Sure, I'll accept that analogy. Now give me an example where anyone was charged with a felony after an ATM didn't give a customer as much money as was withdrawn from the account. Maybe a misdemenor? A successful lawsuit even?
Corporations make mistakes all the time and the vast majority of them are in their favor. And yet these people who have millions of dollars and trained specialists and lawyers at their disposal... for some reason they are held to a much lower standard of justice. Some kid writes a fairly benign virus, gets charged as an adult and goes to prison. Sony, a multibillion dollar transnational corporation with a legion of lawyers and technical experts at its disposal, designs a rootkit to install itself on the computers of tens of millions of their customers. Result? A few class action lawsuits that offered a refund of the purchase price or a coupon for a DRM'ed digital download version of the album.
I'm not anti-corporation, I just think they should be held to a higher standard than individuals instead of being given a free pass for doing what are otherwise considered to be felonies.
Card doesn't just have beliefs; he is politically vocal about them. He funds multiple organizations that campaign against gay marriage including the LDS and the National Organization for Marriage... which has no purpose other than to oppose gay marriage. He funds them with money earned from creative works like this movie, and even cares enough to become a member of their board of directors.
Card has also said that people engaging in homosexual acts should be imprisoned. His more recent "clarification" of what he meant when he wrote it doesn't change anything. A careful reading reveals it's merely a passive aggressive attempt to deflect attention away from the comment without actually disowning or modifying it in any way.
But no, according to people like you, people who believe that this kind of oppression is immortal are not justified in boycotting card. We're never justified in boycotting card, apparently, because if we did that then, why, we'd have to familiarize ourselves with the life histories of every single person we gave money to.
I don't buy it. The slope is not that slippy. This is someone who has been outspoken on this for decades and is actively using his celebrity and royalties to fund his cause. You speak of tolerance and diversity? It's not fucking tolerant in any way, shape or form to give money to a politically active man who believes homosexuals should be imprisoned.
I think moreso than most other states of its size Florida is pretty uneven. Panhandle vs. Orlando area vs. Miami area are just completely different worlds. Different cultures, different terrain, different climate, different activities. The only constants I can think of offhand that matter are the firearm laws, homestead exemption and lack of state income tax.
Or hell, let's have it your way... let's ignore consequences and only look at intent, sure. What was the intent of the teenager who shot and killed the boy? Certainly, the intent was at least to cause him physical pain, yes? Now what was the intent of this teenager? To cause a big bang, yes, but that in itself isn't a bad thing. Did she intend to harm anyone? Did she intend to even scare anyone?
If the answer to these questions are both no, then she still does not deserve to be punished more than the teenager who intended to harm the boy by shooting a BB gun at his head. Either way you cut it, intention or consequence, what this girl did wasn't nearly so bad.
But this argument is akin to saying it's alright to not punish *at all* drunk drivers who accidentally kill people, yet it's completely proper to arrest people for intentionally jaywalking when there are no cars around.
Consequences and potential consequences matter. Intent is merely a modifier. This is how it should be, and the law reflects this. If the DA's discretion can take intent into consideration, it should also surely take into account consequences.
Um. In what sense is wind not 'viable' ? It's significantly cheaper than coal in many cases, the only issue is dealing with NIMBYs.
And in what sense is solar not a viable alternative for oil? Revolutionary battery improvements are going to come with or without more government subsidy. Even if we lost all subsidies for our hybrid and electric cars, ridiculously thin cell phones and tablets will keep the dream of non-crappy batteries alive. And once you have the non-crappy batteries, the electric cars become significantly more attractive than internal combustion for most people (much cheaper to buy and much cheaper to operate.) And those batteries can be charged with solar power. And that same battery technology can be used to time-shift power from daylight to night time hours.
Would someone mind quoting the laws that apparently apply to these things? I would be curious to see how they include this stuff but exclude fire crackers. Or shaking up a soda can, for that matter.
