Instead, we shouldn't pay *any* taxes, remove all regulations on industry, and have the governments (state and federal) sell off all assets that should now be the parlance of private industry to, well, private industry in order to pay off their debts.
So, umm, question: What's the market value of a gallon of water, when you don't have prices for tap being controlled in any way so both tap and bottled can jack prices as high as they can manage? What's the price to get to the next town over when the only two roads out of town are owned by the same guy and he wants to charge "what the market will bear" for you to get to your job (if you don't see this as an issue, you don't live in a place where flat land is a significant limiting factor on development and several communities literally have a single road that runs in one side of town and out the other and no room to build another to bypass a toll booth)?
Copyright violation is generally punished by a fine, however. What do they usually aim for, $100k per copy or something like that? So, $100k per theater that received an infringing movie per showing of said movie.
Next thing you know, you'll tell me that over-the-air broadcast television stations and radio stations can, at will, ban someone from listening and if they ever tune that station again they can be fined?
Ah, so you're saying that if you broadcast something unencrypted into the general vicinity, it's illegal to perceive it unless you can do so without the aid of any kind of equipment external to your body itself? Damn it, that means you could paint a mural of sensitive information on your driveway and since I'm severely nearsighted, if I look at it (with my glasses on so I could potentially read it) I've broken the law?
Is there any judicial oversight to them not releasing you when your sentence is up, or are you saying that because they were convicted and sentenced to X years at some point means that X+Y, where Y is however long they feel like, is perfectly fine?
Again, there are distinctions between reasonable traffic shaping/QoS and the kinds of things those pushing Net Neutrality are trying to prevent. It *is* a fine line and any laws would have to be carefully worded though. For example, prioritizing VoIP packets so they get a faster ping compared to high bandwidth applications that aren't as sensitive to timing (such as torrents, HTTP, FTP, etc) is one thing, prioritizing VoIP packets to only your own VoIP service and explicitly degrading service to Vonage to drive customers from Vonage to your local service is another beast entirely. Ditto if it were Vonage and one of their competitors. Degrading service to major websites that don't pay you a fee is another that would generally be considered a no-no.
Basically, the bulk of people pushing Net Neutrality really see it as "don't use your effective monopoly of the last mile in an area to extort money from other businesses, and don't use it to cripple services you compete with" not "don't perform any kind of QoS or traffic shaping of any kind, even if it's only beneficial to your userbase".
Distinction: The point of a.xxx domain is to mandate/require/force all "pornography" on to it, specifically not to be voluntary (otherwise it doesn't serve a meaningful filtering function). So demanding Veggie Tales be pushed out of.kids is different than demanding pictures of the statue of David be pushed into.xxx.
As far as filtering goes, the point of.xxx is to create a place you want to specifically block. The point of.kids is to create a place you'd potentially want to whitelist.
Define pornography in a way that includes everything anyone would consider porn, but doesn't include anything that anyone wouldn't consider porn. Now that you realize how blatantly impossible that really is, consider it for a worldwide audience and not just US.
If you make use of it voluntary, then what function does it actually perform beyond opening additional namespace beyond what is already available in.com,.biz,.info, etc?
If you make use of it mandatory, who's definition of porn do we use? Are you ready to take anything the most puritan person in the world considers pornographic and force it off the rest of the 'net into.xxx?
A ".kids" domain would be a better choice, where you are voluntarily naming your content as child-safe, as there's unlikely to be a push to force you into that category above and beyond your own desire to be there.
Bah, you make it sound like we should simply outlaw child sexual abuse and the production, purchase and sale of pictures of such and leave the topic at that. Possibly make an exception for older "children" producing pictures of themselves for private noncommercial distribution (teenagers sending pictures of themselves to their BF/GF). We can't do that, it'd make some kind of sense!
Now, to plant CP on politician's machines so they'll agree... =p
Think of it as consuming 2MW for some initial "warm up" period of time to get to the initial temperature, then dropping to the lower rate of consumption. Not 2MW instantaneously (which makes no sense) then 100kW the rest of the day.
