Nobody is perfect, nobody will have their eyes on the road 100% of the time while driving... but they should be trying to! . That is how you do your best at something, you try to do it correctly, to minimize your mistakes.
Utter bullshit.
Plan for drivers to be distracted, because they will be. Never, ever, ever expect anyone to be trying to look at the road 100% of the time, because we absolutely know this will never be the case.
Your position is equivalent to making an abstinence argument against birth control - and you're trying to push that on others. It is absurd and harmful.
Did I leave you with the impression that my post was anything other than rhetorical?
Also, you left out sneezing. Where's your advocacy for a ban on sneezing?
Point is simple, but I'll spell it out for you - no one (and no I don't believe your claims) is capable of never taking their eyes off the road.
But even if that were a possibility, and it absolutely is not, it is already totally and completely fine that we take our eyes off the road. The government posts billboards themselves, do they not?
Again, rhetorical. You're clearly full of crap, so no need to bother responding.
You keep posting this link. Have you actually read it?
I just checked every state on the site and exactly three things are normally illegal:
1) Minors using it (as if minors can afford it in the first place...) 2) Watching TV on it (not a feature) 3) Using it with your hands, specifically typing on it (the opposite of what it does)
Of the 51 places on your link, ONLY FIFTEEN deviate from this, and typically only because their laws don't go down to the 'type on it' level. If we had the full statutes, instead of the summaries we'd know even more.
Here's the breakdown by state, in terms of 'is this a risk in my state':
Alabama, no Alaska, no Arizona, no Arkansas, no California, yes/probably Colorado, no Connecticut, no Delaware, no District of Columbia, no Florida, no Georgia, yes/probably Hawaii, no Idaho, no Illinois, yes/probably Indiana, yes/probably Iowa, yes/probably Kansas, yes/probably Kentucky, yes/probably Louisiana, yes/probably Maine, yes/probably Maryland, yes/probably Massachusetts, no Michigan, no Minnesota, no Mississippi, no Missouri, no Montana, no Nebraska, no Nevada, no New Hampshire, no New Jersey, no New Mexico, no New York, no North Carolina, yes/probably North Dakota, yes/probably Ohio, no Oklahoma, no Oregon, no Pennsylvania, no Rhode Island, yes/probably South Carolina, no South Dakota, no Tennessee, no Texas, no Utah, no Vermont, no Virginia, no Washington, no West Virginia, no Wisconsin, yes/probably Wyoming, yes/probably
When you have billions of dollars on the line, I don't see why anyone would be surprised that there might be people willing to do some very nasty things, up to and including murder. People will kill over a pair of sneakers, I'm pretty sure they'd kill over billions.
I assume the people who deny this fall into three groups:
1) The naive/stupid/hopelessly optimistic 2) Those too afraid to imagine a world where this is a possibility 3) Those who'd rather not awaken groups 1 and 2
Again, in this particular case I have no information to add. Only vague questions. But there probably should be questions due, if not for the general loss of human life, to the billions at stake.
But it stands to reason, in a truth stranger than fiction way, that first you'd discredit, then you'd eliminate. Sort of like how you don't mix bleach and ammonia, but you clean, rinse, clean, rinse until you get it all gone.
0) Labs around the world are researching patentable stem-cell cures at their own expense. 1) Group finds (comparatively) trivial way to produce them and releases said on the internet, encouraging others to try. 2) [Insert unknown] 3) Research is discredited, careers ruined, and dude is dead.
Is '2' something like "research is totally false and harms science itself by its very existence so the villains must be crushed" or more like "research is close enough to scare the shit out of some heavily-invested peers"?
Whichever one it winds up being, the response to 'crappy scientific paper' is NOT typically burning at the stake, so some unknown must be at work here.
Those warrants and subpoenas have the value of toilet tissue as soon as you try to execute them off-shore.
So, Microsoft is moving off-shore, then?
Because if for some reason they decide to remain in the jurisdiction, it might reveal a flaw in the analogy. Namely, a person has less at stake in expatriating to Amsterdam than a massive corporation.
Otherwise when he talks about making gay people illegal, forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, abolishing access to birth control and abortion people might question why this Canadian is pretending to be a Texan with values completely the opposite of the nation he held a passport in.
It's always nice when someone self-identifies as someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
YouTube has ads, film at 11. Also, water found to be wet.
I've read the articles, and I'm not finding how the content of the 'for kids' version of the site is WORSE for children than the vanilla experience.
Can anyone shed light on this for me?
Nobody is perfect, nobody will have their eyes on the road 100% of the time while driving... but they should be trying to! . That is how you do your best at something, you try to do it correctly, to minimize your mistakes.
Utter bullshit.
Plan for drivers to be distracted, because they will be. Never, ever, ever expect anyone to be trying to look at the road 100% of the time, because we absolutely know this will never be the case.
Your position is equivalent to making an abstinence argument against birth control - and you're trying to push that on others. It is absurd and harmful.
Like I said, I actually read it. Try it.
Did I leave you with the impression that my post was anything other than rhetorical?
Also, you left out sneezing. Where's your advocacy for a ban on sneezing?
Point is simple, but I'll spell it out for you - no one (and no I don't believe your claims) is capable of never taking their eyes off the road.
