In a country where most people support the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, copyrights, patents, stop-and-frisk, unrestricted border searches, constitution-free zones, mass public surveillance conducted by the government, anti-gun laws, plea bargains, or some form of warrantless wiretapping in general, it is not difficult to be "special"; you just have to oppose all of those things.
Other than financially, I don't think most people in the U.S. support any of that. Some people rant about it, others tolerate it. I have heard nobody actually applaud it other than the entities themselves and the people who profit from them.
It's used to protect informants by allowing for plausable deniability, giving the appearance that the police stumbled upon a crime by other means or sheer luck.
I guess we must have a lot of snitches out there, because it is almost a daily event where we find that a "random" traffic stop found umpteen metric tons of whatever is illegal this week. I'm kind of surprised that people actually consent to the search. It seems like if they were real criminals they would be more likely to know their rights and say "no" to the search. A random citizen probably wouldn't have anything to hide and would not know that they can say "no" to the search and since they don't have anything to hide, they just would say yes. But then perhaps it is just these random citizens who are getting caught with all the drugs.
I don't know, one way or another it is just highly suspicious that so many random stops end up finding huge amounts of drugs. Either that or I am way behind the times and EVERYBODY runs around with large amounts of drugs in their car.
I've never been asked hen pulled over if they could do a search, but then I am not of a certain color or ethnicity, and I don't have any priors. Those are probably the two biggest factors in determining if they want to search.
On a serious note, that could actually be illegal in some places.
Absolutely it is. Depictions of fictional characters involved in a a fictional molestation of a fictional victim of unknown age (because it is fiction) but which, if translated into the real world, may have been an underage individual, is absolutely illegal in many jurisdictions.
It is also illegal in some jurisdictions to possess video in which a person who IS of legal age engages in sex while dressed up to appear to be someone not of legal age. It would also be illegal to film that video in those jurisdictions as well, and probably also illegal even if not filmed to have your significant other dress up as a teenage schoolgirl/boy.
We also used no-ip for security cameras as well. I have a friend who also uses it for managing some remote backups. I know of no one that uses the service illegitimately, although, like any tool, there are undoubtedly people who use it for illegal purposes. If that happens you prosecute the person who performed the illegal act, not the person who provided the tool.
Judges should not be above the law. If they make a bad judgment which causes harm to another company, they should be liable for the damages. They should have to carry insurance or be bonded just like a professional in most other industries are. Even lawyers have to carry this insurance. But somehow we hold the people that we put in charge of making decisions immune from the consequences of their decisions.
Not showing up should not result in a suspension of justice and free reign to dispense outrageous judgements.
Unfortunately, process servers can't be trusted to properly serve a notice. There are plenty of cases where people have lost their house because they failed to show up at a hearing of which they were completely unaware.
What about all those Disney bucks or whatever they call the currency that you can buy in Disneyland and is only good in Disneyland, and hardly anywhere even within Disneyland? Has that been technically illegal all these years?
So we dump a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere getting a satellite up there and then measure the results. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate invocation of the Observer affect, or not. I would imagine trying to use the Observer effect to your observation works about the same as washing your car to make it rain.
I agree with you. If someone wants to drink, smoke, eat fatty foods, that is their business, so long as they are willing to pay for the long term health consequences. It is not society's duty to pay for a person's health choices nor is it sociey's prerogative to dictate their health choices to them.
Well, I am not poor, but if poor people are choosing between bottled water and soda, then that is clearly a problem. I don't buy bottled water. I get water piped into my house, and it only costs about half a cent per gallon. I have a filter on my water, but the filter and tap water is cheaper than a week's worth of bottled water.
It is pretty amazing how the cost of groceries has risen so much in the last 20 years that it is now sometimes cheaper to eat out. It used to be that you could feed a family of four for a week on what it cost to eat at McDonalds. Now, it is cheaper to eat at McDonalds. But there are still decent deals to be found at the grocer. But with the cost difference being so low these days, it takes a lot to convince someone to actually prepare a meal.
According to this theory we should already have no tornadoes as we already have mountains to the west and to the east, as well as smaller mountain ranges of about that height within the midwest itself.
I don't use adblock either, and I haven't disabled advertising on slashdot either. However, I can't think of having ever clicked on a link. I think this is just because I don't really see the ads. I also don't really recall seeing ads on facebook, although I know they must be there. I just tune them out.
