I think the idea is that they would have fought harder had they been invaded - you will fight more when backed into a corner. I have also heard proponents cite estimates (for what those are worth is up to you to decide) that the bombs and subsequent damage were less than what would have happened had the Russians and Americans invaded. Others also claim that the bombs had little to do with the surrender but the imminent invasion by the USSR was the primary motivation. The latter claim is a bit dubious but does hold water well enough.
Hold a rope so your climbing partner does not fall? I do not know. Maybe you should have taken five minutes to think about that? Or maybe I should take a few minutes to see if there are alternate definitions? I can not think of any off the top of my head so screw it.
You seem to be forgetting that the materials will not be just magicking their way to the manufacturing plant. This is a cost that constructing anything (pretty much) needs to consider and that includes the alternatives.
The great thing about thorium is that the dirt on the roadside already, likely, has thorium in it. I am not an expert but I have been paying attention and those liquid salt thorium reactors look like they could do a lot of good in a safe manner.
Security is a process, not an application. No, there is no AV you can completely trust. Not a single one - even if you wrote it yourself there is a compiler that you did not write on an operating system that you did not write. Trust is something you give as little of as possible. So, be careful what you download, do not have things run at higher privileges than required, pay attention to your system to look for anomalous behaviors, and be weary of what you download.
I, myself, use a backup tool from Acronis which has enabled me to do some playing around with little fear of having to spend time to rebuild a system if it fails. I have successfully run a number of Windows OSes with no AV and no software firewalls. I have scanned them (after months of use) and not found anything abnormal - which is not an absolute sign of security but is a fine metric to start with and works even better if you are observing the machine's behavior.
If you are careful about how and what you do, block things that can potentially/likely infect your system with selective unblocking, and use download sources that are from the original vendor then you should be fine. Stay away from dangerous sites (you can still find porn and warez - I suggest scanning warez, if you are going to use them, though) and be mindful of your activities. Keep good backups, even off-site backups at a friend's house are an excellent idea, and keep a local backup that is off-line. Then you can just be mindful of your activities and the behavior of your system and be safe enough so that you are not going to be affected.
I do not know, it was all well and good when the subject was the Polish the other day. I am not Polish or anything but I still found it immature and figured it would likely be offensive to Polish people. I suspect we have some Polish here as they have a vibrant and large tech community. I think I was the only person who said anything in the way of complaining about the antics. For an enlightened group we sure are passive about things that actually might be relevant.
It is a little late in the conversation to add this but maybe we should start a write-in candidacy for Snowden for president? I am not sure that he is old enough. Perhaps a senate seat and we can assume he is still a citizen of Hawaii.
I like you already. Also, I have skimmed the law posted earlier and that looks absolutely horrific. I have to wonder if they are going to risk making this change the security done at the borders. If not this specific law then what will roll down the pipe... I have a handy card that identifies me as a First Nations person and do not get bothered (I also use a low-traffic crossing that is close enough to my house so that I know some of them by name) but if they end up being invasive, like the United States, with other people then they may end up impacting tourism and their international reputation.
I am afraid that the hysteria from my country is partially responsible. That is unfortunate but not the first law that has been like this. From what I have noticed, heard, seen in the news, etc. this is actually "just" another event in a trending down government. At least you can go back to the UK though, really, they are rather invasive as well. At least their police are, generally, a bit more tame physically. I do not know the immigration laws in the UK - do the missus and tykes get UK citizenship due to your marriage? If so then, with the open borders in the EU, you may be able to seek refuge in a nice Scandinavian country if things go too haywire up there.
I will go along with that. So long as there is a law in place that allows for the banning of these things (it should be limited in scope and I am not sure about the verbiage but it should also be simple enough to be easily understood and not debatable as well as constitutional) then, by all means, ban away. First to get the law enacted... As it stands I would not support banning them simply because doing so would not be justified in my opinion. As much as I hate them I can not see any reason to ban them within the current regulations. I would almost certainly be for a law that did allow their banning as well as banning of any similar products. That really depends on how it is written and what else it bans.
If I am being recorded, outside and in public, then I should know. I should have a right to know or at least be able to observe what is around me and know that I am being recorded. Certain states have law that prohibit recording of another person without their consent via telephone and, I think, in person. I wonder about the legality there. I also wonder how well the European countries will accept something like this. A lot of privacy laws, especially here in the States, do not do much to protect the people from the people - they are mostly geared towards protecting the people from the government. Methinks that this needs to be reconsidered given the advances made in technology.
