Many bans on cellphones allow hands-free, but I've always felt it wasn't because it is better to use hands-free, but because it is impossible to enforce. (If someone can back up or refute my assumption, mod him up).
I've actually been hoping for an option like this, and loaded the comments expecting to see many sharing my sentiment. I was very surprised to see so much raging over a checkbox. For a geek website, people seem surprisingly ready to ignore the costs of running a website.
Ideally, they would have a number of ad categories and you pick which can load, that way it is up to the user to define "acceptable".
All journalists write a summary of events, that's kinda what journalism is. Parent was obviously referring to slashdot-style summary of a single source with a link. A journalist gathers information from multiple sources (practically by definition, to get input from "both sides"), and summarizes that. The difference being the journalist did actual research*. Although they only cite so much to their sources, they (should) have to be able to back up their facts if asked. I don't blame you for going for the fun comment, but as much as I'll join in on some of the denouncing of the quality of modern journalism, I would never wish for news to be reduced to the quality of a typical blog.
*That said, yes there are "jounalists" that are less rigourous/honest than a typical blogger, and there are bloggers that are more rigourous and thorough than the typical journalist, but in general I would not conflate the two as equal.
punitive fines which will get passed to the consumer
If only some eBook sellers are hit, then the fines cannot easily be passed to the customer, as they have to keep up with the competition. If they raise prices, they lose customers to the competitors who are able to remain profitable thanks to their lack of fines.
Of course, anti-competitive penalties usually are too small to matter, or most of the industry colludes and there is no fine-free major competitor to prevent a fine-induced price-hike. That just means we need bigger penalties until companies see it more profitable to try and be that odd one out, than to join in on collusion.
What? Most of North Korea is in poverty, uneducated, basically held at arms reach by their government. Spending money on a huge military and researching nukes when your population is among the least well-off in the world is criminal. Sure, we could have fed people instead of our nuke program, but that's practically nitpicking in a society with volunteer soup kitchens, compared to one where food has to be imported because the government won't help create a proper farming industry. Yes, the US has its problems, and the actions of NK are no excuse for what the US does, but to claim the US goes above and beyond the reprehensible actions of such a regime is dishonest and, frankly, disgusting.
How this comment is +5 insightful rather than marked troll, I don't know. I have seen plenty of anti-US posts that I would mod insightful, but those were honest.
"So much as make a peep of a protest"
The OWS protests went on for weeks, and you couldn't go a day without hearing about them (mainstream coverage could have been better, but alternate sources are readily available). Yes, the coordinated crackdowns were overdone but tanks and assault rifles? Citation please. And read up on Tienneman before you claim the US is the worst of the bunch (or anywhere in the same league).
slaughtering our citizens too, having the highest incarceration rate
I'm not proud of this, I want to see an end to the war on drugs, but imprisoning is not the same as slaughtering (see Syria for an example). Also, our inmates are actually quite well off compared to many citizens in the countries you think we outdo (such as NK). So far as I hear, Western Europe has better prison conditions, but you weren't comparing the US to Europe (which would be a good way to earn an insightful mod).
Just because their acts of inhumanity are public and ours are private
We don't have very good numbers on citizens killed in Syria because they've been cracking down on media. As for the US hiding inhumane actions, do you have a citation for that? I've heard that media were held back for some OWS cleanups (which is reprehensible) but the government did nothing to stop them from reporting on that, or interviewing people.
deleting domains off the internet on every server we can get our hands on that disagrees with our political agenda
Yes, we have a censorship problem, but the government isn't rampantly deleting websites - criticism to outright lies against the US government are readily available all over the place. While this is certainly an issue the US needs work on, we are NOT in the same league as countries that not only blanket ban any information supporting taboo topics, but actively put up propaganda against it and take action against those that still seek out the information. Fox news may border on propaganda, but unlike actual censoring regimes you can just as readily tune to another news station or news website for a different viewpoint. Our media could use more variety, sure, but government control isn't the issue.
I think everyone understands that when a news report says "US did X" they mean the government did X. Anyone misconstruing it to mean everyone in the country acted/favored said action would probably make the same assumption if the news report actually said "US government did X", so there's no need to be tedious about it.
