In that area, yes, it is. Well, there are gas stations, I guess...
A remote rural community, and no farmers markets? Doubtful.
I'm sure the person in the article thought the same way.
Except they didn't arbitrarly ban him; they believe they had a good reason. After all, they didn't ban anyone else either. You can argue the reason for him being banned is stupid, and it is, but it's also within the store's rights.
There are places that do that?
Yes, this is 2009. You can buy your groceries on amazon.
Generally, I need food to survive, so that would have to take precedence over whether I'm liked or not.:)
Agreed, and you're not being prevented from buying food... it'd just be more inconvient having to drive 45 minutes one way. You can argue that it's a hassle all you want, and I'll just point out that its your parents choice to live in such a remote area.
I didn't say IE would lose ALL marketshare. But it's likely that they will continue to lose marketshare.
Given that we don't know what either browser will do, I think it's silly to think IE will continue to lose marketshare. I'm finding accelerators far more useful than adblock was on FF, for example. Recommended sites was something I actually liked in NN4.
Firefox has advantages in that it is available on many more platforms, and I expect that those platforms will over time continue to erode the Windows platform's hold on the market. It's also more flexible, which matters for a lot of people, so I expect it will continue to pick up marketshare, largely at the expense of IE.
IE has advantages as well; the only platform seeming to erode windows is mac. Linux is still irrelevent, and will likely remain so.
Likely the same can be said for Chrome, and as it matures in terms of features and customizability.
I doubt Chrome will go anywhere, just like Opera remains a niche browser. It has a long way to go to catch up, and browers are moving targets.
As for Microsoft, I'll be happy if IE8 is succeeded by an IE9 and IE10 and Microsoft continues putting effort into improving their browser. More good competition is always a good thing.
I agree, but the only real threat is FF, and MS isn't likely to give the browser war.
All of your questions above are problems that arise because prostitution is illegal. They would go away if it were legalized.
The problem with your thoughts on the ads are that you assume everyone posting on CL is in one of your bad situations specified above. That's not true. Women do choose to engage in prostition of their own free will, just like many choose to go into adult movies or become dancers.
If you think CL removing the ads will have any impact on the current situtation one way or another, you're delusional. In fact, some girls have said CL ads have allowed them to be safer than before, so if there is going to be an effect, its going to put more in danger.
Funny.. I've seen more Protestants that I would call cult-like than Catholics. Of course I grew up as a roman catholic, not that i belive any of that garbage anymore.
I don't disagree entirely, but what about the instances where you're banning someone from an essential location? For example, where my inlaws live, there's no other supermarkets aside from the Walmart that's 45 minutes away. If that store decided for arbitrary reasons to ban them, they're SOL.
As if that supermarker is the only place to get food. The fact is the store wouldn't arbitrarly ban them anyway, so your fear is unfounded. And if they are, well I guess they need to drive or have groceries delivered. At any rate... why would you want to shop at a store that indicates they don't want your business?
With sole proprietorships, that's not always the case, typically they'll rent from another party. Who gets the final say there?
The propriertor. This is no different then me renting an apartment. I, not the landlord, choses who can come and go. For the landlord to get a say, they'd have to actually have a valid reason, such as the person damaged property.
It doesn't have to be done that way. If you tell your security staff "this isn't a policy you'll see anywhere, but we don't like the darkies around here. If one comes in, kick them out for any reason you can find." Or, "I hate them gays. If you see two guys holding hands, make up an excuse and get rid of them." (I could see either happening in the aforementioned Walmart.:)
Well, it sucks but again, why would someone WANT to shop there? I think it'd become pretty clear if no one ever saw a black person. And as for the mall, I would argue the shop owners would be able to sue the mall owner, because they are damaging their business.
While I agree with you for the most part, I can't think of any time prostitution has been endorsed by the "Church", which by that I take it you mean the Christian church. Christians are supposed to abstain from sex outside of marriage.
And yet if you do your history, the Roman Catholic church did (this was before ML).
Of course because you're outlawing something you have no business outlawing, you drive it underground and force up prices (thus enticing more people into the act you want to ban) and make it dangerous for all involved. Instead of blasting CL for allowing the ads, they should be rethinking the law making the ads illegal in the first place. It's not like legalizing this would lead to the collapse of society... even the Church at one point allowed it.
