When you say good, can you quantify that? I've not seen it, but my understanding is that it's a ridiculous collection of easily debunked internet arguments, with paper thin non-believer characters written simply to deliver the trite message of the movie's climax with no regard for actual human behaviour or logic.
But, if you can offer a subjective reason why someone not belonging to a specific religion might find value in it, I might check it out.
I agree with most of that. You need a paper trail, you need a way for the voter to confirm the vote is actually cast as you wish. Theres probably some verification steps needed to ensure that there's no tampering with the paper and allow for damaged/lost/illegible printouts, but as long as those first 2 requirements are met I'm ok with electronic voting. A black box with no independent paper trail? Not a chance
Likely scenario: because it's a post in favour of treating the LGBT community like human beings it keeps getting reported by bigots and flagged by an automated process. When asked why they're reporting, they tick the porn category, which is why that's stated. Facebook either haven't had a human intervene yet, or have an equally bigoted admin who's letting it go down.
Let's be honest, this is most likely to do with software rather than Facebook making an actual decision, and it'll get reversed when the PR storm hits. Not ideal, but can anyone else think of a process that will be effective at policing this much content without some silly false positives?
"The last thing we need is a pre-crime division, which is what some people appear to be suggesting. "
Only if you take it to ridiculous extremes. Pre-crime as in the Minority Report term is a problem because it involves arresting and convicting people before they have committed any crime.
But I don't think that's what most people are asking for. Most actual terrorist suspects were known to authorities to have behaved in a suspicious manner or have a history of other behaviour that indicates intent. This includes the Orlando shooter. What people are saying is build a case and take action if and when necessary once evidence has been compiled to show a crime is to be carried out. Conspiracy to commit a felony is itself a crime.
That's not "pre-crime", that's simply surveillance and intelligence gathering, taking action when necessary. if evidence is available to show that a crime is being planned, that should be enough to convict without having to wait for people to die.
"After he got married and went quiet he fell off the radar."
Not entirely true. For example, he was reported to authorities after attempting to buy body armour and a large amount of ammunition.
"You literally can't find single terrorists without creating a full totalitarian state that doesn't mind throwing huge numbers of innocent people in jail."
Or... you could use the existing infrastructure which already flags most of the terrorists before they do anything, but is so full of useless extra information that the real dangers often get lost in the mix. From the infamous "Bin laden determined to attack the US" memo and the corresponding known person who was learning to fly but refused to learn the landing to the recent Orlando killer, the information was in their hands. They had been found, the information just hadn't been acted upon yet.
"All this hand-wringing about what the government should have done--and the loss of civil liberties that follows--is, from a mathematical perspective, insane."
Except it's not about maths. The government, most of the time, already had the information necessary to prevent a lot of these attacks. They just need to make the information useful.
"But how could they have prevented the Boston bombing? The Russian's gave the warning in 2011 (two years before the bombing). Did we expect the FBI to follow law-abiding brothers around non-stop for years until they drop a backpack somewhere?"
If I'm not mistaken, at least one of the brothers had been in trouble multiple times with the law, suspected of murder (but not had a case built against him yet) and was known to be a fanatical religious convert. Following him may have been a better use of time than talking otherwise law abiding citizens into invented plots.
"Supposing they had the resources, do we want them watching the other thousands (millions?) of people on watch lists who may or may not ever commit a crime?"
That might be a good idea. In that case, the expense might get the watch lists reduced to only list people who actually pose a threat, rather than the useless random collection of names you have now.
It was stated before, but Vice and ViceVersa are completely different words/phrases with completely different meanings. A claim here makes as much sense as thinking that a therapist is a criminal because the job title contains the word rapist.
If any of this seems logical to you, you may need to seek one of those out though.
Similarly, if you're giving Hillary crap over her email server, but not giving her predecessors the same crap over using Yahoo accounts or the Bush administration for literally deleting millions of emails, you are a partisan hypocrite.
Re: Re: Re: Not quite enough information to determine what happened.
"they may not have been permitted to do a test restore of the backups, or for that matter they may not have even been permitted to make backups"
If that's a law or a rule, then responsibility for the incident goes to whoever was responsible for such rules rather than the poor admin who was ordered to follow it. It's still incompetence in that case, just not on the part of LM's tech crew.
If there was someone not allowing the tech team to do their job by not allowing them to shut the DB down when required, then this needs to be brought up in the investigation to ensure that lower level lackeys are not blamed for having to follow the chain of command (I know how likely that is but still...).
Either way, this was a predictable risk and should have been mitigated. Presuming no deliberate sabotage, someone somewhere was incompetent.
Re: Not quite enough information to determine what happened.
Sure, but because this is a known risk, you are also meant to periodically test the backups to verify that they recover correctly. Then you store those somewhere safely so that even in cases of absolute catastrophic failure the database is still available. That 12 years of data was lost suggests that any backups were never verified and/or they were in a position to be affected by whatever caused the production version to fail.
Exactly, whatever savings are expected, we expect to spend at least as much getting back with existing trading partners and introduce plenty of additional costs and difficulties for business going forward. Plus, the economy will be very much damaged in the short term (and already has been even if we vote remain).
I'd be willing to entertain the idea of leaving if I could see mid to long term evidence of major improvement, and how autonomy would improve things if we leave. But, nothing. However bad you think the EU is being run right now, at least there's evidence of how it operates and what can be done to improve it.
Come on exit supporters, name a ruling that the UK would have done better if we had autonomy, and provide evidence of how that would have improved things. I'm seeing nothing except vague whining from people who believe what the Daily Express writes about immigration (often proven lies) and myths from The Sun about bananas. Where are the facts?
"How can any self-respecting European actually sit and condescendingly poke fun at US governance?"
Easily. My pointing out ridiculous stuff that's happening in the US doesn't mean I'm not aware of shenanigans at home. I can poke fun at both equally. Plus, whatever random crap goes on in the US tends to affect the rest of the world so it's still a form of self-preservation.
"I really hope my British family and friends vote to leave the EU."
...and then what? I hear a lot of xenophobia, rambling about control and claims of how we're better of with complete autonomy, usually coupled with fabrication and exaggeration. I hear vague unsupported statements of "savings", which are usually suspect (for example, most of the people claiming the NHS will be better off are people who not long ago were calling for it to be dismantled and sold off).
What I don't hear is a real plan for the future, how the UK will cope with the inevitable collapse of the economy (we've already lost billions just because the vote is coming up). How it will cope with the needs of the 2+ million British citizens currently in Europe, how it will cope with the massive amount of red tape and lost income that renegotiating contracts, requiring visas for every traveller, etc. How it will deal with the large amount of money still to be paid to the EU members if we continue to trade with them but lacking any control over how its used, as Norway currently has to. We will be better off making our own decisions? Fine. What decisions are we going to make?
Perhaps you can provide a leave argument that's not based on lies and racism, preferably one with a real outline of how we deal with the predictable negative consequences? I'm yet to hear one.
I suppose it depends on context. Writing a story where someone kills themselves as part of a larger narrative is probably OK. Posting step-by-step instructions on the best way to slit your wrists is probably not.