Not just the plants, but electrical "refueling" stations need to be as ubiquitous as present day refueling stops. Any large scale switch like this needs to be at least as convenient as maintaining the status quo; with a wee bit of variation from price, social pressure (those crazy Joneses!) or conscience.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, the use of "singular they" is a gender-neutral option in English. I've seen it used more lately, although my middle school English teacher would probably cringe at the idea; it still sounds wrong, somehow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
I would've certainly been re-elected for a third term, but decided not to run again because I'd had enough.
You should be very proud of your accomplishments in the political circle, and this decision was just as important as all the rest. You've had a net positive effect on the system, but knew when it was time to step aside and let a new person with a new perspective have their chance.
It's just shocking to me that it is even possible to serve as a politician for a half-century.
Very good and interesting data. I wonder if "per user" is per node, or per literal user. I knew Korea used more than us, but not by that much. Maybe 300gb is adequate, for now. That said, it means that the 300gb limit is specifically in place for the outlying data points (mega-consumers). I don't know if I like ever having a limit, but I suppose it's not as unfair as it seems at face value.
My bad; I am chagrined and not-a-little dumb. Too used to expecting the first paragraph of any story to be about Kim Kardashian or some crap. Still the article's from the end of 2009, and even the usage of the median without a corresponding mean is a *little* bit suspect (I blame my sociology days for distrusting the way statistics are presented by those that have something gain from the presentation). I wonder what the usage is in our future world of 2012, considering all the expanding streaming and social services we have.
First off, I don't know if the situation can be resolved, or if it can be, how to do it. I'm really just grumpy about the whole idea of politics, and trying to turn a thought exercise into a fun discussion so 5:30 arrives faster. To that end, here come some rebuttals, friend!
This guarantees that successful, smart people will not become politicians. They already earn above the average wage.
That might not be true. It certainly guarantees that successful, smart people who are more interested in personal wealth will not become politicians. Smart, successful people that are more interested in leading the country as a whole instead of expanding their personal empires will become politicians, not to make money or grift off some cream, but to actually attempt to successfully lead. Yes, that's a very rare breed of person, but our leaders should be a rare breed. Yeah, I know. My naivete is showing.
So, how'd you like to quit your well paying job for 4 years to boss people around? You'd have to go back to your coding after your congressional employment is gone. But can a coder, who hasn't done even a single LOC in all these years, easily find a job? Will he be comfortable in a cube after leaving his personal office and a bunch of aides?
Another price to pay to be a leader. It becomes about actually thinking you can lead the country in the right direction for a time, instead of landing a cushy job with chubby aides hanging from the "to-be-diddled" shelf. "Politician" really shouldn't be a lifelong career, and if it wasn't, these "smart successful people" will have an exit plan mapped out prior to running for office. If they don't have one in place, well, what do people who actually DO lose elections after 40 years in office do with themselves? Well, my temporary politicians should do whatever that thing is, too. Write a book. Bang a Kennedy. Ex-patriate to New Zealand to continue the hunt for Orlando Bloom. Whatever; done is done, you did your part, and hopefully you added net value, but let the new dude pick up your torch.
Also note that being rich usually correlates with people skills. To get rich (on your own, not from your grandparents' stash) you need to build a business up from the ground. You need to take risks, to negotiate, to work hard. Those are necessary qualities of a politician. A geek from a basement lair simply does not understand how the world works (nor he wants to.) How will he vote for a budget, for example? My guess is that he will be played like a fiddle by professional bureaucrats, heads of departments and agencies.
Agreed. I'm not saying we should put non-people-people (that's fun to type) in office. I'm saying we should not keep people-people (also fun) in office for longer than a pre-specified maximum term. One thing to keep in mind, also, is that with a constant rotation of people, chances are the bureaucrats won't get to keep playing their fiddles all that long, assuming we can attract a high enough caliber of people-people under a "limited-term" Congress. Imagine if your boss changed every few months. I bet you your bippy you'd stay on your toes and just keep grooving to a productive beat through the exchange, since that's gonna be the only constant. Yeah, it'd suck as the employee, but in this case the "boss" should be providing general direction, not assuming the fiddle-position.
On the other side of the problem, democracy presumes that majority is always right. This has been proven wrong many times in human history. This is doubly so today, when people gladly detach themselves from state problems and focus instead on the TV in front of them.
US politicians play on that fact by making the electorate elect them. Once elected, they can do whatever they want, including voting for Obamacare, Patriot act and such. The feedback from voters is delayed by years and very weak. Even then some politicians lose their offices... but a replacement is
Well, we could make the system easier to understand for the noobs (yeah, I agree; that'd be one tough job). Maybe it'd be better to have a bunch of newbies that only make decisions when they're certain they're the right ones than a bunch of asshats that know the system well enough to circumvent the safeties. Hell, maybe simply completely shaking things up for a political generation every 16 years is all that's needed to clear out the rust and oil the machine.
