I fail to see on a philosophical level how anything can be a right if it requires someone else to provide it for you.
As in you have no right to live? You have no right to be able to eat or drink anything, by your reasoning, and without a supply of food and drink you'll be dead pretty soon. It seems to me that, if you have no right to anything essential for your continuing existence, other rights are less important. Dead people can't practice freedom of speech.
Right. So, when I want groceries, one store is obligated to sell to me. (Actually, they aren't so much obligated as happy to take my money, but there'd be no difference if they were obligated.) Therefore, grocery stores collapse.
Given a reasonably capitalist economy with a reasonably free market, you can buy everything you need with money. If there were a single-payer health care system here, nobody would be forced at bayonet point to go to med school. The government would pay doctors enough to make it worth their while to go and to practice.
Also, there's no real difference here between medicine and defense, assuming a volunteer army. I have a right to have armed forces defend the place I live in. That comes down to someone's obligation to stay in the face of enemy fire and shoot back. Therefore, national armies must collapse.
Apple is different. Apple makes most of their money selling stuff. Google makes most of their money selling ads. Therefore, Apple is motivated to make the Apple experience as good as possible so people keep buying their stuff. Apple's customers are people like me with an iPhone.
Google sells ads. That means that their customers are people who want to buy ads, not you and me. They want to make their experience generally positive, but they have financial incentives to put their ad business first.
I'm not talking morality here. I'm talking where the money comes from. Follow the money.
There was another story, I forget the title, author, and where I read it, that assumed that interstellar travel was feasible with 1600s technology, as long as you had the right insight. Humanity, unlike most intelligent species, managed to miss it. Demonstrating superiority with a matchlock musket volley didn't quite work on 20th-century Earth.
In other words, the advertisers ask Facebook to do the illegal discrimination for them. This is a positive action that Facebook is doing.
Advertising in places with different demographics is fine. If an 18-year-old wants to read the newspaper, they can. Someone who is looking for a job is likely to check various sources of information, even if they aren't aimed at his or her demographic. This is a direct case of targeting people by age, and that is explicitly illegal.
You seem to be confused by the DMCA takedown process. If you run a site, and a user posts something, and you receive a DMCA takedown request, you are not legally required to take that thing down. However, if it is in violation of copyright, you then are liable along with the user posting it. If you know it's clearly not a copyright violation, leave it up. Companies that host a lot of third-party content normally don't pay careful attention to the copyrights, so they follow the DMCA safe harbor process.
Ad enforcement should not be Facebook's responsibility.
Sure. I'm cool with that. It has nothing to do with the case at hand.
The problem is not that Facebook serves illegal ads, it's that they serve ads illegally. They are delivering employment ads only to people of specified ages. This is nothing even vaguely like what a common carrier would do.
The other reason for this is because if the intermediary enforces the law, it shields the people who are violating it. I want to know the companies that are doing this
I generally agree with that, but it's again inapplicable to what we're talking about.
If Facebook serves up an employment ad that says "No people over 30 need apply", anyone who sees the ad will know the company is practicing illegal discrimination. If Facebook only serves the ad to people 30 and under, that's not apparent. People over 30 won't even know about the ad, and there's no obvious smoking gun.
Just to play devil's advocate, if a business decides that young people are more valuable employees than people over 40 who are you to say they can't make that decision?
Who am I? Not who makes the decision, that's for sure. This is part of Federal law, and most states have similar laws.
There's evidence. Trump has had extensive dealings with Russia. Trump campaign workers lied about meeting with Russians, even when such a meeting would have been perfectly normal. Trump called on Russia to, at the very least, release the results of illegal hacking in order to influence an election.
I suspect there was some collusion, but we'll know more after Mueller releases his findings.
The problem is not that Facebook allows companies to place ads that illegally discriminate, but that Facebook serves employment ads to younger people only. Facebook is taking action that results in illegal discrimination.
A shill is someone paid to do something. As I said, I annoy people for free.
You might want to look at the Constitutional definition of treason, which doesn't support your claim. Of course, since you pay no attention to the facts, I suppose this is a vain hope.
While what you said is true, when we're talking about the feelings of the Russian people we need to know how they perceive things. At at least one time, they mostly believed that the US invaded their country during their civil war.
On a side note, it's interesting to look at the role of Germany in making the Soviet Union the post-WWII threat it was. No other country was anywhere near as useful in helping the Soviet Communists..
My point was that if you're going to avoid interacting with women because people are taking accusations seriously, you're continuing to mess up women's lives, and therefore part of the overall problem. Being in favor of sexual harassment would also make you part of the problem.