Who needs funding when you can just break into a random person's house on the pretense of a drug raid, steal all of their stuff, auction it off, and then later say, "My bad"?
Yet we don't live in a perfect world. People do discriminate based on race, gender, appearance and a whole bunch of other things that have nothing to do with ability to perform the job. Affirmative action is one attempt to fix that. Whether it works, or is the best way to do so, is a more complicated matter.
Okay, I'll give you that Affirmative Action is an ATTEMPT to fix that, but the result is that it merely INCREASES discrimination based on race, gender, etc.
This is a problem anyway, as most of their technical staff is not drooling morons and thus has a difficult time relating to the drooling morons that they are trying to cater to.
Well, according to the statistics for percent of college grads in tech fields that are women, it would appear that Google is tending to hire the best applicant for the job, which makes them have about the same percentage of women as percentage of female college graduates, while Yahoo is illegally discriminating based on sex to hire more women and has thus wound up with twice as high a percentage as women who graduated with a technical degree.
the guy that asked the question made it his goal to seek out talented black people for open positions, and succeeded on several occasions; but he realized there was no racism going on, there was just good business going on.
Sounds to me like there was plenty of racism going on. Why wasn't he just trying to find the best candidates, instead of the best black candidates? That's racist.
I would imagine that most of those coins were being held in accounts at Silk Road but actually belonged to other individuals. If they were using them to buy drugs it is no surprise that they don't claim them. However, if the CEO of Bank of America went and sold some drugs, I wouldn't expect to have my savings account confiscated and sold off to the highest bidder.
This is just like those breakthrough articles about the space elevator where some fascinating new development has brought us that much close to building the space elevator, such as the decision to use crushed red velvet for the upholstery.
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.
Slashdot Mirror
In a country where most people support the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, free speech zones, protest permits, DUI checkpoints, copyrights, patents, stop-and-frisk, unrestricted border searches, constitution-free zones, mass public surveillance conducted by the government, anti-gun laws, plea bargains, or some form of warrantless wiretapping in general, it is not difficult to be "special"; you just have to oppose all of those things.
Other than financially, I don't think most people in the U.S. support any of that. Some people rant about it, others tolerate it. I have heard nobody actually applaud it other than the entities themselves and the people who profit from them.
It's used to protect informants by allowing for plausable deniability, giving the appearance that the police stumbled upon a crime by other means or sheer luck.
I guess we must have a lot of snitches out there, because it is almost a daily event where we find that a "random" traffic stop found umpteen metric tons of whatever is illegal this week. I'm kind of surprised that people actually consent to the search. It seems like if they were real criminals they would be more likely to know their rights and say "no" to the search. A random citizen probably wouldn't have anything to hide and would not know that they can say "no" to the search and since they don't have anything to hide, they just would say yes. But then perhaps it is just these random citizens who are getting caught with all the drugs.
I don't know, one way or another it is just highly suspicious that so many random stops end up finding huge amounts of drugs. Either that or I am way behind the times and EVERYBODY runs around with large amounts of drugs in their car.
I've never been asked hen pulled over if they could do a search, but then I am not of a certain color or ethnicity, and I don't have any priors. Those are probably the two biggest factors in determining if they want to search.
On a serious note, that could actually be illegal in some places.
Absolutely it is. Depictions of fictional characters involved in a a fictional molestation of a fictional victim of unknown age (because it is fiction) but which, if translated into the real world, may have been an underage individual, is absolutely illegal in many jurisdictions.
It is also illegal in some jurisdictions to possess video in which a person who IS of legal age engages in sex while dressed up to appear to be someone not of legal age. It would also be illegal to film that video in those jurisdictions as well, and probably also illegal even if not filmed to have your significant other dress up as a teenage schoolgirl/boy.
Unless, of course, they allowed him access to Facebook between his arrest and his release.
We also used no-ip for security cameras as well. I have a friend who also uses it for managing some remote backups. I know of no one that uses the service illegitimately, although, like any tool, there are undoubtedly people who use it for illegal purposes. If that happens you prosecute the person who performed the illegal act, not the person who provided the tool.
Judges should not be above the law. If they make a bad judgment which causes harm to another company, they should be liable for the damages. They should have to carry insurance or be bonded just like a professional in most other industries are. Even lawyers have to carry this insurance. But somehow we hold the people that we put in charge of making decisions immune from the consequences of their decisions.