I don't work for a heat treatment / stress relief company, but I do work for a fabricator that occasionally makes use of one. They fire the ovens before they open so they get up to temperature before the main workers arrive, as it takes a while to get the ovens up to temp. They run them hot enough that the aluminum ID tags we put on each piece come out about the consistency of slightly cool butter if we forget to remove one before sending them out.
I think he was suggesting a difference of degree. As in it's gotten *more* stupid than it used to be. As in, you can catch the same news network state both "X" and "Not X" as facts in the same day depending on which one demonstrates their point against the current president more effectively. It wasn't nearly as blatant during Bush's terms or Clinton's, they'd at least pretend to be sly about it if nothing else.
So if I'm from the wrong state (one whose license requirements don't directly require proof of citizenship -- in my state it's "two forms of ID off of this list, one must be photo", and there are at least two that don't strictly require citizenship to receive) on vacation in AZ I can now be arrested for looking at a cop the wrong way (because the law carefully avoids the phrase "probable cause" for a reason) for being an illegal alien. No, wait, I probably wouldn't have to deal with that because I'm not brown. If I were, for example, the grandchild of legal Mexican immigrants, then everything would be different.
Depends on how they define it exactly in that law. Not every state/county/etc uses the phrase "Birth Certificate" as the title on their paperwork that serves that exact function. Especially if you go back across the whole of the past century (IOW, covering absolutely everyone alive today).
If mine says "Certification of Birth" at the top (or "Certification of Live Birth", or any other title that has been held by an equivalent document at some point in time in some part of this country), does that mean I'm banned from appearing on their ballot?
From my PoV, the biggest issue is that you can't tell who is an alien (illegal or otherwise) and who is a citizen (who aren't required to carry documentation proving their citizenship). So if, for example, your grandparents were legal immigrants from (somewhere where your skin color will make you suspicious, even though that can't legally be the criteria we all know it is), you can be arrested for not having your wallet on you despite being a citizen? What is the penalty to the police for falsely arresting brown people who are citizens but don't have proof of such on their person at all times? Have you ever in your life been in a scenario where you, as a citizen (presumably), could not immediately provide documentation proving that you are a citizen?
As much of an idiot as that guy is, if there was a way to not make them specifically racially biased, some kind of poll test (applied at voter registration) wouldn't be a terrible idea. I mean you'd test basic literacy and a basic understanding of the structure of the government. If you can't answer "What are the duties of the vice president?" you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for that office. Unless you're going to claim that literacy is a racist criteria nowadays. (I once had a professor that claimed that straight meritocracy without considering race or gender as a factor at all within a group was a racist and sexist approach and the only way not to be racist or sexist was to give women and minorities advantages for being women and minorities.)
Democracy works best when the voters are educated and understand what they're voting for.
Silly question, but if Google is responsible for anything anyone posts on Orkut in Brazil and Italy, then doesn't that mean that either A) Google needs to review every single post made for potentially offensive and/or injurious content or B) since that's unreasonable, stop offering those services in those areas entirely?
Given that Orkut is kind of the big social network in Brazil, maybe a "we have to cut service because it's technically infeasible to validate every post for anything that can be offensive and/or injurious to anyone" would get some light on the issue?
...and probably falls under "didn't know any better" or "doing it to get attention" (and accordingly "killing yourself" in a manner that is likely to fail).
You see, noone who really wants to die OD's on tylenol because it's a horrible way to die (though something like taking some monk's hood is probably even worse). You don't try to off yourself with tylenol unless either you want to *punish* yourself, you don't know any better, or you are doing it to get attention (which since it takes a while gives them plenty of time to "save" you).
You left out that VOODOO was basically your only real choice for a "real" 3d accelerator at the time, so that wasn't terribly shocking. I remember playing Quake with my Diamond Stealth with a 3dfx VOODOO connected to it and 128MB of RAM. That was actually pretty good hardware for the time though... =p
*Introductory* CS curriculum. As in first semester or two, when the bulk of what is being taught is basic programming skills. You'd expect the heavy critical thinking and analysis to come in a bit later in the course load. There are steps between "This is a for loop" and "here's an explanation of EBNF notation, write a parser corresponding to the grammar I'm handing out". The former is intro CS, the second was an actual assignment in one of my 300-level classes when I was a student.
