Also at some point our health care system started spending the majority of its money on people in their last 18 months of life.
That point was in the 50s after some people realized that there was a "baby boom". Well, the costs did not go up then, they have been steadily climbing since the 50s. Some extraordinarily bright (and evil) bulbs realized there would be a fortune to be made when those children grew old. You can either die or pay for health care. A captive audience so to speak. Laws were being proposed back then to create what we have now: An absurdly expensive medical system designed to extract as much of the wealth of the population as possible.
There are a lot of other wealth transfers from the young to older generations, house prices, government debt...
I find it odd that you assume the "older" generation is the recipient of these funds. Every person older than me seems to be losing money at an insanely fast rate. Let me rephrase that, the general population seems to be losing money at an insanely fast rate.
But, just like partisan politics: Divide and conquer.
Go ahead and yank all those "freebies" the older generations are getting. I am going to laugh like hell when you finally realize, at the end of your life when you are helpless, suffering, and poor that things are not what they appear to be.
Just to let you know ahead of time, suffering sucks and encouraging the creation of more suffering for other people because you are suffering is not a very nice (or smart!) thing to do.
Tl;DR you are suffering now because a group of people realized that health care is a captive audience and that there was an abnormal bulge in demographics which allowed a wealth transfer to be planned 50+ years in advance.
The only reason it's even a problem is because most Western economies are built on the next generation funding the increasingly extravagant lifestyles of the last.
I am going to need you to define this because I am not understanding it. Are you saying that my parents are increasing the extravagance of their lifestyle at my expense or that I am increasing the extravagance of my lifestyle at my children's expense? Or both?
Or, are you just spewing garbage because your mind has been conditioned to believe certain fantasies?
So when problems like this attempt to be tackled, by say, cutting the amount of free shit old people get...
So are you saying the my parents did not pay into Social Security or that I am not paying into Social Security or what? Neither myself, my parents, nor my children are receiving anything for free. There are no other generations alive right now so what you are saying should be applicable to one of those generations.
we get absurd arguments like "I paid for it", but given that there's no money to fund it that's evidence enough that they have not in fact paid for it.
Aha! You assume that missing money implies that something wasn't paid for. How cute. I am guessing you have never heard of fraud or theft or any of that. Think about it for a second: A person knows they paid for something. They receive that thing. The person providing that thing claims it was not paid for by the first part and must be paid for by the third party. Hm... Yep! The proper conclusion is that the first person never paid for it. Solid reasoning there buddy.
But economies have to change to cater to shrinking populations, and that means older generations getting what they actually paid for, rather than expecting the next generation to pay for what they think the world owes them, which is politically difficult given that those generations are typically most likely to vote because when you're sat around with nothing to do all day you have ample time to do so.
Blah Blah Blah Blah. Your words make no sense since they were founded upon ideas that are not true. Keep fighting the good fight my man. Don't let those elderly people rip you off.
This is not a news article, it is a propaganda piece. It is written with the angle of getting certain sequences of word to be read by the largest number of people possible.
The summary starts out using a term that I have never heard before and I work in that specific industry. In specific, what is the term "threat methods"? Each word is sensible and combined they are also deceptively sensible. They are measuring "threat methods" but do not give a definition for what they are measuring so we can determine the accuracy of the statement. They then go on to say that a Microsoft based operating system has seen a decline in these "threat methods" while Linux has seen an increase of them.
The article writer has not even defined what is being measured here. How can such claims be of "seeing an increase" or "seeing a decrease" be validated if there is no definition of what "threat methods" are?
Why are most "news" articles of the same nature? They seem like they are saying something but when investigation occurs, it all disappears like fog on a Sunday morning; however, some incredible claims are made based on this "fog".
TL;DR This is a puff piece designed to make you fearful of using Linux and supporting your decision to use a Microsoft product instead. Nothing more.
I already see a million comments from the crowd who dismisses all these complaints as "SJW BS."
How is it not "SJW BS"? You go on to mention that there *might* be an issue in an area that employs less than.01% of the population (startups) but you fail to prove that there is a systemic problem even in that infinitesimally small group.
