So, the election goes to whoever can gerrymander the best? How about the electors vote in the same proportion that the voters in the state did? That method is far less affected by partisan meddling.
So, you believe that connecting some unrelated cases trumps the constitution itself? The interstate commerce clause is likely the most tortured stretched clause in the whole document, but a buyer in one state purchasing from a seller in another is the exact definition of the term.
I predict that this will easily pass judicial muster.
As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.
But that's clearly not contradicting himself. Since he is representing his constituents, he needs to improve money flow to his district. The money will be spent anyways, so it's better if it goes to his good salt-of-the-earth constituents rather than some godless homosexuals somewhere. Plus, by voting against those bills, he proves that...
Yeah, I can't write that with a straight face. It's kinda like the people who earnestly explain why Ayn Rand wasn't a hypocrite for receiving Medicare benefits. If you are a True Believer, mere facts are like putty to your Superior Rationalization^H^H^H^H^H^Hty.
So? When Microsoft released the Surface Pro, it did what Microsoft wanted (as limited by technology and budget; I'm sure Microsoft wanted 10 hours of battery life but didn't get it). Same for Samsung, Motorola, etc.
It seems like you are implying that "Apple releases features that Apple wants, not that consumers want." If you're not saying this, then please clarify. If you are saying this, then I think the evidence proves you wrong.
Long Long Ago, there were many MP3 players which all did what their manufactures wanted (and what their manufacturers thought consumers wanted). They sold okay, but then Apple released an MP3 player with fewer features but a different interface and musical ecosystem. Tech folks scoffed (No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.) but after a few iterations, consumers found that they loved Apple's features more than other players' features. You can clearly divide the MP3 market into "before Apple" and "after Apple" portions with a huge feature shift for all successful players at the break. Exact same thing happened with smart phones. Exact same thing happened with tablets. Given Apple's record, there is a good chance this could happen with a theoretical iWatch.
Look, I've got lots of issues with Apple, but arguing that they do not give users what they want is difficult. If you make an argument that contradicts all available data, you must first give an explanation which doesn't involve every consumer except you being a brainless zombie (but only for exactly one product), a nefarious deception performed years ago by forward-thinking Kenyan grandparents, perfect collusion between all climatologists, or some other unlikely conspiracy theory.
Funny you should mention rats. This is like the experiment where the rats had to choose between food and cocaine. Any rational person would just ignore this story, but many iHaters will keep pressing the "submit" button for their dose of whining and feeling superior.
So no, you shouldn't care, and (reading these comments) few Apple fans care, but there is a huge pool of people who do care. And who really need to get on with their lives.
Given Apple's track record, if they do release a watch which binds to a smartphone, it will probably be simple and do what most people want. I can imagine how I might want that to work. But until Apple announces something there is little point having an opinion on the matter.
Any unix sysadmin worth their salt can use ed, emacs and vi, and knows when to use each one. Any sysadmin who cannot find a use for one or more of them needs to be tossed back into the sea for more maturing and experience.
Religious arguments are fun, but when the systems are crashing and the backups are not restoring, you better be able to use every tool in the toolbox, not just the ones you think are "worthy".
Err, you do realize that this happened in 2008, when Bush was president, right? Unless Obama used a time machine to do it. Probably the same one he used to put those fake birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers!
It sounds like you're implying that Republicans don't complain about Democrats. Which is confusing, given the last four years. Does the phrase "death panels" ring a bell?
Yeah, but what is anti-competitive behavior? If Bob's Diner offers a free order of cheese stix with a purchase of the Meatloaf Special, that's anti-competitive behavior (since they're selling the cheese stix below cost), but I don't think we want to ban that.
The reason a simple law takes 40 pages of legalese is because you want the law to stop people who damage the overall economy, not Bob's Diner. And that's why some anti-competitive behavior is only illegal when a company has monopoly power or is acting in concert with other companies.
Sure, and you should also grow your own food, build your own car from iron ore, and perform your own double-bypass surgery. I, on the other hand, like paying specialists for such things. I get better food, cars, and surgery, and more money from ads, and I can spend time on things like providing content rather than building crappy advertising frameworks.
All of the services you mentioned (and you missed Bing, Yahoo, Amazon, and many other internet advertisers) only work because they also produce content that people like. I assume you use Google search and have watched TV and read papers and magazines at some point. Demonizing these providers is pointless.
But they only can sell ads if people want to see their content. So they need to keep both their customers (people who buy ads) and their users (people who view content) happy. Spend too much effort in pleasing advertisers and users leave so you go bankrupt. Spend too much time pleasing users and you make no money. So users matter as much as advertisers, but not more than advertisers.