Huh? No, these aren't going anywhere. Windows netbooks are now outselling Linux netbooks. OO isn't cutting into Office, Postgre isn't even in the same league as a database server, and Chrome seems pretty much dead after an initial lovefest.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that FOSS is taking off... the only thing denting MS at the moment is Apple and FF. We'll see how the recession shakes out Apple as well.
For now... But say Firefox takes overs and most of those legacy Active X apps are updated to Ajax or Flash or even shiver Silverlight which can work on multiple browsers, then the policy will start to change.
Why? Why would a business standardize on FF when IE is already included, updates for it come along via Windows Update, and its settings can be controlled via group policy?
Not if you've opened your property up to be accessed freely by the general public. In those instances, you should have to have valid cause.
Why? It's still private property. I should be able to give a blanket invite to anyone, and specific revocations of that invite.
Should malls be allowed to exclude people due to the color of their skin?
In my mind it should depend. A sole propriatership should be able to do what it wants. It's the owner's private property, and they assume all risks and liabilities. A corporation or LLC though should have abide by whatever we want them to; thats the price they pay for greatly reduced liabilities. I realize that's not how things are, but I'm talking about how I think things should be.
In any case, your specific objection isn't quite the same either; in one case you're ruling out a class of people, in the article though a specific person was told to not trespass, and in any case anyone should be able to forbid any other individual from entering their private property for any reason.
Sadly in some states the issuing of a Trespass Warning does not require any validity or cause at all. If a store or home decides that they do not want you on their property they can get a Trespass Warning simply by calling the cops.
Why is that sad? Shouldn't I be able to forbid someone from coming onto my property, for any reason I want? I mean, it is my property.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures
YES. For one, it's the law. Second, this prevents government from turning into a police state... they can't just do whatever they want, they must obey the law and it's limits on them. Otherwise things like requiring a warrant become meaningless.
You seriously need to relearn consitutional law and why things are the way they are.
When 23,999,999 average idiots are able to successfully handle your retail procedure, it is hard to justify incurring other problems in order to make safe that final idiot.
Hers was not the only case of sever burns due to their coffee. There are over 700 other known cases. There may be many more not known, because people were treated but didn't go back to McDs at all to help cover their expenses.
If I leave a sharp stake in the ground pointing up near my sidewalk, the fact that most walk by it fine doesn't mean I'm not doing anything wrong. It's creating a danger, and that's what McDs was doing.
The 190-degree serving temperature is not accidental or arbitrary; abandoning it has costs too.
No, there are no costs with lowering the temperature. This statement is just stupid.
You can define 'negligent' any way you wish. Under your current definition where 'negligent' means "creating a risk above 0.0000001", you are negligent in countless ways by the time you've made it to the office in the morning. I suppose you can run with this idea if you like, but it's not useful. A useful definition of negligent will single out those actions which create risks that are cost-effective to eliminate.
Stop making up numbers to build a strawman arguement. The fact that there were over 700 OTHER KNOWN CASES shows it wasn't just this one woman, and that your odds are wrong.
The risk is unacceptable given the circumstances (people expect to drink the coffee immediately, as it was it was too hot, AND THEY KNEW IT), and the solution is exteremly cost effective; turning a dial to a lower setting. Can't get much fucking simplier than that.
Get your head out of your ass, and off your pedistal. Some people don't think coffee or tea is some religous experience.. it's just something that tastes good and kickstarts their morning.
If only practical application worked the same as theory. As a kid my dad had an interest in electronics and technology, but ask him to build a radio and he couldn't. I built my first radio with copper wire wrapped around paper towel, or TP, roll. Radio Shack has made a lot of money selling educational kits. As a review, because it's been many years since I've done any of it and my memory is bad, I bought an electronics learning lab from them.
Thanks for your anecdote, but your dad could have done the same if he just looked up some information in the library. I'd say his interest wasn't as great as yours, or he'd have found a way.
Desktops can't be taken home whereas laptops can. And as others have pointed out a cheap laptop running Linux should last years, with the student using the same one. Issue one to a student that student will use throughout school from one grade to the next.
