Governments pose greatest threat to internet, says Google's Eric Schmidt

rwal · 1 day

Guns don't kill people. Its those darn bullets. Now just stand there while I push this bullet into your head.

FTFY

rwal · 1 day

Governments, using technologies developed by Google, Facebook, and other companies, pose the greatest threat to the future of the internet, says Google's Eric Schmidt

FTFY

Google, Facebook and other data warehousers and marketers pose the second greatest threat to the future of the internet.

justsayboom · 16 days

This was the original argument:

loercase
Great, let's legalize it and make sure it's only sold by people who check IDs.

koavf  
I'm not sure how this would work--can you elaborate?

     siskoraban  
     You see, when the young person would walk up to the register at a legally owned business, they would ask for ID before completing the transaction. I don't know many drug dealers who feel obliged to do the same.

The argument wasn't how to make it available for other people but keep it away from teens. The argument was about the best way to keep it away from teens. Legalizing it and giving it to the corner gas station to sell with their cigarettes isn't going to do a better job as keeping teens away.

In the very best case scenario, the same drug dealers who were bringing the illegal MJ into the country can go to the corner store and buy it for the teens at a slight markup. That is if the teens cant find that corner store that will sell it to them at the lower price that is supposed to price out all those colombian drug lords.

By making it legal, you are taking something thats already pretty much in circulation and making it even more readily available. I can see your logic and i understand where you are coming from. But from a practical standpoint, this would make the problem worse than it is now.

justsayboom · 16 days

I've never met one teenager who got cigarettes on the black market.
I've never met a teenager who grew, cultivated and made their own tobacco.
I've never met a teenager who had a problem buying tobacco if they wanted it.

With that in mind, this tells me that whatever "barrier" is in place, it has little to no success. Teenagers will find a legal source to sell to them illegally. And the penalty for being caught selling to minors apparently isn't harsh enough I guess because it continues to be a problem. Teenagers continue to be the largest population group of new smokers.

justsayboom · 16 days

That's worked out really well for cigarettes.

/s

throwaway0013 · 22 days

I think you are missing the point of his post. It doesn't matter at all whether he believes in god or not. He is trying to show his (former) friend that when they say things like that that they are actually insulting people. This is because there is kind of a disconnect for some people about this. Many, but not all religious folks as well as non-religious folks fall into this. They think that something is so obvious that they make statements thinking to themselves that nobody could really dispute what seems like such an obvious fact. They don't realize that it isn't an obvious fact for others and seen as an insult when insinuating there is something wrong with someone who doesn't quite see things the same way. I think he showed a great deal of tact in the way he approached the subject.

I might have said something more along the lines of, "you think this is an obvious point because believe that the bible is irrefutable fact. There are other people who don't believe that the bible is irrefutable fact and in fact may believe that there isn't sufficient evidence to accept your pint because the bible arguably hasn't been proven to be factual itself."

Or any number of other possible ways. I will often tell my friends when they are being insensitive. Depending on the friend I may approach it in a sarcastic manner or in a very straightforward manner. Almost everyone has understood and taken it to heard. almost exclusively, those that saw it as an attack on them approached the comment from a religious persecution perspective.

TL/DR; I think that some folks have a disconnect between what they say and how it is perceived by others. They may not understand that they statement they make is actually condescending or insulting of others. they may have the best intention, but they are thinking from a very closed off, self centered mindset.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

If she was truly that horrible of a person, she wouldn't have told him at all.. and he would have just gone on being as happy as before. If someone cheats on the person that they love it doesn't mean that they are definitely a terrible unsalvageable person.

If she decides at that age that she needs to clear her conscience, he can use it as an opportunity to ask if there was other bad stuff she did.

Just remember. telling him even after so many years means that she is taking a chance because she wants him to know the truth. Its not because she has decided she is going to run off with someone else.

It is his choice whether to stay. But the honorable thing to do is to look at all the good and bad and not to just dispose of someone for something they did decades prior.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

How do you stop someone from falling in love?

