It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest
Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good.
I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.
If the rules governing what classified materials have to be handled what way and when are to complex for follow and so frequently not important enough to peruse violators of the answer is have fewer rules. We should be able to define simple understandable rules for identify documents that MUST be protected as state secrets and what to do with them. Maybe the answer is for the rest is tell people "use your judgment" bad judgment as perceived by your superiors might get you fired but it isn't a crime.
Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.
And whether you like it or not the fact is a line has to be drawn some place. Saying that line is whatever your current legally recognized sex happens to be is at least more reasonable than anything else I have heard proposed. Everything else poses a serious enforcement and adjudication problem. Majority rule with minority rights. You have a right to use a rest room that corresponds to your sex, the majority has decided that is how the system will work. If that makes you uncomfortable to bad.
Fine but why on earth is the treatment gender reassignment and not psychiatric care until they able to recognize and accept their sex. If I thought I was mermaid, no medical professional would advocate surgery to give me fins.
Stop lying! The law says you use the bathroom your identification indicates. That does not mean birth certificate and it does not say so. If you have state ID, drivers license, passport, etc. That says you are one sex or the other you use the associated bathroom.
So someone who has completed sex reassignment certainly can use the bathroom associated with their current sex.
Opponents of this law are being extremely disingenuous! They have for years insisted that sex and gender are not the same. Okay fine bathrooms and a whole host of other things like medical coverage are very sensibly segregated by sex. They are so for reasons of safety, propriety, and practicality. They are however segregated by SEX not gender. So being transgender does not pose any problem at all. Use the damn bathroom that corresponds to your sex! it actually is equal treatment to say everyone uses the facility that matches their sex regardless of gender.
However for the last 30 years we have been feed this idea that sex and gender are only correlated but not strictly tied. Well if that is true than "transgender" individuals can't exist, because your sex does not define your gender. If you have female sex organs and want penis that does not make you transgender, it makes you just someone with body image issue, no different from a fat person wishing they were thinner. Alternatively it means you a delusional you can't accept the reality that is in front of you. You are in fact a girl and the correct solution is for you to get the psychiatric care you need, not for the rest of us to pretend along with you.
Yes, give remote code the ability to talk directly to a DMA capable device. No problems there. This and webGL could literal be a disaster if someone slips up.
Lets face its, the entire movement is about guilt and revenge. Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt, largely the result of decades of brain washing in public schools. The marginalized groups who support it do so out of a sense they are entitled to some kind of revenge, and they should have that revenge even if the people who really dealt them and their ancestry the wrongs are long dead or rotting in an old folks home some place ( or should be in the case Bill Clinton ).
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules. She can even say the sort of thing that might be considered a personal threat an potentially expose "privileged group" to prosecution, without any fear or reprisal. Now ordinarily being woman would by Sara Palin some entitlement to protection under these new 'rules' but you she committed a mortal sin by espousing hatred for men, so has been excommunicated from the church of the victimized.
Yes and know, at some point as a Christian you are forced to deal with the meaning of kindness. Is it kind to enable an alcoholic for example? The drunk might call it a kindness if you drove them to liquor store to get more booze, so they don't have to risk drunk driving. Might it be a greater kindness to "misplace" their keys and let the sober up however? They certainly won't feel that way, at least not in the short term.
I read a stupid post on facebook today by someone who does not get it. It said something like "Jesus associated with thieves and prostitutes but its against your religion to make someone a cake." The thing about that is Jesus was NOT helping or encouraging them to engage in prostitution or thieving, he had forgiven them for their past sins and was leading them to be better. If you believe that acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then yes baking them that cake to celebrate and validate their debauchery is against your religion. You should not be unkind, if you scream "get outa my bakery you disgusting fag!" at them that isn't being a good Christan. If on the other hand you calmly explain "I believe what you are seeking to do is immoral so I can't help you with that, but I would be happy to serve you in any other capacity" there is no problem there.
This is the fundamental issue non-Christians don't get about "hardcore Christians" and since you don't believe it won't make sense. What you don't understand is that we can't be being "kind" to you by helping you do something that will further separate you from Christ. So it might seem like we are being nasty by refusing to bake you a cake but in our view its the same as taking the keys away from the drunk, its for your own good. Now where I draw the line is actively seeking to prevent you. While I would not bake your gay wedding cake, I won't stop you from trying to get one elsewhere, and I won't picket your wedding. I am going to remain where I am at trying to set a good example or go help someone who is asking for help.