My stance is this: Religion is what it is, and the very concept of eliminating it is silly -- people will believe what they believe. At the same time, separation of church and state is about government and it's assorted organs being wholly agnostic. Religions shouldn't get special tax breaks for being religions. "My church runs a homeless shelter!" you say, well then yes, the funds/supplies/etc used to run the homeless shelter should be treated like the resources of any other charity. Other resources the church hold unrelated to charitable work, not so much.
I have a similar opinion on the whole gay marriage issue. We should separate religious marriage and legal union entirely, and make being able to "marry" people in the legal sense only somewhat more difficult to do than becoming a notary. Clearly enshrine as part of the law that no individual can be forced to marry any two individuals and may choose not to for any reason or no reason at all. Net result: gays can get "married" just as well as anyone else, people against gay marriage don't have to marry them under any circumstances, and people don't have to worry about "wrong" marriages somehow making theirs lesser somehow (never really understood this argument).
I actually do own a Toyota ('95 Avalon, bought from a guy who lives a block away from me and rebuilds totaled vehicles [as in the vehicle is sold at auction as "salvage"] and resells them). It has a few minor issues you expect from a vehicle in that kind of accident (the doors don't always register as "closed" when you close them, had a power window motor go out on the side that got hit, a bearing give out that required replacement, and it doesn't align quite properly). Other than that (which was less issues than I expected), it's been one of the best cars I've owned.
You reminded me of my senior English class in high school. At one point, we were given two "World War II" books in sequence, and part of the point was the contrast. I can't remember the title of one of them offhand, it went into huge amounts of detail piecing together vivid description of where the story was happening, but then very little actually happened. As in over a page of describing a building only to have them walk through it into another page of description. The other was Slaughterhouse V.
The idea that Vonnegut could be torture seems odd to me, though Dante could depend on your translator, I suppose.
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh, ooh, I can play this game too!
Instead, we shouldn't pay *any* taxes, remove all regulations on industry, and have the governments (state and federal) sell off all assets that should now be the parlance of private industry to, well, private industry in order to pay off their debts.
So, umm, question: What's the market value of a gallon of water, when you don't have prices for tap being controlled in any way so both tap and bottled can jack prices as high as they can manage? What's the price to get to the next town over when the only two roads out of town are owned by the same guy and he wants to charge "what the market will bear" for you to get to your job (if you don't see this as an issue, you don't live in a place where flat land is a significant limiting factor on development and several communities literally have a single road that runs in one side of town and out the other and no room to build another to bypass a toll booth)?
Copyright violation is generally punished by a fine, however. What do they usually aim for, $100k per copy or something like that? So, $100k per theater that received an infringing movie per showing of said movie.
Crud, meant to keep going on that.
Next thing you know, you'll tell me that over-the-air broadcast television stations and radio stations can, at will, ban someone from listening and if they ever tune that station again they can be fined?
Ah, so you're saying that if you broadcast something unencrypted into the general vicinity, it's illegal to perceive it unless you can do so without the aid of any kind of equipment external to your body itself? Damn it, that means you could paint a mural of sensitive information on your driveway and since I'm severely nearsighted, if I look at it (with my glasses on so I could potentially read it) I've broken the law?
Is there any judicial oversight to them not releasing you when your sentence is up, or are you saying that because they were convicted and sentenced to X years at some point means that X+Y, where Y is however long they feel like, is perfectly fine?
Again, there are distinctions between reasonable traffic shaping/QoS and the kinds of things those pushing Net Neutrality are trying to prevent. It *is* a fine line and any laws would have to be carefully worded though. For example, prioritizing VoIP packets so they get a faster ping compared to high bandwidth applications that aren't as sensitive to timing (such as torrents, HTTP, FTP, etc) is one thing, prioritizing VoIP packets to only your own VoIP service and explicitly degrading service to Vonage to drive customers from Vonage to your local service is another beast entirely. Ditto if it were Vonage and one of their competitors. Degrading service to major websites that don't pay you a fee is another that would generally be considered a no-no.
