I disagree with that one as well. The first time Congress stuck its nose into states' business using federal highway funds was the 55 mph speed limit.
These types of laws are a bad idea and should be opposed. People constantly want to use the power of the federal government to stick their noses into issues that are none of their business. If people in the neighboring state want to allow text messaging while driving, that is their right (I think it is a bad idea, but I don't live there, so I don't get a say).
Now as someone else has pointed out, text messaging while driving is reckless driving, which is already illegal in most if not all states. I am pretty sure that if a cop gave a reckless driving ticket to someone who was texting while driving, it would stick in every state that has such a statute.
It is a terrible abuse of power for the U.S. Congress to try and force states to ban text messaging while driving. I have no problem with states doing so, but it is something that should be done at the state level not at the federal level.
One of the advantages of the U.S. system is that various states can try different approaches to address problems, each with their own idea of the best way to fix the problem. Then other states can adopt the approach that best solves the problem with the fewest negative unintended consequences.
I am not convinced that there needs to be (or should be) laws against text messaging while driving. Text messaging is only one of many things that should not be done while driving (applying makeup, reading a book/newspaper, sorting one's CDs, etc). It should not be necessary to pass a law specifically against these things, but if it is, it should be done at the state level.
That is why I said it was no more the same company than Verizon is. Verizon is the rest of the old AT&T.
The management of old AT&T spun off the Baby Bells because they believed that the local phone companies were a thing of the past. The Baby Bells had to develop new corporate cultures and new attitudes (not any better, but new and different).
SBC (now AT&T) should not be held accountable for the evils of the old AT&T, but only for its own evils.
AT&T needs a re-assement of its monopoly position and Apple needs to be class-action sued over 'bricking'.
You do realize that this is not the AT&T that got into legal problems for being a monopoly, don't you? This is no more the same company than Verizon is. It is another company that bought the remnants of AT&T and adopted the name.
Problems for the EU, the US is perfectly capable of taking care of its own problems. When the former Yugoslavia descended into chaos various EU countries asked the US to come in a quell things. It wasn't strategically significant to the US, but European countries were afraid of the violence spilling over across the borders into other countries.
There are several possible explanations for this. First, what are the proportions of various ethnic groups on social networking sites? If minority groups are underrepresented on social networking sites than it is quite likely that the reason is that not enough of them are there for enough of them to make really stupid comments to attract attention.
Second, often times when a minority makes a similar statement it is not considered inflammatory.
You see it is not just pictures of ice. It is pictures of Russian (and other nations) activity in the Arctic that they wanted to keep secret. In order to do that the DoD felt it had to keep all of the pictures secret. They felt that releasing any of the pictures would give away too much information about our capabilities and what we know. Whether that was a reasonable belief or not is another question entirely. The DoD has a tendency to classify anything that is remotely related to their technical ability. The Bush Administration had no political agenda that was served by overriding the DoD on this issue, so they ignored it. The Obama Administration does have a political agenda that is served by releasing this data, so they did override the DoD.
That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with releasing this data, it is just that it happened because this Administration has a reason to override the DoD on this issue, the previous Administration didn't. It is not particularly that the previous Administration had a reason to hide this information, they just had no reason to release it either.
", removing the last lingering regulation, keeping the investment banks in check. Thus, leading us into the greatest economic disaster since the great depression.
Actually that was when Clinton was President. The last major deregulation of investment banking was passed in 1999.
Example: If someone came up with a theory with supporting test results and ten universities duplicated those test results - proving the theory - then those ten universities could publish their results all the while citing the originating test results.
The problem here is that it is not just a matter of citing. The person in question wants to use part, or all, of what he published in another paper to show how the various studies he/she has done support the conclusion they are reaching in the current paper.
The problem as I see it is that they are able to surrender their copyright to their own work. That should not be possible. I should always be able to use material that originated with me. Ultimately the problem comes back to the fact that copyright laws have made the length of copyright excessive.
I was an adult when Tron came out. I remember thinking it looked like a really cool movie. Then it came out and I learned how bad it sucked, why would I be interested in a sequel.
There have been studies that show that people find more average* features more attractive (with average meaning an average of all of the possible variations of said feature).
That being said there is a flaw in the logic of the story
âoeFor women, looks are much less important in a man than his ability to look after her when she is pregnant and nursing, periods when women are vulnerable to predators. Historically this has meant rich men tend to have more wives and many children. So the pressure is on men to be successful.
That flaw is that there are repeated studies that show that wealthier people tend to have fewer children than poorer people.