Real Christians who made a Christian-preaching cab service would probably prefer non-Christians.
Prefer? I don't know about that; but I am sure we would be happy to give them a lift. We'd be even happier if they let us tell them the good news. If they are not ready to listen to that we would be glad they still got a chance to see who we are, that they might be more willing to listen later.
I am not talking about the great compromise. I am talking about representation of population centers within the states. House districts are drawn so that large groups of people with related interests are usually within a district. That is a major city might have a few congressional districts. A large more rural area outside the city also gets to be a congressional district. So that group of people get a rep. Unlike state wide Senate offices which now in our direct election of Senate offices environment mean a few major cities within a state pick the Senator and the rural votes effectively have no representatives in the Senate.
The President does not control the budget, Congress does.
Yes that is how its supposed to work but King Obama decided he did not like that, and if he could not get the debt ceiling raised so that Congress could fund his insane programs where to bad for the country then. Face it Congress and the President played a game of chicken and Obama won. That isn't virtuous behavior.
Before the Constitution was enacted there was real fear from the rural public that the stronger federal government was going to be able to use its taxing and money raising capabilities to abuse them. Its one of the things that lead to actions like Shay's rebellion.
One of the compromises to make the Constitution work was to put the power of the purse in the hands of the lower house, so that the nations rural population would in face have a greater representation when it came to appropriations and taxation than the population centers. People whine about the House not representing the majority by population, its not supposed to, the system is working as expected. The power of the purse was supposed to be a major component of the checks and balances system.
Its really supposed to be the case that the House can hold a gun to the Presidents head by not making money available The President does not control the budget, Congress does. for policy initiatives, inclusive of funding the military to put down a domestic rebellion or prosecute a foreign war! What Obama did is flip the script. His behavior (and that of many presidents on both sides of the isle before him) truly is tyrannical! If you think otherwise, than I highly suspect you are making excuses because "he is your guy" or you are willfully ignorant of our history and civic system.
The number one rule to remember with social / business performance metrics of any kind is be really careful what and if you decide to measure because you will get it!
The GPP is correct though, metrics used by the American political left are deranged. I hear often there is a teacher shortage (meaning licensed teachers), or look how many of these charter schools are not accredited, blah blah. We don't have enough social workers...
Nobody has ever first demonstrated that "licensed professionals" get any better results over those of lay people in these fields. There is even evidence to the country. Many private schools for example don't require teachers to be licensed. Yet these schools consistently produce better outcomes. Is that scientific not at all, there is a lot selection bias in the attendees of private schools. Still it at least proves that being a "licensed teacher" isn't a necessary condition for being a successful educator in modern society.
Programs like teach for America work. The union cartels and their leftist elite voting block can't stand that!
The point about big US cities is also true. We have a lot of rural poverty in this country but major concentrations tend to be in the cities. So yes big cities are depending on state governments to redistribute wealth from the more productive country side (incidentally where the auto factories, distribution and shipping hubs, agriculture, other manufacturing operations, have mostly migrated) to support a bunch of 47%ers and hippies running pointless tech start ups.
Funny, all the articles I read at the time were already stating there were few Americans on the list. Its a couple TB of data, yea that takes a while to search, or at least to index initially.
Yet all those other names had already popped out. Once those indexes are built having the computers grep a list of "who is who in politics and business" does not take long. Did you really think the big news outlets decided "hey lets search for all the non-US Citizens first?"
Dumb.
But I have waited now, and here we are nearly a week on and I am still waiting for these names Dave!
has nothing to do with conservative 'job creators' creating all those jobs in China that used to be here..
You know NAFTA was a bill Clinton thing, and "liberals" have in general been highly supporting of all these economically ruinous free-trade agreements. Sure there are notable exceptions, but there are on the conservative side as well.
Its also true that is widely been liberals who have favored pro-emmigration and visa policies that have allowed foreigners to come and compete with Americans for education opportunities and then go back home taking their knowledge with them. At least conservatives sensibly try to keep the boarder closed down a bit and don't make it so easy for people to over stay etc.
