@"Enough Already With the Avoid-The-Ghetto Apps" article
Enough already with bullying headlines that tell you exactly what to do, think, feel, act and try shame you. Really, this crap is all over the place these days.
"Stand your ground" doesn't mean 'self-defense' per se, 'stand your ground' refers to whether or not you have a duty to retreat when threatened in an open space, in that jurisdiction. It is separate from self-defense rights 'per se' in that all states recognize a right to self-defense, but states differ on whether you have a duty to retreat. Duty to retreat means, say, if a mugger pulls a knife on you, in a place that you are allowed to be (e.g. city street), if you have a duty to retreat in that jurisdiction, and you were able to run away from the attacker, then you are required to do so and thus not e.g. pull a gun on your attacker to defend yourself. "Stand your ground" laws mean that if you have a right to be in that place, then you don't have a duty to retreat, and thus are allowed to pull a gun on the attacker even if you could have run away.
'Stand your ground' had nothing to do with the George Zimmerman case, and wasn't even brought into the trial. It is inherently irrelevant because you can't voluntarily retreat when someone is on top of you bashing your head into the pavement.
+1, this actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, consider also that this guy was a 'VoIP expert' who worked for Cisco - if he was planning a murder, does anyone honestly think he would be too stupid to even understand he should clear his browser cache?
Reportedly his relationship with his wife had been strained... she may have planned to secretly meet someone else at that location (many possible reasons), gone there, and been murdered.
Certainly seems enough for reasonable doubt, especially given that search is the only evidence they have. What a flimsy case. Reminds me of the Shawshank Redemption case.
Worst idea ever. This is counter-intuitive, but one of the big REASONS that PayPal is able to suck so badly, IS that the banking regulatory environment is so ridiculous, that it's virtually impossible to set up new competitors to PayPal. If it weren't for those regulations, we would have several different BETTER alternatives to PayPal by now.
If you think PayPal sucks, banks are far, far worse, and turning PayPal into 'yet another shitty, limited bank' is absolutely not the way to go.
Who cares? They get modded down and by and large don't affect the discussion.
If your discussion forum doesn't have ancient features that help filter out the crap, it's because your discussion forum platform sucks, not because everyone needs to be forced or pushed to give up anonymity.
Yours,
Mr. Dust Mite.
(BeanThere here) Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. We have a horrible debilitating illness that runs in our family, and I've watched family members die slowly from it very literally since my earliest memories. Thus I realise probably more than most that in life, 'shit happens'. But my approach is not to assume that that entitles me to other people's money, instead, I plan for it. So while my friends and industry peers live it up and spend their money on nice houses and nice cars without putting much savings away, I've been living much more modestly from the start, and saving money so that if it hits me, I can pay for my own care. Shit happens in life. You plan for it. If I am ever in a situation where it's between my life, and living by leeching off of others, I will rather put a bullet in my head than leech off others. I am not a leech. And I think that's a good principle, and makes me a better person, than people who argue that being a leech is OK, even if that leaves people claiming bizarrely that I'm a "sociopath".
Uh, wtf!? It most certainly does when you were going to spend the $100 (e.g. have the dinner) anyway!?? Let's see: One one hand, spend $100 and don't expense it. On the other hand, spend $100 and expense it. This seems like an incredible no-brainer. Next time you try make a "clever comment", think it through first, or try a topic where you actually know what you're talking about.
I tend to agree, and not only that, but expensing the dinner saves taxes, meaning it saves the foundation money, leaving them with more money to spend on servers and bandwidth and other goodies that benefit us. There isn't a company in existence that doesn't throw the odd personal dinner onto the company books as an expense - so what. Nothing wrong with the odd dinner, I mean should the guy live like a pauper? Now if he was buying Lamborghinis while the whole Wikipedia site was collapsing that would be another thing, but this is just incredibly silly. And as for him editing articles, well in case nobody's heard, *anyone* can edit articles, and I guess that includes the founder, let him edit on his own site, if he really made a mess of articles it would be reverted and uncovered.
I have, but thankfully not very much. I've used every Windows version since Windows 3.1. 98 crashed a lot, so it's a close crappiness contest between Vista and 98, but Vista is FAR more bloated and slow, and although it doesn't crash often, badly broken in many other respects.
You guys can say what you want, but this is why I look at slashdot less and less
Good, please leave, thanks! This is our little place to bash MS and we like it that way.
Oh, and just for the record, I've been using Vista since it was released and it's a stinking turd-pile, I've had more problems with it in one year than I've had with all other versions of Windows over ten years, and that's not an exaggeration. I could write a several-page essay just summing up the main points here, but that would be tedious. In all though I've easily lost several weeks of time just tracking down and fixing Vista problems, and still they come. So take your astroturfing propaganda elsewhere. Vista's a certified turd.
