there should be some way to protect people who have no meaningful control over the fact that they're in public.
As you said, it's a dangerous road, and I don't have the answers.
I think the reality here is we can't protect everyone from everything all the time without dealing crushing blows to basic freedom. In these cases we have to weigh the risks. Here the choice is a victim of some kind may be farther victimized by another party who might potentially release some embarrassing footage; alternatively we create potential risk that some legal loophole can be used to suppress some other crime or misconduct.
Nobody wants to have the worst day of their life become a viral video, but that is not a good enough reason to potentially deny justice to a victim of brutality, false arrest, etc.
Its not a perfect world some compromises have to be made and this seems like a pretty obvious one.
You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.
I can see your point but Apples other policy make it effective impossible to publish 'editorial' video game content then.
Apple won't let you publish any application that runs outside code (well other than wrapper around mobile websites anyway). So you can't put something like Steam in the Appstore with its own library of content. So its pretty much can't publish a video game in Apple's walled garden that has any opinion about "a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity."
I think the broader question is why does the fact that its a game warrant some higher editorial standard. Apple would not block the NYT app if they used it to publish an editorial titled "Assad is a Jerk".
I don't see why a game that happens to portray the same opinion should be looked as different. Also the sort of people who we typically have editorializing about editorials do so because they happen to also be the types that read editorials; if they had any exposure to these games they'd complain about them too. I thought we for the mast part had societal value that considered freedom to express our opinions a virtue? Yes some of them are simplistic, and uniformed. I come back to so what?
I don't think it laudable of Apple to run a market place that actively bars goods and services that happen to express opinions, about real things. Doubly so when its terribly inconsistent about when and on what those rules are actually enforced. Yes they have right to do it; just I chose not to participate.
What crappy network hardware are you using? I have seen any commercial class hardware in the last 10 years that does not at least support an ACL on the management interface.
Split DNS - obviously you don't publish all DNS zones to everyone.
ACLs on DNS zones - Put all those management interfaces in a sub domain like management.LocalOffice.MyCompany.com. A decent DNS server supports ACLs for various request types for various zones. Maybe nothing can do an XFR for management.LocalOffice.MyCompany.com. and only clients and the local subnet and some head office subnet are allowed to do any other look ups fox example.
I have this fight for a long time and some of what you say is true, but in my experience its always worked out better where my DNS rule is observed on a largish network. That is: if its not in DNS it does than it does officially not exist, that address is mine ( network admin ) to freely use as I please, and if your refer to a resource by IP directly its subject to change with minimal warning.
A proper DNS infrastructure does not just fail ( most organizations don't have that but its a different matter ). Other 'stuff' happens all the time. Companies get acquired that happen to use your same address space, services have to be moved to different sites for one reason or another, something at some subsidiary starts causing problems on the wan and you need to know what is right away etc. A solid DNS database makes it possible to find the information you need quickly both for humans and machines, and to effect changes easily without having to chase all across your 30 site nation wide WAN to fix every the address of the time server on every box. If you are not using DNS, even in ipv4 world, everywhere you possibly can I say you are doing it WRONG. That extra layer is there to help you and give you options.
Also even without DNS and DHCP most the time ipv6 is not going to require you to know any more bytes of an address than you do today. If you subnet properly the prefix should be predictable inside your organization. So you should still only need to communicate the last part of the address to all but the least clueful users
1998 called and they want your argument back. The fact is the sort hardware needed to build connections, store them in memory, and do the actual translation is just not that expensive anymore.
Possibly but that is a good one in that people have heard of these games. It makes a better story than some DNS host or whatever nobody knows what even did and knew nothing about who was not a tech geek already.
This is a see cloud serveries may very well be here today gone tomorrow, yes even if you have been or are paying and even when a good amount of users exist.
I keep trying to tell people look if you are using the cloud for required personal / business activities find but you better have a plan to transition off it, possibly rapidly and you'd better have alternate copies of your data.
