certain. These extrapolations are on a scale often beyond human history, and certainly beyond the history of science.
Science is proving hypotheses by experimentation. We can't prove any of these hypotheses because we can't experiment, nor can we go back to when the supposed data was supposedly "recorded" into tree trunks or glaciers.
It's guessing. It may be educated guessing, but it's still guessing, because it's logically and factually unprovable. At the very least, you must admit that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
If you dispute that, that is a lie or ignorance.
Are you implying that those who bike to work don't need roads? Do you ride nature trails?
Forget going back and forth to work--how do you think all the stuff in your home got to the stores you bought it from? How do you think all the public utilities and services get around?
The entire economy is built around the road system. It's shortsighted, ignorant, and foolish to suggest that roads only benefit those who drive cars, and that therefore only car drivers should pay for them.
Those laws are so irrational. There's no way to prove why someone was fired. And an employer can always come up with some other reason. Best to just let people do what they want--they are going to anyway.
Sorry, that's a false dichotomy. At-will employment (from both the employer's and employee's perspectives) is the law in many states.
But is there a law against phone discrimination? What about car discrimination? Where do you draw the line?
What really constitutes duress? Being afraid that you won't get the job?
Hey I'm against it as much as anyone but I don't know if it should be illegal.
Now that is the kind of post you should never make on the Internet. If I were going to interview you, and knew about this, I'd never interview you in a million years. Who knows what of it might end up posted for the world to see. And hey, you wouldn't want him making the same kind of post about YOU, naming you and saying what a pain you are to interview--even if he was wrong to ask those things.
If you're going to do this, you never names! And you should post as AC too.
If you give them your password, it's not unauthorized access.
You're full of red herrings. Not every job is for a multinational corporation with HR departments.
Hey, have you never heard of at-will employment? An employer should be able to fire any employee for any reason, even if he doesn't like the way they sneeze. It may not be ethical or moral, but it surely shouldn't be illegal.
Yeah, it's not the government's fault, it's those vile, disgusting bigots' fault. I can't stand people like that. ÂIf it wasn't for annoying people we wouldn't need laws!
Overreaching laws are overreaching laws, regardless of whatever circumstances they are intended to address. Not everything that's unethical or immoral should be illegal.Â
As American citizens (or simply as human beings), we need to advocate freedom first and foremost. To a large extent that includes the freedom to do things that aren't nice or good or moral or ethical. ÂReal bigotry is a matter of the heart, and the heart cannot be legislated.Â
I'm not against the Civil Rights Act, but there are limits to how far such anti-discrimination regulation should go. ÂWe're rapidly sliding down the slope right now; it won't be long before we'll have a registered race offenders list, or sexual preference offenders list, or a plain offended-somebody "offenders" list. ÂThe UK is Âvirtually there now.Â
Eventually everything that's not politically correct will be illegal, at least, outside your own home (including on the Internet). Then they'll have to find something else to outlaw.Â
By the way, when you paint entire swaths of people as "vile and disgusting," you're not much better than they are. Bigotry against bigots is still bigotry.Â
But if people have those same problems in Windows, they don't send the machine back. :/
And people don't mind the malware and garbage? Well, they don't mind the junk on TV either, so I guess it makes sense.
The changes made by the IETF makeover team included:
- Decreasing the AP receiver sensitivity ([changing] HP/Colubris configuration "distance" from "large" to "small");
- Increasing the minimum data and multicast rate from 1Mbps to 2Mbps;
- Decreasing the transmit power from 20dBm to 10dBm;
- And, turning off the radios on numerous APs to reduce the [RF] noise.
"In the process, we've hacked netdisco [a network management tool that maps MAC addresses to IP addresses to pinpoint switch ports] to be able to discover the hotel infrastructure and rancid [a free tool that monitors a device's configurations and maintains a history of changes in a Concurrent Version System (CVS) repository] to be able to at least minimally work with HP/Colubris APs, and added their private subnet to our management station to facilitate discovery, scripted changes, and monitoring," Elliott wrote, describing something close to a NOC trouble-shooting system put together on the fly.
Also, my FaceBook includes information that is protected under a few employment acts. It includes things like race, sexual preference, age, and religious affiliation. By asking, they are breaking employment law.
Ok, IANAL, but is it illegal to ask, or illegal to make a decision based upon such data? What kind of job application wouldn't ask for age or birthdate? If it was illegal to ask, we'd have people committing crimes by a slip of the tongue during friendly conversation.
Besides, you'd have to prove that looking an a Fb account is the same as asking such questions--but there are lots of other things a potential employer might want to see on there.
I don't support such practices, of course, but I wouldn't say it's illegal for them to ask until it's tested in court.
Corporations aren't bound by the Constitution--the government is.
It will never happen in first-world countries, for one simple reason: litigation. Even if automobile fatalities were reduced by 50%, all it takes is one dumb kid running out into the street, causing an accident that neither human nor robot could avoid. Then the manufacturer and every other company in the supply chain will be sued for millions upon millions. Lawyers will have a field day. Insurance rates will skyrocket. Companies will refuse to shoulder the liabilities, so they won't even make them--it's just too financially risky. Even if they are statistically safer, that won't matter in court when an accident does happen (and they will, because nothing and no one is perfect). A human driver is responsible for his own driving, but the manufacturer will be responsible for its robotic driving, and no car manufacturer with lawyers in their "right" minds would allow such a thing to proceed.
Maybe it could work in other parts of the world, places with less-developed legal systems....
I suppose it's ultimately a matter of opinion, but I don't think it qualifies. The SR-71 was not intended to sneak past radars undetected. And when it's cruising at Mach 3 at 80,000 feet, it will have a large RCS to radars on the ground.
The SR-71's flyovers were not supposed to be secret from the nations they flew over--that's why it was designed to outrun SAMs.
In contrast, the F-117 and B-2 are explicitly intended to fly past radars undetected. That's stealth.
The SR-71 is not a stealth aircraft.
Are you suggesting that the star 13 billion light-years away is moving close enough to c that it's experienced significantly less than 13 billion years relative to our own timeframe?
You seem to be arguing about theory while ignoring reality.
There are limits to how much civilization you can legislate. Legislate too much and you're not civilized anymore, either.
Your comment about the U.S. is silly. Murder is against the law, and no one needs to make a threat in order to commit murder. You imply that freedom of speech leads to murder. I say the opposite: without freedom of speech, the government is free to do whatever it wants, including committing murder, and murdering anyone who talks about it. Without freedom of speech, citizens have no hope of protecting themselves against tyranny. Let's hope the U.K. doesn't get so bad off that you realize this someday.
Sounds to me like the problem is rioting, violence, and hatred--and perhaps alcoholism, to some extent. The solution is not to ban speech. You can't control what people say to each other, and it's wrong to try. There's an underlying problem: that people want to do these evil things, and that they're on a hair trigger.
There's also another underlying problem: the lack of personal responsibility. Just because someone says something hateful doesn't mean you automatically act upon it. You USE YOUR BRAIN. No one forces anyone to commit violent acts or to participate in a riot--it's a choice on the part of the actors. Words do not CAUSE people to act--people CHOOSE to act. And those who ACT are responsible for their ACTIONS.