Finally, someone else who sees it. Everything he says 'feels good' but actually means nothing if you break apart the words. E.g. he will emphatically tell you he wants 'fix the dysfunctional immigration system' and is for 'immigration reform' - but what does that even MEAN? Everybody wants to 'fix dysfunctional systems' and everybody is for 'reform' - it's just that each candidate's definition of 'fix' and 'reform' will differ, and it's his definition that worries me. Likewise for patent "reform", and well, just about everything else that could mean so many things. Listen carefully to the exact words he uses, not how 'good' it sounds - it's weasel-y and creepy. You have to carefully read between the lines. His immigration stance is that he wants to let MILLIONS more poor unskilled mexicans in, for example (read it carefully). And wants more welfare. Etc.
Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but I think Obama is an AWFUL candidate, and the idea of that slimy demagogue becoming president (who has lots of people fooled because he is charismatic and is very good with weasel-words) scares me.
As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both will mis-state anything to either gain an advantage or make a point at the expense of their opponents and the truth.
Aren't you conflating "Democrat and Republican politicians" with "Democrat and Republican supporters"? The politicians are problematic (almost entirely because most people vote on pure emotional base instinct), but I'd say that in general there are definite differences amongst support ideologies.
I especially admire the fact that you got modded up for bashing Microsoft when you use Windows on your computer.
It's only the poor who truly know what poverty feels like.:-)
While it is possible to avoid using Windows, it's quite exceptional - most of us end up using Windows because one way or another, network effects push us into it (e.g. "my customers use it", "my employer insinsts on it because his/her customers use it", "my gran uses it" etc.).
Uh, yeah moderators, an anonymous coward who generalises and calls people retards and idiots gets "+3 insightful" and a moderate fact-based response gets flamebait. Whatever. There's a special place reserved in hell for you biased/. moderators.
I must say, if a shop owner doesn't want kids/babies around, even if it's bad business it's still within their rights. Hurting babies though is not --- perhaps the answer is not to outlaw the devices entirely (an abominable though), but if you use them in a semi-public place like a shop, require you to put up a notice indicating prominently that you are using such a device?
Either you're just a troll, or that's the most idiotic reasoning I've ever seen in my life. No, you're just a troll, and this doesn't even warrant a response, it's obvious flamebait, just like your earlier post.
What are you blathering about? I guess you enjoy any chance you can get to point out supposed double standards on slashdot (what a strange hobby), but you don't need double standards to reason this one through. Yes it is a technological device and should most certainly not be outlawed altogether (duh). THE ABUSE OF IT in public places, yes, there might be an argument to outlaw that (the abuse thereof, not the ownership).
If I don't want kids on my lawn, I certainly don't to be 'harmonising' with children anyway, it should be my right to use this on my private property as long as I don't blast the neighbours.
This is just a device that makes a noise. It should be treated legally the same as any other device that makes a noise (i.e. not be banned). It's not special. The fact that only some people can hear it is irrelevant to the ethics therein. Making a noise with this is ethically like making a noise with any other device. We don't ban stereos but you can limit their abuse.
Yeah, and what's the point of being able to hear your phone ringing in class if you can't answer it anyway without it becoming obvious that your phone rang? I mean saying "HELLO!" is probably going to give the little game away, I would presume, unless kids can talk in those frequencies too.
I think kids are just being gullible and like the idea of the whole thing.
You guys can say what you want, but this is why I look at slashdot less and less
Good, please leave, thanks! This is our little place to bash MS and we like it that way.
Oh, and just for the record, I've been using Vista since it was released and it's a stinking turd-pile, I've had more problems with it in one year than I've had with all other versions of Windows over ten years, and that's not an exaggeration. I could write a several-page essay just summing up the main points here, but that would be tedious. In all though I've easily lost several weeks of time just tracking down and fixing Vista problems, and still they come. So take your astroturfing propaganda elsewhere. Vista's a certified turd.
One of the major causes of this problem is welfare --- one of the reasons you can't afford to have kids and can hardly afford to pay this mortgage is that you are directly giving some of your money every month to those "parents" who pop out babies and let them run feral. You're paying other people to make babies. Rewarding them even. Stop this welfare nonsense, and let Darwin take care of the problem. Then we can go back to breeding more of the kind of people we actually want in a civilised society and breeding less of the trash.
There are other factors too though, e.g. people (in the US, not so much the UK) insist on buying the biggest house/car they can afford, 'must have' all the latest toys / iPods etc. --- the educated want entertainment not kids. It's a strange kind of genetic suicide underway.
Slashdot Mirror
@"Enough Already With the Avoid-The-Ghetto Apps" article Enough already with bullying headlines that tell you exactly what to do, think, feel, act and try shame you. Really, this crap is all over the place these days.
