You asked a question based on a false premise. Also a variant of the Complex Question fallacy, due to phrasing in such a way as to presuppose a controversial point of view. We DON'T live in an irradiated wasteland. It's difficult to prove someone wrong when they put the cart before the horse. Frankly, the horse is more intelligent than the aforementioned person.
I'm glad you live your entire life with only the highest of ethical and moral standards and have never done anything the slightest bit illegal. Of course not. And it wasn't just because you weren't caught, or because virtually every citizen doesn't commit all sorts of felonies every day, or ever get put on any lists for absurd reasons.
You're a waste of space. Even worse, you're a waste of space that clings to a technicality to preserve a system with known flaws that ruins the lives of people who would considered innocent by any sane standard. (Peeing in bushes, high schoolers dating, etc.) The fact that you can't distinguish legal from moral or ethical is telling. You assume that the list implies that the person was deserving of punishment, and only care to quibble over how long or whether or not they're "dangerous". Hint: the guy peeing in the bushes probably wasn't dangerous. Nor the high school kids fucking each other.
Now that you've read the nuances, maybe you'll realize that the argument I just made is simply an obnoxious reiteration of my previous point, for idiots who can't be bothered to read.
Desensitization isn't irrelevant. People brought up with cameras will put up more cameras and spawn people who put up still more cameras. We weren't talking about a public space either--we were discussing a *private* space, owned by a *private* entity, in a situation where it's STILL considered bad form to take video. Your goalposts are moving.
I need to find a girl at my university that needs some tuition money, and pay her to walk into the women's locker room wearing google glass in record mode. Is there an app for that yet?
The real key with desensitization in this is that we introduce ubiquitous cameras into spaces previously considered "camera-free" for the most part. If I take out an iPhone in the locker-room, and start holding it up and pointing it at people, rather than holding it roughly at waist-level or near my ear, I'm probably not going to like the reaction. But, if someone always wears these glasses ON THEIR FACE, it turns into a moment of "Oh, I forgot", the densisitization continues, and we're left with even *less* of a visual cue to alert us that we're being recorded, in what was previously a no-recording zone.
I'm not sure why you lumped in child abduction. That's commonly called kidnapping. Parents of children are found guilty of it all the time, when they decide to take their kid to the park for a day and the other one gets upset, even if it had previously been arranged by all parties involved. Custody disputes happen. None of it has anything to do with sex. Having sex with a minor is already illegal--why do you need to use a law against vanishing a person against their will/consent to make your point? That aside, the rest of your list made sense, but that jumped out as WTF?
And he's completely out of touch with reality (for most people, not the 1% he claims to be part of). All that money musta fried him something good and crispy. I'd really like to have someone hand me $2k (adjusted for inflation and guesstimating age based on # of years voting, that's around $5.5k right now) to get myself off the ground as an adult, rather than being homeless to start with (get out and don't come back until you've made something of yourself!).
You vote. How quaint. Remind me exactly what that does again, in this country? You've got money, 20+ years of voting, surely, you know it all, but yet, you've never voted for a winner once? That means it's surely real effective, just keep blaming everyone else when it doesn't work. Keep voting for those lizards.
Maybe you should have spent more time in elementary learning English. When you are the owner of record of something, you "own" it, even if someone else has a lien on it. It's not "rent" because, so long as you fulfill the contract, they have no claim on it, and the contract has a definite end date, after which they will never have a claim on it.
And maybe you're comfy in your secure job and have never been laid off. I'd welcome you to the rest of the world, but it's abundantly clear that you've never been part of it.
Just in case you feel generous, I'll take a donation to found the hackerspace. Just sayin'. Tax deductible even, since it'll be non-profit. Oh your coffers aren't that deep and you need your tenants to work for you? Right. You raised yourself up by your parents' bootstraps. (Or single parent or w/e you said.) But try doing it from absolute zero: homeless with no possessions except some shitty clothes and a backpack. Been there, done that, still working my way up. If you wonder *why* I'm pissed, you might stop to consider just how good you actually had it.
How the heck did you figure out all that? You must have my finances in front of you! Great job... not. Your parents handed you $2000. You know what mind handed me? Nothing. Federal aid? Not worth shit if your parents make anything above the poverty line, even by a little bit. I've worked shitty jobs for years, studied on my own, and am FINALLY, just FINALLY, able to put myself through college to get that piece of paper, so I don't need to work shitty low paying jobs, but now I've got loans. And, for the record, I do my own taxes, but most of those loopholes don't apply unless you have large investments, children: things I've had to avoid because I'm paying my rent and putting food on the table. You didn't START with your million dollar loan and 4 $250,000 houses.
