In many parts of the world, it's actually illegal for a 14-year-old to have a paid position.
It is now illegal in the United States as well, but when I grew up a lot of kids worked. I made good money and was able to afford to go on ski trips and purchase musical equipment, and later pay for car insurance and gas. Yes, most other parents just paid for stuff like that for their kids, but we didn't have much money. My mom was a single mom, and I actually worked at the same restaurant where she worked, so I made about the same per hour as she did. I just was only working about 25 to 30 hours a week, and she was working more like 50 to 60.
I don't know what country you lived in. Perhaps Australia?
The U.S.A, a country that once existed on the North American continent.
As for what your parents would have insisted on... well, if they never did, all I have is your expectation. If they did I would call them abusive. Paying your debts is one thing, getting something on your record and being subject to the abuse of the "criminal justice" system is something totally else.
They never did, because I was raised right and didn't get into trouble. It is not abusive to allow someone to bear the consequences of their actions. It is abusive NOT to.
"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."
How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.
This is really dumb. This is like being arrested for "accessory to burglary" if you fail to lock your door.
Just goes to show that abstinence is still far superior birth control than even contraception. Abstinence isn't perfect either. If you are a rich and famous man you can still father children without ever having slept with a girl. However, those cases are as rare as being rich and famous.
In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.
Dang it. I meant distributing. What slashdot? Still no edit button? What is this, 1970? I know, I know, preview. But in preview the brain is still seeing what it thinks it told you to type.
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?
I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults. No we couldn't vote, drink alcohol or drive, but we were expected to act like young men and women, be respectful, study hard, hold down a job and if we would have been caught sending a naked photo to a girl, if the police had decided to drop the charges our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.
Call me grandpa if you want, but this was the 80s. It was not so very long ago.
Then there's the people that enter the intersection when it's green but they cannot clear the intersection and consequently end up blocking traffic once it has turned red.
Yes. If you can't clear the intersection, it is illegal to enter it. I will literally sit at a green light and ignore the people behind me honking, because there is no way for me to proceed through the intersection. Of course, then what happens is the a**holes in the lanes next to me change lanes in the intersection (also illegal) to get into my lane and then proceed to block traffic and not be able to exit the intersection.
If all the cars were autonomous the morning commute times could be cut in 1/2 or 1/3rd without changing the speed limit since rush hour style rubber band stop and go traffic would be a thing of the past.
Rubber banding cannot stop.There still has to be a delay between a car in front to start moving and the car behind to start moving, in order to maintain safe separation distance. 10 feet is fine at a stop, but as soon as you are going 1 mph, 10 feet is no longer safe. So the car ahead needs to travel 5 or 10 feet before the one behind can even start moving. The opposite is true when stopping for a light, a stop sign or a road obstruction.
Commute times would be much longer because the autonomous cars would allow a safe distance between each other. This would require either fewer cars on the road, or a slower speed so that the existing number of cars on the road are all maintaining safe distance for the speed.
I really need to get a dashcam and start posting idiots on the web. I would say that I see one or more idiots enter an intersection on a very stale yellow and leave the intersection on a red at about 50% of intersections. About 1 out of every 5 intersections, I see an idiot enter the intersection on red and continue through on red. About 1 in 20 I see an idiot enter an intersection after it has been read a good 2 seconds.
People turning left seem to really enjoy running red lights. I have had my light be green four 4 or 5 seconds and there are still left turners meandering through the intersection on their red light. Occasionally I miss my cycle completely due to people running red lights.
No, somebody who doesn't enable you to break the law even harder than before isn't lower than somebody who endangers the lives of children. Entitled assholes like you are actually the cause of most problems.
Nice strawman. You assume the person being blocked is breaking the law. That is not necessarily the case. The person being blocked may be traveling at or under the speed limit and legitimately trying to pass traffic going even slower. Meanwhile, the person doing the blocking is absolutely for certain breaking the law because it is illegal to drive in the passing lane unless you are passing somebody. If somebody is able to pass you on the right, then you are not supposed to be in that lane.
To be fair, if some idiot cyclist was going back on forth at an intersection I would hesitate to drive as well.
Of course, as a human I would quickly lose patience and just start driving with the assumption that he would just stop.
Well, I haven't really met up with a cyclist doing a track stand. In 99.9% of cases, the cyclist just blows through the intersection. The other 1 out of 1,000 times, the cyclist will do circles or figure eights.
Either of those cases will likely confuse the software. It certainly confuses regular drivers, and pisses them off.
If the roads are very similar in traffic volume, use a roundabout.
