i suspect this is just an extension of the purposely harassing someone laws that got royally screwed up in the process. they are designed to stop intimidation and harassment of someone specific by someone specific.
An example of this is where someone's father has passed on and a person who is upset with them for any reason, decides to send pictures of him dead with captions drawn on it saying something I'm glad or something similar. It's to stop someone from calling up repeatedly and saying congratulations on losing your job, your house, your car, I'm gonna fuck your daughter and steal your wife.
The ability of someone to do that can be debated, but the intentions would be pure malice and some people think the government has the ability to stop some of that by laws with penalties much the same way they do with laws against physical violence.
Don't delude yourself into thinking something like this law was supposed to cleans the intertubes for the fine citizens of that state. It's more to do with crap like this
1: Sex is not an issue. Encouraging children who cannot take care of themselves to engage in activity that could put them in the position of having to take care of children of their own is. It just doesn't make sense. It's like telling kids to jump out of a moving car whenever they want to, but it's ok if you are wearing a helmet.
2:I don't even know what in the hell you are trying to say there. It's not rational to encourage children to do things detrimental to their own health or well being. It's in intelligence saying let your kids become sluts for whatever reason. It is however intelligent and rational to encourage them to abstain for this behavior until they are older but at the same time prepare them for transgressions should it happen.
Fact 2: You most certainly can train children into not having irresponsible sex. You can also train them to taking the proper precautions too. However, That doesn't seem to be what you are after.
Fact 3: Again, what in the hell are you talking about? I do not consider sex as being bad at all. I consider encouraging children to have sex as being bad. I simply cannot understand why in the world you would want all the young people in the world to be exposed to potential VD, Aids, and various other health issues or pregnancy when they are not old enough to make informed decisions. Do you think that only liberal women used to having sex with anything will help your chances at getting laid or something?
It's like drugs and alcohol, you don't encourage kids to do them, but you instill enough sense in them to not do it behind the wheel of a car or in a crowded area or around dangerous machinery where they will or can cause problems.
Please explain your logic in why they need to be encouraged. It seems to me educating them on STDs, pregnancy, and other health concerns while discouraging the behavior is the best approach. Encouraging them in this behavior serves no purpose relating to the concerns there. All it does is create a sexually experience juvenile who instead of taking the 1 in whatever chance 5 times end up taking it 500 times..
See, this is wrong: what part of "you cannot win against the collective sex drive of the world's teenagers" don't you understand? Much better that the teenagers have sex early and safely than slightly later, inhibitions lowered by alcohol, without protection.
No it is not. It is better to prepare them for the eventual use of a condom while discouraging the sex anyways. We as a society and people within the society reject the notion that animal instincts and urges control us. If we gave into that position, then rape and other things could easily be justified. I don't know why you think encouraging our children to become sluts is honorable, but it is not. The laws in almost every state says that children are not capable of making consent in these areas which is why sex with adults is illegal. Discouraging sexual behavior while equipping them with the knowledge to be safe at it is the best route to go. Even drunken teens who take daddy's car for a joy ride typically put a seat belt on. Your premise that they won't know what to do is a fail from logic in the start.
Teenagers will have sex. Their attitude to sex will make them enjoy it more or less and be more or less responsible about it. And fear and (self-)loathing does not lead to responsible behaviour. A fearful human does not think straight. You cannot frighten someone against sex. Millenia of religious interdiction failed in that regard, what makes you think you will succeed??
First of all, there are plenty of reasons to fear sex. Condoms do not stop aids or other life threatening diseases 100%. Our jobs as adults is to prepare children to become adults. hiding these facts from them does not do this. Abstinence education does not need to be a religious interdiction nor does it need to frighten teens any more or less then education on condom usage.
It sounds to me your problem here is the hint of religious connection more then anything.
No, the right policy is to actually encourage teens to have sex when they really feel like it. Inform them early and abundantly. That way, they'll turn into less frustrated adults, but also will bear less consequences of their actions -- because the only consequence will be mutual enjoyment.
I think you just lost any credibility here. You want to encourage children to have sex to avoid the problems of children having sex. You are not speaking clearly.
BTW, I actually expect kids from the age of 7 to act rationally, as long as they are not overly stressed or fearful. It is not a question of legal responsibility, but rather of acting responsibly whilst doing something their ancestors have done in past millions of years.
