Wonder how many of those 4,000 people are actual gun owners today. Also wonder if the survey respondents have heard about the numerous shortcomings with smart guns. http://www.thebangswitch.com/t... - for example, a $1399.22lr handgun is not going to have much of a market around gun savvy people. EnGadget does a good run down of the technical limitations and issues - http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...
Not sure about the recission part, but they're definitely out to kill the competition. I fully expect the battle to get extremely bloody. Apple's sacrifice of their own Java implementation might well have been under duress, given this development.
It might be a good idea at this point to start looking at other languages. Since D is supposed to be "C# done right", it might be a language worth investigating. All you'd need is a portable virtual machine for it and you've a rival to Java that is (supposedly) superior to Java structurally.
Yep and you better have a license from Oracle/Sun as Microsoft does or Larry will sick his patent police on you faster than you can say unsigned int
Patent Infringement != Theft
How do you "steal" a method for doing something?
Further, if you cannot implement basic java functionality, then why why why is it an "open" language in the first place...
Its like if I tell you to read a paper before writing your own, then I get mad when the paper I had you read influences your writing..
software patents are absolutely the devil.
Global Warming is undeniable? In a world with Faux News and Rush Limbaugh, that is a big statement, and I think they'll take it as a challenge they can win.
Bezos has shown he will apply the patents whenever he thinks it benefits Amazon, having a taste of FB's profits would definitely benefit Amazon in a very big way. There really needs to be something done about the way that patents are being awarded for things that it seems obviously are outside the scope of the patent examiners. If the problem isn't the examiners, then the process definitely needs to be looked at. For all of the skepticism I've heard about some of the referred journals and conferences in computer science and related fields, it seems more difficult to publish there than to get a patent. That's not saying too much having read some pretty badly written published research. At least tech patents could expire on a pretty quick timeline if they are going to allow people to patent everything under the sun from ideas to genetic sequences.
I'd love to hear the examiner(s) for this patent speak their case.
This is absolutely not true. The correct answer is not to sneak in removeable media and copy classified then send it to whoever. Had he said he was feeling morally questionable about the war and he didnt feel as though he should have access to classified they would have pulled his clearances and he could have completed his discharge. He could have then written letters to his congresspeople about what he saw. After all, they are able to obtain clearance to hear about it. Then he would have done his part. This is not Soviet Russia, where are all of these "disappeared" soldiers who have had misgivings about the war? They would have families you know?
Its funny how people are quick to pontificate about how evil the US military is, but when confronted with the facts, such as what you posted here, there is complete silence from the critics. Yes, there have been some disgusting things done over there, some justified, and some not so much, however how can anyone blame these aircrews. If you decide as a reporter to go get one of the sides in a conflict, how can you be shocked if the other side sees you with the enemy, particularly when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and they assume you are not an innocent civilian.
It would be nice to see this degree of anger expressed at the guys who killed Paul Moran, Michael Kelly, Julio Anguita Parrado, and Christian Leibig among others and that nearly killed Kimberly Dozier. Does the fact that those guys didnt have Apache helicopters make it okay?
They arrested a hero whistleblower, at least for revealing this video. The government lied, and denied Reuters FOIA requests for information regarding how their reporters were killed, to continue the coverup.
Hero whistleblower? If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero. You do not get to decide when classified data should be released, regardless of how it makes you feel. There are proper channels for complaining about things and he could have availed himself of those, if he had a problem with what was happening around him. Anyway, it is very obvious that this guy did this because he has a need for attention and respect, not because of his moral stance. The point is, the minute you sign those forms and take that oath, it ceases being about your personal feelings. You have a responsibility for following the law. The wrongs of others does not justify what he did. There are a million things that he could have done, instead of this that would have within the law.
He could be thrown in prison for life, and it would be completely justified because he agreed to risk that consequence unauthorized sharing of classified. You dont get to change the rules after the fact because you dont like them. That line of work is for people willing to accept serious responsibility. Its not like these are trumped up charges or they made a special punishment for him. he gets no sympathy, and he did not help anyone here.