I've worked at established companies where top salespeople get automatic passes on all the sexual harassment rules
Personal anecdotes is NOT data. Here is a counter anecdote: I have worked in companies ranging from Fortune 50 to small privately owned businesses in my 35+ years of employment and I have NEVER seen or heard of any place that tolerates sexual harassment. Not even when I was first starting out.
Think about that for a minute: This sexual harassment drum has been beat on for more than 30 years at least. Why? It is not because this a mainstream issue because it clearly is NOT mainstream. Yes, all sorts of bad things happen to all sorts of people. Is the issue of sexual harassment against females really happening more often than age discrimination, race discrimination, or religious discrimination? It is all terrible if/when it happens. But why focus on one single issue when that single issue is symptomatic of much deeper issues?
Nope. This is all SJW BS. I strongly recommend that you shut your mouth and rethink your life... because you just might be a social justice warrior.
Utterly fascinating. So because of the wall of text that you just posted, we should allow manufacturers to put effort into making the products non-repairable in order to force us to buy new products?
I fail to understand why you think forcing them to NOT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT to repair is a problem? It is not as if the manufacturers are being forced to use breadboards with wire-wrapped components to ensure that even the most incompetent person could take apart and repair every single component.
I am so weary of all the people who are smoking crack. *sigh* I mean, the last few sentences were reasonable but 90% of what you wrote is pure garbage.
Of course, if you can find something that you like doing and people will pay you money for it AND putting in more work will have a logarithmic effect on the money you get, then spending 18 hour days Monday thru Monday can be a very empowering thing for many many years.
The issue is this: Is working 18 hours a day where someone else gets the lions share of the remuneration for the productivity a sustainable concept?
The stunningly obvious answer is: No.
Well then everyone who is working for someone else's (how do you say else in a possessive manner? Everything I type there, my browser yells about. WTF?) benefit is a total moron. If you have employees, by definition, they are utter losers who should be FORCED to work 18 hours a day since they obviously do not have the wherewithal to create their own niche within modern society.
Man, this society is so fucked. I can't wait for the terrorists to kill us all and implement a dictatorship. At least then, any survivors will be well and truly fucked instead of hoping for Freedom, Liberty, Self Determination, etc.
Of course they are working less. They are fewer opportunities for males to participate in higher education and there are only so many burger flipping jobs available.
The counter-argument to that is: You use Microsoft operating systems. You have explicitly given permission for every action you take to be logged somewhere and examined later at the pleasure of Microsoft. Using Facebook is merely a subset of using a computer (which has a Microsoft Operating system on it) therefore, you have already given up any expectations of privacy. Logging out of Facebook is not sufficient to prove that you would have an expectation of privacy since you abandoned all expectation of privacy merely by using the computer.
It shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that logging out of Facebook caused them to stop treating that browser window as being "you" for their purposes as well as yours.
I agree; however, EVERY SINGLE browser enables this behavior by default. Firefox claims it has your privacy and security in mind and then writes cookie handling code that allows you to be tracked regardless of your wishes.
For myself, I do not blame Facebook for acting like an amoral and fiendish criminal, I blame the browser creators for enabling that behavior. Almost every business that is successful is only successful because they grabbed every resource they could regardless of legality. No moral business can normally survive for long in that environment so they ALL break the rules and only the lucky ones survive.
The browser creators appear to me to be like the rich uncle who gives his 3 year old niece a handgun to play with. Sure, the niece shot herself, but did you expect anything different to come of that situation? Do you blame the niece or the uncle?
I call it common sense. I don't want uneducated teachers out there. College has been a requirement for public school teachers for many decades. If you want teachers with less education, you can try private schools or home schooling.
Teachers do not get paid enough to require a college degree before teaching. Besides, that is utter bullshit anyways. A 10 year old can, and does, teach a 5 year old. The only question at that point is what is the 10 year old teaching the 5 year old: Typically, it is how to steal items and not get caught or how to lie better so your asshole parents don't catch you.
