[...] but there is a fair amount of groupthink here, [...]
It's less of a problem than many people who are part of the groupthink clusters seem to think. My observation is that with a few exceptions, any comment which falls into groupthink territory tends to have its "+1, Agree" upvotes and "-1, Disagree" downvotes balanced out. Such comments never get to either -1 or +5.
It's rare that all groupthink clusters align on Slashdot to the point where a non-troll comment gets moderated to -1. I think the only time it's ever happened to me was when I advocated Deep Space 9.
My point is merely that the officially-stated intent behind a law may not align with the true motivation of some of its backers, or its (perhaps unintentional) consequences.
I'm guessing like many you never bothered to read the law you are claiming is somehow bad.
Just curious... have you ever read the Patriot Act?
The preamble states in no uncertain terms that "the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected". Who could possibly argue with a law based on that intention? Sign me up for some of that!
Ring me when they have 10 year support cycles and someone I can actually ring when something goes whacky.....
Hahahaha! Oh, wait, you were serious?
If you're thinking of those I'm thinking of, "extended support" isn't really support, and "someone I can actually ring" appears to be a euphemism for "find an MVP and roll the dice". By the way, good luck on that phone thing if you're outside the US.
No, it isn't. We have separate public toilets as a remnant of a policy of excluding women from public life and enforcing class divisions. Female public toilets did not exist until the early 20th century and were still rare well into the 20th century.
Additional fun facts: In West Virginia, women were barred from jury service until 1956 because courthouses didn't have female toilets. In the US Capitol building, there were no toilets for female senators until 1992.
To protect young girls and women from perverts, rapists, etc etc who would certainly use the opportunity to legally enter the opposite sex's restrooms?
Just as a matter of curiosity, is this actually a problem in places which don't have laws of this type?
Call me a libertarian whack job if you like, but it seems to me that anyone who wants to put legal regulations on pooping carries a reasonably high burden of proof.
I wouldn't be too quick to applaud the principled stance of paypal, or corporations generally [...]
Of course not. But it should be acknowledged and appreciate when someone's corporate interest happens to be aligned with the public interest. Credit where credit is due, and all that.
I can applaud Apple's stance over privacy and encryption while simultaneously condemning the human cost of its outsourced manufacturing, the environmental cost of its raw materials, and the anti-competitive nature of its "walled garden" ecosystem.
If you drink an entire can of soda, can you return the empty can?
In South Australia, you can. You only get 10c back for the aluminium.
The answer to your question is "no", not for any reason. However, under Australian consumer law, there is no statutory limit on how long after purchase you can seek a remedy (e.g. repair, replace, refund) if it is not of acceptable quality. The only limit is reasonableness, and that depends on the product.
For example, if you buy a new car, and the manufacturer decides to stop making spare parts 15 years later (even if the initial warranty has expired), you may be entitled to a remedy, because cars are supposed to last longer than that.
I googled and only found about a hundred deaths from major IRA bombings.
If you're only going to count bombings, that sounds about right. The total death toll was around 3500, mostly soldiers (British Army, RUC, UDA, UDF etc).
ISIS is about even already.
So less than half of the number of people who died in the Lockerbie bombing alone? Again, that sounds about right.
Well, in the US, it takes only a few nutters committing a bad crime for the country to decide it's war, because war is one of the few things that people in the United States think they understand.
Europe actually understands war, so it would require a hostile attack from a recognised country. If it helps, remember that the IRA caused more deaths and damage in Europe than ISIS could ever dream of, and the UK never really considered itself to be at war. The UK knows what war is, and it's not that.
The biggest problem with the immigrants from the Middle East (in particular) is that they came to the different country but continue to live like back at home and don't want to integrate into the society.
I've seen that complaint about people from Italy, people from Italy, Jewish people from Eastern Europe, and people from Ireland. Admittedly, some of this I had to go to some very old books/newspapers to see the complaint...
I'm basing it on all of the Muslim immigrants that I happen to know personally. It's about two dozen, from various countries, with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and the former Sudan being the most common.
The most common reason that I hear from people who weren't actually fleeing for their lives (Iraq and Sudan in particular) was some variation on "I gave up hope that things would change". These people would probably be thought of by many as "economic migrants", but they would almost certainly tell you "well, yes, that's only a small part of it".
Economists like explaining things in terms of wealth because that's relatively easy to measure.
These terrorists are no more Muslim than Timothy McVeigh was Christian.
I think it's fair to say that it's possible to be Muslim, or Christian, or American, without living up to the ideals that this embodies. It kind of makes sense on an abstract level, because if perfection were a requirement, they wouldn't be "ideals".