Maybe someday, I will find myself as comfortable as you. I've been plowing my extra money into hard assets and living on very little in the way of personal entertainment--let's get that clear. I intend to have a business someday, with those assets. But you know what? I'm STILL looking at a decade or two of busting my balls just to get it launched. Perhaps I could take out some loans to purchase a building with (to *rent* a building with, as you don't own it until it's paid)... but then I'm really on the hook. I was brought up to save, invest in hard assets (durably built tools, etc.), and not take loans all over the place. What I own, I own outright, by working my ass off, doing everything from washing dishes, to digging trenches, to building websites for chump change (no degree, but decades of experience programming now), and nothing short of someone taking it by physical force is going to change that. Yes, I can "have it all and more". But at what cost? To find myself beholden to a bank? To suggest that the average person should take out a million dollar loan is obscene, and you forget where YOU came from. If you want to offer advice, try to walk in your old shoes again.
The election of the President and the Vice President of the United States is an indirect vote in which citizens cast ballots for a slate of members of the U.S. Electoral College; these electors in turn directly elect the President and Vice President.
The site for the material to be placed is approximately 17 miles away. Where do you get 40? The initial location? Irrelevant. I could scoop it off the moon, and as long as I put it 17 miles from the reef, it'd still be 17 miles away from where "this is happening". I'm not arguing whether it's environmentally sound or not, but I do think that fudging numbers and using them creatively is a bad policy. Try harder next time.
Replying to myself in terrible form: I know you said "park authority" but this is a US-centric website. Maybe some details on the individuals within this, presumably large and heterogeneous, group that actually used their wisdom to make a decision? That's really what I'm driving at with asking you to cite, in this instance.
That's known as an appeal to authority. We hear them a lot on/., usually in reference to some policy made "for the children" or "to protect us". Save it for someone who cares. Citations or GTFO and don't make uselessly speculative comments. For example, you could cite WHICH experts approved it, since that would allow us to more easily judge if there's a financial motive or other outstanding bias which should not have factored into their decision, above and beyond their expert status.
There’s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning
department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start
making a fuss about it now.
The trick is to gain assets greater than your assets.
Translation: The trick is to be born into enough money to make large investments with large returns.
Borrow $1,000,000 and buy 4 $250,000 houses
Translation: I am disconnected from the financial reality of the average working-class citizen.
Sell them in 10 years and you beat inflation, even after inflation and interest.
Translation: Use hard assets, not soft assets, in order to beat inflation.
Of course, to get $1,000,000 in loans, you have to already have money. But I do have enough to borrow to beat inflation.
Translation: You need to be rich like me in order to get rich like me.
If someone inflates against me, I raise rents on my tenants. Problem solved.
Translation: I solve my problems by screwing over the guy who has less initial resources and is thus less able to invest and be rich like me. Profit!
I'm also earning 10% per year (average over 20 years) in the market with retirement and investments. And, of course, being in the top 10% of wage earners, I pay less than 10% of my income as federal income tax (and less than 20% in total taxes, summing all property, sales, state, local and federal taxes). My tax rate should be 3x what it is, but I'm happy to use the system to my benefit. Even if the system is broken.
Translation: I make WAY more money than you and I pay less in taxes than you as a function of income. I should pay 3x as much, but I'm happy to screw the next guy over, who doesn't have enough money to play games with the loopholes or make very large investments.
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you have ANY idea how much like a stuck up asshole, totally disconnected from the economic reality of the average citizen you sound? By your own admissions and details, you need a sizable amount of money just to play your game in the first place!
This idea that our Constitutiont is "just a guideline" has led to much of this mess, with secret courts and secret laws, often in direct contravention to the text of our Highest Law of the Land in the Land Ruled By Law (supposedly). The Constitution is NOT a suggestion. It is THE LAW. Full stop, period, bar none. (except physics, which is still just a model of the *real* laws, but I digress.)
The criminals are those who, instead of amending the Constitution by the mechanism built into it, claim an interpretation of it, and then another interpretation on top of that, until, after a serious game of Telephone, we wind up with the aforementioned secret laws and courts. If the literal meaning of the Constitution doesn't work for our society, AMEND IT.
Slashdot Mirror
Get rid of beta, go through the office with a torch and shotgun, target anyone who uses the term "UX".
They could sell tickets for that to the rest of us, and they'd make a mint.
