That's actually the *sole* purpose of the government.
Unless you want a society completely based entirely on the notion of Survival of the Fittest, but I doubt you've got enough weapons stockpiled to handle that kind of world.
GlobalHauri? Fortinet? Where are NOD32 and BitDefender?
I'd rather see commercially available AV tests, since that's what 99.9% of consumers use. I can (and have!) not use an AV scanner for 4 or 5 years and never see a virus, because I pay attention. How about Jimmy Bob Johnson who visits every porn and keygen site on the internet, but uses McAfee because his ISP bundles it?
It isn't being "naive" to trust your children. If you can't trust them, then you can't trust your own parenting.
At some point, you're going to let your kids out into the world. You can't spy on them 24-hours a day, and you can't spy on them once they've moved out/gone on to college/gone on with the rest of their lives. You need to build up trust both ways, so that you'll generally know that they are staying out of trouble, and so that they'll let you know if they ever need help or have done something stupid.
The problem is that most people don't seem to understand the difference between "parenting" and "threatening." A friend of mine, 16, in high school years ago, went to a party once. He drank way, way too much, showed up at home, and passed out in the hallway. His parents checked on him and turned him over on his side when they found him later, but left him there. The next morning, they sat him down (with his blistering headache) and told him that they didn't mind his drinking until he couldn't stand, but that he should probably take a hint from the fact that he woke up in the hallway in a pile of his own vomit, feeling like his head was going to split open and spawn a greek goddess. The gist of the talk was that he needed to learn from his own lessons, and that they might not be there next time to keep him from swallowing his tongue.
They understood that punishing him for it was probably just going to make him rebel and do it again. They also understood that they couldn't watch him 24/7. He understood, from his pounding headache and the embarrasing situation in which he was placed, that he should probably not drink, or at the very least slow down - a lot. From that point forward, he was a lot more conservative in what he did for fun, and was more often than not a designated driver.
They also took this time to tell him that if he did something this stupid (underage drinking, drinking-and-driving, or whatever else) and was arrested for it, they'd bail him out once, and only once. He DID do something a few years later, and spent a night in jail for it. When we asked him why he didn't call them to come get him, he said that he knew he shouldn't have done it, was willing to take the punishment, and didn't want to waste his "get-out-of-jail-free card" on something that he knew he shouldn't have done in the first place.
You can argue the legality of a 16-year-old drinking enough hunch punch to cause alcohol poisoning all day long, but there's wisdom here. You can educate your kids and punish them all you like, but they'll still do dumb things. Sometimes they just have to learn from experience. The trick is what and where that experience is.
Instead of spying on them, ask questions. Instead of threatening to punish them for future acts, simply punish them when it is appropriate, and explain why. Instead of telling them never to use or filing lawsuits against , email them news clippings about these incidents, or get them to pay attention to the news and point out that picking up strangers on social networking sites is no different from picking up hitchhikers on the side of the highway.
Most importantly, don't be there to bail them out every single time they get into trouble. Teach them that they have to take responsibility for their own actions, and that you can't be there every time they make a poor decision. If you're there for them every single time they do something bad, they're just going to grow up thinking that you're always going to be there to "rescue" them, and that they are free to do whatever they want with no lasting consequences.
It should also be noted here that it is physically impossible to "prevent" speech.
False-advertising is legally prevented before-the-fact, not after. That the punishment comes after the crime does not prevent the spread of information.
If one could "prevent" speech, the world would still be ruled from Rome.
Corporate speech is restricted as a matter of common good. If it was not, we would see billboards on top of billboards, all of them blinking in neon with 24-hour loudspeakers extolling the virtues of Product X or Product Y.
Political speech is restricted where it BECOMES a matter of common good. Restricting the political views of everyone is a no-no, but one has to draw the line somewhere. For most people, that line appears somewhere between political ads with content that borders on outright lies and millions of dollars worth of trips/gifts/etc from various lobbies. One of these is merely unethical, and the other falls just short of outright bribery.
Well, there's another distinction to be made between "paid as in salary" and "paid as in bribery." Reporters are paid for the work they put into a piece (investigation, writing, public speaking skills), not for specific content (we call those "advertisements").
"Reporters" who are paid for content that slants a story one way or another are called weasels, at best.
Editors (of newspapers, etc.) are also under a code of ethics that prohibits them from slanting an article in a particular direction. An editor's job is to clarify and proofread, and those who actively alter articles without the original reporter's consent are typically shunned out of the business.
