You're right, that certainly would be a major issue, because there's just no way 24 hours could be divided into 6 hour shifts smoothly. Just look at this wacky decimal my calculator told me it was... 4.00000000000. Such an odd number.
Repeated looks will already get you in trouble for sexual harassment. Try staring at a womans breasts in every conversation; HR will take a very dim view of the 'it's just looking' defense.
And given how rapidly the definition is expanding, and is already basically defined by the 'survivor', can you really have much confidence that we won't be down to a single look constituting sexual harassment any day now?
The jury must decide what to trust sure, but shouldn't be deciding whether a scientific process is valid, and allowing in junk science is a major problem. Bad science shouldn't be put in front of a jury of laypeople; look at all the false convictions bad science like bite marks lead to. And it's *supposed* to be excluded, but unfortunately the Daubert standard for challenging expert testimony goes in front of judges who can't be bothered to do their job, and winds up being 'has any other judge allowed this?'.
And if you want one more item to add to the list of 'horrible Trump administration actions', the Obama Justice Department had set up a commission on forensic science that, despite some issues like having more lawyers and forensic scientists than actual scientists, basically worked to establish reliable standards for valid techniques, and pushed to stop using useless frauds like bite marks and hair comparison. So of course Sessions shut the whole thing down, defended the use of scientifically invalid methods, and put a single prosecutor answerable only to him in charge of declaring what prosecutors can use. Unsurprisingly the only president who could make Dubya look good managed to pick an AG so awful he makes Ashcroft look good... ugh.
Reductio ad absurdum, you mean the same thing that a few years ago people saying 'what's next, are we going to be banned from using master/slave for computers?' were told their arguments were?
Oh please, there's 10,000 privileged white kids living on mommy and daddy's money who are doing the complaining for every legitimately offended black person. And no, they don't want the same consideration, they want superior consideration. They want to crucify every white person who uses even the slightest perceived offensive term while every anti-white term, stereotype, and other insult remains firmly on the table. Anyone who still thinks these PC SJWs stand for equality is deluded or lying, it's all about inverting the power structures, not leveling them.
Morphine has been used by humans for thousands of years (the primary active alkaloid in the poppy plants sap, only its isolation has changed), only in the last 150 years have people overdosed on it. It's almost like access to limitless quantities changes things, and small amounts are a lot less harmful and cause a lot less of the effects that lead to addiction. Has morphine only recently become deadly and more addictive too, or are you looking at this the wrong way?
I've never used nicotine in my life, but if I so wanted I could walk down to the corner and buy nicotine gum and nicotine patches. Why shouldn't I be able to also buy a nicotine vape? Or do you object to the others too... given how rare principled stands are here I doubt it.
Given the obesity and diabetes rates, I strongly dispute the notion sugar is not addictive. It falls under psychologically addictive; it's reinforcing, since it produces feelings of pleasure, lighting up the same brain centers and traditional drugs of addiction. There's even some physical addiction issues; it produces a tolerance effect where people use more and more, though certainly not to the extent of opiates or cocaine. To nicotine, sure. Nicotine is also primarily psychologically addictive though. A quick search indicates my position is widely shared by experts.
I fail to see how explicitly noting that I was discussing the mere 14.7% of attacks on whites that were by blacks is trying to indicate the threat against the whole population. All I was saying is that cross-race violence, a small percentage of total violation, is not equal, and is factual regardless of offended SJW moderators.
I do not disagree with your sentiment that intraracial violence is the far bigger issue, but it's not like that makes it any better, it pisses off the left to no end to talk about the greater danger intraracial violence poses over white and white cop violence to the black community.
Good god did you fail at basic math. The resource you cited indicates 540,873 attacks of black offender/white victim (14.7% of total); comparing to 40m black people in this country, gives 0.0134 attacks/person. There were 92,728 attacks with white offender/black victim, with 197m white non-hispanic (since the link also makes this differentiation). That's 0.0005 attacks/person. This is not even close to equal. Black people attack white people at 26.8x the rate white people attack black people, according to your own resource.
This hasn't been true in years. Now most media simply omits the race entirely. And before that, they only omitted 'black', any other race was identified. You're either a decade out of date or just read conservative junk.
Just like opiates don't help all types of pain, neither does CBD. It's not a magic cure all that can replace opiates in all cases. The official alternative is "sit there and suffer". Needless to say, good luck getting people to acknowledge all the suicides coming out of that.
Since the iatrogenic addiction rate in patients who weren't already serious drug abusers has been studied, perhaps you'd care to cite it to support of your arguments? Or would it being under 1% undermine your uninformed rant too much?