Why are you so obsessed over intent? It doesn't matter. Please go look up the definition of "involuntary manslaughter." It is very, very clear that the guy who killed his brother committed a felony that the DA chose not to prosecute (though I'm not saying it would be just to convict him.) It is not at all clear that this girl broke the law, unless the law in question either specifically mentions this combination of chemicals (unlikely) or is so broad as to potentially outlaw shaking up a soda can.
I suppose it depends on if you believe the worst cases of racism are those that are easily identifiable. Personally, I think the fact that USA employers (nationalwide) give over 30% fewer callbacks for a resume that has a black sounding name (vs. an identical resume with a 'regular' or traditionally white sounding name) is tremendously worse than the inane chants of drunk football hooligans.
The more I think about it, the more the automated kiosk (perhaps located inside a store or mall for security) seems like it'll be the key for the simple reason that it allows people to easily violate copyrights/patents. Charge by the gram and/or time it takes to print. Have a bunch of open source and licensed forms already loaded on it, but also allow people to bring their own forms. People download them from the net, bring it in, print it out, and watch the IP holders whine and whine and whine about it while the kiosk owners shrug and point to the many 'legitimate' uses their printers have, saying they don't have responsibility any more than the owner of a photo kiosk is expected to prevent people from printing child porn.
I'm not associated with that project at all, nor have I bought or plan on buying one of their printers. But it looks like they are sub-$2500, and the resolution on their examples looks damn good. Though I do wish the pictures themselves were higher resolution...
Even if that printer turns out to have issues, I still don't think printer cost should hold this back. What's $15,000 to Kinkos or a University or a craft store or a hardware store? The demand will easily make it worth the large startup cost. Even your local public library might get one. I could also easily imagine completely automated kiosks, like the photo printing ones.
So what is holding it back? Maybe a lack of awareness among non-geeks, copyright/patent issues, or the feeling of a 'solution in search of a problem'. It needs to find a niche where it's in high demand and visible to the public, and from there it'll take off. Hopefully.
No, "addicts" (which is not a synonym of "users") tend not to have the self discipline to save up enough money to buy in bulk, and then not use it. The exceptions to this rule are quite rare.
Also, the summary says nothing about being a dealer. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "got 2 grams for $40" is something an end user would say, not a dealer.
None of them? So you do believe that people who occasionally have a drink or two are addicts? My appologies for assuming you were merely a fool relying on mainstream 'wisdom'.
Without commenting on the merits of this as a practical joke, I think there is obvious value in this as a social experiment(of questionable ethics, maybe) going by nothing but your response, disturbingly modded up to +5 insightful.
If you are incapable of distinguishing between drug use and drug addiction (which itself is completely distinct from physical dependency), that speaks volumes. Especially since you do not, presumably, call people who occasionally drink or who take prescription psychoactive drugs "addicts". That you seem to imply shame in *being* a criminal, instead of emphasizing the perfectly reasonable worry a parent might feel about their child being arrested, is also telling. Presumably you do not attach the same level of inherent shame in, say, occasionally driving 45 MPH in a 35 zone? Yet that also makes you a lawbreaker (if you want to quibble over infractions vs. misdemeanors vs. felonies, I am sure I could come up with instances of the latter that are similarly widespread), in addition to endangering more lives than merely your own.
The very fact so many people are calling this not funny, dangerous, and/or cruel speaks volumes about how sociologically (and morally) damaging this 'war' has been.
p.s. I thoroughly applaud T-Mobile not forcing us all to pay for phone upgrades every other year (whether we want to or not), I just don't think that gives them a free pass to tell lies.
Wow, a lot of people defending T-Mobile here. How about a little strict enforcement of "truth in advertising" here? If they say "no contract" and there is indeed a contract, that's screwed up. It is / should be the advertiser's responsibility to be truthful, not the consumer's responsibility to figure out what they 'really meant.'
The general public has had carrier subsidized phones for over 10+ years with most of them not even realizing it. T-Mobile should be required to say "no contract if you buy or bring your own phone" or at least "'no contract' offer is for service only." This is even more egregious if they do not allow people to return their cell phones in lieu of paying them off.
