3. He used wire that he "happened to have" (quoting the article). He bought it at some point, or found it. Again, not something you or I could normally do.
Consider your audience. I happen to have wire lying around; some of it in my workbench in various lengths.
Really, I know that "state intervention == inefficient" is a popular meme in the US of A, but is there any scientific proof of your assumption?
It's an unreflected-upon article of faith, which explains why it is so popular among the Republican party. Half the Republicans believe in Jesus and the free-market (both on faith). The other half look down their noses at those who believe in Jesus on faith, and instead channel all their irrational and love towards the free market.
Of course, while a belief in the supernatural can never be scientifically proven/disproven (by definition), free-market theories have been shot down, and shot down hard. They're not even internally consistent.
Which isn't to say that the government should control all aspects of the economy. It's just that history teaches us that the middle ground is best.
A corporation ultimately terminates at a single entity who at some point in time put their entire livelihood on the line to create it, and if they want to impose whatever values they want on a platform they provide out of their own money, they absolutely should be allowed to do that
There are other legal structures to reflect that reality, limited partnerships, LLCs, etc. And anyway, that single entity still set up an artifical person. Besides, that's the origin. Norton is owned by a large group of people, who hire managers to run it in a democractic way.
Governments don't require the founders to put their entire livelihoods on the line to found them - corporations do.
Wow, do you have it backwards. First, given VC or a dayjob, it's possible not to risk your livelihood. Given the existence of a welfare state that risk isn't total. Given incorporation, only future income, and not past saved income, are libel to collection.
Second, it is only money. Corporations have, and need, contract signing authority. They can own bank accounts, etc. Given that only money is risked, why would corporations have have rights that extend beyond financial? Now, if the founder was forced to sacrifice his right to freedom of speech, then you might have a case.
Third, creating governments requires not just livelihoods, buts lives. The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged "their fortunes, lives and sacred honor" to the fight against England.
Posting on Norton's forums is a fundamental human right?
To the degree that Norton does not exist except as a legal construct by state and federal law, I would claim that corporations inherit similar obligations as the government. Examples abound-- they cannot refuse to sell you products or hire you because of race or gender. They don't have to invent jobs, but they do have to be fair about giving them out. Similarly, they don't have to create a forum, but they have* to be fair in letting people post there.
*Not under current law, but under how the law should be written.
To preempt strawmen counter-arguments: You cannot post [insert obviously bad thing], just like a minority that showed up to work incapable of performing the job is not protected. However, since this is topical, your attempt to create a bad situation where the line would be drawn somewhere else is irrelevent.
But rather than just regulating, which we know never goes wrong, why not foster a more competitive market as well?
Can you please give me an example of regulation gone wrong. I'll give you counterexamples:
Enron
Current financial crisis
Peanuts/Spinach/etc. epidemics
And, further, I'll claim that power/water/sewage/trash pickup/telecommunications/roads are all infastructure that the rest of the country builds on. Not having that be subject to free market fluctutations makes it harder to build more complex companies (e.g. web services). By keeping these out of the free market, we allow the free market to make far more interesting decisions.
Because if prayer worked that reliably, it woul be out of the realm of religion and into the realm of science. And then there would be some "Higgs boson effect" or "SuperString effect" or somesuch explaination. Science has predictable, but unexplained, effects all the time.
The Authors Guild was suing Google because they said Google didn't have the right to provide full text search results for copyrighted texts (even if the results page of the search only displayed a couple of sentences from the text). Rather than fight out what was probably a legitimate fair-use case, Google simple paid them off.
It wasn't the search results, it was that Google would be required to make a copy of the entire work to provide full text searches.
I disagree, the iPhone was the first to offer a touch screen based UI, a solid internet browser, a usable mobile calendar, and a viable iPod replacement.
What? I had a phone that had all those things back in 2005 (name escapes me at the moment.) I traded up for a phone with real buttons.
You imply a negative correlation (higher postings, lower sales). However, looking at your graph, a positive correlation exists in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006... which leaves only a negative correlation in 2003 and 2005. (And both changes from 2002 to 2003 were insignificant, giving you one data point that supports your conclusion).