But, yes, I hate these things and I do not see them, or their ilk, being beneficial to society as they become more ubiquitous. Sure, they can be used to record incidents of abuse by public officials like the police, that is true. There are so many other ways that we, and the folks in charge, can use them against ourselves/us that I really do not like them. There are few restrictions on what a private citizen or company can do with the data that they gather and regulating that would be a nightmare with today's technology. I do not want to ban them simply because they are icky but I would be in favor of a law that prohibits these types of devices and then banning them.
Then again, it might be an interesting debate to determine if violating one's privacy is a form of assault or is reason to instill fear meaning that those we can defend ourselves physically when we see someone wearing them. I could make a reasonable argument that the violation of my privacy caused me to fear for my physical wellbeing and that is what prompted me to defend myself. I even have a few bucks so I can fight it in court for a while. I doubt that I would win but it would bring attention to the matter.
Why would you say this? This is not an attempt to argue but an attempt to see your point and to listen to it objectively. What would you recommend besides C++? I, personally, was a programmer for part of my job and wrote a lot of software specifically to do the tasks we needed to do to be successful. A lot of that was written in C++ and the vast majority of the rest was in C. Well, except for web-facing things...
Seriously, why would you say that and what would you recommend besides this? I still like to play around, if I build something interesting then I just give it away, so I am very receptive to learning something new or spending some time with a language I have not used in a while.
That is just it - we *are* saying (in my opinion and experience) that "N number of deaths is OK." We just are not saying it publicly or where we can be overheard and end up in print. I modeled traffic for years - that was my business. I was the author of the original software (consulting firm really, the software was NOT one-size-fits-all) that modeled traffic on a computer. Oddly this was just a hmm... Call it a long term project. It got noticed and mentioned to someone at the local highway department who just happened to be able to take the time to contact me and put me in touch with an early proposal for the "Big Dig" in Boston. (They did not take most of the suggestions and listened to their in-house engineers far too much as well as placed their money in the wrong areas but I digress.) Anyhow, this expanded and I grew the business and finished my education. I have since sold the company to a well known company that does nothing much more than government contracts of all types from military to intelligence to food supplies.
The reason I mention this is not because it is an appeal to authority. I trust you to make up your own mind. It is to explain where I am coming from and how I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.
In this industry, at least, we do not kid ourselves with claiming to even strive to reach a level of perfection with no accidents. We target the high-risk areas and work to reduce the traffic levels, smooth out the traffic, or increase safety through things like signage, decreased (or even increased) speed limits, and things of that nature. Adding lights, decreasing lane width at intersections (yes, it works) by adding a median with flowers, and things like that all potentially reduce risks. If enough of these things are incorporated then you could claim a theoretical reduction in accidents to reach a level that is perfect. (Each potentially reduces the chance by, say, 0.003% to 0.007% and there is a 0.09% chance of an accident at this fictional intersection.) These numbers can add up so that the potential is for a 0.000% chance of an accident which is, of course, absurd. What this means is that you will then inform the board who will then bring it to the press and the press will announce that the design will aim for a 0% chance of accidents which means it will be accident free. However, nobody ever said that and, worse, of all the things that would have actually accumulated those mythical numbers they will pick the ones they feel are most pressing (often ignoring our advice for prioritization) and those that fit within their budget. We did not do things like put up signs (except for testing) and we did not do road construction or the likes. We actually even refused to recommend companies to do those things (a practice the business still continues even though they do have some construction capability within the parent company) because of the potential conflict of interest.
So, really, nobody is actually (in this case - I guess I shouldn't speak for other industries) is trying to achieve an accident rate of zero. It is not even really the goal. Maybe it is verbiage and whatnot but we are certainly on the same page. The goal is increased safety within the allowable limits and yes this does mean that we discuss allowable limits and assume fatalities will continue to occur regardless of how hard we try. No matter how hard we strive to make things idiot proof they will invent a better idiot. If anyone suggests that we are striving to make things 100% safe they are in marketing or politics and not actually involved in anything more than (I do shudder) approving the program.
However, yes, we could say the goal is 0% if you would prefer. I am used to dealing with politicians and bureaucrats.;-) The goal is reducing accidents as far as is possible and if 0% is possible then that is our goal.
