Ehh. They would pop the adds when others visited the page.
A friend died last year and about the only way to get updates on the wake and crap was through a facebook tribute page. They didn't have the public wake right away and was trying to coordinate all his reletives from out of state to be present. They also scanned and posted a shitload of photos and you needed to use facebook to get copies. Thankfully, they requested nobody tags anyone in the photos other than the deceased (some interested people had warrants out from 20 years ago).
But the amount of traffic to the page was unreal.. plenty of oppertunity to monitize off it.
The key here is found. Assuming there is nothing unique about the finds, it is really a matter of where have we looked and what was found. And in order to be found, some preservation has to of happened which is not naturally the same from location to location
And i assume that you could gate the stairs or even sleep downstairs if it wasn't possible for anoyher adult to be around. Either way, you can take strps to mitigate the dangers where an epileptic having a siezure- not so much.
But here is the question. Would you leave a todler and infant in the care of a bed ridden 95 year old double leg amputee who is sedated most of the time? How about a non functional alcohiolic who has just finished a pint of wild turkey and chased it with a 12 pack of malt liquor? I would hope not. So if it is likely or even possible enough that you are trying to figure out how a 2 year old can alert you when their caregiver becomes the motive or functional equivilant, you got some problems that require a little more thought than placing the life of a person jn the hands of a todler (even if it is a smart todler).
Something as trivial as monitoring the caregiver directly is a much better option. But having a neighbor check in every so often or the caregiver text a number every 30 min or something would be better than relying on a young child. But i can almost guarentee you that no matter how well we justify it, no matter what aafeguards are in place, some busybody will not think it is enough and CPS will assume the worst causing a hassle that would make you wish you were charged with a felony instead.
Right now its not a target but neither was napster for the first couple years. Cleanflicks was in budinedd for a couple years before suing to determine legality (which it lost) because just a threat posted on another site was made.
Just because now does not mean never. Without sighning, even if mozilla stoppdd hosting, you coild still fine and install. Fire sheep was that way- mozilla stopped hosting but you could still grab it and show pointy headed bosses why https was a good idea. With signing, its just whatever they deem allowable.
Lol.. its not false. You said basically the same thing but with more words. What is needed is to have it codified into law so it takes an act of congress to undo rather than expiring.
Yes, people would want to trust a company they already trust verses having their options taken away in the name of protecting them.
This is especially true given their insistance on other changes the people do not like and ignoring the user's input so many times for reasons that do not appear legitimate to most. The trust in mozzila has been dropping for a long time now. It dropped really fast for me when they persecuted someone for political speech and when they dropped google while initially making it dificult to switch back.
An infant and 2 year old aren't exactly capable of taking care of themselves. If the person supervising them is in a position where due to medical reasons, they might not be able to supervise them, some busybody can complain they are in harms way which will get CPS involved and they like taking kids until you jump through hoops of fire backwards with your eyes closed while reciting some latin poem.
No, seriously. You would not believe how much trouble CPS or your local equivilant can be. Hell, there have been stories of CPS getting involved because 4 and 5 year old were playing in a fenced in bavk yard and the parent was watching them through a window from inside the house. Called it neglect.
Well, that is until someone accuses mozilla of aiding copyright distribution by signing and allowing the youtube downloader and they eith stop signing them to avoid legal threats or a lawsuit orders it.
Then it will be 0.
BTW, concievably, add block can be blocked similarly. Al it would take is someone to claim it alters their copyrighted presentation and removes artistic value like when those fundies were bleeping language and cutting r rated scenes from movies. Even if there is no chance in hell of it winning in court, its questionable if mozilla would spend the money to fight it verses just stop signing the blocking software.
Well, you can sort of test this. Either start randomly saying strawberries and see if you get adds for them. Alternatively, you can mock a murder scene in your living room, have someone come in and shriek at the horrer and describe the carnage then mock kill them. Spend thr next 20 minute trying to get blood off the walls and carpets. See if the cops show up or if you get adds for cleaning services.
Its not that dificult ofca concept. The electronics and guidance is almost plug and play, all you need is a glider with a small electric motor, dome solar cells, and use the prevailing wind fot modt of the propuldion. We've had balloons go intercontinental for years, we even started steering them and calling thdm blimpd.
