Ummm. . . partly, yes. OTOH the reason there's a kosher bakery is that there is enough of a community to keep it in business, and doesn't need outside customers. They probably *could* say "to the tribe only". But business is business, business is not religion. (One might say that religion is a business - and then argue about whether it's a protection racket or an entertainment industry - but that's another story.)
1. Not hypothetical - our local kosher bakery went totally nut-free because all of the religious schools need nut-free foods. Guess what - they suddenly became a prime supplier to additional places who have no interest in kosher but need nut-free and vegan, including two preschools at local churches (which is how I know the story).
2. In a small town, there may not be a different shop so close.
3. The only lawsuits that I have read about that might be described as trying to "destroy a small business owner" were cases were people made an agreement or order or reservation, paid money, and were canceled on too late to make alternate plans. That sort of thing causes havoc in totally average cases - here in the NYC area, just a few months back, there was an uproar because a bridal shop suddenly locked its doors, and the owner decamped with whatever deposit money there had been, leaving hundreds of brides and bridesmaids without their promised dresses. Nobody cared about the unpaid employees and bills; all of the publicity was on the weddings planned for that weekend, with dresses already fitted but locked up behind police tape. But that was nothing personal; everyone was being impacted. Imagine now if the owner had called up only one couple and said, "I know your wedding is coming up, but I decided my conscience wouldn't let me go through with the order for your dresses. You'll just have to get them somewhere else." And imagine that this wasn't in the NYC area where there are lots of other options, but in a small town. Oh, wait - I forgot - what's the reason for this attack of conscience? Maybe it's a mixed-race couple? A May-December romance, in "the wrong" direction (whichever bothers you more)? Whatever other random bee the store owner finds in his/her bonnet? No, none of them is acceptable under law and custom, no matter how convinced the store owner is that it will all end in tears. But somehow those particular style of dresses don't belong on . . . . . THOSE . . . sorts of people. You know, the more I write this, the stupider it sounds, and I thought that attitude was a waste of effort already. Some object to society allowing some people to marry; I object to stupid people marrying and having lots of stupid children, which is more of a problem in the long run. But so what. It's allowed now. And if they want a dress, or a cake, and someone is in business to sell dresses or cakes, it doesn't make you one of them to sell them the damn dress or cake. You'd sell them a party dress or a birthday cake without even thinking about what good friends they are. "I'm not selling you a cake because you're the wrong sort of people" just sounds so 3-year-old.
Example: if a Christian goes to a kosher bakery and asks for "holy cross" themed rolls for an Easter party . ..
... which they might well do because a kosher bakery's products will be 100% suitable for vegetarians and, if specified as "pareve", 100% dairy-free. The kosher bakery would probably make them. You want smiley faces, you want curls, you want crossed lines, whatever, it's just icing.
Our local kosher bakery has a couple of christian-themed cake decorations on a display . . . gathering dust.:-) I can assure you that plenty of non-Jews buy things there, especially people looking for vegetarian and/or totally-dairy-free foods. They sell tasty baked goods; they take valid currency. It's called "business".
Your distinction between religious and civil partnerships is valid; unfortunately, there is too much history of the use of "marriage", "husband", and "wife" in civil law. (Marriage is the one partnership contract under our law that is defined, not in one contract, but piecemeal all over the law.)
The very term "civil union" exemplifies the problem, considering that there was ALREADY a clear definition of a "civil wedding" or "civil marriage" performed by civil authority, as distinct from a religious ceremony. The new term was challenged at every opportunity as being not the same, separate and definitely unequal, which led to the insistence on the same term. Besides, marriage is very clearly defined in the Old Testament as being between one man and as many wives as he can afford . . . Oh, wait, we changed that at some point, so simplifying the definition further to being any pair of humans isn't as much of a stretch as one might think.
The single remaining pilot should never have to leave the controls to unlock the door for the pilot returning from the bathroom. Having one of the service staff inside is the easiest defense against electrical or mechanical failure. Otherwise you have a locked door mystery . . . or the locked-the-keys-in-the-car situation.
Absolutely. This was one of the bases for the joke about carrying a bomb on board the plane for safety (because the odds against TWO bombs are so high). Commercial pilots' health is monitored so the odds of any one person having a sudden illness are low; keeping two staff in the cockpit multiplied the decimal down to a vanishingly low number (but still nonzero of course). And there were rules about not eating the same dish at meals beforehand for the same reason - don't want all 3 cabin staff to have food poisoning from the same bad shellfish in the paella.
