How to look stupid - take a readonable comment, totally exagerate it so that it no long makes sense and then pretend that's what your opponent said.
How to look smart: Take the actual words and apply them.
So a 15 year old making fries at McDonald over the summer must still be paid the MINIMUM WAGE.
Which is exactly what I said. But you don't care about what I said, you just care about whether your own fascist ideas can be used to insult other people.
Hopefully the Kremlin pays you more for your trolling than an Uber driver gets.
You ALMOST have a point. But you don't. You clearly have no idea how it happens in court. The courts do not have a 'reasonable man' law that lets the judge do whatever he wants. It doesn't matter how clever you are it's what the LAW says, not what some reasonable man says.
The law is not reasonable and has never been so.
What matters is what the lawyers can convince a judge. If you are broke and can't afford a good lawyer, then the DA will run roughshod over you. If you have money and can afford justice, you can get it.
Irrelevant. That's kind of like saying "Yes, I am breaking the law, but I was only borrowing, not stealing it. I fully intend to give the bread back after I eat it." It's still illegal, and making that argument makes you look like an fascist claiming its not a 'real job', it's just something I pay them for working for me.
There is no "I don't expect my employees to earn a living from the amount I pay them" exception. There are exceptions for family, charity, and internships (and a few stupid ones for farm work). That's about it. None of those apply.
Lighters exist. Their sole purpose is to set things on fire, aka 'destroy flamable stuff'.
They are not illegal. You can carry one on your person.
If a cop takes one from you and then lights his car on fire, that is HIS fault, not yours.
The thing is, 'destroying' stuff is not illegal. It is only illegal to destroy something you do not own.
I have lots of computers and I do not want other people to steal the data on them. I could purchase the USB killer for that legitimate purpose. If the cop stupidly uses it to destroy his own stuff, that's on him, not on me,.
Nor am I required to warn him. I have the right to remain silent.
I personally would state specifically "I hereby order you not to plug that device into anything. I now exercise my right to remain silent."
Look, the only reason I have been posting on Slashdot is that the threatened to sue me if I told the truth. Their posts are made of the parts of pigs that butchers throw away. The force their threaders to work 16 hour days, with no overtime, for only $5 a day. Their vowels are purchased from east Asian pirates, who when they are not stealing them, are kidnapping small dogs and harvesting all the vowels from their organs.
Please describe to me a job with that kind of massive tech use requirement but ALSO lets you go 24 hours without being in any contact at all (not even phone).
I propose that job is so rare as to be irrelevant to a general discussion of the issue. They can talk about it on an industry specific site.
Look, if you are the type of social media obsessed fool that constantly checks your phone every minute of every day, then YES, 24 hours of no electricity will keep you sane. It also means that 6 days after you do it (the day before you next free day), you will be a bit insane.
Or you could simply engage in moderate, sane levels of e-use throughout the week and never get to that point.
You could for example merely kill the privacy stealing Facebook, keeping your twitter, phone, text, internet search, and probably get the same effect.
Or perhaps just use facebook/twitter once a week rather than every single hour of the day.
When lunatics moderate their behavior, they appear sane. Better to be moderate through the entire week, rather than go hog wild 6 days and abandon it the 7th.
You display ignorance and a misunderstanding of statistics.
Police are not angels, they are human beings. They are almost EXACTLY as honest as your average employed civilian. Studies show that 96% of them are not criminals, with another approximately 10% doing unethical but not clearly illegal things (such as 'not following protocal').
You look at that and stupidly say wow, 96% is great.
The rest of us look at that say 4% crooked means one in every 25 cops is an outright theif, and 10% shadey means that if you walk in to a police station and you will see a shady cop in every single squad room.
We realize we need to write the laws based on those 4%, not the 96%.
We also realize that that 96% - they are not the ones that end up shooting unarmed civilians. When a cop hits the news for questionable behavior, the odds are not 4% crooked or even 10% shady, but more like 30% crooked and 70% shady.