In theory we could make it near zero or perhaps even zero. Highway speeds would be 30 MPH, they would be single lane divided highways, intersections would
I appreciate that a great deal. I will read it, parse it as I may, and keep the information handy. I am sorry that your politics have been unduly influenced by my country however I ask that you not blame me because I have not voted for a winning candidate in many years. I also do not vote in your elections. While I am a citizen and I do spend some time up on the reserve I am still not there enough to feel comfortable enough to make decisions for you when they will have little effect on me. I am a citizen of the United States, as well, but more importantly this is my home for the time being. It would be inappropriate, I feel, to vote when I am not impacted or educated enough to do so in good faith.
According to this site (pay-walled) the ban was for a week or so. Am I missing something? You say "we started" which, sort of, implies that you are involved in some way so you may have information that I am unable to access or find. No, I do not pay to subscribe to WSJ or anything. I just happened to check BugMeNot and found out that they have changed since I visited them some many years ago. So, I did a little searching and *tada.wav* I found a password that worked. It was the first try, too. Some company posted the password saying that they got a subscription, here was the user/password, feel free to use it but logout after you are done. I can handle that.
It is embarrassing how many times I refreshed (those things happened right after the site went dark for a short time) and twiddled with my add-ons before figuring out it was them. Even worse is the amount of time I spent missing the comments link. That took at least a real five minutes before I figured out that I could click on it. It is like my brain just did not want to accept it. My muscle memory would not allow for changes. This is sad and I am sad.
That does not mean that you can not help them. Give a bum a $100 bill and a ride to the corner his dealer is on. Why not? He will have the time of his life and remember that day with great fondness for a long time. You gave the money away, it is up to them how they spend it. Could your money do more good? Absolutely. Would that person, the one spending it on drugs, have a hell of a time and enjoy themselves for a little while? Also true.
My only anecdote is that I once offered to buy a panhandler a sandwich for lunch. He swore at me and told me he wanted the money for alcohol. I appreciated his honesty and told him so. I gave him a $20 and he was happy. Hmm... In koan form? I gave him a $20 and I was enlightened.
Those seem more like purchases than donations. It is not that I am attempting to diminish anything and they are seemingly good value for the dollar but I do not think they equate as donations which is the subject at hand unless I missed something. This is, of course, my opinion. I would not recommend against purchasing these things but I am not sure I would consider them in the same category as donations even if you can deduct them from your taxes or even if they fall under the same line item. They just do not seem to be the equivalent though they are certainly noble causes.
Passed an anti-terrorist law that makes the patriot act look tame (law enforcement can break any law except rape in chasing down terrorists),
I have dual citizenship, I am a First Nation person... I have some property just north of the border. Could you tell me more about this law? A name would be fine. Google was not too revealing and I am not sure where to dig for more information. I would like to learn more about this.
I am not comfortable posting private information, it is potentially going to gather complaints that detract from my point. I would prefer to post this anonymously but I said it thus I own it in the sense that I am responsible for it. So... How to start?
I decline to state a percentage so this may not be what you are interested in but when I sold my business I gave away about a quarter of it. A bunch went to the employees and the rest went to a variety of organizations. Recently, for political reasons, I donated some bitcoins I had mined in the first year after they launched. Those went to EFF, I am not sure what their value was and I had to spread it out as they were not in one wallet but they totaled 48 of them. The reason for doing so was political (I do not want to be associated with them because of negative impressions) and tax avoidance. Note that tax avoidance is legal - even ethical. I would say that I donate a 5 to 6 figure sum yearly but, more importantly, I donate my time when I am able to. The financial donations? Those are tax breaks. My time is far more valuable, to me, and donating it is far more rewarding for me and also valued by those that I give it to.
I do not think it matters what percentage or how much you give total. What matters is how you live your life. Do you set time aside to help others? Do you have to be donating your time or money to a charity? How about if you are just helping an older person shovel their driveway, or if you plow it out? I plow every driveway in my neighborhood because I have the time, I enjoy it, and they do not have plows. I shovel off the roofs for two older couples. If a neighbor is ill (there are a total of six houses within about a 20 mile circle or so) then I may bring them some food, go shopping for them while I am in town, or even drive them to a doctor's office or to the hospital. I let people harvest wood from my property and do not charge them. I actively promote using my property for outdoor activities including camping, hunting, fishing, or riding ATVs. In return, a group of teens once borrowed my tractor and truck/trailer to haul off a bunch of junk that was on the property before I bought it. (It was near where they like to hold parties during the spring and summer.)
