Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana. In Oregon and Washington, it was approved by voters directly (1994 and 1997 in Oregon, and 2009 in Washington), and in Montana, it was established in a state Supreme Court ruling that nothing in the state Constitution nor in statute prohibited physician aid in dying.
I've been very happy with my Boxee box. I haven't found a local video file it won't play, and it has hardware-accelerated flash for playing random web videos. The video decoding is based on ffmpeg, I believe.
The daughter says the abuse went on for years, the judge says he lost his temper. I don't think the charitable explanation casts him in a particularly good light, either. The beating he lays down is wildly out of proportion to the offense (downloading stuff from Kazaa).
As to your point about spanking, we can have a discussion about spanking a child, but this is a 16-year-old. You're not going to correct her behavior by beating her up. Meanwhile, I know plenty of millennials who weren't spanked who are reasonable people, and I know a small handful of them who were beaten as children who have some pretty substantial mental health issues. It's a non sequitur though, because whether or not spanking your child is necessary to make them a functional adult (hint: it's not), this judge beat the shit out of his 16-year-old daughter because she downloaded music from the internet and had an attitude. If you think that deserves a beating, I'm not sure what to say to you.
Even more likely he is beating his daughter because it makes him feel like a big man on a power trip. She knew what she was doing would elicit a severe beating, so if she wanted footage of him abusing her, all she had to do was download some songs from the internet.
Child abuse and domestic abuse aren't about punishment, they are about control. She could probably have changed the desktop background or something equally trivial. He's not punishing her for misdeeds, he's beating her into submission. He even says so in the video.
IIRC, the iPhone home screen has a drawer with 4 icons, and 16 other app icons. The stock Android home screen has 16 apps, and permanent links to the browser and the phone/contact apps. That's not enough. I replaced the home screen with a drawer that contains 7 apps, and a grid above that can hold 20. For my commonly used apps, I don't need to see descriptions.
As for that keyboard app you linked, does it replace the built-in iPhone keyboard, or does it just let you send/copy/paste text to other apps? Mine does the former.
So if I understand this correctly, since 3 and 88 are relatively prime, then every number in the closed field F88 is a multiple of 3, and if you keep multiplying by 3, you'll eventually hit each number.
Sharing over Samba is quick and easy: there are graphical tools for it, and pretty much every Linux distro has the client tools preinstalled. NFS is balls (forcing me to use the same UID on every machine? Well I guess I can spend a week learning how to configure LDAP or Kerberos...). AFP is capable, so if you only have Macs and Linux, that would work too, although SMB works about as well on a Mac as it does on Windows.
Nobody cares about privacy. They care about communicating with people they know. Everyone they know is on Facebook. You seem to be pretty unique in not knowing many people who use it.
This state of affairs is lamentable, but clearly people aren't abandoning Facebook in droves because of their privacy policy. If someone comes up with a social platform that actually respects the user's wishes for privacy and is way better and easier to use and lets them play bullshit games and is free and works that way from day one, maybe a critical mass will pull people off Facebook.
It's not possible under current law, and it would create an avenue for restitution to customers that would serve as a deterrent to certain behavior (lax security practices). I'm using a fairly loose definition of "regulatory process," but instead of the government pursuing action, you would have individuals (presumably after government-mandated disclosure?).
I see no reason to believe the legislation assigning liability for data breaches to companies (contingent on their lack of sufficient security practices, as determined by the court) would get a materially better result than creating a government agency responsible for setting guidelines for acceptable practices and assigning penalties for non-compliance (even potentially in the absence of a data breach). You would require the parties whose data is leaked to take action after they are notified of the breach; I would make such action automatic.
And yeah, government employees are criminals. I'm not going to bother responding to this garbage. Regulatory capture can happen to judges, and there is less ability to review the decisions of judges, who have to rely on the testimony of expert witnesses, who are taught by those companies, or come from those companies. I bet you complain about judicial activism, too.
Replace "intentionally" with "negligently" and you won't be far from the truth.
The regulations help ensure that tap water won't kill anybody. I think that's a pretty reasonable floor for water quality. The fact that some people are willing to pay for slightly cleaner water does not mean that everybody else should be subjected to unsafe water, necessitating further filtration.
Lead was used in paint for a lot of reasons: drying time, color duration &c. Making paint without lead meant it was more expensive to get the same quality. Without regulations, it might still be sold, but only to poor people.
Companies, by and large, only stop doing bad things when it become profitable to stop. Regulations serve to make it more expensive to behave badly.
It sounds like you just invented a regulatory process, congratulations.
