Oppression of the adult, informed individual is bad. If it's wrong, it's wrong. You don't get a pass because you're not quite as much of an asshole about it. Nor if there are other areas where you are just as bad, or worse.
The US exerts oppressive coercion - which is another way to say violence - across a long list of issues that bear upon informed personal and consensual choice. Some of them with huge official penalties, some with less. Any that have legal consequences echo strongly into other parts of life, such as employment, acceptability as a tenant, where you can go to school (and who you have to tell), that sort of thing.
Insofar as there is a defensible intellectual path for where the government should step in, it always comes down quite precisely to informed, personal or consensual choice. Only a legal system that actually has that straightened out has any leg to stand on when it comes to issues like these (and that would not be the USA.) As to whether a country with that well in hand (I'm not aware of any, someone might be so kind as to point it / them out if such exists at this point in time) has any right to impose that upon another country... that's a very nasty can of worms. Best you can do without effectively inviting them to change your own rules and regulations is to restrict trade, tourism and immigration.
And of course there's that whole "can't show up without your ladyparts / manparts covered" feature of our society as well. And this "you have have sex for free, but you can't sell it" bit. And the "you can drink your liver into oblivion, but you can't smoke pot" thing. And so on.
We're plenty good at oppressing our citizens. But, just like Islamists, we have... "reasons." So it's okay.
However, the fact is that "rights" are those local things (generally nationally local) that someone is willing to put force behind to ensure. They are not some inherent, holy set of things that descend with banners waving and gilded choirs singing, no matter what anyone tries to tell you or wants to think.
Further to that, national borders put an extremely hard stop between what one set of willing enforcers will defend, and what other sets of willing enforcers will defend.
When said levels of defense are limited to articles in foreign press and hand-waving on Internet discussion forums, the odds of changing anyone's mind about any of this are approximately equal to the effects of contrary opinions across a Democrat / Republican divide. Which is to say, scarce to none.
I guarantee you that, all other things being equal, when men are making the decisions, the wearing of high heels as compared to flats, long hair as opposed to short, skirt and/or dress as opposed to pants, hosiery as opposed to no hosiery, makeup as opposed to no makeup, clear skin as opposed to visible tattoos... those things will in general result in more immediate hiring, faster career advancement, more pay, and better customer relations. As men's taste's change, the sorts of things one might accurately list will mutate slowly, but you'll always be able to fill it various do / don't items based on the current set of men's tastes. Because sexual attraction is a thing, and sexual plumage is a thing, and trying to separate those things from everything (anything) else is a hopeless undertaking.
So here in the USA, while no one (okay, not a lot of someones, relatively speaking) is forcing a female to dress that way, that's not the same thing at all as there being no pressure (or inclination) to dress that way.
No one says you have to answer when opportunity knocks. No one is likely to say anything. Opportunity just goes away quietly. And there is no law that can prevent this, nor will there be, until we can read minds. And if / when that happens, other problems will loom so large as to make this one seem utterly insignificant.
Real estate can only go up as long as the common man can buy it
Real estate (by which I mean a home on a plot of land) hasn't been in reach of the common (wo)man for decades. Most real estate is owned not by the common man, but by the banks, mortgage companies and so on. Actual ownership, if it occurs at all, happens so late in life as to be irrelevant for most people (and of course, even when it's paid off, if you fail to pay your taxes, or happen to be somewhere someone with money wants to build something [see Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469], you'll find out who really controls ownership... protip: it's not you.)
Does this stop anyone? No. They just saddle up with (more...and more... and more...) debt, hang out on the property the bank owns (as long as that is convenient for the 1%-ers), and life goes on; the rich get richer, because the poor pay more and more to them, both in base price and in interest.
There's no ceiling to real estate prices. We're a huge distance past the "I own it" point for most people. But there is illusion. Would you like another slice?
I put it in Google Base, but it didn't show up anywhere. Then I put up a text ad for it, but all that came out was this huge Flash thing put up by someone else. Then I tried to post it in G+. but, they said that wasn't associated with a Real Name so they banned the post. Then they scanned it and put it up for everyone to read regardless of the copyright notice anyway. But I know what I'm going to do to get around this. I'm going to put it up in Picassa. That'll show 'em.
An application programming/er interface is a means to access implementation of a service. The API is not the implementation of the service(s) themselves, but an means of access to the service(s.)
Sorry. My coffee level is low as yet this morning.:)
The application programming/er interface is the implementation. It's what the program uses. The documentation is the description of the application programming/er interface. The program will not run because I read the manual.
Just as the manual for a car's interface is not the interface itself, but a description of the car's interface. I'm not going to be able to steer the car by twisting the manual around in the air.
If your description of the issue at hand is correct, there's no issue here at all.
