This makes sense. One of the panelists for the press release is Professor John Grotzinger, MER science team geologist from MIT. I'm looking forward to hearing the discussion.
That was Men in Black. A great line, IMO. I'll carry it a step further. "People are not rational because they are ignorant. When a hundred people see something new, that they've never seen before, one person will react with anger. And when they start shouting at the new thing, nintey other people will figure he must know what he's talking about, and shout along with him because they simply don't know any better."
Yup, and that argues my point pretty well. That one person who acts in anger is enough to make 99 more follow them. You say that's only because of ignorance, and I agree. Point is, people like to be ignorant. Even if all the information in the world were available to anyone who wanted it, a very great number of them would take small pieces of that information, build a distorted picture, and flat out refuse to change any part of it. This is pretty common in religion. How many denominations of "Christian" are there? Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormans, Episcopaleans, Evangelists, etc. Such a small matter, and so much anger over it. Ever visited Ireland? Hundreds of years of feud, and they're all Christian.
Actually, scientific knowledge was only preserved because of the church, and the "Dark Ages" were called such because of the chaos brought about by the fall of Rome, not some bleak period imposed by the Catholic church. The poster child for religious "oppression", Galileo Galilei, wasn't called a heretic because he said that the earth roated around the sun; he was called a heretic because he was one, and he repeatedly agitated the Pope.
A heretic is only someone who voices disagreement with church doctrine (esp. "the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church." according to dictionary.com) Claiming that the earth rotates around the sun was against church doctrine at the time, thus Galileo was branded a heretic. Point is; he was right. Didn't help him much though. Overall, the historical record of oranized religion is less than shining. Granted, they've done some good things, but they've shovelled more than their share of s**t to counter that.
About three times. Twice in high school, once shortly after 9/11. The worst derogatory remarks I ever heard have been from pagans about christians.
You live a very sheltered life. It's also fairly apparent that the pagans you're referring to aren't representative of the whole. I live within 15 minutes of a native reservation; and attend a very ethnically diverse university; I've heard comments from every ethnic group, about every other ethnic group.
RE: the religion thing.
You're living in a small town, in Canada, with no one else of your religion at all around you outside of your family--that is, no one that you know of.
I know that paganism is an extreme minority religion, but I don't think that it's as extreme a minority or as hated a minority as it's occasionaly made out to be. I wager that, in the radius of a half-hour drive, there are at least a hundred pagans who would never consider changing their religion, and against as many who are undecided as to what religion that they are. Not to mention the Hindus, native americans, muslims, jews, and bhuddists.
(I base this on what I've seen living in the very-rural parts of Upstate NY. Sure, they aren't a majority or a very significant minority--but they're there.)
If every one of them was identified as such, there would be two immediate effects. Firstly, some people who see you as a friendly neighbor wouldn't anymore. Secondly, you'd have a clear line to people who could support you (or who might need your support) if the majority isn't understanding.
No, I'm living in a small town in Canada, with three other people of my religion outside of my family. My parents are both agnostic, remember? As for your wager, you would lose. Outside of town, we have acreages and farms; filled with very devout Christians. Remember the 9 churches -in- town? There are 3 more just outside. All told, I'd g
Even the most responsible driver can make mistakes. I've been in the vehicle with people who've gone 20 year without a ticket, when they got nailed for doing 20 over, because they missed the sign. Had it been my vehicle, would the insurance company be justified in increasing my rates?
While the article itself didn't mention sharing the information with the insurance company, the first line of the post to which I was responding did. The point is, if your idiot friend is speeding in your car, you get the ticket. If you put a claim in on your insurance because your idiot friend writes off your car, your rates go up. Insurance companies work on statistics; their position would be that statistically, even a single instance of speeding, increases the chances that you'll be involved in an accident, therefore, it is justifiable to increasing your premium, based on the potential for loss. They wouldn't see it as overkill at all. (And as I mentioned in an earlier post, my parents both worked in insurance, so I have some knowledge of the industry.)
One more point; getting a photo-radar fine a month and a half (accurate, from personal experience) after the infraction does very little to discourage someone from speeding. Too much interim time to dissasociate the events. Pull me over instead; it'd work a lot better.
Pardon the minor reformatting of my quotations, these are becoming longer and longer.
No, I don't. I assume that any two groups will either fight or not fight, regardless of how much "privacy" either group has. If the membership of Group B was totally private, group A would have no-one to fight with.