Why should my tax money be spent GIVING kids laptops? A computer in a lab will last much longer, and be of use to many more students.
Of course breakage can, and will, happen. They can also be stolen or lost.
Thanks for pointing out obvious problems, which by the way is a waste of my tax money. I also think these problems will be more of a problem, and your dismissing these issues shows a huge lack of forethought.
Some tyme back there was an article about how a class of students were trained to repair them. This combines two good things, schools can have laptops repaired cheaply. And the students gain a valuable skill.
You're assuming the kids won't screw the laptop up more. I'd rather not have tax money be used to fund such an expensive lession, there are better ways to learn those skills... and I'd argue said skills are not necessary for general education.
Of course this isn't relevant for primary school students, but it can help jr high and high school students. I first got into electronics when I took an electronics class in 7th grade. In 9th grade I took a class on small engine repair. My high school had an auto repair workshop.
So it sounds like laptops aren't needed, because clearly your eductation was sufficent.
As the dumbass parent of a 10 year old child, I feel qualified to say something that will irritate and exasperate all of the game-loving hipsters out there. I think these games that make a glorious (or is it "gorious") spectacle of blood-soaked and gut-choked violence are a plague.
Hmm, well I think people like you are more of a plague, since you clearly fail to grasp that the games you hate aren't meant for your stupid 10 year old. They're rated M for a reason.
As a phenomenon, they suggest to me that something especially barbaric is stirring in our collective unconscious, like maybe the long repressed caveman insisting on his daily blood sacrifice in the absence of any authentic, constructive, or ritualized expression of his instinctive needs.
Yes, it's called being human. Humans have violent sides as well as peaceful ones. That's not going to change, and I suggest you learn to accept it. After all, you can't have light without the darkness.
Gore-gamers do what they do in a kind of solipsistic isolation: at a sub-conscious level they are performing the stereotyped routine of your typical serial killer, abstracted from society in a way that makes there mechanized, repetitive behavior seem particularly alien from any values that support life-sustaining activity. Sure, these gamers can form virtual roaming packs of killers--a perversion of community, to cast it negatively--but whatever benefit they get from engaging with other human beings is mitigated by the almost autistic intensity they bring to harvesting the surplus virtual flesh they encounter online.
Or they're just people playing a game for entertainment. Resident Evil 5 is gory, but it also makes a point on society. Oh, and making a picture on a TV do something doesn't make you an evil person.
As far as "roaming pack of killers" goes, where have you been? You act as if war hasn't been around as long as humans have been forming clans.
I'm sure there will be no end to the angry assertions that there's no scientist or researcher who can prove a single negative thing about FPS games, but come on, anybody who hasn't been completely assimilated and sucked into the virtual compound can see that the troubling, amoral, nihilistic violence done to people and relationships in these games can't be a positive thing, if only because the vampiric nature of the gamer-game relationship sucks real life energy down a bottomless hole of appetite, and gives nothing back. Except maybe adrenaline and carnival, car-crash thrills.
So, you'll ignore science, even though your life is vastly better for it, and just stick your head in the sand convinced video games are bad. Please do, but leave everyone else out of it. The truth is that there is a large majority of people that play these games you hate, and they live normal lives, and care about their family and friends just like you do. But please, don't let the facts cloud your delusional fantasies.
My fear is 2 or 3 movies, followed by nothing, in which case it will have been an admirable effort and no doubt entertaining, but long term will only damage the franchise.
Um, the franchise is more or less dead now anyway. I doubt this movie can do more damage than was already done.
Well, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I've even been to a trek convention. Typically though I don't care for TOS, and like TNG or later. But this was good.
My wife, who hates Star Trek period, really liked the movie as well. She was dreading it, and came out really liking it.
That seems to be the case; non-fans seem to be enjoying it as well.
I think you could remove it without consequence as well. It'd be hard for them to argue you should have returned something that they attached to someone elses property.
Slashdot Mirror
In that area, yes, it is. Well, there are gas stations, I guess...
A remote rural community, and no farmers markets? Doubtful.
I'm sure the person in the article thought the same way.
Except they didn't arbitrarly ban him; they believe they had a good reason. After all, they didn't ban anyone else either. You can argue the reason for him being banned is stupid, and it is, but it's also within the store's rights.