It's possible to be a Muslim and in favour of killing innocent people, even though this goes against what Islam explicitly stands for, because "Muslim" has a fairly well-understood definition (anyone who publicly pronounces the shahadah) which doesn't include "must respect the lives of innocent people". It's definition that ISIS ignores, incidentally; they think that a lot of undeniably Islamic groups are apostates.
Similarly, "American" or "US citizen" has a well-understood definition that doesn't include "must be anti-torture and pro-privacy".
Interestingly, "Christian" is the odd one out, because there is no well-understood definition of "Christian", because Christianity is in practice understood in terms of "the Church". If you define "Christian" as "any person whose practices and beliefs conforms to a group which is part of the ecumenical Christian communion", then Southern Baptists are not Christian. Make of that what you will.
Or, to put it another way, Mohammed advocated social reform and liberation, with a heavy dose of justice and mercy.
Nobody is saying that Mohammed was a sandle-wearing peacenik hippie like Jesus. But whether he was ultimately good or bad largely depends which side you were on. Bad for the despotic regimes which previously controlled the Arabian Peninsula, certainly...
The un-PC truth is that these attacks are a consequence of years of 'enlightened' immigration policies.
The truth is that a very large number of factors led to the situation we're in, and singling out one misses the big picture, and sounds an awful lot like trying to avoid responsibility. These attacks are also a consequence of botched decolonisation, the fallout from the Sykes-Picot agreement, and superpower meddling.
Ultimately, though, the situation we are in was inevitable. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ensured that WW3 would not happen because everyone would die and everyone's country would be uninhabitable. In retrospect, that left an obvious evolutionary niche for a group which had no country and didn't fear death.
Slashdot Mirror
[...] but there is a fair amount of groupthink here, [...]
It's less of a problem than many people who are part of the groupthink clusters seem to think. My observation is that with a few exceptions, any comment which falls into groupthink territory tends to have its "+1, Agree" upvotes and "-1, Disagree" downvotes balanced out. Such comments never get to either -1 or +5.
It's rare that all groupthink clusters align on Slashdot to the point where a non-troll comment gets moderated to -1. I think the only time it's ever happened to me was when I advocated Deep Space 9.
Do they give you instructions about where you can get bitcoin in less than an hour no matter where you live?
My point is merely that the officially-stated intent behind a law may not align with the true motivation of some of its backers, or its (perhaps unintentional) consequences.
I checked it out [...]
Hey, man, I know must have been hard for you, but thanks for taking one for the team!
Just curious... have you ever read the Patriot Act?
The preamble states in no uncertain terms that "the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected". Who could possibly argue with a law based on that intention? Sign me up for some of that!
Female cybercriminals still only get 77% of the loot that male cybercriminals do. Equal takings for equal crimes, I say!
Ring me when they have 10 year support cycles and someone I can actually ring when something goes whacky.....
Hahahaha! Oh, wait, you were serious?
If you're thinking of those I'm thinking of, "extended support" isn't really support, and "someone I can actually ring" appears to be a euphemism for "find an MVP and roll the dice". By the way, good luck on that phone thing if you're outside the US.
No, it isn't. We have separate public toilets as a remnant of a policy of excluding women from public life and enforcing class divisions. Female public toilets did not exist until the early 20th century and were still rare well into the 20th century.
Additional fun facts: In West Virginia, women were barred from jury service until 1956 because courthouses didn't have female toilets. In the US Capitol building, there were no toilets for female senators until 1992.
Real bars don't have attendants.
To protect young girls and women from perverts, rapists, etc etc who would certainly use the opportunity to legally enter the opposite sex's restrooms?
Just as a matter of curiosity, is this actually a problem in places which don't have laws of this type?
Call me a libertarian whack job if you like, but it seems to me that anyone who wants to put legal regulations on pooping carries a reasonably high burden of proof.
Of course not. But it should be acknowledged and appreciate when someone's corporate interest happens to be aligned with the public interest. Credit where credit is due, and all that.
I can applaud Apple's stance over privacy and encryption while simultaneously condemning the human cost of its outsourced manufacturing, the environmental cost of its raw materials, and the anti-competitive nature of its "walled garden" ecosystem.
Presumably Pre-Check fliers get a saving throw?
If you drink an entire can of soda, can you return the empty can?
In South Australia, you can. You only get 10c back for the aluminium.
The answer to your question is "no", not for any reason. However, under Australian consumer law, there is no statutory limit on how long after purchase you can seek a remedy (e.g. repair, replace, refund) if it is not of acceptable quality. The only limit is reasonableness, and that depends on the product.