There is no way to "fix their mistake". The problem is that they have the ability to alter to contents of the Kindle without the "owner's" consent or knowledge.
Let's take a hypothetical case (this is fairly far fetched, but it is the first example I could think of). Suppose Obama had published a book before "Dreams From My Father" (before he had any aspiration to be President), in which he wrote that he was born in Kenya and gave some explanation for how and why his mother got him a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. Let us further suppose that only a couple thousand copies of this book were ever sold.
If this book was published on paper, it would be a permanent record and could be produced in such a manner as to be impossible to discredit. If this book was only published electronically on the Kindle (or some similar device), it would be incredibly easy to alter the overwhelming majority of copies so as to no longer read that way.
While some people might have backup copies of the e-book that were not accessible to be altered, it would not be hard to make those people look like cranks whose offline copy was the one that was altered rather than the online version. If the edit was made carefully enough, most of the people who remembered the statement would look at it and go, "Oh, I see why I thought it said that, but it didn't really."
Or if you prefer, you could do a similar type of scenario with the George W. Bush National Guard story.
Anyway, in case you really don't see it, the larger point of the original post was that you don't have the right to force something on someone else.
That is your moral code, why should that effect someone else's ability to get medical treatment.
You are arguing that your moral code ("you don't have the right to force something on someone else") should be forced on others, but that their moral code should be ignored because it is "just a moral code". Your position is logically inconsistent, as was the OP's
one persons moral code should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment. bottom line, if you don't believe in that you don't believe in freedom. this kind of research is what will save lives in the future.
So, if Bill Gates needs a liver transplant and there is someone in a database who is a donor match for him, you have no problem with him hiring people to go out and harvest that liver from an otherwise healthy person? After all it is just some people's moral code that murder is wrong.
Or is it that it is only moral codes that you don't agree with that you want to ignore?
Actually, what Diller is talking about is things like ESPN360.com where you pay for the content even if you don't use it (or even know that you are paying for it). My ISP just sent me an email telling me that they now provide access to ESPN360 "at no additional cost". I sent them a nasty email telling them that I know that ESPN360 charges them for each of their subscribers and that I would prefer a rate cut to access to ESPN360.
That is the model that Barry Diller wants, where websites charge ISP's and the end user doesn't even know that he is paying for it.
I find it funny that this post is tagged "republican" when Barry Diller is a Democrat ( http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Barry_Diller.php ). There is a strong tendency on slashdot to think that the wealthy are Republicans when in fact the areas of the U.S. with the highest average income levels are overwhelming Democrat.
No, working hard is not a relative definition. Suicide is not a product of hard work. It may actually be a result of not working hard enough. If you are working sunup to sundown six days a week, I'll grant that you are working as hard as my grandfather, even if it isn't physical labor that you are working at. I don't know anyone who does that. The people I have known who came closest to that, made a boatload of money.
That is beside the point. I was responding to a poster who said that the average Joe has to work as hard as ever and that is just not true. I was not saying that my father and grandfather were not happy with their lives. I was saying that they worked harder than I do.
According to a link in another post, Xerox bought stock in Apple before the IPO. That is not exactly the same as "paying" Xerox.
It is also important to note that when Apple sued MS, Xerox sued Apple. Xerox's suit was thrown out because they waited too long. However, the idea originated with Xerox, not with the Apple Macintosh. So the implication that MS stole the idea from Apple is false. MS got the idea for the GUI from the same place that Apple did--Xerox PARC.
If you are going to use windows as your example from MS, then you could just as easily use the MacOS from Apple because they both stole the idea from Xerox PARC.
In any case, it is all pointless dick waving since working harder, however you intend it to mean, doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it doesn't help provide more of what you really aspire to have in life, whether it be recognition, wealth, or leisure time.
Both of my grandfathers worked a lot harder than I do by whatever measure you choose to use. Amount of time spent working...Grandad-sunup to sundown six days a week, me-7:30-3:30, five days a week...Grandad-hard physical labor, me-sitting at desk. The only criteria that is close is mental effort, but even there I will give the edge to my grandfathers putting more mental effort into their work than I do.
As for providing more of what you really aspire to have in life, I believe that I don't work as hard there to acquire more.
I was calling him an idiot for saying that average Joe has to work as hard as ever. That is pure bs, and the only people who believe it are people who are idiots.
I did not say anything positive about day traders or even comment on day traders at all. There is a meme that the average person today works as hard as the average person of 50 years ago, and it is complete bunk.
