This would mean less pedos in prison, which in the US, could mean a loss of revenue for private prisons due to lower inmate populations and loss of budget for various governmental entities who need number of convicted as a metric to justify budgets.
The cost of medical treatment for your average imprisoned pedo far outweighs the income. You have to remember, pedos are the number one target for prison violence.
Fewer pedos in prison would be a good thing for the prisons. They're literally the one class of criminal that doesn't fit the "more is better" model you espouse.
Ah, I see the problem, and it's not your fault (I've been known to make the same mistake). I replied to... eh... Gay Boner Sex, then an AC replied to me (mentioning prohibition) and you replied to the AC. Then, when I replied to you, you must have missed that the AC and I were (and still are) not one in the same.
The argument I made in my reply to you was different from the argument made by the AC you initially replied to but, clearly, your response to me was colored by the AC's comment.
To be clear - we're almost certainly on the same side of the argument.
For once, I never actually doubted that. I've always thought you a reasonable person, just one with a different viewpoint and eyes on a different set of facts than myself.
In this case, we're talking a representation in a doll, there's a physical manifestation - it's not crammed into my browser's cache file, it's something put on a bad, maybe? I gotta be honest, I'm not actually sure how you'd store said sex robot. Point being, it'd have a manifestation - in the physical realm, by intent, or by having demonstrated an action to acquire one.
Indeed, and it's equally likely, assuming you have no predisposition toward attraction to children, that one found by police in an unopened box on your front porch (delivered while you're at work and reported by an anonymous tipster, of course) would have been sent by someone wishing to have your freedom forcibly removed as it is that you ordered the doll yourself. A perfect illustration of why banning physical things should not be done.
Mens Rea is kinda dead, by the way. That's not entirely related to this post.
Yes it is -- on both counts. The mere possession of certain items or content, even sans Mens Rea, is a crime, and that is a problem. Being caught in the act of acquiring, looking at, actively handling, or openly holding these items demonstrates Mens Rea, while merely having them in a bag you are carrying, or tucked away somewhere on your person or property, or even on your hard drive, only demonstrates that you possess the item or content, not that you have actually knowledge of that possession. I don't recall the exact case, but there has been at least one instance where a man was charged with (and found guilty of) possession of child pornography wherein the forensic analyst who found the material on the man's hard drive testified in court that the one and only file found was a thumbnail in the browser cache that had not been accessed or modified since being written, and that there was no way the man could have known it was there or accessed it himself; in other words, he had committed no actual crime, but is now branded a sex offender. If I recall correctly, he faced probation, no jail time, but does have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. For a file the prosecution admitted there was no way he could have even known he had, or accessed if he did know it was there.
That's why Mens Rea is entirely related to this post.
The point being, prohibiting an act (drinking, copyright infringement, murder, tax evasion, etc) doesn't really stop a large number of people from violating the law. If you say prohibition is pointless then logic dictates that the rest of the social contract follows. We know prohibition doesn't work. We still prohibit certain acts, because we need to establish a punitive response to such.
Indeed, and we're certainly on the same page here. The problem with physical items (and digital representations of such) is that they can be planted without your knowledge. You don't commit an act without knowing you've committed that act (you may not know the act itself was criminal in nature, but you did commit the act and you do know you committed it, that's all that is required for Mens Rea). That you can legally be in possession of an item you may not even know exists is precisely why items themselves should not be banned.
Ban viewing, displaying, or distributing child pornography (and certainly ban its creation in the first place); but, for the love of all that is holy, do not ban possession. There is simply no way to know that you don't possess these items. As for the sex dolls, well...
To be clear, I see no reason to ban robots that can be used for sexual gratification - regardless of their outward appearance.
You could use that same reasoning to suggest we not have laws prohibiting murder.
Yes and no, it really depends how you apply it. It's one thing to ban a physical item from existence or possession; it's an entirely different thing to ban a concept or action.
To best illustrate this, imagine someone unknowingly planting "you having killed your next door neighbor" in your backpack.
