I am not making light of slavery. Forced free labor is a serious problem. Just because they are going to start with kids doesn't make it ok. You clearly do understand that forced free labor, or 'slave labor' is wrong, and that this is exactly what 'mandatory community service' is, as you knew exactly what I was talking about.
Seriously. You don't get that 'Manditory Community Service' is just a nice way of saying 'Slave Labor'?
My problem with mandatory community service is that we already have a name for making people do work without pay. It is less PC, but it is a well established word for forced work without pay, and as a society, we pretty much rejected it as wrong.
Don't forget that "teen pregnancy statistics include 18 and 19 year olds. Apparently it has gotten bad enought that people think that married adult women getting pregnant is a big problem. Strange times indeed.
The sad thing is that I read an article in my local "legitimate" newspaper that was not only a word for word reprint from the Weekly World News, but it was printed 6 months AFTER the Weekly World News.
Your link supports my point. Diebold was not confused about what their responsibilities were. You are trying to take a fringe case and make it into a quagmire. The fact is that the exact same example you used would apply equally to non-open source code. While the exact line of what is considered modified code might be considered gray (open or closed source). It is a very small gray line that you are only going to run into if you are trying to see just how close you can get to crossing it without getting sued.
So again, only a moron would worry about legitimate use, and only the dishonest claim "I didn't know!".
Only a moron would be scared to legitimately use open source software because someone else illegitimately used open software. That's a little like being afraid to closed source software because a warez site got raided.
The only companies that "don't understand" what they can and cannot due under the GPL are the ones that are using an "I'm stupid" smoke screen to try and hide their illegal behavior.
but there are mathematical proofs supporting all of what I've just said.
No, there are not. You misunderstand both the goal of voting third party as well as the classes that you took. We do not legally have a two party system. We have a two party system due 100% to psychology, and anyone that tells you that they have mathematical proofs on psychology is lying or wrong.
What really forces the two party system is that it is peoples bad logic. They don't understand a circular argument, and thus vote based on it. "I'm not going to vote for a third party because they cannot win because no one will vote for a third party." This is bad logic. It is a con. It is an even worse logical failure when you don't want either of the two primary parties to win, since you won't get your choice no matter which way you vote. On the other hand, if you think that the Ds and Rs won't change their behavior if there is a chance that they will lose their place as one of the two top parties, you miss understand who they are. I would guess that part of your problem is that you have fallen prey to the party line voting mistake. If you care what party your candidate belongs to instead of what they do in office, then you don't even understand what the goal is.
Others have commented about the fact that by definition, the good spanking would not be happening in public, so I won't repeat that. But I will say that I see parents abusing their children mentally on a daily basis. The "If it doesn't leave a mark it's not abuse crowd" carries far less weight than the spanking crowd. Of course, I have never met a single person that says the spanking is always good, or that more spanking is better. Your belief that parents who spank think that spanking is always good or that more spanking is better is simply your own rationalization for the mental abuse that you inflict on your children.
So, you agree with me entirely that 'check cards' are totally insecure, and banks are pushing them so that they can charge higher fees while shifting the risk on to the customer.
It doesn't matter because at this point, there are not enough people willing to vote third party for them to win. When the third party candidates are in danger of winning, then you might not want to vote for them. Until then, it is the most effective thing someone who does not like the D or R candidates to do. And if by some chance the third party candidate does win in some kind of suprise landslide, you get two things... 1) You now have a winner that you don't like instead of one that you... Don't like. And 2) You can bet that the Ds and Rs will be making major changes to the way they do business to get those voters back.
Robert Heinlein limited it to "well meaning fools" because he was a writer, and sounding witty was more important than saying exactly what he meant. Of course his advice is not only bad because of the limitation that you note, but also because he falls prey to the same false dichotomy that most people do. There frequently is no "exact opposite" because there are more than two choices, and the two choices that many people recognize (D and R) are not even opposites.
Seriously, an uninformed voter is FAR worse than a non-voter. I am becoming convinced that the whole "everyone should vote even if they don't know what they are voting for" combined with "voting third party is throwing your vote away" is a way to keep out third parties. People are becoming more and more disillusioned with the two party system. The chances of a third party making a real go of it becomes more and more feasible. So, what do you do? you work to get everyone out to vote. The uniformed voter is going to randomly pick from the two primary candidates, as he doesn't know anything about any of them, but those are the two that are not "throwing away his vote". Since the uninformed votes, being random, will for the most part split evenly down the middle between the Democrats and the Republicans, it becomes a wash for them, but massively increases the number of informed voters that the third party candidates have to pick up.