The gist of this is that the difference between "paid" and "free" speech, as outlined above, is that the individual producing a work that can be considered "free speech" is ethically obliged to produce material that is objectively true, not affected by the amount of money they are given for the material. (Libel and Slander, given their ability to be invoked regardless of truth, are special cases which should not, one can argue, exist when the statements involved are true.)
Or perhaps the people commenting on what a stupid idea this is actually... you know... do some parenting?
I know plenty of people who see no reason to monitor their children. If you can't trust your kids, perhaps it is time to take another look at how you've raised them.
People have freedoms, corporations do not, regardless of how many people try to convince you that a corporation really is a "person." That's a technical distinction for legal and financial purposes, not to be used in determining rights. So long as businesses are given the ability to restrict the speech of their employees, we have the right to restrict the speech of said businesses.
Paid speech is not free speech.
Re:cipher.exe is overkill for flash memory
on
Memories of a Media Card
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Better yet, if it was a vulnerability that only affected IE, it would be IE's fault.
Since the vulnerability only shows up in Firefox, however, it obviously must be the website's fault.
Think of the absurdity. "Three individuals purchased steak from Tesco recently. One of the individuals died after braising her cut in potassium cyanide, and a full investigation has been launched against the grocer. The other two individuals cited have suffered no ill effects."
Whoops, I inadvertently tagged when I should have zigged.
Should have read "If you send me a letter describing in great detail how you intend to blow up (insert_famous_monument) with (insert_method) on (insert_date), that letter then becomes my property. I can pass it along to law enforcement agencies as I see fit, etc."
You've all (or at least the vast majority of you) failed to notice that this case does not even invoke this act.
If you send me a letter describing in great detail how you intend to blow up with on , that letter then becomes my property. I can pass it along to law enforcement agencies as I see fit, etc.
If you send me spam, I can then pass that spam along to law enforcement agencies as I see fit. If you give me a 3 lb brick of black-tar heroin, I can do the same.
This act affects electronic messages which are stored by a recipient and then siezed, not messages which are voluntarily submitted to law enforcement. There is very little you can do if someone else legally obtains evidence against you and then hands it over to someone else, save for a lawsuit against the individual in question.
That said, the defendant in this case (The US Government) will be defending this act to the end, regardless of whether or not the act violates personal liberties - it DOES appear to, but again, this act has absolutely no bearing here.
There are exceptions to every rule. For every X people who are tossed out on the street, Y number of people will have an amazing stroke of luck or some fantastic idea and the resources, support, or background to act on it.
Just because Person Y managed to accomplish their goals in the face of adversity doesn't mean that Persons A through X will be able to do the same. If *EVERYONE* could succeed, there would be absolutely no need whatsoever for charitable organizations. There would be no third-world countries, and the world would be an amazing utopia.
Small Business Loans are a good example. For every person that gets a SBL from the government or a comparable bank loan, there are hundreds or thousands of other people who are turned down. This could, of course, be for perfectly legitimate reasons (poor business proposal, hideous credit), or it could be because the loan officer didn't like the applicant's haircut/tattoo/piercing/skin color/religion/nationality/attire.
Of course, in states like Ohio and Illinois, where there are fewer jobs than people due to factories closing and businesses outsourcing to third-world countries, it is amazingly easy to find a job.
Every time I hear someone say that homelessness is always a "choice," I hope that they get fired and have some major accident or illness that sucks away all of their money, forcing them out onto the street where they can see how "easy" it is to get back on your feet after everything has been taken away.
There are plenty of 'homeless' people who are just trying to scam you out of something, but is it going to kill you to pop into a fast-food joint and spend the dollar on a burger for someone on the street?
$5 says you're religious, too. Most of the people I encounter who hold that point of view are.
Despite, of course, every major (and most minor) religion(s) featuring something about taking care of your fellow man.
Public Opinion Quarterly summarized that: "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis."
That's acceptable. And, of course, rightly so. However, if you were to add a similar statement to the articles on homeopathy, reflexology, acupuncture, acupressure, holistic medicine, the "subluxation" school of chiropractic care... or if it had been added to the entry referenced in TFA... it would be immediately removed and a flamewar would erupt.
Actually, that has happened before. It still happens.
Eventually, someone will succeed in using the NPOV-argument as a wedge to get "Disputed" tags on articles such as the one on the holocaust, evolution, and so on. If NPOV was a guideline and not a requirement, however, TFA's reference may not have existed.
