life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society
would this be the same civil society whose past mediations have helped perpetuate the institution of slavery and policies of racial discrimination? or is this some other, perfectly enlightened civil society that has at some point between those primeval days and now descended from the heavens to rid us of the need for such crackpots and radicals as might resist its influence?
Schmidt also made an interesting comment in an interview with The Telegraph while he was in the U.K. He said, "You have to fight for your privacy, or you will lose it." This is quite different from his infamous 2009 remark: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
sounds like a passing google maps car must have caught him flashing in a public park
Starting in 2014 in the US, this will be the law of the land--companies will have to insure anyone, regardless of existing conditions. It is also the law in MA right now.
the problem with MA is that it appears not to be the wealthy subsidizing the sick, but the healthy who subsidize them. one need only compare insurance rates between MA and other states for younger people to get the idea that universal coverage has become another means of wealth transfer from the young to the old. as with crumbling infrastructure, ballooning debt, and an underfunded social security program, we're sticking future generations with the bill because they can't stop us.
His point is that such a 100% tax would barely bump the needle of government spending, whether you use the money for handouts or infrastructure. Meanwhile, the good this additional spending would do must be balanced against the disincentive to create wealth any such additional tax would effect.
"In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10"
this is plausible because there are more drivers with lower BAC. On the other hand, it's undoubtedly more likely that a driver registering between 0.08 and 0.10 will get into an accident. similarly, far more accidents are caused by people driving the speed limit than are caused by people driving 200 MPH. it's a deliberately deceptive statistic.
You stupid fuck, when the British wanted to build a railroad in Bolivia and there weren't any handy gravel deposits nearby they smashed up big chunks of Tiahuanacu.
this is what we need more of in the world. disparate cultures spanning continents and centuries, each making its unique contribution to public works projects that benefit everyone.
This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.
Uh, what?
less corruptible != more moral
if you're worth $50 million, you're much less likely to risk your career over a $100K bribe than if $100K constitutes your after-tax salary.
If anything, I would argue for drastically increasing the salaries of politicians, in the manner of Singapore, where the president earns 5X Obama's salary. This would make them more difficult to corrupt, and also likely increase the pool of high-quality candidates willing to run for public office. (If you can make 10X more in the private sector, politics is going to be a hard sell.)
Maybe his predisposition to get Parkinson's caused the desire to smoke..
Nicotine ameliorates some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, and nearly everyone with schizophrenia smokes. So it is possible that a similar phenomenon may occur with parkinson's
You don't have an appendix attack and shop around to a few hospitals to see who has the best rate
just like sometimes you have to pay through the nose to take a flight at the last minute with no choice of carrier. that doesn't mean there's no competition in the airline industry.
You can't just up and become a doctor.
You can't just up and become a commercial pilot either. The same goes for any number of other careers in industries generally considered competitive.
Nearly everything conveys an idea including punching someone in the face, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to rent an apartment to a nice black family, driving without a seatbelt, insider trading, killing puppies, and burning crosses.
That the fact these acts are prohibited has anything to do with free speech is a peculiar interpretation, and not at all in keeping with how the First Amendment is generally understood. Punching someone in the face isn't prohibited on the grounds of the message it communicates. It is prohibited on the grounds that the medium through which one communicates the message produces a deleterious effect unrelated to this message. Likewise I could shout "give me Liberace or give me death" outside of a concert hall, but I could not sear this message into the backside of a passerby and claim this is protected speech merely because I am using words, rather than communicating my meaning in some other way.
Works of art almost never produce secondary consequences related to medium, and insofar as one does, it is prohibited based on the consequences of the medium, and not based on the message. (The only such work that comes to mind is Christo's exhibit of giant umbrellas, which crushed someone, and was shortly thereafter dismantled.) What you are proposing (that some works of art ought to be prohibitable based on their message alone, and first amendment be damned) is radically different from prohibiting assault, etc.
Now I agree that banning some great works of art, including the ones you mention, would be bad, but that's a policy decision, not a question of "free speech".
