The mother could have avoided the entire situation by declining to name the man, and still gotten the benefits.
Telling the truth should never make you an automatic "bad person". If this had been a hetro-sexual couple who he had inseminated, even an unmarried one, the question would never even have arisen; its all about Kansas not treating couples equally. This could actually be a very strong case for a group to bring suit against Kansas to challenge the constitutionality of their anti-gay rulings.
Because the default, traditional, de facto state of affairs is that the man who impregnates the woman is on the hook for these charges, and they're seeking an alternate arrangement.
Actually in most states, if a couple is married (which Kansas wouldn't recognize in this case) when a child is born then the child "belongs" to the married couple as parents regardless of the physical identity of the sperm-donor. Which is pretty significant since best estimates are that between 3 and 5 percent of all children in the US born within wedlock have a different biological father than the man their mother was married to.
Let's not pretend that this is an isolated occurrence. It has far-reaching wide-sweeping consequences.
Check out Mobile Mouse Pro - puts a trackpad and keyboard on your iOS device (paid, cheap) and communicates to servers (free) on one or more computers. I use it on anything that's primarily a display and don't worry about keyboards/mice on those machines at all.
The one benefit to this - one of the very few things that I miss about Windows - is that you can (for example) do file-open and then just as you can paste the FQpath to a file and hit enter to open it, you can post any URL to open it as a file. Handy little shortcut sometimes.
Re-read that - clicking "like" on a comment does nothing in the context of this thread. We're talking about officially Like'ing an organization's page on Facebook, since that's the only activity that ever gets reported out as "Anonymous Coward Like's Bob's Burger Hut". Totally different than liking an offhand comment. I originally read this as you talking about liking a page recommended in a conversation, but see how that could be a misinterpretation.
Either way, don't like something unless you want others to be told that you did. In a Message conversation, the audience is limited to participants. In regular Facebook its limited to your defined Friends.
For small notebooks, Field Notes (fieldnotesbrand.com) is the nice trendy option these days and offers some options including dot grid layouts as well as lined and graph paper. They also do special editions regularly, and are made in the USA.
Very trendy, to the point that after your comment while I went to their website idly thinking that I might pick one up to check it out (but its late here and I don't feel like making a special point of remembering to do this later), I gave up after a minute or two. I really do think that some people lose track of the fact that they actually do create and sell things to people for money.
Wouldn't it be nice if people who wanted to screw Facebook made sure they had such third parties in many of their photos, and a highly carnivorous lawyer on retainer.
Those same people who wanted to screw Facebook would then be sued for illicitly (according the terms they have agreed to with FB) posting those photos. In the same way that pasting copyrighted images onto a physical wall without permission wouldn't then somehow make the owner of the wall ultimately liable, even if you were leasing it from them in exchange for data.
And indeed if you post on your friend's wall that you like a restaurant, Facebook won't do a damn thing. If, however, you post a comment on a public site like Yelp, the restaurant may indeed print it out and show it to people. Facebook's taking the middle ground - if you officially tell it that you Like something, it may pass that information on to your friends (and only your friends), and businesses can pay money to increase the frequency of Facebook reminding them of that fact. Nothing more.
Actually they're painfully explicit and will tell all your friends about the fact that you shared the page. Which, indeed, they have to do in order to comply with your request to actually share the page.
Remember, telling your FB-Friends what actions you take on FB pages and widgets is the entire point of Facebook. Its not a big, dark conspiracy that's out to get you.
You can like a "page" (concept/business/celebrity/etc), a comment made by a page or an individual, or a response-comment made by a page or an individual. The only ones that I've ever even heard of showing up as "likes" in the "Your friend Bob likes GreaseBurgers!" sense are the first sort in that list. Facebook does provide another, easily ignored "chatter" type stream that might show you "Bob likes GreaseBurger's comment 'Cholesterol is a government conspiracy'" but they always clearly differentiate the two ideas.
If I like something on Facebook, it's because I would like to see their future updates. Period.
And the "cost" of having an expensive third-party distribution network to provide those same updates to you is that your request is semi-public knowledge (in that you self-select the group of friends who can see it). Not unreasonable, methinks, and spelled out in both the letter and the spirit of your relationship with FB.
So if I'm in a private thread on someone's non-public timeline, and I click "like" on some link my friend adds to his private dialogue with me on his timeline, which may be a political link or controversial or make sense only in that particular context, will what I did believing it private cease to be private without my knowledge or permission?
Why would you ever "Like" or "+1" something (in the official FB or Google sense) shared in a private conversation if you didn't want that information to become more public? You're in a conversation already FFS, you can just say "Hey, I agree." Using a social-media platform tool to indicate approval implies that you want that social-media platform tool to take some action - any action - on that click. Its well documented that even the publicly stated purpose of those platforms is to share the information that you give them with your "network."
