As an individual, if I make an agreement with you, I have no responsibility to you other than what we've agreed to. So, yes, corporations do have the same responsibilities as people -- though they do not have the same rights (right to vote, for example).
But people do not have a legal responsibility to be "nice." And neither do corporations.
People are usually nice, but that's just because they want to be.
Here is a better solution than joining a union, find another job. One without the boss from office space. They do exist.
Do the open jobs with good bosses outnumber all the jobs with bad bosses? No? Then it's a game of musical chairs, and a bunch of people are gonna be s.o.l. in the end.
To a revolutionary, "civilian" is a public citizen, someone who is not a government official. Government officials might be fair game. To the U.S. military, an "enemy combatant" is whoever the President says. The President includes civilians in that category.
Not all definitions are agreed-on by all interested parties. In fact, if there is a disagreement between interested parties, common definitions are the first thing to go.
My main reason for not finding the.xxx tld domain a good idea after all is that I cannot see how one would ever be able to come up with rules about what should or should not belong there, in a world with such diverse opinions about what is sexual/inappropriate/pronographic/etc and in a world with such diverse laws about pornography.
My post ought to be marked redundant, because I will simply say what everyone else is saying:
Why should there be rules about what "should go into the.xxx domain?" Rules assume a central authority that enforces them. A central authority won't work.
See, instinctively, everyone is assuming that some central authority will decide and force sites into that domain. That instinct is a bad instinct. Why does there need to be a central authority here? Sites ought to decide for themselves whether to register in the.xxx domain.
After all, if a site doesn't want to be in the.xxx domain, how, exactly, would one force it to be there? Can't be done. So what's the point of having enforcement? None. So what's the point in having a set of rules? None.
I think that most people are either bothered, annoyed, or creeped out when they run into someone else using a headset.
My friend was always talking with one of these. We'd be driving somewhere, and all of a sudden he starts talking in short sentences about I-don't-know-what. Apparently, he either made or received a call. And while he's doing that, he'll occasionally direct a question or comment my way. So I can't just ignore it.
Here's what it boils down to. Using a headset forces other people to pay attention to you. That's rude.
A voice is an "alert" signal. When someone speaks, you glance at them. That is instinctive. If they are looking at someone else, or someone else answers them, you can dismiss it. But if there isn't anyone else there, you get repeated "alert" signals every time they say something. It is bothersome.
Why do you think people who talk to themselves bother you? It's not because they're crazy. It is because there is no one else there. And with a headset, there is still no one else there. Sure, if you're on a headset yourself, you have an image of someone you're talking to. But no one else does, and you have to be considerate to them.
Actually China does recognize the right to free speech, in their constitution in fact; they just choose to violate that right of their citizens in the name of national security.
I think it was the "cucumber" thing. Don't ask me why the poster thought cucumbers were racist. I always thought it was just fried chicken and watermelon. *shrug*
Now people have more reason to travel from state to state, and it is faster to do so, but just because something is more common does not mean it needs to be more regulated.
AC had said, "If there were specific travel points at states' borders, where officials would check the identity of the travelers, then I guess the current system of state-by-state IDs would be adequate."
I say, interstate travel in the past did happen, people did move from state to state and did have business interests in different states; just not as often. But they didn't have have border-crossing stations. Why should they? What was the point? For the most part, state governments didn't care who you were or what your business was in that state. Your identity did not matter. It still does not matter.
The only people who care about exactly who you are are: a) law enforcement, b) people with whom you enter into a contract or payment arrangement, and c) revenue agencies.
Law enforcement shouldn't be trusting any IDs anyway. Identifying yourself to your business partners is a matter between you and them. Revenue agencies only need to know who you are within their area of operation, and only need identification appropriate for the particular tax in question, for example, property deeds or social security numbers.
My point is, nothing has really changed and there is no new need for a national ID card. The fact that travel is more common only makes a difference for law enforcement, and they have their own ways to ID you. Those methods may not scale to higher populations, but a national ID card won't solve that problem any better than state ID cards do.
For the sake of MY FREEDOM not to be harassed with hate speech.
That's the thing right there.
Being "free from" something cannot be allowed, because everyone should have the same freedoms and everyone should be equal, but if I am permitted to be free from something, that puts my freedoms above another person's.
The proper freedom is to be "free to do" something. I am free to do something and other people are free to do other things in response.
We told them that nuclear power was safe, it was the answer, it was short-sighted (environmentally speaking) to hold the technology back.
Even right after Three Mile Island, we were saying that yeah, everything worked properly, no injuries, no leakage, it was a nice happy meltdown.
I just want to take the entire environmentalist movement, smack them upside the head into next week, saying "Bi**h, I done tol' your ass, but you just don't know how to listen, do you!? Now you gotta make me hurt you."
Slashdot Mirror
What constitutes "evidence" of manipulation? Manipulation is just taking advantage of a recognizable pattern.
Why can't competing unions form?
As an individual, if I make an agreement with you, I have no responsibility to you other than what we've agreed to. So, yes, corporations do have the same responsibilities as people -- though they do not have the same rights (right to vote, for example).
But people do not have a legal responsibility to be "nice." And neither do corporations.
People are usually nice, but that's just because they want to be.
Here is a better solution than joining a union, find another job. One without the boss from office space. They do exist.
Do the open jobs with good bosses outnumber all the jobs with bad bosses? No? Then it's a game of musical chairs, and a bunch of people are gonna be s.o.l. in the end.
Yoink!