You need to lower your expectations to reality. I won't even go into the "you want some candy little kid" that your comments keep making me think you are trying. But are you seriously saying that a 7 year old is capable of negotiating a loan for a house, driving a car, or performing the same job you do? Well, that last one could be a loaded question as I do no know what you do for a living and it could very well be possible that a 7 year old could do it just as well.
But those are all things that society has declared children not capable of doing. Having sex with someone under the age of 14 in most areas will get you a rape charge by statute because society has said they aren't capable of making those decisions. And I'm talking about developed societies too, not some backwoods tribe in Africa or the middle east who's net GDP is less them my annual income.
There is a scientifically valid reason for this too. It's because the frontal cortex of the brain doesn't finish development until around 22 years of age. This is the part of the brain that associates consequences with actions. Society says that some mature faster, other later and a happy medium to where children are capable of being adults in thought process is around 16-18 years of age. Some areas go even further as say they aren't capable until age 21 when it concerns mind altering substances like Alcohol. Now this is science, not religion so keep that in mind if you reply.
Any ideology based education is referred to as indoctrination. However, most religious schools do teach secular material and the religious education is mostly optional. I know of 3 different relgious schools in my area who do this precisely and without vouchers.
Why do they do this, because the state sets standards they have to follow. And regardless of their religious agenda, they are open to the public at large which means they need to accommodate the public at large. They do however maintain strict rules that are dealt with by nuns and rulers.
Are you saying that people who send their kids to these schools aren't receiving an education?
I mean i was always under the impression that in order to get a voucher, you had to A, send your kid to the private school, and B, maintain a grade performance level that is better then the states.
If that is the case, I'm not sure how it's funneling money to anything unless your objection is simply because the church is involved somewhere. If that's the case, saying it's a smoke screen to funnel money to non-secular establishments, or pro-democrat/pro-republican establishments holds just as much weight. In other words, it's merit-less.
It probably has a lot to do with how desperate people are feeling right now.
I'm a firm believer that rough times and economic trouble alone doesn't make someone turn into a criminal, it's desperation and the lack of hope for any alternative way out of the situation which accompanies it that allows them to rationalize the bad behavior.
Of course there will be some people who just have some sense of entitlement and will resort to criminal behavior with any justification, but for the most part, losing hope for something better is what would cause people to flip instead of trying to tough it out. This can be largely illustrated from the great depression where we didn't see an upswing of violent crimes- even after discounting the gang wars of the roaring 20's with prohibition and all.
As long as there appears to be hope for something better, we will likely see people thinking more to the future then to the now.
I think the biggest problem here is that you are expecting teenagers to make rational decisions when the law clearly says they do not.
No teen is ignorant about condoms or condom use in this day and age. The entire thought of it being out of sight out of mind is a little 1960'ish. Even most of the porn they will look up on the intertubes will show guys wearing condoms.
However, there is no reason why encouraging children to not engage in sex before they reach a certain level of maturity and condum use cannot be complimentary in practice. Abstinence does not exclude condom use as it's still one of the most easiest and economical ways to avoid pregnancy once married.
In most state, repeated violation of the same offense statute can elevate the crime to the next potential level. If snagging a DVD is a first degree misdemeanor, then getting busted 2 months after getting busted can make it a class 4 or d felony.
Most states have this as a way to deter repeat offenders. It helps where someone goes through the system and thinks the results of the offense was worth the punishment so they do it again.
Actually, the Bill of Rights is all redundant when considering the entire argument against the Bill of rights in the first place was that the federal government had no rights to impose on the liberties the 12 amendments were to protect.
Oh, that's right, I said 12 and not 10. That is because the original bill of rights contained 12 amendments, 10 of which were passed and ratified by enough states to make the constitution acceptable and binding. The other two which was the first and second amendment of the original bill of rights saw the second passed finally as the 27th amendment to the constitution regarding compensation of elected officials, while the first amendment limiting the power of congress to change the number of representatives has still not been passed.
Those enforcing the laws aren't the decider of mercy or justice. They are there for the sole purpose of bringing the offender before a jury of their peers which then decided mercy and justice.