By the way, the suggestion that any licensed physician wouldn't know that a full agonist opioid is as addictive as any other full agonist opioid, is laughable. As is the suggestion you'd feel withdrawal from a single tiny dose (you had an allergic reaction, oral oxycodone, unlike codeine, normally provokes very little histamine release, your symptoms were from an extreme histamine reaction).
I don't know that standing up for the right to have your local police enforce a strictly federal law, by pulling over every Hispanic they see for no reason and demanding citizenship papers, is something to admire. Especially when a court tells you to stop the racial profiling. You must be the type who defend the cops who bravely shoot little dogs wagging their tail while using a SWAT team to serve a pot warrant at the wrong address, or valiantly defend their life by back shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect.
You don't understand the insanity of SJWs... Apparently, including race in the description of a suspect is racist these days. So news outlets just report age, clothes, and height. They got offended by so many "police are looking for a black man....." stories, part of the continuing mission to bury the fact that with the violent crimes police typically ask for help in locating suspects, blacks commit a disproportionately high percentage, and to smear anyone who brings it up as racist. Nevermind the damage caused by pretending the gap doesn't exist or other ridiculous deflections (e.g. the gap is just caused by police looking at black people more, like theres legions of white violent crime victims where police cover it up so they don't have to arrest the white offender). The underlying causes should be identified and corrected, ignoring it is harmful.
How the hell is this modded insightful? Are this many/.ers really ignorant of the fact hate speech is absolutely free speech and that courts have ruled it's protected? No court has ruled hate speech is unprotected. Incitement does not cover hate speech in general, and comparing it to (falsly) shouting fire is beyond idiotic.
Private websites are absolutely free to ban whatever they consider hate speech to be from their platforms, but it's protected speech the government cannot punish you for.
Well if you're volunteering... what possible harm could come from a stranger from the internet taking your kid on a trip, amiright?
Problem is no family with little kids, and the only friends with kids either have infants or teenagers who wouldn't be interested... though a 6-month old is technically someone under 18 right?
Yes well in an ideal world of limited government. In this world however the FCC has the legal authority to classify the internet differently, and the legal authority to regulate NN for it after that change. This has already been litigated, so I hope you're just expressing how you think things should work instead of replacing actual facts with alternative facts like the FCC can only regulate transmitters.
Speaking of electoral votes, we got more of them than any other state. We have more electoral votes than Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia put together.
But because your population is so high, you have a lot more voters per elector than more rural states, so in effect your vote counts for less than someone in one of them. It's high time to reform that, just because urban voters want different things is no reason to make their vote count for less (and boy are the city folk unhappy being forced to live under what the low density states want). It's not right that because you live in a city your vote counts for less. Everyone should have an equal say from LA to Bumfuck, Nowhere.
Both sides flip back and forth on states rights whenever politically convenient. Stop thinking this is a right/left issue, they both like or don't like states rights depending on the issue and which way the wind is blowing.
This 'well the internet was fine before' argument is so ridiculous. First, there's the Netflix problem, years before that Comcast blocking Bittorrent, and many more.
Second, think about what ISPs have been doing. They've spent a fortune lobbying Congress and state legislators. Another fortune spent on appealing to the consumers to vote against NN and/or tell their representatives to. Are you really suggesting these greedy companies are expending massive amounts of manpower and cash just on principle, even though they weren't planning on violating them? Come on man, that doesn't even pass the laugh test, and seeing a massive abuse coming and enacting legislation to prevent it is absolutely legitimate, particularly when the writing was so clearly on the wall (not to mention, in Portugal an ISP has gone ahead and started bundled internet with only some sites).
So then why did Pai's NN repeal contain the part banning states from enacting their own rules? And I sure didn't hear any opposition to that provision from the right. Then there's Blackburn introducing her fake NN bill to set a rule for the whole country, which is actually the solution I keep hearing from the right -- that it should be a Congressional action instead of a regulatory action (but only becuase they're in power and expect to be able to pass, if anything does get passed, a bill containing so many loopholes it's useless, like Blackburns).
Republicans have no consistent position on states' rights. They're for them when it's expedient, and against them when expedient. Same as the left.
Somehow I get the feeling "exactly" is going to have quite the wide margin to it. Don't get me wrong it would be great if they could come up with a perfect replacement, but that's not how these things usually turn out. There's going to be something about them that makes the current ones just a little better. Invest in classic bricks now!
As an aside, just found out there's a Legoland NY coming in 2020, heck yeah! There's already a Discovery Center, but for some reason nobody will lend me a kid so I can get in. Maybe I should just borrow one with asking and leave a note... better to ask forgiveness than permission right?