Of course, regulations based on torts are pretty inefficient (compared to rules made by professionally trained bureaucrats), since legal services cost a lot of money. Imagine a check cashing company with a data breach: all the customers are poor and relatively powerless, so they can collectively hire a lawyer on contingency if they want the company to face consequences. Not much of a deterrent, compared to an automatic review process and a government-issued fine. The same treatment happens if it's a Rolls Royce dealership.
The acid rain program in the 1990 clean air act set maximum levels of sulfur emissions, set per-coal-burning-unit targets and provided an incentive for reductions beyond that target (tradable emission credits). Emissions were successfully reduced, starting with the units where it was most economical to do so.
I don't think anyone said that regulations don't have unintended consequences. They move the equilibrium to a place deemed more socially beneficial. The FDA makes medicine more expensive, but it also forces manufacturers to disclose the ingredients (so you can tell if you're allergic or don't want to pump your coughing kid full of cocaine) and side effects and ensures that drugs are reasonably safe.
(Of course there are hundreds of reasons why health care is more expensive in the US than Europe, and none of them are "way more prescription drugs in Europe," nor have I ever heard a libertarian talk about how European health care is great because it is free of regulation.)
Without the government to sort out conflicts and enforce penalties, everyone has to trust the companies they do business with as well. You can do all the analysis in the world, people are still going to screw you over. The government can't be 100% effective, and neither can a customer. They can either invest huge amounts of time researching data retention policies (and eventually get burned anyway), or get repeatedly screwed over, or withdraw from the non-cash economy.
Of course, the main difference is that without government regulation, you have more people to insult for getting conned.
Slashdot Mirror
Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana. In Oregon and Washington, it was approved by voters directly (1994 and 1997 in Oregon, and 2009 in Washington), and in Montana, it was established in a state Supreme Court ruling that nothing in the state Constitution nor in statute prohibited physician aid in dying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide#United_States
I've been very happy with my Boxee box. I haven't found a local video file it won't play, and it has hardware-accelerated flash for playing random web videos. The video decoding is based on ffmpeg, I believe.
How the fuck did you get to the GP without even looking at the summary?
"The Democrats have been taken over by those looking for European style socialism."
"One side things the government should provide for everyone"
You're an idiot.
"Democrats: Large Government is good Free market doesn't correct itself."
You're an idiot.
On IMDB's most popular movies of 1981, #54 is Caveman, starring Ringo Starr as a caveman.
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=moviemeter,asc&start=301&title_type=feature&year=1981,1981
Movies have always been mostly dumb, mindless crap. Pick a movie from 30 years ago at random, and I'll bet you $100 it's terrible to mediocre.
I'm surprised they didn't go with the more straightforward "Mario jumps on turtles to kill them."
I think you're trying to look at this as an isolated incident, and I'm trying to look at as it one incident in a long pattern.
The mother, seen in the video holding down the daughter while she is beaten, divorced the judge four years ago, and claims that she was also abused, saying, "I was completely brainwashed and controlled." http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8370540/texas-judge-defends-his-abuse-of-daughter
The daughter says the abuse went on for years, the judge says he lost his temper. I don't think the charitable explanation casts him in a particularly good light, either. The beating he lays down is wildly out of proportion to the offense (downloading stuff from Kazaa).
As to your point about spanking, we can have a discussion about spanking a child, but this is a 16-year-old. You're not going to correct her behavior by beating her up. Meanwhile, I know plenty of millennials who weren't spanked who are reasonable people, and I know a small handful of them who were beaten as children who have some pretty substantial mental health issues. It's a non sequitur though, because whether or not spanking your child is necessary to make them a functional adult (hint: it's not), this judge beat the shit out of his 16-year-old daughter because she downloaded music from the internet and had an attitude. If you think that deserves a beating, I'm not sure what to say to you.
Probably had it confused with Push It.
Even more likely he is beating his daughter because it makes him feel like a big man on a power trip. She knew what she was doing would elicit a severe beating, so if she wanted footage of him abusing her, all she had to do was download some songs from the internet.
Child abuse and domestic abuse aren't about punishment, they are about control. She could probably have changed the desktop background or something equally trivial. He's not punishing her for misdeeds, he's beating her into submission. He even says so in the video.
If she had released it when she was a 16-year-old living at home, I would imagine he would have beaten the shit out of her.
IIRC, the iPhone home screen has a drawer with 4 icons, and 16 other app icons. The stock Android home screen has 16 apps, and permanent links to the browser and the phone/contact apps. That's not enough. I replaced the home screen with a drawer that contains 7 apps, and a grid above that can hold 20. For my commonly used apps, I don't need to see descriptions.
As for that keyboard app you linked, does it replace the built-in iPhone keyboard, or does it just let you send/copy/paste text to other apps? Mine does the former.