Good grief. Really? REALLY? From first principles, assuming only that someone has used a reasonably modern computer:
1) The purpose of a computer is to perform various series of small steps, called "instructions", assembled in an order such that each whole series of instructions can perform a more complex task than a single instruction can by itself.
2) These assemblies of instructions are called "programs."
3) Computers can have previously prepared programs built-in, or installed later, that are designed to provide certain services to other programs, so that these services do not have to be re-created for every new program that needs them, and so that these services are performed in a standardized way for all programs that need them.
4) An API is the part of the previously prepared program that provides the means to access these services. The term means "Application Programming Interface" or "Application Programmer Interface."
5) An example of this is the window that opens when you want to select a file from within a program such as a spreadsheet or a word processor. This is often called a "file dialog." In order that users of computers only have to deal with one set of tools to open files, this service is provided by modern computer operating systems, and is often preferentially used instead of creating one's own version of such a function. The API for this service allows for asking that the dialog be opened, and then, when the user chooses one or more files from the list in the dialog, the returning of which file(s) the user picked to the program that requested the file dialog service. There are other services provided in the API, including "cancel", when the user changes their mind about choosing a file; change the storage location where the chosen file will, or does already, reside, and so on.
---
It's not trivial to actually explain, but it isn't all that difficult, either. I'm sure there are others here who could do much better than I. Without ever mentioning a... menu, etc.
tell me what power the US Congress has in the matter of the water issues currently happening in Flint.
Well, they don't seem to have any problem declaring your phone "an instrument of interstate commerce" because a phone call could go over state lines; they don't seem to have any problems raiding a farm because the crop could be transported over state lines. Etc.
So I think it quite clear that they should be equally able to justify, and in the same manner, the fact that Flint's water could go over state lines.
But of course, they'll only do things that serve them, the welfare and health of the people aren't exactly first-line considerations. No, there are more important things to do: lobbyists waiting in the anteroom, insider information on stocks to be considered, after-office speech agreements to be negotiated, and of course, for the Republican demographic of the ruling oligarchy's minions, the crafting of yet another useless attempt to block the ACA in order to pander to the very people who decided... they'd rather have Trump. Ooops.:)
You're also ignoring that lots of ambiguous laws are passed
No, really, I'm not. I'm just of the opinion that were the system working even close to how it should, that such law would cause any judge above the level of drooling moron to look at it and say "This law is ambiguous. Charges dismissed" rather than "I'll shoot from the hip here and legislate from the bench", which is, IMHO anyway, basically the act of someone trying to destroy the actual basis of law.
When the law isn't clear, the judge has to make a ruling.
Yes. However, the ruling can be "this law does not cover this case because it is unclear. Case dismissed."
Case law, in cases like this, means some sort of consistent resolution of ambiguities, which is to everyone's benefit.
No, it really isn't. What it does is infest the legal system with a bunch of crap no legislator ever put on paper, crap coming from someone not elected to a position intended to create legislation.
The only people that consistently benefit from this are the lawyers. That ought to tell you all you need to know, too. The people, in the general sense, are abused by it.
When law is unclear, it ought to be sent back to the legislative body for a do-over. Not have some random judge's "interpretation" stuck to it like gum on your shoe.
That's your opinion and only your opinion. You don't seem to have a problem not only expressing it here, while hypocritically trying to denigrate anybody else who expresses one. Fortunately, most of the world isn't like you.
You are confusing the expression of personal opinion, which of course is perfectly fine, with the claim that said opinions equate to "soft news." Which is to say, you are utterly bewildered.
As you are clearly not very familiar with the Echo, a clarity that arrives due to your ridiculously truncated list of "thing Echo can do", I'll kindly give you two tips you can generalize from:
First, if you want it to answer to "Echo", then change the settings in the control app so it does. Duh. There are other interesting settings and enablments in there too.
Second, actually learn what it can do for you. Others have; so can you.
For instance, you want a good classic rock playlist that isn't a subset of prime music? Then create a playlist from your own library of carefully selected classic rock. If you don't have such a library, then your complaint is wholly ridiculous. MY classic rock playlist is freaking awesome. Because, you know, I built it out of tunes I really like. Depending on prime music... that's depending on some taste metric that will be an amalgam of Other People's Opinions selected from whatever tunes are actually on prime music (read, not the good stuff that might still sell decently) and, like you, that's definitely up for lighting my fire. Unlike you, however, I figured that out by myself and spent ten seconds Googling to see how to remedy the problem.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Not a problem. You can get Cheetos at any supermarket or convenience store.
The problem is that you watch television fiction and think it has any relationship to reality at all.
Oppression of the adult, informed individual is bad. If it's wrong, it's wrong. You don't get a pass because you're not quite as much of an asshole about it. Nor if there are other areas where you are just as bad, or worse.