If the enforcers are the ones who get this mercy role, then they are also the ones who get the tyranny role. The entire idea behind the role of law is to separate the enforcers so the law applies to everyone equally and not just your enemies or the people looked down on in society.
Why work at reading and using your imagination to make a story seem real or realistic enough to be enjoyable when you can flip on the tube and watch someone else' version who already went through that effort.
And Don't take that as me ragging on the new generation at all. It's just a mark on how much CG and other technology has advanced the story telling of other media opportunities.
I think it was a timing issue as stated and you are reading way more into it.
I mean seriously, would you rather the president spend a couple million in tax payer dollars jetting back to the US off schedule just to sign it, then jet back to his Vacation/foreign meeting? Or should he just approve the use of a device that is normally used to sign autographed pictures and crap that aren't policy related but certain members of the public demand.
I don't Care for Obama, but this was the right call considering the alternatives- which would have been the law expiring or the president spending crap-tons of money to make it back in time to keep it alive. You may not like the PARTIOT act, but the majority of your federally elected officials do so we know it would have been the expensive choice.
Interestingly enough, In the US, there are federal laws on the humane slaughter of an animal and slicing their throat is not part of it unless you hit them in the head with a single blow to knock them unconscious.. It's outlawed unless involved in a religious ceremony which would by default make it a ritual sacrifice unless he wants to go up against the laws.
You would describe it if you knew the difference between pasture raised beef and corn raised beef.
Grassy is the off flavor that should naturally be in different meats but disappeared with the factor farms. It's like the difference between farm raised catfish and fresh caught catfish.
Anyways, I admire his actions in this as it is he gets to ensure the animals he eats were humanely raise, and slaughtered.
BTW, have you notices that everything tastes like chicken or chicken tastes like everything. It's not because chicken is bland, it's because factory farm raised chicken is bland and doesn't taste like chicken. A free range bird feed vegetables and whatever it can forage will taste Superior-ly and distinctively better. This is similar to the term Grassy as it's generally the natural flavor of the animal depending on what it eats.
It's easier to shoot the messenger then the message. But it's even easier to shoot the message then carry it on if you don't like change. Peer review has seemed to of went form, "Yes, we did it too", or "no, it didn't work for us", or even a "we saw something a bit different when we tried it", to an "I agree or disagree, let's take a vote on it". At least in some things anyways.
While you are right, that's how science works and if it isn't working that way, it isn't science, but this non-science is happening within the science arena by people claiming to be scientists doing doing science. For a vast majority of people, what is real science or not will be subject to who has the loudest opinion similar to how history is always written by the victor.
In other words, the vast majority of people will end up reading it in a text books somewhere based on who gave up for whatever reason last.
I do not have a complete list of software, but from memory, it seems that chrome is bundled with flash, Avast anti-virus, Verizon and ATT, time warners connectivity pack that needs to be installed on most DSL and cable internet setups unless you want a big hassle, Adaware, "any video converter", Real player, quite a few of the online games(board type games aimed at bored adults more then kids), And I'm sure there are more.
I know I missed a lot in there. Most of the time when I see it installed, it's because it's already there so I don't automatically think about where it came from. And some of those will include the browser install if a program update is needed through the update services on the program. Avast got me personally on this. The only thing I could figure out was the update that happened overnight. Chrome was just there the next day.
Then you are either surrounded by IT developers who hate chrome or idiots who do not update their computers or install software that didn't come with it.
Chome is bundled in a bunch of software, some of which is necessary to view certain web pages. Updating some of this software can lead to steal installs of chrome if you are not paying attention to catch it. I've seen it bundled with PFD viewers, flash players, online virus scanning software, regular virus scanning software, Spyware removal programs, chat programs, and a lot of other things that normal people use in the interweb.
Now, because this is installed doesn't mean the users know it is or what it does. But I've seen loads of computers (as that's what I do) with chrome installed because something installed it.
Yes, I agree entirely. I mean why should he forgo all the technical data, learning, tooling around, and tweaking just keep one program running because some other program doesn't act in that bad way. I miss the good old days when you knew how much fun you were having by how many times you crashed windows in a session.
He needs to suffer through the pain of figuring everything out and making it work how he wants it instead of using a program that's already there.