I disagree that its not a structural problem. We have been trying to find the political will to do it for 30 years now! the 2000's show pretty clearly what even flat wage growth does to the economy. You literally can't tax house holds that have large debt liabilities and have run 0% or even negative savings rates for decades. They can't pay, and if you make them they start defaulting and we a have a banking crisis all over again. All the revenue even the left is talking about hardly puts a dent in the deficit and never enters the ballpark of even potentially touching the debt under any best case economic performance.
I don't have a clear answer but what is apparent to me is that many of the talked about macro economic fixes will shatter. Middle America largely does not have the capability to restructure their balance sheets in a way that would serve them in a situation where the government actually took any money out of the economy to pay debt. It would mean devastating loss that would probably run the macro economy off the rails too. You have to fix the problem without radically altering the middle class experience. Not easy; even cutting defense drastically (which we should do I think) means many lost middle class jobs.
The only free lunch is taxing the wealthy which does not get us very far.
The problem is that is does not get paid back. Even the Keynesian purists would not hold that the money supply should forever increase faster than the economy actually grows. I think Keynesian economics is a whole lots snake oil myself but I will concede we don't have a good test lab for it. Our economy as its been engineered today makes it structurally impossible to actually pay down the debt even in good times.
A budget surplus is only run during the most spectacular booms, and only than by accident when the Congress critters are caught flat footed and failed to ratchet down tax rates and or create new spending in anticipation of it. When it does happen as it ( debatably did - depends on your accounting methods ) during the Clinton years its almost looked as a problem. Why?
The root of all inflation really is government debt. The money supply is the FEDs balance sheet by and large and Treasury debt makes up the credit side. Paying off debt means you collect taxes and don't reinvest those dollars back into the economy. People are in practice okay with paying taxes when they feel they are getting something for it. They get angry when the perceive the government taking a whole bunch of money and not doing anything for them. That is why we have a T.E.A Party.
I don't think most citizens have thought much about it but there is a subconscious reason government deficits and inflation don't bother them as much as many of us Slashdoters think it should. Hint: Its good for them. No they don't like it when the groceries and gasoline gets more expensive but historically what comes of their front pocket leaves more in their rear in real terms. How?
The times when our government actually paid off the national debt were before a time when most of the middle class tied up all of their savings in an asset, their home, while using a debt instrument structured to take what may be their entire working life time to pay, for which they ultimately pay back between two and four time the original borrowed amount. Although stair stepped so they lose the advantage of compounding their wages typically get some cost of living growth meanwhile the interest rate paid on the debt and the principle remain the same. So with inflation a traditional 'fixed' rate mortgage actually behaves as if the interest rate declined over the life of the loan. This is why the flat wage growth over the past decade has been so hard on the middle working age middle class. Its transferred some of the cost of the borrowing from banks and rich folks with equity in banks back onto them. They'd probably be all for that except in practice other forces have many of these borrowers stretched so thin and the prior greed of lenders in pushing them to over borrow in the first place means that lack of inflation or deflation actually breaks many of these borrowers resulting in defaults and further money supply destruction, compounding the problem. Hence the almost manic fear of deflation from these folks, even though ordinarily it would be beneficent for dollar holders.
So there it is the bulks of people who reliably vote stand to gain from inflation, they like "gifts" from the government and they don't really want to pay taxes even if they may be willing. By extension no real motivation exists in Washington to address the national debt, the reality is the public demands more of it, even if they don't know it. The trouble is and what I think may be what causes the music to stop at some point is that as the number keep getting bigger events that might have made for little ripples in the past create tsunamis. It creates perverse opportunities to arbitrage billions of security instruments for tiny changes in individual valuations you see flash crashes. You have situations where a few bad economic turns lead to really destructive positive feedback ala the mortgage crisis. In the end it won't work
I don't disagree with you in principle but let me play devils advocate.