"Stand your ground" doesn't mean 'self-defense' per se, 'stand your ground' refers to whether or not you have a duty to retreat when threatened in an open space, in that jurisdiction. It is separate from self-defense rights 'per se' in that all states recognize a right to self-defense, but states differ on whether you have a duty to retreat. Duty to retreat means, say, if a mugger pulls a knife on you, in a place that you are allowed to be (e.g. city street), if you have a duty to retreat in that jurisdiction, and you were able to run away from the attacker, then you are required to do so and thus not e.g. pull a gun on your attacker to defend yourself. "Stand your ground" laws mean that if you have a right to be in that place, then you don't have a duty to retreat, and thus are allowed to pull a gun on the attacker even if you could have run away.
'Stand your ground' had nothing to do with the George Zimmerman case, and wasn't even brought into the trial. It is inherently irrelevant because you can't voluntarily retreat when someone is on top of you bashing your head into the pavement.
Reportedly his relationship with his wife had been strained ... she may have planned to secretly meet someone else at that location (many possible reasons), gone there, and been murdered.
Certainly seems enough for reasonable doubt, especially given that search is the only evidence they have. What a flimsy case. Reminds me of the Shawshank Redemption case.
Nothing to see here. Move along
Your complete lack of empathy suggests to me you might be a sociopath. I don't mean that as an insult, just an honest evaluation.
Note how they do it BECAUSE of regulations, and yet everyone's knee-jerk reaction is "PayPal sucks we need to throw MOAR regulaations at it!!11!"
Worst idea ever. This is counter-intuitive, but one of the big REASONS that PayPal is able to suck so badly, IS that the banking regulatory environment is so ridiculous, that it's virtually impossible to set up new competitors to PayPal. If it weren't for those regulations, we would have several different BETTER alternatives to PayPal by now. If you think PayPal sucks, banks are far, far worse, and turning PayPal into 'yet another shitty, limited bank' is absolutely not the way to go.
Who cares? They get modded down and by and large don't affect the discussion. If your discussion forum doesn't have ancient features that help filter out the crap, it's because your discussion forum platform sucks, not because everyone needs to be forced or pushed to give up anonymity. Yours, Mr. Dust Mite.
(BeanThere here) Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. We have a horrible debilitating illness that runs in our family, and I've watched family members die slowly from it very literally since my earliest memories. Thus I realise probably more than most that in life, 'shit happens'. But my approach is not to assume that that entitles me to other people's money, instead, I plan for it. So while my friends and industry peers live it up and spend their money on nice houses and nice cars without putting much savings away, I've been living much more modestly from the start, and saving money so that if it hits me, I can pay for my own care. Shit happens in life. You plan for it. If I am ever in a situation where it's between my life, and living by leeching off of others, I will rather put a bullet in my head than leech off others. I am not a leech. And I think that's a good principle, and makes me a better person, than people who argue that being a leech is OK, even if that leaves people claiming bizarrely that I'm a "sociopath".
Uh, wtf!? It most certainly does when you were going to spend the $100 (e.g. have the dinner) anyway!?? Let's see: One one hand, spend $100 and don't expense it. On the other hand, spend $100 and expense it. This seems like an incredible no-brainer. Next time you try make a "clever comment", think it through first, or try a topic where you actually know what you're talking about.
I tend to agree, and not only that, but expensing the dinner saves taxes, meaning it saves the foundation money, leaving them with more money to spend on servers and bandwidth and other goodies that benefit us. There isn't a company in existence that doesn't throw the odd personal dinner onto the company books as an expense - so what. Nothing wrong with the odd dinner, I mean should the guy live like a pauper? Now if he was buying Lamborghinis while the whole Wikipedia site was collapsing that would be another thing, but this is just incredibly silly. And as for him editing articles, well in case nobody's heard, *anyone* can edit articles, and I guess that includes the founder, let him edit on his own site, if he really made a mess of articles it would be reverted and uncovered.
Obama - through sheer audacity of hope and lefty rhetoric - actually can bring the dead back to life.
Actually, it's because he's the Messiah - naturally!
I have, but thankfully not very much. I've used every Windows version since Windows 3.1. 98 crashed a lot, so it's a close crappiness contest between Vista and 98, but Vista is FAR more bloated and slow, and although it doesn't crash often, badly broken in many other respects.
You guys can say what you want, but this is why I look at slashdot less and less
Good, please leave, thanks! This is our little place to bash MS and we like it that way.
Oh, and just for the record, I've been using Vista since it was released and it's a stinking turd-pile, I've had more problems with it in one year than I've had with all other versions of Windows over ten years, and that's not an exaggeration. I could write a several-page essay just summing up the main points here, but that would be tedious. In all though I've easily lost several weeks of time just tracking down and fixing Vista problems, and still they come. So take your astroturfing propaganda elsewhere. Vista's a certified turd.