Lol.. you are missing the message brvause of the proceedure.
The courts nedd a reason to strike down a law. They do not just strike them down arbitrarily to give parliment something to do. Their reason here is because there is a constitutional right. This means that any law baring that right is unconstitutional unless there is a change on their charter.
The new law will have to conform to the preceedent set by this ruling or bbe unconstitutional also. Anyone who wishes to die for any reason has a right to kill themselves and now force a doctor to make it possible. You cannot get around that.
I did not say it will lead to nazi genocide, i said nazi genocide grew out of it. It is not something that should be celebrated and anyone who is celebrating it needs to be watched. We have people who are histatic that it is a right to demand government workers (canadian doctor) to kill or assist in killing someone. The last time people were so excited to legally kill someone, we had genocide before the end of it.
Are you serious? They are saying that has to happen because there is a right being denied. How can you deny that? Do you think courts in canada just make arbitrary rulings so parliment has stuff to do?
People can suffer from a non-terminal disease that still leaves them in pain, unable to fend for themselves, and with zero hope of recovery, so I think it's a good thing that they didn't limit it to the terminally ill. If you had to decide between being hooked up to machines, unable to fend for yourself for even basic needs, always in pain, without even the hope of dying because it's not terminal, I think many would opt for help in shuffling off their mortal coil.
Why are you ignoring the fact that none of that has to be present. You can just walk into a doctors office and say you want to kill yourself under this ruling. You seem to think there needs to be some medically justifiable reason behind it when nothing in the article or associated story implies that at all. It is a right in Canada to have someone kill you now- no prequalifying conditions necessary.
was outed on slashdot a decade ago, so it was inevitable that someone would eventually try to use it against me. After that had been going on for a while, I changed my signature to send the signal that I'm not ashamed of being a transsexual, and neither should others be. It's all part of "paying it forward.":-)
That's you. But what about Johny or suzie or whoever. They may not like it and now they have a right to have someone help kill themselves when they cannot take the ridicule any more. But it doesn't have to be about LGBT or anything either. We have hd several cases where adults pretended to be children and badgered other children to the point they killed themselves. Now it's a right to do that with someone helping them.
We're not there bet, but we're making remarkable progress on multiple fronts.
And this ruling you just celebrated makes it so easy for one of these kids to go to the doctors and say kill me. You think they would violate their constitutional rights and try to talk them out of it? It's a fucking "right" for god's sake. It's a right for the confused kid who's sisters think he should be ashamed, it's a right for the guy who wakes up one day and wonders what it would be like to be dead. Why would you expect a doctor who works for the government to talk people out of their rights? They won't, they will just say it's you right and help people kill themselves. This is the ruling you are celebrating and I didn't even get into the ability to abuse this. Ever hear of Kermit Gosnell? Not likely because the mass media attempted to ignore him. But if he exists in a medical system, so will others.
I personally do not care if you commit suicide as long as you do not involve others. If you want to kill yourself, that is your choice. However, in any other facet of life, if someone helps kill you without defending themselves or someone else in the process, it is murder. But now, it's a right for that someone else to kill you if they can demonstrate you wanted to be killed.
The problem I have is not even so much with that, it's the celebration some people seem to think is necessary because the courts said it is a right to off someone (or more specifically, a right to enlist others to aid in you offing yourself). In the past when there has been a state sponsored mercy killings, it has never ended well. This is not something that should be celebrated but something that should be carefully considered and treated with somber respect so that it does not turn into what history has showed us it is capable of.
Who said the doctor is going to recommend it? You do not know, he might but the ruling said that you have a right to it so you requesting it is enough.
Stop hiding the facts. Hell, just read the damn article.
The criminal code was revised to remove suicide as an offense in 1972. This law isn't about that - this law is specifically allowing for people to ask a doctor (actually, a team of doctors) for help in terminating their lives.
This isn't a law at all. It's a right found within the Canadian constitution. And yes, it is about someone helping end another person's life which is otherwise considered murder or killing (homicide).
Some people who have gone to the courts for the right for help, like Sue Rodriguez, have medical conditions (in her case advanced Lou Gehrig Disease) that make it impossible to do anything without assistance. Others are afraid of the result of a botched attempt which just makes their situation worse.