Because the ISP's want to be in the business of being copyright holders. ISP's are trying to apply the cable TV business model to the Internet. I hope they fail. I think they will, but am concerned about some things I have been seeing that seem to indicate that they are having some success.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with that one as well. The first time Congress stuck its nose into states' business using federal highway funds was the 55 mph speed limit.
These types of laws are a bad idea and should be opposed. People constantly want to use the power of the federal government to stick their noses into issues that are none of their business. If people in the neighboring state want to allow text messaging while driving, that is their right (I think it is a bad idea, but I don't live there, so I don't get a say).
Now as someone else has pointed out, text messaging while driving is reckless driving, which is already illegal in most if not all states. I am pretty sure that if a cop gave a reckless driving ticket to someone who was texting while driving, it would stick in every state that has such a statute.
It is a terrible abuse of power for the U.S. Congress to try and force states to ban text messaging while driving. I have no problem with states doing so, but it is something that should be done at the state level not at the federal level.
One of the advantages of the U.S. system is that various states can try different approaches to address problems, each with their own idea of the best way to fix the problem. Then other states can adopt the approach that best solves the problem with the fewest negative unintended consequences.
I am not convinced that there needs to be (or should be) laws against text messaging while driving. Text messaging is only one of many things that should not be done while driving (applying makeup, reading a book/newspaper, sorting one's CDs, etc). It should not be necessary to pass a law specifically against these things, but if it is, it should be done at the state level.
That is why I said it was no more the same company than Verizon is. Verizon is the rest of the old AT&T.
The management of old AT&T spun off the Baby Bells because they believed that the local phone companies were a thing of the past. The Baby Bells had to develop new corporate cultures and new attitudes (not any better, but new and different).
SBC (now AT&T) should not be held accountable for the evils of the old AT&T, but only for its own evils.
AT&T needs a re-assement of its monopoly position and Apple needs to be class-action sued over 'bricking'.
You do realize that this is not the AT&T that got into legal problems for being a monopoly, don't you? This is no more the same company than Verizon is. It is another company that bought the remnants of AT&T and adopted the name.
Problems for the EU, the US is perfectly capable of taking care of its own problems. When the former Yugoslavia descended into chaos various EU countries asked the US to come in a quell things. It wasn't strategically significant to the US, but European countries were afraid of the violence spilling over across the borders into other countries.
There are several possible explanations for this. First, what are the proportions of various ethnic groups on social networking sites? If minority groups are underrepresented on social networking sites than it is quite likely that the reason is that not enough of them are there for enough of them to make really stupid comments to attract attention.
Second, often times when a minority makes a similar statement it is not considered inflammatory.
When they decide to spend enough money on their own military to be able clean up problems in their own backyard.
You see it is not just pictures of ice. It is pictures of Russian (and other nations) activity in the Arctic that they wanted to keep secret. In order to do that the DoD felt it had to keep all of the pictures secret. They felt that releasing any of the pictures would give away too much information about our capabilities and what we know. Whether that was a reasonable belief or not is another question entirely. The DoD has a tendency to classify anything that is remotely related to their technical ability. The Bush Administration had no political agenda that was served by overriding the DoD on this issue, so they ignored it. The Obama Administration does have a political agenda that is served by releasing this data, so they did override the DoD.
That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with releasing this data, it is just that it happened because this Administration has a reason to override the DoD on this issue, the previous Administration didn't. It is not particularly that the previous Administration had a reason to hide this information, they just had no reason to release it either.
", removing the last lingering regulation, keeping the investment banks in check. Thus, leading us into the greatest economic disaster since the great depression.
Actually that was when Clinton was President. The last major deregulation of investment banking was passed in 1999.
Example: If someone came up with a theory with supporting test results and ten universities duplicated those test results - proving the theory - then those ten universities could publish their results all the while citing the originating test results.
The problem here is that it is not just a matter of citing. The person in question wants to use part, or all, of what he published in another paper to show how the various studies he/she has done support the conclusion they are reaching in the current paper.
The problem as I see it is that they are able to surrender their copyright to their own work. That should not be possible. I should always be able to use material that originated with me. Ultimately the problem comes back to the fact that copyright laws have made the length of copyright excessive.
I was an adult when Tron came out. I remember thinking it looked like a really cool movie. Then it came out and I learned how bad it sucked, why would I be interested in a sequel.
That being said there is a flaw in the logic of the story
That flaw is that there are repeated studies that show that wealthier people tend to have fewer children than poorer people.
There is no way to "fix their mistake". The problem is that they have the ability to alter to contents of the Kindle without the "owner's" consent or knowledge.
