I've never heard of a curfew law being struck down as unconstitutional. While I agree with that sentiment, most major cities (and probably all the other ones) have them. Every city I've lived in does - Portland, Denver, San Francisco. Even in Seattle, where curfew laws were stated to be "unconstitutional", they were not struck down and are determined to be "permissible during times of demonstrated social evil" - whatever the fuck that means.
Basically "OH NO, ADULTS ARE SCARED OF TEH CHILDREN! PANIC!!!".
Most American cities have curfew laws, though it's hard for me to even remotely agree with having them. I fail to see how enforcing curfew laws will curtail mobs. What the mobs are doing is against the law and they don't care about that. What are the odds they're going to care about curfew? And since the entire underlying problem seems to be that police can't keep up with these insta-mobs, how are they going to keep up with these insta-curfew-violating-mobs?
And while we're at it - so what? The job of the police isn't to protect you from crime. It's to clean up afterward and MAYBE find the guilty party.
Let's see -- let little Johnny run off to play all day in an unsupervised parka couple miles away. Or . . . have a nice big backyard where a boy can be a boy and have fun doing kid stuff all day, with a parent on the premises (even if not directly observing). Yeah, gee. A park sounds perfect.
Especially considering how shitty a lot of parks are. Whether we're just talking idiots who let their dogs crap all over them to thugs hanging out causing trouble.
Compromise by both parties to maintain the status quo is what got us here. Further compromise will just continue it. There is only one solution to problems derived from spending too much. It's the same solution you and I have to employ in our own financial lives. SPEND LESS.
Actually, there are two groups of retards. The retards who blame Obama while ignoring Republican culpability and retards like you who blame Republicans while ignoring Democrat culpability. There is really only one party. A single coin with two similar sides. They are both at fault as are all the idiots out there who say "don't cut my one thing that I care super duper tons about!". You know, like "cut everything, but don't you touch my social security durp durp!".
Cut it all. Get the costs down. Quit catering to voting blocks. And stop pointing fingers back and forth when BOTH sides are guilty as FUCK.
Wow, you can tell a lot about your attitude from that comment. You have it backwards. I already pay around 40% in taxes. How much more fucking blood do you want? How about we don't raise taxes and, instead, we trim the fat down to ONLY the truly essential spending - for which we have more than enough revenue to cover.
I don't see the point in counting a job that exists only thanks to the tax-payer's taxes as a "job" in the normal means. It's not a benefit to the country - it's a liability. An expense. A budget item.
Congress was once a part of a separate branch of government to counter balance the power of the other two. Long ago, they essentially just turned into a timid lapdog of the sitting president. They'll bitch and moan and showboat for a few weeks or months, when when it comes down to it, they'll mostly do what the president wants them to do.
She represents a lot of typical idiocy out there where legislation is involved. Since when are laws about "being nice"? What's next? We believe that free speech is important, but not to the extent that it might upset someone, offend them, or make them feel sad?
Yes. Where the fuck have you been the last twenty years? Hell, I knew a fifteen year old girl who befriended a PE teacher in her district online and within a week, he made a trip to her home while her mother was gone for the day and they banged. It happens all the time. Read the news, if you doubt me. Just don't set a Google News Alert on the keywords, because it'll be filling your inbox.
Hahahahaha. Firing a teacher is a fucking miserable task. Unless they've raped a child, firing them is going to be a fucking monumental task, thanks to their unions. And even then, they'll probably walk away with you being contractually obligated to give them a "positive reference" to their next employer and a nice six figure settlement. I'll step aside now and let all the teachers step forward to tell me how teachers are all perfect and wonderful and unions are part of the holy trinity.
Don't friend them on facebook? Seems like a simple answer.
I know a few of my family members (cousins, my siblings, etc) are on Facebook. I don't know what their account is. I haven't seen their pages. I don't want to see their pages. I don't want to friend them. I know them in real life.
I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to be "facebook friends" with their student. A man can't stand within 75 feet of a kid without people suspecting that you intend to molest the little bastard, so the last thing anyone wants to do is give rise to any potential situation that could even remotely be viewed as even theoretically improper. The same way you wouldn't ever be in a classroom alone with a female student and the door closed, give a ride to a student, or stop by a student's home, or pat someone's kid on the back. In this world of "EVERYONE INTENDS TO RAPE MAH BABY!" you can't afford to have any other mindset than "EVERYONE THINKS I'M GOING TO RAPE YUR BABEH".
