As for my caffeine and nicotine addictions, I'll deal with them myself, in my own good time. I'll stop smoking some day. Probably the day the doctor pronounces me dead. And, it's none of YOUR business.
Taxman415a Wrote:
It wouldn't be any of my business if I didn't have to pay more for your health care because of your choices.
I say that it is still none of your business. It costs money for funding highways and airports to connect distant places in the USA, but that is not a reason to prevent people from living in cities far from each other.
They [addicts] end up in the ER (because they typically have no health insurance) or killing unrelated people in traffic accidents or whatever. Those both represent large costs to people that avoid the behavior.
These costs don't seem to be reduced by making drugs illegal to use or possess. As drug users don't seem to care if it is against the law to use their drug of choice. In other words, making an activity illegal does prevent that activity. We could simply tax drugs sales at a certain level and the incidence of drug use would be roughly the same as it is today.
It doesn't matter if the drugs are cheaper from making them legal, they still cost something and people that are addicted will still do whatever they need to to get more including crime and murder. Your argument would have been stronger if you could make a cohesive case for there being less crime and costs on a total picture basis, but you didn't bother with that. Also, your darwinian argument would be better if people tended to die quickly on drugs, but the majority just get strung out and are a drag on society.
These seem to be arguments for funding public education and treatment (rehabilitation), not prohibition.
I'm not really sold either way on it. If someone presented a really convincing case that the costs really were lower and particularly lower for the people that avoid the crap, then I don't really care. But most of the arguments seem to be from people that just want easier access to more drugs.
If most of the money currently spent on law enforcement of drug prohibition (including legal and incarceration costs) where instead spent on public education and treatment (rehabilitation) in combination with taxation and regulation (think smoking and drinking laws and taxes, although I don't think they are perfect, just better than other drug laws) I think that there is a good case to be made that the economic and social costs of drug use could be reduced significantly.
It's a another HIDDEN digital divide which I suspect many millions of other people are stuck on the wrong side of... because of low incomes... for some totally illegal and immoral reason i cannot buy the things you can.
Please explain. What illegal actions are you referring to? I don't don't understand the moral implications of what you are describing. In fact, I'm having trouble piecing together what you are describing.
...walk around a council estate, look at the angry faces, and ask why?
But the magazine is, at best, equal in quality to other publications like Harvard Business Review, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, all of which publish bylines. I would argue, after reading many articles in each of these publications (including the Economist) over the past ~6 years, that the Economist is somewhere near the bottom of this list when it comes to quality due to the oftentimes bizarre conclusions and predictions the Economist authors come up with based on what I can only explain as amateur-level knowledge of economic theory or myopic perspective on current events.
The data is not what needs to be open in science. Only the methods need to be revealed so that the experiment can be repeated and results verified or contradicted. Having the data from someone's experiment can help you analyze the conclusion drawn based on that data but will not verify the experiment's results.
For those of you not familiar with that particular publication, one of its distinguishing traits is that it does not publish bylines. Ever. Editorials in The Economist are backed by the reputation of the editorial staff of The Economist, not of any individual writer.
This is a convenient way to pass off work done by someone recently out of business school as the result of years of experience in writing about a particular subject area (not to be confused with years of research and/or work in a subject area or industry).
I suggest that you read those three sentences again. As they are, unto themselves, a contradiction. I'm sure that MrNaz meant that simply declaring something not legitimate doesn't make it so. But what was written was essentially, "it is not legitimate to say that what someone else does is not legitimate". If you can't see a contradiction there then I'm not sure how to help you understand. What I wrote has nothing to do with GNOME, the FSF, RMS or FLOSS. It was simply a recognition of poor logic.
MrNaz's previously statements:
His tantrum basically boils down to "you can't present proprietary software as legitimate". Which is BS. Your own decision on how to do things is your decision, you can NOT tell others that their way of doing things is not legitimate
His tantrum basically boils down to "you can't present proprietary software as legitimate". Which is BS. Your own decision on how to do things is your decision, you can NOT tell others that their way of doing things is not legitimate.