Furthermore, instead of charting sales in units, you charted sales in dollars. Given that a trivial reading of your source points out the decreasing prices of CDs, and the decrease of new content (11 new CDs in 2007), this seems to make sense. After all, most karaoke is old songs that, once purchased, don't have to be purchased again.
Also, refuting "correlation is not causation" via shouting is pathetic. There are other ways to do so, try one of them.
I won't second-guess him, and I certainly won't muscle in and compel him to do otherwise. If the author later regrets what he's done, then he's learned a good lesson. Just like anyone else who has made a bad deal. Making mistakes is a part of life; why are authors so special that they should be protected from themselves?
I don't believe anyone should be forced to choose between starving to death, and getting credit for their work, especially when it's something that will last through the ages (e.g. William Shakespeare). Just like with a minimum wage or farm subsidies, you cannot allow people unfettered competition... it leads to market failures.
Yes. Sometime after guaranteeing that no town would have to build bridges, it got to human rights. However, there's no presumption of innocence.
The writ of habeus corpus is not a synonm, and the due process rules only say that there will be due process.
Any way you want to look at it, American law is British law v2. It is an improvement. It also got refactored some, with the multiple sourced British Common Law.
I was astounded. Somehow, the structure of DVDs can be changed, and they can be shrunk to such a degree to allow 250 of them to be stacked in one quarter ( presumably US) sized container.
Turns out, they just were talking about the data on the DVD, not the physical object. There goes my "shipping company based on carrier pidgens" concept.
While this may SEEM predatory, I think this is pretty much the norm - back in the day when I used banner exchanges, they had the same rule. So really, if the government is going to go after Google for that, then it would probably have to be an industry change.
It's also the norm for OS's to have browsers, office suites, e-mail clients and a host of other useful applications bundled. That doesn't mean that it's okay for one company to use that common practice to unfairly bully competitors.
Until you know who launched this, under what circumstances, and in which jurisdiction, don't assume that it's illegal. In other words, innocent until proven guilty
Until you know who launched this, under what circumstances, and in which jurisdiction, don't assume that it's following American conventions. In other words, guilty until proven innocent
d i can make the GPS thing only accessable to the 911 ppls.
Err.... you can make it available to Verizon and 911 people and whoever some tech that has access to the system is willing to lose his job to provide it. Also, look up tirangulation- it can find your radio-wave emitting cellphone.
I think you may need to turn down the rhetoric a little bit. Cable TV/High-Speed Internet is not really a "critical service". We would all survive just fine without them.
Okay, so are cars, grocery stores (we could survive on a few staples delivered monthly with no variety), computers, etc.
High-Speed Internet allows access to economic opportunities. I know a lot of people who telecommute from random locations; without high-speed, they would never have been hired.
Re:Where is the "Opt-out" button or list for this?
on
New Ads That Watch You
·
· Score: 1
So do I. What has it gained us? Nothing. In fact the situation is worse. Knowing that we skip the commercials during their allotted time, the advertisers are now broadcasting their commercials DURING the show.
Even worse than that. People who skip commercials tend to be smarter/wealther. But people who skip commercials weren't valuable as viewers (they skip the revenue model). So TV gets dumber. It spirals downward for a while. Now that TiVos are everywhere, shows may begin to climb out of the gutter.
"Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege."
Read the next section, it says "In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. "
Basically, the steps are: 1) Default to open (after 30 days); 2) Let current AG, current Pres or former Pres change default to secret; 3) Let current Pres override default; 4) Let courts override current Pres.
Rush is correct that full-fledged Socialism hasn't worked anywhere, and his concern is that this move will be ruinous for America.
That's a weak argument. What's "worked"? Name one system that has ever "worked".
Can you name one place where pure capitalism ever "worked".
That arugment strikes me as akin to "if there was a 100% income tax, no one would work, and no tax income. Therefore taxes bad". Of course 0% also gets no tax income, and everyone recognizes both extremes, so arguing about where the line should be drawn by referencing what the world would be like with 100% of either is just dumb.
3. Get a really cheap analog capture card and connect it to the output of the converter and then 4. Have fun streaming video, capturing shows, or making a DVR.
I don't have the specs in front of me, but when I checked (1-2 months ago) there were/are only three models of converter boxes that could be switched channels absent human intervention. Unless he wants to build a remote emulator, he should find one of those three. That way his DVR could change what channel it records.
