In the US this falls under 'public accommodation' laws which involve not being allowed to bar people from access to a service. Those laws would not apply here since we are looking at a product and not a person. Gun owners are not being denied access, only payment processing for some hazy definition of weapons. Companies are generally free to decide what they carry, but can get into trouble if they refuse to serve some people but not others.
They tend to look at the rapid expansion of the 80s or the post WWII growth with all the people who jumped economic brackets and feel that if not for external forces holding them back they would be one of those rising stars too.
And yet if you bring up systemic inequality they argue that no such thing exists.
'How' is simple. Just be the party writing the contract rather then signing it. If you can not arrange such a thing, it is your own fault for being poor.
Which is kinda the point, many people have gotten used to the idea of needing to charge their phone every single day and do not think much of it when not too long ago a phone could hold a charge for few weeks at a time.
You would be surprised what tracking blood sugar for non-diabetics can do for your quality of life. It is not something 'needed', but low blood sugar can have subtle effects on mood that one might not be able to identify easily at the time. It is one of those odd internal things that can be the cause of things but is not immediatly obvious.
One could ask the same of any number of small devices which can have their functionality duplicated by a smartphone. One example that has maintained some popularity would be the iPod nano which is great for things like exercise, yard-work, cleaning, carpentry, etc. Sure you can have a smart phone sitting in your pocket (assuming you are dressed in such a way that you HAVE pockets) but something smaller and less intrusive can be nice, esp when one is doing a task where they are not going to be answering phone calls anyway.
And as usual, the embedded developers are barely at the table. Though I guess, to be fair, in this case at least, it is easier for us to bypass the debate and control what is on our systems... but after GPLv3 this invisibility has been a bit of a sore point.
*nod* that is possible. I can think of several applications like sensor platforms in remote locations (satellite uplinks are not that great) though even then it still would raise the question of why the data needs to be processed there rather then sent raw. As you say, speculation is fun.
Heh. Good catch. Virtual cross dressing is harder then people give it credit, over time we develop a 'feel' for language usage and someone pretending to be what they are not often comes across as somewhat off, esp if they do not really respect who they are intimidating and thus do not spend the time to learn the speech patterns.
Meh, the misuse of rape seem to mostly be coming from people who talk about how SJWs they have heard about misuse the term, or someone is using hyperbole and they decide to ignore the context. Though the most common form I tend to see is SJWs talking about sexual assault or harassment then being accused of trivializing rape. I guess straw is easier to fight then being nice to people.
I am getting fun images of SWAT teams breaking down the officer's home doors and yelling at their families to get on the ground, then have them charged with decades in prision. Sadly this is only done to awkward computer geeks ^M^M^M^M COMPUTER TERRORISTS!!!11!
Heh. It would be amusing to see if a judge was willing to award damages on the same scale they did for the record industry. I could see someone who is bored and has too much money taking on such a case just for the book writing value.
Joking aside, I wonder why the OP is putting the number crunching in the outdoor box rather then splitting the work between an embedded system for data gathering (or whatever) and off the shelf desktop for processing.
Yeah, SSL is not exactly a pancea since it is only really useful if you have a chain of trust you can use, which puts things in the hands of a few private points of failure.
While in theory a good idea, any security that requires the average user to take extra (and tedious) manual steps will become another point of failure. Checksums are not a solution, they are just a way for people to feel superior.
Guns are a force multiplier, most gun deaths in the US are not carefully planned 'I want to kill this person' events but instead result from escalations of conflicts. Situations that would only result in injury can jump to something deadly very easily when a gun is available, which is why a huge number of deaths are due to 'heat of the moment' domestic disputes. Sure if the person is determined they will find a way, but in most cases the person is not 'determined', they just happen to have a tool that is easy.
If we were going to look at the hypothetical idea of simply making the guns in the US vanish (since simply outlawing them would take decades or centuries to actually get the guns out of circulation), the big social question would be weighing the value of the lives of the people killed or wounded against the person freedom of law abiding gun owners. Regardless of where one falls on that scale, while removing guns would not save all 10,000 people in your example, the probability is high the number would drop significantly.
Well, yes and no. The problem with entrapment is it hinges on if the person would have committed the crime if not for the agent's actions, which is an inherently subjective test.
Yeah, but generally when a guy uses 'any means necessary' is held up as an ideal of dedication and risk taking, someone who cares enough to do whatever it takes to be a success. I have even seen plenty of cases of guys buying hookers for clients and the office rewards them with praise.
Women, not so much. Women are more likely to encounter the inverse, doing everything on the level and then being accused of something underhanded if they do well since people still seem to have the idea that women SHOULD do worse.
They had even less stomach for a woman doing 'mans' work. This was during the same time period that when they did publicity shots for high tech things like programming they replaced all the actual female scientists with male underlings. Politics played a huge role in stuff like this, but it was not fear of women getting hurt and blowback, it was fear of showing women doing intellectual work, which a lot of people were frightened by.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US this falls under 'public accommodation' laws which involve not being allowed to bar people from access to a service. Those laws would not apply here since we are looking at a product and not a person. Gun owners are not being denied access, only payment processing for some hazy definition of weapons. Companies are generally free to decide what they carry, but can get into trouble if they refuse to serve some people but not others.