I guess you missed PartyPoker's huge push to get people to join the Poker Players' Alliance ( http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ ) and send letters to their congressmen, eh?
Sure, they COULD have done what most industries do and buy the votes... but that wouldn't solve the problem, it would just make it go away for one congressional session. Then they have to start buying senators and representatives all over again.
I should hope that you *know* that smoking does not _cause_ lung cancer. Smoking is one factor which is shown to contribute to the development of lung cancer, it is not the cause of the disease.
Saying that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer is like saying fried chicken causes obesity. Not all people who smoke get lung cancer, as you've pointed out, and not all people who eat fried chicken are fat.
No, actually, you can simply run an unactivated installation of XP. There are issues with security, but one assumes you'll be installing XPSP2 and not using the machine for anything more than IE6 testing of a single site, so that point is moot.
The difference here is that the Taliban did not enjoy the presence of al Qaeda in their country. They repeatedly attempted to monitor and control Osama bin Laden's actions and movements. That is not to say that the Taliban was not a terroristic government, as they most certainly were, but rather that they did not support the actions of bin Laden. They were fully aware that his actions would bite them in the ass, and I think they were obviously correct.
Among the proven supporters of terrorism are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, neither of which have suffered from any US military attacks. It should also be noted that we have continued to improve relations with Libya, despite the obvious issues there.
Oh, don't get me started on the medical establishment. I don't have much more respect for them than I have for the quacks, generally speaking.
Humans err, to be sure. Homeopaths frequently practice errors of both commission and omission in the same breath, however... conventional medical personal _err_ - though their errors are decidedly no less harmful than those of the homeopaths, this is the difference between intentional misconduct and unintentional misconduct. Conveniently, that's also the legal difference between murder and manslaughter.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they could just "Get-CimInstance -ClassName win32_operatingsystem | select lastbootuptime" (100ms).
Or "wmic os get lastbootuptime" (500ms)
Or, hell, net statistics server / net statistics workstation (200ms) if, for some insane reason, the servers are allowed to Sleep.
I'll never understand "admins" who can't figure out that the screwdriver isn't a power-saw...
That's actually the *sole* purpose of the government.
Unless you want a society completely based entirely on the notion of Survival of the Fittest, but I doubt you've got enough weapons stockpiled to handle that kind of world.
GlobalHauri? Fortinet? Where are NOD32 and BitDefender?
I'd rather see commercially available AV tests, since that's what 99.9% of consumers use. I can (and have!) not use an AV scanner for 4 or 5 years and never see a virus, because I pay attention. How about Jimmy Bob Johnson who visits every porn and keygen site on the internet, but uses McAfee because his ISP bundles it?
It isn't being "naive" to trust your children. If you can't trust them, then you can't trust your own parenting.
At some point, you're going to let your kids out into the world. You can't spy on them 24-hours a day, and you can't spy on them once they've moved out/gone on to college/gone on with the rest of their lives. You need to build up trust both ways, so that you'll generally know that they are staying out of trouble, and so that they'll let you know if they ever need help or have done something stupid.
The problem is that most people don't seem to understand the difference between "parenting" and "threatening." A friend of mine, 16, in high school years ago, went to a party once. He drank way, way too much, showed up at home, and passed out in the hallway. His parents checked on him and turned him over on his side when they found him later, but left him there. The next morning, they sat him down (with his blistering headache) and told him that they didn't mind his drinking until he couldn't stand, but that he should probably take a hint from the fact that he woke up in the hallway in a pile of his own vomit, feeling like his head was going to split open and spawn a greek goddess. The gist of the talk was that he needed to learn from his own lessons, and that they might not be there next time to keep him from swallowing his tongue.
They understood that punishing him for it was probably just going to make him rebel and do it again. They also understood that they couldn't watch him 24/7. He understood, from his pounding headache and the embarrasing situation in which he was placed, that he should probably not drink, or at the very least slow down - a lot. From that point forward, he was a lot more conservative in what he did for fun, and was more often than not a designated driver.
They also took this time to tell him that if he did something this stupid (underage drinking, drinking-and-driving, or whatever else) and was arrested for it, they'd bail him out once, and only once. He DID do something a few years later, and spent a night in jail for it. When we asked him why he didn't call them to come get him, he said that he knew he shouldn't have done it, was willing to take the punishment, and didn't want to waste his "get-out-of-jail-free card" on something that he knew he shouldn't have done in the first place.
