Of course they want it tax free. I want my donations to be tax free. I don't want the level of church service available to me to be lessened by the amount of a tax. I already paid income tax.
A long time ago, it was decided that churches (and other non-profits*) provided social utility. As long as that holds true, an argument can be made for tax exception.
Of course, my church has a lay ministry, and doesn't hire clergy. (I suspect those that do have to pay income tax.)
*(Yes, there are for-profit churches; not many, but their income is taxable.)
Encrypting identity hides the identity, but allows votes to be counted by a publicly available voters/voted file.
(1) No, it doesn't. It might make it harder, but not very... (at least not unless you hand each voter a huge/unmanageable encryption key.)
(2) Much more important, you overlook the biggest reason for anonymity. Voters desire protection from corrupt elements within the government. Who is it that's protecting the encryption? Yeah, I thought so. This just lets the fox watch the hen house. (And yes, this is a fundamental problem with voting; it's very difficult to address.)
My other concern here is that a law enforcement agency or officer would post video that may be used as evidence in a future legal proceeding. I am not a lawyer, but I find this to be an impropper use of potential evidence...
I don't have any specific legal knowledge, but I'm having trouble following your logic. This isn't like checking out an uzi to have fun at the firing range, or wearing an tux from evidence lockup. Posting to the Internet doesn't involve altering the original copy, making it any less likely to be valid in court. They'd probably need to go through some kind of digital "check out" procedure to get a copy, but I can't imagine that being very hard for the officer carrying the camera.
One could make the argument that they were inducing bias in the jury pool, but I think the worst that is associated with that would be a change of venue, which would probably happen anyway in a public-emotion super-charged case.
The other problem with relying on discovery is that this presupposes an ongoing court case. Good luck requesting a public defender to prove you didn't make a civil-code infraction, and really shouldn't be ticketed. You could always sue for it, but that involves hiring a lawyer. The cost of the lawyer versus the price of the ticket is a calculation they make gladly. You're going to come quietly, and pay that ticket. Aren't you?
The same applies (to a lesser extent) to most criminal cases.
Mandatory retention, yes. Access to the video...trickier.
I agree with the sentiment, but if (exaggerated example:) anybody could sit down at their computer and pull up footage of the last few months of any cop in the country, it'd be really hard to get cops to wear always-on recording devices. The police unions would throw a hissy fit, and rightly so. It would make it much harder for cops to do their jobs, because they'd have to assume that they were always being watched by little brother, and any tiny perceived slight could get them written up, or sued. They'd never be honest with each other, and it would close off communication.
There should be laws permitting access to the recordings (to ordinary citizens, without hiring lawyers), but there must be a balance or they won't be recorded at all.
I don't know, the one episode of COPS I saw last year left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a drug sting operation where undercover cops approached cars, sold them something that looked like drugs, and then seized the vehicles (I think they were to be sold at auction). It didn't matter if it was the "perps" car or not. It didn't matter that it wasn't actually drugs. It didn't matter if the "perps" tried to hide the "drugs" in the car or not. It didn't matter that the cops initiated the sale (entrapment).
I think most police do a lot of good, and get bad coverage for a few bad apples. But the bad ones are sometimes systemic, and that's a scary thought.
I understand that he insulted you personally. Still, take a moment to recognize that you're arguing with an AC on Slashdot. The fact that he got you to respond means that he won.
If you're to manage people, know that some of them will be jerks and play petty games. Generally, you should not fire back. Take the high road. Let them look like fools. Private straightening-outs are worth an order of magnitude more than public outbursts. They might not seem public, but people know that they're taking place. If you ever say "I'll talk to him about that", do, even if it's only to give them a heads up.
Plan ahead of time. What is worth appearing upset over? Human safety? Certainly. Company policy? Sometimes, but which ones. Theft or destruction? Usually, but to what dollar amount?
I'm sure this doesn't come as news. Just a friendly reminder.
Not quite. I picked a deliberate set of motivations. I didn't give any options at all. I presume they exist. I can come up with several. I assume that you could too, if you wanted to. But more important, did you understand?