A quick search on the NY Times site shows that word is used out of context: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=googled&srchst=cse
Google is not a verb. Thus one cannot be googling, have googled, or be planning to google in the future, yet the term is used in this way in several articles.
While I understand where he's coming from, to single out Twitter and not other similarly retarded variations on websites or tech geek tools makes him just sound like an angry old man.
Lots of focus on the badness of applying the hotfix... granted this is a valid concern
what gets broken by issuing an advisory about the bug? Its not like Microsoft never had a security advisory issued before about some obscure "feature" noone uses.
Right, they won't use the security researcher who found the bug that their "evolved" process missed...
And that's why Microsoft has such a great and well deserved reputation for producing secure products. Internet Explorer, SQL Server, IIS, the Active X framework, every version of Windows OS before 2008/Seven.
Firefox has been a terribly insecure product, but they do make timely efforts to fix the bugs when they are discovered. For me, that counts for something.
I don't want to be an open source zealot, but how is it that a multi-billion dollar software company cannot even issue an advisory in 5 days, but groups loosely knitted groups of 3rd party funded engineers and volunteers can?
Imagine if that argument were applied elsewhere.
"Yes ma'am we received your 9-11 call about a house fire, but our city government is so large that we'll need to send a team out to verify there is smoke and heat and that a fire truck is warranted before the actual fire truck can be dispatched"
Not really, but I think his hotfix is a starting point, and testing would/should be at least partially automated. As another poster stated, they could put out an advisory or diable the service or do something more than they have done for the past 5 days.
Google, like Apple, is no longer any better/different than the companies they claim to be better than (from an ethical stand point).
Did you RTFA?
The Google engineer - who btw didn't use any indication that they are from google, other than the link back to code.google.com - also posted a hotfix. So... they told Microsoft 5 days ago AND GAVE THEM A FIX...
If this person was from a company that wasn't a competitor, would anyone call disclosing an (NON-ZERO DAY) issue on the security list so that security professionals are aware evil, after giving MS time to see the vulnerability and test the potential fix - I'd expect a company that derives Microsoft sized revenue from their OS to have someone readily available for these issues.
Okay... so I admit I'm no fan of Palin... But as a soon-to-be newly minted CISSP, people like Kernell make me sick.
However, when I see a 20 year sentence for his crime, vice 150 years for Madoff who stole tens of thousands of people's retirement, not put their information in the wind where there was potential of having money stolen... I can't help but think:
1. There is seriously something wrong with the way these crimes are sentenced - there needs to be either a specialized court system for computer-centered crimes which legal stuff who TRULY understand these issues, or a serious education program for lawmakers and the judicial and law enforcement communities that deal with these laws and issues.
2. There needs to be more creativity in the sentencing process. Kernell is a criminal, make no mistake. Obviously he is very far from a mastermind, and most of these convicted hackers are script kiddies, the cyberwar equivalent of cannon fodder. I just wonder what is gained by putting this dummy away for 20 years. I think we'd be better served by making him notorius for what he's done wrong and using him as a public example - i.e. banned from working in the computing field, long-term house arrest, etc (whose food and shelter we dont have to pay for).
Yes, you can put cameras and sensors on buses. You can put them on taxis. On cars. On cell phones. On carrier pigeons. On dogs. On ferrets. On snails. Up your nose even.
Do we really need a story every time someone sticks a sensor in yet another place? We must have these posts, and they must all be tagged bigbrother or whatcouldpossiblygowrong, and have several lame soviet references, although there is no indication of the aforementioned cameras and sensors being used for anything other than congestion control.
welcome to slashdot!
I think we agree on the general point. Again, I didnt bring up the extraneous unrelated other cases of Bike helmets, etc. There was another poster you responded to before me, I see that he mentioned them.
This is where I see the disagreement, while I believe in personal liberty and it is my reason for being against many of the current and proposed anti-gluttony laws, I do see where government, being responsible to its citizens and powered by precedent - legislating behavior - could conceivably argue that such laws are okay. I think that under some cases, there needs to be regulation of human behavior, because you do have some individuals who have no problems expressing their "freedom" in ways that unequally impair the freedom of fellow citizens... I (and apparently many others) have a problem with that. And it is a fundamental conflict in free society, where is that line to be drawn?
