You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.
Are these the same GOP voters who voted GW Bush Jr. into office, the self same GW Bush Jr. who got the ball rolling on the now famous NSA warrantless surveillance behemoth?
G.W. Bush and Obama are not significantly different in these categories. I'm not saying Bush should be given a free pass, I'm saying both should have been impeached, removed, and perhaps hanged.
Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?
I really struggle with this one. I'm sympathetic to lots of the arguments as to why illegal immigration is indefensible.
But many of those arguments seem to also argue for the native Americans' descendents getting back all of the land their ancestors held (modulo any tribe-to-tribe land grabs we can figure out historically), and that we should return to British rule.
The only arguments I'm left with are "it's our damn land now, and stop invading it or we'll kill you.". But that's nothing like a morally principled argument. And it does nothing to address the other issues I mentioned above regarding native Americans and the British.
I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom....
Hey, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with the idea that the classification algorithms use evolutionary algorithms to optimize their results. It's just that they're unwilling to assume that the objective function is undesigned.
Morbid obesity quire often leads to immobility due to difficulty walking or even getting up. Why should these people not be afforded the same rights as anyone else that has difficulty or is unable to move around.
Because the solution to morbid obesity is to eat less and get some exercise. This is a viable option for 99.9% of the morbidly obese. Why should society have to pay money to adjust for a person who's not willing to act differently?
Well lets see, the people seeking "proper" visas are waiting 21 years already, and there is no evidence that one affects the other
Saying there's "no evidence" is a stunningly strong claim. Impressive citation needed.
You stated no evidence that she was using a SS#, so not really an issue
I believe most or all jobs require that an employee submits a SS# for tax purposes. So are you saying illegal immigrants (a) don't work, or (b) somehow obtain valid SS#'s, or (c) something else?
And for the most part they dont compete with many other low skilled Americans because they do work even they dont want to do for the price.
Say that to someone looking for an over-the-counter job in construction or restaurant work.
So you are upset they did not talk about a 2 non issues and an issue there is no evidence of...
Again, it's a very strong claim you're making, and I don't believe your post adequately supported that claim.
Also, I've noticed that their non-news programming absolutely has an anti-conservative bent (with some exceptions).
For example, I really like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. But the participants tend to take swipes mostly at conservatives and conservative views, and the audience tends to whoop and applaud along the same lines.
I recall another story where they did a sympathy piece on an illegal immigrant. But they never broached the subject of the people seeking proper visas whom she "cut in line", nor the possible identify fraud if she was using a SS#, nor the other low-skilled Americans who had to compete with here for a limited number of low-skilled jobs. Strangely, when I wrote my local NPR ombudsman regarding this, I never got a reply.
By the way, I just glanced at the opinion and the stuff I say above applies to THIS case. Despite ruling it a fourth amendment violation the court let the conviction stand precisely because the police had a good faith belief they were not violating the fourth amendment.
I can understand why ignorance of the law might save them from judicially imposed sanctions in past and present cases. But good faith does nothing to make the past use of such evidence legal, does it?
IANAL by a very long shot, so let me ask a bunch of others who think they are;)
If someone charged with a crime is eventually convicted on appeal, even when the law was unclear to start out with, that person is treated as though he should have always been able to anticipate the court's eventual decision.
Does that logic not apply here as well? Can't everyone who was once convicted in trials where this kind of evidence was used, appeal their conviction now?
Thanks. But is it safe to say that with Cyanogenmod, it's at least possible to install an app / tweak that will refuse to let apps use certain subsystems (such as GPS) if I so choose, whereas I have no such control with the carrier-supplied Android version?
So this is a bit off-topic, but probably the right time to ask...
I've been increasingly concerned with my lack of control over my Android (Verizon) phone. This current issue lies in the same area as my earlier worries.
Is this the kind of problem that cyanogenmod addresses? I didn't have the time, or ability to live with a broken phone, to try it out earlier. But I'm about to stop traveling so much, so I'm wondering if it's time to give cyanogenmod a try.
A new theory suggests that our male ancestors evolved beefy facial features as a defense against fist fights.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about these theories, but they just keep on striking me as mental masturbation by a sub-field that needs to have B.S. called on the lot of them.
AFAIK, we can only make wildly speculative guesses as to the lifestyles of these creatures. And that will probably be forever true. So unless we find cave drawings of an extensive face-punching meritocracy within these families, it's probably wild speculation as to whether or not it was a relevant factor in the evolution of these features.
Your argument about a better product is pretty poor. You seem to be saying that it's worth violating the laws of a democracy merely in order to get better-packaged video entertainment. I don't see how a democracy can function well if people are willing to so casually disregard laws they don't support.
Your argument about a corrupt legislative process is much more interesting, though. It calls into question whether or not we're really a democracy, and thus whether or not obeying the laws per se should carry any moral or ethical weight.