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, that certainly would be a major issue, because there's just no way 24 hours could be divided into 6 hour shifts smoothly. Just look at this wacky decimal my calculator told me it was... 4.00000000000. Such an odd number.
Repeated looks will already get you in trouble for sexual harassment. Try staring at a womans breasts in every conversation; HR will take a very dim view of the 'it's just looking' defense.
And given how rapidly the definition is expanding, and is already basically defined by the 'survivor', can you really have much confidence that we won't be down to a single look constituting sexual harassment any day now?
The jury must decide what to trust sure, but shouldn't be deciding whether a scientific process is valid, and allowing in junk science is a major problem. Bad science shouldn't be put in front of a jury of laypeople; look at all the false convictions bad science like bite marks lead to. And it's *supposed* to be excluded, but unfortunately the Daubert standard for challenging expert testimony goes in front of judges who can't be bothered to do their job, and winds up being 'has any other judge allowed this?'.
And if you want one more item to add to the list of 'horrible Trump administration actions', the Obama Justice Department had set up a commission on forensic science that, despite some issues like having more lawyers and forensic scientists than actual scientists, basically worked to establish reliable standards for valid techniques, and pushed to stop using useless frauds like bite marks and hair comparison. So of course Sessions shut the whole thing down, defended the use of scientifically invalid methods, and put a single prosecutor answerable only to him in charge of declaring what prosecutors can use. Unsurprisingly the only president who could make Dubya look good managed to pick an AG so awful he makes Ashcroft look good... ugh.
Reductio ad absurdum, you mean the same thing that a few years ago people saying 'what's next, are we going to be banned from using master/slave for computers?' were told their arguments were?
Oh please, there's 10,000 privileged white kids living on mommy and daddy's money who are doing the complaining for every legitimately offended black person. And no, they don't want the same consideration, they want superior consideration. They want to crucify every white person who uses even the slightest perceived offensive term while every anti-white term, stereotype, and other insult remains firmly on the table. Anyone who still thinks these PC SJWs stand for equality is deluded or lying, it's all about inverting the power structures, not leveling them.
Morphine has been used by humans for thousands of years (the primary active alkaloid in the poppy plants sap, only its isolation has changed), only in the last 150 years have people overdosed on it. It's almost like access to limitless quantities changes things, and small amounts are a lot less harmful and cause a lot less of the effects that lead to addiction. Has morphine only recently become deadly and more addictive too, or are you looking at this the wrong way?
I've never used nicotine in my life, but if I so wanted I could walk down to the corner and buy nicotine gum and nicotine patches. Why shouldn't I be able to also buy a nicotine vape? Or do you object to the others too... given how rare principled stands are here I doubt it.
Given the obesity and diabetes rates, I strongly dispute the notion sugar is not addictive. It falls under psychologically addictive; it's reinforcing, since it produces feelings of pleasure, lighting up the same brain centers and traditional drugs of addiction. There's even some physical addiction issues; it produces a tolerance effect where people use more and more, though certainly not to the extent of opiates or cocaine. To nicotine, sure. Nicotine is also primarily psychologically addictive though. A quick search indicates my position is widely shared by experts.
I fail to see how explicitly noting that I was discussing the mere 14.7% of attacks on whites that were by blacks is trying to indicate the threat against the whole population. All I was saying is that cross-race violence, a small percentage of total violation, is not equal, and is factual regardless of offended SJW moderators.
I do not disagree with your sentiment that intraracial violence is the far bigger issue, but it's not like that makes it any better, it pisses off the left to no end to talk about the greater danger intraracial violence poses over white and white cop violence to the black community.
Good god did you fail at basic math. The resource you cited indicates 540,873 attacks of black offender/white victim (14.7% of total); comparing to 40m black people in this country, gives 0.0134 attacks/person. There were 92,728 attacks with white offender/black victim, with 197m white non-hispanic (since the link also makes this differentiation). That's 0.0005 attacks/person. This is not even close to equal. Black people attack white people at 26.8x the rate white people attack black people, according to your own resource.
This hasn't been true in years. Now most media simply omits the race entirely. And before that, they only omitted 'black', any other race was identified. You're either a decade out of date or just read conservative junk.
Just like opiates don't help all types of pain, neither does CBD. It's not a magic cure all that can replace opiates in all cases. The official alternative is "sit there and suffer". Needless to say, good luck getting people to acknowledge all the suicides coming out of that.
Since the iatrogenic addiction rate in patients who weren't already serious drug abusers has been studied, perhaps you'd care to cite it to support of your arguments? Or would it being under 1% undermine your uninformed rant too much?