Back to the smoking issue, I don't think what you posted is unreasonable. I also think that part of the problem with anti-smoking laws in particular, is that when something is legal for so long and becomes ingrained into a significant portion of the population, its a more than a little difficult to undo it with swish of a few pens, and very unfair to burden people who acted legally and are now addicted to nicotine with draconian laws and penalties. I just think that with all things were there are significant portions of society on both sides of the issue, new laws and rules should tread lightly.
Didn't have to "look hard" to find cases of people stealing cigarettes... and the fact that people stole them doesn't by and in of itself mean they should be illegal
No, like I said, people steal for all kinds of stuff, including food. That doesn't mean that anything that is stolen for should be outlawed. If that were the case, EVERYTHING would be outlawed. People steal for food, boats, cars, gas, money, their kids... people steal for all kinds of reasons!
I, usually, am one of the first to say, if people want to smoke they should be able to, and many of the anti-smoker laws are completely out of pocket. However, this is my opinion. Having that opinion doesnt mean that weak arguments that cite other weakly associated regulatory applications such as bike helmets, child safety seats and guns are acceptable.
You brought up bike helmets and the other examples.
First, we are not talking about liberty. The original discussion is about how fat people cause disproportionate overuse of limited resources and in large numbers accelerate the decline of the environment, at least in a state that is optimal for us as humans. Somehow it got twisted and turned into the argument against smoking, which is altogther different.
How is it different? - To put it shortly: Large numbers of fat people consume an outsize portion of resources and place great strain on the environment causing a degradation that affects all of us over time. This is irrelevant of the environment where food is consumed or whether others are present as it is consumed.
I agree that we have gotten off topic a bit, but there are similarities between smoking laws and... well, let's call them anti-gluttony proposals. This is where I hop off the environmental bandwagon. The base here is that people want to control what other people do. They use excuses like, "for the common good", "it's for your own good", "think of the children" and "to save mankind/environment/seals/whatever". This type of argument is abused over and over again and literally can lead to tyranny. China putting down the Tienanmen Square protests was for the common good, at the cost of personal liberty. The problem is that people see "for the common good" as more important than liberty. I think that personal liberty itself is "for the common good". When you start saying that one person can not use more resources than another person, you enter the realm of Communism, where we all have the same
Didn't have to "look hard" to find cases of people stealing cigarettes... and the fact that people stole them doesn't by and in of itself mean they should be illegal
I, usually, am one of the first to say, if people want to smoke they should be able to, and many of the anti-smoker laws are completely out of pocket. However, this is my opinion. Having that opinion doesnt mean that weak arguments that cite other weakly associated regulatory applications such as bike helmets, child safety seats and guns are acceptable.
First, we are not talking about liberty. The original discussion is about how fat people cause disproportionate overuse of limited resources and in large numbers accelerate the decline of the environment, at least in a state that is optimal for us as humans. Somehow it got twisted and turned into the argument against smoking, which is altogther different.
How is it different? - To put it shortly: Large numbers of fat people consume an outsize portion of resources and place great strain on the environment causing a degradation that affects all of us over time. This is irrelevant of the environment where food is consumed or whether others are present as it is consumed.
A single smoker can create an environment that is inhospitable to many non-smokers by partaking in an environment populated with non-smokers. Further, they place outsized strain on the health care system with largely preventable illnesses brought on by the use of cigarettes that boils down to an individual choice to smoke.
This has nothing to do with Bikes, Child Safety, Gun Laws, and is only partially comparable to public decency laws.
Personally, I think smoking is being over-legislated against, but there has to be a balance between the freedom to smoke, as long as it is in the public interest to remain legal, and the freedom to partake of public activites without being inhibited by second hand smoke & the strain that smoking places on the public health infrstructure.
This, btw, would be lessened had the states properly used the huge settlement the received from "Big-Tobacco".
You must not havenotbeenlooking.
Uh, I haven't seen any smokers robbing a liquor store to get their next fix.