The US exerts oppressive coercion - which is another way to say violence - across a long list of issues that bear upon informed personal and consensual choice. Some of them with huge official penalties, some with less. Any that have legal consequences echo strongly into other parts of life, such as employment, acceptability as a tenant, where you can go to school (and who you have to tell), that sort of thing.
Insofar as there is a defensible intellectual path for where the government should step in, it always comes down quite precisely to informed, personal or consensual choice. Only a legal system that actually has that straightened out has any leg to stand on when it comes to issues like these (and that would not be the USA.) As to whether a country with that well in hand (I'm not aware of any, someone might be so kind as to point it / them out if such exists at this point in time) has any right to impose that upon another country... that's a very nasty can of worms. Best you can do without effectively inviting them to change your own rules and regulations is to restrict trade, tourism and immigration.
Yes, but also in Manhattan, there's this.
And of course there's that whole "can't show up without your ladyparts / manparts covered" feature of our society as well. And this "you have have sex for free, but you can't sell it" bit. And the "you can drink your liver into oblivion, but you can't smoke pot" thing. And so on.
We're plenty good at oppressing our citizens. But, just like Islamists, we have... "reasons." So it's okay.
If a female goes outside in the USA (and many other places) without a top on, you'll get to see repression of an exactly similar nature.
Probably shouldn't be feeling all that superior to Iran, really.
Just a matter of degree.
I am not at all in favor of Iran's culture.
However, the fact is that "rights" are those local things (generally nationally local) that someone is willing to put force behind to ensure. They are not some inherent, holy set of things that descend with banners waving and gilded choirs singing, no matter what anyone tries to tell you or wants to think.
Further to that, national borders put an extremely hard stop between what one set of willing enforcers will defend, and what other sets of willing enforcers will defend.
When said levels of defense are limited to articles in foreign press and hand-waving on Internet discussion forums, the odds of changing anyone's mind about any of this are approximately equal to the effects of contrary opinions across a Democrat / Republican divide. Which is to say, scarce to none.
I guarantee you that, all other things being equal, when men are making the decisions, the wearing of high heels as compared to flats, long hair as opposed to short, skirt and/or dress as opposed to pants, hosiery as opposed to no hosiery, makeup as opposed to no makeup, clear skin as opposed to visible tattoos... those things will in general result in more immediate hiring, faster career advancement, more pay, and better customer relations. As men's taste's change, the sorts of things one might accurately list will mutate slowly, but you'll always be able to fill it various do / don't items based on the current set of men's tastes. Because sexual attraction is a thing, and sexual plumage is a thing, and trying to separate those things from everything (anything) else is a hopeless undertaking.
So here in the USA, while no one (okay, not a lot of someones, relatively speaking) is forcing a female to dress that way, that's not the same thing at all as there being no pressure (or inclination) to dress that way.
No one says you have to answer when opportunity knocks. No one is likely to say anything. Opportunity just goes away quietly. And there is no law that can prevent this, nor will there be, until we can read minds. And if / when that happens, other problems will loom so large as to make this one seem utterly insignificant.
International, US survey, or Nautical? Statute? Roman, Italian, or Chinese?
African, or European? No, wait... that's swallows.
Next time they'll just extend a sudo-pod.
Real estate (by which I mean a home on a plot of land) hasn't been in reach of the common (wo)man for decades. Most real estate is owned not by the common man, but by the banks, mortgage companies and so on. Actual ownership, if it occurs at all, happens so late in life as to be irrelevant for most people (and of course, even when it's paid off, if you fail to pay your taxes, or happen to be somewhere someone with money wants to build something [see Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469], you'll find out who really controls ownership... protip: it's not you.)
Does this stop anyone? No. They just saddle up with (more...and more... and more...) debt, hang out on the property the bank owns (as long as that is convenient for the 1%-ers), and life goes on; the rich get richer, because the poor pay more and more to them, both in base price and in interest.
There's no ceiling to real estate prices. We're a huge distance past the "I own it" point for most people. But there is illusion. Would you like another slice?
You are confused. You're not the user. You're the product. And your info is shared with their customers, the advertisers.
So hand over your Real Name and remember to smile.
I put it in Google Base, but it didn't show up anywhere. Then I put up a text ad for it, but all that came out was this huge Flash thing put up by someone else. Then I tried to post it in G+. but, they said that wasn't associated with a Real Name so they banned the post. Then they scanned it and put it up for everyone to read regardless of the copyright notice anyway. But I know what I'm going to do to get around this. I'm going to put it up in Picassa. That'll show 'em.
I should have said:
An application programming/er interface is a means to access implementation of a service. The API is not the implementation of the service(s) themselves, but an means of access to the service(s.)
Sorry. My coffee level is low as yet this morning. :)
The application programming/er interface is the implementation. It's what the program uses. The documentation is the description of the application programming/er interface. The program will not run because I read the manual.