You can argue the legality of a 16-year-old drinking enough hunch punch to cause alcohol poisoning all day long, but there's wisdom here. You can educate your kids and punish them all you like, but they'll still do dumb things. Sometimes they just have to learn from experience. The trick is what and where that experience is.
Instead of spying on them, ask questions. Instead of threatening to punish them for future acts, simply punish them when it is appropriate, and explain why. Instead of telling them never to use or filing lawsuits against , email them news clippings about these incidents, or get them to pay attention to the news and point out that picking up strangers on social networking sites is no different from picking up hitchhikers on the side of the highway.
Most importantly, don't be there to bail them out every single time they get into trouble. Teach them that they have to take responsibility for their own actions, and that you can't be there every time they make a poor decision. If you're there for them every single time they do something bad, they're just going to grow up thinking that you're always going to be there to "rescue" them, and that they are free to do whatever they want with no lasting consequences.
It should also be noted here that it is physically impossible to "prevent" speech.
False-advertising is legally prevented before-the-fact, not after. That the punishment comes after the crime does not prevent the spread of information.
If one could "prevent" speech, the world would still be ruled from Rome.
Corporate speech is restricted as a matter of common good. If it was not, we would see billboards on top of billboards, all of them blinking in neon with 24-hour loudspeakers extolling the virtues of Product X or Product Y.
Political speech is restricted where it BECOMES a matter of common good. Restricting the political views of everyone is a no-no, but one has to draw the line somewhere. For most people, that line appears somewhere between political ads with content that borders on outright lies and millions of dollars worth of trips/gifts/etc from various lobbies. One of these is merely unethical, and the other falls just short of outright bribery.
Well, there's another distinction to be made between "paid as in salary" and "paid as in bribery." Reporters are paid for the work they put into a piece (investigation, writing, public speaking skills), not for specific content (we call those "advertisements").
"Reporters" who are paid for content that slants a story one way or another are called weasels, at best.
Editors (of newspapers, etc.) are also under a code of ethics that prohibits them from slanting an article in a particular direction. An editor's job is to clarify and proofread, and those who actively alter articles without the original reporter's consent are typically shunned out of the business.
The gist of this is that the difference between "paid" and "free" speech, as outlined above, is that the individual producing a work that can be considered "free speech" is ethically obliged to produce material that is objectively true, not affected by the amount of money they are given for the material. (Libel and Slander, given their ability to be invoked regardless of truth, are special cases which should not, one can argue, exist when the statements involved are true.)
Or perhaps the people commenting on what a stupid idea this is actually... you know... do some parenting?
I know plenty of people who see no reason to monitor their children. If you can't trust your kids, perhaps it is time to take another look at how you've raised them.
People have freedoms, corporations do not, regardless of how many people try to convince you that a corporation really is a "person." That's a technical distinction for legal and financial purposes, not to be used in determining rights. So long as businesses are given the ability to restrict the speech of their employees, we have the right to restrict the speech of said businesses.
Paid speech is not free speech.
http://www.zdelete.com/dod.htm
The DOD already answered this question.
Whenever there's any doubt, DOD standards are the way to go.
IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!
This is a design flaw in Gmail because it affects all of the browsers involved, right? It doesn't just affect one of them?
Seriously, if this was an issue with all of the involved browsers, it would obviously be a flaw in Gmail. That's not the case.
Better yet, if it was a vulnerability that only affected IE, it would be IE's fault.
Since the vulnerability only shows up in Firefox, however, it obviously must be the website's fault.
Think of the absurdity. "Three individuals purchased steak from Tesco recently. One of the individuals died after braising her cut in potassium cyanide, and a full investigation has been launched against the grocer. The other two individuals cited have suffered no ill effects."
Whoops, I inadvertently tagged when I should have zigged.
Should have read "If you send me a letter describing in great detail how you intend to blow up (insert_famous_monument) with (insert_method) on (insert_date), that letter then becomes my property. I can pass it along to law enforcement agencies as I see fit, etc."
You've all (or at least the vast majority of you) failed to notice that this case does not even invoke this act.
If you send me a letter describing in great detail how you intend to blow up with on , that letter then becomes my property. I can pass it along to law enforcement agencies as I see fit, etc.
If you send me spam, I can then pass that spam along to law enforcement agencies as I see fit. If you give me a 3 lb brick of black-tar heroin, I can do the same.