Maybe turn it around. Since that was the route he was scheduled to fly, he had the opportunity to use the remote location. (maybe he didn't live near a convenient railroad track where he could have stepped in front of a train . . . )
Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
This is why regulations, especially security and privacy and security-theater issues, must be monitored constantly and addressed immediately. Even if you trust the current management (including government), all it takes is a small management change (or government change) to bring in management that you cannot trust - or, worse, that you can be absolutely sure will do the opposite of what the previous management promised.
The typical use case is to go both ways; out and back in (for residents), or in and back out (for visitors). When you pass through, the biometrics data is linked to the passport or other reference. At a minimum, one can confirm that someone claiming to be a returning resident really is the same person who left; and that a departing visitor really is the same person who entered; and if there is a maximum time for visitors (default or visa), whether a visitor has overstayed his/her/its maximum time.
My point, though, was more about the reflex reaction of "big government spying on us". This isn't spying - it's gatekeeping, and it's one of the few legitimate purposes of such data. The problem, as with so many other things like wireless toll passes or license plate scanners, is limiting the usage to those few legitimate purposes. I don't mind being tracked on the occasions that I cross the national border; I *do* mind that the information I gave to get my passport, and the photos, become the base for identification systems tracking people all over the place "for our own safety".
Come on, people, be realistic. Slashdotters are the foremost people complaining about antiquated low-tech approaches to problems and how they could be sped up, and probably half of us already use fingerprint or face recognition on our devices. Yet we're also among the people most aware of the negative impacts of such systems and the potential for abuse.
This isn't random scanning, or general surveillance - this is a Customs checkpoint, where their ENTIRE JOB is to know who is passing in and out of the country. This is one of the ONLY places where such technology is justified. The danger isn't the open explicit mandated checkpoints, it's the misuse of this technology at every commuter station and the entrances to entertainment or shopping venues - and the availability of government-collected information (which we are coerced to provide) to commercial interests for non-public purposes. Though on a practical level it's more likely to go broke because someone got access to my finances through stupid commercial activity.
Reid and Pelosi and everyone doing strategy for the Democrats should be eliminated. All these years they have kept letting the Republicans take the initiative, frame the discussions. and define the terms of discourse. They are constantly two steps behind and on the wrong foot. Hell, Sansa Stark could do better, let alone anyone who has ever played any strategy games. Play the damn game by *all* of the rules, including backstabbing and poisoning the well like the Republicans do, and that includes the "knee to edge of board" variant that the Tea Party keeps trying to pull. Even this Clinton email thing is being handled badly, whichever side you agree with; the response - the very same day - should have been, "Yes, I ran my own email, just like I did for years before that, and the server is in the former President's house guarded by the Secret Service, and by the way all of you were receiving my emails ALL THOSE YEARS - didn't any of you idiots ever notice my return address all this time? and nobody cared all this time? But go ahead, assholes, because if you seat a committee to look into email, we're going to look into EVERYONE's email. Yes, including the ones with the dick pix and the dominatrix mistresses. Go ahead, I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours."
It isn't expensive to start rolling out as part of the new generation of Neverlost hardware. Eventually they'll check on who's driving ("You only paid for one driver and signed for one insurance coverage, but we see that both of you were driving..."), once their lawyers have finished changing the microprint that nobody reads before they sign.
This is a self-contradicting problem. I have absolutely no interest in killing myself or being killed, unless and until I'm incapable, which is precisely the point at which I need help. What I want to be able to do, while capable, sane, and demonstrably *not* in any immediate need and *not* under any duress, is set up the contract (oops, the "will and testament") that specifies the conditions under which I want to be assisted off this mortal coil since I can't do it myself any more.
I am in favor of a right to die, and I simultaneously appreciate the concern that people will be pushed into it before they want to - maybe even by well-meaning "avoid suffering" arguments, as opposed to "die faster and stop using up our inheritance" situations. In our current legal environment a hospital can ignore a properly executed living will, and fight a properly executed power of attorney (not to mention where some states still don't have "living wills"), and claim that it is "erring on the side of caution". And anything suggesting that one wishes to die, no matter how dire or specific the circumstances, immediately gets cast as an attempt at suicide which clearly indicates mental incapacity, so *of course* it should be ignored.