Can't imagine that, because "you having killed your next door neighbor" is an action and not something that can be slipped in among your belongings without your knowledge? It's certainly not something you could do without your knowledge. It's something you may do unintentionally, maybe even something you could be blackmailed or otherwise forced or tricked into doing, but you'd know if you did it.
There you have it.
You probably have child porn in your browser cache, whether you've browsed (regular) porn sites or not, put there alongside who knows what else as part of a malvertizing campaign. If you do, you almost certainly don't know it.
Likewise, imagine the number of shipments of seemingly innocuous cargo that likely contained booze the driver of the truck carrying the cargo didn't know about during the prohibition era. That's possession, that would have been a lengthy prison sentence for the driver, and he didn't even know he was hauling it.
It still happens with drugs today; yes, most people hauling bricks of weed in their trunk know it's there, but most truckers hauling bricks of weed (or whatever) hidden in TV boxes, alongside other TV boxes actually containing TVs, probably don't know it. They're still in possession and still on the hook if their truck gets searched, though.
That's the primary difference between banning physical items and banning actions and concepts. The mere concept of child sexual abuse is (rightly) banned, as is the act itself (again, rightly so). Possession of physical evidence that it happened (not evidence that you did it, just that it happened ever, at some point) is something completely different; it's something you could (and likely do) have in your possession right now, at this moment, without even knowing it.
Punishment for breaking the law in this country is supposed to be based on intent, and you can't intend to possess something you don't know you possess.
My garbage collector and bank teller don't deserve to be screwed out of overtime pay, forced to work in hazardous conditions, etc. The skill requirements for their jobs are such that quitting puts no pressure on their employer. Millions of adults are qualified for these jobs.
And if they all quit? If nobody is willing to take those jobs because they realize they deserve better treatment?
And those who don't know better, or maybe even enjoy that work environment (yes, there are people who do) can take those jobs and everyone will be better off for it.
Of course, back to my original point, if people who disagree with the policies and actions of their employers would simply stop associating with those policies and actions, talent would dry up quickly enough.
So your "get another job" advice essentially ignores a huge part of the workforce. There is no reason these people should be treated poorly.
Except that it, really, does not. See above.
If an employer can't compete when held to such minimal standards, then it doesn't need to be in business at all.
On this point, we fully agree. And if they can't find people willing to work with them (because people quit when they encounter the bullshit) they won't be in business for long. That is why you should quit a job that exposes you to such bullshit.
Someone else can step in with acceptable policies and take over that piece of the market if the original firm can't figure it out.
Right. The original firm can figure it out when their existing employees quit to go work for the better company and they can't find any good talent to replace them because that talent has gone to work for the better company, too. In other words, you're making the same argument I am, you just haven't followed it to its logical conclusion far enough to realize it yet.
We've done it before in other industries---housing, meat packing, electrical.
Right, and every single time it has involved people quitting their jobs at the shitty companies to go work for better ones. That's what I'm suggesting they do because, as you so astutely just pointed out, it's what has worked in the past.
Follow the white rabbit you just spotted. He'll lead you to me. We're on the same page, you just haven't read far enough to see it yet.
It isn't true pedophilia if it's an inanimate object, it's rather similar to jacking off to "underage" hentai.
That's a gray area and not one I'm going to discuss, but I will say that banning "Underage" robots (dolls, really) or hentai is as idiotic a move as was making mere possession of child pornography illegal.
If the availability of these "robots" prevents even one pedophile from seeking an actual child, they're a not positive for society; the same applies to hentai. As for photos and videos, yes, please go after the people who make and distribute them -- go after them with a vengeance -- and hold for questioning anyone caught in possession, so you can find the people who make and distribute them, so you can go after them with said vengeance.
But, society needs to consider the effect of having similar punishment for acts which actively harm children and acts which merely depict actual harm someone else has perpetrated upon children; if the guy you nab wit ha couple of photos knows he's gonna get shanked in prison whether or not he tells you where he got them, you're not getting that information from him. If those photos were what was keeping him from harming children himself, his possession of them was already a net positive; if we can turn his being caught with them (and released for cooperating) into an intelligence gathering tool to track down the people who actually harm children (and photograph themselves in the act), we can make it an even bigger net positive.