WTF else do you expect the platform to do when you click "Like"? Wink slyly and say, "That one's just between the two of us, friend?"
Some vendor vendor posts a picture of a cute kitten. People "like" the picture in the hopes that their friends will see it as well. That "like" in no way indicates that they actually recommend the (often completely unrelated) product.
Aha - I have a solution! Facebook should create, at their own expense, a "Share" button that works orthogonally to the "Like" button. It could even sit next to it to avoid confusion so that people aiming at one would see the other and be able to decide which better indicates their sentiment. Would that meet your requirements, good sir?
Then why on earth did you "Like" the product, if you didn't want your friends to see that you "Liked" the product? Same comment but louder if you reviewed it.
I agree with the sentiment - if they're pretending you "Liked" something when you just mentioned it, that's bad. But the whole point - indeed, the only point - of giving something a "Like" is to share your opinion with others. Don't pretend to be surprised when the sharing happens.
In theory if the prices that you and YouTube were paying per GB were equal, this would actually be reasonable. In reality, however, the "entry tier" pricing is likely to be far above both your needs and your pocketbook, and only the top-tier (not that it'd be published anywhere) getting down anywhere near actual costs - which should themselves be shared with the telco anyway, since the telco's also being paid by the consumer for the same data traffic.
Very true. With companies not "sharing the wealth" and favoring owners over employees in almost every case, this becomes a very real problem since most people are employees first and foremost (often only).
There's plenty to go around, too - our country's GDP is booming. Its just that none of that wealth is being shared. Oddly enough, the pain when a recession comes is shared very quickly.
I'd take that a step further; an effective estate tax at around ~$20 million or so. The trouble with wealth concentration is that it snowballs; if you have a situation in which people are roughly equal then you'll be sharing the wealth nicely (after all, America's GDP has more than recovered from the last recession, its just that the employees haven't significantly benefitted from the recovery).
Once you have even a bit of wealth concentration, unchecked you'll eventually end up with a massive problem thanks to the few having even some money to invest and the power of compound interest. A real-world example with stupid math but to make the point:
Say you have 100 people, all of whom own their own house. One of them suffers an upset and ends up having to get a mortgage on their house. Another of them is doing just a little better than average and can afford to purchase the mortgage. In 15 years the first person owns their house again, but the second has approximately 3-4 houses worth of additional money. Worse, they've taken that money out of normal service-economy rotation, so the economy that was providing a good middle-class income for all is now a tiny bit poorer.
The one originally lucky (or hard working) individual can now afford to - without ever actually working any harder again - take advantage of any similar opportunities. The more that they do so, the more disparate their wealth becomes. If they're ever rich enough to be able to influence policy and require more people to use their services, its game over.
This is addressed through the income tax (not 100% after all) but more importantly through the estate tax, to help ensure that we don't have a class of people who have contributed nothing to society other than being born into an "old money family" but nevertheless continue to get richer and richer over time (at the necessary expense of the others).
Heh. Guessing you've never had employees at a small company?
Don't forget an allowance for sick time, holidays and vacation days (that adds at least 10% right there). Add conservatively another 10% for their portion of payroll taxes and unemployment taxes. Office space can add another 5-10K per employee per year all by itself. A few thousand for HR costs, share admin employees, et cetera and you can easily be looking at a 50% burden just as a starting point.
That's still a blended rate too, when it comes to converting it to hourly that's assuming that you're not spending any time during the year training, goofing off, etc.
Even as a programmer. It's the only tablet that supports SD cards and dropping to a bringing up a command prompt (cmd/powershell) out of the box.
Oddly enough, even as a programmer, that's why I'm enjoying my iPad. Probably due to the fact that it can't bring up a command prompt, to this date I haven't needed to. The browser works fine, and there are plenty of apps too.
No, you did commit a crime (unless there's a statute specifically allowing certain activities in emergency situations, which there may be). You just won't likely be charged with one. The former is a matter of fact, the second is a matter of judgement.
Estimating wrong how many calories you're consuming & how many you're burning is why the first phase includes keeping track of it--it helps you make good estimates and gives both you and the doctor useful information.
Yup. Also, one thing that I realized when I was losing weight through tracking calories (in and out) was that it didn't really matter if my estimates for intake and burn were off (although I tried to keep them as accurate as possible), so long as they were consistent. If I was weight-stable at a certain number of rjstanford-units of intake and output, then by increasing output while maintaining intake (or whatever) then I'd lose weight. Accuracy vs. precision and all that. Worked pretty well, too (dropped 80 lbs about a decade ago and went from sedentary to IMs).
Slashdot Mirror
The mother could have avoided the entire situation by declining to name the man, and still gotten the benefits.
