The founding fathers were rich, which is absolutely true and gets talked about ad nauseum.
What gets forgotten today is that they were rich and individually they were scared as HELL of someone *richer* coming along and telling them what to do. They did want to rule over the poor land owners but they didn't necessarily think the richest one should lead.
The US is not rule by majority, it's rule by majority with respect to minority rights. I stated that quite clearly in my post.
Secondly, I agree with the decades old problem of "my rep is fine, yours suck." I personally don't fall into that trap (My Rep sucks and Coats, one of the biggest corporate shills alive, is one of my Senators), but I realize how people do fall into it. Everyone needs to vote out their reps across the board, and that's not a partisan thing.
90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
Put aside what you think about that sort of thing and ask yourself... is this the way things are supposed to work? We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority. The legislation respected the right of the minority and then some.
The Congress is completely unhinged. They don't represent constituencies, they represent lobbyist dollars. And we see it again with CISPA.
The teen in the basement knows more about real life than the Congressional idiot that will only take meeting with people who will contribute to his/her campaign.
Absolutely. "One man one vote" is a phrase that comes to my mind a lot these days.
I absolutely don't have a problem with CEOs voicing their opinions. I have a problem with their opinions holding perhaps one million times the weight mine does a private citizen. I don't even have a problem with a CEO opinion holding more weight than mine in certain cases (as experts, especially), but right now the private citizen means nothing. We keep hearing screams about "liberty," but as I read the constitution that's WAY out of line for what they believed liberty to be.
I don't count the ACLU as a friend of the private citizen. At least I don't these days.
They are constantly fighting for corporate rights because of supposed slippery-slope effects on everyone's rights. I can't see it that way. Due to the concentration of power corporations have due to their very legal nature I can't see how the rights of a corporation should legally be equal to that of an individual. By doing so you ensure a situation like the one we are in now where a corporation with enough lawyers can steamroll over any individual they want.
The ACLU is not the friend of the private citizen until they step back and say "yeah, corporations deserve rights, but they should be second-tier, below the rights of the individual citizen." Until they do that they are on the side of corporate anarchy, whether they realize it or not.
To clarify something here, it's easy for people on/. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.
When you say "the citizens own the corporations" you are basically saying the CEO class. They're the ones with the most stock.
I don't think that was the intention here, but the "people own the corporations" argument as a way to say that the corporate system is democratic is a very week argument.
It's arguable that with everything that a Comcast subscription requires that we pay 2-3 times that depending on what you REALLY want and use out of your service.
I think it's an extremely reasonable price given U.S. conditions.
And I don't think there is an engineering solution for it. It's a race condition... there will always be a bigger event that needs more capacity and you end up with a huge, costly network no one can afford to use and, even if everyone could afford it, would be have massive capacity.
I think you wall off some capacity for emergency users (911, police, first responders) and do your best with the rest.
...or they aren't engineered for the once-in-two-decade major catastrophe. Technology has limits, and you have to draw a line somewhere so that people can actually AFFORD to use the service.
Uh.. doesn't this happen after just about every disaster?
If you design the networks to work at the utilization that you see after a disaster there would be cell phone towers at every corner, our bills would be $500 or more a month, and it would be using a very low percentage of its capacity 99.99% of the time.
While I agree with you here, you probably have overlooked the good ol' Microsoft arrogance. When MS have failed they it has been because of their own arrogance. While Windows 95 was mostly a win, people tend to forget that part of it was a failure: they were just SURE that MSN was going to win over this thing called the Internet. They tend to lose when they try to innovate because they're so damn sure they know what people want... then it turns out to be wrong.
I am guessing that Microsoft will beat the Windows horse until it is bits in pieces.
Slashdot Mirror
let's create a kickstarter and buy it.
I mean, shit, we need a manufactuer that actually doesn't hate the FOSS community.
The value might actually get low enough that it's possible... :P
Bullshit. *Absolute* Bullshit.
The founding fathers were rich, which is absolutely true and gets talked about ad nauseum.
What gets forgotten today is that they were rich and individually they were scared as HELL of someone *richer* coming along and telling them what to do. They did want to rule over the poor land owners but they didn't necessarily think the richest one should lead.
Quote from my message...
> We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority.
Repeating for emphasis with added bold...