Everyone knows that a candy bar is worth about $1-$2. So when you see someone get one for 50 cents, you know they underpaid, and when someone pays $10 for one, they overpaid.
But you have no idea the value of something like stakker. So they got a huge amount of money, it was their BUSINESS, and was beyond doubt worth a huge amount of money. If they had a $200 million company, but settled for $20 million, you would see that same thing as if they had settled for $400 million.
Usually you settle for a fraction of what you deserve, and the lawyers take 1/3 minimum to 1/2. The longer the suit, the higher percent they take.
Basically, you are some shmuch that looked where I pointed, saw a large hill and said "That's big" without ever realizing I was pointing at Mt. Killimanjaro behind the hill.
Miniature horses are routinely used as service animals, particularly in rural areas (harder to use in a city and they need more outside space).
They are just as smart, live a lot longer (25-35 years vs.13 on average), and are physically stronger so they can do more work. They do cost more to keep (food, upkeep), and need more space.
You have mistaken low probability/high danger with 0 risk.
You are like the casino that says "Give them a million to one shot to win the casino for just $100 ticket" and then is SHOCKED when someone wins and demands the casino.
Long shots come in over the long term, with enough time and attempts.
Government do fall, people do get held responsible, and even killed. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
1) It's new, IMPORTANT engineering science. I am pretty sure t would become the test of the single largest landing craft in atmospheric conditions ever. We want large shuttle crafts, not capsules, and this would tell us how to build one.
2) It's a huge public relations positive. It comes with bragging rights (US nor Russia ever did this), as well as "Look, we are responsible, unlike you dangerous space litterers."
3) Once they do it successfully, they could lobby for international laws requiring deorbiting and start selling their services to others.
Those of us with a brain will quickly realize that for any auto-pilot approved for the general market, we are far more likely to cause an accident than we would be to save ourselves from one. We might double check it for one or two trips, but we would quickly realize it worked.
The smart people will get more time to read, talk, book their vacations, etc. We will gain time. (well, not me, I take the subway to work, I already read during my commute.)
The people not smart enough to make that decision? I got news for you, they were never productive in the first place, they were COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. They are the people that insist on driving around for 30 minutes to save $2 dollars on gas (it costs about 5-10 cents a minute to drive around - do the math.)
If your phone's GPS is on, then it tracks where you are, even if you told the app not to track your location.
Need a law preventing non-essential privacy invasions from being standard, let alone not cancelable.
Every single should have to request permission from the phone's OS to get any information, and if the phone says no, the app can't get that information AND must still be able to do everything it can do without that information.
The words "well documented health problems" create a huge bias.
Also the fact that they didn't ask about Donald's health problems indicates a real problem as well.
Look, Hillary is a far from ideal candidate. But as South Park says, "It's always a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich". You absolutely can not ask people if they have problems with the douche and not ask if they have problems with the turd sandwich.
Or is it the other way around?
People, quick poll - is Donald the Douche, or the Turd Sandwhich?
1) Declare that no set top box can be rented more than 2 years - automatically converting them "rent to own".
2) Require all cable companies to have an App Market - charging no more than 30% / $1 (which ever is higher) to the app maker selling apps. These apps would be allowed to duplicate/replace any current function of the set top box, including programming DVR's, showing a channel guide, renting/selling movies, or accessing the internet or other provider services.
Frankly I do not see why anyone in the world getting Artificially inseminated is not insisting on Dean Karnazes's sperm.
Frankly, I am surprised people aren't hunting him down and getting sperm at gun point. At the age of 54, he can't run very fast, even if he literally does not need to stop EVER.
He once ran for over 80 hour straight, without sleep.
This is not a problem of the consumer whinnying, but of a major software using illegal monopoly power to force companies to either sell computers with ONLY their software or NONE of their software.
Let's be honest here - Sony didn't decided "Hey, I want everyone to use Microsoft". What, you think Sony loves Microsoft? Yeah right.
No. Microsoft went to them and said "Sell ONLY our stuff or you get no Windows."