Since I don't know what preceeded it, I don't know the change. But it does seem reasonable. As I read it:
The archivist gets all this stuff. He flags anything that may be sensitive to executive privledge. He notifies the former president whose administration created it and the current president and AG. The current president can withhold things. The former president can then ask the archivist to withhold those files, but the AG then has to sign off.
And then, if no one says boo, it gets published after 30 days.
It seems pretty reasonable to me, since there is an executive privledge. This one at least has periodic oversight by new executives.
If he is not thinking that far ahead he is a dolt.
Taking your precedent:
1) How would adding civil unions make it MORE likely that the Supreme Court would strike down restrictions on same sex marriage. It seems as though, using your precedent, a simple Vermont marriage is superior for this.
2) The Virgina law was racist, a clear violation of civil rights. It may be sexist to limit marriage by gender, but that's debatable. At any rate, civil unions have zero impact on that..
The case in California had nothing to do with civil unions.
I mean, you can claim the courts will overrule bans on gay marriage, but please show the connection.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider your audience. I happen to have wire lying around; some of it in my workbench in various lengths.
It's an unreflected-upon article of faith, which explains why it is so popular among the Republican party. Half the Republicans believe in Jesus and the free-market (both on faith). The other half look down their noses at those who believe in Jesus on faith, and instead channel all their irrational and love towards the free market.
Of course, while a belief in the supernatural can never be scientifically proven/disproven (by definition), free-market theories have been shot down, and shot down hard. They're not even internally consistent.
Which isn't to say that the government should control all aspects of the economy. It's just that history teaches us that the middle ground is best.
There are other legal structures to reflect that reality, limited partnerships, LLCs, etc. And anyway, that single entity still set up an artifical person. Besides, that's the origin. Norton is owned by a large group of people, who hire managers to run it in a democractic way.
Wow, do you have it backwards. First, given VC or a dayjob, it's possible not to risk your livelihood. Given the existence of a welfare state that risk isn't total. Given incorporation, only future income, and not past saved income, are libel to collection.
Second, it is only money. Corporations have, and need, contract signing authority. They can own bank accounts, etc. Given that only money is risked, why would corporations have have rights that extend beyond financial? Now, if the founder was forced to sacrifice his right to freedom of speech, then you might have a case.
Third, creating governments requires not just livelihoods, buts lives. The signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged "their fortunes, lives and sacred honor" to the fight against England.
To the degree that Norton does not exist except as a legal construct by state and federal law, I would claim that corporations inherit similar obligations as the government. Examples abound-- they cannot refuse to sell you products or hire you because of race or gender. They don't have to invent jobs, but they do have to be fair about giving them out. Similarly, they don't have to create a forum, but they have* to be fair in letting people post there.
*Not under current law, but under how the law should be written.
To preempt strawmen counter-arguments: You cannot post [insert obviously bad thing], just like a minority that showed up to work incapable of performing the job is not protected. However, since this is topical, your attempt to create a bad situation where the line would be drawn somewhere else is irrelevent.
Can you please give me an example of regulation gone wrong. I'll give you counterexamples:
Enron
Current financial crisis
Peanuts/Spinach/etc. epidemics
And, further, I'll claim that power/water/sewage/trash pickup/telecommunications/roads are all infastructure that the rest of the country builds on. Not having that be subject to free market fluctutations makes it harder to build more complex companies (e.g. web services). By keeping these out of the free market, we allow the free market to make far more interesting decisions.
Because if prayer worked that reliably, it woul be out of the realm of religion and into the realm of science. And then there would be some "Higgs boson effect" or "SuperString effect" or somesuch explaination. Science has predictable, but unexplained, effects all the time.
It wasn't the search results, it was that Google would be required to make a copy of the entire work to provide full text searches.
What? I had a phone that had all those things back in 2005 (name escapes me at the moment.) I traded up for a phone with real buttons.
Did you expect no one to click on your link?
You imply a negative correlation (higher postings, lower sales). However, looking at your graph, a positive correlation exists in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006... which leaves only a negative correlation in 2003 and 2005. (And both changes from 2002 to 2003 were insignificant, giving you one data point that supports your conclusion).
