Except the homeless aren't counted as part of the unemployed -- many haven't been looking for years. They need a leg up and training, and money for this doesn't come from thin air.
MS-13? Name the school and neighborhood -- you're likely exaggerating.
You know, you can care about cops overstepping their authority while also caring about gang violence in cities. And yes, many, many American cops do overstep their authority.
MS-13 "taking over schools" is Fox agitprop. Stop repeating "faux news" for the stupid.
Homeless people -- what do you propose as a solution? Have cops beat them and march them to the workhouse? This isn't Victorian England, you know.
If a business moves over a $275 cost per employee per year (a fraction of total hiring costs), they obviously need new accountants. Seattle should have stood up to Amazon and friends' bullying -- Amazon would have blinked.
Sealed, non-upgradable, non-repairable devices costing near or over $1000? No thanks. I can get a real laptop for that price -- why buy a crippled device?
(1) "Criminals" are often "perpetrators" of victimless crimes. Cops are the scumbuckets who harass people for having a good time. (2) More anarchy is very much the answer -- the developed world, especially the English-speaking world, is too fucking orderly and boring.
Except (in many countries) he gets a slap on the wrist. Few days' suspension, maybe a small fine. So the alternative is to exact economic punishment...
Cost-free reprisals help equalize things between the powerful and powerless. That cop who just beat someone up? His wife's restaurant magically gets reviews that it's a roach-infested pesthole, and they end up defaulting on a quarter-million loan and being turfed out of their home. Karma can be a real bitch.
What if the people doing the threatening are cops or otherwise in authority? i.e. it's sometimes convenient to drop a video of cops abusing their power anonymously in order not to face reprisals from the scum.
Who says anything about invective against a teacher? How about anonymously blogging about an employer's environmental crimes? Or creating a burner email account to leak info to journalists?
The point isn't to make it impossible to remove privacy, just to make it more difficult. People have been physically threatened and "Swatted" for things they post online (criticism of authoritarian governments, anti-war, Gamergate). A non-anonymous Internet would silence a lot of constructive speech, since people would fear for their safety.
Free speech is about anonymity as well -- you should have the ability to spew bile without your employer, school, etc (non-governmental entities) punishing you for it. Furthermore, people have been physically threatened by non-governmental actors for unpopular views (i.e. criticism of foreign governments by disapora, anti-war, etc).
Of course, with enough effort, any handle can be traced to a real identity. The point is that it isn't worth it to unmask every "anonymous" Internet user, so people are relatively safe speaking anonymously. With everything under a real name, this safety will disappear.
Better anarchy than a suburbanized, boring Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
"Small group" doesn't mean they've "taken over a school."
Except the homeless aren't counted as part of the unemployed -- many haven't been looking for years. They need a leg up and training, and money for this doesn't come from thin air.
MS-13? Name the school and neighborhood -- you're likely exaggerating.
You know, you can care about cops overstepping their authority while also caring about gang violence in cities. And yes, many, many American cops do overstep their authority.
MS-13 "taking over schools" is Fox agitprop. Stop repeating "faux news" for the stupid. Homeless people -- what do you propose as a solution? Have cops beat them and march them to the workhouse? This isn't Victorian England, you know.
If a business moves over a $275 cost per employee per year (a fraction of total hiring costs), they obviously need new accountants. Seattle should have stood up to Amazon and friends' bullying -- Amazon would have blinked.
Sealed, non-upgradable, non-repairable devices costing near or over $1000? No thanks. I can get a real laptop for that price -- why buy a crippled device?
Go move to China, you authoritarian bootlicker.
(1) "Criminals" are often "perpetrators" of victimless crimes. Cops are the scumbuckets who harass people for having a good time.
(2) More anarchy is very much the answer -- the developed world, especially the English-speaking world, is too fucking orderly and boring.
Whoever it is, they're doing the cause of privacy a service! Cheers to them!
Except (in many countries) he gets a slap on the wrist. Few days' suspension, maybe a small fine. So the alternative is to exact economic punishment...
Who cares? It's a good thing that there's pushback against an evil trend.
Some of us don't want to be tracked like cattle, have our spending 100% controlled, and taxed to death.
Cost-free reprisals help equalize things between the powerful and powerless. That cop who just beat someone up? His wife's restaurant magically gets reviews that it's a roach-infested pesthole, and they end up defaulting on a quarter-million loan and being turfed out of their home. Karma can be a real bitch.
What if the people doing the threatening are cops or otherwise in authority? i.e. it's sometimes convenient to drop a video of cops abusing their power anonymously in order not to face reprisals from the scum.
Who says anything about invective against a teacher? How about anonymously blogging about an employer's environmental crimes? Or creating a burner email account to leak info to journalists?
I'm guessing you're trolling considering your signature? :D Well played.
Fine with me. Better a few dogs be euthanized than many humans' lives be ruined. Sounds callous, but so be it -- most of us aren't vegetarians either.
So put them up for adoption or just give them a shot of "blue juice"?
I wonder if pot-sniffing dogs can be retrained to do something useful, in saner states which are legalizing...
Fine by me. Better a "toy" Internet than one run by authoritarian pigfuckers.
Apps written in different languages are hard to compile across platforms.
Order and civility are overrated and are used as excuses by authoritarian assholes to push their agendas.
The point isn't to make it impossible to remove privacy, just to make it more difficult. People have been physically threatened and "Swatted" for things they post online (criticism of authoritarian governments, anti-war, Gamergate). A non-anonymous Internet would silence a lot of constructive speech, since people would fear for their safety.
Free speech is about anonymity as well -- you should have the ability to spew bile without your employer, school, etc (non-governmental entities) punishing you for it. Furthermore, people have been physically threatened by non-governmental actors for unpopular views (i.e. criticism of foreign governments by disapora, anti-war, etc).
Of course, with enough effort, any handle can be traced to a real identity. The point is that it isn't worth it to unmask every "anonymous" Internet user, so people are relatively safe speaking anonymously. With everything under a real name, this safety will disappear.
Better anarchy than a suburbanized, boring Internet.
So easy to set up a subreddit for "Win 7 Support." If Micro$hit doesn't want to host the forums, they're not needed.
The only way to enforce privacy is by keeping the ability to be anonymous, whether by paying cash or not having an "Internet ID."