And this ruling isn't limited to situations like that. It doesn't limit it at all. The confused gay kid or ridiculed transgender kid or the bigshot who lost his fortune in the market collapse can declare they want to kill themselves and this ruling says it is a right to have a doctor help them do it.
Someone making fun of you is not an "unbearable life." I'm pretty sure that many/most of us went through periods where we were miserable because others teased of bullied us. Such cases simply don't justify assisted suicide, just as they don't justify suicide. Unfortunately, people take that route when they really don't see any other way to end the suffering and have nobody there to help them deal with it.
I do not see any limitations to "unbearable life" in the ruling. In fact, it seems to fail to limit it altogether. Even the article summery that I'm sure you read since you jumped in head first celebrating the new found right to have doctors help kill people says "It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness"
That's one of the reasons to be "out" if you're part of the LGBT - it normalizes the situation in people's minds. The sky didn't fall in when TV shows started featuring same-sex couples, or when actresses are open about their previous gender. Knowing you're not alone, and having a few famous role models, makes a diff.
And I see people here calling you names and talking about how a freak of nature you are. They do this via anonymous log in but it happens and you cannot deny it. It has even happened in this article posting over the same damn post I started replying to. Or does your LGBT club shield you from those comments? They will not shield a lot of others. And even if they did, you as well as anyone else will always know what others are thinking and saying- even if they do not say it to your face.
But we are talking about more than just those type of people. We have adults who pretend to be kids and torment kids on the internet to the point they commit suicide. I guess we should celebrate how a doctor will have to help them do it now too. Because you know, the ruling did not limit it, it's all in what the person wants right?
Being in denial and attempting to hurl insults does not make you right or correct or anything. This is history and all you are doing is showing that you do not know it and do not care how ignorant you look when letting everyone else know the same about you.
What is wrong with me? We have people celebrating the fact that a court has ruled it is a right for a third party to assist in killing a person because that person or their legal representative states they might want to die. It says right summery that this is not limited to terminal illness either. If it was, I could understand it better but this is anyone.
We have seen this before. It didn't end well. No one in the know figured it would go that way when it started either. It too was celebrated as humane and the right thing to do. What the fuck is wrong with you?
It's not hard to get a statement witnessed and notorized by multiple parties when requesting it.
Indeed. However, it is hard to determine if the patient actually participated in signing that statement, was not tricked into doing so, or was even competent during the signing of the statement. The multiple witnesses would go a ways into that but is not a guarantee.
In the op's example of insurance companies, they can employ professional witnesses just like your poor next of kin who stand to inherit your fortune might be able to find witnesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Ehh. They would pop the adds when others visited the page.
A friend died last year and about the only way to get updates on the wake and crap was through a facebook tribute page. They didn't have the public wake right away and was trying to coordinate all his reletives from out of state to be present. They also scanned and posted a shitload of photos and you needed to use facebook to get copies. Thankfully, they requested nobody tags anyone in the photos other than the deceased (some interested people had warrants out from 20 years ago).
But the amount of traffic to the page was unreal.. plenty of oppertunity to monitize off it.
The key here is found. Assuming there is nothing unique about the finds, it is really a matter of where have we looked and what was found. And in order to be found, some preservation has to of happened which is not naturally the same from location to location
And i assume that you could gate the stairs or even sleep downstairs if it wasn't possible for anoyher adult to be around. Either way, you can take strps to mitigate the dangers where an epileptic having a siezure- not so much.
But here is the question. Would you leave a todler and infant in the care of a bed ridden 95 year old double leg amputee who is sedated most of the time? How about a non functional alcohiolic who has just finished a pint of wild turkey and chased it with a 12 pack of malt liquor? I would hope not. So if it is likely or even possible enough that you are trying to figure out how a 2 year old can alert you when their caregiver becomes the motive or functional equivilant, you got some problems that require a little more thought than placing the life of a person jn the hands of a todler (even if it is a smart todler).