They use the same technology that's in the SIM card of most GSM phones, the chip isn't just a static bank of data but an actual miniature computer (likely running a cut-down version of Java)
Wow, what a relief, It's a good thing they haven't figuring out some kind of "SIM cloning" yet.
Realize that any "miniature computer" you can fit in a SIM (which you've claimed is the same that is found in credit cards) is not capable of the kind of secure, decent length keyed, challenge-response type system necessary to do this right. Certainly, the implicit claim it could do it in the time an average ATM withdrawal takes is laughable. I highly doubt we even need to get into the MITM arguments others are bringing up (are you honestly claiming that all third party ATMs are vetted and assigned independent certificates?) to demolish your claims.
You cannot clone a chip card, it's physically impossible.
Uh huh. By the way, you didn't specify what field you're in. I'm guessing marketing?
You can't think of a single show that Fox "tried to shove down our throats" that lasted for more than two and a half seasons? Wow. And you also seem to think that shows that fans attempt to bring back will invariably fail again? Alright, here's a counterpoint for both of these assertions: Family Guy. So ridiculously successful the second time around it spawned two spinoffs (don't tell me American Dad isn't a spinoff) and ultimately led to an entirely new Sunday night theme/gimmick for Fox.
Beyond this, there's a big difference between network TV and a premium service like Netflix or HBO. Niches don't have to be death traps. Not everything needs to be mainstream to survive. When American Idol dominated, would you prefer ALL of the TV channels to show it at the same time simply because it was the highest rated program?
I watched the show a few times and it just didn't work for me at all.
It feels thoroughly mediocre until you learn all the characters and the running gags. The show has more jokes per minute than anything else ever made for television, it just doesn't advertise them with a laugh track or an FG-style cutaway gag. If you don't think the jokes are funny that's fine, different strokes for different folks, but if you "didn't get what the big deal was" that leads me to believe you likely weren't even noticing half the jokes.
Of course, all scientists need to conceptually understand basic concepts like the different measures of central tendency, deviation, why normal distribution arises, correlation vs. causation and the difference between predictive and explanatory statistics, robustness, and (this is a biggie) conditional probability. But there's no particular reason why they need to know about the Chi squared distribution or the precise mathematical formulas used to calculate these things.
I think the problem is grade inflation and ever more laughable academic standards have caused the sciences to protect themselves by treating math classes as a trial by fire. They want to make you do tough shit to prove you're smart enough to be a scientist, so they always make you go through the details of the calculation instead of making sure you intuitively understand how the concepts all fit together. Which is a goddamn shame, because I've met several medical doctors who've taken three or four semesters of calculus and several of applied statistics, yet they still can't grasp the simplest conditional probability problem. (Which should come up *all the time* re: error rates on medical tests.)
It doesn't matter what you read. Detachable magazine capacity (as opposed to the fixed magazines most commonly seen on shotguns) is never and can never be determined by the design of the rifle. The fact that people so easily conflate these two separate issues is further evidence of an aggressive, malignant ignorance/delusion of the sort you almost never see outside of the conservative right. The assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 essentially did nothing but ban safety and convenience features (things which make handling the gun easier and less prone to error), all because they made the gun look scary.
Funny you should mention the BMG. A few states have tried (maybe succeeded) to frame it. However, the gun has been around for something like 75 years and has been used in crimes a grand total of two times. That's "2" times. This is because it's an utterly ridiculous weapon for almost any conceivable crime, even sniper serial killers.
Preemptively here, in case you accuse me of working for whatever company makes the ego-c, let me say that any of the 510 compatible devices are fine alternatives for someone who wants to sacrifice vapor production and battery life for a slim look. Or, if you have the money, get yourself a nice custom mod that looks like a pipe. Doesn't hugely matter what it is so long as it accepts a wide variety of carts and has a manual (not vacuum activated) battery, i.e. don't buy the gas station crap.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, I meant that to say "mistakes"
Sure, I'll accept that analogy. Now give me an example where anyone was charged with a felony after an ATM didn't give a customer as much money as was withdrawn from the account. Maybe a misdemenor? A successful lawsuit even?