(Imagine how feuds would go if there was NO question as to who started it, who did what, etc. etc.) An interesting proposition, playing it out; if person 'a' starts a feud, by attacking person 'b', then everyone who agrees with 'b' (friends, relatives, police, or otherwise) retaliates against 'a' directly. In a world where people were rational, everyone involved in the situation feels that 'a' got what he or she deserved, and the matter is ended. Now the point you keep ignoring: People Are Not Rational. To quote a TV show I no longer remember the name of, "A person is rational, people are stupid and violent." Inevitably, there will be people who thought that 'a' was justified. They then attack 'b' and his or her supporters. The whole process repeats itself, becaue for each supporter of 'a' has his or her own supporters. You end up in exactly the same situation as you would if'd had no idea who started the feud in the first case, except that you've made 'a' a martyr by punishing him or her directly.
"Religion" exressly IS meant for the masses. It's a vehicle whereby the enlightened allow more of the unenlightened to learn, and to guide them to moral behavior. It's easy to bash religion because of the atrocities, but you can't tell me that you'd really rather be living in the tribal, barren hut that we'd be in if we didn't have religion. The first exploratory journies and the first nations were founded BECAUSE of religion. I disagree; the first nations were founded because groups of people felt it necessary to band together to protect themselves from the elements and their enemies. Religion may be a driving force for nationality, but it isn't a necessary condition for progress, either. Look at the dark ages; scientific knowledge was held back for hundreds of years because new discoveries threatened the views of the church. How many times have you heard derogatory remarks about a minority group? Ethnicity is information available on a totally public level, and it's -still- one of the most common triggers of persecution. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing organized religion; I'm pointing out that large groups of people often make irrational actions when they feel threatened. There are also a large number of religios leaders who do very little to promote 'moral' behaviour.
1: Getting rid of the Second Amendment requires the President's signature, a two-thirds majority of each house of congress, AND a two-thirds majority in two-thirds of the states. If enough people want to get rid of guns to pass an amendment, then we can get rid of guns. 2: People spend significant ammounts of money on all sorts of things that later become worthless. We're a capitalist country, and that means that "but I spent so much money!" is the worst of excuses for ANYTHING. Forgive my ignorance of the American governmental system, I'm Canadian, so my knowledge is second hand. Regardless of the actual proportions though; you're telling me that the majority is always right. If two thirds of people in the United States (The number you say are required to amend the constitution)wanted to discriminate against black people, the all black people should either suffer the consequences or be forced to leave. Slavery was once legal, it could happen again.
Then you're an idiot. One of the fundamental aspects of intelligence is the ability to reasonably discuss something that you totally disagree with. I wasn't asking you to concede my point; I was asking you to engage in hypothetical discussion. Ad hominem. I'm already discussing your point of view (which I totally disagree with) in a reasonable manner. I can't identify with your hypothetical situation, because i
The majority of viruses that infect computers result from the deliberate actions of the users. Granted, the spread of computer viruses is equivalent to them all being in the same room at the same time; but the actual infection, requiring a deliberate action, functions almost as if an immune system were in place. Besides which, you probably spend a great deal of time in a room with other people. Go to a restaurant? Work in an office? Have kids, and visit their school/daycare? Computers are immobile; people aren't. SARS made it form China to Toronto, without any trouble at all. Society is as networked as any computer system.
You argue like it is. You assume that any two groups, however diametrically opposed, will be able to live with one another. Look at Pakistan and India, or Israel and Palestine, then tell me that's true. If your religion is made public knowledge to everyone in the world, there will always be people who exploit that information, and harass you about it. Privacy saves you the problem of dealing with the hassle. The same applies to a lesser extent on every issue that exists; there are fanatics of -every- variety, none of whom are rational and capable of reason.
To rebut your points specifically:
Not how I'd phrase it, but yes. Most major religions have been saying essentially the same thing for thousands of years. I have almost no faith in organized, major religions. In that same last thousand years, there have been Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Trials, Jihads, Genocides, and countless other atrocities. Religion is not meant for the masses; it's a -private- concept.
Most anti-gun groups work for legislation, and only personally address what they see as radical gun proponents. So if they manage to pass legislation by a 51% majority, should every gun owner in the country be forced to give up their weapons? Keep in mind that some people have spend significant amounts of money collecting these items.