Or maybe make them play the Russian Roulette every election season. Anything that makes it a difficult decision on whether to stay in office to do punch out some bad-ass civic doodies versus leaving office to make your bazillions. Being able to get rich while in office is a shifty little conflict of interest, especially when you factor in the lobbyists. Of COURSE votes are gonna be biased, even if subconsciously (though I rather think it's "blatantly" these days).
Or your threshold thing. Or, you know, whatever. What, am I some sort of career politician that should have all the answers? We both know that if I was, I'd already be running on the "shoot em all and take their wallets" platform. Actually.... hmm. Can I can count on Slashdot's support if I made you all a button or something?
I didn't see the information you cited at the other end of that link, which seems to just announce that a meter has been in place since the end of 2009, starting with Portland. It might be in there somewhere, but I could only spare 5 minutes to poke around. I'm not saying I don't believe you that the median usage is 2-4 GB/mo, but I don't have any data to parse. On top of that, we can probably filter out Comcast internet service users that also subscribe to Comcast's cable or streaming services, as a vast amount of their data usage doesn't count toward a total anyway.
I don't know how close my family is to 300 GB a month, but I'm positive we've got at least one stream (and very often 2 or even 3, if either of my kids have friends over and don't want to watch what I am) rolling for ~12 hours of the day (I work days, my spouse nights, and then there's my kids when I have them in the summers. We don't have cable or satellite; Netflix and various streaming services are how we consume media, period. That's not counting torrents, hi-resolution image downloads, software pushes, my office VPN (in my line of work it's not uncommon for me to transfer a 4+ GB.psd from my home design station overnight so it's RIP'd and ready to print the next morning) etc. Basing my calculations of the leg-work the author in the above link has done, I'd say I'm probably near or past even his family's usage.
Sure, I may be an outlier now, especially when considering how often I bandy hi-res images about, but everyone's bandwidth usage has been steadily increasing... I'm betting it will continue to do so. Very shortly, 300 GB will be a pretty weak cap, and I'm sure Comcast is banking on people creeping past it, so they can spring their trap on us all (hehe, I love over-vilifying Comcast...).
What device are they using to watch? Mine use their PC or our Wii, but I can just about guarantee my PS3 uses significantly more bandwidth than either. Plus, you look at a household where it's not just a few hours a day, but rather 4 rooms all streaming different programs to 4 different devices? These are the houses that require a fast enough pipe to keep up with all that traffic, and they're also the houses that'll gobble that 300 GB cap like a Saltine cracker (the teenage years are a bitch, man).
Someday everybody who consumes video will be a diehard Netflix (more accurately: streaming) user. The simple success of Netflix, Hulu, and the like are pretty powerful heralds of the streaming age. Plus, as a former CenturyLink shill, I can tell you that about 75%* of the bandwidth speed increases I'd sell were *exclusively* to improve streaming services. It's possible I was just good at selling it for that, but it was uncanny.
A huge pipe + hefty fees for going over the limit = nasty, nasty overages on the bill. Seems like we're going backwards in time; like when we were all overusing minutes or racking up long distance charges. I'm not a fan. On top of all that, it's not easy for the average user to track exactly how much bandwidth Netflix uses. I'm fairly savvy, and really have no reason to track my usage at the moment, so I haven't really thought that much about it. As of this moment, I'm sure my HD PS3 uses significantly more bandwidth than my non-HD WII, but who knows exactly what I used last month, total? I guess I could monitor my router logs, if it's smart enough to track data like that, or maybe I can run a network tracking application from a central server... but can Grandma do that? Should she have to? Should I? I'm absolutely SURE that Comcast'd be happy to inform me when I go over my 300 GB limit for a fee, but... oh, wait.
I'm all for letting Comcast shape their internal traffic however they want, so long a the savings or some other benefit get to their customers, but this seems far worse than a simple cap on non-Comcast services; people are gonna get nailed for overage charges and not even really know why, for sure, but have to pay it anyway. When they complain, the Comcast reps will happily add Comcast's streaming service to their bill, informing them that it'll save them money over Netflix or Hulu in the long run (and they'll be right, though it'll be due to Comcast being assholes in the first place). Pretty sneaky, all laid out.
*The other 25% was split among those who did heavy downloads and needed the speed, those trying out a faster speed to see if it would improve gaming or browsing speeds, and other "classical" reasons for a bigger pipe.