Maybe that's the universal question. But we arent talking about why it happens or how to stop it but how do we handle it when it does.

Once she used that EXPRESSION of love with someone else, the marriage was over, the vows broken.

Technically once she fell in love with someone else, the vow was broken. The sex was only one such expression of it. There are many ways to express love and to single out sex is shortsighted. they could spent time together, give each other money and gifts, share personal life experiences and emotional support with each other. But they may never have sex. In my mind, the emotional support and sharing of live is a far worse crime than engaging in an instinctual ritual.

"I'm in love with douchebag, and I'm leaving you for him". Would it have hurt? Yeah...but there still could be some semblance of trust salvaged.

Why does sex make that much of a difference. If she betrayed your love, your marriage vows to honor and cherish each other, what possible difference does sex have. The relationship is either salvageable or not salvageable regardless of whether her falling in love with another guy included sex.

The guy ...

With all due respect to that guy, I don't see much promise in polygamous relationships. I think if the couple(s) have agreed on the terms of the relationship and all parties agree to those ground rules, then great. I don't believe that we as humans are wired to be poly-amorous.

I have at least 3 set of friends (couples) that were married and poly-amorous. One couple was even features in a movie about marriage called "American Marriage". We all had high hopes for them and especially this couple. One by one, every single one of those relationships failed. And in ever case, it was because one partner decided that the situation was no longer feasible. And the other partner, rather than respecting their partners feelings, pushed harder to continue to take advantage of the agreement.

I, myself have never been one who could share those emotional boundaries with others. If my wife cheated on me, I would be devastated but I could work through that with her. If she actually betrayed the love we share, companionship and emotional support, that would be harder. Perhaps not impossible, but a great deal harder.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

well said.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

While cheating may not be a mistake, it may very well be something stupid someone does and then later regrets. In that way, its not all that much different from any other form or stupidity or betrayal.

I think there are two major differences in the way we view trust.

When I first meet a person, I give them a base level of trust and respect. AS I get to know them, their personality and their strengths and weaknesses, that level of trust increases or fluctuates up and down.
If someone has abused my trust or betrayed me, I may be hurt, but I wont instantly decide that this betrayal is an insurmountable obstacle. If someone wishes to redeem themselves, I may give them the opportunity to do so with the understanding that it may take time and during that time they cannot expect the same level of trust that they previously held.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

So her falling in love with someone else was ok as long as she didn't consummate that relationship?

Sex isn't love and love isn't sex. It is an expression of love. Must like many other expressions of love that have nothing to do with intercourse. But it is also the expression of a biological human need.

I respect your feelings if you truly feel that way but I think you paint yourself into a small corner. Being cheated on hurts. I know it. I have been cheated on myself and fortunately did not become completely jaded from those experiences.

Its also a bit confusing for me as you seem to equate love, trust and sex but then go on to say that one can love a partner, children or parents. I don't think that you mean to imply that the dynamics of a loving relationship with a partner is equivalent to the love of a child or a parent.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

If she fell in love with someone else but didn't sleep with them until she broke it off with you, its still cheating.

It isn't the sex that breaks the trust. It is the sharing feelings of love with someone else. So does it matter if she had sex with him or not. She shared feelings of love with him.

By this logic, nobody can ever fall in love with someone else without cheating. They just have to break up pre-emptively just in case they are out and meet someone and fall in love with them.

I don't really see that working out the way you envision it.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

What if your partner cheated before you two were together. That still makes that person a potential cheater. Studies have said that most people have cheated at least once at some point in their lives.

How could you ever trust anyone? How do you know that the person you are with didn't cheat on someone before you. How do you know that they didn't break up with their ex after meeting you after finding out they wanted to be with you more.

You don't know. By your logic, nobody can ever be trustworthy because no trust can ever be redeemed.