Where do EITHER get the resources to harass all the folk that don't agree with them? At worst, you'd get a flyer in the mail--and after a bit of backlash, they'd tone it down to a reasonable level. Ask the lobby groups. Pro-life groups tend to be religious in nature, and there's no shortage of money there. Pro-choice groups are more reactionary in nature, I would say, but seem to have no trouble making themselves heard.
Again, I doubt it. At worst, the parties would actually notice when we change, and would actually look at what we care about and what gets us out to vote. That would be at best. Rarely can you get a Democrat and a Republican to agree on anything. Of the two topics you never discuss in the company of strangers, politics is one. Religion is the other, and mentioning either is a sure way to get you an enemy for life.
You take him to court for wrongful termination and/or harassment? You know, the same thing that you would do NOW if he takes exemption to you never eating animal flesh in front of him. Or her, thank you. The point remains, it may only be a prospective employer, at which point you have -no- legal recourse. To make a point, there is no constitutional prohibition on discrimination based on dietary practices. I'm free to discriminate against vegetarians or vegans as I see fit. That doesn't make it right. That's the reason the American constitution was necessary in the first place. The founding fathers recognised that people will discriminate based on any number of inconsequential items, and specifically made a number of those illegal.
Assume for a minute that my points above are true, and that there isn't any harassment due to simple inundation of information. Why be so paranoid about 'privacy'? That's the problem, I can't assume your points are true; it's against my fundamental nature. Why am I so paranoid about privacy? Because I'm pagan. I know what can happen when what should be private knowledge gets into the public. People are irrational on the whole, and I do not trust them to act in a fair and unbiased manner. Privacy is the only thing that secures me reasonable treatment as a human being. To be honest, if you actually are Jewish, I'm amazed beyond belief that you feel the same way. Do you condone the yellow star of nazi fame? Do you accept that every Jewish person in Germany was required to give up the privacy of their religion, for the sole reason of persecution?
No secrets? No. No secrets that I couldn't bear to have everyone know? Yes. [Non-facts used to identify myself, such
So what you're telling me is that should change your life so that abuse of the system becomes pointless? Nice thought, in theory, but it's fundamentally flawed. What happens when the consequences aren't justified? Even if everybody leaves your party sober, they've still been hassled by the police. They haven't done anything to merit it, however.
My point: Indulge me for a moment, let's play what if: What if you own a gun? - You get targeted by anti-gun groups. What if you don't own a gun? - You get targeted (pun not intended) by the NRA.
What if you're pro-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-life groups. What if you're anti-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-choice groups.
What if you're a Democrat? - Republicans harass you. What if you're a Republican? - Democrats harass you. What if you're Green/Libertarian/Etc - Everybody else harasses you.
As long as there are people who feel the need to convince you of -anything-, privacy becomes an important commodity. Doubly so if they're not trying to convince you, but to judge you. My ability as an Engineer has nothing to do with my dietary choices; but what happens if my boss takes exception to vegetarianism? I'll live my life the way I choose; but I'll be damned if it's going to be an open book for all to read.
Besides, can you honestly say that you have no secrets? I can't, nor would I ever want to.
From the article, it looks like you can take the phone in, and have it upgraded for free; or pay the $25 to get the cable, and download the stuff yourself. Technically, since they're not -requiring- you to pay for an advertised feature, I don't think it'd void the contract. You probably would be out the money.
Either way though; if something is advertised on the box or in the specifications, and doesn't have that functionality the -first- time I try to go use it, I'm already alienated. If that same functionality requires a hassle to get working, I'm not just alienated, I'm pissed right off.
"This raises concerns over alienating users that aren't tech-savvy and how this could affect perceptions of portable electronics as a whole."
Frankly, if I'm being forced to pay $25 for a cable to do necessary upgrades, you're going to alienate me whether I'm tech savvy or not. Especially if the 'unavailable' features were advertised as part of the item in question.
My condolances; that really bites. I've had the same thing happen to my car, except they crushed my fender, as well as taking out my driver-side headlight, and tire. Estimate was $1200. Fortunately, I drive a POS, and don't mind getting my hands dirty. I did the work myself, and was only out about $200 and some scraped skin. Used parts are a good thing.
I agree with you though; it's better to have crap like that happen occasionally, than have every move you make monitored. I don't like the idea of living under an all-watchful eye. I don't trust anyone (including, and especially, myself) with that kind of power.