Face facts you have been sold out by folks on both sides of the political isle, and will certainly continue to be. Government isn't working for you and isn't going to start in the near future. Which is why the sensible long term self interesting thing to do is vote GOP. You might as well enjoy the tax cuts. As long as government is going to undermine you economically and otherwise abuse us, at least we can pay a little less for it.
No I think they thought facebook was becoming an alternative walled WWW that they were not a part of and could not participate in easily. So they got reactionary about it.
Google pulled the WWW together and made it really possible to find stuff. They monetized that, and they get their rent as a result in terms of being in the prime position to get ad revenue but I also think they made the WWW better for all (well not for Yahoo and their direct competitors in the ad space).
Facebook on the other hand has always been a model of lockup any content you can and try to ensnare users in your own walled garden. They have added nothing to usefulness of the WWW outside their own site, and in a lot ways harmed it by sucking up all the oxygen.
letting your employer or the whole world know about your private life, your beliefs, your political positions, etc. is extremely dangerous and will bite you in the ass one day
On the other hand what is the point in having beliefs if you are not going to espouse them, or political positions if you are not going to advocate for them?
Maybe the problem here is that we are all trying to hard to come together. It used to be communities organized around a set of beliefs. Look around this country various Protestant groups tend to be concentrated regionally. It used to be that you simply settled with people who were like you. Maybe this expands up to the international scale to when it comes to Islamic extremism and the like. Perhaps we have made the world to small a place, and we would actually be better off with higher walls around our boarders, less trade, less travel, and less talking to each other.
The premise of an on-line place to share things with people you want to share them with was a good idea.
Sounds nice but its actually a terrible idea. Its not something people will ever see enough value in to pay for, even in a world before facebook if you had asked people to subscribe they'd have said but I can e-mail my friends for free. Now with all the various platforms for slapping some content up on with more or fewer controls and distribution models the argument anyone should pay will be impossible to make.
Its a fairly expensive proposition to host because all those pictures and videos and the like will need an enormous amount of storage and bandwidth. So it will cost big bucks.
Finally there isn't a way to monetize a private bulletin board like that outside of a subscription model. The idea is as Mr.Trump would say "a looser"
I don't see what's laughable I said "until recently" and "with limited success". I know twitter has reversed course on this, but its recent reversal. facebook on the other hand has always been policed at least since it out grew its college kids only rule, and with some level of efficacy.
That is interesting. It would be worth making a study of just how much Zuckerburg's own PC thought police don't share anything that might offend someone policies are contributing.
The counter point would be twitter, which up until very recently, and now with limited success has not really tied to police content other than strait up porn. Arguably twitter is mostly a cesspool of people flaming each other for this an that and advertisements.
I wish I had mod points. That is clearly the most interesting aspect of this. I wonder what the effects will be for other jobs currently being automated like waiter, host(ess), etc
What I find really telling is Obama's reaction. Never mind how little evidence there was that American's were using off shore accounts to evade taxation, he just knows, they are doing it! We need more regulations! He says all this after his own secretary of state (Hillary Clinton) recently negotiated a trade pact with Panama which will make it easier to do exactly that sort of cheating. An agreement which he then signed into law.
The take away, anything is an excuse for more regulation on the left. That regulation will of course be careful engineered to fall on us ordinary middle class folks and an handful of wealthy industrialists they don't like while not touching their elite friends in Hollywood, Politics, Law, and Academia. Like always some folks will be a little more equal.
At least when the GOP, "just cuts tax rates" I get to enjoy some of the benefit. Sure maybe not to the tune the industrial owner class enjoys but I get something. The fact that the benefit is so unequal has as much to do with the existing structure again enacted by progressives and liberals too.
Lets continue to starve the beast and if we can get it small enough to fit into the tube lets drown it!
The thing is he isn't correct there really are not costs, at least not in terms of prevention. As far as the after action investigation goes maybe but those don't bring back the dead anyway.
All the really actionable intelligence comes from what the three letters have already defined as metadata. Its who is calling and messaging who not what they are saying. Even the NSA does not really have the computing power or resources to consume the content of every ordinary WhatsApp user. This is facebook remember, their entire business model is based around social graph theory too. Encryption might be part of a system that protects that sort of information but it won't do it without some serious design and engineering. Since FB of all organizations would not actually want to make that information secure, its a safe bet its perfectly easy to tell how often and to whom an user sends messages, even if they can't be read.