I give my time with the 4-H, I am a Mason so I donate time through them, a friend of mine and I bring my dog in to a local hospital for the folks to pet and enjoy. The kids really enjoy that part so I have learned to yo-yo better, some magic tricks, and I am getting better at making balloon animals but I am not so good. He and I will also bring in music or bring in instruments to play (as well as a drum and tambourine so that folks can play along) but those are usually limited to pediatric activities. I try to spend four days a month down at the VA hospital helping out there but that is a bit of a travel so that is not always something I can do.
I provided a trust for my children and their children (in perpetuity so long as none of them are stupid). I have provided a trust that gives enough to have five fully covered students (who are technologically minded - it requires grades and an essay as well as an interview but I have no part in the selection process though I have been asked for my opinion) to attend the same prep-school I was able to attend (it is Kent's Hill, room and board are included as well as a stipend - I would be honored if a child from a Slashdotter's lineage were to attend).
More importantly, and akin to putting my own skin in the game with physical labor and time, these things are done without my name attached (except when I seek tax deductions). I think that is the important thing. I have been fortunate - luck and not skill or effort is what enables me to do this. Skill and labor were involved but they were not the primary means though I did not start with a proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. I started with a partial scholarship and parents who were kind of sick of me. Having a school with resources and things like an observatory really make
I have been paying attention indeed. I still wonder why one looks at only 25 years of data and attempts to make a conclusion. You could probably draw the conclusions you want with the entirety of the data if you cared to use it. Additionally, lawful killings are not murder. Now we can debate whose laws apply if we want but that is not pertinent either. The US is responsible for all sorts of atrocities, some of which are killings, and this is not new.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you call two yuppies in a car accident?
A Saab story.
I am a Saab owner (currently only own a restored 900S Turbo - owned many in the past) and I am a yuppie. Fortunately I also love Volvos. I miss Saab.
Wait until you learn what your monitor is putting out!
I think the idea is that they would have fought harder had they been invaded - you will fight more when backed into a corner. I have also heard proponents cite estimates (for what those are worth is up to you to decide) that the bombs and subsequent damage were less than what would have happened had the Russians and Americans invaded. Others also claim that the bombs had little to do with the surrender but the imminent invasion by the USSR was the primary motivation. The latter claim is a bit dubious but does hold water well enough.
Hold a rope so your climbing partner does not fall? I do not know. Maybe you should have taken five minutes to think about that? Or maybe I should take a few minutes to see if there are alternate definitions? I can not think of any off the top of my head so screw it.
You seem to be forgetting that the materials will not be just magicking their way to the manufacturing plant. This is a cost that constructing anything (pretty much) needs to consider and that includes the alternatives.
The great thing about thorium is that the dirt on the roadside already, likely, has thorium in it. I am not an expert but I have been paying attention and those liquid salt thorium reactors look like they could do a lot of good in a safe manner.
Security is a process, not an application. No, there is no AV you can completely trust. Not a single one - even if you wrote it yourself there is a compiler that you did not write on an operating system that you did not write. Trust is something you give as little of as possible. So, be careful what you download, do not have things run at higher privileges than required, pay attention to your system to look for anomalous behaviors, and be weary of what you download.
I, myself, use a backup tool from Acronis which has enabled me to do some playing around with little fear of having to spend time to rebuild a system if it fails. I have successfully run a number of Windows OSes with no AV and no software firewalls. I have scanned them (after months of use) and not found anything abnormal - which is not an absolute sign of security but is a fine metric to start with and works even better if you are observing the machine's behavior.
If you are careful about how and what you do, block things that can potentially/likely infect your system with selective unblocking, and use download sources that are from the original vendor then you should be fine. Stay away from dangerous sites (you can still find porn and warez - I suggest scanning warez, if you are going to use them, though) and be mindful of your activities. Keep good backups, even off-site backups at a friend's house are an excellent idea, and keep a local backup that is off-line. Then you can just be mindful of your activities and the behavior of your system and be safe enough so that you are not going to be affected.