I left my job to do some traveling once and when i returned was voluntarily unemployed. So I was not collecting any assistance, however I have recent ( a couple years ago ) experience as an unemployed job seeker none the less.
You work the web. You call your friends, and contacts, and sit by the phone. Well several times I got calls, to the gist of "hey just read you CV can you come in and interview today?"
You want to be able to take those interviews, they are perspective employees who either need someone with your skills immediately or are particularly excited about perhaps getting someone your specific background. Either way its a favorable position for you be in. Yes you could take your mobile to the park but then you'd need to drive home change clothing at the least before you can go wherever in town they are. Might be hard depending on time.
From free market point of view I do not understand this at all. If a company X can get overqualified person for the announced salary, isn't that good for the company?
Usually no. I don't know about Germany but in the US a statistic I have heard from more than one HR type is that employees usually cost an average of 120% of there normal annual compensation in the first year. This is due to fees with off cycle benefits enrollment, lost productivity of others while they train you for the company/job specific aspects of the position, anything else the company might offer like covering moving expenses, etc.
New employees at just about any level beyond cleaner or mail room typically represent some level of investment (that added 20%) and its looked at that way rather than just as a pure labor expense, regardless of how the accounting is done. Over qualified folks are generally looking for a better opportunity elsewhere from the moment they arrive. Even if they do great work they are likely to be out the door as soon as they can. The company is then going to have to hire someone new at 120% cost.
So from the perspective of many employees a correctly qualified person is a better investment. They will get more years out of them that way doing job they need done now, and if the company is growing perhaps they can manage to make the position grow at around the same rate the individual does which results in better economy for both parties.
That is Obama's true genius he knows how to use new speak, better than anyone. He talks peace, but if anything is quicker to use a "kinetic military action" than even GWB was and does it with less congressional oversight.
Apparently you missed the '96 Olympics and a number of school bombings over the past 100 years. I never suggested that pipe bombs were easier than guns, just that they are easy enough such that taking guns away fails to raise the bar high enough to really stop, the sort of individual we have seen in most of these mass murder incidents.
These people are not waking up in the morning and going "I think kill 20 some people today", they plan these things for weeks even months. The choice is clear either we implement real security and address mental health issues in society or these things will continue to happen occasionally guns or not.
A few good starts would be to bar anyone on psychoactive drugs outside perhaps a narrow classification of commonly prescribe anti-depressants for going anywhere near a school, the same way we do with sex offenders.
Move all those expensive nude airport scanners to schools and have only one entry point; thru the scanner. Far few civil rights issues at schools as well, a much better application for the technology.
Stagger arrival times of students by neighborhood (so busing still works) to prevent a large number of people being all clustered together waiting to enter. Yes this means you will need to group classes by grade and geography or simply move to smaller neighborhood schools.
Mandate at least some school administrators or building security be armed, task them with and train them for responding to a potentially violent actor.
As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day. Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.
Guns are not the problem. The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all. Certainly its true in the 20th century, having people committed was abused. It might be unfair and cruel to lock many of these folks away in psych wards but at least they'd not be out hurting people. Lord knows I don't like health care reform the way it was done but at least some seriously disturbed people might get near to a profession who could possible declare them a threat and get something done about them.
Not if you make the rule one address one income. No need for it be couples the same would apply to roommates. This would do positively amazing things for the real estate market too.
One thing that has accelerated this is the dual income house hold. People like living together. Want shrink the labor force to better distribute income, simple make it illegal for more than one member of a house hold to work outside the home. DONE.
Look I understand this is a news aggregator not an originator, but its still a website it should be a little ahead of the MSM. Whats the deal with the apparent pattern of posting whatever they talked about on NPR's all things considered the previous day?
Well fortuitously my receiver has settings to detect when the dynamic range suddenly becomes less dynamic and will kick its normalization. Anything that stays constantly loud for more than a few ms, an it kick in the normalization and compression.