If it's not yours, don't take it without permission.
If it's not just yours, pay a corrupt legislature to make it exclusively yours, and to make anyone else using it a criminal offense, enforced by the threat of violence.
Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.
He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too... right?
If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.
This is supremely off-topic, but it's a Friday afternoon, so what the hay...
I've been wondering similar things about evangelical Christianity. Some Christians seem to think that the big mission of Christians is to spread Christianity. But if that's all there is, then it seems like there's little other substance to the thing they're trying to spread, and so there's no clear point in doing so.
I realize that's a gross simplification, but it's what comes to mind. It reminds me of that (old) SNL skit about the bank that makes change. When asked how they turned a profit, the bank rep said "volume".
So 60% of phds gets a tenure position and they still complain? In Medical Biology less than 3% gets tenure
3%? Luxury! Why, my da' offered me -24% tenure, I had to be my own T.A., and made me park in student parking. Every mornin' when I came in he'd make me chair a new faculty working group and then hit me with a tire iron.
Education has been their life unto that point, they have always been outstanding students, and they enjoy it.
I can speak only for myself, but that wasn't the case for me. The first 2.5 years of my undergrad were really lackluster. I only really got a fire lit under myself around my senior year of undergrad.
Then I fought through 5 years (part time) for my CS master's degree, not because I loved the academic environment, but for some combination of love of the material and wanting a financially secure future.
I later did a PhD for a combination of (a) wanting people to be willing to fund me to do research at the govt. lab I worked at, and (b) finding the material really interesting, and (c) hoping to have an even more secure future. It turns out (c) was simply misguided; that end would have been better ensured by me spending that time keeping abreast of trendy technologies and software tools.
But back to my main point, none of my time in grad school was due to mere momentum or love of being in school. Every semester involved sacrifice, and a rethinking as to whether or not I expected the benefits to justify the costs.
Slashdot Mirror
You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.
Are these the same GOP voters who voted GW Bush Jr. into office, the self same GW Bush Jr. who got the ball rolling on the now famous NSA warrantless surveillance behemoth?
G.W. Bush and Obama are not significantly different in these categories. I'm not saying Bush should be given a free pass, I'm saying both should have been impeached, removed, and perhaps hanged.
Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?
I really struggle with this one. I'm sympathetic to lots of the arguments as to why illegal immigration is indefensible.
But many of those arguments seem to also argue for the native Americans' descendents getting back all of the land their ancestors held (modulo any tribe-to-tribe land grabs we can figure out historically), and that we should return to British rule.
The only arguments I'm left with are "it's our damn land now, and stop invading it or we'll kill you.". But that's nothing like a morally principled argument. And it does nothing to address the other issues I mentioned above regarding native Americans and the British.
I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom....
Hey, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with the idea that the classification algorithms use evolutionary algorithms to optimize their results. It's just that they're unwilling to assume that the objective function is undesigned.
Because the solution to morbid obesity is to eat less and get some exercise. This is a viable option for 99.9% of the morbidly obese. Why should society have to pay money to adjust for a person who's not willing to act differently?
So if lack of self control is a formal disability, what about other consequences of lack of self control?
Well lets see, the people seeking "proper" visas are waiting 21 years already, and there is no evidence that one affects the other
Saying there's "no evidence" is a stunningly strong claim. Impressive citation needed.
You stated no evidence that she was using a SS#, so not really an issue
I believe most or all jobs require that an employee submits a SS# for tax purposes. So are you saying illegal immigrants (a) don't work, or (b) somehow obtain valid SS#'s, or (c) something else?
And for the most part they dont compete with many other low skilled Americans because they do work even they dont want to do for the price.
Say that to someone looking for an over-the-counter job in construction or restaurant work.
So you are upset they did not talk about a 2 non issues and an issue there is no evidence of...
Again, it's a very strong claim you're making, and I don't believe your post adequately supported that claim.
But doesn't that lead to a violation of due process, which in turn would invalidate any undesirable (to the defendant) verdict?
Also, I've noticed that their non-news programming absolutely has an anti-conservative bent (with some exceptions).
For example, I really like Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. But the participants tend to take swipes mostly at conservatives and conservative views, and the audience tends to whoop and applaud along the same lines.
I recall another story where they did a sympathy piece on an illegal immigrant. But they never broached the subject of the people seeking proper visas whom she "cut in line", nor the possible identify fraud if she was using a SS#, nor the other low-skilled Americans who had to compete with here for a limited number of low-skilled jobs. Strangely, when I wrote my local NPR ombudsman regarding this, I never got a reply.
By the way, I just glanced at the opinion and the stuff I say above applies to THIS case. Despite ruling it a fourth amendment violation the court let the conviction stand precisely because the police had a good faith belief they were not violating the fourth amendment.