-modern society is forced to regulate the unintelligent, inconsiderate and unhealthy in cases where people are not willing to regulate themselves. Many laws exist to regulate public behavior, especially when this behavior affects the health or pocketbooks of others. Bike helmets, seatbelts, child safety seats, gun laws, public shagging (sad, but true), public drinking...all these laws are there for a reason: to manage the stupid, selfish, 'I am an island' behavior of self-destructive impulse-driven dickheads.
that I understand where you are coming from. I also think that to some degree laws (or more importantly, selective enforcement of said laws) are utilized to remove "undesirable" behavior from society. Rather this is a desired ideal, I'd disagree, but I think its rather subjective.
"Get her (woman) any way you can" There is no legal means for prosecuting someone for what she did to the girl, so they found another way to bring charges, i.e. being arrested for resisting arrest or the way Gotti caused the deaths of dozens, but he went away for tax evasion. What she did was not acceptable socially, so the criminal justice system is trying to find a way to squeeze her in. I don't like it, but right now I think its better than having US Code specifying the legality of things like this on the Internet more than it already does. Considering the 80% of congress is technically inept (optimistic) and a different 80% could care less about passing ambigous legislation that can be misused.
Now the kids will have to get used to patch Tuesday and Blue Screen of Death and DLL hell. Yep, great way to introduce the youngsters of the world to computing.
Many websites do not have SSL Certificates, they are not cheap or free (most of the time). Trying to browse this site on https bounces you back to the unecrypted version. And, it wont prevent you from getting ads, just from get targetted ads.
I usually dodge these discussions but here goes:
Humans & animal LIFE in general have some level of brain activity. Thus, is it not reasonable to say that lack of brain or brain activity == lack of life (for animals)?
Because noone could ever get another free email from Yahoo/MSN/Google/RediffMail/DMX/insert free email provider here and register for a new account if they are operating under nefarious purposes, you know, like spammers do.
Age verification technology - how will this work without requiring giving more personal information to facebook, who will then use it to further tail advertisements, could you imagine if they had your postal address?
The only part that makes sense is alerting when minors send information to adults.... but to do that it means monitoring personal communication without a warrant, and how do they really _know_ the child and adult know each other in a non-threatening way, and on the other side, how do they know that they arent relatives or have some other benign relationship...
The solution is for parents to be parents and stop letting the computer/tv/playstation/wii parent your kids for you... nobody forced you to become a parent, take some responsibility.
"In the deal, the social network has agreed to develop age verification technology, send warning messages when an under-18 user may be giving personal information to an unknown adult, restrict the ability for people to change their ages on the site, and keep abreast of inappropriate content and harassment on the site. While the agreement is with U.S. state authorities, Kelly said that the tools deployed will apply to Facebook's international users as well. More than half of the site's 70 million users are outside the U.S."
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder how many of those 4,000 people are actual gun owners today. Also wonder if the survey respondents have heard about the numerous shortcomings with smart guns. http://www.thebangswitch.com/t... - for example, a $1399 .22lr handgun is not going to have much of a market around gun savvy people. EnGadget does a good run down of the technical limitations and issues - http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...
Not sure about the recission part, but they're definitely out to kill the competition. I fully expect the battle to get extremely bloody. Apple's sacrifice of their own Java implementation might well have been under duress, given this development.
It might be a good idea at this point to start looking at other languages. Since D is supposed to be "C# done right", it might be a language worth investigating. All you'd need is a portable virtual machine for it and you've a rival to Java that is (supposedly) superior to Java structurally.
Yep and you better have a license from Oracle/Sun as Microsoft does or Larry will sick his patent police on you faster than you can say unsigned int
Patent Infringement != Theft How do you "steal" a method for doing something? Further, if you cannot implement basic java functionality, then why why why is it an "open" language in the first place... Its like if I tell you to read a paper before writing your own, then I get mad when the paper I had you read influences your writing.. software patents are absolutely the devil.
Global Warming is undeniable? In a world with Faux News and Rush Limbaugh, that is a big statement, and I think they'll take it as a challenge they can win.
