Well that's a given. But would you rather have Chinese backdoors, or NSA/CIA backdoors? If someone is going to backdoor my device, I'd rather it be the Chinese, as I care quite a bit less about what they'll do with my data. Obviously if 'no backdoors' was an option that would be even better; but come on, it's 2018. As we celebrate our nations birth today in America, most of our government continues, on both sides, to wipe their ass with our Constitution as they shit all over the principles this nation was founded on.
The general consensus on rude train/subway passengers is 'do not engage' unless you want to get punched or stabbed. Living in NYC, I can assure you some people react *very* poorly to being asked to move their bags/legs/self so someone can sit.
As a non-violent crime that only has a small impact on some peoples finances, a custodial sentence is absolutely not appropriate. We need to be locking up less people for non-violent offenses, not more, instead states let out violent offenders to make room.
What should happen is extremely steep fines for them, to be paid from their personal holdings, with a absolute bar on continuing to work in the industry for at least 10 years. The fine should be based on their wealth; e.g. if their total net worth (and not just liquid assets) is $100m, fine them $30m (increase the percent sharply with wealth; less if poorer, more if richer), with a penalty of triple that if they get caught trying to hide assets for the assessment.
Just as effective as a few years in jail.
If I had to guess, there was probably troublesome activity coming from that VPN at some point. Just a couple weeks ago I wanted to post something anonymously, and did so by creating a new account and posting, over Tor. It showed up publicly right away (though I was extremely rate-limited; each post or edit triggered a 10 minute wait).
I love these holier-than-thou posts about these other enlightened countries, despite the little problem of all of them still also rejecting science and reason, to send a moral message, at the cost of lives, when it comes to enforcing prohibition as their drug control policy. The absolutely most progressive country on this, Portugal, still only decriminalized possession of tiny amounts. Nowhere offers the legal market that would eliminate most of the harm and minimize addiction, despite having the evidence showing that's the right path, because actually granting people permission to conduct those transactions offends their sense of moral decency, so they let tens of thousands of people die and get victimized, just to be able to not be "soft" on drugs. That it's not based on religion is hardly material.
What do you mean the other side isn't fighting? About half of them are fighting like hell to elect people who will screw them, the country, and the environment to help the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. Because they've bought into lies about how much they'll personally benefit, or because of some wedge issue like abortion or guns or FUD about security, that politicians don't actually care about beyond them as a mechanism to keep people hating the other side (though both sides love using FUD to take away rights-- this comment isn't to suggest personal liberty is valued by either party).
Indeed, the mass incarceration policy driven by the drug war is massivey bipartisan. That some on the left want to slightly reduce sentence lengths, and force some low level users into treatment (and incarcerate them when they fail), is basically irrelevant, especially since they're once again calling for more police and more arrests for opiates (including the wonderful new policy of torturing pain patients). People like the retort about drug crimes not accounting for most of the prison population; but this is a narrow view. So many people get caught for property crime ultimately caused by drug addiction, robbery caused by drug addiction, violence caused by drug dealer disputes, all the gang activity funded by the drug war where gangs would collapse without that funding source. Make no mistake, the drug war is at the root of mass incarceration, and neither (R) nor (D) is doing anything to help (no, pot legalization won't help much).
Also entirely lost on both sides is the cognitive dissonance in recognizing that the drug war has failed, but absolutely refusing to consider alternatives not based on prohibition, despite sound evidence showing it would largely eliminate ancillary problems without raising addiction.
Anyone suspected of having something THAT contagious is isolated in a room where everyone wears additional protection over their scrubs, which is taken off when leaving the room. I'd be surprised if you even found a single case transmitted in the fashion you describe.
By the way, if you think that's scary, you know who was responsible for cleaning all the surfaces in the OR before and after each operation? Me, when I was a mere volunteer still in high school. Which wasn't nearly as fun as what I got to do with the unconscious people before and after... and their organs...
Well, given who they voted into office, and still somehow worship like a cult leader, can you really disagree?
On a more serious note, not valuing personal liberty is strong bipartisan consensus. Both sides are big on telling you what you may and may not do with your own body and with other adults. I say this only because your comment makes me think you somehow think the right stands for personal liberty, which unless you want a gun, or are a corporation, they do not.
In an ideal world. In ours, I'm sure it will be found they acted completely appropriately and 100% of the blame (and charges) will fall on whoever downloaded their wide open file.