Of course, it seems you agree with me that most people understand the distinction and do not need it spelled out:
I'm certain I share this sentiment with a large majority
Seems to me you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.
give off neutrino emissions that make it glow like the sun to spy satellites
Learn the difference between neutrons and neutrinos. The latter are incredibly hard to detect (and currently at the heart of the 'faster than light' debate, but I digress), it takes a detector the size of a mountain.
You're obviously lying. There's no way we have any spy satellites the size of a mountain.
I took the parent as referring to the odd accusation of Iranian border patrols apprehending those foolish enough to merely wander too close to the border. I haven't paid enough attention so I don't know whether there is any provable substance to such a reputation. Note he said expandable, as in they can change at a whim (if he was talking about conquering territory he probably would have picked a different word).
In any case, you can get away without introducing cars
The only ferries I've ever been on were for cars, so you kinda did. Maybe you should've used a paraglider analogy, I've never seen a car use a paraglider.
If these companies are influential enough to grant themselves permanent monopolies then they are influential enough to kill any attempt to end patents. Yes, abuse of the patent system is a risk, but it's just a specific instance of "large corporations are a risk to society".
Assuming the temp ban scenario doesn't happen too often in a day, it might be simpler to flag those accounts, and a/. editor then checks the offending comments. If they were trolling, approve the ban, if not, remove mod privelages for the offending accounts. So long as mod rights aren't awarded without positive karma, it takes at least some effort to put together accounts for a ban brigade so this would be some deterrent. Sure, you could use some ban brigade accounts to pump the karma of replacement accounts, but in theory such a pattern of behavior could be tracked if the ban brigades don't stop.
The government is simply trying to define what would be an act of war, as opposed to leaving it undefined. If you're so afraid of aggressive lunatics in the Pentagon you should be very happy the government is preventing them from having free interpretation of what to consider an act of war.
While I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to squarely attribute an attack as sponsored by a foreign government, I think it would be bad policy to say we will never consider a military response to any form of cyber attack. If we were at war with China, I would expect them to do all they can to disrupt our economy and infrastructure using cyber warfare. Now picture that same cyber attack but without being at war. Sure, we shouldn't respond by firing a missle the moment we have a hunch who is attacking us, but any non-military threats we make to try to end the attack would be a lot stronger if it is known the next step is to consider physical retaliation (and might encourage the usual suspects to play nice so as to avoid being falsely accused).
That said, I don't want the warmonger types making the calls on this, as I don't expect we could reasonably move beyond just threatening physical retaliation given the uncertainties involved.
this would only save time for people who have to regularly make the sort of 'bus-train-bus' connection.
You're missing the whole "no stopping" concept. I live in the Chicago suburbs. There are about a dozen stations between mine and Chicago's Union Station. At rush hour, there is an express train that skips most/all stops between mine and Chicago, and takes about 25 minutes to get to the city. The train that makes all of the stops can take over an hour*. This proposed system would make all trains effectively express trains, yet they would also make every "stop" along the way. There are usually only two express trains at each end of the day, so this would make a huge difference for all those who cannot make those express trains, or those with stations that are always passed up by the express trains. Yes, there are immense time savings at stake here, in addition to simplifying scheduling and making the trains stay on time better.
*Note the express train will be at maximum speed for most of the trip, while the all-stops train rarely reaches maximum speed and averages far less than that due to all that time spent accelerating/decelerating.
If you decide not to lock your door, that puts you at risk and it's your choice. If some government bureaucrat ignores basic security for a water management system, he is deciding the citizens using that equipment take on risk, and everyone paying taxes for that system take on risk should they have to pay for repairs/replacement. Sure, the one breaking in takes blame too, but that doesn't absolve idiots in power from being deservedly called out for being idiots.
I don't care to live next to a power plant, but if I did, nuclear and hydro would be my top choices (nuclear would edge ahead if I would have to be downstream of the hydro plant), followed very closely by wind. Solar would be a bit behind that (I don't want to live in the desert), and then Natural Gas a bit past that. Coal would be, by far, my last choice.
