I've lived in San Francisco since 1999. Between Section 8 subsidies, long-term rent control beneficiaries, and a few really shitty neighborhoods, there are plenty of low-income people.
I moved to San Francisco in 1999, during the last tech boom.
In 2000, the anti-gentrification talk really picked up steam. "Dotcommers" were raising the cost of of living, driving people out of affordable neighborhoods. And yes, Oakland was a common destination for people and businesses who could no long afford San Francisco. Someone painted "DIE YUPPIE SCUM" on the sidewalk in my neighborhood. Fliers were posted decrying the whitening of the Mission district.
A friend asked if I thought there was a solution to the gentrification problem. I told him, "Wait a year."
It's a bubble, it'll pop eventually. When people start complaining about too much money coming into the city, you know something's gone awry.
My guess is that frequent sharp braking is strongly correlated with bad driving.
Perhaps you meant to guess that bad driving is strongly correlated with frequent sharp braking?
If one is true, then both are true. Correl(x,y) = Correl(y,x). Confusing this is a fairly common mistake people make when discussing correlations, and the cause of a lot of misunderstandings about statistics.
The Bank of England was only vulnerable because it was trying to manipulate its currency. They were trying to prop up the pound at a higher value than what the free market thought it was worth. In a free market, attempting to keep the price of something at an artificially high level results in one of two outcomes: (1) you wind up owning all of that something, or (2) you run out of money and take a massive loss when the price of that something falls back to its free market value.
Normally this doesn't happen with currencies because market participants know that currencies are backed by governments. Very few people are willing to get into a pissing contest with a government bank. But Soros was able to bring enough firepower to the fight to force outcome (2).
What Soros did is actually exactly what we should expect, and even welcome, from a free market. The people of England weren't screwed by Soros, they were screwed by a government that tried to play games with their currency and lost.
While I understand the aversion to elderly organs, I think your perspective might change if you were actually in the market for replacement parts. Nobody wants organs from an old person, but some people out there may need them. If your liver is failing, the docs give you a month to live, and the only compatible liver available is from a 60-year-old who died of a heart attack, are you really going say no?
A man is only as faithful as his options. - Chris Rock
I don't believe Rock is correct for all men, but it's certainly true for bucket number 3. Basically, the difference between buckets #2 and #3 is the amount of effort one is willing to put into cheating, and the level of plausible deniability one needs to rationalize it. Type 2s will make opportunities to cheat, while type 3s will just take advantage of opportunities that arise. Thus the Type 3s are only as faithful as their options. Which, in my book, isn't really being faithful.
Do they really think they have to spell this stuff out to people? The only way relationships can get "dangerous" to your marriage is if you let them, whether online or not.
Yes, and no. Yes, in that there are a whole lot of people out there that who really believe that such things "just happen". No, in that the people who need to be told that there's a broad danger zone that you have to travel through before you cross the line into cheating are also the people who are least likely to listen.
You're absolutely correct in that relationships can only get dangerous if you let them. I've seen this far too many times. I tried to counsel a friend who was able to rationalize all kinds of behavior as long as he wasn't actually cheating. He walked right up to the line and when he took that last step, he claimed it "just happened".
No, it's not that simple. Not unless you get everything right and there's nothing to contradict your fabricated version of events.
It works for real alibis because your status updates point to independent sources that can corroborate your story. The updates alone aren't any more useful than you just saying "I wasn't there, I was at this bar." Your fake alibi doesn't have any information that you couldn't fabricate on your own. If you can think up this scenario, then law enforcement can as well.
When you give your alibi, the police now have two conflicting versions of events. One of them has to be false, so they'll go looking for supporting evidence. Odds are there are people who are in your pictures who weren't at the bar when the crimes were being committed. If there's independent confirmation of their whereabouts, then the cops know your pictures are bogus. Just one example: if the bartender in your pictures wasn't working when you claim the pictures were taken, your alibi is toast.
So, instead of giving them fissile material that they could potentially build into a bomb, you cut out all of the middlemen and just give them a fully functioning bomb?
This is what I find really worrisome. As a regulatory body, the SEC is kind of a joke. The bankers can and do get away with almost anything. For GS to exclude the US from the Facebook offering, this has to be a screwjob of such magnitude that even the SEC would have to act.
Even if you don't agree with teabaggers you should support their activities. We need a multi-party system now.
Are there any Tea Party candidates who aren't running as Republicans? This isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. As far as I'm aware, the Tea Party isn't an actual political party. It's just a marketing tool for a certain segment of the Republican Party. Supporting them only reaffirms the two-party system.
But who in politics today is actually in favor of small government? A lot of politicians pay lip service to the idea of small government, but none of them actually do anything about it. The government continues to grow.