Didn't you just do what you say can't be done in those three sentences?
Against Transparency an article by Lawrence Lessig indicates why increased transparency is probably not enough to make a difference on it's own. A number of people have responded to Lessig's article.
Someone was kind enough to provide a walkthrough of the article too.
> It however doesn't fix the problem of when the customer (or someone
> pretending to be them) calls the company.
That, however, places the liability on the company.
Unfortunately, for checking and savings accounts in the US, it does not. If someone empties your bank account via false identification, your bank is not liable for your losses.
The vacancy is horrendous. I work in a virtually abandoned office building (upper four floors completely vacant) and pass 20 other empty offices on my way to work, not to mention the data centers that America Online abandoned even before they were brought online.
Sounds like a downward price adjustment is on the horizon for commercial real estate rentals, leases and sales in Northern VA. Otherwise, the vacancies will be filled quickly.
Even the government mandated free credit reports are kind of bizarre, I had to forcibly tell these scum to cancel an account at one of the "bureaus" three times over the phone for an apparently ongoing reporting service that I didn't have a way to op out of and I still didn't get all the charges back.
It sounds like you were had by the marketing trap set up by the credit reporting companies. If you want a free copy of your credit report see the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's FAQs: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre34.shtm
I would have considered "Impressions and preferences concerning media of one 15 year old boy growing up in the UK (London)" as an appropriate subtitle for the report.
Read the Financial Times article (the one that PCPro.co.uk refers to) here:
What? The NBA is hugely popular in China. Everyone loves Kobe Bryant (yuck). There's several NBA stars whose faces are plastered all around any big city.
I agree that the NBA is popular in China. But compared the the number of people who like watching the NBA in China, the amount of revenue that the NBA receives from China seems like it would be unsatisfactory to NBA owners. The NHL doesn't have the same issue with Canada. However, the NHL is not popular in China.
And I don't think most people watch sports and thing(sic) "wow, those people are too tall for me, I want a sport where they look more like I do."
I don't either. I do think that the way basketball is designed gives a disproportional advantage to players who are taller. This is unlike other sports that I enjoy watching more. I will not rule out that there may be a psychological aversion to basketball that may limit the NBA's popularity due to the height advantage.
Someone posted about the intentional end of game fouling problem that results in a free throw exibition at the end of many close games. Now that I think about it, the NBA would be improved if it changed the rules to limit the number of free throws at the end of games.
The popularity of other sports seems to be rising relative to the NBA. I proposed possible reasons for this informal observation in my previous. If it is indeed a trend (I believe it is), a few rule changes may serve to change that trend.
Although I wonder if your "tall high-school dropouts who I can't relate to" is some coded slang for "fucking black people."
I was not using "coded slag". But it is interesting that you used the term "high-school dropouts" where I used college dropouts. It seems that many professional sports players are held to the same academic standards as a high-school dropout before they are allowed to sign a contract. There's something unsettling about that thought. Although, I'm not sure if anything can or should be done about low academic standards for entertainers.
I know that this is getting way off-topic from the original story, but I would like to add...
The NBA seems to be losing interest to other sports like soccer (that's football to the rest of the world) and baseball within the USA.
Maybe because their players are walking around with the ball (i.e. not dribbling) and place a premium on showing off versus playing defense
...or because normal people can't relate to the freakishly tall college dropouts that comprise at least 90% of any NBA roster
...or that the largest immigrant population in the USA prefers other sports?
The NBA is set apart from the NHL in that the NBA has difficulty cashing in on its popularity in other countries e.g. China. The NHL doesn't have a problem collecting revenue from Canadian fans. I think that the NHL knows that places like Dallas can support a hockey team but never be the most popular team in town.