Bezos has shown he will apply the patents whenever he thinks it benefits Amazon, having a taste of FB's profits would definitely benefit Amazon in a very big way. There really needs to be something done about the way that patents are being awarded for things that it seems obviously are outside the scope of the patent examiners. If the problem isn't the examiners, then the process definitely needs to be looked at. For all of the skepticism I've heard about some of the referred journals and conferences in computer science and related fields, it seems more difficult to publish there than to get a patent. That's not saying too much having read some pretty badly written published research. At least tech patents could expire on a pretty quick timeline if they are going to allow people to patent everything under the sun from ideas to genetic sequences. I'd love to hear the examiner(s) for this patent speak their case.
This is absolutely not true. The correct answer is not to sneak in removeable media and copy classified then send it to whoever. Had he said he was feeling morally questionable about the war and he didnt feel as though he should have access to classified they would have pulled his clearances and he could have completed his discharge. He could have then written letters to his congresspeople about what he saw. After all, they are able to obtain clearance to hear about it. Then he would have done his part. This is not Soviet Russia, where are all of these "disappeared" soldiers who have had misgivings about the war? They would have families you know?
Its funny how people are quick to pontificate about how evil the US military is, but when confronted with the facts, such as what you posted here, there is complete silence from the critics. Yes, there have been some disgusting things done over there, some justified, and some not so much, however how can anyone blame these aircrews. If you decide as a reporter to go get one of the sides in a conflict, how can you be shocked if the other side sees you with the enemy, particularly when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and they assume you are not an innocent civilian.
It would be nice to see this degree of anger expressed at the guys who killed Paul Moran, Michael Kelly, Julio Anguita Parrado, and Christian Leibig among others and that nearly killed Kimberly Dozier. Does the fact that those guys didnt have Apache helicopters make it okay?
They arrested a hero whistleblower, at least for revealing this video. The government lied, and denied Reuters FOIA requests for information regarding how their reporters were killed, to continue the coverup.
Hero whistleblower? If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero. You do not get to decide when classified data should be released, regardless of how it makes you feel. There are proper channels for complaining about things and he could have availed himself of those, if he had a problem with what was happening around him. Anyway, it is very obvious that this guy did this because he has a need for attention and respect, not because of his moral stance. The point is, the minute you sign those forms and take that oath, it ceases being about your personal feelings. You have a responsibility for following the law. The wrongs of others does not justify what he did. There are a million things that he could have done, instead of this that would have within the law.
He could be thrown in prison for life, and it would be completely justified because he agreed to risk that consequence unauthorized sharing of classified. You dont get to change the rules after the fact because you dont like them. That line of work is for people willing to accept serious responsibility. Its not like these are trumped up charges or they made a special punishment for him. he gets no sympathy, and he did not help anyone here.
A quick search on the NY Times site shows that word is used out of context: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=googled&srchst=cse Google is not a verb. Thus one cannot be googling, have googled, or be planning to google in the future, yet the term is used in this way in several articles. While I understand where he's coming from, to single out Twitter and not other similarly retarded variations on websites or tech geek tools makes him just sound like an angry old man.
Lots of focus on the badness of applying the hotfix... granted this is a valid concern what gets broken by issuing an advisory about the bug? Its not like Microsoft never had a security advisory issued before about some obscure "feature" noone uses.
Imagine if that argument were applied elsewhere.
"Yes ma'am we received your 9-11 call about a house fire, but our city government is so large that we'll need to send a team out to verify there is smoke and heat and that a fire truck is warranted before the actual fire truck can be dispatched"
Not really, but I think his hotfix is a starting point, and testing would/should be at least partially automated. As another poster stated, they could put out an advisory or diable the service or do something more than they have done for the past 5 days.
Google, like Apple, is no longer any better/different than the companies they claim to be better than (from an ethical stand point).
Did you RTFA? The Google engineer - who btw didn't use any indication that they are from google, other than the link back to code.google.com - also posted a hotfix. So... they told Microsoft 5 days ago AND GAVE THEM A FIX... If this person was from a company that wasn't a competitor, would anyone call disclosing an (NON-ZERO DAY) issue on the security list so that security professionals are aware evil, after giving MS time to see the vulnerability and test the potential fix - I'd expect a company that derives Microsoft sized revenue from their OS to have someone readily available for these issues.
