I see a lot of movies, but I disliked the last Hobbit movie enough that I have no interest in seeing this one.
I suppose I find it less interesting and simply factual. People respond well to having a number to try to move, or a goal to try to reach. Knowing this about myself, it's a useful tool to have.
The one thing I wouldn't mind changing is having a vendor that keeps all the data local rather than uploading it to servers somewhere. I don't care too much that it's uploaded to servers somewhere, but it'd be a nice plus if I had the option to keep everything local. Then again, I use sites that have a social fitness component, so I'd probably still share. Maybe what I want is just the option to restrict the vendor from sharing, and the right to permanently delete the data when I'm done with it.
So which set of laws are you going to choose to enforce?
Neither. US laws aren't applicable to North Korea, and North Korean laws aren't applicable here. I'm arguing that the correct moral and ethical standard is that we are not liable for what other people say. If Sony did something wrong, that's on Sony, not the U.S. government or the U.S. people. Do you feel compelled to apologize for me holding an opinion you disagree with? You shouldn't. You're not responsible for what I say, any more than the U.S. government is responsible for what Sony says, which by the way they only "say" in a work of ficiton, that happens to be a comedy.
it would stand to reason that the diplomatic solution would be the most rational of actions.
No, that reinforces the false notion that the government is responsible for things its private citizens say. That may be difficult for a dictatorship to understand, but it's the truth. Just go take a look at all the people on the planet who have at one time or another chanted "death to America", and notice how very many of them we've attacked for it. That would be, what, none? I suspect if the roles were reversed, our response would be something between total indifference and "That's tacky."
The diplomatic solution is to say what's true. Whatever it is in the movie you guys are ticked about, we didn't say. Apologizing for what other people do has always seemed like nothing more than a meaningless statement to me.
No one ever said that they could co-ordinate 18'000 attacks simultaneously. No one's worried about that.
+1 Insightful (if I had mod points today). This is exactly what I came here to say. The major chains likely thought there was a sufficiently greater than 0 chance that they'd target at least one, and it might be theirs.
If it gets to that level, as it just did, Sony ought to back off and your government ought to step in to do something -- I know exactly what my country would do: publicly apologize for the insulting movie, as a sign of respect, and move on.
On that, I differ quite strongly. Just like the bottom of my Slashdot tab says "Comments owned by the poster.", comments made by American citizens are not owned by the government, nor should the government have anything to say about it, including apologizing for them. I suppose if asked, the government should simply say that: "The movie was the product of Sony and doesn't reflect the opinions of the U.S. government." Just like every other movie the U.S. government isn't involved in. And that's the end of it.
Time spent on a bus is time spent not doing things I need to be doing, unfortunately, since many of them require my physical presence to do. The bus route from work is 90 minutes. Driving takes 30. Giving up 2 productive hours of my day is too high a cost. If I could telecommute on the bus and count that as work time, I could do it, otherwise it's a non starter.
That, by the way, is someone who doesn't like driving and will be first in line for self-driving cars (when they're affordable, not when they're toys for people with lots more money than me).
This is really important.
A buddy of mine posted an article the point of which was something like "never enact a law you're not willing to kill to enforce." Because, at the end of the day, that might be how you enforce it, and this is exactly that sort of case.
I don't care if this guy sells cigarettes. Seriously, of all the wrongs in the world, this is one I can't possibly care about. I don't want someone choked out because they might be selling cigarettes. I don't want them accidentally killed, for sure. Worst case, write the guy a ticket and go on your way. Best case, repeal the law and officially stop caring whether this some guy sells cigarettes or not.
I like the theory of "then vote their sorry asses out" but have come to the conclusion that the reason we still have a lot of these problems is that they really can't be solved without large, damaging changes to the entire system (we're basically trying to legislate to force people to stop being assholes).
I like the theory but have come to the conclusion that it doesn't work because people don't actually do it. People should have a list of things they demand of their officials, and vote out everybody who doesn't meet them. Few do. Some do, for issues like abortion, guns, etc, but a lot of people who vote vote for a party. And of course, a lot of people just don't vote at all.
You can't legislate people not being assholes, but you can legislate putting them in jail when they do it. That's pretty much the entirety of the criminal code, after all.
Telling your politicians what you think is never a bad idea. Do that, AND vote.
I blame your voters if said mayor is still there after the next election.
Seriously, people need to step up and take responsibility for having bad leaders. We put them there. Vote them back out. If no one decent is running, run yourself.
Officer: forcibly takes your phone
You're missing the point. If the police in these cases were following the law, there wouldn't be a problem.
Of course not. Not if there's a law that specifically says doing it is illegal. That's what laws do, you know. They define what's legal or not legal.
None of this circling the blue wall crap, and being on paid suspension. Fire the bastards.
No, stick to your guns. Firing is not enough. If you did this, you'd be prosecuted. When they do this, they should also be prosecuted. If that's not happening (which it isn't), then go up the chain until you find the elected official who can fix it. I assume that's the mayor. Fire him at the next election. Repeat until there are prosecutors who actually prosecute criminals who happen to be police.
Really? Here, they insist you remove the drivers license from the wallet and give them just the license.
Not necessarily large sums of cash, but "some cash". Lots of people don't have a lot of reserve in the bank. People staring unexpected unemployment in the face without a lot of money to fall back on take the severance package. It almost doesn't matter what it says.
I had the same concern with the mosquito-zapping lasers, which IIRC are only around 40W (which is still a LOT). It's a really cool idea until someone throws an aluminum can in my yard and a reflected laser hits someone in the eye. I'd think the power required to burn leaves off would be a lot higher than the power required to warm up mosquitoes enough to kill them.