You asked a question based on a false premise. Also a variant of the Complex Question fallacy, due to phrasing in such a way as to presuppose a controversial point of view. We DON'T live in an irradiated wasteland. It's difficult to prove someone wrong when they put the cart before the horse. Frankly, the horse is more intelligent than the aforementioned person.
I'm glad you live your entire life with only the highest of ethical and moral standards and have never done anything the slightest bit illegal. Of course not. And it wasn't just because you weren't caught, or because virtually every citizen doesn't commit all sorts of felonies every day, or ever get put on any lists for absurd reasons.
You're a waste of space. Even worse, you're a waste of space that clings to a technicality to preserve a system with known flaws that ruins the lives of people who would considered innocent by any sane standard. (Peeing in bushes, high schoolers dating, etc.) The fact that you can't distinguish legal from moral or ethical is telling. You assume that the list implies that the person was deserving of punishment, and only care to quibble over how long or whether or not they're "dangerous". Hint: the guy peeing in the bushes probably wasn't dangerous. Nor the high school kids fucking each other.
Now that you've read the nuances, maybe you'll realize that the argument I just made is simply an obnoxious reiteration of my previous point, for idiots who can't be bothered to read.
+1 Informative
I need to find a girl at my university that needs some tuition money, and pay her to walk into the women's locker room wearing google glass in record mode. Is there an app for that yet?
The real key with desensitization in this is that we introduce ubiquitous cameras into spaces previously considered "camera-free" for the most part. If I take out an iPhone in the locker-room, and start holding it up and pointing it at people, rather than holding it roughly at waist-level or near my ear, I'm probably not going to like the reaction. But, if someone always wears these glasses ON THEIR FACE, it turns into a moment of "Oh, I forgot", the densisitization continues, and we're left with even *less* of a visual cue to alert us that we're being recorded, in what was previously a no-recording zone.
I'm not sure why you lumped in child abduction. That's commonly called kidnapping. Parents of children are found guilty of it all the time, when they decide to take their kid to the park for a day and the other one gets upset, even if it had previously been arranged by all parties involved. Custody disputes happen. None of it has anything to do with sex. Having sex with a minor is already illegal--why do you need to use a law against vanishing a person against their will/consent to make your point? That aside, the rest of your list made sense, but that jumped out as WTF?
And he's completely out of touch with reality (for most people, not the 1% he claims to be part of). All that money musta fried him something good and crispy. I'd really like to have someone hand me $2k (adjusted for inflation and guesstimating age based on # of years voting, that's around $5.5k right now) to get myself off the ground as an adult, rather than being homeless to start with (get out and don't come back until you've made something of yourself!).
You vote. How quaint. Remind me exactly what that does again, in this country? You've got money, 20+ years of voting, surely, you know it all, but yet, you've never voted for a winner once? That means it's surely real effective, just keep blaming everyone else when it doesn't work. Keep voting for those lizards.
Maybe you should have spent more time in elementary learning English. When you are the owner of record of something, you "own" it, even if someone else has a lien on it. It's not "rent" because, so long as you fulfill the contract, they have no claim on it, and the contract has a definite end date, after which they will never have a claim on it.
And maybe you're comfy in your secure job and have never been laid off. I'd welcome you to the rest of the world, but it's abundantly clear that you've never been part of it.
If you're scared by those things, you must really be overexaggerating the danger of the wildlife. ;)
Just in case you feel generous, I'll take a donation to found the hackerspace. Just sayin'. Tax deductible even, since it'll be non-profit. Oh your coffers aren't that deep and you need your tenants to work for you? Right. You raised yourself up by your parents' bootstraps. (Or single parent or w/e you said.) But try doing it from absolute zero: homeless with no possessions except some shitty clothes and a backpack. Been there, done that, still working my way up. If you wonder *why* I'm pissed, you might stop to consider just how good you actually had it.
How the heck did you figure out all that? You must have my finances in front of you! Great job... not. Your parents handed you $2000. You know what mind handed me? Nothing. Federal aid? Not worth shit if your parents make anything above the poverty line, even by a little bit. I've worked shitty jobs for years, studied on my own, and am FINALLY, just FINALLY, able to put myself through college to get that piece of paper, so I don't need to work shitty low paying jobs, but now I've got loans. And, for the record, I do my own taxes, but most of those loopholes don't apply unless you have large investments, children: things I've had to avoid because I'm paying my rent and putting food on the table. You didn't START with your million dollar loan and 4 $250,000 houses.