Of course, anyone caught in possession of it in the first place should, themselves, be investigated as the potential source. But mere possession should not carry the same get-shanked-in-prison punishment as production or distribution. That it does is a large part of the reason it's difficult to track down the producers and distributors in the first place.
Mind you, these people are all sick but, like we do not lock people up for having a cold, we should not lock them up for this illness. We could at least actually protect the children by not actively seeking to destroy the ones who seek help (pedophilia is an exception to patient confidentiality; therapists are not only allowed, but urged, to contact police if one of their patients seeks help to keep themselves from harming a child) and by allowing potential offenders other outlets for their urges. And, if they're caught with material depicting such despicable acts, we hold them until they give up the source (we make not doing so a felony), then we let them go. They'll find another source, they'll get caught again, they'll give up that source, lather, rinse, repeat. All the while they're not harming children because they have another outlet, and we're tracking down and locking up the people who actually are harming children. That would protect children.
To be clear, yes, lock them up (and throw away the key) for actually harming a child, or producing or distributing photos or videos of actual child harm. Use those who choose other outlets which don't directly harm children (again, the child was harmed by the abuser and whoever filmed or photographed the act) as resources to track down the vile trash who actively harm children and finally put a dent in the problem.
Enough stories of school teachers caught with child porn facing prison time; they got that porn from someone, compel them to reveal their source and lock them up if they don't (or if they lie and the source does not pan out), for impeding an investigation. They'll get the same death-by-shank punishment in prison once the other inmates find out what investigation they impeded. Police would be absolutely justified in further investigating whether he had any inappropriate involvement with students, and throwing the book at him for that; but not for mere possession. In any case the school would be right to fire them; those people need not be around children.
Even worse, not only was the law not amended to restrict to corporate contracts, apparently there is a Supreme Court ruling that says it doesn't apply to them.
"Get another job" is the best option if you're facing any of those hardships. Also sure their ass off on the way out the door; but have another job first.
And if you know you're going to face those adversities at a prospective employer, don't take the job in the first place. Your talents (the collective "your", not you specifically because this doesn't apply to anyone who can't follow this line of reasoning) are too valuable to offer them to someone who will abuse you.
In the pursuit of thin and light, everything is trade-offs. To keep up battery life, they have to use slower CPUs and GPUs, sub-4k displays, and LPDDR (that last one I don't really have a problem with, except that it limits the amount of RAM as well), or they have to make it thicker and heavier, which, well... pursuit of thin and light...
This. Look up the username in/etc/passwd and be done with it. Well, maybe also check file permissions and ownership of/etc/passwd and reject it if not owned by uid 0 or if writable by anyone other than uid 0. Then be done with it.
I'm asking how, and you are more focused on my credentials to ask that question.
Have you stopped to consider that I am calling your credentials into question because you are displaying extreme ignorance of the subject matter? I already answered your question and your understanding of the topic is so poor that you completely missed that answer.
Because I'm a nice guy, I'll explain it the way I used to when I got paid to onboard Realtors for my previous employer:
Realtors and brokers pay for access to MLS data. This access not only grants them the ability to list their properties with that MLS provider and browse the data, but to also display that data on their own website.
You say you've worked with MLS providers, you should know how this works... But, then, you think there's only one MLS provider in Alaska, where you claim to have worked with the only provider in the state... Did you work with AKMLS, GFMLS, or SEAKMLS?
I've seen you claim to have a lot of experience in a varied array of fields (much as I do, so I'm not saying it's not possible), but I rarely see you exhibiting the knowledge required to take on an entry-level role in those fields, let alone the knowledge someone who actually spent any amount of time working in any of those fields should posses.
I'm sorry if that comes off a bit harsh, but that's my honest observation.
I just checked the MLS and Zillow for a house (more than one, but they were all the same result), and Zillow uses the same wording as the MLS. Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow...
... or Zillow scraped it from the site of a Realtor or brokerage who pays for the privilege of displaying the data publicly.