Are you looking to businesses to save the world? Ain't gonna happen unless there is profit in it. But that's okay, we generally muddle along anyways.
World population growth has started slowing and is likely to plateau at some point. Not as soon as we'd like, since so many people spend energy on useless things like attacking GMOs rather than helping to educate the world and allow contraception, but it's happening.
If you want to help the world, spend some resources in convincing your elected officials that gene patents should be limited or eliminated. Monsanto is only evil because they make more money that way; change the patent system and their behavior will change. But complaining about GMOs is a completely useless activity if your goal is to improve the world.
And, in fact, a number of scientists have shown that without GMO crops, much more of the world would be at or below the starvation line right now. Monsanto sucks, but their products and other GMO foods are insanely helpful.
Interesting question. On the one hand, of course you have the right to know whether or not food is GMO.
On the other hand, how is that right affected by a decades-long anti-science erroneous smear campaign about GMOs? If you were to offer to spend the next few years talking loudly about how healthy and helpful GMOs are, rather than how evil and scary they are, then labelling would be 100% correct. Right now, though I favor labelling myself, I think that people's minds have been poisoned by the (hopefully unintentional but) evil lies of anti-GMO folks.
You have the right to correct information. You have the right to your own opinions. But you do not have the right to your own facts, and you do not have the right to give incorrect facts.
So, would you be in favor of "This food is GMO. All available research has shown that GMO foods are as healthy or healthier than non-GMO versions"? That seems to include your desire for labelling and my desire for truth.
Since Microsoft had 95%+ of the OS market, they had monopoly power in the OS market and had restrictions on using that power for competing.
Since there are dozens of video streaming services which are not YouTube, Google does not have monopoly power in the video streaming market and has many fewer restrictions.
Though I bet that if Microsoft offered an open API for Skype (not to the MS client, but to the servers), that might convince Google to offer an API for YouTube. But Skype does not have a high enough market share to have monopoly power, so MS does not have to open it. See how this works?
I think you will find that the vast majority of so called climate scientists have believed in AGW from a very young age and are not attempting to disprove the theory (as you would normally do in science), but to reinforce it as much as possible so as to convince politicians to save the world from what they passionately believe will otherwise result in the extinction of our entire species and perhaps even all animal life on the planet.
Possibility A: climate scientists have studied facts, made models, tweaked models as more facts came in, and now have a pretty good idea about the macro-movements of the climate.
Possibility B: climate scientists have all been brainwashed. Some of them resisted but every single one of them is to terrified to speak up. Or they all want the free government money too much, even when the Koch brothers fund studies to prove it false. The fact that most climatologists are not millionaires is, uh, inconvenient and will be ignored. OMG GET YOUR TIN HATS ITS ALL A PLOT!
So where does Joe get his information about the scientists from? Newspapers, magazines, the TV. Unfortunately Joe long ago learned that those sources are full of crap and will willingly attempt to mislead him, or maybe even lie to him, in order to push agendas that the journalists want to push. Joe has learned to be very skeptical of those news sources.
This always amazes me. Why is Joe skeptical about these news sources? Because they refuse to publish stories which Joe knows is true, like Obama's "true religion" or proof that Susan Rice personally massacred our ambassador or whatever. So instead Joe believes "facts" from the people who are shrilly claiming that all media is lying (except them, of course).
This is crazy. This is stupid. This is a far more serious threat to democracy than anything any US politician has done in the last 50 years.
Our media is not perfect, but (aside from a few glaring examples) is pretty good. Most of its shortcomings are due to you and me, not some nefarious plot to rule the world. People give eyeballs to short shocking stories and not to long, complete, accurate stories. Media needs eyeballs to survive. The wheel turns.
Not sure which is worse, the constant conspiracy theories or the use of a tragic attack to further your hatred (of a party, a black president, a political theory, not sure and doesn't matter).
This is not an attack against specifically you. This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals but questionable logic in achieving those goals. They must make their opponents into scheming evildoers with no redeeming values.
Trying to turn Petreus into Vince Foster II does not serve democracy or the economy, just your own hatred. Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.
Interesting definition. So which is it: either Google, Facebook, Youtube and Netflix are not basically household names, or the deployed IPv4 network does not resemble the deployed IPv4 network.
Let's say you have a 10gig connection between you and the target network, for your use only. 10 gig means you can send 10 billion bits per second. And let's say each one of those bits could test one IP address on that one small 64 bit subnet (which is crazy, but why not).
In that case, it would only take you about 6 years. To scan 10% of the subnet. And most providers are giving out hundreds or thousands of subnets to each house.
Parallelism and speed increases will not help here!