I think the better solution to an eventual work shortage is to reduce the work week, and effectively double the number of jobs. If the government provides enough for basic living, and homes are built cheap enough that mortgages aren't lifelong debts anymore, it should be easy to live comfortably on less income and with more free time.
I've written to my representative a handful of times and the responses, although not what I wanted, were clearly written to address what I wrote about (so they took time to write different form letters and figure out which fits what I said). I would assume they keep track of how many of which form letter they send out, thereby keeping track of which issues people care about and what side they're on.
Sure, your representative will disregard a lot of what people write, but if they start to see a consistent trend in the letters, they will remember those letters come election time should they face stiff competition at the polls. Of course the problem here is that things like SOPA aren't going to draw many letters (most people wouldn't know about it), but unless you write to congress the issues you care about will never be viewed as important come election day. Keep in mind, you wrote to your senator, who likely has a lot more letters to deal with than your local representative (assuming you don't live in a 1- or 2-rep state).
I've generally assumed that standardized evaluation is pushed by upper management to provide a baseline for the direct mangers to follow. Sure, a manager should know which of his direct reports are capable and which aren't, but how can you compare one manager's "adequate" to another's? A few numbers won't get you a complete picture, but combine those numbers with the manager's opinions and you can better calibrate performance than you could with either evaluation on its own. A PHB will be a PHB no matter what you do, but if you can get some objectivity into his evaluations, you can get a more accurate picture of what kind of talent (or lack thereof) he has under him*.
*Again, the metrics would need to be taken with a grain of salt, but using feedback from good managers you'll have a better idea what the metrics mean, and how to make the metrics more helpful.
your [...] child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries
I don't have time to look up the statistics today but a significant part of this disparity is simply a result of the way infant mortality is counted (I think mainly in the way they define "live birth"). If I recall correctly that doesn't make up all of it, but it's been too long since I've looked into it so I don't recall what the explanation is for the remainder (i.e. what it is that America is doing wrong).
I recognize I'm not making a strong point here without citations, I just mean to make the point you might want to look into the topic a bit before making that claim again (although like I said it might not be wrong but it's kinda misleading, you'll be better able to argue with it, unlike me).
Slashdot Mirror
Many bans on cellphones allow hands-free, but I've always felt it wasn't because it is better to use hands-free, but because it is impossible to enforce. (If someone can back up or refute my assumption, mod him up).
I've actually been hoping for an option like this, and loaded the comments expecting to see many sharing my sentiment. I was very surprised to see so much raging over a checkbox. For a geek website, people seem surprisingly ready to ignore the costs of running a website.
Ideally, they would have a number of ad categories and you pick which can load, that way it is up to the user to define "acceptable".
All journalists write a summary of events, that's kinda what journalism is. Parent was obviously referring to slashdot-style summary of a single source with a link. A journalist gathers information from multiple sources (practically by definition, to get input from "both sides"), and summarizes that. The difference being the journalist did actual research*. Although they only cite so much to their sources, they (should) have to be able to back up their facts if asked. I don't blame you for going for the fun comment, but as much as I'll join in on some of the denouncing of the quality of modern journalism, I would never wish for news to be reduced to the quality of a typical blog.
*That said, yes there are "jounalists" that are less rigourous/honest than a typical blogger, and there are bloggers that are more rigourous and thorough than the typical journalist, but in general I would not conflate the two as equal.
punitive fines which will get passed to the consumer
If only some eBook sellers are hit, then the fines cannot easily be passed to the customer, as they have to keep up with the competition. If they raise prices, they lose customers to the competitors who are able to remain profitable thanks to their lack of fines.
Of course, anti-competitive penalties usually are too small to matter, or most of the industry colludes and there is no fine-free major competitor to prevent a fine-induced price-hike. That just means we need bigger penalties until companies see it more profitable to try and be that odd one out, than to join in on collusion.
How this comment is +5 insightful rather than marked troll, I don't know. I have seen plenty of anti-US posts that I would mod insightful, but those were honest.