Which is what the Realtors and brokerages I worked with were doing. Paying, I mean.
they are all theoretically connectable in the back, though they often choose not to be
Yes, that is part of protecting their data like it's gold. BAREIS, if I recall, was the worst of the lot that I dealt with in that regard. If a broker didn't pay their dues for a given month, they expected us to know this and disable their access before they told us. To add to that, every MLS provider presents their data differently; different field names, some have fields that others don't (not just different names, completely different data), different formats for the same data (some use acres for lot size, some use sq-ft, and most of them don't specify, you just get an integer or a float), different protocols for retrieving the data... trying to incorporate data from more than a handful of these guys is a serious mess.
And I'd have to imagine Zillow's numbers wouldn't be wrong 90% of the time (my personal experience) if they actually used the private MLS data. I remember, when I had access to that data, I used to look up some of the multi-million-dollar homes our realtors would list and see what Zillow had to say about them; often times Zillow would under-report the asking price. I've also heard their "zestimates" are off by anywhere from 10% to 50% -- low, of course -- and I've seen it with my own eyes at least once. It was on a ~~ $5.6M property (as appraised), listed by Zillow as worth $4.2M; They never saw an offer anywhere near the value of the property, with people citing the zestimate as the baseline for their offer, despite the appraisal on file with the city.
MLS services aren't being beaten by two guys in a garage, the two guys in a garage are charlatans who simply haven't been exposed yet. Just wait until a powerful politician tries to sell their house and gets bitten by a lowball zestimate, Zillow's days are numbered.
That said, I haven't heard the same stories about Trulia; but I doubt they buy MLS data, for the same primary reason I know Zillow doesn't: most MLS providers won't offer that data to anyone other than a licensed and practicing Realtor or brokerage.
I worked with 5 in the Bay Area and NorCal alone; FAR, SFAR, BAREIS, RE Infolink, and CCAR Also, one for Northern Texas (NTREIS), and a slew of others that I can't recall of the top of my head as it's been a couple years. Of all of them, only CCAR, SFAR, and RE Infolink provide public MLS portals, but they don't provide all listings or details through those public portals. While there is a hell of a lot of overlap in areas covered by the Bay Area MLS services I listed, there is virtually no overlap in listings between them, because they guard their data like it's gold.
And, while there may be a single MLS for the entire country (there are a handful, actually), they don't list every MLS-listed property; they list only those listed with them by their member brokers, and it costs a pretty penny to be able to list on most MLS providers.
In which state(s) have you worked with MLS? Your experience seems somewhat limited.
There are quite a few more MLS providers out there than "one per state". A former employer of mine built and maintained websites for a number of real estate brokerages and I'm the one who managed integration with 3rd-party providers, like MLS.
I can assure you ZIllow does not have agreements with more than a handful of them; they scrape data from listing sites, they don't source data from listing services.
I also happen to know a couple of Zillow devs (who have no opinion on the matter discussed in this article, by the way), with whom I've had rather in-depth discussions about sourcing MLS data. In the end, we determined that their job, writing parsers for a bunch of public-facing sites, was easier than mine, as the public-facing sites were more likely to have their data organized in some sane manner and have fewer corner cases than the myriad MLS providers.
I'll add to that, most MLS providers are so protective of their data they won't even let you look at their feeds unless you're a licensed agent or brokerage, and Zillow is not. Thankfully, I had someone else handling the licensing aspect, but I always heard detailed reports of such issues (the guy's my best friend, we talk -- a lot). There's literally no way Zillow has access to enough MLS feeds to not be illegally scraping this data from public-facing sites.
Slashdot Mirror
This would mean less pedos in prison, which in the US, could mean a loss of revenue for private prisons due to lower inmate populations and loss of budget for various governmental entities who need number of convicted as a metric to justify budgets.
The cost of medical treatment for your average imprisoned pedo far outweighs the income. You have to remember, pedos are the number one target for prison violence.
Fewer pedos in prison would be a good thing for the prisons. They're literally the one class of criminal that doesn't fit the "more is better" model you espouse.