Telling the truth should never make you an automatic "bad person". If this had been a hetro-sexual couple who he had inseminated, even an unmarried one, the question would never even have arisen; its all about Kansas not treating couples equally. This could actually be a very strong case for a group to bring suit against Kansas to challenge the constitutionality of their anti-gay rulings.
Because the default, traditional, de facto state of affairs is that the man who impregnates the woman is on the hook for these charges, and they're seeking an alternate arrangement.
Actually in most states, if a couple is married (which Kansas wouldn't recognize in this case) when a child is born then the child "belongs" to the married couple as parents regardless of the physical identity of the sperm-donor. Which is pretty significant since best estimates are that between 3 and 5 percent of all children in the US born within wedlock have a different biological father than the man their mother was married to.
Let's not pretend that this is an isolated occurrence. It has far-reaching wide-sweeping consequences.
Check out Mobile Mouse Pro - puts a trackpad and keyboard on your iOS device (paid, cheap) and communicates to servers (free) on one or more computers. I use it on anything that's primarily a display and don't worry about keyboards/mice on those machines at all.
Make that very well, even!
The one benefit to this - one of the very few things that I miss about Windows - is that you can (for example) do file-open and then just as you can paste the FQpath to a file and hit enter to open it, you can post any URL to open it as a file. Handy little shortcut sometimes.
Re-read that - clicking "like" on a comment does nothing in the context of this thread. We're talking about officially Like'ing an organization's page on Facebook, since that's the only activity that ever gets reported out as "Anonymous Coward Like's Bob's Burger Hut". Totally different than liking an offhand comment. I originally read this as you talking about liking a page recommended in a conversation, but see how that could be a misinterpretation.
Either way, don't like something unless you want others to be told that you did. In a Message conversation, the audience is limited to participants. In regular Facebook its limited to your defined Friends.
For small notebooks, Field Notes (fieldnotesbrand.com) is the nice trendy option these days and offers some options including dot grid layouts as well as lined and graph paper. They also do special editions regularly, and are made in the USA.
Very trendy, to the point that after your comment while I went to their website idly thinking that I might pick one up to check it out (but its late here and I don't feel like making a special point of remembering to do this later), I gave up after a minute or two. I really do think that some people lose track of the fact that they actually do create and sell things to people for money.
Wouldn't it be nice if people who wanted to screw Facebook made sure they had such third parties in many of their photos, and a highly carnivorous lawyer on retainer.
Those same people who wanted to screw Facebook would then be sued for illicitly (according the terms they have agreed to with FB) posting those photos. In the same way that pasting copyrighted images onto a physical wall without permission wouldn't then somehow make the owner of the wall ultimately liable, even if you were leasing it from them in exchange for data.
And indeed if you post on your friend's wall that you like a restaurant, Facebook won't do a damn thing. If, however, you post a comment on a public site like Yelp, the restaurant may indeed print it out and show it to people. Facebook's taking the middle ground - if you officially tell it that you Like something, it may pass that information on to your friends (and only your friends), and businesses can pay money to increase the frequency of Facebook reminding them of that fact. Nothing more.
There's Facebook. Then there's an RSS reader. The sooner that you admit that they're different products, the happier I think you'll be.
Actually they're painfully explicit and will tell all your friends about the fact that you shared the page. Which, indeed, they have to do in order to comply with your request to actually share the page.
Remember, telling your FB-Friends what actions you take on FB pages and widgets is the entire point of Facebook. Its not a big, dark conspiracy that's out to get you.
You can like a "page" (concept/business/celebrity/etc), a comment made by a page or an individual, or a response-comment made by a page or an individual. The only ones that I've ever even heard of showing up as "likes" in the "Your friend Bob likes GreaseBurgers!" sense are the first sort in that list. Facebook does provide another, easily ignored "chatter" type stream that might show you "Bob likes GreaseBurger's comment 'Cholesterol is a government conspiracy'" but they always clearly differentiate the two ideas.
If I like something on Facebook, it's because I would like to see their future updates. Period.
And the "cost" of having an expensive third-party distribution network to provide those same updates to you is that your request is semi-public knowledge (in that you self-select the group of friends who can see it). Not unreasonable, methinks, and spelled out in both the letter and the spirit of your relationship with FB.
So if I'm in a private thread on someone's non-public timeline, and I click "like" on some link my friend adds to his private dialogue with me on his timeline, which may be a political link or controversial or make sense only in that particular context, will what I did believing it private cease to be private without my knowledge or permission?
Why would you ever "Like" or "+1" something (in the official FB or Google sense) shared in a private conversation if you didn't want that information to become more public? You're in a conversation already FFS, you can just say "Hey, I agree." Using a social-media platform tool to indicate approval implies that you want that social-media platform tool to take some action - any action - on that click. Its well documented that even the publicly stated purpose of those platforms is to share the information that you give them with your "network."