Have you ever done stupid things? Have you ever made mistakes? In those cases you must have let people down. Were those people ever able to trust you again? are you an untrustworthy person because you've let people down in your life in other ways? How can anyone ever be trusted?

In my mind, trust is earned. It isn't something that people automatically have and is deducted from them if they do something stupid, mean, or uncaring. It means that if someone does something stupid, there is still a possibility that they might be able to regain that trust.

Otherwise, how are we as humans ever going to be able to survive.

DishwasherTwig · 1 month

I think its dangerous to equate sex with love. When you say that you cant love someone if you've had sex with someone else, you are putting sex up on an untenable pedestal. Sex is for most people an expression of love. But lack of sex does not equal lack of love. Also sex and attraction are biological functions that do not strictly adhere to the concept of love.

You can love someone but hate them at the same time. You can care about someone but not be attracted to them. There are many many combinations of possibilities.

People in this thread seem to share this really idealistic and simplistic view of what love and sex is.

I'm not about to condone the act of sleeping around and cheating on your loved ones. However, people have to realize that cheating is a very complex psychological thing. Humans are complex being that not only rely on knowledge and intellect to drive their actions, but a base level of instincts that they often struggle with as it conflicts with other decision making processes. That is human nature. Statistically, ~60% of both men and women cheat on partners at some point in their life.

it can relate to:
1. wanting to let your partner know of a problem in the relationship that cannot be easily communicated in a more productive way
2. a human weakness for a biological need
3. a lack of self esteem
4. a symptom of previous sexual or emotional abuse.
5. dissatisfaction with the intimate relationship

and lastly as a more rare occurrence
6. not loving your partner and wanting to hurt them by sleeping around.

And just for the record. I am married. Never cheated on any of my girlfriends or my wife.

TL/DR; relationships are complicated things. Saying that someone who cheated doesn't love their partner is a very simplistic view with a lack of understanding of human interaction and relationships.

DocCaliban · 1 month

It should also be mentioned that a suppressor does not eliminate the explosion from the gun powder when the hammer strikes the bullet casing.

A gun with a suppressor may reduce or eliminate muzzle flare and reduce that noise but it is not by any means silent.

ZeroMercuri · 1 month

I am appreciative of your very rational view of your religion and its place as a means to describe some unknown factors of our natural world.

I truly mean that. I just have one qualm with it. It is what is referred to as "god of the gap".

But it did the job until science was able to prove what really happened.

It still becomes problematic as it drives away motivation to research scientific explanations for things. The implication is that since we didn't understand things like particle physics back then, that it was ok to say that "god did it". More-so than ok, it was expected that people would believe that god did it which removed the necessity to research the topic any further. In truth, history is riddled with this sort of logic and only the very few people who chose to go against the established religious hierarchy in order to discover better (scientific) explanations for things which were thought of up to that point as the sole dominion of god. At times, people were killed for going against that established religious dogma.

I think "god of the gap" thinking is at worst a danger to society and people and at best something that holds real meaningful research and discovery back as only the outliers and rebels challenge the dogma in order to reach new levels of understanding.

I apologize in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors.

nomdeweb · 1 month

They certainly paid attention. So they wen back to the drawing board to try to figure out again how to sneak it by the American public under the guise of some humanitarian effort or social and moral imperative.

We may complain but we still aren't writing their paychecks or running them out on the rails with tar and feathers. they really have little to fear from us if they only pretend and make a token effort to bend to the will of the public.

TheSeeker00 · 1 month

Not necessarily. Perspective says that most laws are created to protect people from the abuse of others wishing to do harm to them.