> We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority.
The US is not rule by majority, it's rule by majority with respect to minority rights. I stated that quite clearly in my post.
Secondly, I agree with the decades old problem of "my rep is fine, yours suck." I personally don't fall into that trap (My Rep sucks and Coats, one of the biggest corporate shills alive, is one of my Senators), but I realize how people do fall into it. Everyone needs to vote out their reps across the board, and that's not a partisan thing.
Looks like I suffered the -1 Flamebait "I don't agree with you" Mod.
Moderation abuse at its finest.
90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
Put aside what you think about that sort of thing and ask yourself... is this the way things are supposed to work? We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority. The legislation respected the right of the minority and then some.
The Congress is completely unhinged. They don't represent constituencies, they represent lobbyist dollars. And we see it again with CISPA.
well I am not on your lawn
You just did a story about businesses creating server rooms.
Ooooh... the cloud!
the basement teen in almost all instances.
The teen in the basement knows more about real life than the Congressional idiot that will only take meeting with people who will contribute to his/her campaign.
The us congress need less Reps like Rogers. They need people that will actually go outside the corporate bubble.
Since Steve Forbes is against it, Bitcoin has its first ringing endorsement.
Forbes doesn't seem to be capable enough to run a hot dog stand. Of course I am just a plebeian.
Absolutely. "One man one vote" is a phrase that comes to my mind a lot these days.
I absolutely don't have a problem with CEOs voicing their opinions. I have a problem with their opinions holding perhaps one million times the weight mine does a private citizen. I don't even have a problem with a CEO opinion holding more weight than mine in certain cases (as experts, especially), but right now the private citizen means nothing. We keep hearing screams about "liberty," but as I read the constitution that's WAY out of line for what they believed liberty to be.
I don't count the ACLU as a friend of the private citizen. At least I don't these days.
They are constantly fighting for corporate rights because of supposed slippery-slope effects on everyone's rights. I can't see it that way. Due to the concentration of power corporations have due to their very legal nature I can't see how the rights of a corporation should legally be equal to that of an individual. By doing so you ensure a situation like the one we are in now where a corporation with enough lawyers can steamroll over any individual they want.
The ACLU is not the friend of the private citizen until they step back and say "yeah, corporations deserve rights, but they should be second-tier, below the rights of the individual citizen." Until they do that they are on the side of corporate anarchy, whether they realize it or not.
week* weak
good f'n morning.
To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.
When you say "the citizens own the corporations" you are basically saying the CEO class. They're the ones with the most stock.
I don't think that was the intention here, but the "people own the corporations" argument as a way to say that the corporate system is democratic is a very week argument.
ugh.. but you're right.
Doctor Who, 9th Doctor era.
It's arguable that with everything that a Comcast subscription requires that we pay 2-3 times that depending on what you REALLY want and use out of your service.
I think it's an extremely reasonable price given U.S. conditions.
Dangerous for the bombmaker and/or transporter, though.
That's when dead zones are REAL dead zones!
And I don't think there is an engineering solution for it. It's a race condition... there will always be a bigger event that needs more capacity and you end up with a huge, costly network no one can afford to use and, even if everyone could afford it, would be have massive capacity.
I think you wall off some capacity for emergency users (911, police, first responders) and do your best with the rest.
...or they aren't engineered for the once-in-two-decade major catastrophe. Technology has limits, and you have to draw a line somewhere so that people can actually AFFORD to use the service.
Uh.. doesn't this happen after just about every disaster?
If you design the networks to work at the utilization that you see after a disaster there would be cell phone towers at every corner, our bills would be $500 or more a month, and it would be using a very low percentage of its capacity 99.99% of the time.
It isn't what is important at the moment, anyway.
Grandma has no idea what you're talking about.
While I agree with you here, you probably have overlooked the good ol' Microsoft arrogance. When MS have failed they it has been because of their own arrogance. While Windows 95 was mostly a win, people tend to forget that part of it was a failure: they were just SURE that MSN was going to win over this thing called the Internet. They tend to lose when they try to innovate because they're so damn sure they know what people want... then it turns out to be wrong.
I am guessing that Microsoft will beat the Windows horse until it is bits in pieces.
Big point missed: it's supposidly built to run XBMC really well. It does have multiple purposes.