I've seen places where they put in roundabouts for existing road intersections and the problem is that the roundabouts, despite taking about 20 times more space than a normal intersection, was still far too small for traffic to go around safely.
And dogs and cats and raccoons and moose and cows and trees and power poles and snow and rain and potholes and road construction and miscellaneous debris and so on and so on ad infinitum.
Well, they should have thought of that when they had to change all the books from Mount Denali to Mount McKinley
Luckily, there weren't any at the time. So nothing had to be changed. When you are first exploring an area, the first person to name something on paper wins and that is the name that it should always have.
It was named after McKinley in 1896 by an explorer when he heard that McKinley had won the primary. It was 17 years later that D.C. got the paperwork to name it permanently. Also, the definition of permanently has been changed to "about 100 years".
After reading about this concern over emoji, I decided to go look it up to see what it is. Apparently, it is little cartoon icons, possibly animated, that people slip into their online conversations. Other than auto-changing of some popular emoticons to emoji, I have never used them. Don't care, next story.
Can they be more specific about what they want banned? Do they not want people to be able to see the info on facebook within Germany? Or do they not want people to be able to post it on facebook from within Germany? or something else?
Without knowing exactly what they are asking for we can't properly tell them how what they are asking for is impossible.
Thank goodness nobody uses these things. Maybe they will watch the road instead.
No, they are probably not using any of the cars tech because they are using their slow, clunky texting interface on their tiny 4 inch screen, taking 3 miles, 4 lanes, and 7 near-collisions to compose a 5 word sentence.
The newer built-ins have traffic and construction built in where local services support it. Of course they still go obsolete quickly, but so does a portable. I'm not so concerned with whether my equipment "looks" obsolete. If it still has the same functionality, but the fad in window dressing has changed, I could not care less.
Slashdot Mirror
In many parts of the world, it's actually illegal for a 14-year-old to have a paid position.
It is now illegal in the United States as well, but when I grew up a lot of kids worked. I made good money and was able to afford to go on ski trips and purchase musical equipment, and later pay for car insurance and gas. Yes, most other parents just paid for stuff like that for their kids, but we didn't have much money. My mom was a single mom, and I actually worked at the same restaurant where she worked, so I made about the same per hour as she did. I just was only working about 25 to 30 hours a week, and she was working more like 50 to 60.
I don't know what country you lived in. Perhaps Australia?
The U.S.A, a country that once existed on the North American continent.
As for what your parents would have insisted on... well, if they never did, all I have is your expectation. If they did I would call them abusive. Paying your debts is one thing, getting something on your record and being subject to the abuse of the "criminal justice" system is something totally else.
They never did, because I was raised right and didn't get into trouble. It is not abusive to allow someone to bear the consequences of their actions. It is abusive NOT to.
It's nice that the police said:
"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."
How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.
This is really dumb. This is like being arrested for "accessory to burglary" if you fail to lock your door.
This is what happens
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Just goes to show that abstinence is still far superior birth control than even contraception. Abstinence isn't perfect either. If you are a rich and famous man you can still father children without ever having slept with a girl. However, those cases are as rare as being rich and famous.
In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.
Dang it. I meant distributing. What slashdot? Still no edit button? What is this, 1970? I know, I know, preview. But in preview the brain is still seeing what it thinks it told you to type.
... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??
Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!
Where the hell is common sense?
* Not literally, but legally
In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?
I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults. No we couldn't vote, drink alcohol or drive, but we were expected to act like young men and women, be respectful, study hard, hold down a job and if we would have been caught sending a naked photo to a girl, if the police had decided to drop the charges our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.
Call me grandpa if you want, but this was the 80s. It was not so very long ago.
Who knew we would run out of wind before we ran out of oil?
Pro-tip: Bad attitudes are highly correlated with low pay.
That's true. I used to be happy-go-lucky, but years and years of no bonuses, raises or cost of living adjustments gave me a bad attitude.
Then there's the people that enter the intersection when it's green but they cannot clear the intersection and consequently end up blocking traffic once it has turned red.
Yes. If you can't clear the intersection, it is illegal to enter it. I will literally sit at a green light and ignore the people behind me honking, because there is no way for me to proceed through the intersection. Of course, then what happens is the a**holes in the lanes next to me change lanes in the intersection (also illegal) to get into my lane and then proceed to block traffic and not be able to exit the intersection.
If all the cars were autonomous the morning commute times could be cut in 1/2 or 1/3rd without changing the speed limit since rush hour style rubber band stop and go traffic would be a thing of the past.