In response to number 2: I think it's obvious in his rant that he was complaining about FF and praising Chrome like a little fanboy. It's not an internet fail unless you missed that.
He did say after a cold start. Perhaps he's one of those idiots who turn their computers off when not using them to save on energy and GHG emissions and the planet and so on.
Then again, he could be a troll just complaining just to complain as it would appear if we ignored the cold boot part of the complaint.
Wow.. All this infighting over irrelevant details. The sentence said against people suspected of running an indoor pot growing operation.
This sentence alone makes the entire bill of right gone statement and all justifications for or against moot as it's impossible to suspect someone of an indoor pot growing operation in order to issue the subpoenas just to have the subpoenas as the only evidence to get a search warrant. The subpoenas provides only one more piece of evidence that already exists for whatever reason. They are supposed to use the courts in this way according to the bill of rights.
every state that I know of required people to pass a test demonstrating their competency with a motor vehicle and obtain a license. To say the people who do that are any less professional because their jobs aren't with the government is a little naive.
and that's not even getting into the concept of not having effective or sufficient public transportation in the vast majority of the United states. It's not getting into the freedom issue either. I suspect maybe you are trolling or joking- no?
What about it? I mean obviously, if he has done corrupt things because of the affair, then the knowledge of the affair insomuch as it related to the corruption is a different matter. OF course the affair is ancillary to what you claimed he has done. I'm not even sure giving people a promotion who do no deserve one is any sort of ethics violation or anything. The entire world is filled with idiots at the top who only got there because they slept their way up, played golf with the boss, or something else that had nothing to do with their merit or abilities. You can probably name 2 people like this in your immediate chain of command at work. Most people can.
But I'm not sure why you don't see the difference here. He didn't go corrupt and cause a bailout because he had an affair, he did it because of his actions while the affair might have been going on. He was being investigated while for things other then the affair. In this situation, you have a ball player who was getting some action on the side, what bank will need bailed out because of that?
This is no one's business but those who committed the adultery and the parties involved. If they end up doing something actually illegal and important and it's somehow connected to the adultery and the parties involved, then it becomes other people's business. But committing adultery by no means indicates anything else is happening.
Who cares? This is no one's business but the person who committed the adultery and the parties involved. Why is it that people who would ordinarily say "but out of my life", demand that they know everything about other people and are horrified when someone says it back?
Slashdot Mirror
i suspect this is just an extension of the purposely harassing someone laws that got royally screwed up in the process. they are designed to stop intimidation and harassment of someone specific by someone specific.
An example of this is where someone's father has passed on and a person who is upset with them for any reason, decides to send pictures of him dead with captions drawn on it saying something I'm glad or something similar. It's to stop someone from calling up repeatedly and saying congratulations on losing your job, your house, your car, I'm gonna fuck your daughter and steal your wife.
The ability of someone to do that can be debated, but the intentions would be pure malice and some people think the government has the ability to stop some of that by laws with penalties much the same way they do with laws against physical violence.
Don't delude yourself into thinking something like this law was supposed to cleans the intertubes for the fine citizens of that state. It's more to do with crap like this
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/family-gets-go-ahead-to-sue-chp-over-release-of-grisly-crash-photos.html
1: Sex is not an issue. Encouraging children who cannot take care of themselves to engage in activity that could put them in the position of having to take care of children of their own is. It just doesn't make sense. It's like telling kids to jump out of a moving car whenever they want to, but it's ok if you are wearing a helmet.
2:I don't even know what in the hell you are trying to say there. It's not rational to encourage children to do things detrimental to their own health or well being. It's in intelligence saying let your kids become sluts for whatever reason. It is however intelligent and rational to encourage them to abstain for this behavior until they are older but at the same time prepare them for transgressions should it happen.
I do not know who lied to you but your fact 1 is just plain wrong. http://www.avert.org/std-statistics.htm
Fact 2: You most certainly can train children into not having irresponsible sex. You can also train them to taking the proper precautions too. However, That doesn't seem to be what you are after.
Fact 3: Again, what in the hell are you talking about? I do not consider sex as being bad at all. I consider encouraging children to have sex as being bad. I simply cannot understand why in the world you would want all the young people in the world to be exposed to potential VD, Aids, and various other health issues or pregnancy when they are not old enough to make informed decisions. Do you think that only liberal women used to having sex with anything will help your chances at getting laid or something?