Maybe someday, I will find myself as comfortable as you. I've been plowing my extra money into hard assets and living on very little in the way of personal entertainment--let's get that clear. I intend to have a business someday, with those assets. But you know what? I'm STILL looking at a decade or two of busting my balls just to get it launched. Perhaps I could take out some loans to purchase a building with (to *rent* a building with, as you don't own it until it's paid)... but then I'm really on the hook. I was brought up to save, invest in hard assets (durably built tools, etc.), and not take loans all over the place. What I own, I own outright, by working my ass off, doing everything from washing dishes, to digging trenches, to building websites for chump change (no degree, but decades of experience programming now), and nothing short of someone taking it by physical force is going to change that. Yes, I can "have it all and more". But at what cost? To find myself beholden to a bank? To suggest that the average person should take out a million dollar loan is obscene, and you forget where YOU came from. If you want to offer advice, try to walk in your old shoes again.
The election of the President and the Vice President of the United States is an indirect vote in which citizens cast ballots for a slate of members of the U.S. Electoral College; these electors in turn directly elect the President and Vice President.
Emphasis mine.
This is what I get for not running the numbers myself: It's actually 15.5ish miles, but my point stands the same, even more so, if anything.
The site for the material to be placed is approximately 17 miles away. Where do you get 40? The initial location? Irrelevant. I could scoop it off the moon, and as long as I put it 17 miles from the reef, it'd still be 17 miles away from where "this is happening". I'm not arguing whether it's environmentally sound or not, but I do think that fudging numbers and using them creatively is a bad policy. Try harder next time.
Replying to myself in terrible form: I know you said "park authority" but this is a US-centric website. Maybe some details on the individuals within this, presumably large and heterogeneous, group that actually used their wisdom to make a decision? That's really what I'm driving at with asking you to cite, in this instance.
That's known as an appeal to authority. We hear them a lot on /., usually in reference to some policy made "for the children" or "to protect us". Save it for someone who cares. Citations or GTFO and don't make uselessly speculative comments. For example, you could cite WHICH experts approved it, since that would allow us to more easily judge if there's a financial motive or other outstanding bias which should not have factored into their decision, above and beyond their expert status.
There’s no point acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
Most investments do NOT pay 5% interest (this isn't the late 90s anymore, 2% is good!).
The trick is to gain assets greater than your assets.
Translation: The trick is to be born into enough money to make large investments with large returns.
Borrow $1,000,000 and buy 4 $250,000 houses
Translation: I am disconnected from the financial reality of the average working-class citizen.
Sell them in 10 years and you beat inflation, even after inflation and interest.
Translation: Use hard assets, not soft assets, in order to beat inflation.
Of course, to get $1,000,000 in loans, you have to already have money. But I do have enough to borrow to beat inflation.
Translation: You need to be rich like me in order to get rich like me.
If someone inflates against me, I raise rents on my tenants. Problem solved.
Translation: I solve my problems by screwing over the guy who has less initial resources and is thus less able to invest and be rich like me. Profit!
I'm also earning 10% per year (average over 20 years) in the market with retirement and investments. And, of course, being in the top 10% of wage earners, I pay less than 10% of my income as federal income tax (and less than 20% in total taxes, summing all property, sales, state, local and federal taxes). My tax rate should be 3x what it is, but I'm happy to use the system to my benefit. Even if the system is broken.
Translation: I make WAY more money than you and I pay less in taxes than you as a function of income. I should pay 3x as much, but I'm happy to screw the next guy over, who doesn't have enough money to play games with the loopholes or make very large investments.
Do you ever listen to yourself? Do you have ANY idea how much like a stuck up asshole, totally disconnected from the economic reality of the average citizen you sound? By your own admissions and details, you need a sizable amount of money just to play your game in the first place!
I remember you! You're the guy who uses ABC123 as their password! You had it posted on this cute little sticky note on your monitor...
But we're talking about the Americans and the English! They're not Scotsmen anyway!
To your excellent point, I'd add the further corollary: with desensitization, well-disguised cameras are irrelevant.
Legal definitions aside (IANAL): Speech is money. War is peace. Love is hate. Ignorance is strength. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
This idea that our Constitutiont is "just a guideline" has led to much of this mess, with secret courts and secret laws, often in direct contravention to the text of our Highest Law of the Land in the Land Ruled By Law (supposedly). The Constitution is NOT a suggestion. It is THE LAW. Full stop, period, bar none. (except physics, which is still just a model of the *real* laws, but I digress.)
The criminals are those who, instead of amending the Constitution by the mechanism built into it, claim an interpretation of it, and then another interpretation on top of that, until, after a serious game of Telephone, we wind up with the aforementioned secret laws and courts. If the literal meaning of the Constitution doesn't work for our society, AMEND IT.