Ah, I see the problem, and it's not your fault (I've been known to make the same mistake). I replied to ... eh... Gay Boner Sex, then an AC replied to me (mentioning prohibition) and you replied to the AC. Then, when I replied to you, you must have missed that the AC and I were (and still are) not one in the same.
The argument I made in my reply to you was different from the argument made by the AC you initially replied to but, clearly, your response to me was colored by the AC's comment.
It's cool, like I said I've done it, too.
To be clear - we're almost certainly on the same side of the argument.
For once, I never actually doubted that. I've always thought you a reasonable person, just one with a different viewpoint and eyes on a different set of facts than myself.
In this case, we're talking a representation in a doll, there's a physical manifestation - it's not crammed into my browser's cache file, it's something put on a bad, maybe? I gotta be honest, I'm not actually sure how you'd store said sex robot. Point being, it'd have a manifestation - in the physical realm, by intent, or by having demonstrated an action to acquire one.
Indeed, and it's equally likely, assuming you have no predisposition toward attraction to children, that one found by police in an unopened box on your front porch (delivered while you're at work and reported by an anonymous tipster, of course) would have been sent by someone wishing to have your freedom forcibly removed as it is that you ordered the doll yourself. A perfect illustration of why banning physical things should not be done.
Mens Rea is kinda dead, by the way. That's not entirely related to this post.
Yes it is -- on both counts. The mere possession of certain items or content, even sans Mens Rea, is a crime, and that is a problem. Being caught in the act of acquiring, looking at, actively handling, or openly holding these items demonstrates Mens Rea, while merely having them in a bag you are carrying, or tucked away somewhere on your person or property, or even on your hard drive, only demonstrates that you possess the item or content, not that you have actually knowledge of that possession. I don't recall the exact case, but there has been at least one instance where a man was charged with (and found guilty of) possession of child pornography wherein the forensic analyst who found the material on the man's hard drive testified in court that the one and only file found was a thumbnail in the browser cache that had not been accessed or modified since being written, and that there was no way the man could have known it was there or accessed it himself; in other words, he had committed no actual crime, but is now branded a sex offender. If I recall correctly, he faced probation, no jail time, but does have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. For a file the prosecution admitted there was no way he could have even known he had, or accessed if he did know it was there.
That's why Mens Rea is entirely related to this post.
The point being, prohibiting an act (drinking, copyright infringement, murder, tax evasion, etc) doesn't really stop a large number of people from violating the law. If you say prohibition is pointless then logic dictates that the rest of the social contract follows. We know prohibition doesn't work. We still prohibit certain acts, because we need to establish a punitive response to such.
Indeed, and we're certainly on the same page here. The problem with physical items (and digital representations of such) is that they can be planted without your knowledge. You don't commit an act without knowing you've committed that act (you may not know the act itself was criminal in nature, but you did commit the act and you do know you committed it, that's all that is required for Mens Rea). That you can legally be in possession of an item you may not even know exists is precisely why items themselves should not be banned.
Ban viewing, displaying, or distributing child pornography (and certainly ban its creation in the first place); but, for the love of all that is holy, do not ban possession. There is simply no way to know that you don't possess these items. As for the sex dolls, well...
To be clear, I see no reason to ban robots that can be used for sexual gratification - regardless of their outward appearance.
Again, same page. If it prevent
You could use that same reasoning to suggest we not have laws prohibiting murder.
Yes and no, it really depends how you apply it. It's one thing to ban a physical item from existence or possession; it's an entirely different thing to ban a concept or action.
To best illustrate this, imagine someone unknowingly planting "you having killed your next door neighbor" in your backpack.
Can't imagine that, because "you having killed your next door neighbor" is an action and not something that can be slipped in among your belongings without your knowledge? It's certainly not something you could do without your knowledge. It's something you may do unintentionally, maybe even something you could be blackmailed or otherwise forced or tricked into doing, but you'd know if you did it.
There you have it.
You probably have child porn in your browser cache, whether you've browsed (regular) porn sites or not, put there alongside who knows what else as part of a malvertizing campaign. If you do, you almost certainly don't know it.
