Within the bounds of the law, companies should do whatever they have to do to protect their data.. If it's attacking the hackers, then I say go for it.
I think its not realistic.
Its like trying to outsmart someone who's smarter than you.
Fair enough. I agree.
That makes sense.
Yeah, I mean everyone should jailbreak their own phone.
It's Apple's fault that some people can have jailbreaks and not others for adding that damn security to iOS updates.
I agree. I don’t see what the big deal is.
So many times Apple keeps saying it’s unethical to jailbreak because Apple said no.
Everyone should. This whole thing is stupid.
Hey, I'm back everyone.
After thinking this through, I really want to say this:
The right isn't the only side that won't ban someone and supports freedom of speech.
Look at hacktivists.
As an independent, I strongly believe that NOT allowing freedom of speech is FASCIST and STUPID.
You people are crazy.
I only ban if they make a direct threat. I think its better to go out and straight up diss the person in return and not give two shits what people think.
Cuz I'm tech savvy but I don't hit that trigger bro cuz I could care less what you all think of my shit, unless you become an actual threat and then I care.
A few Muslims are terrorists obviously and most terrorists are Muslim, but not the other way around. I agree.
I just think extreme far left or far right are both idiotic. The left is obsessed with gun control and with our corrupt government fuck that.
If you make a rule at school that says "don't use the computer lab during recess" but then one kid use it during that time, then you aren't really enforcing the rule.
Obviously, for examples like the previous one, a few slip ups are ok. But a rule about something serious like having a license to parent and then allowing a slip up for a few million people is not enforcing the rule.
If you don't establish a clear and hard rule, you have no rule.
In moderation it won't which is the same as wormwood. No comclusive studies on marijuana so I don't add it to the list. Only two things are alcohol and wormwood because that's what's confirmed not to kill you if done in moderation.
How do you know its safe in moderation? There are no conclusive studies and nearly anything else that gets you high will kill and addict you.
Wormwood and alcohol are exceptions.
Drugs should be legal because they only affect the person buying and taking the drug. As soon as it affects someone else, that's where I think law enforcement should come in. One example of this is the child.
By then the kid will have grown to love their adopted parents and/or parent just like any other adopted child. Also safer imo based on how I profile people who have kids before 30. Usually sluts and thugs would have a kid at age 22.
It isn't safe but all we know is it gets you high. Can you think of anything else safe that gets you high other than alcohol which in large amounts can be unsafe anyways?
Rationally the child would be put in a foster home. A 24 year old should gain some wisdom before having kids. Not enough life experience. I purposely am not gonna have kids until I am 30 and honestly that's a good age. Most people my age nowadays are not much different from being kids.
A lot of people today that are my age act like teenagers, myself included to some degree. I'm 22, almost 23. I know most of my peers are not ready to have kids yet. Some of them might get away with it.
I tell that to any girlfriend I get when I first meet them.
We should have it and I think someone should have to be 28 years old before they have children. Maybe even 30.
If the drugs are medicine prescribed for a specific condition by a doctor with a license it's great sure.
Obviously I do what my doctor tells me to do.
Morphine is the only illegal substance that would actually be a good debate as doctors use it to treat pain in hospitals and it is FDA approved for such usage if the doctors (not you or me) decide to use it.
A robot was smart enough to be granted Saudi citizenship.
Suadi Arabia may be Muslim but they are allied with the US (unlike Syria). So please don't call me a stupid liberal. The fact that a robot can be a citizen anywhere is good.
Which would you rather have: one person with a semiautomatic rifle vs twenty something people with regular rifles, or would you rather have one person with a semiautomatic rifle and twenty something people without guns?
We already have robots that can create their own language.
What I meant to say is whether it will happen or if it won't. My bad.
I was talking about the technological singularity. Where do I appear to be talking about the gravitational singularity? What gravitational singularity?
Michael wins.
This isn't rocket science.
Michael has better moves.
Michael was revolutionary.
Michael innovated more.
Fuck Madonna. She's a retarded pop singer and nothing more.
Madonna deserves to die.
She will burn in hell.
Someday, Michael Jackson will come back because he's the one and only Jesus Christ amd he will reign on the throne over Isrsel and basically rule Earth.
Then he will send us all to hell for liking other singers.
I'll probably be forced to be manraped by Hitler for daring to listen to not pick between eminem and ICP.
He's being sarcastic. It fits in with the sarcasm. Either you get it or you don't.
That's the same as asking: are Muslims, Jews, Asians, or Africans inherently racist? No. It's the individual every time.
I was on your side brontoraptor. I think we should all have guns. What is it you think my argument is?
If one out of every ten people had a gun on them, mass shootings would probably never happen.
Exactly my point. Even someone like you gets it. And who cares what the media thinks?
Not all gun owners are psychopaths for the same reason that not all Muslims are terrorists. You are no different from the people you are arguing with.