What I wouldn't give to be able to vote for [ ] A Giant Sandwich (Unaffiliated). Of course, there are people who'd for [ ] A Douche-Turd (Cthulu), too.
Maybe. But I can tell you that the opportunities for me to "pay as little tax as possible" don't even approach my standard deduction. Maybe if I had the capital to donate a couple cars a year or hire an accountant to go over every purchase or lose the sweet spot amount of cash in Vegas or whatever the hell other small time tricks there are, I might stand a chance at paying a lower percentage tax.
As it is, I'm pretty much guaranteed to be paying 30% or so. Besides, I don't really want to have to play the "find the best loophole to exploit without losing MORE money buying into the loophole in the first place" game. I don't mind paying taxes; I get a LOT of stuff for doing it, from roads to infrastructure to reliable power and more. I just want it to be fair across the board, and a standardized percentage of earnings seems pretty damn fair to me.
Every time I hear the phrase "career politician" I want to gag. The simple fact that being a politician CAN be a life long career is screwed up. A major point of our goverment's design is to have representatives rotating in and out in an effort to combat entrenchment. Well.... the assholes even get RICH on being entrenched.
I figure politicians should only be paid the average wage of the state they represent (that'd incentive for broad spectrum growth, yeah?), and then punted out after 4 years no matter what.
Having a job where you can vote on your own raise is some serious bullshit; being able to keep that job for 50 years (I'm not exaggerating, either: http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm) is bullshit squared. Yeah, yeah; the people keep voting them back into office... but it shouldn't even be possible.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
It's also too soon to really know what's causing many of this issues because the servers have been so erratic. What I thought was my stupid PK5000 router from CenturyLink was actually "emergency maintenence".
I wonder if Leoric is STILL flailing away on my poor Demon Hunter, and I know I'll be clearing a couple of cathedral levels tonight. I ended up just re-playing through act one using the European realms; I may just continue on that way since I don't really care about the RMAH (maybe if I thought I could dedicate the time to start up a D3 Item Brokerage... blah).
However, some stuff IS known and documented. For example, I LOVED the bug that boots you all the way to client login when you equip a shield on your [get this] shield using NPC templar. It's funny, too, that people were not prepared to deal with this (note: being "prepared" doesn't mean you have to be "happy"). Tthe whole thing feels like perfectly synced deja vu of the Diablo 2 launch a decade ago.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
I dunno.... with so much of the logic (like, nearly all of it; even more than WoW) locked down server-side* it seems like it'd be easier to just write a new game with the same interface and textures than patch an existing client. Maybe they could just install a local version of the server logic in a patch? I dunno... but it seems really, really nasty, considering how stupid the client currently is.
*My guess is they've done this to make absolutely sure the real-money AH is "secure". My guess is also that the AH's had serious issues on release day anyway, which is why they're still down at the time of this post.
This is also the Hipster's Guide to Hipstering. Which, I guess, is "cool" now. Fuck em all. What's "cool" is being able to afford food, rent, and vacations. The "cool" kids can enjoy the fact that the rest of us giggle about em from Cabo.
If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul [google.com].
This is why I said the analogy breaks down
In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.
I just meant that it's illegal to view or possess child porn in most jurisdictions. In fact "viewing" has been rather draconian in it's interpretation, until the judge from TFA weighed in.
The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.
I'll say it this way then. A victim of child molestation is damaged greatly. Getting off on the evidence of that tragedy is also a pretty screwed up act, all by itself, and one that should continue to be punishable.
Sometimes acts that don't hurt anybody directly are still crimes. I'll leave it up to you to research others, or not. Thank you very much for the discussion, though. It's been a good one, but I don't think we'll convince each other.
Definitely. For the rest of it all.... I guess our life experiences have been different. I understand your arguments, but I don't agree with your conclusions. That's ok though; we have the same ultimate goal. Maybe we should go into politics together; most of those asshats can't even compromise over what to have for lunch.
First time I've ever seen the "copyright isn't theft" argument used in a discussion of child porn.:) I agree with you that the analogy breaks down if you're looking at the photo as property, and the viewing of the photo as "stealing" the child's image for sexual purposes, but that's not the point.
We can distill this entire discussion down to two conflicting concepts. I believe it is simply wrong, both morally (via "gut") and legally (via research) to view child pornography with the intent of gaining sexual gratification in some form (I also applaud the judge's decision for all the reasons many others have applauded it in other posts). Your position (I think; feel free to correct) is that since the exploitation has already occurred, no further damage is being done to the exploited child, so the viewers of child pornography are not damaging that child, or any other (there's also a sprinkle of privacy violations thrown in - more on this in a moment).