So, IF you must be an uniformed voter, and are going to vote. Vote third party. Since you don't know who you are voting for anyways, you were already going to throw your vote away. Since there is not yet a chance for the third party candidates to win, you do not run the risk of accidentally electing a kook, AND you help to put a scare into the two primary parties.
Heck, if you were not going to vote because you don't like either candidate, vote third party for the same reason.
Of course, this is also part of why banks are so hip on 'check cards'. 'Check cards' offer no benifites to the account holder over a standard credit card. They do offer serious down sides given that they allow anyone with access to the card to withdraw funds directly from your account with no pin or identification. Then VISA advertises on TV how easy it is to commit fraud with those cards.
The fact that most banks are replacing their ATM cards that do require pins to access funds with 'check cards' that do not require pins is pretty convincing evidence that banks are not trying real hard to prevent fraud that can lead to fee collection.
Your description brought up an image of Fahrenheit 451. With a dedicated group of "criminals" passing around the heritage of a media through an underground network, while the official powers that be hunt them down. When the official powers that be find a stash, the burn it to the ground.
For example a 17 year old may have a great reaction speed, but that doesn't automatically make them a better driver than a 40 year-old with 20+ years of predicting the motion of objects travelling at speed and planning accordingly.
This is why I hate the trend of trying to push the driving age up instead of down. Being 16 doesn't make you a bad driver. Having less than a year of experience makes you a bad driver. Pushing the driving age up, just shifts the risk to drivers that are a year older because they are now the drivers with less than a year of experience. Heck, I would be WAY more worried about getting in a car with a 30 year old with less than a year of driving experience than I would a 16 year old with less than a year of experience.
Seriously! I was shocked to here Palin using that derogatory term. I know that I have been known to use it, but when I do, I am fully aware that I am using an insult. I don't think that Palin realized that she was calling her constituents stupid drunks. Of course, if her constituents didn't realize that she was calling them stupid drunks, maybe she wasn't all wrong.
It always amazes me how many people completely miss the point of the 2nd Amendment. The idea that it had anything to do with hunting is absolution absurd. Given that hunting was a common way for people to get their food at the time, putting an amendment into the national constitution makes as much sense as it would be for congress to make an amendment to the constitution today that acknowledges your right to go to the grocery store.
While the self protection bit makes a LITTLE more sense, I'm pretty sure that in 1791 it was still the norm for a man to kill another man if a bloody axe wielding maniac busts through your door in the middle of the night instead of calling for help and waiting 45 minutes for 'authorized' protection to arrive. So, it is unlikely that self protection from non-government entities was a factor.
The point of the 2nd amendment was clearly intended to make sure that private citizens had arms for protection from GOVERNMENT employees. Or, better yet, to make government entities think twice before getting too far out of hand. You may agree with the founding fathers, or you may disagree, but it is clear what the point of the 2nd amendment was.
Get me a link to his denial from sometime before 1983. Having him deny saying something stupid almost a decade after it became painfully obvious that what he said was stupid isn't really good evidence is it?
40 hours of TV is not a lot at all. That is less than an hour and a half of TV a day. Not outragous for a single person, but many households have 3 or 4 people in them. If you have 4 people in your house, 40 shows becomes 10 shows a month per person. That is hardly anything.
Your right of course. I'm just noting that most people seem to miss the fact that there tends to be more than one person in a household.
Every bank allows you to take out cash without a PIN. The process goes like this. You go into Home Depot. Buy some power tools. Go out to the parking lot. Sell tools for half their cost for cash.
Their zero fraud liability are only with the bank. So, any fees you get from the people that you wrote checks to, or raised interest rates are not going to be refunded.
Sure they will make the call, but now your counting on the good will of profit seeking businesses. Sometimes they will show it. Sometimes they won't.
Even in a best case scenario, you are cleaning up a mess that should never have been created in the first place. This isn't free, unless you time has no value.
'Check Cards' are a crappy system, and the banks know it. I am just amazed at how many consumers don't get it. Even when VISA themselves advertise on national TV just how easy it is to commit fraud with them.
I would much rather VISA produce a credit card that DOES require a password than partnering up with banks to remove the password from ATM cards.
'Check Cards' offer no value to anyone above and beyond regular credit cards. They only add risk.
While you sound a little more agitated about the subject than I am, you are pretty much spot on. It is hard to take anyone seriously about the 2.4% "missing" space when they can't even tell you 2.4% of the files on their computer. Sure they can tell you about groups of files, but I know I certainly cannot list off 2.4% of the files on my hard drive, and I doubt there are many other people who can. So, I could just as easily lose more space to worthless, unused files than to the difference in size calculations.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, that means that your insurance will not cover them as the vehicle functioned as intended.
It is clear that you did not understand the OPs post.