Corporations make mistakes all the time and the vast majority of them are in their favor. And yet these people who have millions of dollars and trained specialists and lawyers at their disposal... for some reason they are held to a much lower standard of justice. Some kid writes a fairly benign virus, gets charged as an adult and goes to prison. Sony, a multibillion dollar transnational corporation with a legion of lawyers and technical experts at its disposal, designs a rootkit to install itself on the computers of tens of millions of their customers. Result? A few class action lawsuits that offered a refund of the purchase price or a coupon for a DRM'ed digital download version of the album.
I'm not anti-corporation, I just think they should be held to a higher standard than individuals instead of being given a free pass for doing what are otherwise considered to be felonies.
Card doesn't just have beliefs; he is politically vocal about them. He funds multiple organizations that campaign against gay marriage including the LDS and the National Organization for Marriage... which has no purpose other than to oppose gay marriage. He funds them with money earned from creative works like this movie, and even cares enough to become a member of their board of directors.
Card has also said that people engaging in homosexual acts should be imprisoned. His more recent "clarification" of what he meant when he wrote it doesn't change anything. A careful reading reveals it's merely a passive aggressive attempt to deflect attention away from the comment without actually disowning or modifying it in any way.
But no, according to people like you, people who believe that this kind of oppression is immortal are not justified in boycotting card. We're never justified in boycotting card, apparently, because if we did that then, why, we'd have to familiarize ourselves with the life histories of every single person we gave money to.
I don't buy it. The slope is not that slippy. This is someone who has been outspoken on this for decades and is actively using his celebrity and royalties to fund his cause. You speak of tolerance and diversity? It's not fucking tolerant in any way, shape or form to give money to a politically active man who believes homosexuals should be imprisoned.
I think moreso than most other states of its size Florida is pretty uneven. Panhandle vs. Orlando area vs. Miami area are just completely different worlds. Different cultures, different terrain, different climate, different activities. The only constants I can think of offhand that matter are the firearm laws, homestead exemption and lack of state income tax.
Or hell, let's have it your way... let's ignore consequences and only look at intent, sure. What was the intent of the teenager who shot and killed the boy? Certainly, the intent was at least to cause him physical pain, yes? Now what was the intent of this teenager? To cause a big bang, yes, but that in itself isn't a bad thing. Did she intend to harm anyone? Did she intend to even scare anyone?
If the answer to these questions are both no, then she still does not deserve to be punished more than the teenager who intended to harm the boy by shooting a BB gun at his head. Either way you cut it, intention or consequence, what this girl did wasn't nearly so bad.
But this argument is akin to saying it's alright to not punish *at all* drunk drivers who accidentally kill people, yet it's completely proper to arrest people for intentionally jaywalking when there are no cars around.
Consequences and potential consequences matter. Intent is merely a modifier. This is how it should be, and the law reflects this. If the DA's discretion can take intent into consideration, it should also surely take into account consequences.
Um. In what sense is wind not 'viable' ? It's significantly cheaper than coal in many cases, the only issue is dealing with NIMBYs.
And in what sense is solar not a viable alternative for oil? Revolutionary battery improvements are going to come with or without more government subsidy. Even if we lost all subsidies for our hybrid and electric cars, ridiculously thin cell phones and tablets will keep the dream of non-crappy batteries alive. And once you have the non-crappy batteries, the electric cars become significantly more attractive than internal combustion for most people (much cheaper to buy and much cheaper to operate.) And those batteries can be charged with solar power. And that same battery technology can be used to time-shift power from daylight to night time hours.
Would someone mind quoting the laws that apparently apply to these things? I would be curious to see how they include this stuff but exclude fire crackers. Or shaking up a soda can, for that matter.
Why are you so obsessed over intent? It doesn't matter. Please go look up the definition of "involuntary manslaughter." It is very, very clear that the guy who killed his brother committed a felony that the DA chose not to prosecute (though I'm not saying it would be just to convict him.) It is not at all clear that this girl broke the law, unless the law in question either specifically mentions this combination of chemicals (unlikely) or is so broad as to potentially outlaw shaking up a soda can.