It's not that the analogy breaks down, it's that you deliberately grabbed an element that has no likeness to reality. I don't expect God or space aliens to force us to play nice. It would be a good deus ex machina, but I wouldn't hope for it.
Dude, every analogy breaks down quickly when you step out of the box. Yes all of them. Yes, very quickly. This one is more robust than most. You're just trying to find the easy answer, when there is none.
And yes, the actual problem will require more than one solution. We've already had a couple of great ones, and a few terrible ones.
Technically, it's not a straw man argument. That would be if I portrayed your position in a manner that is easy to knock down. I didn't portray your views at all. I portrayed mine.
I didn't set it up to prove anything. Analogies prove nothing. I only set it up to communicate something. Did you understand?
To your question: Have you never wanted to tell someone to "grow up"? Sometimes it seems there are no adults in this world. Sometimes we act like it. (If you really insist on having a teacher in this scenario, assume they're incompetent and not paying attention; oh, and Jim's parents are borderline child-neglectors. This is really over-thinking the analogy. All analogies break if examined too closely.)
And who do you propose to tell them that they should wake up? The media?
I want to agree with you, but it is an uphill battle. As myowntrueself (607117) said, the media exerts strong influence on the government. Every time politicians step out of line, they've got to throw the media power brokers a bone to keep them happy. The fact that we're at the oligopoly stage, and haven't yet reached the monopoly stage is our one saving grace.
But no, the media wants us to remain dumb and compliant. If they taught us otherwise they'd lose much of their power.
Three kindergarteners are eating lunch. Bill is a bully, and punches Jim in the face. Tom feels sorry for Jim, and shares his dessert. It tastes good, but Jim still has a black eye.
The next day it happens again, and Tom still feels sorry for Jim. He shares his dessert again. This also tastes good, but now Jim has a bloody nose and still has a black eye.
On the third day, Tom doesn't have a dessert to share with Jim. Bill hits Jim hard in the jaw, and leaves a bruise. Tom feels that Jim must have a dessert to make him feel better. He pushes Sally over, takes her dessert, and gives it to Jim. Jim is confused, and a little scared. He doesn't want to offend Tom. Tom has been nice to him, and he doesn't want to be pushed down. Sally's dessert smells very good. He says nothing, and eats the dessert.
Jim's eye, nose, and jaw still hurt.
Tell me: What should Tom have done? What about Sally? What about Jim? There are no right answers, but some are better than others. (Make no mistake: there are wrong answers.)
Yeah, that is feeding the troll, but I feel for your predicament.
It doesn't matter how nice you are. He doesn't care. You misspelled a word, and he feels so special that he found it.
Dude this is the Internet. I'm one of the rare individuals that proof-reads his own posts, and even I misspell things here. It's OK. The world hasn't ended, nor will it.
"he is supposed to help by ensuring the law is applied fairly"
That is incorrect. His job is to make sure the law is applied constitutionally.
That's not true, and I wish that the priesthood of law could see straight. It is the job (and duty) of the executive to apply the law constitutionally. If that were the job of the judiciary, then they would be redundant.
Yes, the judiciary does help a little to prevent run away executive authority, and yes, they need to operate within the constitutional framework. What they're actually there to do is to evaluate how the legal rubber meets the road; to ensure both the letter and spirit of the law; to think through the consequences of bad interpretations; to cut out loopholes and slap down bad actors. In short, to ensure a fair and predictable legal framework. They're not robots, nor should they be.
(And yes, I realize our current judiciary rarely lives up to the ideal.)
Also, check for dropped packets. I don't know about your provider, but it is AT&T's policy not to ignore more than 2% dropped (had a line man tell me that once when I was getting >10% dropped).
Some setups have an access box on the side of the house. Inside, it looks like a phone line plugging into a jack (RJ-11). Pop that out and hook your modem directly to the plug. That will bypass all your house wiring. Some older setups aren't this convenient, though. If it turns out to be your wiring (not likely) then you have somewhere to start. Otherwise, you'll have eliminated a potential scapegoat that the ISP will point to.
Python has a "there is only one true way" mentality...