I am not making light of slavery. Forced free labor is a serious problem. Just because they are going to start with kids doesn't make it ok. You clearly do understand that forced free labor, or 'slave labor' is wrong, and that this is exactly what 'mandatory community service' is, as you knew exactly what I was talking about.
Seriously. You don't get that 'Manditory Community Service' is just a nice way of saying 'Slave Labor'?
My problem with mandatory community service is that we already have a name for making people do work without pay. It is less PC, but it is a well established word for forced work without pay, and as a society, we pretty much rejected it as wrong.
Don't forget that "teen pregnancy statistics include 18 and 19 year olds. Apparently it has gotten bad enought that people think that married adult women getting pregnant is a big problem. Strange times indeed.
The sad thing is that I read an article in my local "legitimate" newspaper that was not only a word for word reprint from the Weekly World News, but it was printed 6 months AFTER the Weekly World News.
Your link supports my point. Diebold was not confused about what their responsibilities were. You are trying to take a fringe case and make it into a quagmire. The fact is that the exact same example you used would apply equally to non-open source code. While the exact line of what is considered modified code might be considered gray (open or closed source). It is a very small gray line that you are only going to run into if you are trying to see just how close you can get to crossing it without getting sued.
So again, only a moron would worry about legitimate use, and only the dishonest claim "I didn't know!".
Only a moron would be scared to legitimately use open source software because someone else illegitimately used open software. That's a little like being afraid to closed source software because a warez site got raided.
The only companies that "don't understand" what they can and cannot due under the GPL are the ones that are using an "I'm stupid" smoke screen to try and hide their illegal behavior.
but there are mathematical proofs supporting all of what I've just said.
No, there are not. You misunderstand both the goal of voting third party as well as the classes that you took. We do not legally have a two party system. We have a two party system due 100% to psychology, and anyone that tells you that they have mathematical proofs on psychology is lying or wrong.
What really forces the two party system is that it is peoples bad logic. They don't understand a circular argument, and thus vote based on it. "I'm not going to vote for a third party because they cannot win because no one will vote for a third party." This is bad logic. It is a con. It is an even worse logical failure when you don't want either of the two primary parties to win, since you won't get your choice no matter which way you vote. On the other hand, if you think that the Ds and Rs won't change their behavior if there is a chance that they will lose their place as one of the two top parties, you miss understand who they are. I would guess that part of your problem is that you have fallen prey to the party line voting mistake. If you care what party your candidate belongs to instead of what they do in office, then you don't even understand what the goal is.
Others have commented about the fact that by definition, the good spanking would not be happening in public, so I won't repeat that. But I will say that I see parents abusing their children mentally on a daily basis. The "If it doesn't leave a mark it's not abuse crowd" carries far less weight than the spanking crowd. Of course, I have never met a single person that says the spanking is always good, or that more spanking is better. Your belief that parents who spank think that spanking is always good or that more spanking is better is simply your own rationalization for the mental abuse that you inflict on your children.
So, you agree with me entirely that 'check cards' are totally insecure, and banks are pushing them so that they can charge higher fees while shifting the risk on to the customer.
It doesn't matter because at this point, there are not enough people willing to vote third party for them to win. When the third party candidates are in danger of winning, then you might not want to vote for them. Until then, it is the most effective thing someone who does not like the D or R candidates to do. And if by some chance the third party candidate does win in some kind of suprise landslide, you get two things... 1) You now have a winner that you don't like instead of one that you... Don't like. And 2) You can bet that the Ds and Rs will be making major changes to the way they do business to get those voters back.
Robert Heinlein limited it to "well meaning fools" because he was a writer, and sounding witty was more important than saying exactly what he meant. Of course his advice is not only bad because of the limitation that you note, but also because he falls prey to the same false dichotomy that most people do. There frequently is no "exact opposite" because there are more than two choices, and the two choices that many people recognize (D and R) are not even opposites.
Seriously, an uninformed voter is FAR worse than a non-voter. I am becoming convinced that the whole "everyone should vote even if they don't know what they are voting for" combined with "voting third party is throwing your vote away" is a way to keep out third parties. People are becoming more and more disillusioned with the two party system. The chances of a third party making a real go of it becomes more and more feasible. So, what do you do? you work to get everyone out to vote. The uniformed voter is going to randomly pick from the two primary candidates, as he doesn't know anything about any of them, but those are the two that are not "throwing away his vote". Since the uninformed votes, being random, will for the most part split evenly down the middle between the Democrats and the Republicans, it becomes a wash for them, but massively increases the number of informed voters that the third party candidates have to pick up.
So, IF you must be an uniformed voter, and are going to vote. Vote third party. Since you don't know who you are voting for anyways, you were already going to throw your vote away. Since there is not yet a chance for the third party candidates to win, you do not run the risk of accidentally electing a kook, AND you help to put a scare into the two primary parties.