There are places that do that?
Yes, this is 2009. You can buy your groceries on amazon.
Generally, I need food to survive, so that would have to take precedence over whether I'm liked or not. :)
Agreed, and you're not being prevented from buying food... it'd just be more inconvient having to drive 45 minutes one way. You can argue that it's a hassle all you want, and I'll just point out that its your parents choice to live in such a remote area.
I didn't say IE would lose ALL marketshare. But it's likely that they will continue to lose marketshare.
Given that we don't know what either browser will do, I think it's silly to think IE will continue to lose marketshare. I'm finding accelerators far more useful than adblock was on FF, for example. Recommended sites was something I actually liked in NN4.
Firefox has advantages in that it is available on many more platforms, and I expect that those platforms will over time continue to erode the Windows platform's hold on the market. It's also more flexible, which matters for a lot of people, so I expect it will continue to pick up marketshare, largely at the expense of IE.
IE has advantages as well; the only platform seeming to erode windows is mac. Linux is still irrelevent, and will likely remain so.
Likely the same can be said for Chrome, and as it matures in terms of features and customizability.
I doubt Chrome will go anywhere, just like Opera remains a niche browser. It has a long way to go to catch up, and browers are moving targets.
As for Microsoft, I'll be happy if IE8 is succeeded by an IE9 and IE10 and Microsoft continues putting effort into improving their browser. More good competition is always a good thing.
I agree, but the only real threat is FF, and MS isn't likely to give the browser war.
Once a good, Free alternative was available, IE started losing marketshare steadily, and will continue to do so.
Well, thanks for your opinion. But what about someone like me that likes IE8 enough not to bother with Firefox anymore?
All of your questions above are problems that arise because prostitution is illegal. They would go away if it were legalized.
The problem with your thoughts on the ads are that you assume everyone posting on CL is in one of your bad situations specified above. That's not true. Women do choose to engage in prostition of their own free will, just like many choose to go into adult movies or become dancers.
If you think CL removing the ads will have any impact on the current situtation one way or another, you're delusional. In fact, some girls have said CL ads have allowed them to be safer than before, so if there is going to be an effect, its going to put more in danger.
Funny.. I've seen more Protestants that I would call cult-like than Catholics. Of course I grew up as a roman catholic, not that i belive any of that garbage anymore.
I don't disagree entirely, but what about the instances where you're banning someone from an essential location? For example, where my inlaws live, there's no other supermarkets aside from the Walmart that's 45 minutes away. If that store decided for arbitrary reasons to ban them, they're SOL.
As if that supermarker is the only place to get food. The fact is the store wouldn't arbitrarly ban them anyway, so your fear is unfounded. And if they are, well I guess they need to drive or have groceries delivered. At any rate... why would you want to shop at a store that indicates they don't want your business?
With sole proprietorships, that's not always the case, typically they'll rent from another party. Who gets the final say there?
The propriertor. This is no different then me renting an apartment. I, not the landlord, choses who can come and go. For the landlord to get a say, they'd have to actually have a valid reason, such as the person damaged property.
It doesn't have to be done that way. If you tell your security staff "this isn't a policy you'll see anywhere, but we don't like the darkies around here. If one comes in, kick them out for any reason you can find." Or, "I hate them gays. If you see two guys holding hands, make up an excuse and get rid of them." (I could see either happening in the aforementioned Walmart. :)
Well, it sucks but again, why would someone WANT to shop there? I think it'd become pretty clear if no one ever saw a black person. And as for the mall, I would argue the shop owners would be able to sue the mall owner, because they are damaging their business.
While I agree with you for the most part, I can't think of any time prostitution has been endorsed by the "Church", which by that I take it you mean the Christian church. Christians are supposed to abstain from sex outside of marriage.
And yet if you do your history, the Roman Catholic church did (this was before ML).
Of course because you're outlawing something you have no business outlawing, you drive it underground and force up prices (thus enticing more people into the act you want to ban) and make it dangerous for all involved. Instead of blasting CL for allowing the ads, they should be rethinking the law making the ads illegal in the first place. It's not like legalizing this would lead to the collapse of society... even the Church at one point allowed it.