It's legally required here as well, and I agree. I'm only 22, so I get considerably higher rates than some. The price differential between men and women almost floored me though; women pay about 60% what guys do.
"Even if they make a mistake, my insurance still goes up, because it's my car. My car is insured, not me."
"If someone else hits my car, their insurance is responsible for damages. If I give my car to someone else and they break the law using my car, my insurance pays the damages, therefore the two situations are not the same."
To kill two birds with one stone here:
1) No, in most places with 'at-fault' insurance (typical for commercial insurance, as opposed to governmental 'no-fault' insurance), it is -you- who are insured, =not= your vehicle.
2) Fine, pretend it was a vandalism claim that exceeds your deductable. You're being held accountable for the illegal actions of another person. Is -that- acceptable to you? If you didn't want it to happen, after all, you didn't need to park on the street.
I can speak with some authority here; as my parents both work in insurance.
Driving history is considered, but mostly in as "Clean record since last at-fault accident".
Speeding tickets, etc, usually aren't passed on to the insurance company, unless they hit your driving record. That is; you're actually pulled over, and are given demerits to your license. Age is also a large factor; the younger you are, the more you pay. In Alberta at least, there's a price drop at 21, as well as 25.
Marital status is taken into account; married people pay less.
Yes, but -you- pay the insurance for your car. You're being held accountable for everything that happens to it; whether you're anywhere close to it, or not. Do you think your insurance should go up if it gets sideswiped while parked on the street? You've got just as much control over that series of events as you do when you lend your car out.
What's that you say? Don't lend out your car. By the same principle, don't park on the street.
Yup, cause no-one minds the hassle of random alcohol screenings, or potentially being fired from your engineering/construction related position.
Point is; if the information is there, it'll be misused. Maybe your boss doesn't screen your blood, but maybe you suddenly start getting a lot of pamphlets for AA. Maybe missionaries come by, and try to save you from your sinful lifestyle. Maybe your insurance company jacks your rates (both your auto, and your homeowners), just because you exhibit the inclination to throw large, alcohol-consuming parties. Hell, maybe the police show up, and start hassling every guest that leaves.
Sound like fun to you? Somewhere, some time, it'd happen.
So can you honestly tell me you trust every one of your friends to be an absolutely perfect driver at all times? No-one you know ever makes a mistake? Must be nice living in that world.
Or have you never done your friends a favour like that?.. You do -have- friends, I hope?
That works fine, until your boss gives you alcohol screenings based on this information; particularily if it happens as a part of public knowledge. Agreed, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be a big deal; but systems like this get abused frequently.
Simple situation; you lend out your car to a friend, who doesn't know the speed zones. He missed a sign, and ends up getting nailed for going 20 km/h over the limit. You want your insurance rates to go up for this?
It's the same reason police in my province don't take give your license demerits for photo-radar infractions; there's reasonable doubt that you were the driver.
That's the problem; we don't know how to create the perfect virus. If we did, we could avoid doing so. I have great faith in human stupidity; we'll stumble across something nasty, even if we do so unintentionally.
If a script kiddie can create a virus that infects millions of computers, a team of trained biologists can certainly create a virus that can infect millions of humans.
Good Idea: Studying naturally occuring flu viruses to learn how to prevent future pandemic outbreaks.
Bad Idea: Deliberately creating new versions of the flu, to learn how to prevent future outbreaks.
The frightening thought is that they aren't using the highest grade of quarantine level. I suppose though, when it does get out, they'll know how they made it, and theoretically, also how to fight it. At least until it mutates naturally.
Just to chime in here for Canada, we're a Constitutional Monarchy; the Queen is still the titular head of state. In actual matters of governance, however, we elect our congressional representatives directly, and the leader of the dominant party (which doesn't necessarily require a majority of the seats in congress) is the Prime Minister. IIRC, there is no requirement that the Prime Minister him/herself have a seat in congress, usually though, if the Prime Minister isn't elected to a riding, one of the backbenchers will resign, and the Prime Minister will run in a by-election.
Slashdot Mirror
Translation by the Fish
This makes sense. One of the panelists for the press release is Professor John Grotzinger, MER science team geologist from MIT. I'm looking forward to hearing the discussion.