I would be happy with teachers that could pass certain tests before being granted teaching credentials and then toss out the arbitrary requirement for college degrees for teachers.
I say this as a parent whose last child just completed high school.
Seriously, does a math teacher need to know calculus in order to teach basic addition or division? Ultimately, we should ALL be teachers, with an organized school system ensuring that the students all know certain things that the rest of us "teachers" may or may not be teaching... such as evolution or sex education.
More data needed. Time to crowdfund a study on the subject?
Why do a study on it? Are we lacking in population?
This study is to sell a story. Nobody cares if older men can produce healthy children. Responding to this "study" is a waste of any man's time as all responding will do is reinforce the narrative being sold.
It took me a minute to get what you were talking about... and it blows me away that clauses in contracts can take away legal recourse. That does not even make sense. Theft through fraudulent means is still theft and should be allowed to be heard in a normal courtroom regardless of what any contract says. I am getting the feeling that the concept of the EULA was merely Microsoft refining contract clauses.
Civil servants don't have the resources or motivation to properly enforce this stuff.
WTF? All the civil servant has to do is some paperwork. It is the citizens who discover problems and want something done about it. The civil servant just usually says no because they do not want to do the paperwork. Sometimes the no comes from being bribed, but it is usually the desire to avoid work that makes things as crappy as they are.
In a lot of markets, AT&T is part of an oligopoly or even may have a monopoly. High speed internet is necessary for a lot of people, especially if they need it for their jobs or classes.
He knows that. We know that. The facts do not matter though as this is about power - meaning - as long as he walked away without having any penalties or changes of behavior forced upon ATT, he won. And he did. Case closed. You will have to start another fight if you want to continue, but be aware that logic and truth are only tools.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I can't see that Photobucket did anything wrong or that they have any moral or ethical obligation to allow people to keep using them in a way they never intended.
While I generally agree with you; I do think it would be ethical to give SOME (24 hours would satisfy the obligation, a week would be "kind") sort of notice when you know that your actions are going to break things for a LOT of people.
Ultimately, I fail to care since as you said, "I have no dog in this hunt". Just pointing out there is an ethical obligation despite your claim to the contrary.;)
+6 logical. I am unsure why I had to read so far down to see a single intelligent comment. Lots of factual comments though. I guess that is all we can expect... and we wonder why automation will replace most workers.
Motorcycles and scooters often lack or have less emissions controls than cars and trucks. And in a place like Vietnam, I suspect many of them use two-stroke engines instead of four-stroke.
Ok... and? That is a good reason to ban motorbikes? I am unsure where you are going with this. The obvious implication from the facts that you stated is that emission controls should be placed on the motorcycles... and yet you did not state that. You merely offered justification for why the motorbikes should be banned.
I am having a particularly bad day, so pardon me if I seem like an asshole, but wtf dude? Why stop the flow of logic once a view has been validated? Why not pursue and see if the conclusions that such logic validates is actually logical itself?
I must be missing something here. We are talking about 2 wheeled motor vehicles. In a very large city. And pollution. I can see how banning the motorbikes would decrease pollution assuming that no other effects are taken into account. Those motorbikes are there for transportation purposes. Either the transportation will have to stop (once the bikes are banned) or an alternative method of transporting will need to be found. The article speaks of eventually, maybe possibly, improving mass transit. Will that satisfy the transportation needs though? I am sure it will solve some of the needs. How will the needs that are not solved by public transport be met? With cars and trucks and busses (wtf? busses is buses? so it is pronounced like abuse? I can stand modern spelling). How much space is needed by cars and busses in relation to motorbikes? Surely needing more space will end up with more congestion. A car idling for two hours and travelling 10 miles and a motorcycle driving for 20 minutes and travelling 10 miles have very different pollution profiles. Which one is better?
Meh fuck it. Let stupidity reign. The next person who accuses me of not thinking something out, I will just point out that almost all of fucking society is not thought out. It is just a bunch of random neurons firing off and if those neurons feel good, then that is the general consensus. What a shitty world to live in. Actually, the world is fine, it is the people that suck.