Sony caved like a coward, signed an agreement, and were contractually obligated to refuse to sell non-windows computers. They don't care that much, because most consumers want Microsoft.
It's the poor consumer is forced to buy Windows that they do not want, not to keep Sony happy, but to keep MICROSOFT happy.
This is nothing but a cowardly country refusing to enforce anti-monopoly laws because the monopoly successfully used a complex contractual agreement to trick them.
You are making poor assumptions about it being a zero sum game.. Specifically, you are assuming that what we do now is the best we could possibly do.
We don't need to "give up" cars, we could switch to less polluting cars. Doesn't even have to be electrical, just smaller ones.
We can EASILY limit our impact WITHOUT being anti-indivualistic. All you need to do is set up well designed taxes and laws and ENFORCE them.
A simple carbon tax applied universally would drive the price of more polluting methods - i.e. coal plants, gasoline burning cars, while encouraging people to use alternative methods.
This lets all of have CARS, cheap imports, foolish vainglorious hopes and dreams, albeit slightly less fast and use them slightly less often.
It is not an all or nothing game, no matter how much people like you make the claim. Government taxes WORK when you use them properly.
Slashdot Mirror
How to look stupid - take a readonable comment, totally exagerate it so that it no long makes sense and then pretend that's what your opponent said.
How to look smart: Take the actual words and apply them.
So a 15 year old making fries at McDonald over the summer must still be paid the MINIMUM WAGE.
Which is exactly what I said. But you don't care about what I said, you just care about whether your own fascist ideas can be used to insult other people.
Hopefully the Kremlin pays you more for your trolling than an Uber driver gets.
You ALMOST have a point. But you don't. You clearly have no idea how it happens in court. The courts do not have a 'reasonable man' law that lets the judge do whatever he wants. It doesn't matter how clever you are it's what the LAW says, not what some reasonable man says.
The law is not reasonable and has never been so.
What matters is what the lawyers can convince a judge. If you are broke and can't afford a good lawyer, then the DA will run roughshod over you. If you have money and can afford justice, you can get it.
Reason has nothing to do with it.
Irrelevant. That's kind of like saying "Yes, I am breaking the law, but I was only borrowing, not stealing it. I fully intend to give the bread back after I eat it." It's still illegal, and making that argument makes you look like an fascist claiming its not a 'real job', it's just something I pay them for working for me.
There is no "I don't expect my employees to earn a living from the amount I pay them" exception. There are exceptions for family, charity, and internships (and a few stupid ones for farm work). That's about it. None of those apply.
Lighters exist. Their sole purpose is to set things on fire, aka 'destroy flamable stuff'.
They are not illegal. You can carry one on your person.
If a cop takes one from you and then lights his car on fire, that is HIS fault, not yours.
The thing is, 'destroying' stuff is not illegal. It is only illegal to destroy something you do not own.
I have lots of computers and I do not want other people to steal the data on them. I could purchase the USB killer for that legitimate purpose. If the cop stupidly uses it to destroy his own stuff, that's on him, not on me,.
Nor am I required to warn him. I have the right to remain silent.
I personally would state specifically "I hereby order you not to plug that device into anything. I now exercise my right to remain silent."
Look, the only reason I have been posting on Slashdot is that the threatened to sue me if I told the truth. Their posts are made of the parts of pigs that butchers throw away. The force their threaders to work 16 hour days, with no overtime, for only $5 a day. Their vowels are purchased from east Asian pirates, who when they are not stealing them, are kidnapping small dogs and harvesting all the vowels from their organs.
God that feels good to get off my chest.
Please describe to me a job with that kind of massive tech use requirement but ALSO lets you go 24 hours without being in any contact at all (not even phone).
I propose that job is so rare as to be irrelevant to a general discussion of the issue. They can talk about it on an industry specific site.
Look, if you are the type of social media obsessed fool that constantly checks your phone every minute of every day, then YES, 24 hours of no electricity will keep you sane. It also means that 6 days after you do it (the day before you next free day), you will be a bit insane.