Laws are made which are supposed to make is harder to cheat someone out of money, murder them, railroad then for crimes they didn't commit, and so on. Sure there are laws that are just punitive, but for the most part, laws are created to prevent people from harming others with legal impunity.

conclusion and TL/DR; So yes, if there isn't a law for something, then it means you should be able to legally partake in that activity. A law comes in for that activity when someone find a way in which to cause some sort of harm (physical, financial, economic, etc).

wickedplayer494 · 1 month

That's true. Just ask the guys (yes has happened multiple times) who had paid off their houses, didn't have any mortgages, and came home to find that BofA had foreclosed his home, locked him out and sold off all of their stuff at auction.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/06/bank-america-pays-florida-couple-in-mistaken-foreclosure-case/

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-09-23/business/fl-wrongful-foreclosure-0922-20100921_1_foreclosure-defense-attorney-foreclosure-case-jumana-bauwens

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/07/01/bank-of-america-sets-foreclosure-sale-on-home-with-no-mortgage/

wickedplayer494 · 1 month

BofA does shitty stuff warranting awards like this every year. But they cant win the award every year. BP also and a while cast of other bad apple companies.

I'm glad they chose to put a spotlight on what, might be somewhat a lesser evil, has been spreading its evil for decades with barely a mention outside of the gaming industry.

wickedplayer494 · 1 month

I haven't bought an EA game for since Dragon Age (1) and haven't done business with Bank Of Assholes for a decade.

Does it make me smarter. Who knows. Definitely means i'm a stubborn bastard.

While BofA probably deserves to win the award many times, it doesn't take away the fact that there are other companies like EA that deserve that honorable mention for being puss filled warts on the back of the gaming industry.

EA knows their market demographic. And that is kids and young adults with little self control and an instant gratification complex. As much as most of these kids complain, they still break down to pressure from friends or the need for that instant gratification and buy the garbage that they've been complaining about. And many of these kids who have little to no self control will grow up to be adults with little to no self control.

Don't get me started on the shitty, security fail, invasive, marketing scam that is origin.

TheSeeker00 · 1 month

Well you would think that would be obvious but it isn't for many people.

Some people are more swayed by the fact that Santorum is a devout Christian and don't know or care that his social ideas are more than just a little nutty.

Some people are more concerned that Romney is a Mormon than that he is actually a more viable candidate than Santorum. Oh and they dont really care that any of his ideas, while always changing are not as illogical as Santorum's.

Despite the denials, there were some people who voted for Barack Obama because he is black and it was a strike for a long held need for some sort of justice. some did so because it was a historic event that a black american could become president of the united states. Not a lot, but some. They didn't really care about his ideas or his speeches.

Many people vote for candidates based on what they hear on their favorite news station or what they hear from friends rather than actually finding out what the candidate really believes.

So saying that something should be obvious is good. This SHOULD be obvious to everyone. Saying something is obvious to everyone is naive based on plenty of evidence.

I'm sure that if there was an openly atheist candidate running for president, there would be a group of people that would vote for them regardless of who the person was or what their platform was.

TheSeeker00 · 1 month

Unless they are an idiot. you can be as atheist or christian as you want. Its the platform and your personal beliefs that are what I care about. If an atheist comes along and is a moron, then I will not help them get elected. If it were between a intelligent person who identified themselves as an atheist and an intelligent person who identified themselves as religious, then I might give preference to the atheist. Otherwise, not.

thesircuddles · 1 month

You are right. Such people do exist. However non-religious people who are pro-life is an infinitely smaller group than the rest. Religious folks who are pro-choice is a somewhat larger group but still small compared to the rest. Also religious folks who are pro-choice often come from specific denominations that may not take such a hard line on abortions.

The implication here is that the vast vast majority of folks who are unequivocally pro-life align themselves with religious institutions who take a hard stance on the question of abortion. Pro-life is, by sheer statistical numbers, a religious designation.

thesircuddles · 1 month

I seem to recall that teen pregnancy went up a little bit with abstinence only education. What did go up alot was STD's and unprotected anal sex. This is because condom use was not part of the curriculum. In fact, many abstinence programs that mentioned condoms at all did so as a way to imply that they weren't 100% effective. They didn't bother to mention that they are 98% effective when used properly.

That is what the results of the study said.

political-animal

TROPHY CASE

political-animal

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login