I can't stand watching TV without that feature on. Even most programs are recorded such that events like explosions will rattle the pictures off your walls if the have base volume level high enough that the dialog is comfortably audible. These settings do ruin the effects of Horror movies some thrillers (have to turn off for those), but they solve the loud commercial problem and make most other programing much more enjoyable.
Luckily the amp does keep these settings tied to source, so i don't have to manually change them for tuner/mp3/cassette/wii/pc.
That may be true, but for almost as long as that's been true Justices have made decisions that pretty far removed from the Pols who appointed them.
The GOP sure was surprised by Robert's ruling on the AFCA for a recent example. The Court's Justices by and large seem pretty independent once on the Court even if they have to play the game at first to get through the door.
I think that is in some ways the more interesting part. By all reason the Facebook voting process is already so rigged the company basically can't lose. As it stands it basically boils down to Null votes count for the companies position; given the short time windows to respond, the number of inactive accounts and others, getting a large enough turn out to prevail over the companies position is as a practice matter impossible. Even if the turn out was big enough they'd still need to be almost 100% No votes (like what happened here).
So the big question is why take the negative PR hit to kill their voting process at all? Its not like it stood in the way of any real policy shifts.
Unless they are planing something so unpalatable in the near future they expect it draw users that have not logged in for years to recover their passwords just to vote the thing down.
Slashdot Mirror
there should be some way to protect people who have no meaningful control over the fact that they're in public.
As you said, it's a dangerous road, and I don't have the answers.
I think the reality here is we can't protect everyone from everything all the time without dealing crushing blows to basic freedom. In these cases we have to weigh the risks. Here the choice is a victim of some kind may be farther victimized by another party who might potentially release some embarrassing footage; alternatively we create potential risk that some legal loophole can be used to suppress some other crime or misconduct.
Nobody wants to have the worst day of their life become a viral video, but that is not a good enough reason to potentially deny justice to a victim of brutality, false arrest, etc.
Its not a perfect world some compromises have to be made and this seems like a pretty obvious one.
You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.
I can see your point but Apples other policy make it effective impossible to publish 'editorial' video game content then.
Apple won't let you publish any application that runs outside code (well other than wrapper around mobile websites anyway). So you can't put something like Steam in the Appstore with its own library of content. So its pretty much can't publish a video game in Apple's walled garden that has any opinion about "a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity."
I think that kinda sucks.
I think the broader question is why does the fact that its a game warrant some higher editorial standard. Apple would not block the NYT app if they used it to publish an editorial titled "Assad is a Jerk".
I don't see why a game that happens to portray the same opinion should be looked as different. Also the sort of people who we typically have editorializing about editorials do so because they happen to also be the types that read editorials; if they had any exposure to these games they'd complain about them too. I thought we for the mast part had societal value that considered freedom to express our opinions a virtue? Yes some of them are simplistic, and uniformed. I come back to so what?
I don't think it laudable of Apple to run a market place that actively bars goods and services that happen to express opinions, about real things. Doubly so when its terribly inconsistent about when and on what those rules are actually enforced. Yes they have right to do it; just I chose not to participate.
Yea but who is going to want to 'friend' the IRS
What?
What crappy network hardware are you using? I have seen any commercial class hardware in the last 10 years that does not at least support an ACL on the management interface.
Split DNS - obviously you don't publish all DNS zones to everyone.
ACLs on DNS zones - Put all those management interfaces in a sub domain like management.LocalOffice.MyCompany.com. A decent DNS server supports ACLs for various request types for various zones. Maybe nothing can do an XFR for management.LocalOffice.MyCompany.com. and only clients and the local subnet and some head office subnet are allowed to do any other look ups fox example.
This is pretty basic stuff.
I have this fight for a long time and some of what you say is true, but in my experience its always worked out better where my DNS rule is observed on a largish network. That is: if its not in DNS it does than it does officially not exist, that address is mine ( network admin ) to freely use as I please, and if your refer to a resource by IP directly its subject to change with minimal warning.