That was Men in Black. A great line, IMO. I'll carry it a step further. "People are not rational because they are ignorant. When a hundred people see something new, that they've never seen before, one person will react with anger. And when they start shouting at the new thing, nintey other people will figure he must know what he's talking about, and shout along with him because they simply don't know any better."
Yup, and that argues my point pretty well. That one person who acts in anger is enough to make 99 more follow them. You say that's only because of ignorance, and I agree. Point is, people like to be ignorant. Even if all the information in the world were available to anyone who wanted it, a very great number of them would take small pieces of that information, build a distorted picture, and flat out refuse to change any part of it. This is pretty common in religion. How many denominations of "Christian" are there? Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormans, Episcopaleans, Evangelists, etc. Such a small matter, and so much anger over it. Ever visited Ireland? Hundreds of years of feud, and they're all Christian.
Actually, scientific knowledge was only preserved because of the church, and the "Dark Ages" were called such because of the chaos brought about by the fall of Rome, not some bleak period imposed by the Catholic church. The poster child for religious "oppression", Galileo Galilei, wasn't called a heretic because he said that the earth roated around the sun; he was called a heretic because he was one, and he repeatedly agitated the Pope.
A heretic is only someone who voices disagreement with church doctrine (esp. "the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church." according to dictionary.com) Claiming that the earth rotates around the sun was against church doctrine at the time, thus Galileo was branded a heretic. Point is; he was right. Didn't help him much though. Overall, the historical record of oranized religion is less than shining. Granted, they've done some good things, but they've shovelled more than their share of s**t to counter that.
About three times. Twice in high school, once shortly after 9/11. The worst derogatory remarks I ever heard have been from pagans about christians.
You live a very sheltered life. It's also fairly apparent that the pagans you're referring to aren't representative of the whole. I live within 15 minutes of a native reservation; and attend a very ethnically diverse university; I've heard comments from every ethnic group, about every other ethnic group.
RE: the religion thing. You're living in a small town, in Canada, with no one else of your religion at all around you outside of your family--that is, no one that you know of. I know that paganism is an extreme minority religion, but I don't think that it's as extreme a minority or as hated a minority as it's occasionaly made out to be. I wager that, in the radius of a half-hour drive, there are at least a hundred pagans who would never consider changing their religion, and against as many who are undecided as to what religion that they are. Not to mention the Hindus, native americans, muslims, jews, and bhuddists. (I base this on what I've seen living in the very-rural parts of Upstate NY. Sure, they aren't a majority or a very significant minority--but they're there.) If every one of them was identified as such, there would be two immediate effects. Firstly, some people who see you as a friendly neighbor wouldn't anymore. Secondly, you'd have a clear line to people who could support you (or who might need your support) if the majority isn't understanding.
No, I'm living in a small town in Canada, with three other people of my religion outside of my family. My parents are both agnostic, remember? As for your wager, you would lose. Outside of town, we have acreages and farms; filled with very devout Christians. Remember the 9 churches -in- town? There are 3 more just outside. All told, I'd g
Even the most responsible driver can make mistakes. I've been in the vehicle with people who've gone 20 year without a ticket, when they got nailed for doing 20 over, because they missed the sign. Had it been my vehicle, would the insurance company be justified in increasing my rates?
While the article itself didn't mention sharing the information with the insurance company, the first line of the post to which I was responding did. The point is, if your idiot friend is speeding in your car, you get the ticket. If you put a claim in on your insurance because your idiot friend writes off your car, your rates go up. Insurance companies work on statistics; their position would be that statistically, even a single instance of speeding, increases the chances that you'll be involved in an accident, therefore, it is justifiable to increasing your premium, based on the potential for loss. They wouldn't see it as overkill at all. (And as I mentioned in an earlier post, my parents both worked in insurance, so I have some knowledge of the industry.)
One more point; getting a photo-radar fine a month and a half (accurate, from personal experience) after the infraction does very little to discourage someone from speeding. Too much interim time to dissasociate the events. Pull me over instead; it'd work a lot better.
Pardon the minor reformatting of my quotations, these are becoming longer and longer.
No, I don't. I assume that any two groups will either fight or not fight, regardless of how much "privacy" either group has. If the membership of Group B was totally private, group A would have no-one to fight with.
(Imagine how feuds would go if there was NO question as to who started it, who did what, etc. etc.)