You WAY overestimate the actual power POTUS has.
They tend to look at the rapid expansion of the 80s or the post WWII growth with all the people who jumped economic brackets and feel that if not for external forces holding them back they would be one of those rising stars too.
And yet if you bring up systemic inequality they argue that no such thing exists.
Yeah, but these are not people who are all that worried about finding a new job.
Well, that would count as 'somehow'.
'How' is simple. Just be the party writing the contract rather then signing it. If you can not arrange such a thing, it is your own fault for being poor.
Which is kinda the point, many people have gotten used to the idea of needing to charge their phone every single day and do not think much of it when not too long ago a phone could hold a charge for few weeks at a time.
You would be surprised what tracking blood sugar for non-diabetics can do for your quality of life. It is not something 'needed', but low blood sugar can have subtle effects on mood that one might not be able to identify easily at the time. It is one of those odd internal things that can be the cause of things but is not immediatly obvious.
One could ask the same of any number of small devices which can have their functionality duplicated by a smartphone. One example that has maintained some popularity would be the iPod nano which is great for things like exercise, yard-work, cleaning, carpentry, etc. Sure you can have a smart phone sitting in your pocket (assuming you are dressed in such a way that you HAVE pockets) but something smaller and less intrusive can be nice, esp when one is doing a task where they are not going to be answering phone calls anyway.
That sounds like a design flaw in the specific smartwatch as opposed to a problem with the utility of such devices in general.
And as usual, the embedded developers are barely at the table. Though I guess, to be fair, in this case at least, it is easier for us to bypass the debate and control what is on our systems... but after GPLv3 this invisibility has been a bit of a sore point.
Sounds like lazy programming then.
*nod* that is possible. I can think of several applications like sensor platforms in remote locations (satellite uplinks are not that great) though even then it still would raise the question of why the data needs to be processed there rather then sent raw. As you say, speculation is fun.
Heh. Good catch. Virtual cross dressing is harder then people give it credit, over time we develop a 'feel' for language usage and someone pretending to be what they are not often comes across as somewhat off, esp if they do not really respect who they are intimidating and thus do not spend the time to learn the speech patterns.
Meh, the misuse of rape seem to mostly be coming from people who talk about how SJWs they have heard about misuse the term, or someone is using hyperbole and they decide to ignore the context. Though the most common form I tend to see is SJWs talking about sexual assault or harassment then being accused of trivializing rape. I guess straw is easier to fight then being nice to people.
I am getting fun images of SWAT teams breaking down the officer's home doors and yelling at their families to get on the ground, then have them charged with decades in prision. Sadly this is only done to awkward computer geeks ^M^M^M^M COMPUTER TERRORISTS!!!11!
Yeah, paramilitary groups getting police to back down only works if you involve rich white ranchers.
Heh. It would be amusing to see if a judge was willing to award damages on the same scale they did for the record industry. I could see someone who is bored and has too much money taking on such a case just for the book writing value.
Joking aside, I wonder why the OP is putting the number crunching in the outdoor box rather then splitting the work between an embedded system for data gathering (or whatever) and off the shelf desktop for processing.
Yeah, SSL is not exactly a pancea since it is only really useful if you have a chain of trust you can use, which puts things in the hands of a few private points of failure.
While in theory a good idea, any security that requires the average user to take extra (and tedious) manual steps will become another point of failure. Checksums are not a solution, they are just a way for people to feel superior.
Guns are a force multiplier, most gun deaths in the US are not carefully planned 'I want to kill this person' events but instead result from escalations of conflicts. Situations that would only result in injury can jump to something deadly very easily when a gun is available, which is why a huge number of deaths are due to 'heat of the moment' domestic disputes. Sure if the person is determined they will find a way, but in most cases the person is not 'determined', they just happen to have a tool that is easy.
If we were going to look at the hypothetical idea of simply making the guns in the US vanish (since simply outlawing them would take decades or centuries to actually get the guns out of circulation), the big social question would be weighing the value of the lives of the people killed or wounded against the person freedom of law abiding gun owners. Regardless of where one falls on that scale, while removing guns would not save all 10,000 people in your example, the probability is high the number would drop significantly.
Well, yes and no. The problem with entrapment is it hinges on if the person would have committed the crime if not for the agent's actions, which is an inherently subjective test.
Yeah, but generally when a guy uses 'any means necessary' is held up as an ideal of dedication and risk taking, someone who cares enough to do whatever it takes to be a success. I have even seen plenty of cases of guys buying hookers for clients and the office rewards them with praise.
Women, not so much. Women are more likely to encounter the inverse, doing everything on the level and then being accused of something underhanded if they do well since people still seem to have the idea that women SHOULD do worse.
They had even less stomach for a woman doing 'mans' work. This was during the same time period that when they did publicity shots for high tech things like programming they replaced all the actual female scientists with male underlings. Politics played a huge role in stuff like this, but it was not fear of women getting hurt and blowback, it was fear of showing women doing intellectual work, which a lot of people were frightened by.