A proper DNS infrastructure does not just fail ( most organizations don't have that but its a different matter ). Other 'stuff' happens all the time. Companies get acquired that happen to use your same address space, services have to be moved to different sites for one reason or another, something at some subsidiary starts causing problems on the wan and you need to know what is right away etc. A solid DNS database makes it possible to find the information you need quickly both for humans and machines, and to effect changes easily without having to chase all across your 30 site nation wide WAN to fix every the address of the time server on every box. If you are not using DNS, even in ipv4 world, everywhere you possibly can I say you are doing it WRONG. That extra layer is there to help you and give you options.
Also even without DNS and DHCP most the time ipv6 is not going to require you to know any more bytes of an address than you do today. If you subnet properly the prefix should be predictable inside your organization. So you should still only need to communicate the last part of the address to all but the least clueful users
1998 called and they want your argument back. The fact is the sort hardware needed to build connections, store them in memory, and do the actual translation is just not that expensive anymore.
Possibly but that is a good one in that people have heard of these games. It makes a better story than some DNS host or whatever nobody knows what even did and knew nothing about who was not a tech geek already.
This is a see cloud serveries may very well be here today gone tomorrow, yes even if you have been or are paying and even when a good amount of users exist.
I keep trying to tell people look if you are using the cloud for required personal / business activities find but you better have a plan to transition off it, possibly rapidly and you'd better have alternate copies of your data.
TubeSteak,
I disagree that its not a structural problem. We have been trying to find the political will to do it for 30 years now! the 2000's show pretty clearly what even flat wage growth does to the economy. You literally can't tax house holds that have large debt liabilities and have run 0% or even negative savings rates for decades. They can't pay, and if you make them they start defaulting and we a have a banking crisis all over again. All the revenue even the left is talking about hardly puts a dent in the deficit and never enters the ballpark of even potentially touching the debt under any best case economic performance.
I don't have a clear answer but what is apparent to me is that many of the talked about macro economic fixes will shatter. Middle America largely does not have the capability to restructure their balance sheets in a way that would serve them in a situation where the government actually took any money out of the economy to pay debt. It would mean devastating loss that would probably run the macro economy off the rails too. You have to fix the problem without radically altering the middle class experience. Not easy; even cutting defense drastically (which we should do I think) means many lost middle class jobs.
The only free lunch is taxing the wealthy which does not get us very far.
The problem is that is does not get paid back. Even the Keynesian purists would not hold that the money supply should forever increase faster than the economy actually grows. I think Keynesian economics is a whole lots snake oil myself but I will concede we don't have a good test lab for it. Our economy as its been engineered today makes it structurally impossible to actually pay down the debt even in good times.
A budget surplus is only run during the most spectacular booms, and only than by accident when the Congress critters are caught flat footed and failed to ratchet down tax rates and or create new spending in anticipation of it. When it does happen as it ( debatably did - depends on your accounting methods ) during the Clinton years its almost looked as a problem. Why?
The root of all inflation really is government debt. The money supply is the FEDs balance sheet by and large and Treasury debt makes up the credit side. Paying off debt means you collect taxes and don't reinvest those dollars back into the economy. People are in practice okay with paying taxes when they feel they are getting something for it. They get angry when the perceive the government taking a whole bunch of money and not doing anything for them. That is why we have a T.E.A Party.
I don't think most citizens have thought much about it but there is a subconscious reason government deficits and inflation don't bother them as much as many of us Slashdoters think it should. Hint: Its good for them. No they don't like it when the groceries and gasoline gets more expensive but historically what comes of their front pocket leaves more in their rear in real terms. How?