Mythbusters covered it, pointing out that cars have had decades of ever tighter controls whilst motorbikes have had it easy.
So the solution really is to ban motorbikes? My god man, at least live up to your alias!
The proper solution is to implement tighter emission controls on the bikes instead of pushing people to using cars and trucks.
It boggles the mind that the obvious solution was apparently not so obvious. To anyone. Even the people in Viet Name. I fail to believe that I am so much more intelligent than everyone else, so what is going on here? Why ban the motorcycles instead of forcing pollution controls on them? What am I missing? *sigh* I give up.
That said - 30 days is plenty of time to setup a new account and use an IMAP transfer utility to migrate every single message - even if it is 20 years worth.
It is not the current messages that are an issue! So many people fail to show a basic understanding of the issues that this guy has now.
Every single company or person who he has given that email address to, over the past 20 fucking years, will need to be contacted to ensure that future mails go to the new address.
Seems like it should be simple to just tell everyone you have a new address but it is actually not that simple. Remember that website that you registered with 9 years ago? Yeah, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those needs to be REMEMBERED, contacted, and all negotiations COMPLETED (they will surely send at least one more email to the old address to verify that you are you) within the next 30 days.
Meh. I am too jaded now. Fuck him. Let him suffer. We can say it was his own stupidity and throw it all on him; after all, he should have known that "nonreply@" was going to become a standard years later.
We should just let everyone suffer instead of being hypocritical and only trying to show compassion when it is a subject seen to be as important to offer compassion for (those poor poor women who are constantly abused need their own fucking music concert without any men (except performers!) being present.)
How do you go from a fundamental assumption that 'sex with children is wrong' to 'sex with robots that looks like children is wrong'?
Umm... this is about punishing pedophiles, not protecting children. Most people are fine with children suffering the most horrific of abuses as long as it is not sexual in nature.
Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time. Child sex robots are a hypothetical niche in a field that is entirely hypothetical at this point.
I get what you are saying; however, I think the argument goes like this:
There is a sex doll industry. All sex dolls are considerably smaller than the average human. Few to none of those dolls have hair around the genitalia (for obvious (discomfort/wear and tear/etc) reasons but is always construed as being done to make it more childlike).
Now, if sex dolls are generally childlike, do you think sex robots themselves will be any different?
Preventing that is just punishing people because of something they have no control over.
So? They are pedophiles. Punish them already. Hell, kill them. Society needs to shed blood and shedding the blood of pedophiles makes everyone a winner; especially the children. Hurray!
Not that anyone actually cares about the children. Let the children starve. Let them be raised by psychotic parents. Let them suffer endless non-sexual physical abuse. Let them suffer some of the most deranged/mindwarping mental abuse possible. But hey! At least we draw the line at sexual abuse... but it is not because we love the children, it is because we hate the pedophile. All of this is not about "protecting the children" it is about spilling blood.
It is kind of like the "conservative religious" stance on abortion. They will fight like hell to make sure the mother has to carry the child to term but refuse to do anything to make the child's life better after it is born. At that point, wouldn't it be better if the child were not born at all? But meh. Society is full of stupid sheep and power mongers.
Now we have the problem with pedophiles. They have a sexual attraction to kids. There isn't much we can do about that, we can't change them.
It is not a problem. Just kill them all. Hopefully in some terribly painful way. Darwin will solve it just like the problem with gay people was solved by killing them in terrible ways. And the best part of all of this? We get to let our inner self indulgent murderous selves out! A win-win for everyone!... well, except for pedophiles, but who cares about them?
FreeBSD!.. it's free of all immature and incompetent vanities and warped design crazes.
That is not entirely true. There is a very strong "Social Justice Warrior" element within FreeBSD and all it would take is for FreeBSD to hit critical mass and those SJW-type people will feel validated and go batshit crazy. Dragonfly BSD or OpenBSD is the way to go... NetBSD is always a further option.:)
Slashdot Mirror
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
As someone with ADD, being told to just stand there and hold my dick COMPLETELY destroys the learning experience, because it becomes so disjointed.