* MacOS
* Firefox
* Safari
Sure, albiet very slowly.
* Ubuntu
* OpenOffice
* PostgreSQL
* Fedora
* Zimbra
* Chrome
Huh? No, these aren't going anywhere. Windows netbooks are now outselling Linux netbooks. OO isn't cutting into Office, Postgre isn't even in the same league as a database server, and Chrome seems pretty much dead after an initial lovefest.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that FOSS is taking off... the only thing denting MS at the moment is Apple and FF. We'll see how the recession shakes out Apple as well.
For now... But say Firefox takes overs and most of those legacy Active X apps are updated to Ajax or Flash or even shiver Silverlight which can work on multiple browsers, then the policy will start to change.
Why? Why would a business standardize on FF when IE is already included, updates for it come along via Windows Update, and its settings can be controlled via group policy?
Not if you've opened your property up to be accessed freely by the general public. In those instances, you should have to have valid cause.
Why? It's still private property. I should be able to give a blanket invite to anyone, and specific revocations of that invite.
Should malls be allowed to exclude people due to the color of their skin?
In my mind it should depend. A sole propriatership should be able to do what it wants. It's the owner's private property, and they assume all risks and liabilities. A corporation or LLC though should have abide by whatever we want them to; thats the price they pay for greatly reduced liabilities. I realize that's not how things are, but I'm talking about how I think things should be.
In any case, your specific objection isn't quite the same either; in one case you're ruling out a class of people, in the article though a specific person was told to not trespass, and in any case anyone should be able to forbid any other individual from entering their private property for any reason.
It does say alot about privacy rights though.
Sadly in some states the issuing of a Trespass Warning does not require any validity or cause at all. If a store or home decides that they do not want you on their property they can get a Trespass Warning simply by calling the cops.
Why is that sad? Shouldn't I be able to forbid someone from coming onto my property, for any reason I want? I mean, it is my property.
Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures
YES. For one, it's the law. Second, this prevents government from turning into a police state... they can't just do whatever they want, they must obey the law and it's limits on them. Otherwise things like requiring a warrant become meaningless.
You seriously need to relearn consitutional law and why things are the way they are.
Ya, because it's a good idea to blindly give police more power without oversight.
When 23,999,999 average idiots are able to successfully handle your retail procedure, it is hard to justify incurring other problems in order to make safe that final idiot.
Hers was not the only case of sever burns due to their coffee. There are over 700 other known cases. There may be many more not known, because people were treated but didn't go back to McDs at all to help cover their expenses.
If I leave a sharp stake in the ground pointing up near my sidewalk, the fact that most walk by it fine doesn't mean I'm not doing anything wrong. It's creating a danger, and that's what McDs was doing.
The 190-degree serving temperature is not accidental or arbitrary; abandoning it has costs too.
No, there are no costs with lowering the temperature. This statement is just stupid.
You can define 'negligent' any way you wish. Under your current definition where 'negligent' means "creating a risk above 0.0000001", you are negligent in countless ways by the time you've made it to the office in the morning. I suppose you can run with this idea if you like, but it's not useful. A useful definition of negligent will single out those actions which create risks that are cost-effective to eliminate.
Stop making up numbers to build a strawman arguement. The fact that there were over 700 OTHER KNOWN CASES shows it wasn't just this one woman, and that your odds are wrong.
The risk is unacceptable given the circumstances (people expect to drink the coffee immediately, as it was it was too hot, AND THEY KNEW IT), and the solution is exteremly cost effective; turning a dial to a lower setting. Can't get much fucking simplier than that.
Get your head out of your ass, and off your pedistal. Some people don't think coffee or tea is some religous experience.. it's just something that tastes good and kickstarts their morning.
If only practical application worked the same as theory. As a kid my dad had an interest in electronics and technology, but ask him to build a radio and he couldn't. I built my first radio with copper wire wrapped around paper towel, or TP, roll. Radio Shack has made a lot of money selling educational kits. As a review, because it's been many years since I've done any of it and my memory is bad, I bought an electronics learning lab from them.
Thanks for your anecdote, but your dad could have done the same if he just looked up some information in the library. I'd say his interest wasn't as great as yours, or he'd have found a way.