And of course prompt reporting is best. (I really don't know much about this "narrative" you seem to think I have.) There are very good reasons why lots of women didn't report anything at the time, and are coming out now that they think someone will actually listen to them, but nothing you do now will make you immune to those accusations. It's great that your wife spoke out, great that she was heard, great in that action was taken. The second and third are not a given. It looks like justice was done despite the fact that there wasn't another witness. This is good.
However, this doesn't explain why you're going to try to protect yourself from immediate accusations, if they can be judged fairly.
True. It's also possible to harass someone unintentionally.
Unlike a large number of Democratic Senators, I'm not out to purge the world of people who aren't perfect in their personal conduct. I'm in favor of establishing responsibility on the understanding that we all screw up sometimes.
And lots of people will be dead. The only way to have affordable insurance plans cover pre-existing conditions is to make the insured pool larger. That's one reason health care is cheaper in places that have universal care, and which often have better outcomes than we do.
Also, you don't need a health plan until you do. At that time, you tend to need it, and you then have a pre-existing condition, so without the ACA you can't get one.
Naval nuclear reactors are expensive. The USN dropped nuclear propulsion for surface combatants a long time ago. Cargo ships live by being economical, and nuclear-powered cargo ships aren't going to compete with other power systems.
In a capitalist economy, there would be a number of competing options
That depends on a lot of things, such as barriers to entry and network effects among others. If you want a guarantee of a number of competing options, you'd have to go to some sort of planned economy that would pick a certain number of winners.
In particular, there's network effects. Network effects are when the value of an X depends on how many other people have Xs. It's what makes it really difficult for Linux to take over from Windows. People run Windows partly because it runs the software you want. People write software for Windows because there's lots of people who will buy it. Network effects apply to phones, also. Android has the most users, and iOS has the wealthier users, so it's worth writing apps for both of them. Windows Phone, for all the good things I heard about it, never got popular enough to attract all the apps, and it stayed less popular because it didn't have all the apps.
If we've been running a deficit for a long time (with the arguable exception of the end of Clinton's term), and the historical growth rate is X, then why would cutting taxes eliminate the deficit if the growth rate is X? Bear in mind that historically cutting taxes lowers revenues, and raising them increases revenues, despite whatever ideological nonsense people say.
Slashdot Mirror
As in you have no right to live? You have no right to be able to eat or drink anything, by your reasoning, and without a supply of food and drink you'll be dead pretty soon. It seems to me that, if you have no right to anything essential for your continuing existence, other rights are less important. Dead people can't practice freedom of speech.
Philosophy. It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Can you get 10M with ADSL? We're fairly close to the exchange, and never got anything like that.
Death panels are actually an insurance company feature in the US.
Right. So, when I want groceries, one store is obligated to sell to me. (Actually, they aren't so much obligated as happy to take my money, but there'd be no difference if they were obligated.) Therefore, grocery stores collapse.
Given a reasonably capitalist economy with a reasonably free market, you can buy everything you need with money. If there were a single-payer health care system here, nobody would be forced at bayonet point to go to med school. The government would pay doctors enough to make it worth their while to go and to practice.
Also, there's no real difference here between medicine and defense, assuming a volunteer army. I have a right to have armed forces defend the place I live in. That comes down to someone's obligation to stay in the face of enemy fire and shoot back. Therefore, national armies must collapse.
Apple is different. Apple makes most of their money selling stuff. Google makes most of their money selling ads. Therefore, Apple is motivated to make the Apple experience as good as possible so people keep buying their stuff. Apple's customers are people like me with an iPhone.
Google sells ads. That means that their customers are people who want to buy ads, not you and me. They want to make their experience generally positive, but they have financial incentives to put their ad business first.
I'm not talking morality here. I'm talking where the money comes from. Follow the money.
There was another story, I forget the title, author, and where I read it, that assumed that interstellar travel was feasible with 1600s technology, as long as you had the right insight. Humanity, unlike most intelligent species, managed to miss it. Demonstrating superiority with a matchlock musket volley didn't quite work on 20th-century Earth.
Actually, by 1800s standards, we are in post-scarcity production, with nearly unlimited energy, and science over 200 years more advanced.
I'm not sure if it's ironic that you recognize an argument just like yours as bogus without doubting your own argument's validity, but it's something.
In other words, the advertisers ask Facebook to do the illegal discrimination for them. This is a positive action that Facebook is doing.
Advertising in places with different demographics is fine. If an 18-year-old wants to read the newspaper, they can. Someone who is looking for a job is likely to check various sources of information, even if they aren't aimed at his or her demographic. This is a direct case of targeting people by age, and that is explicitly illegal.