Basically, the bulk of people pushing Net Neutrality really see it as "don't use your effective monopoly of the last mile in an area to extort money from other businesses, and don't use it to cripple services you compete with" not "don't perform any kind of QoS or traffic shaping of any kind, even if it's only beneficial to your userbase".
Distinction: The point of a .xxx domain is to mandate/require/force all "pornography" on to it, specifically not to be voluntary (otherwise it doesn't serve a meaningful filtering function). So demanding Veggie Tales be pushed out of .kids is different than demanding pictures of the statue of David be pushed into .xxx.
As far as filtering goes, the point of .xxx is to create a place you want to specifically block. The point of .kids is to create a place you'd potentially want to whitelist.
Define pornography in a way that includes everything anyone would consider porn, but doesn't include anything that anyone wouldn't consider porn. Now that you realize how blatantly impossible that really is, consider it for a worldwide audience and not just US.
If you make use of it voluntary, then what function does it actually perform beyond opening additional namespace beyond what is already available in .com, .biz, .info, etc?
If you make use of it mandatory, who's definition of porn do we use? Are you ready to take anything the most puritan person in the world considers pornographic and force it off the rest of the 'net into .xxx?
A ".kids" domain would be a better choice, where you are voluntarily naming your content as child-safe, as there's unlikely to be a push to force you into that category above and beyond your own desire to be there.
Bah, you make it sound like we should simply outlaw child sexual abuse and the production, purchase and sale of pictures of such and leave the topic at that. Possibly make an exception for older "children" producing pictures of themselves for private noncommercial distribution (teenagers sending pictures of themselves to their BF/GF). We can't do that, it'd make some kind of sense!
Now, to plant CP on politician's machines so they'll agree... =p
Think of it as consuming 2MW for some initial "warm up" period of time to get to the initial temperature, then dropping to the lower rate of consumption. Not 2MW instantaneously (which makes no sense) then 100kW the rest of the day.
I don't work for a heat treatment / stress relief company, but I do work for a fabricator that occasionally makes use of one. They fire the ovens before they open so they get up to temperature before the main workers arrive, as it takes a while to get the ovens up to temp. They run them hot enough that the aluminum ID tags we put on each piece come out about the consistency of slightly cool butter if we forget to remove one before sending them out.
I think he was suggesting a difference of degree. As in it's gotten *more* stupid than it used to be. As in, you can catch the same news network state both "X" and "Not X" as facts in the same day depending on which one demonstrates their point against the current president more effectively. It wasn't nearly as blatant during Bush's terms or Clinton's, they'd at least pretend to be sly about it if nothing else.
So if I'm from the wrong state (one whose license requirements don't directly require proof of citizenship -- in my state it's "two forms of ID off of this list, one must be photo", and there are at least two that don't strictly require citizenship to receive) on vacation in AZ I can now be arrested for looking at a cop the wrong way (because the law carefully avoids the phrase "probable cause" for a reason) for being an illegal alien. No, wait, I probably wouldn't have to deal with that because I'm not brown. If I were, for example, the grandchild of legal Mexican immigrants, then everything would be different.
Depends on how they define it exactly in that law. Not every state/county/etc uses the phrase "Birth Certificate" as the title on their paperwork that serves that exact function. Especially if you go back across the whole of the past century (IOW, covering absolutely everyone alive today).
If mine says "Certification of Birth" at the top (or "Certification of Live Birth", or any other title that has been held by an equivalent document at some point in time in some part of this country), does that mean I'm banned from appearing on their ballot?
From my PoV, the biggest issue is that you can't tell who is an alien (illegal or otherwise) and who is a citizen (who aren't required to carry documentation proving their citizenship). So if, for example, your grandparents were legal immigrants from (somewhere where your skin color will make you suspicious, even though that can't legally be the criteria we all know it is), you can be arrested for not having your wallet on you despite being a citizen? What is the penalty to the police for falsely arresting brown people who are citizens but don't have proof of such on their person at all times? Have you ever in your life been in a scenario where you, as a citizen (presumably), could not immediately provide documentation proving that you are a citizen?