I bolded the part that really throws me. I completely agree with you. You have accurately described the problem.
Not that anyone will hear you or that anything will change. :(
Also at some point our health care system started spending the majority of its money on people in their last 18 months of life.
That point was in the 50s after some people realized that there was a "baby boom". Well, the costs did not go up then, they have been steadily climbing since the 50s. Some extraordinarily bright (and evil) bulbs realized there would be a fortune to be made when those children grew old. You can either die or pay for health care. A captive audience so to speak. Laws were being proposed back then to create what we have now: An absurdly expensive medical system designed to extract as much of the wealth of the population as possible.
There are a lot of other wealth transfers from the young to older generations, house prices, government debt...
I find it odd that you assume the "older" generation is the recipient of these funds. Every person older than me seems to be losing money at an insanely fast rate. Let me rephrase that, the general population seems to be losing money at an insanely fast rate.
But, just like partisan politics: Divide and conquer.
Go ahead and yank all those "freebies" the older generations are getting. I am going to laugh like hell when you finally realize, at the end of your life when you are helpless, suffering, and poor that things are not what they appear to be.
Just to let you know ahead of time, suffering sucks and encouraging the creation of more suffering for other people because you are suffering is not a very nice (or smart!) thing to do.
Tl;DR you are suffering now because a group of people realized that health care is a captive audience and that there was an abnormal bulge in demographics which allowed a wealth transfer to be planned 50+ years in advance.
The only reason it's even a problem is because most Western economies are built on the next generation funding the increasingly extravagant lifestyles of the last.
I am going to need you to define this because I am not understanding it. Are you saying that my parents are increasing the extravagance of their lifestyle at my expense or that I am increasing the extravagance of my lifestyle at my children's expense? Or both?
Or, are you just spewing garbage because your mind has been conditioned to believe certain fantasies?
So when problems like this attempt to be tackled, by say, cutting the amount of free shit old people get ...
So are you saying the my parents did not pay into Social Security or that I am not paying into Social Security or what? Neither myself, my parents, nor my children are receiving anything for free. There are no other generations alive right now so what you are saying should be applicable to one of those generations.
we get absurd arguments like "I paid for it", but given that there's no money to fund it that's evidence enough that they have not in fact paid for it.
Aha! You assume that missing money implies that something wasn't paid for. How cute. I am guessing you have never heard of fraud or theft or any of that. Think about it for a second: A person knows they paid for something. They receive that thing. The person providing that thing claims it was not paid for by the first part and must be paid for by the third party. Hm... Yep! The proper conclusion is that the first person never paid for it. Solid reasoning there buddy.
But economies have to change to cater to shrinking populations, and that means older generations getting what they actually paid for, rather than expecting the next generation to pay for what they think the world owes them, which is politically difficult given that those generations are typically most likely to vote because when you're sat around with nothing to do all day you have ample time to do so.
Blah Blah Blah Blah. Your words make no sense since they were founded upon ideas that are not true. Keep fighting the good fight my man. Don't let those elderly people rip you off.
This is not a news article, it is a propaganda piece. It is written with the angle of getting certain sequences of word to be read by the largest number of people possible.
The summary starts out using a term that I have never heard before and I work in that specific industry. In specific, what is the term "threat methods"? Each word is sensible and combined they are also deceptively sensible. They are measuring "threat methods" but do not give a definition for what they are measuring so we can determine the accuracy of the statement. They then go on to say that a Microsoft based operating system has seen a decline in these "threat methods" while Linux has seen an increase of them.
The article writer has not even defined what is being measured here. How can such claims be of "seeing an increase" or "seeing a decrease" be validated if there is no definition of what "threat methods" are?
Why are most "news" articles of the same nature? They seem like they are saying something but when investigation occurs, it all disappears like fog on a Sunday morning; however, some incredible claims are made based on this "fog".
TL;DR This is a puff piece designed to make you fearful of using Linux and supporting your decision to use a Microsoft product instead. Nothing more.
I already see a million comments from the crowd who dismisses all these complaints as "SJW BS."
