I don't think the government should be doing those things either. That was really my point: When the government controls education, even if it's only deciding what is and isn't science, there will be problems.
I may be wrong, but several years after it was retired, didn't they bring it back into service? I believe the speculation at the time was that the replacement aircraft was under-performing or had some sort of problem.
Actually, science currently points that the world is getting (slightly) warmer, and that CO2 levels have risen. These are not necessarily related. We have models and whatnot that show the world will continue to warm, but these are not evidence.
The point the writer of the article was trying to make is that environmentalists want us to spend billions of dollars doing things which may or may not have any impact on something which may or may not exist.
Allowing anyone to develop a Wii Channel -- even if it's only restricted access through something like RSS -- would only have a positive effect on the console.
No, it's not an invalid argument. If people did value their privacy enough, I could start a competitor to any business you named, offer the exact same service plus privacy, and people would instantly switch or the other business would fall in line.
If people valued their privacy, it would be in a companies best interest to protect their customers privacy. If a company didn't, people wouldn't use them.
If you've given reasons why we should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. You haven't given any for why it's the Governments responsability.
The private sector can handle the job, and do it better than the Government. Unlike with the Government, individuals choose which private charity to fund. If they think one is doing a bad job, they can choose another. If they don't think one is a worthwhile cause, they won't give to it. This breeds competition, which breeds quality.
I choose corporations. Corporations have a vested interset in keeping me happy. If they don't, I take my money and find someone who will make me happy. I have choice. A Government doesn't provide me with such a choice.
Re:Taxing the internet can be good but has a peril
on
Internet Tax Imminent?
·
· Score: 1
have the state set a maximum tax revenue figure that is the combination of all sources.
But if you have that, you don't need a ton of ways to tax people. You simply tax them once.
The less taxes, the better. Removing taxes removes money from the Government. Removing money from the Government removes power. A less powerful Government is always a good thing.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
How so?
You still have access the original code.
The person who wrote the modifications has the freedom to keep his modifications prviate, and is exercising said freedom.
No freedom was given up by anyone.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Which means it is restricting my own freedom.
And there is nothing wrong with that. But saying that something which inherenting restrictions ones freedom actually promotes freedom is simply wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet this turns out to be nothing but a bunch of hot air!
Anarchy.
The children and their parents are the only people qualified to decide what they should learn.
No.
I don't think the government should be doing those things either. That was really my point: When the government controls education, even if it's only deciding what is and isn't science, there will be problems.
Imagine if the ruling went the other way.
I'm not disagreeing with their ruling. I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to decide that. It's not part of the governments job.
I don't want the government -- US or otherwise -- ruling on what is and isn't fact, truth, or scientific. It just rubs me the wrong way.
Okay, everyone around the NSA, turn on all your lights, computers, TVs, air conditioners, and appliances. Operation Dark Storm is a go.
I may be wrong, but several years after it was retired, didn't they bring it back into service? I believe the speculation at the time was that the replacement aircraft was under-performing or had some sort of problem.
HBO, Showtime, and similar channels will migrate to IPTV much quicker. That is, until the government decides that belongs to them too.
Actually, science currently points that the world is getting (slightly) warmer, and that CO2 levels have risen. These are not necessarily related. We have models and whatnot that show the world will continue to warm, but these are not evidence.
The point the writer of the article was trying to make is that environmentalists want us to spend billions of dollars doing things which may or may not have any impact on something which may or may not exist.
Someone has a viewpoint you don't like and instead of debating him on the facts, you slander him.
You can get away with that if you're a little site. But if you're Google, or Slashdot, or Facebook, then it'll last about two days.
These have a limited supply of questions, which means they be bruteforced in various ways.
Allowing anyone to develop a Wii Channel -- even if it's only restricted access through something like RSS -- would only have a positive effect on the console.
By who? Nintendo isn't sponsoring the contest. It's unofficial.
You can try to fight this boogieman, but when you turn on the lights, he simply doesn't exist. You have woes-is-me arguments, nothing of substances.
No, it's not an invalid argument. If people did value their privacy enough, I could start a competitor to any business you named, offer the exact same service plus privacy, and people would instantly switch or the other business would fall in line.
If people valued their privacy, it would be in a companies best interest to protect their customers privacy. If a company didn't, people wouldn't use them.
If you've given reasons why we should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. You haven't given any for why it's the Governments responsability.
The private sector can handle the job, and do it better than the Government. Unlike with the Government, individuals choose which private charity to fund. If they think one is doing a bad job, they can choose another. If they don't think one is a worthwhile cause, they won't give to it. This breeds competition, which breeds quality.
I choose corporations. Corporations have a vested interset in keeping me happy. If they don't, I take my money and find someone who will make me happy. I have choice. A Government doesn't provide me with such a choice.
But there's the flip side of that too: Why does it fall onto the Government to take care of you when you, yourself, cannot?
I don't think creating citizens that are dependent on the Government -- even if it's only as a safety net -- is a good thing.
A less powerful Government is the first towards Libertarianism, or anarchy.
The less taxes, the better. Removing taxes removes money from the Government. Removing money from the Government removes power. A less powerful Government is always a good thing.
How so?
You still have access the original code.
The person who wrote the modifications has the freedom to keep his modifications prviate, and is exercising said freedom.
No freedom was given up by anyone.
Which means it is restricting my own freedom.
And there is nothing wrong with that. But saying that something which inherenting restrictions ones freedom actually promotes freedom is simply wrong.