That is a rather huge leap. They may well have read the article but are just too stupid to comprehend it. ;-)
I do not know, it was all well and good when the subject was the Polish the other day. I am not Polish or anything but I still found it immature and figured it would likely be offensive to Polish people. I suspect we have some Polish here as they have a vibrant and large tech community. I think I was the only person who said anything in the way of complaining about the antics. For an enlightened group we sure are passive about things that actually might be relevant.
It is a little late in the conversation to add this but maybe we should start a write-in candidacy for Snowden for president? I am not sure that he is old enough. Perhaps a senate seat and we can assume he is still a citizen of Hawaii.
You... You do not have to use them and they are trivial to block. There, any other silly questions?
So you have no evidence to support your claim but will double-down and go for broke in hopes that somebody will believe you. Excellent! Shine on.
I like you already. Also, I have skimmed the law posted earlier and that looks absolutely horrific. I have to wonder if they are going to risk making this change the security done at the borders. If not this specific law then what will roll down the pipe... I have a handy card that identifies me as a First Nations person and do not get bothered (I also use a low-traffic crossing that is close enough to my house so that I know some of them by name) but if they end up being invasive, like the United States, with other people then they may end up impacting tourism and their international reputation.
I am afraid that the hysteria from my country is partially responsible. That is unfortunate but not the first law that has been like this. From what I have noticed, heard, seen in the news, etc. this is actually "just" another event in a trending down government. At least you can go back to the UK though, really, they are rather invasive as well. At least their police are, generally, a bit more tame physically. I do not know the immigration laws in the UK - do the missus and tykes get UK citizenship due to your marriage? If so then, with the open borders in the EU, you may be able to seek refuge in a nice Scandinavian country if things go too haywire up there.
I will go along with that. So long as there is a law in place that allows for the banning of these things (it should be limited in scope and I am not sure about the verbiage but it should also be simple enough to be easily understood and not debatable as well as constitutional) then, by all means, ban away. First to get the law enacted... As it stands I would not support banning them simply because doing so would not be justified in my opinion. As much as I hate them I can not see any reason to ban them within the current regulations. I would almost certainly be for a law that did allow their banning as well as banning of any similar products. That really depends on how it is written and what else it bans.
If I am being recorded, outside and in public, then I should know. I should have a right to know or at least be able to observe what is around me and know that I am being recorded. Certain states have law that prohibit recording of another person without their consent via telephone and, I think, in person. I wonder about the legality there. I also wonder how well the European countries will accept something like this. A lot of privacy laws, especially here in the States, do not do much to protect the people from the people - they are mostly geared towards protecting the people from the government. Methinks that this needs to be reconsidered given the advances made in technology.
But, yes, I hate these things and I do not see them, or their ilk, being beneficial to society as they become more ubiquitous. Sure, they can be used to record incidents of abuse by public officials like the police, that is true. There are so many other ways that we, and the folks in charge, can use them against ourselves/us that I really do not like them. There are few restrictions on what a private citizen or company can do with the data that they gather and regulating that would be a nightmare with today's technology. I do not want to ban them simply because they are icky but I would be in favor of a law that prohibits these types of devices and then banning them.
Then again, it might be an interesting debate to determine if violating one's privacy is a form of assault or is reason to instill fear meaning that those we can defend ourselves physically when we see someone wearing them. I could make a reasonable argument that the violation of my privacy caused me to fear for my physical wellbeing and that is what prompted me to defend myself. I even have a few bucks so I can fight it in court for a while. I doubt that I would win but it would bring attention to the matter.
Why would you say this? This is not an attempt to argue but an attempt to see your point and to listen to it objectively. What would you recommend besides C++? I, personally, was a programmer for part of my job and wrote a lot of software specifically to do the tasks we needed to do to be successful. A lot of that was written in C++ and the vast majority of the rest was in C. Well, except for web-facing things...
Seriously, why would you say that and what would you recommend besides this? I still like to play around, if I build something interesting then I just give it away, so I am very receptive to learning something new or spending some time with a language I have not used in a while.
That is just it - we *are* saying (in my opinion and experience) that "N number of deaths is OK." We just are not saying it publicly or where we can be overheard and end up in print. I modeled traffic for years - that was my business. I was the author of the original software (consulting firm really, the software was NOT one-size-fits-all) that modeled traffic on a computer. Oddly this was just a hmm... Call it a long term project. It got noticed and mentioned to someone at the local highway department who just happened to be able to take the time to contact me and put me in touch with an early proposal for the "Big Dig" in Boston. (They did not take most of the suggestions and listened to their in-house engineers far too much as well as placed their money in the wrong areas but I digress.) Anyhow, this expanded and I grew the business and finished my education. I have since sold the company to a well known company that does nothing much more than government contracts of all types from military to intelligence to food supplies.