That such a work of art is not a kind of protected speech is an idea far from mainstream in current American jurisprudence.
It removes the feeling that people have some control over how they are governed
Your post demonstrates why isolating this control is not necessarily a bad idea.
There IS sexism in games. To claim otherwise is to ignore the reality of the world.
What is great about this story is that this is how sexism ENDS. It's about little steps that fathers take for their daughters, mothers for their sons, and people for one another.
This is a feminist act because all it does is try to make a girl feel happy about the games that she plays, so that she doesn't feel excluded or lesser just because she's a girl. That's all that feminism is.
The guy wants what's best for his daughter and he's willing to go to lengths to achieve it. He was able to do something, so he did. If everyone else did the same, we wouldn't need feminism--equality would already be here.
exactly. just to give another example, as a 14-year-old male, I was greatly disheartened by the altogether realistic dimensions of Lara Croft's rack in the latest Tomb Raider. My dad heard my complaint, and a few hours of hacking later, those gazongas are so big they practically make the game unplayable. It's all about accommodating different people's needs and interests, and setting aside our lamentable tendency to judge one another.
Slashdot Mirror
That is why most criminals are men, for example.
maybe women are just congenitally sneakier
to remain silent. anything you do not say can and will be used against you.
life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society
would this be the same civil society whose past mediations have helped perpetuate the institution of slavery and policies of racial discrimination? or is this some other, perfectly enlightened civil society that has at some point between those primeval days and now descended from the heavens to rid us of the need for such crackpots and radicals as might resist its influence?
I met my wife online and have been married for 3 years.
I'm the same way. I've met many people's wives online, and they've all been quite accommodating.
Schmidt also made an interesting comment in an interview with The Telegraph while he was in the U.K. He said, "You have to fight for your privacy, or you will lose it." This is quite different from his infamous 2009 remark: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
sounds like a passing google maps car must have caught him flashing in a public park
You can't take your tier one support call into court unless you recorded it.
I was wondering about this. Is it always legal to record such calls if you are yourself informed that the call is being recorded by the other party?
I agree with the OP, this movie almost entirely shirks its responsibility to subvert the patriarchal hegemony. I award it two out of ten burning bras.
Starting in 2014 in the US, this will be the law of the land--companies will have to insure anyone, regardless of existing conditions. It is also the law in MA right now.
the problem with MA is that it appears not to be the wealthy subsidizing the sick, but the healthy who subsidize them. one need only compare insurance rates between MA and other states for younger people to get the idea that universal coverage has become another means of wealth transfer from the young to the old. as with crumbling infrastructure, ballooning debt, and an underfunded social security program, we're sticking future generations with the bill because they can't stop us.
His point is that such a 100% tax would barely bump the needle of government spending, whether you use the money for handouts or infrastructure. Meanwhile, the good this additional spending would do must be balanced against the disincentive to create wealth any such additional tax would effect.
They could also be saying they found data that indicated it was more dangerous to drive while between [0.01, 0.03] than [0.08, 0.10]
occam's razor suggests not
"In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10"
this is plausible because there are more drivers with lower BAC. On the other hand, it's undoubtedly more likely that a driver registering between 0.08 and 0.10 will get into an accident. similarly, far more accidents are caused by people driving the speed limit than are caused by people driving 200 MPH. it's a deliberately deceptive statistic.
You stupid fuck, when the British wanted to build a railroad in Bolivia and there weren't any handy gravel deposits nearby they smashed up big chunks of Tiahuanacu.
this is what we need more of in the world. disparate cultures spanning continents and centuries, each making its unique contribution to public works projects that benefit everyone.
This is not necessarily all bad, since rich people may be less corruptible, since they don't need the money.
Uh, what?
less corruptible != more moral
if you're worth $50 million, you're much less likely to risk your career over a $100K bribe than if $100K constitutes your after-tax salary.
If anything, I would argue for drastically increasing the salaries of politicians, in the manner of Singapore, where the president earns 5X Obama's salary. This would make them more difficult to corrupt, and also likely increase the pool of high-quality candidates willing to run for public office. (If you can make 10X more in the private sector, politics is going to be a hard sell.)