Furthermore, instead of charting sales in units, you charted sales in dollars. Given that a trivial reading of your source points out the decreasing prices of CDs, and the decrease of new content (11 new CDs in 2007), this seems to make sense. After all, most karaoke is old songs that, once purchased, don't have to be purchased again.
Also, refuting "correlation is not causation" via shouting is pathetic. There are other ways to do so, try one of them.
I don't believe anyone should be forced to choose between starving to death, and getting credit for their work, especially when it's something that will last through the ages (e.g. William Shakespeare). Just like with a minimum wage or farm subsidies, you cannot allow people unfettered competition... it leads to market failures.
I'm a programmer. But that doesn't mean I don't have better things to do than play with web browsers.
If I wanted to work on yet another solution to an already solved problem, I would write accounting software for fun.
I've wondered that myself. Why would I put anything in my profile, on any site?
I don't. My DHCP server does, as it has a whitelist. And elsewhere there is a whitelist to real-world identity table.
Yes. Sometime after guaranteeing that no town would have to build bridges, it got to human rights. However, there's no presumption of innocence.
The writ of habeus corpus is not a synonm, and the due process rules only say that there will be due process.
Any way you want to look at it, American law is British law v2. It is an improvement. It also got refactored some, with the multiple sourced British Common Law.
I was astounded. Somehow, the structure of DVDs can be changed, and they can be shrunk to such a degree to allow 250 of them to be stacked in one quarter ( presumably US) sized container.
Turns out, they just were talking about the data on the DVD, not the physical object. There goes my "shipping company based on carrier pidgens" concept.
It's also the norm for OS's to have browsers, office suites, e-mail clients and a host of other useful applications bundled. That doesn't mean that it's okay for one company to use that common practice to unfairly bully competitors.
Until you know who launched this, under what circumstances, and in which jurisdiction, don't assume that it's following American conventions. In other words, guilty until proven innocent
Err.... you can make it available to Verizon and 911 people and whoever some tech that has access to the system is willing to lose his job to provide it. Also, look up tirangulation- it can find your radio-wave emitting cellphone.
Okay, so are cars, grocery stores (we could survive on a few staples delivered monthly with no variety), computers, etc.
High-Speed Internet allows access to economic opportunities. I know a lot of people who telecommute from random locations; without high-speed, they would never have been hired.
Even worse than that. People who skip commercials tend to be smarter/wealther. But people who skip commercials weren't valuable as viewers (they skip the revenue model). So TV gets dumber. It spirals downward for a while. Now that TiVos are everywhere, shows may begin to climb out of the gutter.
Read the next section, it says "In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. "
Basically, the steps are: 1) Default to open (after 30 days); 2) Let current AG, current Pres or former Pres change default to secret; 3) Let current Pres override default; 4) Let courts override current Pres.
That's a weak argument. What's "worked"? Name one system that has ever "worked".
Can you name one place where pure capitalism ever "worked".
That arugment strikes me as akin to "if there was a 100% income tax, no one would work, and no tax income. Therefore taxes bad". Of course 0% also gets no tax income, and everyone recognizes both extremes, so arguing about where the line should be drawn by referencing what the world would be like with 100% of either is just dumb.
I don't have the specs in front of me, but when I checked (1-2 months ago) there were/are only three models of converter boxes that could be switched channels absent human intervention. Unless he wants to build a remote emulator, he should find one of those three. That way his DVR could change what channel it records.
I will post later if I find my notes.
Since I don't know what preceeded it, I don't know the change. But it does seem reasonable. As I read it:
The archivist gets all this stuff. He flags anything that may be sensitive to executive privledge. He notifies the former president whose administration created it and the current president and AG. The current president can withhold things. The former president can then ask the archivist to withhold those files, but the AG then has to sign off.
And then, if no one says boo, it gets published after 30 days.
It seems pretty reasonable to me, since there is an executive privledge. This one at least has periodic oversight by new executives.
Taking your precedent:
1) How would adding civil unions make it MORE likely that the Supreme Court would strike down restrictions on same sex marriage. It seems as though, using your precedent, a simple Vermont marriage is superior for this.
2) The Virgina law was racist, a clear violation of civil rights. It may be sexist to limit marriage by gender, but that's debatable. At any rate, civil unions have zero impact on that..
The case in California had nothing to do with civil unions.
I mean, you can claim the courts will overrule bans on gay marriage, but please show the connection.