To a revolutionary, "civilian" is a public citizen, someone who is not a government official. Government officials might be fair game.
To the U.S. military, an "enemy combatant" is whoever the President says. The President includes civilians in that category.
Not all definitions are agreed-on by all interested parties. In fact, if there is a disagreement between interested parties, common definitions are the first thing to go.
My main reason for not finding the .xxx tld domain a good idea after all is that I cannot see how one would ever be able to come up with rules about what should or should not belong there, in a world with such diverse opinions about what is sexual/inappropriate/pronographic/etc and in a world with such diverse laws about pornography.
.xxx domain?" Rules assume a central authority that enforces them. A central authority won't work.
.xxx domain.
.xxx domain, how, exactly, would one force it to be there? Can't be done. So what's the point of having enforcement? None. So what's the point in having a set of rules? None.
My post ought to be marked redundant, because I will simply say what everyone else is saying:
Why should there be rules about what "should go into the
See, instinctively, everyone is assuming that some central authority will decide and force sites into that domain. That instinct is a bad instinct. Why does there need to be a central authority here? Sites ought to decide for themselves whether to register in the
After all, if a site doesn't want to be in the
Even if not, it wouldn't be the end of the world to lose access to porn.
...
Yes. Yes it would.
if you get a photon out the system before you sent one, are you locked into sending one?
My take on it is that maybe you aren't locked into sending the photon in, but a photon with the right properties will end up going in.
I don't wanna know...
I think that most people are either bothered, annoyed, or creeped out when they run into someone else using a headset.
My friend was always talking with one of these. We'd be driving somewhere, and all of a sudden he starts talking in short sentences about I-don't-know-what. Apparently, he either made or received a call. And while he's doing that, he'll occasionally direct a question or comment my way. So I can't just ignore it.
Here's what it boils down to. Using a headset forces other people to pay attention to you. That's rude.
A voice is an "alert" signal. When someone speaks, you glance at them. That is instinctive. If they are looking at someone else, or someone else answers them, you can dismiss it. But if there isn't anyone else there, you get repeated "alert" signals every time they say something. It is bothersome.
Why do you think people who talk to themselves bother you? It's not because they're crazy. It is because there is no one else there. And with a headset, there is still no one else there. Sure, if you're on a headset yourself, you have an image of someone you're talking to. But no one else does, and you have to be considerate to them.
Her naughty bits are not really visable.
:)
Yeah, but his are!
The article ends with "Still, it beats the hell out of WAP."
."
It should have ended with "Still, it beats the hell out of fap fap fap
Actually China does recognize the right to free speech, in their constitution in fact; they just choose to violate that right of their citizens in the name of national security.
Hm, sounds familiar...
I think it was the "cucumber" thing. Don't ask me why the poster thought cucumbers were racist. I always thought it was just fried chicken and watermelon. *shrug*
According to the mother of this doctor -- who is also a ninja -- the whole ninja/pirate thing was a ninja joke at the expense of pirates.
Now people have more reason to travel from state to state, and it is faster to do so, but just because something is more common does not mean it needs to be more regulated.
AC had said, "If there were specific travel points at states' borders, where officials would check the identity of the travelers, then I guess the current system of state-by-state IDs would be adequate."
I say, interstate travel in the past did happen, people did move from state to state and did have business interests in different states; just not as often. But they didn't have have border-crossing stations. Why should they? What was the point? For the most part, state governments didn't care who you were or what your business was in that state. Your identity did not matter. It still does not matter.
The only people who care about exactly who you are are: a) law enforcement, b) people with whom you enter into a contract or payment arrangement, and c) revenue agencies.
Law enforcement shouldn't be trusting any IDs anyway. Identifying yourself to your business partners is a matter between you and them. Revenue agencies only need to know who you are within their area of operation, and only need identification appropriate for the particular tax in question, for example, property deeds or social security numbers.
My point is, nothing has really changed and there is no new need for a national ID card. The fact that travel is more common only makes a difference for law enforcement, and they have their own ways to ID you. Those methods may not scale to higher populations, but a national ID card won't solve that problem any better than state ID cards do.
a national card is a necessity in a contry where individuals can travel freely from one state to another
That's dumb. People could always travel freely from state to state. We've been doing it for several centuries now! What's different now?
If you use Bonjour instead, don't bother worrying about it.
A Java programmer? Pff. I wouldn't expect you to find your way out of a paper bag. :P
Although there are a couple of handfuls of features that women have that men don't.
:)
Well...sometimes less than a handful, sometimes more.
For the sake of MY FREEDOM not to be harassed with hate speech.
That's the thing right there.
Being "free from" something cannot be allowed, because everyone should have the same freedoms and everyone should be equal, but if I am permitted to be free from something, that puts my freedoms above another person's.
The proper freedom is to be "free to do" something. I am free to do something and other people are free to do other things in response.
We told them that nuclear power was safe, it was the answer, it was short-sighted (environmentally speaking) to hold the technology back.
Even right after Three Mile Island, we were saying that yeah, everything worked properly, no injuries, no leakage, it was a nice happy meltdown.
I just want to take the entire environmentalist movement, smack them upside the head into next week, saying "Bi**h, I done tol' your ass, but you just don't know how to listen, do you!? Now you gotta make me hurt you."
Well, at the very least a car manufacturer could limit the top speed for a car to keep it from speeding on the highway.
I thought they already did this. Don't cars have governers on them?
That polar vortex is the Venusian greenhouse gas factory. They had a bit of a mad scientist problem, and one mad scientist finally "showed them all!"