Likewise, imagine the number of shipments of seemingly innocuous cargo that likely contained booze the driver of the truck carrying the cargo didn't know about during the prohibition era. That's possession, that would have been a lengthy prison sentence for the driver, and he didn't even know he was hauling it.
It still happens with drugs today; yes, most people hauling bricks of weed in their trunk know it's there, but most truckers hauling bricks of weed (or whatever) hidden in TV boxes, alongside other TV boxes actually containing TVs, probably don't know it. They're still in possession and still on the hook if their truck gets searched, though.
That's the primary difference between banning physical items and banning actions and concepts. The mere concept of child sexual abuse is (rightly) banned, as is the act itself (again, rightly so). Possession of physical evidence that it happened (not evidence that you did it, just that it happened ever, at some point) is something completely different; it's something you could (and likely do) have in your possession right now, at this moment, without even knowing it.
Punishment for breaking the law in this country is supposed to be based on intent, and you can't intend to possess something you don't know you possess.
My garbage collector and bank teller don't deserve to be screwed out of overtime pay, forced to work in hazardous conditions, etc. The skill requirements for their jobs are such that quitting puts no pressure on their employer. Millions of adults are qualified for these jobs.
And if they all quit? If nobody is willing to take those jobs because they realize they deserve better treatment?
And those who don't know better, or maybe even enjoy that work environment (yes, there are people who do) can take those jobs and everyone will be better off for it.
Of course, back to my original point, if people who disagree with the policies and actions of their employers would simply stop associating with those policies and actions, talent would dry up quickly enough.
So your "get another job" advice essentially ignores a huge part of the workforce. There is no reason these people should be treated poorly.
Except that it, really, does not. See above.
If an employer can't compete when held to such minimal standards, then it doesn't need to be in business at all.
On this point, we fully agree. And if they can't find people willing to work with them (because people quit when they encounter the bullshit) they won't be in business for long. That is why you should quit a job that exposes you to such bullshit.
Someone else can step in with acceptable policies and take over that piece of the market if the original firm can't figure it out.
Right. The original firm can figure it out when their existing employees quit to go work for the better company and they can't find any good talent to replace them because that talent has gone to work for the better company, too. In other words, you're making the same argument I am, you just haven't followed it to its logical conclusion far enough to realize it yet.
We've done it before in other industries---housing, meat packing, electrical.
Right, and every single time it has involved people quitting their jobs at the shitty companies to go work for better ones. That's what I'm suggesting they do because, as you so astutely just pointed out, it's what has worked in the past.
Follow the white rabbit you just spotted. He'll lead you to me. We're on the same page, you just haven't read far enough to see it yet.
It isn't true pedophilia if it's an inanimate object, it's rather similar to jacking off to "underage" hentai.
That's a gray area and not one I'm going to discuss, but I will say that banning "Underage" robots (dolls, really) or hentai is as idiotic a move as was making mere possession of child pornography illegal.
If the availability of these "robots" prevents even one pedophile from seeking an actual child, they're a not positive for society; the same applies to hentai. As for photos and videos, yes, please go after the people who make and distribute them -- go after them with a vengeance -- and hold for questioning anyone caught in possession, so you can find the people who make and distribute them, so you can go after them with said vengeance.
But, society needs to consider the effect of having similar punishment for acts which actively harm children and acts which merely depict actual harm someone else has perpetrated upon children; if the guy you nab wit ha couple of photos knows he's gonna get shanked in prison whether or not he tells you where he got them, you're not getting that information from him. If those photos were what was keeping him from harming children himself, his possession of them was already a net positive; if we can turn his being caught with them (and released for cooperating) into an intelligence gathering tool to track down the people who actually harm children (and photograph themselves in the act), we can make it an even bigger net positive.
Of course, anyone caught in possession of it in the first place should, themselves, be investigated as the potential source. But mere possession should not carry the same get-shanked-in-prison punishment as production or distribution. That it does is a large part of the reason it's difficult to track down the producers and distributors in the first place.