"If a scientist, or a vast majority of scientists, say something is true, it is considered heresy to even dare to question it.".
Heresy is an interesting concept. Maybe I've not been around the right people, but the only people I've seen to cry heresy are the anti-global-warming folks. Most of the pro folks tend to quote facts and studies, while the anti folks say things like "I've seen that weather changes, so therefore, though I've never studied it I am pretty sure that all of the people who *have* studied it are wrong." Now to me that sounds an awful lot like Copernicus being accused of heresy because he tried to use evidence to convince people of something they knew nothing about but desperately wanted to be wrong.
You should question scientists. That is good. That is science. But if you walk up to someone who has spent their life studying something and accuse them of being wrong with no facts to back you up, you are not questioning. You are denying. And that's why nobody takes you seriously. It's not an question of heresy and orthodoxy, it's a question of making up your mind without going through that tedious fact-collecting step.
They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And you, sir, are no Einstein.
Nope. Social Security is nicely-designed program. It won't grow indefinitely; once the baby-boomers die off it will go back to solvency. And since it is paid for by payroll taxes, the worst it will get is about a 20% deficit each year. And it's only so bad because we've kept on stealing the surplus rather than investing it.
Census lines are drawn up state-by-state, and both parties play the gerrymandering game, but yes, the Republican state congresses are far better at it than the Dems and have drawn districts to be insanely in their favor. Because you can best prove your patriotism by designing the system to ignore the will of the voters.
I'm curious if the city-wide crime statistics dropped when the park was closed. If so, I'm happy that the nanny state stepped in and protected citizens who would not protect themselves. If not, then the city deprived people of their park so that criminals would have to walk three blocks to commit their crimes.
And trials are 100% correct, except for the we're wrong.
If the number of death penalty cases which have been overturned (long after conviction) doesn't bother you, then you have an incredible trust of the government. The problem isn't the number overturned, it's the number which should have been overturned. If we're so often wrong at the initial trial, we're also wrong later.
No, the lack of CDMA is what keeps it from running on VerIzon and Sprint. When Verizon and Sprint finally send voice and provisioning over LTE like competent mobile providers, then you'll have a complaint, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the election goes to whoever can gerrymander the best? How about the electors vote in the same proportion that the voters in the state did? That method is far less affected by partisan meddling.
So, you believe that connecting some unrelated cases trumps the constitution itself? The interstate commerce clause is likely the most tortured stretched clause in the whole document, but a buyer in one state purchasing from a seller in another is the exact definition of the term.
I predict that this will easily pass judicial muster.
Wow, you're right. There is nobody who can pass laws that affect commerce between states. If only the constitution mentioned interstate commerce.
As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.
But that's clearly not contradicting himself. Since he is representing his constituents, he needs to improve money flow to his district. The money will be spent anyways, so it's better if it goes to his good salt-of-the-earth constituents rather than some godless homosexuals somewhere. Plus, by voting against those bills, he proves that...
Yeah, I can't write that with a straight face. It's kinda like the people who earnestly explain why Ayn Rand wasn't a hypocrite for receiving Medicare benefits. If you are a True Believer, mere facts are like putty to your Superior Rationalization^H^H^H^H^H^Hty.
So? When Microsoft released the Surface Pro, it did what Microsoft wanted (as limited by technology and budget; I'm sure Microsoft wanted 10 hours of battery life but didn't get it). Same for Samsung, Motorola, etc.
It seems like you are implying that "Apple releases features that Apple wants, not that consumers want." If you're not saying this, then please clarify. If you are saying this, then I think the evidence proves you wrong.
Long Long Ago, there were many MP3 players which all did what their manufactures wanted (and what their manufacturers thought consumers wanted). They sold okay, but then Apple released an MP3 player with fewer features but a different interface and musical ecosystem. Tech folks scoffed (No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.) but after a few iterations, consumers found that they loved Apple's features more than other players' features. You can clearly divide the MP3 market into "before Apple" and "after Apple" portions with a huge feature shift for all successful players at the break. Exact same thing happened with smart phones. Exact same thing happened with tablets. Given Apple's record, there is a good chance this could happen with a theoretical iWatch.
Look, I've got lots of issues with Apple, but arguing that they do not give users what they want is difficult. If you make an argument that contradicts all available data, you must first give an explanation which doesn't involve every consumer except you being a brainless zombie (but only for exactly one product), a nefarious deception performed years ago by forward-thinking Kenyan grandparents, perfect collusion between all climatologists, or some other unlikely conspiracy theory.
Funny you should mention rats. This is like the experiment where the rats had to choose between food and cocaine. Any rational person would just ignore this story, but many iHaters will keep pressing the "submit" button for their dose of whining and feeling superior.