The general population has gotten used to a world of generally good consumer protections and safety requirements. While some of us have seen this coming for a little while longer with things like the early iPods and what not most simply don't get how much power this "cloud" model takes from them. They have not been burned much with those techy toys because by and large the support for them lasted as long as anyone wanted to use one any. By the time M$ abandon the Zune, most people had moved on to a better music player or a smart phone on their own. They don't realize this is basically a scam for companies to do an end run around the very idea of ownership.
Now is where I think we are going to start to see some changes. Things people were used to owning and not replacing for 20+ years like a thermostat suddenly become vulnerable to the whims of tech vendors. Suddenly when the HVAC on just enough to keep the pipes from freezing in their summer home on the other side of the country shuts down on the whim of someone at Google in January, people will start to realize just how much control of their lives they have lost.
When their expensive appliance fridge/stove/washer ends up with a screen or a bunch of buttons that don't do anything anymore because someone turned off some service, and they spend the next 10 years staring at them, then they might start to understand. They will really understand when they have to buy a new one prematurely because its painful or impossible to use without its "connection"
I don't think there is a difference between sex and gender is my overall point. I am reminded of an episode of Black Adder
Nursie speaking about the birth of Queen Elisabeth - It's a boy someone said, and than I said a boy without a winkle God be praised! Then Thomas More pointed out that a boy without a winkle is a girl.
English does not really have many rules, and only descriptive not prescriptive dictionaries. You understood the writers intent, communication was successful. So I would say to you "get over it."
That said I agree your usage is preferable. The faulty device is insecure.
I don't think it would be wrong to say, "The house has been left unsecured."
Slashdot Mirror
It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest
Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good.
I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.
If the rules governing what classified materials have to be handled what way and when are to complex for follow and so frequently not important enough to peruse violators of the answer is have fewer rules. We should be able to define simple understandable rules for identify documents that MUST be protected as state secrets and what to do with them. Maybe the answer is for the rest is tell people "use your judgment" bad judgment as perceived by your superiors might get you fired but it isn't a crime.
Its just possible we have to many laws.
Whether you like it or not, the fact that many people wish to prevent men claiming to be transgender from using women's bathrooms is in no way contending the fact that there exists a group of people who wish to ban all transgender women from using the bathroom.
And whether you like it or not the fact is a line has to be drawn some place. Saying that line is whatever your current legally recognized sex happens to be is at least more reasonable than anything else I have heard proposed. Everything else poses a serious enforcement and adjudication problem. Majority rule with minority rights. You have a right to use a rest room that corresponds to your sex, the majority has decided that is how the system will work. If that makes you uncomfortable to bad.
Fine but why on earth is the treatment gender reassignment and not psychiatric care until they able to recognize and accept their sex. If I thought I was mermaid, no medical professional would advocate surgery to give me fins.
Stop lying! The law says you use the bathroom your identification indicates. That does not mean birth certificate and it does not say so. If you have state ID, drivers license, passport, etc. That says you are one sex or the other you use the associated bathroom.
So someone who has completed sex reassignment certainly can use the bathroom associated with their current sex.
Opponents of this law are being extremely disingenuous! They have for years insisted that sex and gender are not the same. Okay fine bathrooms and a whole host of other things like medical coverage are very sensibly segregated by sex. They are so for reasons of safety, propriety, and practicality. They are however segregated by SEX not gender. So being transgender does not pose any problem at all. Use the damn bathroom that corresponds to your sex! it actually is equal treatment to say everyone uses the facility that matches their sex regardless of gender.
However for the last 30 years we have been feed this idea that sex and gender are only correlated but not strictly tied. Well if that is true than "transgender" individuals can't exist, because your sex does not define your gender. If you have female sex organs and want penis that does not make you transgender, it makes you just someone with body image issue, no different from a fat person wishing they were thinner. Alternatively it means you a delusional you can't accept the reality that is in front of you. You are in fact a girl and the correct solution is for you to get the psychiatric care you need, not for the rest of us to pretend along with you.
What would you bet your location data is sent with the passcode/authentication request at least by default?