You seem to be confused by the DMCA takedown process. If you run a site, and a user posts something, and you receive a DMCA takedown request, you are not legally required to take that thing down. However, if it is in violation of copyright, you then are liable along with the user posting it. If you know it's clearly not a copyright violation, leave it up. Companies that host a lot of third-party content normally don't pay careful attention to the copyrights, so they follow the DMCA safe harbor process.
Sure. I'm cool with that. It has nothing to do with the case at hand.
The problem is not that Facebook serves illegal ads, it's that they serve ads illegally. They are delivering employment ads only to people of specified ages. This is nothing even vaguely like what a common carrier would do.
I generally agree with that, but it's again inapplicable to what we're talking about.
If Facebook serves up an employment ad that says "No people over 30 need apply", anyone who sees the ad will know the company is practicing illegal discrimination. If Facebook only serves the ad to people 30 and under, that's not apparent. People over 30 won't even know about the ad, and there's no obvious smoking gun.
Age discrimination (against people 40-65) is illegal. Discrimination is an issue in employment.
Who am I? Not who makes the decision, that's for sure. This is part of Federal law, and most states have similar laws.
Using an illegal proxy for something that's legit doesn't make the proxy legal.
There's evidence. Trump has had extensive dealings with Russia. Trump campaign workers lied about meeting with Russians, even when such a meeting would have been perfectly normal. Trump called on Russia to, at the very least, release the results of illegal hacking in order to influence an election.
I suspect there was some collusion, but we'll know more after Mueller releases his findings.
The problem is not that Facebook allows companies to place ads that illegally discriminate, but that Facebook serves employment ads to younger people only. Facebook is taking action that results in illegal discrimination.
Not to mention people born out of the country to US citizen parents.
A shill is someone paid to do something. As I said, I annoy people for free.
You might want to look at the Constitutional definition of treason, which doesn't support your claim. Of course, since you pay no attention to the facts, I suppose this is a vain hope.
While what you said is true, when we're talking about the feelings of the Russian people we need to know how they perceive things. At at least one time, they mostly believed that the US invaded their country during their civil war.
On a side note, it's interesting to look at the role of Germany in making the Soviet Union the post-WWII threat it was. No other country was anywhere near as useful in helping the Soviet Communists..
My point was that if you're going to avoid interacting with women because people are taking accusations seriously, you're continuing to mess up women's lives, and therefore part of the overall problem. Being in favor of sexual harassment would also make you part of the problem.
And of course prompt reporting is best. (I really don't know much about this "narrative" you seem to think I have.) There are very good reasons why lots of women didn't report anything at the time, and are coming out now that they think someone will actually listen to them, but nothing you do now will make you immune to those accusations. It's great that your wife spoke out, great that she was heard, great in that action was taken. The second and third are not a given. It looks like justice was done despite the fact that there wasn't another witness. This is good.
However, this doesn't explain why you're going to try to protect yourself from immediate accusations, if they can be judged fairly.
True. It's also possible to harass someone unintentionally.
Unlike a large number of Democratic Senators, I'm not out to purge the world of people who aren't perfect in their personal conduct. I'm in favor of establishing responsibility on the understanding that we all screw up sometimes.
And lots of people will be dead. The only way to have affordable insurance plans cover pre-existing conditions is to make the insured pool larger. That's one reason health care is cheaper in places that have universal care, and which often have better outcomes than we do.
Also, you don't need a health plan until you do. At that time, you tend to need it, and you then have a pre-existing condition, so without the ACA you can't get one.
Naval nuclear reactors are expensive. The USN dropped nuclear propulsion for surface combatants a long time ago. Cargo ships live by being economical, and nuclear-powered cargo ships aren't going to compete with other power systems.
That depends on a lot of things, such as barriers to entry and network effects among others. If you want a guarantee of a number of competing options, you'd have to go to some sort of planned economy that would pick a certain number of winners.
In particular, there's network effects. Network effects are when the value of an X depends on how many other people have Xs. It's what makes it really difficult for Linux to take over from Windows. People run Windows partly because it runs the software you want. People write software for Windows because there's lots of people who will buy it. Network effects apply to phones, also. Android has the most users, and iOS has the wealthier users, so it's worth writing apps for both of them. Windows Phone, for all the good things I heard about it, never got popular enough to attract all the apps, and it stayed less popular because it didn't have all the apps.
If we've been running a deficit for a long time (with the arguable exception of the end of Clinton's term), and the historical growth rate is X, then why would cutting taxes eliminate the deficit if the growth rate is X? Bear in mind that historically cutting taxes lowers revenues, and raising them increases revenues, despite whatever ideological nonsense people say.