It's like drugs and alcohol, you don't encourage kids to do them, but you instill enough sense in them to not do it behind the wheel of a car or in a crowded area or around dangerous machinery where they will or can cause problems.
Please explain your logic in why they need to be encouraged. It seems to me educating them on STDs, pregnancy, and other health concerns while discouraging the behavior is the best approach. Encouraging them in this behavior serves no purpose relating to the concerns there. All it does is create a sexually experience juvenile who instead of taking the 1 in whatever chance 5 times end up taking it 500 times..
No it is not. It is better to prepare them for the eventual use of a condom while discouraging the sex anyways. We as a society and people within the society reject the notion that animal instincts and urges control us. If we gave into that position, then rape and other things could easily be justified. I don't know why you think encouraging our children to become sluts is honorable, but it is not. The laws in almost every state says that children are not capable of making consent in these areas which is why sex with adults is illegal. Discouraging sexual behavior while equipping them with the knowledge to be safe at it is the best route to go. Even drunken teens who take daddy's car for a joy ride typically put a seat belt on. Your premise that they won't know what to do is a fail from logic in the start.
First of all, there are plenty of reasons to fear sex. Condoms do not stop aids or other life threatening diseases 100%. Our jobs as adults is to prepare children to become adults. hiding these facts from them does not do this. Abstinence education does not need to be a religious interdiction nor does it need to frighten teens any more or less then education on condom usage.
It sounds to me your problem here is the hint of religious connection more then anything.
I think you just lost any credibility here. You want to encourage children to have sex to avoid the problems of children having sex. You are not speaking clearly.
You need to lower your expectations to reality. I won't even go into the "you want some candy little kid" that your comments keep making me think you are trying. But are you seriously saying that a 7 year old is capable of negotiating a loan for a house, driving a car, or performing the same job you do? Well, that last one could be a loaded question as I do no know what you do for a living and it could very well be possible that a 7 year old could do it just as well.
But those are all things that society has declared children not capable of doing. Having sex with someone under the age of 14 in most areas will get you a rape charge by statute because society has said they aren't capable of making those decisions. And I'm talking about developed societies too, not some backwoods tribe in Africa or the middle east who's net GDP is less them my annual income.
There is a scientifically valid reason for this too. It's because the frontal cortex of the brain doesn't finish development until around 22 years of age. This is the part of the brain that associates consequences with actions. Society says that some mature faster, other later and a happy medium to where children are capable of being adults in thought process is around 16-18 years of age. Some areas go even further as say they aren't capable until age 21 when it concerns mind altering substances like Alcohol. Now this is science, not religion so keep that in mind if you reply.
Any ideology based education is referred to as indoctrination. However, most religious schools do teach secular material and the religious education is mostly optional. I know of 3 different relgious schools in my area who do this precisely and without vouchers.
Why do they do this, because the state sets standards they have to follow. And regardless of their religious agenda, they are open to the public at large which means they need to accommodate the public at large. They do however maintain strict rules that are dealt with by nuns and rulers.
Are you saying that people who send their kids to these schools aren't receiving an education?
I mean i was always under the impression that in order to get a voucher, you had to A, send your kid to the private school, and B, maintain a grade performance level that is better then the states.
If that is the case, I'm not sure how it's funneling money to anything unless your objection is simply because the church is involved somewhere. If that's the case, saying it's a smoke screen to funnel money to non-secular establishments, or pro-democrat/pro-republican establishments holds just as much weight. In other words, it's merit-less.
It probably has a lot to do with how desperate people are feeling right now.
I'm a firm believer that rough times and economic trouble alone doesn't make someone turn into a criminal, it's desperation and the lack of hope for any alternative way out of the situation which accompanies it that allows them to rationalize the bad behavior.
Of course there will be some people who just have some sense of entitlement and will resort to criminal behavior with any justification, but for the most part, losing hope for something better is what would cause people to flip instead of trying to tough it out. This can be largely illustrated from the great depression where we didn't see an upswing of violent crimes- even after discounting the gang wars of the roaring 20's with prohibition and all.
As long as there appears to be hope for something better, we will likely see people thinking more to the future then to the now.