The times when our government actually paid off the national debt were before a time when most of the middle class tied up all of their savings in an asset, their home, while using a debt instrument structured to take what may be their entire working life time to pay, for which they ultimately pay back between two and four time the original borrowed amount. Although stair stepped so they lose the advantage of compounding their wages typically get some cost of living growth meanwhile the interest rate paid on the debt and the principle remain the same. So with inflation a traditional 'fixed' rate mortgage actually behaves as if the interest rate declined over the life of the loan. This is why the flat wage growth over the past decade has been so hard on the middle working age middle class. Its transferred some of the cost of the borrowing from banks and rich folks with equity in banks back onto them. They'd probably be all for that except in practice other forces have many of these borrowers stretched so thin and the prior greed of lenders in pushing them to over borrow in the first place means that lack of inflation or deflation actually breaks many of these borrowers resulting in defaults and further money supply destruction, compounding the problem. Hence the almost manic fear of deflation from these folks, even though ordinarily it would be beneficent for dollar holders.
So there it is the bulks of people who reliably vote stand to gain from inflation, they like "gifts" from the government and they don't really want to pay taxes even if they may be willing. By extension no real motivation exists in Washington to address the national debt, the reality is the public demands more of it, even if they don't know it. The trouble is and what I think may be what causes the music to stop at some point is that as the number keep getting bigger events that might have made for little ripples in the past create tsunamis. It creates perverse opportunities to arbitrage billions of security instruments for tiny changes in individual valuations you see flash crashes. You have situations where a few bad economic turns lead to really destructive positive feedback ala the mortgage crisis. In the end it won't work
I read it as, something you might restate as "hey its no big deal even societies betters like our elected officials do this stuff so it must be okay,"
I don't consider the argument, "US Congressional representatives do it" to really be an endorsement of any behavior
I don't disagree with you in principle but let me play devils advocate.
I left my job to do some traveling once and when i returned was voluntarily unemployed. So I was not collecting any assistance, however I have recent ( a couple years ago ) experience as an unemployed job seeker none the less.
You work the web. You call your friends, and contacts, and sit by the phone. Well several times I got calls, to the gist of "hey just read you CV can you come in and interview today?"
You want to be able to take those interviews, they are perspective employees who either need someone with your skills immediately or are particularly excited about perhaps getting someone your specific background. Either way its a favorable position for you be in. Yes you could take your mobile to the park but then you'd need to drive home change clothing at the least before you can go wherever in town they are. Might be hard depending on time.
From free market point of view I do not understand this at all. If a company X can get overqualified person for the announced salary, isn't that good for the company?
Usually no. I don't know about Germany but in the US a statistic I have heard from more than one HR type is that employees usually cost an average of 120% of there normal annual compensation in the first year. This is due to fees with off cycle benefits enrollment, lost productivity of others while they train you for the company/job specific aspects of the position, anything else the company might offer like covering moving expenses, etc.
New employees at just about any level beyond cleaner or mail room typically represent some level of investment (that added 20%) and its looked at that way rather than just as a pure labor expense, regardless of how the accounting is done. Over qualified folks are generally looking for a better opportunity elsewhere from the moment they arrive. Even if they do great work they are likely to be out the door as soon as they can. The company is then going to have to hire someone new at 120% cost.
So from the perspective of many employees a correctly qualified person is a better investment. They will get more years out of them that way doing job they need done now, and if the company is growing perhaps they can manage to make the position grow at around the same rate the individual does which results in better economy for both parties.
That is Obama's true genius he knows how to use new speak, better than anyone. He talks peace, but if anything is quicker to use a "kinetic military action" than even GWB was and does it with less congressional oversight.
Yes it is that same Obama. He is a slippery double talking sack of shit, and nobody should forget that.
Apparently you missed the '96 Olympics and a number of school bombings over the past 100 years. I never suggested that pipe bombs were easier than guns, just that they are easy enough such that taking guns away fails to raise the bar high enough to really stop, the sort of individual we have seen in most of these mass murder incidents.