Stop blaming our shitty products that cater more toward trendy new social networking bullshit and hampering DRM and late releases and half-assed ports that seem to make PC versions of games red-headed step-children! It's all because of teh ebil pirates! They're to blame for any sales problems! Duke Nukem Forever was an AMAZING masterpiece! Don't blame us for it sucking; blame the pirates!
It's hard to feel proud of being a PC gamer anymore. It's just kind of depressing. There are still a few gems on PC, but we increasingly sit here with fantastic beasts of machines (compared to consoles) that are given short shrift on the software side. Sad.
The right thing is to cut spending to the point that you're spending less than you're taking in. Period. I'm sorry, but I want tax cuts and I want them to be "funded" by cuts in spending.
Re:Most economists think this isn't enough?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 0
How is cutting your spending (especially when you don't have the money to pay for it) ever a "recipe for disaster"? How is "taxing the fuck out of citizens, instead" any less of a disaster?
Re:Yet just to clarify (and speculate)
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Of course they'd reach a deal. This is all theater. A bunch of showboating and grandstanding to get your name out there and get people hearing your soundbites while, in the end, accomplishing nothing and buckling. Spend two months saying "we spend too much!" and then agree to some bullshit "we agree to cut our expected spending over the next decade and count it as actually cutting costs" and call it "job done".
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
We're fucked, no matter which way it goes. Both parties want to keep spending and spend even more. The only difference is that one party wants to raise our taxes and the other doesn't. One fucks us directly and the other indirectly. Nobody really gives a shit about reducing the spending, because every dickhead in America has a special little "touch this and I'll never vote for you!" pet. God forbid you touch anything that even remotely might affect old people or people with children or anyone in education or the military or anything involving federal jobs. So we constantly go for the simple solution - raise our credit card limit.
Wouldn't we all love to have a credit card that we could spend all we wanted on and then when we spend too much, the lender just says "don't worry, here's more!" and know that we never have to be accountable for it during our lifetime?
Of course, when you suggest reducing spending, people lose their shit and ask "well what would YOU cut?" as if it's some fucking trick question.
Well, for starters, let's ditch social security. And yes, I'll kick in mine. You can keep what you've taken from me so far and don't give me anything when I'm old. Then, let's ditch the four or six military actions we have going on right now. Then, let's reduce spending in education. We spend more money on education than any nation in the entire world and yet we're not even in the top 20 for results. Stop spending more to get lower results. I'm sure those whose job it is to deal with the budget and economy could come up with plenty of other areas, since they have the entire list of expenses and I don't -- but since I came up with this in about thirty seconds, I'm sure others could manage much better.
What's not going to help is for everyone to keep bitching about spending and then never cut anything. It's just a bunch of sound-bites that are forgotten in a few months when it's time to be accountable. All people remember is "oh, that's the guy who said we should cut spending" rather than "... who then went on to support more spending, anyway".
Oh - and I'm not sure when you went to highschool, but I can tell you that in the 90s, that wasn't part of our curriculum. Taxes, checkbooks and all that stuff was not part of the education. I guess they had to focus on more important things like DARE assemblies.
Actually, it depends on his contract more than anything else. You usually have to declare any existing patents and IP that you own when you're hired and contracts often stipulate that any intellectual property you generate while employed belongs to your employer. Whether you wrote it during work hours or on personal time or on work machines or on your own machines is not relevant in those cases. (Though for all I know, it might be contestable in court, still.)
It has been a long time since I've signed a contract, but the last one I saw had something about the company owning everything you create - whether on company time or not. If the submitter has a similar clause in his contract, he's probably fucked, because it would therefore not be his code to GPL.
I can just imagine all the religious nuts reading this headline on Drudge and not going any further. "First they let them homersexuals marry, then people are gonna marry dogs and now they're marrying COMPUTARS! NOES!".
Also, the problem with actually marrying *to* a computer is that they become obsolete almost as fast as a wife does.
If I left my front door unlocked and nothing happened for two months, but then on around day 70, someone walked right in and robbed me, people would still say I was an idiot for it. Even if I said "but nothing happened the first 69 days!".
I would say you are statistically lucky, should count yourself fortunate, and avoid the unnecessary risk in the future (at least the "while we were out of town" part).