WTF else do you expect the platform to do when you click "Like"? Wink slyly and say, "That one's just between the two of us, friend?"
Some vendor vendor posts a picture of a cute kitten. People "like" the picture in the hopes that their friends will see it as well. That "like" in no way indicates that they actually recommend the (often completely unrelated) product.
Aha - I have a solution! Facebook should create, at their own expense, a "Share" button that works orthogonally to the "Like" button. It could even sit next to it to avoid confusion so that people aiming at one would see the other and be able to decide which better indicates their sentiment. Would that meet your requirements, good sir?
Then why on earth did you "Like" the product, if you didn't want your friends to see that you "Liked" the product? Same comment but louder if you reviewed it.
I agree with the sentiment - if they're pretending you "Liked" something when you just mentioned it, that's bad. But the whole point - indeed, the only point - of giving something a "Like" is to share your opinion with others. Don't pretend to be surprised when the sharing happens.
In theory if the prices that you and YouTube were paying per GB were equal, this would actually be reasonable. In reality, however, the "entry tier" pricing is likely to be far above both your needs and your pocketbook, and only the top-tier (not that it'd be published anywhere) getting down anywhere near actual costs - which should themselves be shared with the telco anyway, since the telco's also being paid by the consumer for the same data traffic.
Very true. With companies not "sharing the wealth" and favoring owners over employees in almost every case, this becomes a very real problem since most people are employees first and foremost (often only).
There's plenty to go around, too - our country's GDP is booming. Its just that none of that wealth is being shared. Oddly enough, the pain when a recession comes is shared very quickly.
I'd take that a step further; an effective estate tax at around ~$20 million or so. The trouble with wealth concentration is that it snowballs; if you have a situation in which people are roughly equal then you'll be sharing the wealth nicely (after all, America's GDP has more than recovered from the last recession, its just that the employees haven't significantly benefitted from the recovery).
Once you have even a bit of wealth concentration, unchecked you'll eventually end up with a massive problem thanks to the few having even some money to invest and the power of compound interest. A real-world example with stupid math but to make the point:
Say you have 100 people, all of whom own their own house. One of them suffers an upset and ends up having to get a mortgage on their house. Another of them is doing just a little better than average and can afford to purchase the mortgage. In 15 years the first person owns their house again, but the second has approximately 3-4 houses worth of additional money. Worse, they've taken that money out of normal service-economy rotation, so the economy that was providing a good middle-class income for all is now a tiny bit poorer.
The one originally lucky (or hard working) individual can now afford to - without ever actually working any harder again - take advantage of any similar opportunities. The more that they do so, the more disparate their wealth becomes. If they're ever rich enough to be able to influence policy and require more people to use their services, its game over.
This is addressed through the income tax (not 100% after all) but more importantly through the estate tax, to help ensure that we don't have a class of people who have contributed nothing to society other than being born into an "old money family" but nevertheless continue to get richer and richer over time (at the necessary expense of the others).
Heh. Guessing you've never had employees at a small company?
Don't forget an allowance for sick time, holidays and vacation days (that adds at least 10% right there). Add conservatively another 10% for their portion of payroll taxes and unemployment taxes. Office space can add another 5-10K per employee per year all by itself. A few thousand for HR costs, share admin employees, et cetera and you can easily be looking at a 50% burden just as a starting point.
That's still a blended rate too, when it comes to converting it to hourly that's assuming that you're not spending any time during the year training, goofing off, etc.
Even as a programmer. It's the only tablet that supports SD cards and dropping to a bringing up a command prompt (cmd/powershell) out of the box.
Oddly enough, even as a programmer, that's why I'm enjoying my iPad. Probably due to the fact that it can't bring up a command prompt, to this date I haven't needed to. The browser works fine, and there are plenty of apps too.
No, you did commit a crime (unless there's a statute specifically allowing certain activities in emergency situations, which there may be). You just won't likely be charged with one. The former is a matter of fact, the second is a matter of judgement.
Estimating wrong how many calories you're consuming & how many you're burning is why the first phase includes keeping track of it--it helps you make good estimates and gives both you and the doctor useful information.
Yup. Also, one thing that I realized when I was losing weight through tracking calories (in and out) was that it didn't really matter if my estimates for intake and burn were off (although I tried to keep them as accurate as possible), so long as they were consistent. If I was weight-stable at a certain number of rjstanford-units of intake and output, then by increasing output while maintaining intake (or whatever) then I'd lose weight. Accuracy vs. precision and all that. Worked pretty well, too (dropped 80 lbs about a decade ago and went from sedentary to IMs).
And yet nobody did; everyone tried "security through obscurity" and buried it in a deep connector.
Many if not most inventions are obvious after you've seen them.
Voltage has nothing to do with it. Amperage, now, that's what'll kill you (or just barely tickle you, depending).