I think "had" would be a better way of putting it. Python set out to be the anti-Perl. This required making sure there was no bizarre behavior that coders could exploit to make their code more unreadable, and easier to break. There are a few kinks that are more limiting than I would like, but the language has gained a lot more flexibility over the years.
1, Because it'll break code when copypasting from a website.
A valid issue. This presupposes that either the poster was an idiot who couldn't be bothered to use a code block, or the website is overly limited. It does happen, but coders worth listening to will usually cushion their code well.
2, Because you can't use matching braces feature of your IDE if you don't have braces, and it's harder to see when blocks start or end when you have a method that's longer than your screen height.
Try using more than 2 spaces to equal a tab. Yeah, that's sacrilege, I know. Other benefits of brace matching (such as collapsing code blocks) are still entirely feasible, and some editors will do it for you. Besides, without the brace clutter, it's easier to see where blocks start and stop anyway. You scroll up or down until it's no longer indented. I really hope you're not reading code blocks that are pages upon pages upon pages. Python might be harder to write unreadable code, but only a little.
3, Because your IDE could autoindent your code if you used braces.
Um... Every IDE (and text editor) I've used has auto-indented python for me. Yeah, I have to hit tab on the first indented line, but that's easier than hitting an open bracket. From there, they all keep the indent until I backspace one, which is easier than a close bracket.
In some places, patients can. I haven't been able to nail it down, but some law changed somewhere, and labs are no longer willing to permit walk in patients. Maybe this is just a California thing. Don't know. (Our laws are notoriously messed up.)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course they want it tax free. I want my donations to be tax free. I don't want the level of church service available to me to be lessened by the amount of a tax. I already paid income tax.
A long time ago, it was decided that churches (and other non-profits*) provided social utility. As long as that holds true, an argument can be made for tax exception.
Of course, my church has a lay ministry, and doesn't hire clergy. (I suspect those that do have to pay income tax.)
*(Yes, there are for-profit churches; not many, but their income is taxable.)
Encrypting identity hides the identity, but allows votes to be counted by a publicly available voters/voted file.
(1) No, it doesn't. It might make it harder, but not very... (at least not unless you hand each voter a huge/unmanageable encryption key.)
(2) Much more important, you overlook the biggest reason for anonymity. Voters desire protection from corrupt elements within the government. Who is it that's protecting the encryption? Yeah, I thought so. This just lets the fox watch the hen house. (And yes, this is a fundamental problem with voting; it's very difficult to address.)
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd say they probably decrease the buy/sell spread. I'm not sure it's a suitable trade off, but there it is.
The key to this is would the person committed the crime if the police were not there to begin with.
Exactly. The argument can be made that they'd buy anyway, but there's no way to prove that. Whether this flies or not depends on jurisdiction.
And this didn't look like "Drug Dealer Blvd". I think it was a gas station or parking lot.
My other concern here is that a law enforcement agency or officer would post video that may be used as evidence in a future legal proceeding. I am not a lawyer, but I find this to be an impropper use of potential evidence...
I don't have any specific legal knowledge, but I'm having trouble following your logic. This isn't like checking out an uzi to have fun at the firing range, or wearing an tux from evidence lockup. Posting to the Internet doesn't involve altering the original copy, making it any less likely to be valid in court. They'd probably need to go through some kind of digital "check out" procedure to get a copy, but I can't imagine that being very hard for the officer carrying the camera.
One could make the argument that they were inducing bias in the jury pool, but I think the worst that is associated with that would be a change of venue, which would probably happen anyway in a public-emotion super-charged case.
The other problem with relying on discovery is that this presupposes an ongoing court case. Good luck requesting a public defender to prove you didn't make a civil-code infraction, and really shouldn't be ticketed. You could always sue for it, but that involves hiring a lawyer. The cost of the lawyer versus the price of the ticket is a calculation they make gladly. You're going to come quietly, and pay that ticket. Aren't you?
The same applies (to a lesser extent) to most criminal cases.
Mandatory retention, yes. Access to the video...trickier.