Mind you, these people are all sick but, like we do not lock people up for having a cold, we should not lock them up for this illness. We could at least actually protect the children by not actively seeking to destroy the ones who seek help (pedophilia is an exception to patient confidentiality; therapists are not only allowed, but urged, to contact police if one of their patients seeks help to keep themselves from harming a child) and by allowing potential offenders other outlets for their urges. And, if they're caught with material depicting such despicable acts, we hold them until they give up the source (we make not doing so a felony), then we let them go. They'll find another source, they'll get caught again, they'll give up that source, lather, rinse, repeat. All the while they're not harming children because they have another outlet, and we're tracking down and locking up the people who actually are harming children. That would protect children.
To be clear, yes, lock them up (and throw away the key) for actually harming a child, or producing or distributing photos or videos of actual child harm. Use those who choose other outlets which don't directly harm children (again, the child was harmed by the abuser and whoever filmed or photographed the act) as resources to track down the vile trash who actively harm children and finally put a dent in the problem.
Enough stories of school teachers caught with child porn facing prison time; they got that porn from someone, compel them to reveal their source and lock them up if they don't (or if they lie and the source does not pan out), for impeding an investigation. They'll get the same death-by-shank punishment in prison once the other inmates find out what investigation they impeded. Police would be absolutely justified in further investigating whether he had any inappropriate involvement with students, and throwing the book at him for that; but not for mere possession. In any case the school would be right to fire them; those people need not be around children.
And that is how we protect children.
Even worse, not only was the law not amended to restrict to corporate contracts, apparently there is a Supreme Court ruling that says it doesn't apply to them.
No, actually, AC moron, you're confusing the point. Nobody is demanding that someone subsidize or provide them internet access.
ugh... proofread... "sue" their ass off...
"Get another job" is the best option if you're facing any of those hardships. Also sure their ass off on the way out the door; but have another job first.
And if you know you're going to face those adversities at a prospective employer, don't take the job in the first place. Your talents (the collective "your", not you specifically because this doesn't apply to anyone who can't follow this line of reasoning) are too valuable to offer them to someone who will abuse you.
In the pursuit of thin and light, everything is trade-offs. To keep up battery life, they have to use slower CPUs and GPUs, sub-4k displays, and LPDDR (that last one I don't really have a problem with, except that it limits the amount of RAM as well), or they have to make it thicker and heavier, which, well... pursuit of thin and light...
but if you're needing Apple hardware specs or better
then you go Apple, unless you need better, in which case you can't go Apple.
Restore a non-systemd version of your favorite distro from tape?
This. Look up the username in /etc/passwd and be done with it. Well, maybe also check file permissions and ownership of /etc/passwd and reject it if not owned by uid 0 or if writable by anyone other than uid 0. Then be done with it.
" " is a digit now?
I'm asking how, and you are more focused on my credentials to ask that question.
Have you stopped to consider that I am calling your credentials into question because you are displaying extreme ignorance of the subject matter? I already answered your question and your understanding of the topic is so poor that you completely missed that answer.
Because I'm a nice guy, I'll explain it the way I used to when I got paid to onboard Realtors for my previous employer:
Realtors and brokers pay for access to MLS data. This access not only grants them the ability to list their properties with that MLS provider and browse the data, but to also display that data on their own website.
Do you get it now? I'm guessing you still don't, so here are a few examples, just a handful that I've worked with personally:
Ginny Kavanaugh: Private Listings and MLS Portal
Brent and Mary Gullixson: Private Listings and MLS Portal
CAMPI: Private Listings and MLS Portal
Sereno Group: Private Listings and MLS Portal
Cowperthwaite: Private Listings and MLS Portal
Keller WIlliams: Private Listings and MLS Portal
You see all those links that say "MLS Portal"? Zillow would be scraping from links like those.
You say you've worked with MLS providers, you should know how this works... But, then, you think there's only one MLS provider in Alaska, where you claim to have worked with the only provider in the state... Did you work with AKMLS, GFMLS, or SEAKMLS?
I've seen you claim to have a lot of experience in a varied array of fields (much as I do, so I'm not saying it's not possible), but I rarely see you exhibiting the knowledge required to take on an entry-level role in those fields, let alone the knowledge someone who actually spent any amount of time working in any of those fields should posses.