I suppose it depends on if you believe the worst cases of racism are those that are easily identifiable. Personally, I think the fact that USA employers (nationalwide) give over 30% fewer callbacks for a resume that has a black sounding name (vs. an identical resume with a 'regular' or traditionally white sounding name) is tremendously worse than the inane chants of drunk football hooligans.
The more I think about it, the more the automated kiosk (perhaps located inside a store or mall for security) seems like it'll be the key for the simple reason that it allows people to easily violate copyrights/patents. Charge by the gram and/or time it takes to print. Have a bunch of open source and licensed forms already loaded on it, but also allow people to bring their own forms. People download them from the net, bring it in, print it out, and watch the IP holders whine and whine and whine about it while the kiosk owners shrug and point to the many 'legitimate' uses their printers have, saying they don't have responsibility any more than the owner of a photo kiosk is expected to prevent people from printing child porn.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer?ref=live
I'm not associated with that project at all, nor have I bought or plan on buying one of their printers. But it looks like they are sub-$2500, and the resolution on their examples looks damn good. Though I do wish the pictures themselves were higher resolution...
Even if that printer turns out to have issues, I still don't think printer cost should hold this back. What's $15,000 to Kinkos or a University or a craft store or a hardware store? The demand will easily make it worth the large startup cost. Even your local public library might get one. I could also easily imagine completely automated kiosks, like the photo printing ones.
So what is holding it back? Maybe a lack of awareness among non-geeks, copyright/patent issues, or the feeling of a 'solution in search of a problem'. It needs to find a niche where it's in high demand and visible to the public, and from there it'll take off. Hopefully.
No, "addicts" (which is not a synonym of "users") tend not to have the self discipline to save up enough money to buy in bulk, and then not use it. The exceptions to this rule are quite rare.
Also, the summary says nothing about being a dealer. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "got 2 grams for $40" is something an end user would say, not a dealer.
Or just continue to be terse and snide when you're misinterpreted. Though I don't see how anyone could misinterpret the "addict" bit.
None of them? So you do believe that people who occasionally have a drink or two are addicts? My appologies for assuming you were merely a fool relying on mainstream 'wisdom'.
Feel free to correct or clarify.
Without commenting on the merits of this as a practical joke, I think there is obvious value in this as a social experiment(of questionable ethics, maybe) going by nothing but your response, disturbingly modded up to +5 insightful.
If you are incapable of distinguishing between drug use and drug addiction (which itself is completely distinct from physical dependency), that speaks volumes. Especially since you do not, presumably, call people who occasionally drink or who take prescription psychoactive drugs "addicts". That you seem to imply shame in *being* a criminal, instead of emphasizing the perfectly reasonable worry a parent might feel about their child being arrested, is also telling. Presumably you do not attach the same level of inherent shame in, say, occasionally driving 45 MPH in a 35 zone? Yet that also makes you a lawbreaker (if you want to quibble over infractions vs. misdemeanors vs. felonies, I am sure I could come up with instances of the latter that are similarly widespread), in addition to endangering more lives than merely your own.
The very fact so many people are calling this not funny, dangerous, and/or cruel speaks volumes about how sociologically (and morally) damaging this 'war' has been.
p.s. I thoroughly applaud T-Mobile not forcing us all to pay for phone upgrades every other year (whether we want to or not), I just don't think that gives them a free pass to tell lies.
Wow, a lot of people defending T-Mobile here. How about a little strict enforcement of "truth in advertising" here? If they say "no contract" and there is indeed a contract, that's screwed up. It is / should be the advertiser's responsibility to be truthful, not the consumer's responsibility to figure out what they 'really meant.'
The general public has had carrier subsidized phones for over 10+ years with most of them not even realizing it. T-Mobile should be required to say "no contract if you buy or bring your own phone" or at least "'no contract' offer is for service only." This is even more egregious if they do not allow people to return their cell phones in lieu of paying them off.