These people are not waking up in the morning and going "I think kill 20 some people today", they plan these things for weeks even months. The choice is clear either we implement real security and address mental health issues in society or these things will continue to happen occasionally guns or not.
A few good starts would be to bar anyone on psychoactive drugs outside perhaps a narrow classification of commonly prescribe anti-depressants for going anywhere near a school, the same way we do with sex offenders.
Move all those expensive nude airport scanners to schools and have only one entry point; thru the scanner. Far few civil rights issues at schools as well, a much better application for the technology.
Stagger arrival times of students by neighborhood (so busing still works) to prevent a large number of people being all clustered together waiting to enter. Yes this means you will need to group classes by grade and geography or simply move to smaller neighborhood schools.
Mandate at least some school administrators or building security be armed, task them with and train them for responding to a potentially violent actor.
Exactly.
As other posters have pointed out these things are almost always planned. A guy in China stabbed twenty some people the very same day. Imagine how easy and cheap it would be to put together a few pipe bombs jacketed with small ball bearings; that would create every bit as much horror and death in a room for children as this guy was able to do using guns. You can't control the materials for that either without really crippling society. Any intelligent (though not necessarily sane) person who wants to hurt a large number of people in our society can find a way to do so, with or without a gun.
Guns are not the problem. The real danger is the mentally and our total lack of will to deal with them. This guys mother knew and had talked about him burning himself days before the incident. She obviously understood things were very wrong but did nothing. As a society we at most pump people with dangerous mental pathology full of drugs their own doctors hardly know what effect will have and send them back out among us. In probably the majority of cases we do nothing about them at all. Certainly its true in the 20th century, having people committed was abused. It might be unfair and cruel to lock many of these folks away in psych wards but at least they'd not be out hurting people. Lord knows I don't like health care reform the way it was done but at least some seriously disturbed people might get near to a profession who could possible declare them a threat and get something done about them.
Not if you make the rule one address one income. No need for it be couples the same would apply to roommates. This would do positively amazing things for the real estate market too.
One thing that has accelerated this is the dual income house hold. People like living together. Want shrink the labor force to better distribute income, simple make it illegal for more than one member of a house hold to work outside the home. DONE.
Look I understand this is a news aggregator not an originator, but its still a website it should be a little ahead of the MSM. Whats the deal with the apparent pattern of posting whatever they talked about on NPR's all things considered the previous day?
Well fortuitously my receiver has settings to detect when the dynamic range suddenly becomes less dynamic and will kick its normalization. Anything that stays constantly loud for more than a few ms, an it kick in the normalization and compression.
I can't stand watching TV without that feature on. Even most programs are recorded such that events like explosions will rattle the pictures off your walls if the have base volume level high enough that the dialog is comfortably audible. These settings do ruin the effects of Horror movies some thrillers (have to turn off for those), but they solve the loud commercial problem and make most other programing much more enjoyable.
Luckily the amp does keep these settings tied to source, so i don't have to manually change them for tuner/mp3/cassette/wii/pc.
That may be true, but for almost as long as that's been true Justices have made decisions that pretty far removed from the Pols who appointed them.
The GOP sure was surprised by Robert's ruling on the AFCA for a recent example. The Court's Justices by and large seem pretty independent once on the Court even if they have to play the game at first to get through the door.
I think that is in some ways the more interesting part. By all reason the Facebook voting process is already so rigged the company basically can't lose. As it stands it basically boils down to Null votes count for the companies position; given the short time windows to respond, the number of inactive accounts and others, getting a large enough turn out to prevail over the companies position is as a practice matter impossible. Even if the turn out was big enough they'd still need to be almost 100% No votes (like what happened here).
So the big question is why take the negative PR hit to kill their voting process at all? Its not like it stood in the way of any real policy shifts.
Unless they are planing something so unpalatable in the near future they expect it draw users that have not logged in for years to recover their passwords just to vote the thing down.