How is it not "SJW BS"? You go on to mention that there *might* be an issue in an area that employs less than .01% of the population (startups) but you fail to prove that there is a systemic problem even in that infinitesimally small group.
I've worked at established companies where top salespeople get automatic passes on all the sexual harassment rules
Personal anecdotes is NOT data. Here is a counter anecdote: I have worked in companies ranging from Fortune 50 to small privately owned businesses in my 35+ years of employment and I have NEVER seen or heard of any place that tolerates sexual harassment. Not even when I was first starting out.
Think about that for a minute: This sexual harassment drum has been beat on for more than 30 years at least. Why? It is not because this a mainstream issue because it clearly is NOT mainstream. Yes, all sorts of bad things happen to all sorts of people. Is the issue of sexual harassment against females really happening more often than age discrimination, race discrimination, or religious discrimination? It is all terrible if/when it happens. But why focus on one single issue when that single issue is symptomatic of much deeper issues?
Nope. This is all SJW BS. I strongly recommend that you shut your mouth and rethink your life... because you just might be a social justice warrior.
Utterly fascinating. So because of the wall of text that you just posted, we should allow manufacturers to put effort into making the products non-repairable in order to force us to buy new products?
I fail to understand why you think forcing them to NOT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT to repair is a problem? It is not as if the manufacturers are being forced to use breadboards with wire-wrapped components to ensure that even the most incompetent person could take apart and repair every single component.
I am so weary of all the people who are smoking crack. *sigh* I mean, the last few sentences were reasonable but 90% of what you wrote is pure garbage.
Of course, if you can find something that you like doing and people will pay you money for it AND putting in more work will have a logarithmic effect on the money you get, then spending 18 hour days Monday thru Monday can be a very empowering thing for many many years.
The issue is this: Is working 18 hours a day where someone else gets the lions share of the remuneration for the productivity a sustainable concept?
The stunningly obvious answer is: No.
Well then everyone who is working for someone else's (how do you say else in a possessive manner? Everything I type there, my browser yells about. WTF?) benefit is a total moron. If you have employees, by definition, they are utter losers who should be FORCED to work 18 hours a day since they obviously do not have the wherewithal to create their own niche within modern society.
Man, this society is so fucked. I can't wait for the terrorists to kill us all and implement a dictatorship. At least then, any survivors will be well and truly fucked instead of hoping for Freedom, Liberty, Self Determination, etc.
Of course they are working less. They are fewer opportunities for males to participate in higher education and there are only so many burger flipping jobs available.
The counter-argument to that is: You use Microsoft operating systems. You have explicitly given permission for every action you take to be logged somewhere and examined later at the pleasure of Microsoft. Using Facebook is merely a subset of using a computer (which has a Microsoft Operating system on it) therefore, you have already given up any expectations of privacy. Logging out of Facebook is not sufficient to prove that you would have an expectation of privacy since you abandoned all expectation of privacy merely by using the computer.
It shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that logging out of Facebook caused them to stop treating that browser window as being "you" for their purposes as well as yours.
I agree; however, EVERY SINGLE browser enables this behavior by default. Firefox claims it has your privacy and security in mind and then writes cookie handling code that allows you to be tracked regardless of your wishes.
For myself, I do not blame Facebook for acting like an amoral and fiendish criminal, I blame the browser creators for enabling that behavior. Almost every business that is successful is only successful because they grabbed every resource they could regardless of legality. No moral business can normally survive for long in that environment so they ALL break the rules and only the lucky ones survive.
The browser creators appear to me to be like the rich uncle who gives his 3 year old niece a handgun to play with. Sure, the niece shot herself, but did you expect anything different to come of that situation? Do you blame the niece or the uncle?
I call it common sense. I don't want uneducated teachers out there. College has been a requirement for public school teachers for many decades. If you want teachers with less education, you can try private schools or home schooling.
Teachers do not get paid enough to require a college degree before teaching. Besides, that is utter bullshit anyways. A 10 year old can, and does, teach a 5 year old. The only question at that point is what is the 10 year old teaching the 5 year old: Typically, it is how to steal items and not get caught or how to lie better so your asshole parents don't catch you.