The reason I mention this is not because it is an appeal to authority. I trust you to make up your own mind. It is to explain where I am coming from and how I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.
In this industry, at least, we do not kid ourselves with claiming to even strive to reach a level of perfection with no accidents. We target the high-risk areas and work to reduce the traffic levels, smooth out the traffic, or increase safety through things like signage, decreased (or even increased) speed limits, and things of that nature. Adding lights, decreasing lane width at intersections (yes, it works) by adding a median with flowers, and things like that all potentially reduce risks. If enough of these things are incorporated then you could claim a theoretical reduction in accidents to reach a level that is perfect. (Each potentially reduces the chance by, say, 0.003% to 0.007% and there is a 0.09% chance of an accident at this fictional intersection.) These numbers can add up so that the potential is for a 0.000% chance of an accident which is, of course, absurd. What this means is that you will then inform the board who will then bring it to the press and the press will announce that the design will aim for a 0% chance of accidents which means it will be accident free. However, nobody ever said that and, worse, of all the things that would have actually accumulated those mythical numbers they will pick the ones they feel are most pressing (often ignoring our advice for prioritization) and those that fit within their budget. We did not do things like put up signs (except for testing) and we did not do road construction or the likes. We actually even refused to recommend companies to do those things (a practice the business still continues even though they do have some construction capability within the parent company) because of the potential conflict of interest.
So, really, nobody is actually (in this case - I guess I shouldn't speak for other industries) is trying to achieve an accident rate of zero. It is not even really the goal. Maybe it is verbiage and whatnot but we are certainly on the same page. The goal is increased safety within the allowable limits and yes this does mean that we discuss allowable limits and assume fatalities will continue to occur regardless of how hard we try. No matter how hard we strive to make things idiot proof they will invent a better idiot. If anyone suggests that we are striving to make things 100% safe they are in marketing or politics and not actually involved in anything more than (I do shudder) approving the program.
However, yes, we could say the goal is 0% if you would prefer. I am used to dealing with politicians and bureaucrats. ;-) The goal is reducing accidents as far as is possible and if 0% is possible then that is our goal.
In theory we could make it near zero or perhaps even zero. Highway speeds would be 30 MPH, they would be single lane divided highways, intersections would
I appreciate that a great deal. I will read it, parse it as I may, and keep the information handy. I am sorry that your politics have been unduly influenced by my country however I ask that you not blame me because I have not voted for a winning candidate in many years. I also do not vote in your elections. While I am a citizen and I do spend some time up on the reserve I am still not there enough to feel comfortable enough to make decisions for you when they will have little effect on me. I am a citizen of the United States, as well, but more importantly this is my home for the time being. It would be inappropriate, I feel, to vote when I am not impacted or educated enough to do so in good faith.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
According to this site (pay-walled) the ban was for a week or so. Am I missing something? You say "we started" which, sort of, implies that you are involved in some way so you may have information that I am unable to access or find. No, I do not pay to subscribe to WSJ or anything. I just happened to check BugMeNot and found out that they have changed since I visited them some many years ago. So, I did a little searching and *tada.wav* I found a password that worked. It was the first try, too. Some company posted the password saying that they got a subscription, here was the user/password, feel free to use it but logout after you are done. I can handle that.
It is embarrassing how many times I refreshed (those things happened right after the site went dark for a short time) and twiddled with my add-ons before figuring out it was them. Even worse is the amount of time I spent missing the comments link. That took at least a real five minutes before I figured out that I could click on it. It is like my brain just did not want to accept it. My muscle memory would not allow for changes. This is sad and I am sad.
If they get all the personnel to beta test it then they can get nearly unlimited licenses!
That does not mean that you can not help them. Give a bum a $100 bill and a ride to the corner his dealer is on. Why not? He will have the time of his life and remember that day with great fondness for a long time. You gave the money away, it is up to them how they spend it. Could your money do more good? Absolutely. Would that person, the one spending it on drugs, have a hell of a time and enjoy themselves for a little while? Also true.