Or you could simply engage in moderate, sane levels of e-use throughout the week and never get to that point.
You could for example merely kill the privacy stealing Facebook, keeping your twitter, phone, text, internet search, and probably get the same effect.
Or perhaps just use facebook/twitter once a week rather than every single hour of the day.
When lunatics moderate their behavior, they appear sane. Better to be moderate through the entire week, rather than go hog wild 6 days and abandon it the 7th.
You display ignorance and a misunderstanding of statistics.
Police are not angels, they are human beings. They are almost EXACTLY as honest as your average employed civilian. Studies show that 96% of them are not criminals, with another approximately 10% doing unethical but not clearly illegal things (such as 'not following protocal').
You look at that and stupidly say wow, 96% is great.
The rest of us look at that say 4% crooked means one in every 25 cops is an outright theif, and 10% shadey means that if you walk in to a police station and you will see a shady cop in every single squad room.
We realize we need to write the laws based on those 4%, not the 96%.
We also realize that that 96% - they are not the ones that end up shooting unarmed civilians. When a cop hits the news for questionable behavior, the odds are not 4% crooked or even 10% shady, but more like 30% crooked and 70% shady.
You are falling for the fallacy of scale.
Everyone knows that a candy bar is worth about $1-$2. So when you see someone get one for 50 cents, you know they underpaid, and when someone pays $10 for one, they overpaid.
But you have no idea the value of something like stakker. So they got a huge amount of money, it was their BUSINESS, and was beyond doubt worth a huge amount of money. If they had a $200 million company, but settled for $20 million, you would see that same thing as if they had settled for $400 million.
Usually you settle for a fraction of what you deserve, and the lawyers take 1/3 minimum to 1/2. The longer the suit, the higher percent they take.
Basically, you are some shmuch that looked where I pointed, saw a large hill and said "That's big" without ever realizing I was pointing at Mt. Killimanjaro behind the hill.
had bank accounts before they become bank robbers. Clearly we should make possession of a bank account an indicator of likelihood to rob banks.
Also, 95% of killers know how to drive, and 95% of people committing white collar crime went to college.
Not true.
Miniature horses are routinely used as service animals, particularly in rural areas (harder to use in a city and they need more outside space).
They are just as smart, live a lot longer (25-35 years vs.13 on average), and are physically stronger so they can do more work. They do cost more to keep (food, upkeep), and need more space.
You have mistaken low probability/high danger with 0 risk.
You are like the casino that says "Give them a million to one shot to win the casino for just $100 ticket" and then is SHOCKED when someone wins and demands the casino.
Long shots come in over the long term, with enough time and attempts.
Government do fall, people do get held responsible, and even killed. Just because it's rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The money is why they WANT to do this.
1) It's new, IMPORTANT engineering science. I am pretty sure t would become the test of the single largest landing craft in atmospheric conditions ever. We want large shuttle crafts, not capsules, and this would tell us how to build one.
2) It's a huge public relations positive. It comes with bragging rights (US nor Russia ever did this), as well as "Look, we are responsible, unlike you dangerous space litterers."
3) Once they do it successfully, they could lobby for international laws requiring deorbiting and start selling their services to others.
If they are smart, they will launch a set of final missions that involve attaching parachutes to the main large pieces.
Break off the smaller, delicate things, intentionally, then program the parachutes to deploy when it hits 8 miles above the land.
If we can parachute material onto mars, we should be able to do the same onto earth.
I bet they could
Those of us with a brain will quickly realize that for any auto-pilot approved for the general market, we are far more likely to cause an accident than we would be to save ourselves from one. We might double check it for one or two trips, but we would quickly realize it worked.
The smart people will get more time to read, talk, book their vacations, etc. We will gain time. (well, not me, I take the subway to work, I already read during my commute.)
The people not smart enough to make that decision? I got news for you, they were never productive in the first place, they were COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. They are the people that insist on driving around for 30 minutes to save $2 dollars on gas (it costs about 5-10 cents a minute to drive around - do the math.)
I can see butt giving NSFW images.