An interesting proposition, playing it out; if person 'a' starts a feud, by attacking person 'b', then everyone who agrees with 'b' (friends, relatives, police, or otherwise) retaliates against 'a' directly. In a world where people were rational, everyone involved in the situation feels that 'a' got what he or she deserved, and the matter is ended. Now the point you keep ignoring: People Are Not Rational. To quote a TV show I no longer remember the name of, "A person is rational, people are stupid and violent." Inevitably, there will be people who thought that 'a' was justified. They then attack 'b' and his or her supporters. The whole process repeats itself, becaue for each supporter of 'a' has his or her own supporters. You end up in exactly the same situation as you would if'd had no idea who started the feud in the first case, except that you've made 'a' a martyr by punishing him or her directly.
"Religion" exressly IS meant for the masses. It's a vehicle whereby the enlightened allow more of the unenlightened to learn, and to guide them to moral behavior. It's easy to bash religion because of the atrocities, but you can't tell me that you'd really rather be living in the tribal, barren hut that we'd be in if we didn't have religion. The first exploratory journies and the first nations were founded BECAUSE of religion.
I disagree; the first nations were founded because groups of people felt it necessary to band together to protect themselves from the elements and their enemies. Religion may be a driving force for nationality, but it isn't a necessary condition for progress, either. Look at the dark ages; scientific knowledge was held back for hundreds of years because new discoveries threatened the views of the church. How many times have you heard derogatory remarks about a minority group? Ethnicity is information available on a totally public level, and it's -still- one of the most common triggers of persecution. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing organized religion; I'm pointing out that large groups of people often make irrational actions when they feel threatened. There are also a large number of religios leaders who do very little to promote 'moral' behaviour.
1: Getting rid of the Second Amendment requires the President's signature, a two-thirds majority of each house of congress, AND a two-thirds majority in two-thirds of the states. If enough people want to get rid of guns to pass an amendment, then we can get rid of guns.
2: People spend significant ammounts of money on all sorts of things that later become worthless. We're a capitalist country, and that means that "but I spent so much money!" is the worst of excuses for ANYTHING.
Forgive my ignorance of the American governmental system, I'm Canadian, so my knowledge is second hand. Regardless of the actual proportions though; you're telling me that the majority is always right. If two thirds of people in the United States (The number you say are required to amend the constitution)wanted to discriminate against black people, the all black people should either suffer the consequences or be forced to leave. Slavery was once legal, it could happen again.
Then you're an idiot. One of the fundamental aspects of intelligence is the ability to reasonably discuss something that you totally disagree with. I wasn't asking you to concede my point; I was asking you to engage in hypothetical discussion.
Ad hominem. I'm already discussing your point of view (which I totally disagree with) in a reasonable manner. I can't identify with your hypothetical situation, because i
The majority of viruses that infect computers result from the deliberate actions of the users. Granted, the spread of computer viruses is equivalent to them all being in the same room at the same time; but the actual infection, requiring a deliberate action, functions almost as if an immune system were in place. Besides which, you probably spend a great deal of time in a room with other people. Go to a restaurant? Work in an office? Have kids, and visit their school/daycare? Computers are immobile; people aren't. SARS made it form China to Toronto, without any trouble at all. Society is as networked as any computer system.
Let me ask you a simple question then:
Is the majority always right?
You argue like it is. You assume that any two groups, however diametrically opposed, will be able to live with one another. Look at Pakistan and India, or Israel and Palestine, then tell me that's true. If your religion is made public knowledge to everyone in the world, there will always be people who exploit that information, and harass you about it. Privacy saves you the problem of dealing with the hassle. The same applies to a lesser extent on every issue that exists; there are fanatics of -every- variety, none of whom are rational and capable of reason.
To rebut your points specifically:
Not how I'd phrase it, but yes. Most major religions have been saying essentially the same thing for thousands of years.
I have almost no faith in organized, major religions. In that same last thousand years, there have been Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch Trials, Jihads, Genocides, and countless other atrocities. Religion is not meant for the masses; it's a -private- concept.
Most anti-gun groups work for legislation, and only personally address what they see as radical gun proponents.
So if they manage to pass legislation by a 51% majority, should every gun owner in the country be forced to give up their weapons? Keep in mind that some people have spend significant amounts of money collecting these items.
Where do EITHER get the resources to harass all the folk that don't agree with them? At worst, you'd get a flyer in the mail--and after a bit of backlash, they'd tone it down to a reasonable level.