It's been a very long time since I've heard that phrase used as a compliment. More often it's code for "He's got a huge stick up his ass," or sometimes "He's a recovering alcoholic."
And it's really sad and frightening that their reaction to this is "Keep people from recording stuff" rather than "Stop shooting people for no reason."
Actually, it's even worse than having a universal database. The database will largely exclude the people who create and enforce the law, along with those they favor.
If the DNA database were universal the legislators and their friends and families would also be included. That would dramatically increase the chance that there would be meaningful limitations on how the data was used.
Pirates will pirate regardless of DRM. The content owners will never get their money. This is why DRM as a response to piracy is idiocy. Any company that designs its products around people who will never pay for them is incompetent. Putting restrictions on your paying customers because of the actions of pirates is like kicking your dog because your cat pissed on the rug.
If you don't want to deal with DRM, stop pirating.
This is, in fact, the opposite of true. I don't pirate. As a result, I have to deal with DRM. If you don't want to deal with DRM, pirating the content is the best way. The main reason I'm so vocal in my opposition to DRM is because I'm an honest user.
Please don't assume that anyone who speaks out against DRM is a pirate. I'm not a pirate. If I were, then I wouldn't care about DRM. I would just get a DRM-free copy of just about any movie I want from one of the various BitTorrent sites. Remember, only people who purchase legitimate copies of the movie have to deal with DRM.
Could you please explain how DRM reduces movie piracy?
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children.
DRM isn't going to keep those children from going hungry and naked. DRM did nothing to keep these cyberlockers from being set up. DRM isn't keeping movies off of any of the P2P networks. Nobody who pirates a film is affected by DRM because pirates distribute DRM-free versions of the media.
DRM isn't about preventing pirates from getting media for free. It's already proven to be an abysmal failure at that. It's about controlling what honest people can do with the media after they've purchased it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've lived in San Francisco since 1999. Between Section 8 subsidies, long-term rent control beneficiaries, and a few really shitty neighborhoods, there are plenty of low-income people.
And if you're not comfortable with physical confrontation, just change your SSID to his address. He'll probably get the hint and back off.
I moved to San Francisco in 1999, during the last tech boom.
In 2000, the anti-gentrification talk really picked up steam. "Dotcommers" were raising the cost of of living, driving people out of affordable neighborhoods. And yes, Oakland was a common destination for people and businesses who could no long afford San Francisco. Someone painted "DIE YUPPIE SCUM" on the sidewalk in my neighborhood. Fliers were posted decrying the whitening of the Mission district.
A friend asked if I thought there was a solution to the gentrification problem. I told him, "Wait a year."
It's a bubble, it'll pop eventually. When people start complaining about too much money coming into the city, you know something's gone awry.
My guess is that frequent sharp braking is strongly correlated with bad driving.
Perhaps you meant to guess that bad driving is strongly correlated with frequent sharp braking?
If one is true, then both are true. Correl(x,y) = Correl(y,x). Confusing this is a fairly common mistake people make when discussing correlations, and the cause of a lot of misunderstandings about statistics.
The Bank of England was only vulnerable because it was trying to manipulate its currency. They were trying to prop up the pound at a higher value than what the free market thought it was worth. In a free market, attempting to keep the price of something at an artificially high level results in one of two outcomes: (1) you wind up owning all of that something, or (2) you run out of money and take a massive loss when the price of that something falls back to its free market value.
Normally this doesn't happen with currencies because market participants know that currencies are backed by governments. Very few people are willing to get into a pissing contest with a government bank. But Soros was able to bring enough firepower to the fight to force outcome (2).
What Soros did is actually exactly what we should expect, and even welcome, from a free market. The people of England weren't screwed by Soros, they were screwed by a government that tried to play games with their currency and lost.
While I understand the aversion to elderly organs, I think your perspective might change if you were actually in the market for replacement parts. Nobody wants organs from an old person, but some people out there may need them. If your liver is failing, the docs give you a month to live, and the only compatible liver available is from a 60-year-old who died of a heart attack, are you really going say no?
A man is only as faithful as his options. - Chris Rock
I don't believe Rock is correct for all men, but it's certainly true for bucket number 3. Basically, the difference between buckets #2 and #3 is the amount of effort one is willing to put into cheating, and the level of plausible deniability one needs to rationalize it. Type 2s will make opportunities to cheat, while type 3s will just take advantage of opportunities that arise. Thus the Type 3s are only as faithful as their options. Which, in my book, isn't really being faithful.
Do they really think they have to spell this stuff out to people? The only way relationships can get "dangerous" to your marriage is if you let them, whether online or not.
Yes, and no. Yes, in that there are a whole lot of people out there that who really believe that such things "just happen". No, in that the people who need to be told that there's a broad danger zone that you have to travel through before you cross the line into cheating are also the people who are least likely to listen.