"So much as make a peep of a protest"
The OWS protests went on for weeks, and you couldn't go a day without hearing about them (mainstream coverage could have been better, but alternate sources are readily available). Yes, the coordinated crackdowns were overdone but tanks and assault rifles? Citation please. And read up on Tienneman before you claim the US is the worst of the bunch (or anywhere in the same league).
slaughtering our citizens too, having the highest incarceration rate
I'm not proud of this, I want to see an end to the war on drugs, but imprisoning is not the same as slaughtering (see Syria for an example). Also, our inmates are actually quite well off compared to many citizens in the countries you think we outdo (such as NK). So far as I hear, Western Europe has better prison conditions, but you weren't comparing the US to Europe (which would be a good way to earn an insightful mod).
Just because their acts of inhumanity are public and ours are private
We don't have very good numbers on citizens killed in Syria because they've been cracking down on media. As for the US hiding inhumane actions, do you have a citation for that? I've heard that media were held back for some OWS cleanups (which is reprehensible) but the government did nothing to stop them from reporting on that, or interviewing people.
deleting domains off the internet on every server we can get our hands on that disagrees with our political agenda
Yes, we have a censorship problem, but the government isn't rampantly deleting websites - criticism to outright lies against the US government are readily available all over the place. While this is certainly an issue the US needs work on, we are NOT in the same league as countries that not only blanket ban any information supporting taboo topics, but actively put up propaganda against it and take action against those that still seek out the information. Fox news may border on propaganda, but unlike actual censoring regimes you can just as readily tune to another news station or news website for a different viewpoint. Our media could use more variety, sure, but government control isn't the issue.
Of course, it seems you agree with me that most people understand the distinction and do not need it spelled out:
I'm certain I share this sentiment with a large majority
Seems to me you're just complaining for the sake of complaining.
So... "Type M for Murder"?
They just don't want to be held liable when their censorship settings are shown to be flimsy and easily bypassed.
give off neutrino emissions that make it glow like the sun to spy satellites
Learn the difference between neutrons and neutrinos. The latter are incredibly hard to detect (and currently at the heart of the 'faster than light' debate, but I digress), it takes a detector the size of a mountain.
You're obviously lying. There's no way we have any spy satellites the size of a mountain.
Meta posts worry me. I'm always afraid we might manage to slashdot slashdot.
Yes, anti-virus software seems to work fine. I reccommend any of the ones listed here.
I took the parent as referring to the odd accusation of Iranian border patrols apprehending those foolish enough to merely wander too close to the border. I haven't paid enough attention so I don't know whether there is any provable substance to such a reputation. Note he said expandable, as in they can change at a whim (if he was talking about conquering territory he probably would have picked a different word).
In any case, you can get away without introducing cars
The only ferries I've ever been on were for cars, so you kinda did. Maybe you should've used a paraglider analogy, I've never seen a car use a paraglider.
If these companies are influential enough to grant themselves permanent monopolies then they are influential enough to kill any attempt to end patents. Yes, abuse of the patent system is a risk, but it's just a specific instance of "large corporations are a risk to society".
Assuming the temp ban scenario doesn't happen too often in a day, it might be simpler to flag those accounts, and a /. editor then checks the offending comments. If they were trolling, approve the ban, if not, remove mod privelages for the offending accounts. So long as mod rights aren't awarded without positive karma, it takes at least some effort to put together accounts for a ban brigade so this would be some deterrent. Sure, you could use some ban brigade accounts to pump the karma of replacement accounts, but in theory such a pattern of behavior could be tracked if the ban brigades don't stop.
The government is simply trying to define what would be an act of war, as opposed to leaving it undefined. If you're so afraid of aggressive lunatics in the Pentagon you should be very happy the government is preventing them from having free interpretation of what to consider an act of war.
While I agree that it is difficult, if not impossible, to squarely attribute an attack as sponsored by a foreign government, I think it would be bad policy to say we will never consider a military response to any form of cyber attack. If we were at war with China, I would expect them to do all they can to disrupt our economy and infrastructure using cyber warfare. Now picture that same cyber attack but without being at war. Sure, we shouldn't respond by firing a missle the moment we have a hunch who is attacking us, but any non-military threats we make to try to end the attack would be a lot stronger if it is known the next step is to consider physical retaliation (and might encourage the usual suspects to play nice so as to avoid being falsely accused).