I agree with the sentiment, but if (exaggerated example:) anybody could sit down at their computer and pull up footage of the last few months of any cop in the country, it'd be really hard to get cops to wear always-on recording devices. The police unions would throw a hissy fit, and rightly so. It would make it much harder for cops to do their jobs, because they'd have to assume that they were always being watched by little brother, and any tiny perceived slight could get them written up, or sued. They'd never be honest with each other, and it would close off communication.
There should be laws permitting access to the recordings (to ordinary citizens, without hiring lawyers), but there must be a balance or they won't be recorded at all.
I don't know, the one episode of COPS I saw last year left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a drug sting operation where undercover cops approached cars, sold them something that looked like drugs, and then seized the vehicles (I think they were to be sold at auction). It didn't matter if it was the "perps" car or not. It didn't matter that it wasn't actually drugs. It didn't matter if the "perps" tried to hide the "drugs" in the car or not. It didn't matter that the cops initiated the sale (entrapment).
I think most police do a lot of good, and get bad coverage for a few bad apples. But the bad ones are sometimes systemic, and that's a scary thought.
I understand that he insulted you personally. Still, take a moment to recognize that you're arguing with an AC on Slashdot. The fact that he got you to respond means that he won.
If you're to manage people, know that some of them will be jerks and play petty games. Generally, you should not fire back. Take the high road. Let them look like fools. Private straightening-outs are worth an order of magnitude more than public outbursts. They might not seem public, but people know that they're taking place. If you ever say "I'll talk to him about that", do, even if it's only to give them a heads up.
Plan ahead of time. What is worth appearing upset over? Human safety? Certainly. Company policy? Sometimes, but which ones. Theft or destruction? Usually, but to what dollar amount?
I'm sure this doesn't come as news. Just a friendly reminder.
I hear you. The summary reads like an advert.
Not quite. I picked a deliberate set of motivations. I didn't give any options at all. I presume they exist. I can come up with several. I assume that you could too, if you wanted to. But more important, did you understand?
It's not that the analogy breaks down, it's that you deliberately grabbed an element that has no likeness to reality. I don't expect God or space aliens to force us to play nice. It would be a good deus ex machina, but I wouldn't hope for it.
Dude, every analogy breaks down quickly when you step out of the box. Yes all of them. Yes, very quickly. This one is more robust than most. You're just trying to find the easy answer, when there is none.
And yes, the actual problem will require more than one solution. We've already had a couple of great ones, and a few terrible ones.
It's not all that elaborate.
Technically, it's not a straw man argument. That would be if I portrayed your position in a manner that is easy to knock down. I didn't portray your views at all. I portrayed mine.
I didn't set it up to prove anything. Analogies prove nothing. I only set it up to communicate something. Did you understand?
To your question: Have you never wanted to tell someone to "grow up"? Sometimes it seems there are no adults in this world. Sometimes we act like it.
(If you really insist on having a teacher in this scenario, assume they're incompetent and not paying attention; oh, and Jim's parents are borderline child-neglectors. This is really over-thinking the analogy. All analogies break if examined too closely.)
And who do you propose to tell them that they should wake up? The media?
I want to agree with you, but it is an uphill battle. As myowntrueself (607117) said, the media exerts strong influence on the government. Every time politicians step out of line, they've got to throw the media power brokers a bone to keep them happy. The fact that we're at the oligopoly stage, and haven't yet reached the monopoly stage is our one saving grace.
But no, the media wants us to remain dumb and compliant. If they taught us otherwise they'd lose much of their power.
Three kindergarteners are eating lunch. Bill is a bully, and punches Jim in the face. Tom feels sorry for Jim, and shares his dessert. It tastes good, but Jim still has a black eye.
The next day it happens again, and Tom still feels sorry for Jim. He shares his dessert again. This also tastes good, but now Jim has a bloody nose and still has a black eye.
On the third day, Tom doesn't have a dessert to share with Jim. Bill hits Jim hard in the jaw, and leaves a bruise. Tom feels that Jim must have a dessert to make him feel better. He pushes Sally over, takes her dessert, and gives it to Jim. Jim is confused, and a little scared. He doesn't want to offend Tom. Tom has been nice to him, and he doesn't want to be pushed down. Sally's dessert smells very good. He says nothing, and eats the dessert.