One day (and I believe it will be soon), a viable alternative will appear and their collective mass of users will leave practically overnight.
just like happened to ebay when they jacked their fees up?
yes I do!
Maybe his predisposition to get Parkinson's caused the desire to smoke..
Nicotine ameliorates some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, and nearly everyone with schizophrenia smokes. So it is possible that a similar phenomenon may occur with parkinson's
I have schizophrenia, and I don't smoke.
We can now almost convincingly partially recreate the wetware functions of Drosophila melanogaster.
this suggests an easy way to reduce government spending without impacting services. how long until they can run for elected office?
You don't have an appendix attack and shop around to a few hospitals to see who has the best rate
just like sometimes you have to pay through the nose to take a flight at the last minute with no choice of carrier. that doesn't mean there's no competition in the airline industry.
You can't just up and become a doctor.
You can't just up and become a commercial pilot either. The same goes for any number of other careers in industries generally considered competitive.
It also doesn't say how much Yahoo paid. They probably offered the teenager some Funyons and an official Marissa Mayer signed poster.
and they mumbled 'Mayer' so it sounded like 'Miller'
Sorry France you lose.
you don't expect the French to surrender as easily as that, do you?
in that case, his Dad's pretty smart. not everyone predicted app stores 12 years ago
Absolutely - but I suspect this is in the 8%. And their cheese isn't bad either.
They make good fries and toast! While many slashdotters have not tried it, their kiss ain't too shabby either.
I don't mean to be pedantic, but the kiss is made by Hershey's, which is an american company.
might not be a bad thing
a sound basis for regulation if there ever was one
Nearly everything conveys an idea including punching someone in the face, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to rent an apartment to a nice black family, driving without a seatbelt, insider trading, killing puppies, and burning crosses.
That the fact these acts are prohibited has anything to do with free speech is a peculiar interpretation, and not at all in keeping with how the First Amendment is generally understood. Punching someone in the face isn't prohibited on the grounds of the message it communicates. It is prohibited on the grounds that the medium through which one communicates the message produces a deleterious effect unrelated to this message. Likewise I could shout "give me Liberace or give me death" outside of a concert hall, but I could not sear this message into the backside of a passerby and claim this is protected speech merely because I am using words, rather than communicating my meaning in some other way.
Works of art almost never produce secondary consequences related to medium, and insofar as one does, it is prohibited based on the consequences of the medium, and not based on the message. (The only such work that comes to mind is Christo's exhibit of giant umbrellas, which crushed someone, and was shortly thereafter dismantled.) What you are proposing (that some works of art ought to be prohibitable based on their message alone, and first amendment be damned) is radically different from prohibiting assault, etc.
Now I agree that banning some great works of art, including the ones you mention, would be bad, but that's a policy decision, not a question of "free speech".
That such a work of art is not a kind of protected speech is an idea far from mainstream in current American jurisprudence.
It removes the feeling that people have some control over how they are governed
Your post demonstrates why isolating this control is not necessarily a bad idea.
There IS sexism in games. To claim otherwise is to ignore the reality of the world.
What is great about this story is that this is how sexism ENDS. It's about little steps that fathers take for their daughters, mothers for their sons, and people for one another.
This is a feminist act because all it does is try to make a girl feel happy about the games that she plays, so that she doesn't feel excluded or lesser just because she's a girl. That's all that feminism is.
The guy wants what's best for his daughter and he's willing to go to lengths to achieve it. He was able to do something, so he did. If everyone else did the same, we wouldn't need feminism--equality would already be here.
exactly. just to give another example, as a 14-year-old male, I was greatly disheartened by the altogether realistic dimensions of Lara Croft's rack in the latest Tomb Raider. My dad heard my complaint, and a few hours of hacking later, those gazongas are so big they practically make the game unplayable. It's all about accommodating different people's needs and interests, and setting aside our lamentable tendency to judge one another.