You're absolutely correct in that relationships can only get dangerous if you let them. I've seen this far too many times. I tried to counsel a friend who was able to rationalize all kinds of behavior as long as he wasn't actually cheating. He walked right up to the line and when he took that last step, he claimed it "just happened".
Can you provide an example of this? Because this hasn't been my experience.
No, it's not that simple. Not unless you get everything right and there's nothing to contradict your fabricated version of events.
It works for real alibis because your status updates point to independent sources that can corroborate your story. The updates alone aren't any more useful than you just saying "I wasn't there, I was at this bar." Your fake alibi doesn't have any information that you couldn't fabricate on your own. If you can think up this scenario, then law enforcement can as well.
When you give your alibi, the police now have two conflicting versions of events. One of them has to be false, so they'll go looking for supporting evidence. Odds are there are people who are in your pictures who weren't at the bar when the crimes were being committed. If there's independent confirmation of their whereabouts, then the cops know your pictures are bogus. Just one example: if the bartender in your pictures wasn't working when you claim the pictures were taken, your alibi is toast.
So, instead of giving them fissile material that they could potentially build into a bomb, you cut out all of the middlemen and just give them a fully functioning bomb?
This is what I find really worrisome. As a regulatory body, the SEC is kind of a joke. The bankers can and do get away with almost anything. For GS to exclude the US from the Facebook offering, this has to be a screwjob of such magnitude that even the SEC would have to act.
Yes, because we all die in the end. If it happens sooner then you're doing it wrong.
And if it happens later, then you're doing it even wronger.
Yeah, I hate American Airlines. The final straw for me was when I was checking baggage, and it took longer than getting a new car registration.
Then it struck me: I was waiting in line wishing that American Airlines could be as quick, competent, and customer friendly as my local DMV office.
I haven't flown with them since.
Even if you don't agree with teabaggers you should support their activities. We need a multi-party system now.
Are there any Tea Party candidates who aren't running as Republicans? This isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious. As far as I'm aware, the Tea Party isn't an actual political party. It's just a marketing tool for a certain segment of the Republican Party. Supporting them only reaffirms the two-party system.
Thank you, that was very helpful. Can you tell me what the German word for "Whoosh" is?
Government spending as a percentage of GDP.
But who in politics today is actually in favor of small government? A lot of politicians pay lip service to the idea of small government, but none of them actually do anything about it. The government continues to grow.
It's been a very long time since I've heard that phrase used as a compliment. More often it's code for "He's got a huge stick up his ass," or sometimes "He's a recovering alcoholic."
Look around at all of the objects in your room and ask yourself "How could I turn this into a bong?" Then put the same question to someone who's high.
And it's really sad and frightening that their reaction to this is "Keep people from recording stuff" rather than "Stop shooting people for no reason."
Actually, it's even worse than having a universal database. The database will largely exclude the people who create and enforce the law, along with those they favor.
If the DNA database were universal the legislators and their friends and families would also be included. That would dramatically increase the chance that there would be meaningful limitations on how the data was used.
If they did away with the DRM YOU WOULD KEEP PIRATING.
I just knew that if you rambled on long enough you'd eventually get something right.
Dr. Cory Doctorow said, "keeping an honest user honest is like keeping a tall user tall." This was in his presentation to Microsoft about DRM. It's an excellent read: http://www.authorama.com/microsoft-research-drm-talk-1.html
Pirates will pirate regardless of DRM. The content owners will never get their money. This is why DRM as a response to piracy is idiocy. Any company that designs its products around people who will never pay for them is incompetent. Putting restrictions on your paying customers because of the actions of pirates is like kicking your dog because your cat pissed on the rug.
If you don't want to deal with DRM, stop pirating.
This is, in fact, the opposite of true. I don't pirate. As a result, I have to deal with DRM. If you don't want to deal with DRM, pirating the content is the best way. The main reason I'm so vocal in my opposition to DRM is because I'm an honest user.
Please don't assume that anyone who speaks out against DRM is a pirate. I'm not a pirate. If I were, then I wouldn't care about DRM. I would just get a DRM-free copy of just about any movie I want from one of the various BitTorrent sites. Remember, only people who purchase legitimate copies of the movie have to deal with DRM.
Could you please explain how DRM reduces movie piracy?
Cheap and DRM free is not going to happen if that small city is going to eat and dress their children.
DRM isn't going to keep those children from going hungry and naked. DRM did nothing to keep these cyberlockers from being set up. DRM isn't keeping movies off of any of the P2P networks. Nobody who pirates a film is affected by DRM because pirates distribute DRM-free versions of the media.
DRM isn't about preventing pirates from getting media for free. It's already proven to be an abysmal failure at that. It's about controlling what honest people can do with the media after they've purchased it.