For example, if you buy a new car, and the manufacturer decides to stop making spare parts 15 years later (even if the initial warranty has expired), you may be entitled to a remedy, because cars are supposed to last longer than that.
I googled and only found about a hundred deaths from major IRA bombings.
If you're only going to count bombings, that sounds about right. The total death toll was around 3500, mostly soldiers (British Army, RUC, UDA, UDF etc).
ISIS is about even already.
So less than half of the number of people who died in the Lockerbie bombing alone? Again, that sounds about right.
How many? Well, it depends where you live.
Well, in the US, it takes only a few nutters committing a bad crime for the country to decide it's war, because war is one of the few things that people in the United States think they understand.
Europe actually understands war, so it would require a hostile attack from a recognised country. If it helps, remember that the IRA caused more deaths and damage in Europe than ISIS could ever dream of, and the UK never really considered itself to be at war. The UK knows what war is, and it's not that.
I don't want to downplay ISIS, who are definitely destroying the lives of people in the (thankfully shrinking) areas that they control. As murderous despotic regimes go, they're up there. But when it comes to terrorist attacks in Europe go, they're playing in the minor leagues. Separatist organisations are a far worse threat.
The biggest problem with the immigrants from the Middle East (in particular) is that they came to the different country but continue to live like back at home and don't want to integrate into the society.
I've seen that complaint about people from Italy, people from Italy, Jewish people from Eastern Europe, and people from Ireland. Admittedly, some of this I had to go to some very old books/newspapers to see the complaint...
Your question is a bit presumptuous.
I'm basing it on all of the Muslim immigrants that I happen to know personally. It's about two dozen, from various countries, with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and the former Sudan being the most common.
The most common reason that I hear from people who weren't actually fleeing for their lives (Iraq and Sudan in particular) was some variation on "I gave up hope that things would change". These people would probably be thought of by many as "economic migrants", but they would almost certainly tell you "well, yes, that's only a small part of it".
Economists like explaining things in terms of wealth because that's relatively easy to measure.
These terrorists are no more Muslim than Timothy McVeigh was Christian.
I think it's fair to say that it's possible to be Muslim, or Christian, or American, without living up to the ideals that this embodies. It kind of makes sense on an abstract level, because if perfection were a requirement, they wouldn't be "ideals".
It's possible to be a Muslim and in favour of killing innocent people, even though this goes against what Islam explicitly stands for, because "Muslim" has a fairly well-understood definition (anyone who publicly pronounces the shahadah) which doesn't include "must respect the lives of innocent people". It's definition that ISIS ignores, incidentally; they think that a lot of undeniably Islamic groups are apostates.
Similarly, "American" or "US citizen" has a well-understood definition that doesn't include "must be anti-torture and pro-privacy".
Interestingly, "Christian" is the odd one out, because there is no well-understood definition of "Christian", because Christianity is in practice understood in terms of "the Church". If you define "Christian" as "any person whose practices and beliefs conforms to a group which is part of the ecumenical Christian communion", then Southern Baptists are not Christian. Make of that what you will.
So.. cowards basically, right?
If that makes you feel better, sure. My question still stands.
For the calm cometh when red, and white, and black, and pale approach to peas is our profession.
[...] Jesus (who almost certainly never existed) [...]
Sigh.
I don't need to know any Americans to know that they kill people all over the world in the name of freedom and democracy every day.
Mohammed advocated hate and retribution.
Or, to put it another way, Mohammed advocated social reform and liberation, with a heavy dose of justice and mercy.
Nobody is saying that Mohammed was a sandle-wearing peacenik hippie like Jesus. But whether he was ultimately good or bad largely depends which side you were on. Bad for the despotic regimes which previously controlled the Arabian Peninsula, certainly...
The un-PC truth is that these attacks are a consequence of years of 'enlightened' immigration policies.
The truth is that a very large number of factors led to the situation we're in, and singling out one misses the big picture, and sounds an awful lot like trying to avoid responsibility. These attacks are also a consequence of botched decolonisation, the fallout from the Sykes-Picot agreement, and superpower meddling.
Ultimately, though, the situation we are in was inevitable. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ensured that WW3 would not happen because everyone would die and everyone's country would be uninhabitable. In retrospect, that left an obvious evolutionary niche for a group which had no country and didn't fear death.
You know, the same exact thing that France did after 130 people were slaughtered in Paris.
To be fair, they banned the wearing of burqas long before that...
Is France now a hard-line conservative nation full of racists scared of poor women and children?
...but I wouldn't go quite that far.