I would wager heavily.
Well one solution would be to create a table of values outside the allowed range but that will still fit inside the data type used for storage.
181W - 91N == Somewhere in the Continental US ...
182W - 91N == Somewhere in mainland Canada
183W - 91N == Somewhere in Alaska
Yes, give remote code the ability to talk directly to a DMA capable device. No problems there. This and webGL could literal be a disaster if someone slips up.
Lets face its, the entire movement is about guilt and revenge. Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt, largely the result of decades of brain washing in public schools. The marginalized groups who support it do so out of a sense they are entitled to some kind of revenge, and they should have that revenge even if the people who really dealt them and their ancestry the wrongs are long dead or rotting in an old folks home some place ( or should be in the case Bill Clinton ).
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules. She can even say the sort of thing that might be considered a personal threat an potentially expose "privileged group" to prosecution, without any fear or reprisal. Now ordinarily being woman would by Sara Palin some entitlement to protection under these new 'rules' but you she committed a mortal sin by espousing hatred for men, so has been excommunicated from the church of the victimized.
Yes and know, at some point as a Christian you are forced to deal with the meaning of kindness. Is it kind to enable an alcoholic for example? The drunk might call it a kindness if you drove them to liquor store to get more booze, so they don't have to risk drunk driving. Might it be a greater kindness to "misplace" their keys and let the sober up however? They certainly won't feel that way, at least not in the short term.
I read a stupid post on facebook today by someone who does not get it. It said something like "Jesus associated with thieves and prostitutes but its against your religion to make someone a cake." The thing about that is Jesus was NOT helping or encouraging them to engage in prostitution or thieving, he had forgiven them for their past sins and was leading them to be better. If you believe that acting on homosexual desires is a sin, then yes baking them that cake to celebrate and validate their debauchery is against your religion. You should not be unkind, if you scream "get outa my bakery you disgusting fag!" at them that isn't being a good Christan. If on the other hand you calmly explain "I believe what you are seeking to do is immoral so I can't help you with that, but I would be happy to serve you in any other capacity" there is no problem there.
This is the fundamental issue non-Christians don't get about "hardcore Christians" and since you don't believe it won't make sense. What you don't understand is that we can't be being "kind" to you by helping you do something that will further separate you from Christ. So it might seem like we are being nasty by refusing to bake you a cake but in our view its the same as taking the keys away from the drunk, its for your own good. Now where I draw the line is actively seeking to prevent you. While I would not bake your gay wedding cake, I won't stop you from trying to get one elsewhere, and I won't picket your wedding. I am going to remain where I am at trying to set a good example or go help someone who is asking for help.
Real Christians who made a Christian-preaching cab service would probably prefer non-Christians.
Prefer? I don't know about that; but I am sure we would be happy to give them a lift. We'd be even happier if they let us tell them the good news. If they are not ready to listen to that we would be glad they still got a chance to see who we are, that they might be more willing to listen later.
I am not talking about the great compromise. I am talking about representation of population centers within the states. House districts are drawn so that large groups of people with related interests are usually within a district. That is a major city might have a few congressional districts. A large more rural area outside the city also gets to be a congressional district. So that group of people get a rep. Unlike state wide Senate offices which now in our direct election of Senate offices environment mean a few major cities within a state pick the Senator and the rural votes effectively have no representatives in the Senate.
The President does not control the budget, Congress does.
Yes that is how its supposed to work but King Obama decided he did not like that, and if he could not get the debt ceiling raised so that Congress could fund his insane programs where to bad for the country then. Face it Congress and the President played a game of chicken and Obama won. That isn't virtuous behavior.
Before the Constitution was enacted there was real fear from the rural public that the stronger federal government was going to be able to use its taxing and money raising capabilities to abuse them. Its one of the things that lead to actions like Shay's rebellion.
One of the compromises to make the Constitution work was to put the power of the purse in the hands of the lower house, so that the nations rural population would in face have a greater representation when it came to appropriations and taxation than the population centers. People whine about the House not representing the majority by population, its not supposed to, the system is working as expected. The power of the purse was supposed to be a major component of the checks and balances system.