I know the "Darwin Awards" are intended as a joke, but consider a purely animalistic / mathematical perspective: the individual doesn't matter to Mother Nature. Most species produce lots of offspring simply to overcome the high odds of dying before reproducing. Those odds are mostly external from predators and injury, and also include internal causes like illness, "unfitness" (in the Darwinian sense), and any kind of defect. Some calculated risk-taking is useful, but poor calculation skills (or excessive bravado despite calculation) lead to the "Darwin Awards" concept. Maybe, in the same vein, some amount of fear / depression / unhappiness is useful as a moderating influence on behavior - as often stated, courage is not the absence of fear, it is persistence despite fear - but too much of those emotions renders the individual less useful, and enough of those emotions to cause self-damage or self-killing is a trait that will self-cull from the gene pool.
Is it, then, worthwhile from a purely economical point to try to baby-proof the world, or would it be more practical to emphasize recognition and identification of people with problems for targeted help? Not to mention impinging on everybody for the safety of the few (a hot reaction in so many posts here). This has some analogy to the issue of "playground safety" meaning that children get no exercise and learn no skills because the play area must be totally safe for all activities and ability levels. At what point does making the world totally safe mean nobody can have a cooking knife?
I would think that a specific *goal* would be to have a car with enough independence that the passengers could be drinking, though only as a specific use coase of the more general category "unable to drive" due to physical or mental handicap, incapacity, ability, age-related infirmity, or even a frivolous desire to concentrate on something else, be it reading, work, or companion(s). On the other hand, if you need a license to be a passenger, then a very significant portion of the potential utility is missing. One would expect that you need a license to take individual control, and perhaps to be able to drive outside of a control grid area.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm. . . partly, yes. OTOH the reason there's a kosher bakery is that there is enough of a community to keep it in business, and doesn't need outside customers. They probably *could* say "to the tribe only". But business is business, business is not religion. (One might say that religion is a business - and then argue about whether it's a protection racket or an entertainment industry - but that's another story.)
1. Not hypothetical - our local kosher bakery went totally nut-free because all of the religious schools need nut-free foods. Guess what - they suddenly became a prime supplier to additional places who have no interest in kosher but need nut-free and vegan, including two preschools at local churches (which is how I know the story).
2. In a small town, there may not be a different shop so close.
3. The only lawsuits that I have read about that might be described as trying to "destroy a small business owner" were cases were people made an agreement or order or reservation, paid money, and were canceled on too late to make alternate plans. That sort of thing causes havoc in totally average cases - here in the NYC area, just a few months back, there was an uproar because a bridal shop suddenly locked its doors, and the owner decamped with whatever deposit money there had been, leaving hundreds of brides and bridesmaids without their promised dresses. Nobody cared about the unpaid employees and bills; all of the publicity was on the weddings planned for that weekend, with dresses already fitted but locked up behind police tape. But that was nothing personal; everyone was being impacted.
Imagine now if the owner had called up only one couple and said, "I know your wedding is coming up, but I decided my conscience wouldn't let me go through with the order for your dresses. You'll just have to get them somewhere else." And imagine that this wasn't in the NYC area where there are lots of other options, but in a small town. Oh, wait - I forgot - what's the reason for this attack of conscience? Maybe it's a mixed-race couple? A May-December romance, in "the wrong" direction (whichever bothers you more)? Whatever other random bee the store owner finds in his/her bonnet? No, none of them is acceptable under law and custom, no matter how convinced the store owner is that it will all end in tears. But somehow those particular style of dresses don't belong on . . . . . THOSE . . . sorts of people. You know, the more I write this, the stupider it sounds, and I thought that attitude was a waste of effort already. Some object to society allowing some people to marry; I object to stupid people marrying and having lots of stupid children, which is more of a problem in the long run. But so what. It's allowed now. And if they want a dress, or a cake, and someone is in business to sell dresses or cakes, it doesn't make you one of them to sell them the damn dress or cake. You'd sell them a party dress or a birthday cake without even thinking about what good friends they are. "I'm not selling you a cake because you're the wrong sort of people" just sounds so 3-year-old.
They have no interest in discriminating. And it is not in the interest of any business to be discriminating. The interest of business is business.
Example: if a Christian goes to a kosher bakery and asks for "holy cross" themed rolls for an Easter party . . .