I can understand why ignorance of the law might save them from judicially imposed sanctions in past and present cases. But good faith does nothing to make the past use of such evidence legal, does it?
IANAL by a very long shot, so let me ask a bunch of others who think they are ;)
If someone charged with a crime is eventually convicted on appeal, even when the law was unclear to start out with, that person is treated as though he should have always been able to anticipate the court's eventual decision.
Does that logic not apply here as well? Can't everyone who was once convicted in trials where this kind of evidence was used, appeal their conviction now?
Thanks. But is it safe to say that with Cyanogenmod, it's at least possible to install an app / tweak that will refuse to let apps use certain subsystems (such as GPS) if I so choose, whereas I have no such control with the carrier-supplied Android version?
cripple apps by denying parts of their permission request. right now its all or nothing
Funny, I was expecting this crowd to have fantasies of crippling those apps' developers.
I mean seriously, $(app vendor), your app does not need access to my location and/or phone calls in order for me to do $(menial computation X).
So this is a bit off-topic, but probably the right time to ask...
I've been increasingly concerned with my lack of control over my Android (Verizon) phone. This current issue lies in the same area as my earlier worries.
Is this the kind of problem that cyanogenmod addresses? I didn't have the time, or ability to live with a broken phone, to try it out earlier. But I'm about to stop traveling so much, so I'm wondering if it's time to give cyanogenmod a try.
Having worked for a union shop (U.S. DoD civil servant), I will simply assert that you're very, very wrong.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about these theories, but they just keep on striking me as mental masturbation by a sub-field that needs to have B.S. called on the lot of them.
AFAIK, we can only make wildly speculative guesses as to the lifestyles of these creatures. And that will probably be forever true. So unless we find cave drawings of an extensive face-punching meritocracy within these families, it's probably wild speculation as to whether or not it was a relevant factor in the evolution of these features.
This isn't science.
Your argument about a better product is pretty poor. You seem to be saying that it's worth violating the laws of a democracy merely in order to get better-packaged video entertainment. I don't see how a democracy can function well if people are willing to so casually disregard laws they don't support.
Your argument about a corrupt legislative process is much more interesting, though. It calls into question whether or not we're really a democracy, and thus whether or not obeying the laws per se should carry any moral or ethical weight.
"It's not what you know. It's what you can prove in court" -- Law Abiding Citizen
It's not what you know in court, but how much the President likes the cut of your jib.
- What Bill Gates could have said after the DOJ let MS off the hook Scott-free for antitrust violations.
If it's not yours, don't take it without permission.
If it's not just yours, pay a corrupt legislature to make it exclusively yours, and to make anyone else using it a criminal offense, enforced by the threat of violence.
Fixed that for you.
Yea, you should definitely defend the fraudster by claiming it was US government corruption that put him where he is.
He should be let off because his corruption was okay, because someone else was doing it too ... right?
If I had to choose between a sleazy fraudster going to jail, and the uncovering (and correction) of government corruption, I'd choose the latter. Government corruption, at least in this particular case, is far scarier to me.
This is supremely off-topic, but it's a Friday afternoon, so what the hay...
I've been wondering similar things about evangelical Christianity. Some Christians seem to think that the big mission of Christians is to spread Christianity. But if that's all there is, then it seems like there's little other substance to the thing they're trying to spread, and so there's no clear point in doing so.
I realize that's a gross simplification, but it's what comes to mind. It reminds me of that (old) SNL skit about the bank that makes change. When asked how they turned a profit, the bank rep said "volume".
3%? Luxury! Why, my da' offered me -24% tenure, I had to be my own T.A., and made me park in student parking. Every mornin' when I came in he'd make me chair a new faculty working group and then hit me with a tire iron.
I can speak only for myself, but that wasn't the case for me. The first 2.5 years of my undergrad were really lackluster. I only really got a fire lit under myself around my senior year of undergrad.
Then I fought through 5 years (part time) for my CS master's degree, not because I loved the academic environment, but for some combination of love of the material and wanting a financially secure future.
I later did a PhD for a combination of (a) wanting people to be willing to fund me to do research at the govt. lab I worked at, and (b) finding the material really interesting, and (c) hoping to have an even more secure future. It turns out (c) was simply misguided; that end would have been better ensured by me spending that time keeping abreast of trendy technologies and software tools.
But back to my main point, none of my time in grad school was due to mere momentum or love of being in school. Every semester involved sacrifice, and a rethinking as to whether or not I expected the benefits to justify the costs.
Maybe our greatest dreams shouldn't need fulfillment so far from home?
Whoosh! ...
Wait, is Whoosh snarky? I can't even tell.
Awesome. What organization, if you don't mind me asking?