Let's take a hypothetical case (this is fairly far fetched, but it is the first example I could think of). Suppose Obama had published a book before "Dreams From My Father" (before he had any aspiration to be President), in which he wrote that he was born in Kenya and gave some explanation for how and why his mother got him a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. Let us further suppose that only a couple thousand copies of this book were ever sold.
If this book was published on paper, it would be a permanent record and could be produced in such a manner as to be impossible to discredit. If this book was only published electronically on the Kindle (or some similar device), it would be incredibly easy to alter the overwhelming majority of copies so as to no longer read that way.
While some people might have backup copies of the e-book that were not accessible to be altered, it would not be hard to make those people look like cranks whose offline copy was the one that was altered rather than the online version. If the edit was made carefully enough, most of the people who remembered the statement would look at it and go, "Oh, I see why I thought it said that, but it didn't really."
Or if you prefer, you could do a similar type of scenario with the George W. Bush National Guard story.
Anyway, in case you really don't see it, the larger point of the original post was that you don't have the right to force something on someone else.
That is your moral code, why should that effect someone else's ability to get medical treatment.
You are arguing that your moral code ("you don't have the right to force something on someone else") should be forced on others, but that their moral code should be ignored because it is "just a moral code". Your position is logically inconsistent, as was the OP's
one persons moral code should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment. bottom line, if you don't believe in that you don't believe in freedom. this kind of research is what will save lives in the future.
So, if Bill Gates needs a liver transplant and there is someone in a database who is a donor match for him, you have no problem with him hiring people to go out and harvest that liver from an otherwise healthy person? After all it is just some people's moral code that murder is wrong.
Or is it that it is only moral codes that you don't agree with that you want to ignore?
That's because WSJ has actual news in it and not just propaganda. NYT could never make the switch.
Actually, what Diller is talking about is things like ESPN360.com where you pay for the content even if you don't use it (or even know that you are paying for it). My ISP just sent me an email telling me that they now provide access to ESPN360 "at no additional cost". I sent them a nasty email telling them that I know that ESPN360 charges them for each of their subscribers and that I would prefer a rate cut to access to ESPN360.
That is the model that Barry Diller wants, where websites charge ISP's and the end user doesn't even know that he is paying for it.
I find it funny that this post is tagged "republican" when Barry Diller is a Democrat ( http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Barry_Diller.php ). There is a strong tendency on slashdot to think that the wealthy are Republicans when in fact the areas of the U.S. with the highest average income levels are overwhelming Democrat.
No, working hard is not a relative definition. Suicide is not a product of hard work. It may actually be a result of not working hard enough. If you are working sunup to sundown six days a week, I'll grant that you are working as hard as my grandfather, even if it isn't physical labor that you are working at. I don't know anyone who does that. The people I have known who came closest to that, made a boatload of money.
That is beside the point. I was responding to a poster who said that the average Joe has to work as hard as ever and that is just not true. I was not saying that my father and grandfather were not happy with their lives. I was saying that they worked harder than I do.
According to a link in another post, Xerox bought stock in Apple before the IPO. That is not exactly the same as "paying" Xerox.
It is also important to note that when Apple sued MS, Xerox sued Apple. Xerox's suit was thrown out because they waited too long. However, the idea originated with Xerox, not with the Apple Macintosh. So the implication that MS stole the idea from Apple is false. MS got the idea for the GUI from the same place that Apple did--Xerox PARC.
If you are going to use windows as your example from MS, then you could just as easily use the MacOS from Apple because they both stole the idea from Xerox PARC.
In any case, it is all pointless dick waving since working harder, however you intend it to mean, doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it doesn't help provide more of what you really aspire to have in life, whether it be recognition, wealth, or leisure time.
Both of my grandfathers worked a lot harder than I do by whatever measure you choose to use. Amount of time spent working...Grandad-sunup to sundown six days a week, me-7:30-3:30, five days a week...Grandad-hard physical labor, me-sitting at desk. The only criteria that is close is mental effort, but even there I will give the edge to my grandfathers putting more mental effort into their work than I do.
As for providing more of what you really aspire to have in life, I believe that I don't work as hard there to acquire more.
I was calling him an idiot for saying that average Joe has to work as hard as ever. That is pure bs, and the only people who believe it are people who are idiots.
I did not say anything positive about day traders or even comment on day traders at all. There is a meme that the average person today works as hard as the average person of 50 years ago, and it is complete bunk.
Because the ISP's want to be in the business of being copyright holders. ISP's are trying to apply the cable TV business model to the Internet. I hope they fail. I think they will, but am concerned about some things I have been seeing that seem to indicate that they are having some success.