Its really supposed to be the case that the House can hold a gun to the Presidents head by not making money available The President does not control the budget, Congress does. for policy initiatives, inclusive of funding the military to put down a domestic rebellion or prosecute a foreign war! What Obama did is flip the script. His behavior (and that of many presidents on both sides of the isle before him) truly is tyrannical! If you think otherwise, than I highly suspect you are making excuses because "he is your guy" or you are willfully ignorant of our history and civic system.
The number one rule to remember with social / business performance metrics of any kind is be really careful what and if you decide to measure because you will get it!
The GPP is correct though, metrics used by the American political left are deranged. I hear often there is a teacher shortage (meaning licensed teachers), or look how many of these charter schools are not accredited, blah blah. We don't have enough social workers...
Nobody has ever first demonstrated that "licensed professionals" get any better results over those of lay people in these fields. There is even evidence to the country. Many private schools for example don't require teachers to be licensed. Yet these schools consistently produce better outcomes. Is that scientific not at all, there is a lot selection bias in the attendees of private schools. Still it at least proves that being a "licensed teacher" isn't a necessary condition for being a successful educator in modern society.
Programs like teach for America work. The union cartels and their leftist elite voting block can't stand that!
The point about big US cities is also true. We have a lot of rural poverty in this country but major concentrations tend to be in the cities. So yes big cities are depending on state governments to redistribute wealth from the more productive country side (incidentally where the auto factories, distribution and shipping hubs, agriculture, other manufacturing operations, have mostly migrated) to support a bunch of 47%ers and hippies running pointless tech start ups.
Lets keep cutting.
Funny, all the articles I read at the time were already stating there were few Americans on the list. Its a couple TB of data, yea that takes a while to search, or at least to index initially.
Yet all those other names had already popped out. Once those indexes are built having the computers grep a list of "who is who in politics and business" does not take long. Did you really think the big news outlets decided "hey lets search for all the non-US Citizens first?"
Dumb.
But I have waited now, and here we are nearly a week on and I am still waiting for these names Dave!
has nothing to do with conservative 'job creators' creating all those jobs in China that used to be here..
You know NAFTA was a bill Clinton thing, and "liberals" have in general been highly supporting of all these economically ruinous free-trade agreements. Sure there are notable exceptions, but there are on the conservative side as well.
Its also true that is widely been liberals who have favored pro-emmigration and visa policies that have allowed foreigners to come and compete with Americans for education opportunities and then go back home taking their knowledge with them. At least conservatives sensibly try to keep the boarder closed down a bit and don't make it so easy for people to over stay etc.
Face facts you have been sold out by folks on both sides of the political isle, and will certainly continue to be. Government isn't working for you and isn't going to start in the near future. Which is why the sensible long term self interesting thing to do is vote GOP. You might as well enjoy the tax cuts. As long as government is going to undermine you economically and otherwise abuse us, at least we can pay a little less for it.
No I think they thought facebook was becoming an alternative walled WWW that they were not a part of and could not participate in easily. So they got reactionary about it.
Google pulled the WWW together and made it really possible to find stuff. They monetized that, and they get their rent as a result in terms of being in the prime position to get ad revenue but I also think they made the WWW better for all (well not for Yahoo and their direct competitors in the ad space).
Facebook on the other hand has always been a model of lockup any content you can and try to ensnare users in your own walled garden. They have added nothing to usefulness of the WWW outside their own site, and in a lot ways harmed it by sucking up all the oxygen.
letting your employer or the whole world know about your private life, your beliefs, your political positions, etc. is extremely dangerous and will bite you in the ass one day
On the other hand what is the point in having beliefs if you are not going to espouse them, or political positions if you are not going to advocate for them?
Maybe the problem here is that we are all trying to hard to come together. It used to be communities organized around a set of beliefs. Look around this country various Protestant groups tend to be concentrated regionally. It used to be that you simply settled with people who were like you. Maybe this expands up to the international scale to when it comes to Islamic extremism and the like. Perhaps we have made the world to small a place, and we would actually be better off with higher walls around our boarders, less trade, less travel, and less talking to each other.
The premise of an on-line place to share things with people you want to share them with was a good idea.
Sounds nice but its actually a terrible idea. Its not something people will ever see enough value in to pay for, even in a world before facebook if you had asked people to subscribe they'd have said but I can e-mail my friends for free. Now with all the various platforms for slapping some content up on with more or fewer controls and distribution models the argument anyone should pay will be impossible to make.