Okay... so I admit I'm no fan of Palin... But as a soon-to-be newly minted CISSP, people like Kernell make me sick. However, when I see a 20 year sentence for his crime, vice 150 years for Madoff who stole tens of thousands of people's retirement, not put their information in the wind where there was potential of having money stolen... I can't help but think: 1. There is seriously something wrong with the way these crimes are sentenced - there needs to be either a specialized court system for computer-centered crimes which legal stuff who TRULY understand these issues, or a serious education program for lawmakers and the judicial and law enforcement communities that deal with these laws and issues. 2. There needs to be more creativity in the sentencing process. Kernell is a criminal, make no mistake. Obviously he is very far from a mastermind, and most of these convicted hackers are script kiddies, the cyberwar equivalent of cannon fodder. I just wonder what is gained by putting this dummy away for 20 years. I think we'd be better served by making him notorius for what he's done wrong and using him as a public example - i.e. banned from working in the computing field, long-term house arrest, etc (whose food and shelter we dont have to pay for).
This is where I see the disagreement, while I believe in personal liberty and it is my reason for being against many of the current and proposed anti-gluttony laws, I do see where government, being responsible to its citizens and powered by precedent - legislating behavior - could conceivably argue that such laws are okay. I think that under some cases, there needs to be regulation of human behavior, because you do have some individuals who have no problems expressing their "freedom" in ways that unequally impair the freedom of fellow citizens... I (and apparently many others) have a problem with that. And it is a fundamental conflict in free society, where is that line to be drawn?
Back to the smoking issue, I don't think what you posted is unreasonable. I also think that part of the problem with anti-smoking laws in particular, is that when something is legal for so long and becomes ingrained into a significant portion of the population, its a more than a little difficult to undo it with swish of a few pens, and very unfair to burden people who acted legally and are now addicted to nicotine with draconian laws and penalties. I just think that with all things were there are significant portions of society on both sides of the issue, new laws and rules should tread lightly.
Didn't have to "look hard" to find cases of people stealing cigarettes... and the fact that people stole them doesn't by and in of itself mean they should be illegal
No, like I said, people steal for all kinds of stuff, including food. That doesn't mean that anything that is stolen for should be outlawed. If that were the case, EVERYTHING would be outlawed. People steal for food, boats, cars, gas, money, their kids... people steal for all kinds of reasons!
I, usually, am one of the first to say, if people want to smoke they should be able to, and many of the anti-smoker laws are completely out of pocket. However, this is my opinion. Having that opinion doesnt mean that weak arguments that cite other weakly associated regulatory applications such as bike helmets, child safety seats and guns are acceptable.
You brought up bike helmets and the other examples.
First, we are not talking about liberty. The original discussion is about how fat people cause disproportionate overuse of limited resources and in large numbers accelerate the decline of the environment, at least in a state that is optimal for us as humans. Somehow it got twisted and turned into the argument against smoking, which is altogther different. How is it different? - To put it shortly: Large numbers of fat people consume an outsize portion of resources and place great strain on the environment causing a degradation that affects all of us over time. This is irrelevant of the environment where food is consumed or whether others are present as it is consumed.
I agree that we have gotten off topic a bit, but there are similarities between smoking laws and... well, let's call them anti-gluttony proposals. This is where I hop off the environmental bandwagon. The base here is that people want to control what other people do. They use excuses like, "for the common good", "it's for your own good", "think of the children" and "to save mankind/environment/seals/whatever". This type of argument is abused over and over again and literally can lead to tyranny. China putting down the Tienanmen Square protests was for the common good, at the cost of personal liberty. The problem is that people see "for the common good" as more important than liberty. I think that personal liberty itself is "for the common good". When you start saying that one person can not use more resources than another person, you enter the realm of Communism, where we all have the same
Didn't have to "look hard" to find cases of people stealing cigarettes... and the fact that people stole them doesn't by and in of itself mean they should be illegal
I, usually, am one of the first to say, if people want to smoke they should be able to, and many of the anti-smoker laws are completely out of pocket. However, this is my opinion. Having that opinion doesnt mean that weak arguments that cite other weakly associated regulatory applications such as bike helmets, child safety seats and guns are acceptable.