By the way, the suggestion that any licensed physician wouldn't know that a full agonist opioid is as addictive as any other full agonist opioid, is laughable. As is the suggestion you'd feel withdrawal from a single tiny dose (you had an allergic reaction, oral oxycodone, unlike codeine, normally provokes very little histamine release, your symptoms were from an extreme histamine reaction).
I don't know that standing up for the right to have your local police enforce a strictly federal law, by pulling over every Hispanic they see for no reason and demanding citizenship papers, is something to admire. Especially when a court tells you to stop the racial profiling. You must be the type who defend the cops who bravely shoot little dogs wagging their tail while using a SWAT team to serve a pot warrant at the wrong address, or valiantly defend their life by back shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect.
The big difference is in Windows 7 updates aren't basically force installed, so you can just not install telemetry and other non-security updates.
You don't understand the insanity of SJWs... Apparently, including race in the description of a suspect is racist these days. So news outlets just report age, clothes, and height. They got offended by so many "police are looking for a black man....." stories, part of the continuing mission to bury the fact that with the violent crimes police typically ask for help in locating suspects, blacks commit a disproportionately high percentage, and to smear anyone who brings it up as racist. Nevermind the damage caused by pretending the gap doesn't exist or other ridiculous deflections (e.g. the gap is just caused by police looking at black people more, like theres legions of white violent crime victims where police cover it up so they don't have to arrest the white offender). The underlying causes should be identified and corrected, ignoring it is harmful.
How the hell is this modded insightful? Are this many /.ers really ignorant of the fact hate speech is absolutely free speech and that courts have ruled it's protected? No court has ruled hate speech is unprotected. Incitement does not cover hate speech in general, and comparing it to (falsly) shouting fire is beyond idiotic.
Private websites are absolutely free to ban whatever they consider hate speech to be from their platforms, but it's protected speech the government cannot punish you for.
Well if you're volunteering... what possible harm could come from a stranger from the internet taking your kid on a trip, amiright?
Problem is no family with little kids, and the only friends with kids either have infants or teenagers who wouldn't be interested... though a 6-month old is technically someone under 18 right?
Yes well in an ideal world of limited government. In this world however the FCC has the legal authority to classify the internet differently, and the legal authority to regulate NN for it after that change. This has already been litigated, so I hope you're just expressing how you think things should work instead of replacing actual facts with alternative facts like the FCC can only regulate transmitters.
Speaking of electoral votes, we got more of them than any other state. We have more electoral votes than Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia put together.
But because your population is so high, you have a lot more voters per elector than more rural states, so in effect your vote counts for less than someone in one of them. It's high time to reform that, just because urban voters want different things is no reason to make their vote count for less (and boy are the city folk unhappy being forced to live under what the low density states want). It's not right that because you live in a city your vote counts for less. Everyone should have an equal say from LA to Bumfuck, Nowhere.
Both sides flip back and forth on states rights whenever politically convenient. Stop thinking this is a right/left issue, they both like or don't like states rights depending on the issue and which way the wind is blowing.
This 'well the internet was fine before' argument is so ridiculous. First, there's the Netflix problem, years before that Comcast blocking Bittorrent, and many more.
Second, think about what ISPs have been doing. They've spent a fortune lobbying Congress and state legislators. Another fortune spent on appealing to the consumers to vote against NN and/or tell their representatives to. Are you really suggesting these greedy companies are expending massive amounts of manpower and cash just on principle, even though they weren't planning on violating them? Come on man, that doesn't even pass the laugh test, and seeing a massive abuse coming and enacting legislation to prevent it is absolutely legitimate, particularly when the writing was so clearly on the wall (not to mention, in Portugal an ISP has gone ahead and started bundled internet with only some sites).
So then why did Pai's NN repeal contain the part banning states from enacting their own rules? And I sure didn't hear any opposition to that provision from the right. Then there's Blackburn introducing her fake NN bill to set a rule for the whole country, which is actually the solution I keep hearing from the right -- that it should be a Congressional action instead of a regulatory action (but only becuase they're in power and expect to be able to pass, if anything does get passed, a bill containing so many loopholes it's useless, like Blackburns).
Republicans have no consistent position on states' rights. They're for them when it's expedient, and against them when expedient. Same as the left.
without* asking damnit can't we have at least a 1 minute edit window for the sake of ruined jokes?
Somehow I get the feeling "exactly" is going to have quite the wide margin to it. Don't get me wrong it would be great if they could come up with a perfect replacement, but that's not how these things usually turn out. There's going to be something about them that makes the current ones just a little better. Invest in classic bricks now!
As an aside, just found out there's a Legoland NY coming in 2020, heck yeah! There's already a Discovery Center, but for some reason nobody will lend me a kid so I can get in. Maybe I should just borrow one with asking and leave a note... better to ask forgiveness than permission right?