Just as the manual for a car's interface is not the interface itself, but a description of the car's interface. I'm not going to be able to steer the car by twisting the manual around in the air.
If your description of the issue at hand is correct, there's no issue here at all.
Ah. Well, okay, then this: Why not just issue a certificate that works long term and doesn't require unnecessary network activity and exposure?
I presume there is some benefit this is supposed to provide, but I'm sure not seeing it.
Good grief. Really? REALLY? From first principles, assuming only that someone has used a reasonably modern computer:
1) The purpose of a computer is to perform various series of small steps, called "instructions", assembled in an order such that each whole series of instructions can perform a more complex task than a single instruction can by itself.
2) These assemblies of instructions are called "programs."
3) Computers can have previously prepared programs built-in, or installed later, that are designed to provide certain services to other programs, so that these services do not have to be re-created for every new program that needs them, and so that these services are performed in a standardized way for all programs that need them.
4) An API is the part of the previously prepared program that provides the means to access these services. The term means "Application Programming Interface" or "Application Programmer Interface."
5) An example of this is the window that opens when you want to select a file from within a program such as a spreadsheet or a word processor. This is often called a "file dialog." In order that users of computers only have to deal with one set of tools to open files, this service is provided by modern computer operating systems, and is often preferentially used instead of creating one's own version of such a function. The API for this service allows for asking that the dialog be opened, and then, when the user chooses one or more files from the list in the dialog, the returning of which file(s) the user picked to the program that requested the file dialog service. There are other services provided in the API, including "cancel", when the user changes their mind about choosing a file; change the storage location where the chosen file will, or does already, reside, and so on.
---
It's not trivial to actually explain, but it isn't all that difficult, either. I'm sure there are others here who could do much better than I. Without ever mentioning a... menu, etc.
Was this the service that provided certs of short-length expiration, a year or so?
Or am I thinking of something else?
MyCroft may be of interest then.
You might also try to find where claiming one is an unbiased aggregator is in itself against the law.
Might I remind you of the Fox News slogan? Here 'tis: "Fair and Balanced"
Now please excuse me, I have to go wash my mouth out with something less toxic. Like cyanide.
Well, they don't seem to have any problem declaring your phone "an instrument of interstate commerce" because a phone call could go over state lines; they don't seem to have any problems raiding a farm because the crop could be transported over state lines. Etc.
So I think it quite clear that they should be equally able to justify, and in the same manner, the fact that Flint's water could go over state lines.
But of course, they'll only do things that serve them, the welfare and health of the people aren't exactly first-line considerations. No, there are more important things to do: lobbyists waiting in the anteroom, insider information on stocks to be considered, after-office speech agreements to be negotiated, and of course, for the Republican demographic of the ruling oligarchy's minions, the crafting of yet another useless attempt to block the ACA in order to pander to the very people who decided... they'd rather have Trump. Ooops. :)
You are such a tease!
Sure, seems like a great use case.
No, really, I'm not. I'm just of the opinion that were the system working even close to how it should, that such law would cause any judge above the level of drooling moron to look at it and say "This law is ambiguous. Charges dismissed" rather than "I'll shoot from the hip here and legislate from the bench", which is, IMHO anyway, basically the act of someone trying to destroy the actual basis of law.
Yes. However, the ruling can be "this law does not cover this case because it is unclear. Case dismissed."
No, it really isn't. What it does is infest the legal system with a bunch of crap no legislator ever put on paper, crap coming from someone not elected to a position intended to create legislation.
The only people that consistently benefit from this are the lawyers. That ought to tell you all you need to know, too. The people, in the general sense, are abused by it.
When law is unclear, it ought to be sent back to the legislative body for a do-over. Not have some random judge's "interpretation" stuck to it like gum on your shoe.
You are confusing the expression of personal opinion, which of course is perfectly fine, with the claim that said opinions equate to "soft news." Which is to say, you are utterly bewildered.
Carry on. :)
As you are clearly not very familiar with the Echo, a clarity that arrives due to your ridiculously truncated list of "thing Echo can do", I'll kindly give you two tips you can generalize from:
First, if you want it to answer to "Echo", then change the settings in the control app so it does. Duh. There are other interesting settings and enablments in there too.
Second, actually learn what it can do for you. Others have; so can you.
For instance, you want a good classic rock playlist that isn't a subset of prime music? Then create a playlist from your own library of carefully selected classic rock. If you don't have such a library, then your complaint is wholly ridiculous. MY classic rock playlist is freaking awesome. Because, you know, I built it out of tunes I really like. Depending on prime music... that's depending on some taste metric that will be an amalgam of Other People's Opinions selected from whatever tunes are actually on prime music (read, not the good stuff that might still sell decently) and, like you, that's definitely up for lighting my fire. Unlike you, however, I figured that out by myself and spent ten seconds Googling to see how to remedy the problem. :)