So if I understand this correctly, since 3 and 88 are relatively prime, then every number in the closed field F88 is a multiple of 3, and if you keep multiplying by 3, you'll eventually hit each number.
But that's a pattern, isn't it?
Dangerous stuff like adding more icons on my home screen? Or dangerous like using a keyboard that has predictive typing more in line with my style?
Sharing over Samba is quick and easy: there are graphical tools for it, and pretty much every Linux distro has the client tools preinstalled. NFS is balls (forcing me to use the same UID on every machine? Well I guess I can spend a week learning how to configure LDAP or Kerberos...). AFP is capable, so if you only have Macs and Linux, that would work too, although SMB works about as well on a Mac as it does on Windows.
Qué?
Nobody cares about privacy. They care about communicating with people they know. Everyone they know is on Facebook. You seem to be pretty unique in not knowing many people who use it.
This state of affairs is lamentable, but clearly people aren't abandoning Facebook in droves because of their privacy policy. If someone comes up with a social platform that actually respects the user's wishes for privacy and is way better and easier to use and lets them play bullshit games and is free and works that way from day one, maybe a critical mass will pull people off Facebook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQFGwp8mlno
Hm...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=are+subprime+loans+subject+to+the+CRA
Also: http://consumerist.com/2009/06/affidavits-on-how-wells-fargo-gave-ghetto-loans-to-mud-people.html
Yes, I think we can safely say that the current global economic slowdown was caused by the government forcing everyone to be nice to black people.
It's not possible under current law, and it would create an avenue for restitution to customers that would serve as a deterrent to certain behavior (lax security practices). I'm using a fairly loose definition of "regulatory process," but instead of the government pursuing action, you would have individuals (presumably after government-mandated disclosure?).
I see no reason to believe the legislation assigning liability for data breaches to companies (contingent on their lack of sufficient security practices, as determined by the court) would get a materially better result than creating a government agency responsible for setting guidelines for acceptable practices and assigning penalties for non-compliance (even potentially in the absence of a data breach). You would require the parties whose data is leaked to take action after they are notified of the breach; I would make such action automatic.
And yeah, government employees are criminals. I'm not going to bother responding to this garbage. Regulatory capture can happen to judges, and there is less ability to review the decisions of judges, who have to rely on the testimony of expert witnesses, who are taught by those companies, or come from those companies. I bet you complain about judicial activism, too.
Replace "intentionally" with "negligently" and you won't be far from the truth.
The regulations help ensure that tap water won't kill anybody. I think that's a pretty reasonable floor for water quality. The fact that some people are willing to pay for slightly cleaner water does not mean that everybody else should be subjected to unsafe water, necessitating further filtration.
Lead was used in paint for a lot of reasons: drying time, color duration &c. Making paint without lead meant it was more expensive to get the same quality. Without regulations, it might still be sold, but only to poor people.
Companies, by and large, only stop doing bad things when it become profitable to stop. Regulations serve to make it more expensive to behave badly.
It sounds like you just invented a regulatory process, congratulations.
Of course, regulations based on torts are pretty inefficient (compared to rules made by professionally trained bureaucrats), since legal services cost a lot of money. Imagine a check cashing company with a data breach: all the customers are poor and relatively powerless, so they can collectively hire a lawyer on contingency if they want the company to face consequences. Not much of a deterrent, compared to an automatic review process and a government-issued fine. The same treatment happens if it's a Rolls Royce dealership.
The acid rain program in the 1990 clean air act set maximum levels of sulfur emissions, set per-coal-burning-unit targets and provided an incentive for reductions beyond that target (tradable emission credits). Emissions were successfully reduced, starting with the units where it was most economical to do so.
I don't think anyone said that regulations don't have unintended consequences. They move the equilibrium to a place deemed more socially beneficial. The FDA makes medicine more expensive, but it also forces manufacturers to disclose the ingredients (so you can tell if you're allergic or don't want to pump your coughing kid full of cocaine) and side effects and ensures that drugs are reasonably safe.
(Of course there are hundreds of reasons why health care is more expensive in the US than Europe, and none of them are "way more prescription drugs in Europe," nor have I ever heard a libertarian talk about how European health care is great because it is free of regulation.)
Without the government to sort out conflicts and enforce penalties, everyone has to trust the companies they do business with as well. You can do all the analysis in the world, people are still going to screw you over. The government can't be 100% effective, and neither can a customer. They can either invest huge amounts of time researching data retention policies (and eventually get burned anyway), or get repeatedly screwed over, or withdraw from the non-cash economy.
Of course, the main difference is that without government regulation, you have more people to insult for getting conned.