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard of a curfew law being struck down as unconstitutional. While I agree with that sentiment, most major cities (and probably all the other ones) have them. Every city I've lived in does - Portland, Denver, San Francisco. Even in Seattle, where curfew laws were stated to be "unconstitutional", they were not struck down and are determined to be "permissible during times of demonstrated social evil" - whatever the fuck that means.
Basically "OH NO, ADULTS ARE SCARED OF TEH CHILDREN! PANIC!!!".
Most American cities have curfew laws, though it's hard for me to even remotely agree with having them. I fail to see how enforcing curfew laws will curtail mobs. What the mobs are doing is against the law and they don't care about that. What are the odds they're going to care about curfew? And since the entire underlying problem seems to be that police can't keep up with these insta-mobs, how are they going to keep up with these insta-curfew-violating-mobs?
And while we're at it - so what? The job of the police isn't to protect you from crime. It's to clean up afterward and MAYBE find the guilty party.
Let's see -- let little Johnny run off to play all day in an unsupervised parka couple miles away. Or . . . have a nice big backyard where a boy can be a boy and have fun doing kid stuff all day, with a parent on the premises (even if not directly observing). Yeah, gee. A park sounds perfect.
Especially considering how shitty a lot of parks are. Whether we're just talking idiots who let their dogs crap all over them to thugs hanging out causing trouble.
What the fuck do you care how big someone's yard is? Petty little shit.
Compromise by both parties to maintain the status quo is what got us here. Further compromise will just continue it. There is only one solution to problems derived from spending too much. It's the same solution you and I have to employ in our own financial lives. SPEND LESS.
Actually, there are two groups of retards. The retards who blame Obama while ignoring Republican culpability and retards like you who blame Republicans while ignoring Democrat culpability. There is really only one party. A single coin with two similar sides. They are both at fault as are all the idiots out there who say "don't cut my one thing that I care super duper tons about!". You know, like "cut everything, but don't you touch my social security durp durp!".
Cut it all. Get the costs down. Quit catering to voting blocks. And stop pointing fingers back and forth when BOTH sides are guilty as FUCK.
Wow, you can tell a lot about your attitude from that comment. You have it backwards. I already pay around 40% in taxes. How much more fucking blood do you want? How about we don't raise taxes and, instead, we trim the fat down to ONLY the truly essential spending - for which we have more than enough revenue to cover.
I don't see the point in counting a job that exists only thanks to the tax-payer's taxes as a "job" in the normal means. It's not a benefit to the country - it's a liability. An expense. A budget item.
Congress was once a part of a separate branch of government to counter balance the power of the other two. Long ago, they essentially just turned into a timid lapdog of the sitting president. They'll bitch and moan and showboat for a few weeks or months, when when it comes down to it, they'll mostly do what the president wants them to do.
She represents a lot of typical idiocy out there where legislation is involved. Since when are laws about "being nice"? What's next? We believe that free speech is important, but not to the extent that it might upset someone, offend them, or make them feel sad?
So, teachers are all potential pedophiles, eh?
Yes. Where the fuck have you been the last twenty years? Hell, I knew a fifteen year old girl who befriended a PE teacher in her district online and within a week, he made a trip to her home while her mother was gone for the day and they banged. It happens all the time. Read the news, if you doubt me. Just don't set a Google News Alert on the keywords, because it'll be filling your inbox.
http://www.google.com/search?q=teacher+sex+with+student
Hahahahaha. Firing a teacher is a fucking miserable task. Unless they've raped a child, firing them is going to be a fucking monumental task, thanks to their unions. And even then, they'll probably walk away with you being contractually obligated to give them a "positive reference" to their next employer and a nice six figure settlement. I'll step aside now and let all the teachers step forward to tell me how teachers are all perfect and wonderful and unions are part of the holy trinity.
Don't friend them on facebook? Seems like a simple answer.
I know a few of my family members (cousins, my siblings, etc) are on Facebook. I don't know what their account is. I haven't seen their pages. I don't want to see their pages. I don't want to friend them. I know them in real life.
I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to be "facebook friends" with their student. A man can't stand within 75 feet of a kid without people suspecting that you intend to molest the little bastard, so the last thing anyone wants to do is give rise to any potential situation that could even remotely be viewed as even theoretically improper. The same way you wouldn't ever be in a classroom alone with a female student and the door closed, give a ride to a student, or stop by a student's home, or pat someone's kid on the back. In this world of "EVERYONE INTENDS TO RAPE MAH BABY!" you can't afford to have any other mindset than "EVERYONE THINKS I'M GOING TO RAPE YUR BABEH".