No, I'm definitely not, and I definitely haven't. Read it all again. You've either misinterpreted my post, or the story.
Finally, someone else who sees it. Everything he says 'feels good' but actually means nothing if you break apart the words. E.g. he will emphatically tell you he wants 'fix the dysfunctional immigration system' and is for 'immigration reform' - but what does that even MEAN? Everybody wants to 'fix dysfunctional systems' and everybody is for 'reform' - it's just that each candidate's definition of 'fix' and 'reform' will differ, and it's his definition that worries me. Likewise for patent "reform", and well, just about everything else that could mean so many things. Listen carefully to the exact words he uses, not how 'good' it sounds - it's weasel-y and creepy. You have to carefully read between the lines. His immigration stance is that he wants to let MILLIONS more poor unskilled mexicans in, for example (read it carefully). And wants more welfare. Etc.
His style reminds me of a televangelist at times.
Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but I think Obama is an AWFUL candidate, and the idea of that slimy demagogue becoming president (who has lots of people fooled because he is charismatic and is very good with weasel-words) scares me.
As if there's a nickel's worth difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both will mis-state anything to either gain an advantage or make a point at the expense of their opponents and the truth.
Aren't you conflating "Democrat and Republican politicians" with "Democrat and Republican supporters"? The politicians are problematic (almost entirely because most people vote on pure emotional base instinct), but I'd say that in general there are definite differences amongst support ideologies.
I especially admire the fact that you got modded up for bashing Microsoft when you use Windows on your computer.
It's only the poor who truly know what poverty feels like. :-)
While it is possible to avoid using Windows, it's quite exceptional - most of us end up using Windows because one way or another, network effects push us into it (e.g. "my customers use it", "my employer insinsts on it because his/her customers use it", "my gran uses it" etc.).
Uh, yeah moderators, an anonymous coward who generalises and calls people retards and idiots gets "+3 insightful" and a moderate fact-based response gets flamebait. Whatever. There's a special place reserved in hell for you biased /. moderators.
I must say, if a shop owner doesn't want kids/babies around, even if it's bad business it's still within their rights. Hurting babies though is not --- perhaps the answer is not to outlaw the devices entirely (an abominable though), but if you use them in a semi-public place like a shop, require you to put up a notice indicating prominently that you are using such a device?
Either you're just a troll, or that's the most idiotic reasoning I've ever seen in my life. No, you're just a troll, and this doesn't even warrant a response, it's obvious flamebait, just like your earlier post.
What are you blathering about? I guess you enjoy any chance you can get to point out supposed double standards on slashdot (what a strange hobby), but you don't need double standards to reason this one through. Yes it is a technological device and should most certainly not be outlawed altogether (duh). THE ABUSE OF IT in public places, yes, there might be an argument to outlaw that (the abuse thereof, not the ownership).
If I don't want kids on my lawn, I certainly don't to be 'harmonising' with children anyway, it should be my right to use this on my private property as long as I don't blast the neighbours.
This is just a device that makes a noise. It should be treated legally the same as any other device that makes a noise (i.e. not be banned). It's not special. The fact that only some people can hear it is irrelevant to the ethics therein. Making a noise with this is ethically like making a noise with any other device. We don't ban stereos but you can limit their abuse.
Yeah, and what's the point of being able to hear your phone ringing in class if you can't answer it anyway without it becoming obvious that your phone rang? I mean saying "HELLO!" is probably going to give the little game away, I would presume, unless kids can talk in those frequencies too.
I think kids are just being gullible and like the idea of the whole thing.
You guys can say what you want, but this is why I look at slashdot less and less
Good, please leave, thanks! This is our little place to bash MS and we like it that way.
Oh, and just for the record, I've been using Vista since it was released and it's a stinking turd-pile, I've had more problems with it in one year than I've had with all other versions of Windows over ten years, and that's not an exaggeration. I could write a several-page essay just summing up the main points here, but that would be tedious. In all though I've easily lost several weeks of time just tracking down and fixing Vista problems, and still they come. So take your astroturfing propaganda elsewhere. Vista's a certified turd.
One of the major causes of this problem is welfare --- one of the reasons you can't afford to have kids and can hardly afford to pay this mortgage is that you are directly giving some of your money every month to those "parents" who pop out babies and let them run feral. You're paying other people to make babies. Rewarding them even. Stop this welfare nonsense, and let Darwin take care of the problem. Then we can go back to breeding more of the kind of people we actually want in a civilised society and breeding less of the trash.
There are other factors too though, e.g. people (in the US, not so much the UK) insist on buying the biggest house/car they can afford, 'must have' all the latest toys / iPods etc. --- the educated want entertainment not kids. It's a strange kind of genetic suicide underway.