Individuals are individuals. Melodramatic stereotypical characters aren't real. They exist in movies. Some Muslims are terrorists and some aren't (even if its a slighlty higher percentage of their population). Similarly, some people who buy guns are psychopaths and some want to protect their families (even if its a slightly higher percentage of the population of people who buy guns than other populations that are psychopaths, if that is even true, which it might be).
It doesn't make a difference if you stop selling them to psychopaths. Then psychopaths will figure out how to make automatic assault rifles, if that's what they really want, and then law abiding citizens won't have any. And if they can't make automatic rifles than they'll have pistols which by the way are much more valuable when no one else around them has one.
Whether or not you sell guns probably can't matter that much to someone who's extremely crafty. If your inventive enough I think you can make anything. It might get a little rarer, but ultimately it shouldn't make too much of a difference.
Australia is one country. And still no one has explained the strict gun control laws that didn't help Paris, Brussels, Turkey, or Chicago.
And even in Australia, they got rid of mass shootings (although I'm sure someday someone might find a way to commit one even there if we wait long enough) but conceivably they've gotten rid of mass shootings. There are still shootings and even though it is rare no one is able to defend themselves in those cases:
https://globalnews.ca/news/3784603/
In Australia, people still use guns to kill people, its just not assault weapons.
Bombs can't be used for self-defense. Guns can. Not the same story.
If you illegalize guns, I promise you there will be more people willing to go to the trouble of making a gun than a bomb because so many people would rather be rebels than stop protecting their families.
What happens if a liberal decides they want to be Christian? How do they fail?
That's exactly my point. There are also no videos that say she DIDN'T want it either. The way I see it, if we don't know either way, then by default the tapes should stay secret.
So it has to be her kids' choice? I think it shouldn't be anyone's choice. She deserves privacy.
Right exactly, we have no way of knowing what she would want which is exactly the problem.
What if she wouldn't have wanted it and we do it anyways? That doesn't sound like an issue to you?
Trump won once. If he can win once against all odds that easily, he could win again by just as win because its already happened at least once.
Ok, maybe you wouldn't care, but would SHE care? I would care so who's to say. I wouldn't care after I was dead but if I knew that was gonna happen to me I'd care.
I'm not claiming any of that. I'm not throwing insults. There are plenty of conservative atheists and plenty of liberal theists. I'm not trying to be mean but figure it out.
I think what he's asking isn't if you'll care after your dead about what happens then. What he's asking is do you care right now if your privacy will be invaded ten years after your death. I certainly have things I don't want people to know even after I die. Don't you?
Let me put it this way:
If someone recorded your entire life but you knew the recording wouldn't be released until after you were dead, would you feel bad about the recording?
How do you want to be remembered? I think this matters quite a bit. I think we're all entitled to our own secrets.
Did you not see the banned documentaries?
https://www.youtube.com/
That is from a banned documentary.
This question is retarded.
I've heard the whole breeding example, but honestly that's clearly not all the biotech companies are doing.
FromWithin,
Two questions:
1. What is your age?
2. Have you ever seen a psychiatrist?
3. Have you ever been diagnosed with anything?
Before the Nazis came along, the swaztica was a peace symbol. It dated back a long time before WWII.
I agree with you. That's what I think too. I think the government really needs to let us know what's going on. People should have privacy though, even celebrities.
I agree. It will be interesting to seevwhat someone who doesn't has to say though.
Yeah and what would have happened if Hitler won? I'll bet you wouldn't say that then. Genocide is genocide.
This debate is a joke right? Are you ok? Why even ask that question?
True. I probably forgot to mention that I have yet to meet a female with this problem but I have met females that are tomboys who hahe depression due to bding bullied or something that I might trust a little more with this but there doesn't appear to be many girl with this problem as much as guys. If you got a bunch of people who would be in on these secrets somehow into a room you'd probably have a room full of guys.
Is it sexist to say its commonly a guy thing?
I agree generally with what you said but I figured there might be a conflict of opinion.
In the case of abortion maybe, but even if it is my argument isn't whether or not abortion is murder. My argument is that a preventative chip sidesteps the murder debate.
Also, girls over 21 can still choose to have it on.
Right and what I'm saying is regardless of if it's murder, with the chip we don't have to deal with the issue to begin with. It sounds like your argument supports my side rather than yours.
Someone over 21 is not necessarily a good parent but I'll bet there's a lot more good parents over 21 than 16 year olds. Also for a 16 year old it's a lot harder to be a good parent.
A sixteen year old does not a good parent make, other than in some potentially weird circumstance. If that same sixteen year old instead waits until they're a lot more experienced then there's at least A REALISTIC CHANCE that they will be one, even if that's not always the case.
Basically, someone over 21 is OFTEN A DECENT parent and a sixteen year old is RARELY, IF EVER, a good parent. The kid will probably go to adoption if it's young grandmother has any brains anyway just for that reason.