Desktops can't be taken home whereas laptops can. And as others have pointed out a cheap laptop running Linux should last years, with the student using the same one. Issue one to a student that student will use throughout school from one grade to the next.
Why should my tax money be spent GIVING kids laptops? A computer in a lab will last much longer, and be of use to many more students.
Of course breakage can, and will, happen. They can also be stolen or lost.
Thanks for pointing out obvious problems, which by the way is a waste of my tax money. I also think these problems will be more of a problem, and your dismissing these issues shows a huge lack of forethought.
Some tyme back there was an article about how a class of students were trained to repair them. This combines two good things, schools can have laptops repaired cheaply. And the students gain a valuable skill.
You're assuming the kids won't screw the laptop up more. I'd rather not have tax money be used to fund such an expensive lession, there are better ways to learn those skills... and I'd argue said skills are not necessary for general education.
Of course this isn't relevant for primary school students, but it can help jr high and high school students. I first got into electronics when I took an electronics class in 7th grade. In 9th grade I took a class on small engine repair. My high school had an auto repair workshop.
So it sounds like laptops aren't needed, because clearly your eductation was sufficent.
You clearly have never even started powershell.
As the dumbass parent of a 10 year old child, I feel qualified to say something that will irritate and exasperate all of the game-loving hipsters out there. I think these games that make a glorious (or is it "gorious") spectacle of blood-soaked and gut-choked violence are a plague.
Hmm, well I think people like you are more of a plague, since you clearly fail to grasp that the games you hate aren't meant for your stupid 10 year old. They're rated M for a reason.
As a phenomenon, they suggest to me that something especially barbaric is stirring in our collective unconscious, like maybe the long repressed caveman insisting on his daily blood sacrifice in the absence of any authentic, constructive, or ritualized expression of his instinctive needs.
Yes, it's called being human. Humans have violent sides as well as peaceful ones. That's not going to change, and I suggest you learn to accept it. After all, you can't have light without the darkness.
Gore-gamers do what they do in a kind of solipsistic isolation: at a sub-conscious level they are performing the stereotyped routine of your typical serial killer, abstracted from society in a way that makes there mechanized, repetitive behavior seem particularly alien from any values that support life-sustaining activity. Sure, these gamers can form virtual roaming packs of killers--a perversion of community, to cast it negatively--but whatever benefit they get from engaging with other human beings is mitigated by the almost autistic intensity they bring to harvesting the surplus virtual flesh they encounter online.
Or they're just people playing a game for entertainment. Resident Evil 5 is gory, but it also makes a point on society. Oh, and making a picture on a TV do something doesn't make you an evil person.
As far as "roaming pack of killers" goes, where have you been? You act as if war hasn't been around as long as humans have been forming clans.
I'm sure there will be no end to the angry assertions that there's no scientist or researcher who can prove a single negative thing about FPS games, but come on, anybody who hasn't been completely assimilated and sucked into the virtual compound can see that the troubling, amoral, nihilistic violence done to people and relationships in these games can't be a positive thing, if only because the vampiric nature of the gamer-game relationship sucks real life energy down a bottomless hole of appetite, and gives nothing back. Except maybe adrenaline and carnival, car-crash thrills.
So, you'll ignore science, even though your life is vastly better for it, and just stick your head in the sand convinced video games are bad. Please do, but leave everyone else out of it. The truth is that there is a large majority of people that play these games you hate, and they live normal lives, and care about their family and friends just like you do. But please, don't let the facts cloud your delusional fantasies.
My fear is 2 or 3 movies, followed by nothing, in which case it will have been an admirable effort and no doubt entertaining, but long term will only damage the franchise.
Um, the franchise is more or less dead now anyway. I doubt this movie can do more damage than was already done.
Well, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. I've even been to a trek convention. Typically though I don't care for TOS, and like TNG or later. But this was good.
My wife, who hates Star Trek period, really liked the movie as well. She was dreading it, and came out really liking it.
That seems to be the case; non-fans seem to be enjoying it as well.
Pff... they already happens. This notition that the police prevent anything is just sillyness.
I think you could remove it without consequence as well. It'd be hard for them to argue you should have returned something that they attached to someone elses property.
Ah yes, the Christian belief that God wants you to be trampled on.