Trump LESS corrupt than Hillary??? Holy hell that's some delusion. What exactly about his well known organized crime connections, Trump University, and well known money laundering, among countless other scandals, could possibly possess you to believe that he wouldn't carry that corruption into office? He did, in spades, even ignoring anything Russia-related. Net neutrality? Pruitt in the EPA? Carson at HUD? His rampant nepotism? This is unparalleled corruption you dolt. Hillary was certainly corrupt, but you're talking 4/10 vs 11/10 corrupt against known-fraudster Trump who is blatantly selling out everywhere, to say nothing of the countless other problems with him.
So basically your plan is to retain all the property crime to fund addictions at black market prices, all the gang violence, all the cartel violence, all the militarized police, all the civil rights violations, in exchange for what, exactly? Spending all that money incarcerating the supply chain instead of on more education, treatment, and prevention will still leave you with more abuse and addiction than a legal supply. (Legal != OTC so let's not start with that)
Decriminalization isn't even a half-step, it's more like a tenth-step for people who *still* don't realize exactly why the War on Drugs is a failure. PS- Nixon ramped it up but prohibition as a drug control policy dates to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.
Is that why Florida is a medical tourism destination for Canadians ? Well I guess you have the freedom to leave the country to get yourself healed.
The US has countless people whose only medical treatment is the emergency room. Countless more with insurance programs that won't let them touch the kind of care medical tourists come for. Most the rest our burdened by substantially by our care costing so much compared to the rest of the world. I guess your income is high enough to take advantage of that great care tourists want, congrats. Not being so well off myself, I'd rather have Canada's system.
Oh you mean the way your privileged class wrecked Ontario ?
If you think that's even in the same universe as how the rich exploit people in the US, you really need to move out of that cave.
And universities... sounds like you want to compare top to top, where the picture outside of that is once again very different.
Uh oh, looks like I got modded flamebait for not thinking white men are the root of all evil again. It couldn't be because you all thought I was exaggerating, right? That's precisely what was claimed.
People exhale CO2. When the EPA or courts expands the authority of the government to regulate CO2 as a pollutant they can effectively regulate your breathing.
Your body endogenously produces dimethyltryptamine, yet it's also a Schedule 1 drug. Does that mean that government can arrest anyone for possessing it at any time? Of course not. Nor would CO2 regulations ever effect breathing.
This is accurate for some of his pieces, but not for most. The problem is mostly the right, but sometimes also the left, insists 'alternative facts' are on the same footing as actual facts, and that opinions based on alt facts, and positions based on "lets hurt people", are just as worthy. Its not always the case. Like "Global warming is a fake Chinese conspiracy to hurt the US" is not a side with as much merit as the other. Donald Trump is a stupid, ignorant, egomaniacal buffoon who incessantly lies is also an objectively true assessment, even if you agree with his posititions, and saying he's smart and well informed just isn't accurate; its not an equally valid side.
According to a previous article that appeared on/. it's because of white male programmers (nevermind that there's also tons of Asian and Indian programmers), who apparently purposefully choose training datasets consisting of people who look like them. Just one more thing on the long list of what we're to blame for.
NoScript has been increasingly irritating me. I like the blocking, but even when I unblock something a site I (relatively) trust needs to work, half the time it continues to block scripts "partially". "Allow everything on this page", leaves the page unusable because a whole bunch are still partially blocked. As I haven't found a way to prevent this, I frequently find myself having to get around it by allowing scripts globally, then forgetting to turn blocking back on. Between that and the hours building whitelists, I can really sympathize with just forgoing the whole thing for a simple JS toggle.
Pretty sure the banksters get a cut of ATM fees too, since it's probably "out of network" for everyone. Here's a picture of the truck I saw: https://www.timesledger.com/as...
And another truck I found while looking for a pic that also has one: https://twitter.com/mattzemon/...
Scalia only favored a strict interpretation so long as it didn't cross his conservative values. You can't seriously think the text and founders intent of the Commerce Clause allows for a federal police force to arrest somebody for something grown in their own home exclusively for their own use in accordance with state law. Utter nonsense, yet that's exactly what Scalia argued in Gonzalez v. Raich, affirming the precedent of Wickard v Filburn.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's a given. But would you rather have Chinese backdoors, or NSA/CIA backdoors? If someone is going to backdoor my device, I'd rather it be the Chinese, as I care quite a bit less about what they'll do with my data. Obviously if 'no backdoors' was an option that would be even better; but come on, it's 2018. As we celebrate our nations birth today in America, most of our government continues, on both sides, to wipe their ass with our Constitution as they shit all over the principles this nation was founded on.