That said, I don't want the warmonger types making the calls on this, as I don't expect we could reasonably move beyond just threatening physical retaliation given the uncertainties involved.
don't themselves go through the pier review process
Agreed. Anyone refusing pier review should have their credibility heavily docked.
this would only save time for people who have to regularly make the sort of 'bus-train-bus' connection.
You're missing the whole "no stopping" concept. I live in the Chicago suburbs. There are about a dozen stations between mine and Chicago's Union Station. At rush hour, there is an express train that skips most/all stops between mine and Chicago, and takes about 25 minutes to get to the city. The train that makes all of the stops can take over an hour*. This proposed system would make all trains effectively express trains, yet they would also make every "stop" along the way. There are usually only two express trains at each end of the day, so this would make a huge difference for all those who cannot make those express trains, or those with stations that are always passed up by the express trains. Yes, there are immense time savings at stake here, in addition to simplifying scheduling and making the trains stay on time better.
*Note the express train will be at maximum speed for most of the trip, while the all-stops train rarely reaches maximum speed and averages far less than that due to all that time spent accelerating/decelerating.
If you decide not to lock your door, that puts you at risk and it's your choice. If some government bureaucrat ignores basic security for a water management system, he is deciding the citizens using that equipment take on risk, and everyone paying taxes for that system take on risk should they have to pay for repairs/replacement. Sure, the one breaking in takes blame too, but that doesn't absolve idiots in power from being deservedly called out for being idiots.
nobody wants in their back yard
I don't care to live next to a power plant, but if I did, nuclear and hydro would be my top choices (nuclear would edge ahead if I would have to be downstream of the hydro plant), followed very closely by wind. Solar would be a bit behind that (I don't want to live in the desert), and then Natural Gas a bit past that. Coal would be, by far, my last choice.
I think the better solution to an eventual work shortage is to reduce the work week, and effectively double the number of jobs. If the government provides enough for basic living, and homes are built cheap enough that mortgages aren't lifelong debts anymore, it should be easy to live comfortably on less income and with more free time.
I've written to my representative a handful of times and the responses, although not what I wanted, were clearly written to address what I wrote about (so they took time to write different form letters and figure out which fits what I said). I would assume they keep track of how many of which form letter they send out, thereby keeping track of which issues people care about and what side they're on.
Sure, your representative will disregard a lot of what people write, but if they start to see a consistent trend in the letters, they will remember those letters come election time should they face stiff competition at the polls. Of course the problem here is that things like SOPA aren't going to draw many letters (most people wouldn't know about it), but unless you write to congress the issues you care about will never be viewed as important come election day. Keep in mind, you wrote to your senator, who likely has a lot more letters to deal with than your local representative (assuming you don't live in a 1- or 2-rep state).
I've generally assumed that standardized evaluation is pushed by upper management to provide a baseline for the direct mangers to follow. Sure, a manager should know which of his direct reports are capable and which aren't, but how can you compare one manager's "adequate" to another's? A few numbers won't get you a complete picture, but combine those numbers with the manager's opinions and you can better calibrate performance than you could with either evaluation on its own. A PHB will be a PHB no matter what you do, but if you can get some objectivity into his evaluations, you can get a more accurate picture of what kind of talent (or lack thereof) he has under him*.
*Again, the metrics would need to be taken with a grain of salt, but using feedback from good managers you'll have a better idea what the metrics mean, and how to make the metrics more helpful.
your [...] child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries
I don't have time to look up the statistics today but a significant part of this disparity is simply a result of the way infant mortality is counted (I think mainly in the way they define "live birth"). If I recall correctly that doesn't make up all of it, but it's been too long since I've looked into it so I don't recall what the explanation is for the remainder (i.e. what it is that America is doing wrong).
I recognize I'm not making a strong point here without citations, I just mean to make the point you might want to look into the topic a bit before making that claim again (although like I said it might not be wrong but it's kinda misleading, you'll be better able to argue with it, unlike me).
Not complaining, just trying to be helpful: the word is amount, not "amouth".