Ask the lobby groups. Pro-life groups tend to be religious in nature, and there's no shortage of money there. Pro-choice groups are more reactionary in nature, I would say, but seem to have no trouble making themselves heard.
Again, I doubt it. At worst, the parties would actually notice when we change, and would actually look at what we care about and what gets us out to vote.
That would be at best. Rarely can you get a Democrat and a Republican to agree on anything. Of the two topics you never discuss in the company of strangers, politics is one. Religion is the other, and mentioning either is a sure way to get you an enemy for life.
You take him to court for wrongful termination and/or harassment? You know, the same thing that you would do NOW if he takes exemption to you never eating animal flesh in front of him.
Or her, thank you. The point remains, it may only be a prospective employer, at which point you have -no- legal recourse. To make a point, there is no constitutional prohibition on discrimination based on dietary practices. I'm free to discriminate against vegetarians or vegans as I see fit. That doesn't make it right. That's the reason the American constitution was necessary in the first place. The founding fathers recognised that people will discriminate based on any number of inconsequential items, and specifically made a number of those illegal.
Assume for a minute that my points above are true, and that there isn't any harassment due to simple inundation of information.
Why be so paranoid about 'privacy'?
That's the problem, I can't assume your points are true; it's against my fundamental nature. Why am I so paranoid about privacy? Because I'm pagan. I know what can happen when what should be private knowledge gets into the public. People are irrational on the whole, and I do not trust them to act in a fair and unbiased manner. Privacy is the only thing that secures me reasonable treatment as a human being. To be honest, if you actually are Jewish, I'm amazed beyond belief that you feel the same way. Do you condone the yellow star of nazi fame? Do you accept that every Jewish person in Germany was required to give up the privacy of their religion, for the sole reason of persecution?
No secrets? No. No secrets that I couldn't bear to have everyone know? Yes. [Non-facts used to identify myself, such
So what you're telling me is that should change your life so that abuse of the system becomes pointless? Nice thought, in theory, but it's fundamentally flawed. What happens when the consequences aren't justified? Even if everybody leaves your party sober, they've still been hassled by the police. They haven't done anything to merit it, however.
My point:
Indulge me for a moment, let's play what if:
What if you own a gun? - You get targeted by anti-gun groups.
What if you don't own a gun? - You get targeted (pun not intended) by the NRA.
What if you're pro-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-life groups.
What if you're anti-abortion? - You get targeted by pro-choice groups.
What if you're a Democrat? - Republicans harass you.
What if you're a Republican? - Democrats harass you.
What if you're Green/Libertarian/Etc - Everybody else harasses you.
As long as there are people who feel the need to convince you of -anything-, privacy becomes an important commodity. Doubly so if they're not trying to convince you, but to judge you. My ability as an Engineer has nothing to do with my dietary choices; but what happens if my boss takes exception to vegetarianism? I'll live my life the way I choose; but I'll be damned if it's going to be an open book for all to read.
Besides, can you honestly say that you have no secrets? I can't, nor would I ever want to.
From the article, it looks like you can take the phone in, and have it upgraded for free; or pay the $25 to get the cable, and download the stuff yourself. Technically, since they're not -requiring- you to pay for an advertised feature, I don't think it'd void the contract. You probably would be out the money.
Either way though; if something is advertised on the box or in the specifications, and doesn't have that functionality the -first- time I try to go use it, I'm already alienated. If that same functionality requires a hassle to get working, I'm not just alienated, I'm pissed right off.
"This raises concerns over alienating users that aren't tech-savvy and how this could affect perceptions of portable electronics as a whole."
Frankly, if I'm being forced to pay $25 for a cable to do necessary upgrades, you're going to alienate me whether I'm tech savvy or not. Especially if the 'unavailable' features were advertised as part of the item in question.
That's what the tags are for. They're an inventory control device. Small chips powered by the scanner, that can contain data on the tagged item.
My condolances; that really bites. I've had the same thing happen to my car, except they crushed my fender, as well as taking out my driver-side headlight, and tire. Estimate was $1200. Fortunately, I drive a POS, and don't mind getting my hands dirty. I did the work myself, and was only out about $200 and some scraped skin. Used parts are a good thing.
I agree with you though; it's better to have crap like that happen occasionally, than have every move you make monitored. I don't like the idea of living under an all-watchful eye. I don't trust anyone (including, and especially, myself) with that kind of power.