I would be happy with teachers that could pass certain tests before being granted teaching credentials and then toss out the arbitrary requirement for college degrees for teachers.
I say this as a parent whose last child just completed high school.
Seriously, does a math teacher need to know calculus in order to teach basic addition or division? Ultimately, we should ALL be teachers, with an organized school system ensuring that the students all know certain things that the rest of us "teachers" may or may not be teaching... such as evolution or sex education.
More data needed. Time to crowdfund a study on the subject?
Why do a study on it? Are we lacking in population?
This study is to sell a story. Nobody cares if older men can produce healthy children. Responding to this "study" is a waste of any man's time as all responding will do is reinforce the narrative being sold.
It took me a minute to get what you were talking about... and it blows me away that clauses in contracts can take away legal recourse. That does not even make sense. Theft through fraudulent means is still theft and should be allowed to be heard in a normal courtroom regardless of what any contract says. I am getting the feeling that the concept of the EULA was merely Microsoft refining contract clauses.
Civil servants don't have the resources or motivation to properly enforce this stuff.
WTF? All the civil servant has to do is some paperwork. It is the citizens who discover problems and want something done about it. The civil servant just usually says no because they do not want to do the paperwork. Sometimes the no comes from being bribed, but it is usually the desire to avoid work that makes things as crappy as they are.
In a lot of markets, AT&T is part of an oligopoly or even may have a monopoly. High speed internet is necessary for a lot of people, especially if they need it for their jobs or classes.
He knows that. We know that. The facts do not matter though as this is about power - meaning - as long as he walked away without having any penalties or changes of behavior forced upon ATT, he won. And he did. Case closed. You will have to start another fight if you want to continue, but be aware that logic and truth are only tools.
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I can't see that Photobucket did anything wrong or that they have any moral or ethical obligation to allow people to keep using them in a way they never intended.
While I generally agree with you; I do think it would be ethical to give SOME (24 hours would satisfy the obligation, a week would be "kind") sort of notice when you know that your actions are going to break things for a LOT of people.
Ultimately, I fail to care since as you said, "I have no dog in this hunt". Just pointing out there is an ethical obligation despite your claim to the contrary. ;)
+6 logical. I am unsure why I had to read so far down to see a single intelligent comment. Lots of factual comments though. I guess that is all we can expect... and we wonder why automation will replace most workers.
Motorcycles and scooters often lack or have less emissions controls than cars and trucks. And in a place like Vietnam, I suspect many of them use two-stroke engines instead of four-stroke.
Ok... and? That is a good reason to ban motorbikes? I am unsure where you are going with this. The obvious implication from the facts that you stated is that emission controls should be placed on the motorcycles... and yet you did not state that. You merely offered justification for why the motorbikes should be banned.
I am having a particularly bad day, so pardon me if I seem like an asshole, but wtf dude? Why stop the flow of logic once a view has been validated? Why not pursue and see if the conclusions that such logic validates is actually logical itself?
I must be missing something here. We are talking about 2 wheeled motor vehicles. In a very large city. And pollution. I can see how banning the motorbikes would decrease pollution assuming that no other effects are taken into account. Those motorbikes are there for transportation purposes. Either the transportation will have to stop (once the bikes are banned) or an alternative method of transporting will need to be found. The article speaks of eventually, maybe possibly, improving mass transit. Will that satisfy the transportation needs though? I am sure it will solve some of the needs. How will the needs that are not solved by public transport be met? With cars and trucks and busses (wtf? busses is buses? so it is pronounced like abuse? I can stand modern spelling). How much space is needed by cars and busses in relation to motorbikes? Surely needing more space will end up with more congestion. A car idling for two hours and travelling 10 miles and a motorcycle driving for 20 minutes and travelling 10 miles have very different pollution profiles. Which one is better?