I think the biggest problem here is that you are expecting teenagers to make rational decisions when the law clearly says they do not.
No teen is ignorant about condoms or condom use in this day and age. The entire thought of it being out of sight out of mind is a little 1960'ish. Even most of the porn they will look up on the intertubes will show guys wearing condoms.
However, there is no reason why encouraging children to not engage in sex before they reach a certain level of maturity and condum use cannot be complimentary in practice. Abstinence does not exclude condom use as it's still one of the most easiest and economical ways to avoid pregnancy once married.
In most state, repeated violation of the same offense statute can elevate the crime to the next potential level. If snagging a DVD is a first degree misdemeanor, then getting busted 2 months after getting busted can make it a class 4 or d felony.
Most states have this as a way to deter repeat offenders. It helps where someone goes through the system and thinks the results of the offense was worth the punishment so they do it again.
Actually, the Bill of Rights is all redundant when considering the entire argument against the Bill of rights in the first place was that the federal government had no rights to impose on the liberties the 12 amendments were to protect.
Oh, that's right, I said 12 and not 10. That is because the original bill of rights contained 12 amendments, 10 of which were passed and ratified by enough states to make the constitution acceptable and binding. The other two which was the first and second amendment of the original bill of rights saw the second passed finally as the 27th amendment to the constitution regarding compensation of elected officials, while the first amendment limiting the power of congress to change the number of representatives has still not been passed.
Here is some more about it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/first12.html
Those enforcing the laws aren't the decider of mercy or justice. They are there for the sole purpose of bringing the offender before a jury of their peers which then decided mercy and justice.
If the enforcers are the ones who get this mercy role, then they are also the ones who get the tyranny role. The entire idea behind the role of law is to separate the enforcers so the law applies to everyone equally and not just your enemies or the people looked down on in society.
That's actually a sign of the times.
Why work at reading and using your imagination to make a story seem real or realistic enough to be enjoyable when you can flip on the tube and watch someone else' version who already went through that effort.
And Don't take that as me ragging on the new generation at all. It's just a mark on how much CG and other technology has advanced the story telling of other media opportunities.
I think it was a timing issue as stated and you are reading way more into it.
I mean seriously, would you rather the president spend a couple million in tax payer dollars jetting back to the US off schedule just to sign it, then jet back to his Vacation/foreign meeting? Or should he just approve the use of a device that is normally used to sign autographed pictures and crap that aren't policy related but certain members of the public demand.
I don't Care for Obama, but this was the right call considering the alternatives- which would have been the law expiring or the president spending crap-tons of money to make it back in time to keep it alive. You may not like the PARTIOT act, but the majority of your federally elected officials do so we know it would have been the expensive choice.
Interestingly enough, In the US, there are federal laws on the humane slaughter of an animal and slicing their throat is not part of it unless you hit them in the head with a single blow to knock them unconscious.. It's outlawed unless involved in a religious ceremony which would by default make it a ritual sacrifice unless he wants to go up against the laws.
I don't know if or any penalties that would apply for violating it, but we have laws on it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode07/usc_sec_07_00001902----000-.html
You would describe it if you knew the difference between pasture raised beef and corn raised beef.
Grassy is the off flavor that should naturally be in different meats but disappeared with the factor farms. It's like the difference between farm raised catfish and fresh caught catfish.
Anyways, I admire his actions in this as it is he gets to ensure the animals he eats were humanely raise, and slaughtered.
BTW, have you notices that everything tastes like chicken or chicken tastes like everything. It's not because chicken is bland, it's because factory farm raised chicken is bland and doesn't taste like chicken. A free range bird feed vegetables and whatever it can forage will taste Superior-ly and distinctively better. This is similar to the term Grassy as it's generally the natural flavor of the animal depending on what it eats.
It's easier to shoot the messenger then the message. But it's even easier to shoot the message then carry it on if you don't like change. Peer review has seemed to of went form, "Yes, we did it too", or "no, it didn't work for us", or even a "we saw something a bit different when we tried it", to an "I agree or disagree, let's take a vote on it". At least in some things anyways.
While you are right, that's how science works and if it isn't working that way, it isn't science, but this non-science is happening within the science arena by people claiming to be scientists doing doing science. For a vast majority of people, what is real science or not will be subject to who has the loudest opinion similar to how history is always written by the victor.