The general consensus on rude train/subway passengers is 'do not engage' unless you want to get punched or stabbed. Living in NYC, I can assure you some people react *very* poorly to being asked to move their bags/legs/self so someone can sit.
As a non-violent crime that only has a small impact on some peoples finances, a custodial sentence is absolutely not appropriate. We need to be locking up less people for non-violent offenses, not more, instead states let out violent offenders to make room.
What should happen is extremely steep fines for them, to be paid from their personal holdings, with a absolute bar on continuing to work in the industry for at least 10 years. The fine should be based on their wealth; e.g. if their total net worth (and not just liquid assets) is $100m, fine them $30m (increase the percent sharply with wealth; less if poorer, more if richer), with a penalty of triple that if they get caught trying to hide assets for the assessment.
Just as effective as a few years in jail.
If I had to guess, there was probably troublesome activity coming from that VPN at some point. Just a couple weeks ago I wanted to post something anonymously, and did so by creating a new account and posting, over Tor. It showed up publicly right away (though I was extremely rate-limited; each post or edit triggered a 10 minute wait).
I love these holier-than-thou posts about these other enlightened countries, despite the little problem of all of them still also rejecting science and reason, to send a moral message, at the cost of lives, when it comes to enforcing prohibition as their drug control policy. The absolutely most progressive country on this, Portugal, still only decriminalized possession of tiny amounts. Nowhere offers the legal market that would eliminate most of the harm and minimize addiction, despite having the evidence showing that's the right path, because actually granting people permission to conduct those transactions offends their sense of moral decency, so they let tens of thousands of people die and get victimized, just to be able to not be "soft" on drugs. That it's not based on religion is hardly material.
What do you mean the other side isn't fighting? About half of them are fighting like hell to elect people who will screw them, the country, and the environment to help the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. Because they've bought into lies about how much they'll personally benefit, or because of some wedge issue like abortion or guns or FUD about security, that politicians don't actually care about beyond them as a mechanism to keep people hating the other side (though both sides love using FUD to take away rights-- this comment isn't to suggest personal liberty is valued by either party).
Indeed, the mass incarceration policy driven by the drug war is massivey bipartisan. That some on the left want to slightly reduce sentence lengths, and force some low level users into treatment (and incarcerate them when they fail), is basically irrelevant, especially since they're once again calling for more police and more arrests for opiates (including the wonderful new policy of torturing pain patients). People like the retort about drug crimes not accounting for most of the prison population; but this is a narrow view. So many people get caught for property crime ultimately caused by drug addiction, robbery caused by drug addiction, violence caused by drug dealer disputes, all the gang activity funded by the drug war where gangs would collapse without that funding source. Make no mistake, the drug war is at the root of mass incarceration, and neither (R) nor (D) is doing anything to help (no, pot legalization won't help much).
Also entirely lost on both sides is the cognitive dissonance in recognizing that the drug war has failed, but absolutely refusing to consider alternatives not based on prohibition, despite sound evidence showing it would largely eliminate ancillary problems without raising addiction.
Anyone suspected of having something THAT contagious is isolated in a room where everyone wears additional protection over their scrubs, which is taken off when leaving the room. I'd be surprised if you even found a single case transmitted in the fashion you describe.
By the way, if you think that's scary, you know who was responsible for cleaning all the surfaces in the OR before and after each operation? Me, when I was a mere volunteer still in high school. Which wasn't nearly as fun as what I got to do with the unconscious people before and after... and their organs...
Well, given who they voted into office, and still somehow worship like a cult leader, can you really disagree?
On a more serious note, not valuing personal liberty is strong bipartisan consensus. Both sides are big on telling you what you may and may not do with your own body and with other adults. I say this only because your comment makes me think you somehow think the right stands for personal liberty, which unless you want a gun, or are a corporation, they do not.
In an ideal world. In ours, I'm sure it will be found they acted completely appropriately and 100% of the blame (and charges) will fall on whoever downloaded their wide open file.
Official Response to Concerns Raised, from Copyright Holders and EU Puppets:
Dear Wikimedia,
Womp womp.
You mean people would stop having a bigger say in national elections just because of where they live? The horror.