So no, you shouldn't care, and (reading these comments) few Apple fans care, but there is a huge pool of people who do care. And who really need to get on with their lives.
Given Apple's track record, if they do release a watch which binds to a smartphone, it will probably be simple and do what most people want. I can imagine how I might want that to work. But until Apple announces something there is little point having an opinion on the matter.
Any unix sysadmin worth their salt can use ed, emacs and vi, and knows when to use each one. Any sysadmin who cannot find a use for one or more of them needs to be tossed back into the sea for more maturing and experience.
Religious arguments are fun, but when the systems are crashing and the backups are not restoring, you better be able to use every tool in the toolbox, not just the ones you think are "worthy".
Err, you do realize that this happened in 2008, when Bush was president, right? Unless Obama used a time machine to do it. Probably the same one he used to put those fake birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers!
It sounds like you're implying that Republicans don't complain about Democrats. Which is confusing, given the last four years. Does the phrase "death panels" ring a bell?
Yeah, but what is anti-competitive behavior? If Bob's Diner offers a free order of cheese stix with a purchase of the Meatloaf Special, that's anti-competitive behavior (since they're selling the cheese stix below cost), but I don't think we want to ban that.
The reason a simple law takes 40 pages of legalese is because you want the law to stop people who damage the overall economy, not Bob's Diner. And that's why some anti-competitive behavior is only illegal when a company has monopoly power or is acting in concert with other companies.
Sure, and you should also grow your own food, build your own car from iron ore, and perform your own double-bypass surgery. I, on the other hand, like paying specialists for such things. I get better food, cars, and surgery, and more money from ads, and I can spend time on things like providing content rather than building crappy advertising frameworks.
Both true and completely wrong.
All of the services you mentioned (and you missed Bing, Yahoo, Amazon, and many other internet advertisers) only work because they also produce content that people like. I assume you use Google search and have watched TV and read papers and magazines at some point. Demonizing these providers is pointless.
But they only can sell ads if people want to see their content. So they need to keep both their customers (people who buy ads) and their users (people who view content) happy. Spend too much effort in pleasing advertisers and users leave so you go bankrupt. Spend too much time pleasing users and you make no money. So users matter as much as advertisers, but not more than advertisers.
Ads are the product. You are a user.
Are you looking to businesses to save the world? Ain't gonna happen unless there is profit in it. But that's okay, we generally muddle along anyways.
World population growth has started slowing and is likely to plateau at some point. Not as soon as we'd like, since so many people spend energy on useless things like attacking GMOs rather than helping to educate the world and allow contraception, but it's happening.
If you want to help the world, spend some resources in convincing your elected officials that gene patents should be limited or eliminated. Monsanto is only evil because they make more money that way; change the patent system and their behavior will change. But complaining about GMOs is a completely useless activity if your goal is to improve the world.
And, in fact, a number of scientists have shown that without GMO crops, much more of the world would be at or below the starvation line right now. Monsanto sucks, but their products and other GMO foods are insanely helpful.
Interesting question. On the one hand, of course you have the right to know whether or not food is GMO.
On the other hand, how is that right affected by a decades-long anti-science erroneous smear campaign about GMOs? If you were to offer to spend the next few years talking loudly about how healthy and helpful GMOs are, rather than how evil and scary they are, then labelling would be 100% correct. Right now, though I favor labelling myself, I think that people's minds have been poisoned by the (hopefully unintentional but) evil lies of anti-GMO folks.
You have the right to correct information. You have the right to your own opinions. But you do not have the right to your own facts, and you do not have the right to give incorrect facts.
So, would you be in favor of "This food is GMO. All available research has shown that GMO foods are as healthy or healthier than non-GMO versions"? That seems to include your desire for labelling and my desire for truth.
Since Microsoft had 95%+ of the OS market, they had monopoly power in the OS market and had restrictions on using that power for competing.
Since there are dozens of video streaming services which are not YouTube, Google does not have monopoly power in the video streaming market and has many fewer restrictions.
Though I bet that if Microsoft offered an open API for Skype (not to the MS client, but to the servers), that might convince Google to offer an API for YouTube. But Skype does not have a high enough market share to have monopoly power, so MS does not have to open it. See how this works?
I think you will find that the vast majority of so called climate scientists have believed in AGW from a very young age and are not attempting to disprove the theory (as you would normally do in science), but to reinforce it as much as possible so as to convince politicians to save the world from what they passionately believe will otherwise result in the extinction of our entire species and perhaps even all animal life on the planet.
Possibility A: climate scientists have studied facts, made models, tweaked models as more facts came in, and now have a pretty good idea about the macro-movements of the climate.