As much of an idiot as that guy is, if there was a way to not make them specifically racially biased, some kind of poll test (applied at voter registration) wouldn't be a terrible idea. I mean you'd test basic literacy and a basic understanding of the structure of the government. If you can't answer "What are the duties of the vice president?" you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote, let alone run for that office. Unless you're going to claim that literacy is a racist criteria nowadays. (I once had a professor that claimed that straight meritocracy without considering race or gender as a factor at all within a group was a racist and sexist approach and the only way not to be racist or sexist was to give women and minorities advantages for being women and minorities.)
Democracy works best when the voters are educated and understand what they're voting for.
Silly question, but if Google is responsible for anything anyone posts on Orkut in Brazil and Italy, then doesn't that mean that either A) Google needs to review every single post made for potentially offensive and/or injurious content or B) since that's unreasonable, stop offering those services in those areas entirely?
Given that Orkut is kind of the big social network in Brazil, maybe a "we have to cut service because it's technically infeasible to validate every post for anything that can be offensive and/or injurious to anyone" would get some light on the issue?
...and probably falls under "didn't know any better" or "doing it to get attention" (and accordingly "killing yourself" in a manner that is likely to fail).
Now, rent one, maybe, if the terms weren't too picky about the state of the child on return... =p
You see, noone who really wants to die OD's on tylenol because it's a horrible way to die (though something like taking some monk's hood is probably even worse). You don't try to off yourself with tylenol unless either you want to *punish* yourself, you don't know any better, or you are doing it to get attention (which since it takes a while gives them plenty of time to "save" you).
You left out that VOODOO was basically your only real choice for a "real" 3d accelerator at the time, so that wasn't terribly shocking. I remember playing Quake with my Diamond Stealth with a 3dfx VOODOO connected to it and 128MB of RAM. That was actually pretty good hardware for the time though... =p
*Introductory* CS curriculum. As in first semester or two, when the bulk of what is being taught is basic programming skills. You'd expect the heavy critical thinking and analysis to come in a bit later in the course load. There are steps between "This is a for loop" and "here's an explanation of EBNF notation, write a parser corresponding to the grammar I'm handing out". The former is intro CS, the second was an actual assignment in one of my 300-level classes when I was a student.
My stance is this: Religion is what it is, and the very concept of eliminating it is silly -- people will believe what they believe. At the same time, separation of church and state is about government and it's assorted organs being wholly agnostic. Religions shouldn't get special tax breaks for being religions. "My church runs a homeless shelter!" you say, well then yes, the funds/supplies/etc used to run the homeless shelter should be treated like the resources of any other charity. Other resources the church hold unrelated to charitable work, not so much.
I have a similar opinion on the whole gay marriage issue. We should separate religious marriage and legal union entirely, and make being able to "marry" people in the legal sense only somewhat more difficult to do than becoming a notary. Clearly enshrine as part of the law that no individual can be forced to marry any two individuals and may choose not to for any reason or no reason at all. Net result: gays can get "married" just as well as anyone else, people against gay marriage don't have to marry them under any circumstances, and people don't have to worry about "wrong" marriages somehow making theirs lesser somehow (never really understood this argument).
I actually do own a Toyota ('95 Avalon, bought from a guy who lives a block away from me and rebuilds totaled vehicles [as in the vehicle is sold at auction as "salvage"] and resells them). It has a few minor issues you expect from a vehicle in that kind of accident (the doors don't always register as "closed" when you close them, had a power window motor go out on the side that got hit, a bearing give out that required replacement, and it doesn't align quite properly). Other than that (which was less issues than I expected), it's been one of the best cars I've owned.
You reminded me of my senior English class in high school. At one point, we were given two "World War II" books in sequence, and part of the point was the contrast. I can't remember the title of one of them offhand, it went into huge amounts of detail piecing together vivid description of where the story was happening, but then very little actually happened. As in over a page of describing a building only to have them walk through it into another page of description. The other was Slaughterhouse V.
The idea that Vonnegut could be torture seems odd to me, though Dante could depend on your translator, I suppose.
Unless the goal of the work is not enjoyment. Sometimes the goal of a work of art is to capture something else -- shock, misery, revulsion, whatever.