It's legally required here as well, and I agree. I'm only 22, so I get considerably higher rates than some. The price differential between men and women almost floored me though; women pay about 60% what guys do.
"Even if they make a mistake, my insurance still goes up, because it's my car. My car is insured, not me."
"If someone else hits my car, their insurance is responsible for damages. If I give my car to someone else and they break the law using my car, my insurance pays the damages, therefore the two situations are not the same."
To kill two birds with one stone here:
1) No, in most places with 'at-fault' insurance (typical for commercial insurance, as opposed to governmental 'no-fault' insurance), it is -you- who are insured, =not= your vehicle.
2) Fine, pretend it was a vandalism claim that exceeds your deductable. You're being held accountable for the illegal actions of another person. Is -that- acceptable to you? If you didn't want it to happen, after all, you didn't need to park on the street.
I can speak with some authority here; as my parents both work in insurance.
Driving history is considered, but mostly in as "Clean record since last at-fault accident".
Speeding tickets, etc, usually aren't passed on to the insurance company, unless they hit your driving record. That is; you're actually pulled over, and are given demerits to your license. Age is also a large factor; the younger you are, the more you pay. In Alberta at least, there's a price drop at 21, as well as 25.
Marital status is taken into account; married people pay less.
Gender is taken into account; girls pay less.
Yes, but -you- pay the insurance for your car. You're being held accountable for everything that happens to it; whether you're anywhere close to it, or not. Do you think your insurance should go up if it gets sideswiped while parked on the street? You've got just as much control over that series of events as you do when you lend your car out.
What's that you say? Don't lend out your car. By the same principle, don't park on the street.
Yup, cause no-one minds the hassle of random alcohol screenings, or potentially being fired from your engineering/construction related position.
Point is; if the information is there, it'll be misused. Maybe your boss doesn't screen your blood, but maybe you suddenly start getting a lot of pamphlets for AA. Maybe missionaries come by, and try to save you from your sinful lifestyle. Maybe your insurance company jacks your rates (both your auto, and your homeowners), just because you exhibit the inclination to throw large, alcohol-consuming parties. Hell, maybe the police show up, and start hassling every guest that leaves.
Sound like fun to you? Somewhere, some time, it'd happen.
So can you honestly tell me you trust every one of your friends to be an absolutely perfect driver at all times? No-one you know ever makes a mistake? Must be nice living in that world.
.. You do -have- friends, I hope?
Or have you never done your friends a favour like that?
That works fine, until your boss gives you alcohol screenings based on this information; particularily if it happens as a part of public knowledge. Agreed, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be a big deal; but systems like this get abused frequently.
Simple situation; you lend out your car to a friend, who doesn't know the speed zones. He missed a sign, and ends up getting nailed for going 20 km/h over the limit. You want your insurance rates to go up for this?
It's the same reason police in my province don't take give your license demerits for photo-radar infractions; there's reasonable doubt that you were the driver.
That's the problem; we don't know how to create the perfect virus. If we did, we could avoid doing so. I have great faith in human stupidity; we'll stumble across something nasty, even if we do so unintentionally.
If a script kiddie can create a virus that infects millions of computers, a team of trained biologists can certainly create a virus that can infect millions of humans.
Good Idea: Studying naturally occuring flu viruses to learn how to prevent future pandemic outbreaks.
Bad Idea: Deliberately creating new versions of the flu, to learn how to prevent future outbreaks.
The frightening thought is that they aren't using the highest grade of quarantine level. I suppose though, when it does get out, they'll know how they made it, and theoretically, also how to fight it. At least until it mutates naturally.
Just to chime in here for Canada, we're a Constitutional Monarchy; the Queen is still the titular head of state. In actual matters of governance, however, we elect our congressional representatives directly, and the leader of the dominant party (which doesn't necessarily require a majority of the seats in congress) is the Prime Minister. IIRC, there is no requirement that the Prime Minister him/herself have a seat in congress, usually though, if the Prime Minister isn't elected to a riding, one of the backbenchers will resign, and the Prime Minister will run in a by-election.
That's amusing. I'm guessing from you AC post, that you're of the 'shut up' variety?
"You f**king lying idiot."
(censoring mine)
and
"You're just making a fool of yourself."
Quite the juxtaposition there, are you sure it's not the other way around?
Anyone who can't carry out an argument without resorting to profanity definitely qualifies as a fool.