But even if that were a possibility, and it absolutely is not, it is already totally and completely fine that we take our eyes off the road. The government posts billboards themselves, do they not?
Again, rhetorical. You're clearly full of crap, so no need to bother responding.
You keep posting this link. Have you actually read it?
I just checked every state on the site and exactly three things are normally illegal:
1) Minors using it (as if minors can afford it in the first place...)
2) Watching TV on it (not a feature)
3) Using it with your hands, specifically typing on it (the opposite of what it does)
Of the 51 places on your link, ONLY FIFTEEN deviate from this, and typically only because their laws don't go down to the 'type on it' level. If we had the full statutes, instead of the summaries we'd know even more.
Here's the breakdown by state, in terms of 'is this a risk in my state':
Alabama, no
Alaska, no
Arizona, no
Arkansas, no
California, yes/probably
Colorado, no
Connecticut, no
Delaware, no
District of Columbia, no
Florida, no
Georgia, yes/probably
Hawaii, no
Idaho, no
Illinois, yes/probably
Indiana, yes/probably
Iowa, yes/probably
Kansas, yes/probably
Kentucky, yes/probably
Louisiana, yes/probably
Maine, yes/probably
Maryland, yes/probably
Massachusetts, no
Michigan, no
Minnesota, no
Mississippi, no
Missouri, no
Montana, no
Nebraska, no
Nevada, no
New Hampshire, no
New Jersey, no
New Mexico, no
New York, no
North Carolina, yes/probably
North Dakota, yes/probably
Ohio, no
Oklahoma, no
Oregon, no
Pennsylvania, no
Rhode Island, yes/probably
South Carolina, no
South Dakota, no
Tennessee, no
Texas, no
Utah, no
Vermont, no
Virginia, no
Washington, no
West Virginia, no
Wisconsin, yes/probably
Wyoming, yes/probably
Sort of like when you blink? Or tune the radio? Sneeze? Read a billboard?
Oh noez, insults on the internet? Whatever shall I do?
Oh that's right, ignore them.
Carry on, then...
When you have billions of dollars on the line, I don't see why anyone would be surprised that there might be people willing to do some very nasty things, up to and including murder. People will kill over a pair of sneakers, I'm pretty sure they'd kill over billions.
I assume the people who deny this fall into three groups:
1) The naive/stupid/hopelessly optimistic
2) Those too afraid to imagine a world where this is a possibility
3) Those who'd rather not awaken groups 1 and 2
Again, in this particular case I have no information to add. Only vague questions. But there probably should be questions due, if not for the general loss of human life, to the billions at stake.
Is this real enough for you?
http://www.who.int/trade/gloss...
lol ...or, that makes a fine and handy cover story, doesn't it? :D
Did the disgrace shut him up?
Not rhetorical, I genuinely don't know.
But it stands to reason, in a truth stranger than fiction way, that first you'd discredit, then you'd eliminate. Sort of like how you don't mix bleach and ammonia, but you clean, rinse, clean, rinse until you get it all gone.
0) Labs around the world are researching patentable stem-cell cures at their own expense.
1) Group finds (comparatively) trivial way to produce them and releases said on the internet, encouraging others to try.
2) [Insert unknown]
3) Research is discredited, careers ruined, and dude is dead.
Is '2' something like "research is totally false and harms science itself by its very existence so the villains must be crushed" or more like "research is close enough to scare the shit out of some heavily-invested peers"?
Whichever one it winds up being, the response to 'crappy scientific paper' is NOT typically burning at the stake, so some unknown must be at work here.
I was thinking competitors in the global medical service industry myself.
Because nobody could have possibly wanted this guy dead. Right? Guys?
I wonder if there's a map of the devastation to structures in Gaza? The news makes it look pretty extensive, but is it really? I wonder...
I do find it interesting how the onus is on the native to adapt to the foreigner ONLY in your outsourcing situation.
Or would you likewise expect Chinese natives buying services from an American company to adapt?
Those warrants and subpoenas have the value of toilet tissue as soon as you try to execute them off-shore.
So, Microsoft is moving off-shore, then?
Because if for some reason they decide to remain in the jurisdiction, it might reveal a flaw in the analogy. Namely, a person has less at stake in expatriating to Amsterdam than a massive corporation.
Then let the Russian people either praise Putin twice a day or fix their law.
They are adults, too, you know. Perfectly capable of running their own affairs.
The most likely thing to lead us to 'global war' is comparing Putin to Hitler without any sane reason to do so.
I can see every app requiring a password and approval for all purchases.
That alone will hurt the model.
This seems to have implications in that whole free-to-play space. I wonder if anyone is worried about that angle?
So they're leaving the EU?
Seems unlikely.
So, what's the end game here, for Germany?
And why chastise the US publicly when you could manipulate them through false information instead?
What are the implications here?
So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences?
I think that's a legitimate TOR angle, actually. In order to leverage the law you need to know where they physically are. TOR hides that, per design.
There's a case here, folks.
TOR is inhibiting legal remedies.
Otherwise when he talks about making gay people illegal, forcing women to be barefoot and pregnant, abolishing access to birth control and abortion people might question why this Canadian is pretending to be a Texan with values completely the opposite of the nation he held a passport in.
It's always nice when someone self-identifies as someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.