My only anecdote is that I once offered to buy a panhandler a sandwich for lunch. He swore at me and told me he wanted the money for alcohol. I appreciated his honesty and told him so. I gave him a $20 and he was happy. Hmm... In koan form? I gave him a $20 and I was enlightened.
Those seem more like purchases than donations. It is not that I am attempting to diminish anything and they are seemingly good value for the dollar but I do not think they equate as donations which is the subject at hand unless I missed something. This is, of course, my opinion. I would not recommend against purchasing these things but I am not sure I would consider them in the same category as donations even if you can deduct them from your taxes or even if they fall under the same line item. They just do not seem to be the equivalent though they are certainly noble causes.
Passed an anti-terrorist law that makes the patriot act look tame (law enforcement can break any law except rape in chasing down terrorists),
I have dual citizenship, I am a First Nation person... I have some property just north of the border. Could you tell me more about this law? A name would be fine. Google was not too revealing and I am not sure where to dig for more information. I would like to learn more about this.
I am not comfortable posting private information, it is potentially going to gather complaints that detract from my point. I would prefer to post this anonymously but I said it thus I own it in the sense that I am responsible for it. So... How to start?
I decline to state a percentage so this may not be what you are interested in but when I sold my business I gave away about a quarter of it. A bunch went to the employees and the rest went to a variety of organizations. Recently, for political reasons, I donated some bitcoins I had mined in the first year after they launched. Those went to EFF, I am not sure what their value was and I had to spread it out as they were not in one wallet but they totaled 48 of them. The reason for doing so was political (I do not want to be associated with them because of negative impressions) and tax avoidance. Note that tax avoidance is legal - even ethical. I would say that I donate a 5 to 6 figure sum yearly but, more importantly, I donate my time when I am able to. The financial donations? Those are tax breaks. My time is far more valuable, to me, and donating it is far more rewarding for me and also valued by those that I give it to.
I do not think it matters what percentage or how much you give total. What matters is how you live your life. Do you set time aside to help others? Do you have to be donating your time or money to a charity? How about if you are just helping an older person shovel their driveway, or if you plow it out? I plow every driveway in my neighborhood because I have the time, I enjoy it, and they do not have plows. I shovel off the roofs for two older couples. If a neighbor is ill (there are a total of six houses within about a 20 mile circle or so) then I may bring them some food, go shopping for them while I am in town, or even drive them to a doctor's office or to the hospital. I let people harvest wood from my property and do not charge them. I actively promote using my property for outdoor activities including camping, hunting, fishing, or riding ATVs. In return, a group of teens once borrowed my tractor and truck/trailer to haul off a bunch of junk that was on the property before I bought it. (It was near where they like to hold parties during the spring and summer.)
I give my time with the 4-H, I am a Mason so I donate time through them, a friend of mine and I bring my dog in to a local hospital for the folks to pet and enjoy. The kids really enjoy that part so I have learned to yo-yo better, some magic tricks, and I am getting better at making balloon animals but I am not so good. He and I will also bring in music or bring in instruments to play (as well as a drum and tambourine so that folks can play along) but those are usually limited to pediatric activities. I try to spend four days a month down at the VA hospital helping out there but that is a bit of a travel so that is not always something I can do.
I provided a trust for my children and their children (in perpetuity so long as none of them are stupid). I have provided a trust that gives enough to have five fully covered students (who are technologically minded - it requires grades and an essay as well as an interview but I have no part in the selection process though I have been asked for my opinion) to attend the same prep-school I was able to attend (it is Kent's Hill, room and board are included as well as a stipend - I would be honored if a child from a Slashdotter's lineage were to attend).
More importantly, and akin to putting my own skin in the game with physical labor and time, these things are done without my name attached (except when I seek tax deductions). I think that is the important thing. I have been fortunate - luck and not skill or effort is what enables me to do this. Skill and labor were involved but they were not the primary means though I did not start with a proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. I started with a partial scholarship and parents who were kind of sick of me. Having a school with resources and things like an observatory really make
I have been paying attention indeed. I still wonder why one looks at only 25 years of data and attempts to make a conclusion. You could probably draw the conclusions you want with the entirety of the data if you cared to use it. Additionally, lawful killings are not murder. Now we can debate whose laws apply if we want but that is not pertinent either. The US is responsible for all sorts of atrocities, some of which are killings, and this is not new.