Something as trivial as monitoring the caregiver directly is a much better option. But having a neighbor check in every so often or the caregiver text a number every 30 min or something would be better than relying on a young child. But i can almost guarentee you that no matter how well we justify it, no matter what aafeguards are in place, some busybody will not think it is enough and CPS will assume the worst causing a hassle that would make you wish you were charged with a felony instead.
Right now its not a target but neither was napster for the first couple years. Cleanflicks was in budinedd for a couple years before suing to determine legality (which it lost) because just a threat posted on another site was made.
Just because now does not mean never. Without sighning, even if mozilla stoppdd hosting, you coild still fine and install. Fire sheep was that way- mozilla stopped hosting but you could still grab it and show pointy headed bosses why https was a good idea. With signing, its just whatever they deem allowable.
Lol.. its not false. You said basically the same thing but with more words. What is needed is to have it codified into law so it takes an act of congress to undo rather than expiring.
Yes, people would want to trust a company they already trust verses having their options taken away in the name of protecting them.
This is especially true given their insistance on other changes the people do not like and ignoring the user's input so many times for reasons that do not appear legitimate to most. The trust in mozzila has been dropping for a long time now. It dropped really fast for me when they persecuted someone for political speech and when they dropped google while initially making it dificult to switch back.
An infant and 2 year old aren't exactly capable of taking care of themselves. If the person supervising them is in a position where due to medical reasons, they might not be able to supervise them, some busybody can complain they are in harms way which will get CPS involved and they like taking kids until you jump through hoops of fire backwards with your eyes closed while reciting some latin poem.
No, seriously. You would not believe how much trouble CPS or your local equivilant can be. Hell, there have been stories of CPS getting involved because 4 and 5 year old were playing in a fenced in bavk yard and the parent was watching them through a window from inside the house. Called it neglect.
Then just build in a malwarebytes button and let the people who do that for a living do it for you.
You don't need to reinvent the wheel or lock everybody out.
Well, that is until someone accuses mozilla of aiding copyright distribution by signing and allowing the youtube downloader and they eith stop signing them to avoid legal threats or a lawsuit orders it.
Then it will be 0.
BTW, concievably, add block can be blocked similarly. Al it would take is someone to claim it alters their copyrighted presentation and removes artistic value like when those fundies were bleeping language and cutting r rated scenes from movies. Even if there is no chance in hell of it winning in court, its questionable if mozilla would spend the money to fight it verses just stop signing the blocking software.
Well, you can sort of test this. Either start randomly saying strawberries and see if you get adds for them. Alternatively, you can mock a murder scene in your living room, have someone come in and shriek at the horrer and describe the carnage then mock kill them. Spend thr next 20 minute trying to get blood off the walls and carpets. See if the cops show up or if you get adds for cleaning services.
This type of exemption is just a crutch that can be rescinded any time it comes up for review. We need congress to codify it into law to be permenant.
Spot but dificult to phtogragh with a digital cam. It would likely kill any chance of face recognition.
Give me $10k and 6 months.
Its not that dificult ofca concept. The electronics and guidance is almost plug and play, all you need is a glider with a small electric motor, dome solar cells, and use the prevailing wind fot modt of the propuldion. We've had balloons go intercontinental for years, we even started steering them and calling thdm blimpd.
Why not? I could. I would be working for free, but it could be done.
Should we limit our actions on the threat or assumption that some third party might do something nasty to another third party?
Lol.. you are missing the message brvause of the proceedure.
The courts nedd a reason to strike down a law. They do not just strike them down arbitrarily to give parliment something to do. Their reason here is because there is a constitutional right. This means that any law baring that right is unconstitutional unless there is a change on their charter.
The new law will have to conform to the preceedent set by this ruling or bbe unconstitutional also. Anyone who wishes to die for any reason has a right to kill themselves and now force a doctor to make it possible. You cannot get around that.
I did not say it will lead to nazi genocide, i said nazi genocide grew out of it. It is not something that should be celebrated and anyone who is celebrating it needs to be watched. We have people who are histatic that it is a right to demand government workers (canadian doctor) to kill or assist in killing someone. The last time people were so excited to legally kill someone, we had genocide before the end of it.
Are you serious? They are saying that has to happen because there is a right being denied. How can you deny that? Do you think courts in canada just make arbitrary rulings so parliment has stuff to do?