Meh fuck it. Let stupidity reign. The next person who accuses me of not thinking something out, I will just point out that almost all of fucking society is not thought out. It is just a bunch of random neurons firing off and if those neurons feel good, then that is the general consensus. What a shitty world to live in. Actually, the world is fine, it is the people that suck.
Mythbusters covered it, pointing out that cars have had decades of ever tighter controls whilst motorbikes have had it easy.
So the solution really is to ban motorbikes? My god man, at least live up to your alias!
The proper solution is to implement tighter emission controls on the bikes instead of pushing people to using cars and trucks.
It boggles the mind that the obvious solution was apparently not so obvious. To anyone. Even the people in Viet Name. I fail to believe that I am so much more intelligent than everyone else, so what is going on here? Why ban the motorcycles instead of forcing pollution controls on them? What am I missing? *sigh* I give up.
That said - 30 days is plenty of time to setup a new account and use an IMAP transfer utility to migrate every single message - even if it is 20 years worth.
It is not the current messages that are an issue! So many people fail to show a basic understanding of the issues that this guy has now.
Every single company or person who he has given that email address to, over the past 20 fucking years, will need to be contacted to ensure that future mails go to the new address.
Seems like it should be simple to just tell everyone you have a new address but it is actually not that simple. Remember that website that you registered with 9 years ago? Yeah, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those needs to be REMEMBERED, contacted, and all negotiations COMPLETED (they will surely send at least one more email to the old address to verify that you are you) within the next 30 days.
Meh. I am too jaded now. Fuck him. Let him suffer. We can say it was his own stupidity and throw it all on him; after all, he should have known that "nonreply@" was going to become a standard years later.
We should just let everyone suffer instead of being hypocritical and only trying to show compassion when it is a subject seen to be as important to offer compassion for (those poor poor women who are constantly abused need their own fucking music concert without any men (except performers!) being present.)
How do you go from a fundamental assumption that 'sex with children is wrong' to 'sex with robots that looks like children is wrong'?
Umm... this is about punishing pedophiles, not protecting children. Most people are fine with children suffering the most horrific of abuses as long as it is not sexual in nature.
Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time. Child sex robots are a hypothetical niche in a field that is entirely hypothetical at this point.
I get what you are saying; however, I think the argument goes like this:
There is a sex doll industry. All sex dolls are considerably smaller than the average human. Few to none of those dolls have hair around the genitalia (for obvious (discomfort/wear and tear/etc) reasons but is always construed as being done to make it more childlike).
Now, if sex dolls are generally childlike, do you think sex robots themselves will be any different?
Preventing that is just punishing people because of something they have no control over.
So? They are pedophiles. Punish them already. Hell, kill them. Society needs to shed blood and shedding the blood of pedophiles makes everyone a winner; especially the children. Hurray!
Not that anyone actually cares about the children. Let the children starve. Let them be raised by psychotic parents. Let them suffer endless non-sexual physical abuse. Let them suffer some of the most deranged/mindwarping mental abuse possible. But hey! At least we draw the line at sexual abuse... but it is not because we love the children, it is because we hate the pedophile. All of this is not about "protecting the children" it is about spilling blood.
It is kind of like the "conservative religious" stance on abortion. They will fight like hell to make sure the mother has to carry the child to term but refuse to do anything to make the child's life better after it is born. At that point, wouldn't it be better if the child were not born at all? But meh. Society is full of stupid sheep and power mongers.
Now we have the problem with pedophiles. They have a sexual attraction to kids. There isn't much we can do about that, we can't change them.
It is not a problem. Just kill them all. Hopefully in some terribly painful way. Darwin will solve it just like the problem with gay people was solved by killing them in terrible ways. And the best part of all of this? We get to let our inner self indulgent murderous selves out! A win-win for everyone! ... well, except for pedophiles, but who cares about them?
FreeBSD! .. it's free of all immature and incompetent vanities and warped design crazes.
That is not entirely true. There is a very strong "Social Justice Warrior" element within FreeBSD and all it would take is for FreeBSD to hit critical mass and those SJW-type people will feel validated and go batshit crazy. Dragonfly BSD or OpenBSD is the way to go... NetBSD is always a further option. :)