The NHL seems to be doing well financially overall. But it can use some tweaking of the season structure and rules. It seems clear that the NHL's best interest is in not canceling another season due to a "labor" dispute. I'd prefer it if they changed the regular season points ranking to eliminate the possibility of a team improving their rank from a loss (specifically, awarding 2 points for a win in regulation or overtime [with regular 6 on 6 play] and 1 point for a shootout win. Moving the season a few weeks earlier so the Finals will be played mid to late May I think would be an improvement. Also Less interconference and more intradivisional games would be nice.
The idea that the only way to protect your history data is to give up keeping history at all seems broken to me. Just because the information is in the browser, and I may use it in other ways, doesn't mean it has to be used to mark up the rendered HTML on sites I visit. There's nothing that inextricably ties history to the browser's rendering engine.
Slashdot Mirror
Runaway1956 Wrote:
As for my caffeine and nicotine addictions, I'll deal with them myself, in my own good time. I'll stop smoking some day. Probably the day the doctor pronounces me dead. And, it's none of YOUR business.
Taxman415a Wrote:
It wouldn't be any of my business if I didn't have to pay more for your health care because of your choices.
I say that it is still none of your business. It costs money for funding highways and airports to connect distant places in the USA, but that is not a reason to prevent people from living in cities far from each other.
They [addicts] end up in the ER (because they typically have no health insurance) or killing unrelated people in traffic accidents or whatever. Those both represent large costs to people that avoid the behavior.
These costs don't seem to be reduced by making drugs illegal to use or possess. As drug users don't seem to care if it is against the law to use their drug of choice. In other words, making an activity illegal does prevent that activity. We could simply tax drugs sales at a certain level and the incidence of drug use would be roughly the same as it is today.
It doesn't matter if the drugs are cheaper from making them legal, they still cost something and people that are addicted will still do whatever they need to to get more including crime and murder. Your argument would have been stronger if you could make a cohesive case for there being less crime and costs on a total picture basis, but you didn't bother with that. Also, your darwinian argument would be better if people tended to die quickly on drugs, but the majority just get strung out and are a drag on society.
These seem to be arguments for funding public education and treatment (rehabilitation), not prohibition.
I'm not really sold either way on it. If someone presented a really convincing case that the costs really were lower and particularly lower for the people that avoid the crap, then I don't really care. But most of the arguments seem to be from people that just want easier access to more drugs.
If most of the money currently spent on law enforcement of drug prohibition (including legal and incarceration costs) where instead spent on public education and treatment (rehabilitation) in combination with taxation and regulation (think smoking and drinking laws and taxes, although I don't think they are perfect, just better than other drug laws) I think that there is a good case to be made that the economic and social costs of drug use could be reduced significantly.
"get yourself a debit card"
webmistressrachel Wrote:
I CAN'T GET ONE,
Why not?
It's a another HIDDEN digital divide which I suspect many millions of other people are stuck on the wrong side of... because of low incomes... for some totally illegal and immoral reason i cannot buy the things you can.
Please explain. What illegal actions are you referring to? I don't don't understand the moral implications of what you are describing. In fact, I'm having trouble piecing together what you are describing.
What is a council estate? Is this a UK thing?
But the magazine is, at best, equal in quality to other publications like Harvard Business Review, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, all of which publish bylines. I would argue, after reading many articles in each of these publications (including the Economist) over the past ~6 years, that the Economist is somewhere near the bottom of this list when it comes to quality due to the oftentimes bizarre conclusions and predictions the Economist authors come up with based on what I can only explain as amateur-level knowledge of economic theory or myopic perspective on current events.
In the 1970's the then current and accepted theory by the high priests was that pollution (i.e industrial waste gases) was going to freeze the Earth.
Are you sure that the "accepted theory" was global cooling or was it a theory that was accepted by a few scientists?
The data is not what needs to be open in science. Only the methods need to be revealed so that the experiment can be repeated and results verified or contradicted. Having the data from someone's experiment can help you analyze the conclusion drawn based on that data but will not verify the experiment's results.