Its a fairly expensive proposition to host because all those pictures and videos and the like will need an enormous amount of storage and bandwidth. So it will cost big bucks.
Finally there isn't a way to monetize a private bulletin board like that outside of a subscription model. The idea is as Mr.Trump would say "a looser"
I don't see what's laughable I said "until recently" and "with limited success". I know twitter has reversed course on this, but its recent reversal. facebook on the other hand has always been policed at least since it out grew its college kids only rule, and with some level of efficacy.
That is interesting. It would be worth making a study of just how much Zuckerburg's own PC thought police don't share anything that might offend someone policies are contributing.
The counter point would be twitter, which up until very recently, and now with limited success has not really tied to police content other than strait up porn. Arguably twitter is mostly a cesspool of people flaming each other for this an that and advertisements.
I wish I had mod points. That is clearly the most interesting aspect of this. I wonder what the effects will be for other jobs currently being automated like waiter, host(ess), etc
The answer is probably that FATCA probably works.
What I find really telling is Obama's reaction. Never mind how little evidence there was that American's were using off shore accounts to evade taxation, he just knows, they are doing it! We need more regulations! He says all this after his own secretary of state (Hillary Clinton) recently negotiated a trade pact with Panama which will make it easier to do exactly that sort of cheating. An agreement which he then signed into law.
The take away, anything is an excuse for more regulation on the left. That regulation will of course be careful engineered to fall on us ordinary middle class folks and an handful of wealthy industrialists they don't like while not touching their elite friends in Hollywood, Politics, Law, and Academia. Like always some folks will be a little more equal.
At least when the GOP, "just cuts tax rates" I get to enjoy some of the benefit. Sure maybe not to the tune the industrial owner class enjoys but I get something. The fact that the benefit is so unequal has as much to do with the existing structure again enacted by progressives and liberals too.
Lets continue to starve the beast and if we can get it small enough to fit into the tube lets drown it!
The thing is he isn't correct there really are not costs, at least not in terms of prevention. As far as the after action investigation goes maybe but those don't bring back the dead anyway.
All the really actionable intelligence comes from what the three letters have already defined as metadata. Its who is calling and messaging who not what they are saying. Even the NSA does not really have the computing power or resources to consume the content of every ordinary WhatsApp user. This is facebook remember, their entire business model is based around social graph theory too. Encryption might be part of a system that protects that sort of information but it won't do it without some serious design and engineering. Since FB of all organizations would not actually want to make that information secure, its a safe bet its perfectly easy to tell how often and to whom an user sends messages, even if they can't be read.
The general population has gotten used to a world of generally good consumer protections and safety requirements. While some of us have seen this coming for a little while longer with things like the early iPods and what not most simply don't get how much power this "cloud" model takes from them. They have not been burned much with those techy toys because by and large the support for them lasted as long as anyone wanted to use one any. By the time M$ abandon the Zune, most people had moved on to a better music player or a smart phone on their own. They don't realize this is basically a scam for companies to do an end run around the very idea of ownership.
Now is where I think we are going to start to see some changes. Things people were used to owning and not replacing for 20+ years like a thermostat suddenly become vulnerable to the whims of tech vendors. Suddenly when the HVAC on just enough to keep the pipes from freezing in their summer home on the other side of the country shuts down on the whim of someone at Google in January, people will start to realize just how much control of their lives they have lost.
When their expensive appliance fridge/stove/washer ends up with a screen or a bunch of buttons that don't do anything anymore because someone turned off some service, and they spend the next 10 years staring at them, then they might start to understand. They will really understand when they have to buy a new one prematurely because its painful or impossible to use without its "connection"
I don't think there is a difference between sex and gender is my overall point. I am reminded of an episode of Black Adder
Nursie speaking about the birth of Queen Elisabeth - It's a boy someone said, and than I said a boy without a winkle God be praised! Then Thomas More pointed out that a boy without a winkle is a girl.
English does not really have many rules, and only descriptive not prescriptive dictionaries. You understood the writers intent, communication was successful. So I would say to you "get over it."
That said I agree your usage is preferable. The faulty device is insecure.
I don't think it would be wrong to say, "The house has been left unsecured."