They use the same technology that's in the SIM card of most GSM phones, the chip isn't just a static bank of data but an actual miniature computer (likely running a cut-down version of Java)
Wow, what a relief, It's a good thing they haven't figuring out some kind of "SIM cloning" yet.
Realize that any "miniature computer" you can fit in a SIM (which you've claimed is the same that is found in credit cards) is not capable of the kind of secure, decent length keyed, challenge-response type system necessary to do this right. Certainly, the implicit claim it could do it in the time an average ATM withdrawal takes is laughable. I highly doubt we even need to get into the MITM arguments others are bringing up (are you honestly claiming that all third party ATMs are vetted and assigned independent certificates?) to demolish your claims.
You cannot clone a chip card, it's physically impossible.
Uh huh. By the way, you didn't specify what field you're in. I'm guessing marketing?
You can't think of a single show that Fox "tried to shove down our throats" that lasted for more than two and a half seasons? Wow. And you also seem to think that shows that fans attempt to bring back will invariably fail again? Alright, here's a counterpoint for both of these assertions: Family Guy. So ridiculously successful the second time around it spawned two spinoffs (don't tell me American Dad isn't a spinoff) and ultimately led to an entirely new Sunday night theme/gimmick for Fox.
Beyond this, there's a big difference between network TV and a premium service like Netflix or HBO. Niches don't have to be death traps. Not everything needs to be mainstream to survive. When American Idol dominated, would you prefer ALL of the TV channels to show it at the same time simply because it was the highest rated program?
I watched the show a few times and it just didn't work for me at all.
It feels thoroughly mediocre until you learn all the characters and the running gags. The show has more jokes per minute than anything else ever made for television, it just doesn't advertise them with a laugh track or an FG-style cutaway gag. If you don't think the jokes are funny that's fine, different strokes for different folks, but if you "didn't get what the big deal was" that leads me to believe you likely weren't even noticing half the jokes.
The thing is, the same things that made Abrams a bad fit for Star Trek makes him a pretty darn good fit for Star Wars.
Of course, all scientists need to conceptually understand basic concepts like the different measures of central tendency, deviation, why normal distribution arises, correlation vs. causation and the difference between predictive and explanatory statistics, robustness, and (this is a biggie) conditional probability. But there's no particular reason why they need to know about the Chi squared distribution or the precise mathematical formulas used to calculate these things.
I think the problem is grade inflation and ever more laughable academic standards have caused the sciences to protect themselves by treating math classes as a trial by fire. They want to make you do tough shit to prove you're smart enough to be a scientist, so they always make you go through the details of the calculation instead of making sure you intuitively understand how the concepts all fit together. Which is a goddamn shame, because I've met several medical doctors who've taken three or four semesters of calculus and several of applied statistics, yet they still can't grasp the simplest conditional probability problem. (Which should come up *all the time* re: error rates on medical tests.)
*ban, not frame. Weird typo, no idea what I was thinking there.
It doesn't matter what you read. Detachable magazine capacity (as opposed to the fixed magazines most commonly seen on shotguns) is never and can never be determined by the design of the rifle. The fact that people so easily conflate these two separate issues is further evidence of an aggressive, malignant ignorance/delusion of the sort you almost never see outside of the conservative right. The assault weapons ban which expired in 2004 essentially did nothing but ban safety and convenience features (things which make handling the gun easier and less prone to error), all because they made the gun look scary.
Funny you should mention the BMG. A few states have tried (maybe succeeded) to frame it. However, the gun has been around for something like 75 years and has been used in crimes a grand total of two times. That's "2" times. This is because it's an utterly ridiculous weapon for almost any conceivable crime, even sniper serial killers.
Preemptively here, in case you accuse me of working for whatever company makes the ego-c, let me say that any of the 510 compatible devices are fine alternatives for someone who wants to sacrifice vapor production and battery life for a slim look. Or, if you have the money, get yourself a nice custom mod that looks like a pipe. Doesn't hugely matter what it is so long as it accepts a wide variety of carts and has a manual (not vacuum activated) battery, i.e. don't buy the gas station crap.