... which they might well do because a kosher bakery's products will be 100% suitable for vegetarians and, if specified as "pareve", 100% dairy-free. The kosher bakery would probably make them. You want smiley faces, you want curls, you want crossed lines, whatever, it's just icing.
Our local kosher bakery has a couple of christian-themed cake decorations on a display . . . gathering dust. :-) I can assure you that plenty of non-Jews buy things there, especially people looking for vegetarian and/or totally-dairy-free foods. They sell tasty baked goods; they take valid currency. It's called "business".
Your distinction between religious and civil partnerships is valid; unfortunately, there is too much history of the use of "marriage", "husband", and "wife" in civil law. (Marriage is the one partnership contract under our law that is defined, not in one contract, but piecemeal all over the law.) The very term "civil union" exemplifies the problem, considering that there was ALREADY a clear definition of a "civil wedding" or "civil marriage" performed by civil authority, as distinct from a religious ceremony. The new term was challenged at every opportunity as being not the same, separate and definitely unequal, which led to the insistence on the same term. Besides, marriage is very clearly defined in the Old Testament as being between one man and as many wives as he can afford . . . Oh, wait, we changed that at some point, so simplifying the definition further to being any pair of humans isn't as much of a stretch as one might think.
The single remaining pilot should never have to leave the controls to unlock the door for the pilot returning from the bathroom. Having one of the service staff inside is the easiest defense against electrical or mechanical failure. Otherwise you have a locked door mystery . . . or the locked-the-keys-in-the-car situation.
You have never taken Krav Maga with a female Israeli, I assume.
Absolutely. This was one of the bases for the joke about carrying a bomb on board the plane for safety (because the odds against TWO bombs are so high). Commercial pilots' health is monitored so the odds of any one person having a sudden illness are low; keeping two staff in the cockpit multiplied the decimal down to a vanishingly low number (but still nonzero of course). And there were rules about not eating the same dish at meals beforehand for the same reason - don't want all 3 cabin staff to have food poisoning from the same bad shellfish in the paella.
Maybe turn it around. Since that was the route he was scheduled to fly, he had the opportunity to use the remote location. (maybe he didn't live near a convenient railroad track where he could have stepped in front of a train . . . )
Proposed: Any store can refuse service to anyone. "No shirt, no shoes, no service". And to make this effective, the store must post its refusal criteria on the door, or within (x) feet of the door, in letters at least 3 inches tall, clearly legible before a customer enters the store, in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
You have it backwards. Heinz is buying Kraft. http://fortune.com/2015/03/24/...
This is why regulations, especially security and privacy and security-theater issues, must be monitored constantly and addressed immediately. Even if you trust the current management (including government), all it takes is a small management change (or government change) to bring in management that you cannot trust - or, worse, that you can be absolutely sure will do the opposite of what the previous management promised.
Remember, even if you aren't a criminal, the RANDOM PERSON looking through the records might be.
This information is available through FOIA request. So, FTFY.
The typical use case is to go both ways; out and back in (for residents), or in and back out (for visitors). When you pass through, the biometrics data is linked to the passport or other reference. At a minimum, one can confirm that someone claiming to be a returning resident really is the same person who left; and that a departing visitor really is the same person who entered; and if there is a maximum time for visitors (default or visa), whether a visitor has overstayed his/her/its maximum time.
My point, though, was more about the reflex reaction of "big government spying on us". This isn't spying - it's gatekeeping, and it's one of the few legitimate purposes of such data. The problem, as with so many other things like wireless toll passes or license plate scanners, is limiting the usage to those few legitimate purposes. I don't mind being tracked on the occasions that I cross the national border; I *do* mind that the information I gave to get my passport, and the photos, become the base for identification systems tracking people all over the place "for our own safety".
Come on, people, be realistic. Slashdotters are the foremost people complaining about antiquated low-tech approaches to problems and how they could be sped up, and probably half of us already use fingerprint or face recognition on our devices. Yet we're also among the people most aware of the negative impacts of such systems and the potential for abuse.
This isn't random scanning, or general surveillance - this is a Customs checkpoint, where their ENTIRE JOB is to know who is passing in and out of the country. This is one of the ONLY places where such technology is justified. The danger isn't the open explicit mandated checkpoints, it's the misuse of this technology at every commuter station and the entrances to entertainment or shopping venues - and the availability of government-collected information (which we are coerced to provide) to commercial interests for non-public purposes. Though on a practical level it's more likely to go broke because someone got access to my finances through stupid commercial activity.