Possibility B: climate scientists have all been brainwashed. Some of them resisted but every single one of them is to terrified to speak up. Or they all want the free government money too much, even when the Koch brothers fund studies to prove it false. The fact that most climatologists are not millionaires is, uh, inconvenient and will be ignored. OMG GET YOUR TIN HATS ITS ALL A PLOT!
Tough choice.
So where does Joe get his information about the scientists from? Newspapers, magazines, the TV. Unfortunately Joe long ago learned that those sources are full of crap and will willingly attempt to mislead him, or maybe even lie to him, in order to push agendas that the journalists want to push. Joe has learned to be very skeptical of those news sources.
This always amazes me. Why is Joe skeptical about these news sources? Because they refuse to publish stories which Joe knows is true, like Obama's "true religion" or proof that Susan Rice personally massacred our ambassador or whatever. So instead Joe believes "facts" from the people who are shrilly claiming that all media is lying (except them, of course).
This is crazy. This is stupid. This is a far more serious threat to democracy than anything any US politician has done in the last 50 years.
Our media is not perfect, but (aside from a few glaring examples) is pretty good. Most of its shortcomings are due to you and me, not some nefarious plot to rule the world. People give eyeballs to short shocking stories and not to long, complete, accurate stories. Media needs eyeballs to survive. The wheel turns.
Not sure which is worse, the constant conspiracy theories or the use of a tragic attack to further your hatred (of a party, a black president, a political theory, not sure and doesn't matter).
This is not an attack against specifically you. This is my sorrow that people cannot agree that their opponent has valid goals but questionable logic in achieving those goals. They must make their opponents into scheming evildoers with no redeeming values.
Trying to turn Petreus into Vince Foster II does not serve democracy or the economy, just your own hatred. Hate Obama for his policies, not is existence or this imaginary crimes.
Interesting definition. So which is it: either Google, Facebook, Youtube and Netflix are not basically household names, or the deployed IPv4 network does not resemble the deployed IPv4 network.
Big numbers are big.
Let's say you have a 10gig connection between you and the target network, for your use only. 10 gig means you can send 10 billion bits per second. And let's say each one of those bits could test one IP address on that one small 64 bit subnet (which is crazy, but why not).
In that case, it would only take you about 6 years. To scan 10% of the subnet. And most providers are giving out hundreds or thousands of subnets to each house.
Parallelism and speed increases will not help here!
"If a scientist, or a vast majority of scientists, say something is true, it is considered heresy to even dare to question it.".
Heresy is an interesting concept. Maybe I've not been around the right people, but the only people I've seen to cry heresy are the anti-global-warming folks. Most of the pro folks tend to quote facts and studies, while the anti folks say things like "I've seen that weather changes, so therefore, though I've never studied it I am pretty sure that all of the people who *have* studied it are wrong." Now to me that sounds an awful lot like Copernicus being accused of heresy because he tried to use evidence to convince people of something they knew nothing about but desperately wanted to be wrong.
You should question scientists. That is good. That is science. But if you walk up to someone who has spent their life studying something and accuse them of being wrong with no facts to back you up, you are not questioning. You are denying. And that's why nobody takes you seriously. It's not an question of heresy and orthodoxy, it's a question of making up your mind without going through that tedious fact-collecting step.
They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And you, sir, are no Einstein.
Nope. Social Security is nicely-designed program. It won't grow indefinitely; once the baby-boomers die off it will go back to solvency. And since it is paid for by payroll taxes, the worst it will get is about a 20% deficit each year. And it's only so bad because we've kept on stealing the surplus rather than investing it.
Census lines are drawn up state-by-state, and both parties play the gerrymandering game, but yes, the Republican state congresses are far better at it than the Dems and have drawn districts to be insanely in their favor. Because you can best prove your patriotism by designing the system to ignore the will of the voters.
I'm curious if the city-wide crime statistics dropped when the park was closed. If so, I'm happy that the nanny state stepped in and protected citizens who would not protect themselves. If not, then the city deprived people of their park so that criminals would have to walk three blocks to commit their crimes.
That plus the possibility that we might be wrong.
And trials are 100% correct, except for the we're wrong.
If the number of death penalty cases which have been overturned (long after conviction) doesn't bother you, then you have an incredible trust of the government. The problem isn't the number overturned, it's the number which should have been overturned. If we're so often wrong at the initial trial, we're also wrong later.
No, the lack of CDMA is what keeps it from running on VerIzon and Sprint. When Verizon and Sprint finally send voice and provisioning over LTE like competent mobile providers, then you'll have a complaint, but I wouldn't hold your breath.