For those of you not familiar with that particular publication, one of its distinguishing traits is that it does not publish bylines. Ever. Editorials in The Economist are backed by the reputation of the editorial staff of The Economist, not of any individual writer.
This is a convenient way to pass off work done by someone recently out of business school as the result of years of experience in writing about a particular subject area (not to be confused with years of research and/or work in a subject area or industry).
There's no contradiction there.
I suggest that you read those three sentences again. As they are, unto themselves, a contradiction. I'm sure that MrNaz meant that simply declaring something not legitimate doesn't make it so. But what was written was essentially, "it is not legitimate to say that what someone else does is not legitimate". If you can't see a contradiction there then I'm not sure how to help you understand. What I wrote has nothing to do with GNOME, the FSF, RMS or FLOSS. It was simply a recognition of poor logic.
MrNaz's previously statements:
His tantrum basically boils down to "you can't present proprietary software as legitimate". Which is BS. Your own decision on how to do things is your decision, you can NOT tell others that their way of doing things is not legitimate
I really don't understand why "proprietary" can't be "legitimate". What ever it is, can someone post the reason why RMS made such a remark?
RMS does not think that proprietary software is ethical therefor it is not legitimate. See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
His tantrum basically boils down to "you can't present proprietary software as legitimate". Which is BS. Your own decision on how to do things is your decision, you can NOT tell others that their way of doing things is not legitimate.
Didn't you just do what you say can't be done in those three sentences?
All we really need is good disclosure laws.
Against Transparency, an article by Lawrence Lessig indicates why increased transparency is probably not enough to make a difference on it's own.
No because our fool politicians granted Comcast a monopoly.
Because our laws are written by corporate interests, not the people.
...which is the inevitable result of "private funding of campaigns"
See Change Congress and Lectures by Lawrence Lessig on Institutional Corruption for more information. Hour Version Half-Hour Version
Against Transparency an article by Lawrence Lessig indicates why increased transparency is probably not enough to make a difference on it's own. A number of people have responded to Lessig's article. Someone was kind enough to provide a walkthrough of the article too.
> It however doesn't fix the problem of when the customer (or someone > pretending to be them) calls the company.
That, however, places the liability on the company.
Unfortunately, for checking and savings accounts in the US, it does not. If someone empties your bank account via false identification, your bank is not liable for your losses.
The vacancy is horrendous. I work in a virtually abandoned office building (upper four floors completely vacant) and pass 20 other empty offices on my way to work, not to mention the data centers that America Online abandoned even before they were brought online.
Sounds like a downward price adjustment is on the horizon for commercial real estate rentals, leases and sales in Northern VA. Otherwise, the vacancies will be filled quickly.
Even the government mandated free credit reports are kind of bizarre, I had to forcibly tell these scum to cancel an account at one of the "bureaus" three times over the phone for an apparently ongoing reporting service that I didn't have a way to op out of and I still didn't get all the charges back.
It sounds like you were had by the marketing trap set up by the credit reporting companies. If you want a free copy of your credit report see the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's FAQs: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre34.shtm
Also you can, depending on what state you live in, "freeze" your report from each credit reporting company. See FAQ on Credit Report Freezes from the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (NJ DOBI): http://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_consumers/finance/creditfreeze.htm
What other law today is broken so oftenyet (sic) carries such a large penalty for those whom are caught?
Non-violent Illegal Drug Use
...one of their people started reading the Affero GPL, and was terrified ("this means they can do a surprise inspection on our premises!")
What section(s) and/or line(s) of the license imply an authorization of surprise inspections?
WARNING! Your toddlers might violate a Patent! http://preview.tinyurl.com/22yk38
My parents have evidence of my prior art dating back to the mid 1980s on VHS-C. I'd show you but the cassette adapter is broken.
Title: How Teenagers Consume Media
http://media.ft.com/cms/c3852b2e-6f9a-11de-bfc5-00144feabdc0.pdf (That's the website of the Financial Times in case you were not sure.)