Heck, if you were not going to vote because you don't like either candidate, vote third party for the same reason.
Of course, this is also part of why banks are so hip on 'check cards'. 'Check cards' offer no benifites to the account holder over a standard credit card. They do offer serious down sides given that they allow anyone with access to the card to withdraw funds directly from your account with no pin or identification. Then VISA advertises on TV how easy it is to commit fraud with those cards.
The fact that most banks are replacing their ATM cards that do require pins to access funds with 'check cards' that do not require pins is pretty convincing evidence that banks are not trying real hard to prevent fraud that can lead to fee collection.
Your description brought up an image of Fahrenheit 451. With a dedicated group of "criminals" passing around the heritage of a media through an underground network, while the official powers that be hunt them down. When the official powers that be find a stash, the burn it to the ground.
I can guarntee that if the earth dried out at that time, that the other poster would not be able to find anything, much less fossils.
I kid... I kid... I know that wasn't what you meant.
For example a 17 year old may have a great reaction speed, but that doesn't automatically make them a better driver than a 40 year-old with 20+ years of predicting the motion of objects travelling at speed and planning accordingly.
This is why I hate the trend of trying to push the driving age up instead of down. Being 16 doesn't make you a bad driver. Having less than a year of experience makes you a bad driver. Pushing the driving age up, just shifts the risk to drivers that are a year older because they are now the drivers with less than a year of experience. Heck, I would be WAY more worried about getting in a car with a 30 year old with less than a year of driving experience than I would a 16 year old with less than a year of experience.
Seriously! I was shocked to here Palin using that derogatory term. I know that I have been known to use it, but when I do, I am fully aware that I am using an insult. I don't think that Palin realized that she was calling her constituents stupid drunks. Of course, if her constituents didn't realize that she was calling them stupid drunks, maybe she wasn't all wrong.
It always amazes me how many people completely miss the point of the 2nd Amendment. The idea that it had anything to do with hunting is absolution absurd. Given that hunting was a common way for people to get their food at the time, putting an amendment into the national constitution makes as much sense as it would be for congress to make an amendment to the constitution today that acknowledges your right to go to the grocery store.
While the self protection bit makes a LITTLE more sense, I'm pretty sure that in 1791 it was still the norm for a man to kill another man if a bloody axe wielding maniac busts through your door in the middle of the night instead of calling for help and waiting 45 minutes for 'authorized' protection to arrive. So, it is unlikely that self protection from non-government entities was a factor.
The point of the 2nd amendment was clearly intended to make sure that private citizens had arms for protection from GOVERNMENT employees. Or, better yet, to make government entities think twice before getting too far out of hand. You may agree with the founding fathers, or you may disagree, but it is clear what the point of the 2nd amendment was.
Get me a link to his denial from sometime before 1983. Having him deny saying something stupid almost a decade after it became painfully obvious that what he said was stupid isn't really good evidence is it?
40 hours of TV is not a lot at all. That is less than an hour and a half of TV a day. Not outragous for a single person, but many households have 3 or 4 people in them. If you have 4 people in your house, 40 shows becomes 10 shows a month per person. That is hardly anything.
Your right of course. I'm just noting that most people seem to miss the fact that there tends to be more than one person in a household.
Every bank allows you to take out cash without a PIN. The process goes like this. You go into Home Depot. Buy some power tools. Go out to the parking lot. Sell tools for half their cost for cash.
Their zero fraud liability are only with the bank. So, any fees you get from the people that you wrote checks to, or raised interest rates are not going to be refunded.
Sure they will make the call, but now your counting on the good will of profit seeking businesses. Sometimes they will show it. Sometimes they won't.
Even in a best case scenario, you are cleaning up a mess that should never have been created in the first place. This isn't free, unless you time has no value.
'Check Cards' are a crappy system, and the banks know it. I am just amazed at how many consumers don't get it. Even when VISA themselves advertise on national TV just how easy it is to commit fraud with them.
I would much rather VISA produce a credit card that DOES require a password than partnering up with banks to remove the password from ATM cards.
'Check Cards' offer no value to anyone above and beyond regular credit cards. They only add risk.
While you sound a little more agitated about the subject than I am, you are pretty much spot on. It is hard to take anyone seriously about the 2.4% "missing" space when they can't even tell you 2.4% of the files on their computer. Sure they can tell you about groups of files, but I know I certainly cannot list off 2.4% of the files on my hard drive, and I doubt there are many other people who can. So, I could just as easily lose more space to worthless, unused files than to the difference in size calculations.
Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience.
That is just true. So from now on, it should be written...
Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience.
--Znork