In other words, the vast majority of people will end up reading it in a text books somewhere based on who gave up for whatever reason last.
If you liked that experience, you should check out the windows really good version
http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/
I do not have a complete list of software, but from memory, it seems that chrome is bundled with flash, Avast anti-virus, Verizon and ATT, time warners connectivity pack that needs to be installed on most DSL and cable internet setups unless you want a big hassle, Adaware, "any video converter", Real player, quite a few of the online games(board type games aimed at bored adults more then kids), And I'm sure there are more.
I know I missed a lot in there. Most of the time when I see it installed, it's because it's already there so I don't automatically think about where it came from. And some of those will include the browser install if a program update is needed through the update services on the program. Avast got me personally on this. The only thing I could figure out was the update that happened overnight. Chrome was just there the next day.
Then you are either surrounded by IT developers who hate chrome or idiots who do not update their computers or install software that didn't come with it.
Chome is bundled in a bunch of software, some of which is necessary to view certain web pages. Updating some of this software can lead to steal installs of chrome if you are not paying attention to catch it. I've seen it bundled with PFD viewers, flash players, online virus scanning software, regular virus scanning software, Spyware removal programs, chat programs, and a lot of other things that normal people use in the interweb.
Now, because this is installed doesn't mean the users know it is or what it does. But I've seen loads of computers (as that's what I do) with chrome installed because something installed it.
In response to Number 1:
Yes, I agree entirely. I mean why should he forgo all the technical data, learning, tooling around, and tweaking just keep one program running because some other program doesn't act in that bad way. I miss the good old days when you knew how much fun you were having by how many times you crashed windows in a session.
He needs to suffer through the pain of figuring everything out and making it work how he wants it instead of using a program that's already there.
In response to number 2:
I think it's obvious in his rant that he was complaining about FF and praising Chrome like a little fanboy. It's not an internet fail unless you missed that.
Oh. /end sarcasm tags.
He did say after a cold start. Perhaps he's one of those idiots who turn their computers off when not using them to save on energy and GHG emissions and the planet and so on.
Then again, he could be a troll just complaining just to complain as it would appear if we ignored the cold boot part of the complaint.
Wow.. All this infighting over irrelevant details. The sentence said against people suspected of running an indoor pot growing operation.
This sentence alone makes the entire bill of right gone statement and all justifications for or against moot as it's impossible to suspect someone of an indoor pot growing operation in order to issue the subpoenas just to have the subpoenas as the only evidence to get a search warrant. The subpoenas provides only one more piece of evidence that already exists for whatever reason. They are supposed to use the courts in this way according to the bill of rights.
every state that I know of required people to pass a test demonstrating their competency with a motor vehicle and obtain a license. To say the people who do that are any less professional because their jobs aren't with the government is a little naive.
and that's not even getting into the concept of not having effective or sufficient public transportation in the vast majority of the United states. It's not getting into the freedom issue either. I suspect maybe you are trolling or joking- no?
well, bring it up when they do not apply then. Still, I do not care if someone is cheating on their spouse and a court says do not talk about it.
What about it? I mean obviously, if he has done corrupt things because of the affair, then the knowledge of the affair insomuch as it related to the corruption is a different matter. OF course the affair is ancillary to what you claimed he has done. I'm not even sure giving people a promotion who do no deserve one is any sort of ethics violation or anything. The entire world is filled with idiots at the top who only got there because they slept their way up, played golf with the boss, or something else that had nothing to do with their merit or abilities. You can probably name 2 people like this in your immediate chain of command at work. Most people can.
But I'm not sure why you don't see the difference here. He didn't go corrupt and cause a bailout because he had an affair, he did it because of his actions while the affair might have been going on. He was being investigated while for things other then the affair. In this situation, you have a ball player who was getting some action on the side, what bank will need bailed out because of that?
This is no one's business but those who committed the adultery and the parties involved. If they end up doing something actually illegal and important and it's somehow connected to the adultery and the parties involved, then it becomes other people's business. But committing adultery by no means indicates anything else is happening.
Who cares? This is no one's business but the person who committed the adultery and the parties involved. Why is it that people who would ordinarily say "but out of my life", demand that they know everything about other people and are horrified when someone says it back?