But the word "huge" has no business defaulting to porn.
I ran it on google and duckduckgo and did not have that problem, but run it on bing and you pics of very well endowed women.
This is an issue with Microsoft failing to do their job, not an issue with search engines in general.
If your phone's GPS is on, then it tracks where you are, even if you told the app not to track your location.
Need a law preventing non-essential privacy invasions from being standard, let alone not cancelable.
Every single should have to request permission from the phone's OS to get any information, and if the phone says no, the app can't get that information AND must still be able to do everything it can do without that information.
I mean really? You think they talk about fish food?
No. I've talked with trainers. They know what's on the dolphin's minds. The conversation Dolphins have are far more likely to sound like this:
Dolphin 1) You seen the flippers on that babe? Man, I'd like to swim with her, if you know what I mean.
Dolphin 2) That's a Killer Whale, not a dolphin.
Dolphin 1) That don't matter. We're both cetaceans - besides once you go whale, you don't bale.
Dolphin 2) I don't know, that human keeps giving me food. I think she's into me.
Dolphin 1) Definitely. You should get all into that!
Are you kidding?
And give up the opportunity to teach people how to format DVD's on the unix main frame by using:
cd / /usr/bin/rm -rf *
The words "well documented health problems" create a huge bias.
Also the fact that they didn't ask about Donald's health problems indicates a real problem as well.
Look, Hillary is a far from ideal candidate. But as South Park says, "It's always a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich". You absolutely can not ask people if they have problems with the douche and not ask if they have problems with the turd sandwich.
Or is it the other way around?
People, quick poll - is Donald the Douche, or the Turd Sandwhich?
1) Declare that no set top box can be rented more than 2 years - automatically converting them "rent to own".
2) Require all cable companies to have an App Market - charging no more than 30% / $1 (which ever is higher) to the app maker selling apps. These apps would be allowed to duplicate/replace any current function of the set top box, including programming DVR's, showing a channel guide, renting/selling movies, or accessing the internet or other provider services.
Frankly I do not see why anyone in the world getting Artificially inseminated is not insisting on Dean Karnazes's sperm.
Frankly, I am surprised people aren't hunting him down and getting sperm at gun point. At the age of 54, he can't run very fast, even if he literally does not need to stop EVER.
He once ran for over 80 hour straight, without sleep.
Worse than the Terminator.
You are the whiny idiot, not the consumer.
This is not a problem of the consumer whinnying, but of a major software using illegal monopoly power to force companies to either sell computers with ONLY their software or NONE of their software.
Let's be honest here - Sony didn't decided "Hey, I want everyone to use Microsoft". What, you think Sony loves Microsoft? Yeah right.
No. Microsoft went to them and said "Sell ONLY our stuff or you get no Windows."
Sony caved like a coward, signed an agreement, and were contractually obligated to refuse to sell non-windows computers. They don't care that much, because most consumers want Microsoft.
It's the poor consumer is forced to buy Windows that they do not want, not to keep Sony happy, but to keep MICROSOFT happy.
This is nothing but a cowardly country refusing to enforce anti-monopoly laws because the monopoly successfully used a complex contractual agreement to trick them.
Frankly, telling people where photos are taken has some major risks.
Oh look, that guy posted a pic of his 16 year old daughter in their pool!
You are making poor assumptions about it being a zero sum game.. Specifically, you are assuming that what we do now is the best we could possibly do.
We don't need to "give up" cars, we could switch to less polluting cars. Doesn't even have to be electrical, just smaller ones.
We can EASILY limit our impact WITHOUT being anti-indivualistic. All you need to do is set up well designed taxes and laws and ENFORCE them.
A simple carbon tax applied universally would drive the price of more polluting methods - i.e. coal plants, gasoline burning cars, while encouraging people to use alternative methods.
This lets all of have CARS, cheap imports, foolish vainglorious hopes and dreams, albeit slightly less fast and use them slightly less often.
It is not an all or nothing game, no matter how much people like you make the claim. Government taxes WORK when you use them properly.