Not showing up should not result in a suspension of justice and free reign to dispense outrageous judgements.
Unfortunately, process servers can't be trusted to properly serve a notice. There are plenty of cases where people have lost their house because they failed to show up at a hearing of which they were completely unaware.
What about all those Disney bucks or whatever they call the currency that you can buy in Disneyland and is only good in Disneyland, and hardly anywhere even within Disneyland? Has that been technically illegal all these years?
That's okay, currency of any sort including the USD is also treated like both a currency and a commodity.
So we dump a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere getting a satellite up there and then measure the results. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate invocation of the Observer affect, or not. I would imagine trying to use the Observer effect to your observation works about the same as washing your car to make it rain.
I agree with you. If someone wants to drink, smoke, eat fatty foods, that is their business, so long as they are willing to pay for the long term health consequences. It is not society's duty to pay for a person's health choices nor is it sociey's prerogative to dictate their health choices to them.
Well, I am not poor, but if poor people are choosing between bottled water and soda, then that is clearly a problem. I don't buy bottled water. I get water piped into my house, and it only costs about half a cent per gallon. I have a filter on my water, but the filter and tap water is cheaper than a week's worth of bottled water.
It is pretty amazing how the cost of groceries has risen so much in the last 20 years that it is now sometimes cheaper to eat out. It used to be that you could feed a family of four for a week on what it cost to eat at McDonalds. Now, it is cheaper to eat at McDonalds. But there are still decent deals to be found at the grocer. But with the cost difference being so low these days, it takes a lot to convince someone to actually prepare a meal.
A better approach than a ban would be to require the cups for sugary beverages over a certain capacity to prominently display a calorie count.
That's a tall order considering that the manufacturers of the cup have no idea what type of beverage is going to be put in the cup.
According to this theory we should already have no tornadoes as we already have mountains to the west and to the east, as well as smaller mountain ranges of about that height within the midwest itself.
I don't use adblock either, and I haven't disabled advertising on slashdot either. However, I can't think of having ever clicked on a link. I think this is just because I don't really see the ads. I also don't really recall seeing ads on facebook, although I know they must be there. I just tune them out.
Who needs funding when you can just break into a random person's house on the pretense of a drug raid, steal all of their stuff, auction it off, and then later say, "My bad"?
Yet we don't live in a perfect world. People do discriminate based on race, gender, appearance and a whole bunch of other things that have nothing to do with ability to perform the job. Affirmative action is one attempt to fix that. Whether it works, or is the best way to do so, is a more complicated matter.
Okay, I'll give you that Affirmative Action is an ATTEMPT to fix that, but the result is that it merely INCREASES discrimination based on race, gender, etc.
This is a problem anyway, as most of their technical staff is not drooling morons and thus has a difficult time relating to the drooling morons that they are trying to cater to.
Well, according to the statistics for percent of college grads in tech fields that are women, it would appear that Google is tending to hire the best applicant for the job, which makes them have about the same percentage of women as percentage of female college graduates, while Yahoo is illegally discriminating based on sex to hire more women and has thus wound up with twice as high a percentage as women who graduated with a technical degree.
the guy that asked the question made it his goal to seek out talented black people for open positions, and succeeded on several occasions; but he realized there was no racism going on, there was just good business going on.
Sounds to me like there was plenty of racism going on. Why wasn't he just trying to find the best candidates, instead of the best black candidates? That's racist.
Of course, in France, they just call them "fries", (technically "frites"). And eat them with mayonnaise.
I would imagine that most of those coins were being held in accounts at Silk Road but actually belonged to other individuals. If they were using them to buy drugs it is no surprise that they don't claim them. However, if the CEO of Bank of America went and sold some drugs, I wouldn't expect to have my savings account confiscated and sold off to the highest bidder.
This is just like those breakthrough articles about the space elevator where some fascinating new development has brought us that much close to building the space elevator, such as the decision to use crushed red velvet for the upholstery.
Perhaps he should have refrained from talking about political hotbuttons and instead talked about open source.
Law Abiding Gun Owners have clearly demonstrated they are not capable of self regulation, and thus need to be better regulated.
No. Criminals have proven that they are not capable of self-regulation or outside regulation and no amount of regulatory burden on the law abiding will stop that.