Stop blaming our shitty products that cater more toward trendy new social networking bullshit and hampering DRM and late releases and half-assed ports that seem to make PC versions of games red-headed step-children! It's all because of teh ebil pirates! They're to blame for any sales problems! Duke Nukem Forever was an AMAZING masterpiece! Don't blame us for it sucking; blame the pirates!
It's hard to feel proud of being a PC gamer anymore. It's just kind of depressing. There are still a few gems on PC, but we increasingly sit here with fantastic beasts of machines (compared to consoles) that are given short shrift on the software side. Sad.
The right thing is to cut spending to the point that you're spending less than you're taking in. Period. I'm sorry, but I want tax cuts and I want them to be "funded" by cuts in spending.
How is cutting your spending (especially when you don't have the money to pay for it) ever a "recipe for disaster"? How is "taxing the fuck out of citizens, instead" any less of a disaster?
Of course they'd reach a deal. This is all theater. A bunch of showboating and grandstanding to get your name out there and get people hearing your soundbites while, in the end, accomplishing nothing and buckling. Spend two months saying "we spend too much!" and then agree to some bullshit "we agree to cut our expected spending over the next decade and count it as actually cutting costs" and call it "job done".
We're fucked, no matter which way it goes. Both parties want to keep spending and spend even more. The only difference is that one party wants to raise our taxes and the other doesn't. One fucks us directly and the other indirectly. Nobody really gives a shit about reducing the spending, because every dickhead in America has a special little "touch this and I'll never vote for you!" pet. God forbid you touch anything that even remotely might affect old people or people with children or anyone in education or the military or anything involving federal jobs. So we constantly go for the simple solution - raise our credit card limit.
Wouldn't we all love to have a credit card that we could spend all we wanted on and then when we spend too much, the lender just says "don't worry, here's more!" and know that we never have to be accountable for it during our lifetime?
Of course, when you suggest reducing spending, people lose their shit and ask "well what would YOU cut?" as if it's some fucking trick question.
Well, for starters, let's ditch social security. And yes, I'll kick in mine. You can keep what you've taken from me so far and don't give me anything when I'm old. Then, let's ditch the four or six military actions we have going on right now. Then, let's reduce spending in education. We spend more money on education than any nation in the entire world and yet we're not even in the top 20 for results. Stop spending more to get lower results. I'm sure those whose job it is to deal with the budget and economy could come up with plenty of other areas, since they have the entire list of expenses and I don't -- but since I came up with this in about thirty seconds, I'm sure others could manage much better.
What's not going to help is for everyone to keep bitching about spending and then never cut anything. It's just a bunch of sound-bites that are forgotten in a few months when it's time to be accountable. All people remember is "oh, that's the guy who said we should cut spending" rather than "... who then went on to support more spending, anyway".
Oh - and I'm not sure when you went to highschool, but I can tell you that in the 90s, that wasn't part of our curriculum. Taxes, checkbooks and all that stuff was not part of the education. I guess they had to focus on more important things like DARE assemblies.
Actually, it depends on his contract more than anything else. You usually have to declare any existing patents and IP that you own when you're hired and contracts often stipulate that any intellectual property you generate while employed belongs to your employer. Whether you wrote it during work hours or on personal time or on work machines or on your own machines is not relevant in those cases. (Though for all I know, it might be contestable in court, still.)
It has been a long time since I've signed a contract, but the last one I saw had something about the company owning everything you create - whether on company time or not. If the submitter has a similar clause in his contract, he's probably fucked, because it would therefore not be his code to GPL.
It's Adam and Eve; not Osbourne and Steve!
I was molested by my first Ultra SPARC 5 a decade ago.
I can just imagine all the religious nuts reading this headline on Drudge and not going any further. "First they let them homersexuals marry, then people are gonna marry dogs and now they're marrying COMPUTARS! NOES!".
Also, the problem with actually marrying *to* a computer is that they become obsolete almost as fast as a wife does.
If I left my front door unlocked and nothing happened for two months, but then on around day 70, someone walked right in and robbed me, people would still say I was an idiot for it. Even if I said "but nothing happened the first 69 days!".
I would say you are statistically lucky, should count yourself fortunate, and avoid the unnecessary risk in the future (at least the "while we were out of town" part).