Trump LESS corrupt than Hillary??? Holy hell that's some delusion. What exactly about his well known organized crime connections, Trump University, and well known money laundering, among countless other scandals, could possibly possess you to believe that he wouldn't carry that corruption into office? He did, in spades, even ignoring anything Russia-related. Net neutrality? Pruitt in the EPA? Carson at HUD? His rampant nepotism? This is unparalleled corruption you dolt. Hillary was certainly corrupt, but you're talking 4/10 vs 11/10 corrupt against known-fraudster Trump who is blatantly selling out everywhere, to say nothing of the countless other problems with him.
So basically your plan is to retain all the property crime to fund addictions at black market prices, all the gang violence, all the cartel violence, all the militarized police, all the civil rights violations, in exchange for what, exactly? Spending all that money incarcerating the supply chain instead of on more education, treatment, and prevention will still leave you with more abuse and addiction than a legal supply. (Legal != OTC so let's not start with that)
Decriminalization isn't even a half-step, it's more like a tenth-step for people who *still* don't realize exactly why the War on Drugs is a failure. PS- Nixon ramped it up but prohibition as a drug control policy dates to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.
Is that why Florida is a medical tourism destination for Canadians ? Well I guess you have the freedom to leave the country to get yourself healed.
The US has countless people whose only medical treatment is the emergency room. Countless more with insurance programs that won't let them touch the kind of care medical tourists come for. Most the rest our burdened by substantially by our care costing so much compared to the rest of the world. I guess your income is high enough to take advantage of that great care tourists want, congrats. Not being so well off myself, I'd rather have Canada's system.
Oh you mean the way your privileged class wrecked Ontario ?
If you think that's even in the same universe as how the rich exploit people in the US, you really need to move out of that cave.
And universities... sounds like you want to compare top to top, where the picture outside of that is once again very different.
The US is only the best for the most privileged.
Uh oh, looks like I got modded flamebait for not thinking white men are the root of all evil again. It couldn't be because you all thought I was exaggerating, right? That's precisely what was claimed.
People exhale CO2. When the EPA or courts expands the authority of the government to regulate CO2 as a pollutant they can effectively regulate your breathing.
Your body endogenously produces dimethyltryptamine, yet it's also a Schedule 1 drug. Does that mean that government can arrest anyone for possessing it at any time? Of course not. Nor would CO2 regulations ever effect breathing.
This is accurate for some of his pieces, but not for most. The problem is mostly the right, but sometimes also the left, insists 'alternative facts' are on the same footing as actual facts, and that opinions based on alt facts, and positions based on "lets hurt people", are just as worthy. Its not always the case. Like "Global warming is a fake Chinese conspiracy to hurt the US" is not a side with as much merit as the other. Donald Trump is a stupid, ignorant, egomaniacal buffoon who incessantly lies is also an objectively true assessment, even if you agree with his posititions, and saying he's smart and well informed just isn't accurate; its not an equally valid side.
So, the existing line of condoms then.
According to a previous article that appeared on /. it's because of white male programmers (nevermind that there's also tons of Asian and Indian programmers), who apparently purposefully choose training datasets consisting of people who look like them. Just one more thing on the long list of what we're to blame for.
NoScript has been increasingly irritating me. I like the blocking, but even when I unblock something a site I (relatively) trust needs to work, half the time it continues to block scripts "partially". "Allow everything on this page", leaves the page unusable because a whole bunch are still partially blocked. As I haven't found a way to prevent this, I frequently find myself having to get around it by allowing scripts globally, then forgetting to turn blocking back on. Between that and the hours building whitelists, I can really sympathize with just forgoing the whole thing for a simple JS toggle.
Pretty sure the banksters get a cut of ATM fees too, since it's probably "out of network" for everyone. Here's a picture of the truck I saw:
https://www.timesledger.com/as...
And another truck I found while looking for a pic that also has one: https://twitter.com/mattzemon/...
This one food truck here took another path. Its cash only, but has an ATM built right into the side of the truck. Must get a cut of ATM fees.
You mean the same tags those apps add when you resize or crop a photo with them? How useful.
Scalia only favored a strict interpretation so long as it didn't cross his conservative values. You can't seriously think the text and founders intent of the Commerce Clause allows for a federal police force to arrest somebody for something grown in their own home exclusively for their own use in accordance with state law. Utter nonsense, yet that's exactly what Scalia argued in Gonzalez v. Raich, affirming the precedent of Wickard v Filburn.