This act affects electronic messages which are stored by a recipient and then siezed, not messages which are voluntarily submitted to law enforcement. There is very little you can do if someone else legally obtains evidence against you and then hands it over to someone else, save for a lawsuit against the individual in question.
That said, the defendant in this case (The US Government) will be defending this act to the end, regardless of whether or not the act violates personal liberties - it DOES appear to, but again, this act has absolutely no bearing here.
There are exceptions to every rule. For every X people who are tossed out on the street, Y number of people will have an amazing stroke of luck or some fantastic idea and the resources, support, or background to act on it.
Just because Person Y managed to accomplish their goals in the face of adversity doesn't mean that Persons A through X will be able to do the same. If *EVERYONE* could succeed, there would be absolutely no need whatsoever for charitable organizations. There would be no third-world countries, and the world would be an amazing utopia.
Small Business Loans are a good example. For every person that gets a SBL from the government or a comparable bank loan, there are hundreds or thousands of other people who are turned down. This could, of course, be for perfectly legitimate reasons (poor business proposal, hideous credit), or it could be because the loan officer didn't like the applicant's haircut/tattoo/piercing/skin color/religion/nationality/attire.
Of course, in states like Ohio and Illinois, where there are fewer jobs than people due to factories closing and businesses outsourcing to third-world countries, it is amazingly easy to find a job.
Every time I hear someone say that homelessness is always a "choice," I hope that they get fired and have some major accident or illness that sucks away all of their money, forcing them out onto the street where they can see how "easy" it is to get back on your feet after everything has been taken away.
There are plenty of 'homeless' people who are just trying to scam you out of something, but is it going to kill you to pop into a fast-food joint and spend the dollar on a burger for someone on the street?
$5 says you're religious, too. Most of the people I encounter who hold that point of view are.
Despite, of course, every major (and most minor) religion(s) featuring something about taking care of your fellow man.
Which is, of course, another reason that Wikipedia fails in the long-term. You cannot have an NPOV regarding *everything*.
For instance, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust :
That's acceptable. And, of course, rightly so. However, if you were to add a similar statement to the articles on homeopathy, reflexology, acupuncture, acupressure, holistic medicine, the "subluxation" school of chiropractic care... or if it had been added to the entry referenced in TFA... it would be immediately removed and a flamewar would erupt.
Actually, that has happened before. It still happens.
Eventually, someone will succeed in using the NPOV-argument as a wedge to get "Disputed" tags on articles such as the one on the holocaust, evolution, and so on. If NPOV was a guideline and not a requirement, however, TFA's reference may not have existed.
I guess you missed PartyPoker's huge push to get people to join the Poker Players' Alliance ( http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ ) and send letters to their congressmen, eh?
Sure, they COULD have done what most industries do and buy the votes... but that wouldn't solve the problem, it would just make it go away for one congressional session. Then they have to start buying senators and representatives all over again.
There's probably also some anti-fraud in there somewhere, discarding multiple votes.
Point taken, though.
I should hope that you *know* that smoking does not _cause_ lung cancer. Smoking is one factor which is shown to contribute to the development of lung cancer, it is not the cause of the disease.
Saying that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer is like saying fried chicken causes obesity. Not all people who smoke get lung cancer, as you've pointed out, and not all people who eat fried chicken are fat.
No, actually, you can simply run an unactivated installation of XP. There are issues with security, but one assumes you'll be installing XPSP2 and not using the machine for anything more than IE6 testing of a single site, so that point is moot.
The difference here is that the Taliban did not enjoy the presence of al Qaeda in their country. They repeatedly attempted to monitor and control Osama bin Laden's actions and movements. That is not to say that the Taliban was not a terroristic government, as they most certainly were, but rather that they did not support the actions of bin Laden. They were fully aware that his actions would bite them in the ass, and I think they were obviously correct.
Among the proven supporters of terrorism are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, neither of which have suffered from any US military attacks. It should also be noted that we have continued to improve relations with Libya, despite the obvious issues there.
One of the individuals presumably has clinical studies and other scientific evidence verifying the claims.
If either or both of them do not, then the individual(s) in question is/are guilty.
Oh, don't get me started on the medical establishment. I don't have much more respect for them than I have for the quacks, generally speaking.
Humans err, to be sure. Homeopaths frequently practice errors of both commission and omission in the same breath, however... conventional medical personal _err_ - though their errors are decidedly no less harmful than those of the homeopaths, this is the difference between intentional misconduct and unintentional misconduct. Conveniently, that's also the legal difference between murder and manslaughter.