Thank you so much for pointing this out! The thing I probably couldn't stand more than anything else is all the union workers acting like Uber drivers were horrible people for breaking an agreement they NEVER ENTERED INTO!
It also sickens me to see the unions using all this misapplied hatred to pretend that everyone who isn't part of one of their unions is somehow powerless and should unionize immediately. Unions can serve an important and valid purpose, but they are not the only way to empower yourself as an employee. The unions of today honestly stopped serving their employees the minute they started forcing them all to join just to work, IMHO.
The fact that usernames are not confidential is irrelevant. Neither are biometrics.
A username is meant to identify a user. That's exactly what biometrics are meant to do. Believing that a biometric is confidential is just inviting yourself to get hacked.
The problem I have with the push for biometrics today is that too much of the information people are basing their opinions on is assumption, not proven fact. The biggest two being that biometrics are unique to a single person (never proven true), and that they cannot be easily copied (proven false).
Despite their weaknesses, passwords are much better than any biometric.
If for no other reason the fact that I can change a password when it gets compromised or whenever I choose makes them better. Good luck finding a new biometric after someone gets all your fingerprints.
False, false, and soooooo false. It's these very wrong belief's about them that is creating a widespread security problem.
They are not perfect. In fact, it's common for them to even change over time.
Even if you did have a perfect capture of whatever biometric you're using, which actually rarely happens, the idea that they are unique has never been tested or proven true. It's just always been assumed, and security is not a place we should be assuming anything.
They are ridiculously easy to replicate. I can most likely replicate at least one of your fingerprints just testing your outside doors and car doors.
So, for this proven science that is so indisputable: could you please show me the scientific test that was used to prove that evolution could turn a creature into something completely different?
Without a provable process that is shown to produce the theorized results and can be repeated at least 3 times by independent researchers, all you have is a theory. It's a perfectly valid theory, but still just a theory.
Evolution is a scientific fact, but only in the sense that it can make small changes to adapt to different conditions. My issue with people arguing things like this is that when they want something to be true, it seems they too easily throw even their own scientific process out the window so that they can call it true.
The distinction here is extremely important. The fact that someone may choose to feel emotionally distressed by something I do (and it absolutely is a choice. That doesn't mean the choice isn't valid, but it must be seen for what it is) is never a sufficient reason to punish me.
The first amendment was particularly crafted with this necessary understanding. Indeed the whole point of that right is so that I CAN say things other people don't like that I feel need to be said. I should never intend to harm someone else, but I absolutely should be free to do things others don't necessarily like.
As for your example with the person who cannot recognize that what they're doing is wrong, that is correct. But there are other things we've accepted that need to be done to help both those people and those around them. While I have some serious issues with how far we sometimes go in terms of when it's ok/necessary to take people's freedom from them, that is one example where someone just honestly needs help.
How does preventing anyone else from ever seeing anything about them help "hold onto their heritage"?
No one is taking anything from these people. If anything, they're celebrating them and their heritage.
This is nothing but a selfish money grab. It's the exact same thing they've been doing for generations to the smaller communities around them. They've bankrupted every school and store within 100 miles of their land because judges are happy to bend over to them no matter how ridiculous their claims are.
companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are offering them TV and broadband bundles that are cheaper than what they'd pay for broadband alone in order to boost legacy TV subscriber rolls
I just got another one of these in the mail from Comcast today. This time it even offered speeds more than twice what I'm currently getting from them now. I refuse to sign up for this just to pad their numbers.
Why would I pay to watch commercials? Why would I pay for a ton of channels with nothing I want to watch on them?
This is insane (referring to the kid getting kicked out of school). It's a classic case of people who have no clue what the information they're looking at means making decisions based on paranoia.
We still don't fully understand what makes some genes active and others not in DNA. It's awesome what we've learned so far, but having markers of any kind doesn't really tell us anything right now. All we know is that we've seen these DNA strand patterns in others who exhibited certain traits and maybe there's some correlation. The fact that the kid doesn't actually have the disease is the only fact that matters.
Regardless of whether you think Facebook was ok doing this or not, there is nothing wrong with feeling that showing nudity in public is inappropriate. There is certainly no reason to throw insults at anyone that feels that way.
Making something a law, even a good law, does not take away the right to choose or make something not a choice.
Is it wrong to hit and run? Of course, but it's even more wrong to insist that someone should not have the power to choose what they do in a situation. They cannot choose the consequences of their choices, but they can and should have the right to make those choices.