I would have considered "Impressions and preferences concerning media of one 15 year old boy growing up in the UK (London)" as an appropriate subtitle for the report.
Read the Financial Times article (the one that PCPro.co.uk refers to) here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/035e83fe-6f18-11de-9109-00144feabdc0.html
What? The NBA is hugely popular in China. Everyone loves Kobe Bryant (yuck). There's several NBA stars whose faces are plastered all around any big city.
I agree that the NBA is popular in China. But compared the the number of people who like watching the NBA in China, the amount of revenue that the NBA receives from China seems like it would be unsatisfactory to NBA owners. The NHL doesn't have the same issue with Canada. However, the NHL is not popular in China.
And I don't think most people watch sports and thing(sic) "wow, those people are too tall for me, I want a sport where they look more like I do."
I don't either. I do think that the way basketball is designed gives a disproportional advantage to players who are taller. This is unlike other sports that I enjoy watching more. I will not rule out that there may be a psychological aversion to basketball that may limit the NBA's popularity due to the height advantage.
Someone posted about the intentional end of game fouling problem that results in a free throw exibition at the end of many close games. Now that I think about it, the NBA would be improved if it changed the rules to limit the number of free throws at the end of games.
The popularity of other sports seems to be rising relative to the NBA. I proposed possible reasons for this informal observation in my previous. If it is indeed a trend (I believe it is), a few rule changes may serve to change that trend.
Although I wonder if your "tall high-school dropouts who I can't relate to" is some coded slang for "fucking black people."
I was not using "coded slag". But it is interesting that you used the term "high-school dropouts" where I used college dropouts. It seems that many professional sports players are held to the same academic standards as a high-school dropout before they are allowed to sign a contract. There's something unsettling about that thought. Although, I'm not sure if anything can or should be done about low academic standards for entertainers.
I ...the Stanley Cup finals are now shown on a basic cable bicycle racing channel.
Are you talking about NBC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Stanley_Cup_Finals#Television_coverage
...or because normal people can't relate to the freakishly tall college dropouts that comprise at least 90% of any NBA roster
...or that the largest immigrant population in the USA prefers other sports?
I know that this is getting way off-topic from the original story, but I would like to add...
The NBA seems to be losing interest to other sports like soccer (that's football to the rest of the world) and baseball within the USA.
Maybe because their players are walking around with the ball (i.e. not dribbling) and place a premium on showing off versus playing defense
The NBA is set apart from the NHL in that the NBA has difficulty cashing in on its popularity in other countries e.g. China. The NHL doesn't have a problem collecting revenue from Canadian fans. I think that the NHL knows that places like Dallas can support a hockey team but never be the most popular team in town.
The NHL seems to be doing well financially overall. But it can use some tweaking of the season structure and rules. It seems clear that the NHL's best interest is in not canceling another season due to a "labor" dispute. I'd prefer it if they changed the regular season points ranking to eliminate the possibility of a team improving their rank from a loss (specifically, awarding 2 points for a win in regulation or overtime [with regular 6 on 6 play] and 1 point for a shootout win. Moving the season a few weeks earlier so the Finals will be played mid to late May I think would be an improvement. Also Less interconference and more intradivisional games would be nice.
Bug 57351
Was marked ass a duplicate of 147777
See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147777
Vitaly Sharovatov and Walt Gordon Jones have an interesting back and forth on ideas for a proper fix. Search the page linked below for "Walt Gordon Jones" to follow the conversation.
http://sharovatov.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/startpaniccom-and-visited-links-privacy-issue/
Walt Gordon Jones summarizes his point:
The idea that the only way to protect your history data is to give up keeping history at all seems broken to me. Just because the information is in the browser, and I may use it in other ways, doesn't mean it has to be used to mark up the rendered HTML on sites I visit. There's nothing that inextricably ties history to the browser's rendering engine.
As long as there are boats, there will be piracy. Plain n' simple.
There, fixed that for you...