I'm sorry if that comes off a bit harsh, but that's my honest observation.
I just checked the MLS and Zillow for a house (more than one, but they were all the same result), and Zillow uses the same wording as the MLS. Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow...
... or Zillow scraped it from the site of a Realtor or brokerage who pays for the privilege of displaying the data publicly.
Which is what the Realtors and brokerages I worked with were doing. Paying, I mean.
I'm not saying the post you're replying to is right, but... You mean... in 2016... when this happened?
Control of Apple users?
they are all theoretically connectable in the back, though they often choose not to be
Yes, that is part of protecting their data like it's gold. BAREIS, if I recall, was the worst of the lot that I dealt with in that regard. If a broker didn't pay their dues for a given month, they expected us to know this and disable their access before they told us. To add to that, every MLS provider presents their data differently; different field names, some have fields that others don't (not just different names, completely different data), different formats for the same data (some use acres for lot size, some use sq-ft, and most of them don't specify, you just get an integer or a float), different protocols for retrieving the data... trying to incorporate data from more than a handful of these guys is a serious mess.
And I'd have to imagine Zillow's numbers wouldn't be wrong 90% of the time (my personal experience) if they actually used the private MLS data. I remember, when I had access to that data, I used to look up some of the multi-million-dollar homes our realtors would list and see what Zillow had to say about them; often times Zillow would under-report the asking price. I've also heard their "zestimates" are off by anywhere from 10% to 50% -- low, of course -- and I've seen it with my own eyes at least once. It was on a ~~ $5.6M property (as appraised), listed by Zillow as worth $4.2M; They never saw an offer anywhere near the value of the property, with people citing the zestimate as the baseline for their offer, despite the appraisal on file with the city.
MLS services aren't being beaten by two guys in a garage, the two guys in a garage are charlatans who simply haven't been exposed yet. Just wait until a powerful politician tries to sell their house and gets bitten by a lowball zestimate, Zillow's days are numbered.
That said, I haven't heard the same stories about Trulia; but I doubt they buy MLS data, for the same primary reason I know Zillow doesn't: most MLS providers won't offer that data to anyone other than a licensed and practicing Realtor or brokerage.
I worked with 5 in the Bay Area and NorCal alone; FAR, SFAR, BAREIS, RE Infolink, and CCAR Also, one for Northern Texas (NTREIS), and a slew of others that I can't recall of the top of my head as it's been a couple years. Of all of them, only CCAR, SFAR, and RE Infolink provide public MLS portals, but they don't provide all listings or details through those public portals. While there is a hell of a lot of overlap in areas covered by the Bay Area MLS services I listed, there is virtually no overlap in listings between them, because they guard their data like it's gold.
And, while there may be a single MLS for the entire country (there are a handful, actually), they don't list every MLS-listed property; they list only those listed with them by their member brokers, and it costs a pretty penny to be able to list on most MLS providers.
In which state(s) have you worked with MLS? Your experience seems somewhat limited.
There are quite a few more MLS providers out there than "one per state". A former employer of mine built and maintained websites for a number of real estate brokerages and I'm the one who managed integration with 3rd-party providers, like MLS.
I can assure you ZIllow does not have agreements with more than a handful of them; they scrape data from listing sites, they don't source data from listing services.
I also happen to know a couple of Zillow devs (who have no opinion on the matter discussed in this article, by the way), with whom I've had rather in-depth discussions about sourcing MLS data. In the end, we determined that their job, writing parsers for a bunch of public-facing sites, was easier than mine, as the public-facing sites were more likely to have their data organized in some sane manner and have fewer corner cases than the myriad MLS providers.
I'll add to that, most MLS providers are so protective of their data they won't even let you look at their feeds unless you're a licensed agent or brokerage, and Zillow is not. Thankfully, I had someone else handling the licensing aspect, but I always heard detailed reports of such issues (the guy's my best friend, we talk -- a lot). There's literally no way Zillow has access to enough MLS feeds to not be illegally scraping this data from public-facing sites.
On second thought, I suppose it's somewhat of a moot point, now.
What an unfourchanate [SIC] name...