Reid and Pelosi and everyone doing strategy for the Democrats should be eliminated. All these years they have kept letting the Republicans take the initiative, frame the discussions. and define the terms of discourse. They are constantly two steps behind and on the wrong foot. Hell, Sansa Stark could do better, let alone anyone who has ever played any strategy games. Play the damn game by *all* of the rules, including backstabbing and poisoning the well like the Republicans do, and that includes the "knee to edge of board" variant that the Tea Party keeps trying to pull. Even this Clinton email thing is being handled badly, whichever side you agree with; the response - the very same day - should have been, "Yes, I ran my own email, just like I did for years before that, and the server is in the former President's house guarded by the Secret Service, and by the way all of you were receiving my emails ALL THOSE YEARS - didn't any of you idiots ever notice my return address all this time? and nobody cared all this time? But go ahead, assholes, because if you seat a committee to look into email, we're going to look into EVERYONE's email. Yes, including the ones with the dick pix and the dominatrix mistresses. Go ahead, I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours."
Is that more nipples per person, or more nipples per person? Because the latter could be kind of weird . . . .
It isn't expensive to start rolling out as part of the new generation of Neverlost hardware. Eventually they'll check on who's driving ("You only paid for one driver and signed for one insurance coverage, but we see that both of you were driving..."), once their lawyers have finished changing the microprint that nobody reads before they sign.
Somehow I think the price on his head would have been as high as on Vetinari's.
This is a self-contradicting problem. I have absolutely no interest in killing myself or being killed, unless and until I'm incapable, which is precisely the point at which I need help. What I want to be able to do, while capable, sane, and demonstrably *not* in any immediate need and *not* under any duress, is set up the contract (oops, the "will and testament") that specifies the conditions under which I want to be assisted off this mortal coil since I can't do it myself any more.
I am in favor of a right to die, and I simultaneously appreciate the concern that people will be pushed into it before they want to - maybe even by well-meaning "avoid suffering" arguments, as opposed to "die faster and stop using up our inheritance" situations. In our current legal environment a hospital can ignore a properly executed living will, and fight a properly executed power of attorney (not to mention where some states still don't have "living wills"), and claim that it is "erring on the side of caution". And anything suggesting that one wishes to die, no matter how dire or specific the circumstances, immediately gets cast as an attempt at suicide which clearly indicates mental incapacity, so *of course* it should be ignored.
I know the "Darwin Awards" are intended as a joke, but consider a purely animalistic / mathematical perspective: the individual doesn't matter to Mother Nature. Most species produce lots of offspring simply to overcome the high odds of dying before reproducing. Those odds are mostly external from predators and injury, and also include internal causes like illness, "unfitness" (in the Darwinian sense), and any kind of defect. Some calculated risk-taking is useful, but poor calculation skills (or excessive bravado despite calculation) lead to the "Darwin Awards" concept. Maybe, in the same vein, some amount of fear / depression / unhappiness is useful as a moderating influence on behavior - as often stated, courage is not the absence of fear, it is persistence despite fear - but too much of those emotions renders the individual less useful, and enough of those emotions to cause self-damage or self-killing is a trait that will self-cull from the gene pool.
Is it, then, worthwhile from a purely economical point to try to baby-proof the world, or would it be more practical to emphasize recognition and identification of people with problems for targeted help? Not to mention impinging on everybody for the safety of the few (a hot reaction in so many posts here). This has some analogy to the issue of "playground safety" meaning that children get no exercise and learn no skills because the play area must be totally safe for all activities and ability levels. At what point does making the world totally safe mean nobody can have a cooking knife?
I would think that a specific *goal* would be to have a car with enough independence that the passengers could be drinking, though only as a specific use coase of the more general category "unable to drive" due to physical or mental handicap, incapacity, ability, age-related infirmity, or even a frivolous desire to concentrate on something else, be it reading, work, or companion(s). On the other hand, if you need a license to be a passenger, then a very significant portion of the potential utility is missing. One would expect that you need a license to take individual control, and perhaps to be able to drive outside of a control grid area.
Let's see how fast they can shut down that accounting website . . . .