First, we are not talking about liberty. The original discussion is about how fat people cause disproportionate overuse of limited resources and in large numbers accelerate the decline of the environment, at least in a state that is optimal for us as humans. Somehow it got twisted and turned into the argument against smoking, which is altogther different.
How is it different? - To put it shortly: Large numbers of fat people consume an outsize portion of resources and place great strain on the environment causing a degradation that affects all of us over time. This is irrelevant of the environment where food is consumed or whether others are present as it is consumed.
A single smoker can create an environment that is inhospitable to many non-smokers by partaking in an environment populated with non-smokers. Further, they place outsized strain on the health care system with largely preventable illnesses brought on by the use of cigarettes that boils down to an individual choice to smoke.
This has nothing to do with Bikes, Child Safety, Gun Laws, and is only partially comparable to public decency laws.
Personally, I think smoking is being over-legislated against, but there has to be a balance between the freedom to smoke, as long as it is in the public interest to remain legal, and the freedom to partake of public activites without being inhibited by second hand smoke & the strain that smoking places on the public health infrstructure.
This, btw, would be lessened had the states properly used the huge settlement the received from "Big-Tobacco".
-modern society is forced to regulate the unintelligent, inconsiderate and unhealthy in cases where people are not willing to regulate themselves. Many laws exist to regulate public behavior, especially when this behavior affects the health or pocketbooks of others. Bike helmets, seatbelts, child safety seats, gun laws, public shagging (sad, but true), public drinking...all these laws are there for a reason: to manage the stupid, selfish, 'I am an island' behavior of self-destructive impulse-driven dickheads.
that I understand where you are coming from. I also think that to some degree laws (or more importantly, selective enforcement of said laws) are utilized to remove "undesirable" behavior from society. Rather this is a desired ideal, I'd disagree, but I think its rather subjective.
You are correct. They did get Gotti on Tax Evasion too, which I am sure further my confusion...
"Get her (woman) any way you can" There is no legal means for prosecuting someone for what she did to the girl, so they found another way to bring charges, i.e. being arrested for resisting arrest or the way Gotti caused the deaths of dozens, but he went away for tax evasion. What she did was not acceptable socially, so the criminal justice system is trying to find a way to squeeze her in. I don't like it, but right now I think its better than having US Code specifying the legality of things like this on the Internet more than it already does. Considering the 80% of congress is technically inept (optimistic) and a different 80% could care less about passing ambigous legislation that can be misused.
Now the kids will have to get used to patch Tuesday and Blue Screen of Death and DLL hell. Yep, great way to introduce the youngsters of the world to computing.
Many websites do not have SSL Certificates, they are not cheap or free (most of the time). Trying to browse this site on https bounces you back to the unecrypted version. And, it wont prevent you from getting ads, just from get targetted ads.
I usually dodge these discussions but here goes: Humans & animal LIFE in general have some level of brain activity. Thus, is it not reasonable to say that lack of brain or brain activity == lack of life (for animals)?
Age verification technology - how will this work without requiring giving more personal information to facebook, who will then use it to further tail advertisements, could you imagine if they had your postal address?
The only part that makes sense is alerting when minors send information to adults.... but to do that it means monitoring personal communication without a warrant, and how do they really _know_ the child and adult know each other in a non-threatening way, and on the other side, how do they know that they arent relatives or have some other benign relationship... The solution is for parents to be parents and stop letting the computer/tv/playstation/wii parent your kids for you... nobody forced you to become a parent, take some responsibility. "In the deal, the social network has agreed to develop age verification technology, send warning messages when an under-18 user may be giving personal information to an unknown adult, restrict the ability for people to change their ages on the site, and keep abreast of inappropriate content and harassment on the site. While the agreement is with U.S. state authorities, Kelly said that the tools deployed will apply to Facebook's international users as well. More than half of the site's 70 million users are outside the U.S."