Why are you ignoring the fact that none of that has to be present. You can just walk into a doctors office and say you want to kill yourself under this ruling. You seem to think there needs to be some medically justifiable reason behind it when nothing in the article or associated story implies that at all. It is a right in Canada to have someone kill you now- no prequalifying conditions necessary.
That's you. But what about Johny or suzie or whoever. They may not like it and now they have a right to have someone help kill themselves when they cannot take the ridicule any more. But it doesn't have to be about LGBT or anything either. We have hd several cases where adults pretended to be children and badgered other children to the point they killed themselves. Now it's a right to do that with someone helping them.
And this ruling you just celebrated makes it so easy for one of these kids to go to the doctors and say kill me. You think they would violate their constitutional rights and try to talk them out of it? It's a fucking "right" for god's sake. It's a right for the confused kid who's sisters think he should be ashamed, it's a right for the guy who wakes up one day and wonders what it would be like to be dead. Why would you expect a doctor who works for the government to talk people out of their rights? They won't, they will just say it's you right and help people kill themselves. This is the ruling you are celebrating and I didn't even get into the ability to abuse this. Ever hear of Kermit Gosnell? Not likely because the mass media attempted to ignore him. But if he exists in a medical system, so will others.
I personally do not care if you commit suicide as long as you do not involve others. If you want to kill yourself, that is your choice. However, in any other facet of life, if someone helps kill you without defending themselves or someone else in the process, it is murder. But now, it's a right for that someone else to kill you if they can demonstrate you wanted to be killed.
The problem I have is not even so much with that, it's the celebration some people seem to think is necessary because the courts said it is a right to off someone (or more specifically, a right to enlist others to aid in you offing yourself). In the past when there has been a state sponsored mercy killings, it has never ended well. This is not something that should be celebrated but something that should be carefully considered and treated with somber respect so that it does not turn into what history has showed us it is capable of.
Who said the doctor is going to recommend it? You do not know, he might but the ruling said that you have a right to it so you requesting it is enough.
Stop hiding the facts. Hell, just read the damn article.
This isn't a law at all. It's a right found within the Canadian constitution. And yes, it is about someone helping end another person's life which is otherwise considered murder or killing (homicide).
And this ruling isn't limited to situations like that. It doesn't limit it at all. The confused gay kid or ridiculed transgender kid or the bigshot who lost his fortune in the market collapse can declare they want to kill themselves and this ruling says it is a right to have a doctor help them do it.
I do not see any limitations to "unbearable life" in the ruling. In fact, it seems to fail to limit it altogether. Even the article summery that I'm sure you read since you jumped in head first celebrating the new found right to have doctors help kill people says "It does not limit physician-assisted death to those suffering a terminal illness"
And I see people here calling you names and talking about how a freak of nature you are. They do this via anonymous log in but it happens and you cannot deny it. It has even happened in this article posting over the same damn post I started replying to. Or does your LGBT club shield you from those comments? They will not shield a lot of others. And even if they did, you as well as anyone else will always know what others are thinking and saying- even if they do not say it to your face.
But we are talking about more than just those type of people. We have adults who pretend to be kids and torment kids on the internet to the point they commit suicide. I guess we should celebrate how a doctor will have to help them do it now too. Because you know, the ruling did not limit it, it's all in what the person wants right?
Being in denial and attempting to hurl insults does not make you right or correct or anything. This is history and all you are doing is showing that you do not know it and do not care how ignorant you look when letting everyone else know the same about you.
What is wrong with me? We have people celebrating the fact that a court has ruled it is a right for a third party to assist in killing a person because that person or their legal representative states they might want to die. It says right summery that this is not limited to terminal illness either. If it was, I could understand it better but this is anyone.
We have seen this before. It didn't end well. No one in the know figured it would go that way when it started either. It too was celebrated as humane and the right thing to do. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Indeed. However, it is hard to determine if the patient actually participated in signing that statement, was not tricked into doing so, or was even competent during the signing of the statement. The multiple witnesses would go a ways into that but is not a guarantee.
In the op's example of insurance companies, they can employ professional witnesses just like your poor next of kin who stand to inherit your fortune might be able to find witnesses.