Rubber banding cannot stop.There still has to be a delay between a car in front to start moving and the car behind to start moving, in order to maintain safe separation distance. 10 feet is fine at a stop, but as soon as you are going 1 mph, 10 feet is no longer safe. So the car ahead needs to travel 5 or 10 feet before the one behind can even start moving. The opposite is true when stopping for a light, a stop sign or a road obstruction.
Commute times would be much longer because the autonomous cars would allow a safe distance between each other. This would require either fewer cars on the road, or a slower speed so that the existing number of cars on the road are all maintaining safe distance for the speed.
I really need to get a dashcam and start posting idiots on the web. I would say that I see one or more idiots enter an intersection on a very stale yellow and leave the intersection on a red at about 50% of intersections. About 1 out of every 5 intersections, I see an idiot enter the intersection on red and continue through on red. About 1 in 20 I see an idiot enter an intersection after it has been read a good 2 seconds.
People turning left seem to really enjoy running red lights. I have had my light be green four 4 or 5 seconds and there are still left turners meandering through the intersection on their red light. Occasionally I miss my cycle completely due to people running red lights.
No, somebody who doesn't enable you to break the law even harder than before isn't lower than somebody who endangers the lives of children. Entitled assholes like you are actually the cause of most problems.
Nice strawman. You assume the person being blocked is breaking the law. That is not necessarily the case. The person being blocked may be traveling at or under the speed limit and legitimately trying to pass traffic going even slower. Meanwhile, the person doing the blocking is absolutely for certain breaking the law because it is illegal to drive in the passing lane unless you are passing somebody. If somebody is able to pass you on the right, then you are not supposed to be in that lane.
To be fair, if some idiot cyclist was going back on forth at an intersection I would hesitate to drive as well. Of course, as a human I would quickly lose patience and just start driving with the assumption that he would just stop.
Well, I haven't really met up with a cyclist doing a track stand. In 99.9% of cases, the cyclist just blows through the intersection. The other 1 out of 1,000 times, the cyclist will do circles or figure eights.
Either of those cases will likely confuse the software. It certainly confuses regular drivers, and pisses them off.
If the roads are very similar in traffic volume, use a roundabout.
I've seen places where they put in roundabouts for existing road intersections and the problem is that the roundabouts, despite taking about 20 times more space than a normal intersection, was still far too small for traffic to go around safely.
And dogs and cats and raccoons and moose and cows and trees and power poles and snow and rain and potholes and road construction and miscellaneous debris and so on and so on ad infinitum.
But it already had a permanent name: Denali. What was the definition of permanently prior to 1896?
Nobody had had the good sense to write it down.
Well, they should have thought of that when they had to change all the books from Mount Denali to Mount McKinley
Luckily, there weren't any at the time. So nothing had to be changed. When you are first exploring an area, the first person to name something on paper wins and that is the name that it should always have.
It was named after McKinley in 1896 by an explorer when he heard that McKinley had won the primary. It was 17 years later that D.C. got the paperwork to name it permanently. Also, the definition of permanently has been changed to "about 100 years".
After reading about this concern over emoji, I decided to go look it up to see what it is. Apparently, it is little cartoon icons, possibly animated, that people slip into their online conversations. Other than auto-changing of some popular emoticons to emoji, I have never used them. Don't care, next story.
Can they be more specific about what they want banned? Do they not want people to be able to see the info on facebook within Germany? Or do they not want people to be able to post it on facebook from within Germany? or something else?
Without knowing exactly what they are asking for we can't properly tell them how what they are asking for is impossible.
Who can better lead us to financial prosperity because no other candidate has declared bankruptcy as many times as he has
Oh, I'm sure some candidates have filed bankruptcy more than zero times, which is the number of times Trump has filed.
, who understands the Mexican Menace more than anyone else because he employees more illegal aliens than any of them.
Oh, I'm sure some candidates employ more than zero illegal aliens, which is the number that Trump has hired.
I'm less convinced in the transparency or honesty of pretty much any political candidate.
Apparently some people find Trump to be a little too transparent and honest.
Thank goodness nobody uses these things. Maybe they will watch the road instead.
No, they are probably not using any of the cars tech because they are using their slow, clunky texting interface on their tiny 4 inch screen, taking 3 miles, 4 lanes, and 7 near-collisions to compose a 5 word sentence.
The newer built-ins have traffic and construction built in where local services support it. Of course they still go obsolete quickly, but so does a portable. I'm not so concerned with whether my equipment "looks" obsolete. If it still has the same functionality, but the fad in window dressing has changed, I could not care less.