Jim's eye, nose, and jaw still hurt.
Tell me: What should Tom have done? What about Sally? What about Jim? There are no right answers, but some are better than others.
(Make no mistake: there are wrong answers.)
Yeah, that is feeding the troll, but I feel for your predicament.
It doesn't matter how nice you are. He doesn't care. You misspelled a word, and he feels so special that he found it.
Dude this is the Internet. I'm one of the rare individuals that proof-reads his own posts, and even I misspell things here. It's OK. The world hasn't ended, nor will it.
"he is supposed to help by ensuring the law is applied fairly"
That is incorrect. His job is to make sure the law is applied constitutionally.
That's not true, and I wish that the priesthood of law could see straight. It is the job (and duty) of the executive to apply the law constitutionally. If that were the job of the judiciary, then they would be redundant.
Yes, the judiciary does help a little to prevent run away executive authority, and yes, they need to operate within the constitutional framework. What they're actually there to do is to evaluate how the legal rubber meets the road; to ensure both the letter and spirit of the law; to think through the consequences of bad interpretations; to cut out loopholes and slap down bad actors. In short, to ensure a fair and predictable legal framework. They're not robots, nor should they be.
(And yes, I realize our current judiciary rarely lives up to the ideal.)
Ha! Inventing a new mathmatical system in order to solve a problem is cheating! But it works.
Not only is it cheating, it's tradition. We have many great branches of mathematics because of it.
People who literally don't exist shouldn't be getting welfare. When they do, it's called fraud.
I literally believe you don't know what "literally" means.
Also, check for dropped packets. I don't know about your provider, but it is AT&T's policy not to ignore more than 2% dropped (had a line man tell me that once when I was getting >10% dropped).
Some setups have an access box on the side of the house. Inside, it looks like a phone line plugging into a jack (RJ-11). Pop that out and hook your modem directly to the plug. That will bypass all your house wiring. Some older setups aren't this convenient, though. If it turns out to be your wiring (not likely) then you have somewhere to start. Otherwise, you'll have eliminated a potential scapegoat that the ISP will point to.
Most DSL have a range. The advertised number is the "up to" limit, but most of them do have a lower bound in the fine print.
Not on the list, but you know what is?:
91. A card-carrying Republican faculty member of the Humanities Division. [5 points]
I'd like to see the fully automatic that fires tracers and lawyers. That thing ought to be in violation of the Geneva convention!
Python has a "there is only one true way" mentality...
I think "had" would be a better way of putting it. Python set out to be the anti-Perl. This required making sure there was no bizarre behavior that coders could exploit to make their code more unreadable, and easier to break. There are a few kinks that are more limiting than I would like, but the language has gained a lot more flexibility over the years.
1, Because it'll break code when copypasting from a website.
A valid issue. This presupposes that either the poster was an idiot who couldn't be bothered to use a code block, or the website is overly limited. It does happen, but coders worth listening to will usually cushion their code well.
2, Because you can't use matching braces feature of your IDE if you don't have braces, and it's harder to see when blocks start or end when you have a method that's longer than your screen height.
Try using more than 2 spaces to equal a tab. Yeah, that's sacrilege, I know. Other benefits of brace matching (such as collapsing code blocks) are still entirely feasible, and some editors will do it for you. Besides, without the brace clutter, it's easier to see where blocks start and stop anyway. You scroll up or down until it's no longer indented. I really hope you're not reading code blocks that are pages upon pages upon pages. Python might be harder to write unreadable code, but only a little.
3, Because your IDE could autoindent your code if you used braces.
Um... Every IDE (and text editor) I've used has auto-indented python for me. Yeah, I have to hit tab on the first indented line, but that's easier than hitting an open bracket. From there, they all keep the indent until I backspace one, which is easier than a close bracket.
In some places, patients can. I haven't been able to nail it down, but some law changed somewhere, and labs are no longer willing to permit walk in patients. Maybe this is just a California thing. Don't know. (Our laws are notoriously messed up.)