Logically this has led to your position also being that the resources spent on investigating or prosecuting a viewer of child porn would be better spent on going after the creators. My position logically leads to creators, distributors, and viewers ALL be investigated, prosecuted, and rehabilitated (to the extend our justice system is capable), with priority given to the creators and distributors, all while providing the suspects with all the rights they are entitled to, including extreme discretion on the part of the investigators, as even a mistaken accusation relating to child pornography WILL lead to the suspect's ruination.
I don't believe the law enforcement resource pool is so small that this cannot be done. As for privacy concerns; the proper due process we all clamor for daily on this forum takes care of this issue. I'm aware that simplifying the situation to this degree borders on naivete, but without cutting to the heart of the issue, we'll go around in circles yet again. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, I can see all of your points making total sense to items like simulated child porn, child porn where the subject is nearly an adult, or looks to be an adult, or teenagers sending nudies to each other, etc. All gray areas, for sure. Freaky tentacle cartoons loaded with bukakke? Sure, have at; not my thing, but I don't care what gets you going.
But I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one.. That's wrong, and try as I might, I can't think my way around it being wrong (and, as a freedom loving fellow, I've spent quite a bit of brain cycles on it). Maybe we need more definitions of what we mean when we say "child porn".
You've confused "intent" with Orwell's "thoughtcrime". Many actions are only crimes when the intent behind the action is criminal. Killing someone, acquiring stolen property, or damaging property are all examples of this. With intent, they are murder, theft, and vandalism, respectively. Without intent they could be war, ebay, or faulty brakes. Even without intent, consequences are often required anyway; from simple guilt to financial ruin to civil recompense.
The fact is, viewing naked children performing sexual acts for pleasure IS intended, with a REAL criminal intent and a REAL criminal possession (albeit a digital one). Even Orwell's thoughtcrimes were 100% imaginary; this was the entire reason why 1984 was so compelling. We SHOULD be avoiding prosecution of thoughts when no crime has been committed, especially since it's human nature to have an imagination. Just my dreams alone would land me in a Minister of Love's office.
But, and this is the true line in the sand, the moment there's a real child represented, it's not thought anymore. I really don't understand why this distinction is so hard to comprehend. I'm as much for due process, intent, and avoiding accidental (or nefarious) arrests of innocent people as anybody on this forum. Kids getting in trouble for sexting is stupid. An 18 year old kid and his 16 year old daughter should have at, so long as they're careful. I applaud the NYC judge's decision in the article, too.
I will NOT extend my general live and let live way of thinking to the creation, disbursement, and yes, intentional viewing for sexual gratification, of sexually exploited children. If you, somehow, can, I must question either your logic or your sincerity.
Hrrm. We need an analogous comparison. Something less... wrenching.
If a theft is committed, and the thief sells his ill-gotten gains to another person, the buyer commits a crime if he knew exactly what he was buying and did so knowingly. That's what needs to be proven for that crime, which is either possession of stolen property or receipt of stolen property, depending on the jurisdiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods)
It's clear that the buyer contributed to the thief's crime in this case, as the thief profits even more from the original crime, but the possession or purchase of the stolen goods is a crime all by itself. By the same arguments given above, I can say that the buyer doesn't harm the original owner any further; that crime's already been committed, and the stuff's gone. So, why is it illegal? Well, near as I can tell, because it perpetuates and aggravates an already committed crime.
Intellectually, I can draw a parallel to the original creator of child porn, and those that view (receive/possess/whatever) it. It's extremely hard not to jump to conclusions and write my arguments without venom, for obvious reasons, but in attempting to remove the ugliest aspect, I think there are already cases where the precedent has been set, without any "think of the children!" skew.
Well, reading over your response twice, the second time with less vitriol, I can see we want the same end result. Good enough for me. Though if the kid was one of my daughters, I wouldn't see much of a difference between the photographer and the viewers. I'd want them all to pay, and yes, that's vengeance, not justice, and I own it.
In your opinion.
But I don't think people should be arrested for thought crimes.
Actually, it's not in my opinion, in terms of legal right and wrong. It is illegal to view child pornography when you have the intent to do so. Sort of the point of the court judgement in TFA. It's wrong illegally, and since you mention, yes, it IS my opinion that it's wrong, morally, too. As for the thought crimes bit; it's not a thought crime at all. Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not. There's a nice, big, clear difference there.
Looking at a picture is not at all the same thing as raping someone. I don't really care if some guy is looking at a picture lustfully. I really don't.
No, it's not the same as a forcible sexual assault on the child's person. Good work on pointing that out. On the other hand, it IS a rape (or sexual violation) of that child's image and innocence, as I said. Perhaps I should have said that it's not right for someone to revel in a child's documented molestation, instead. I note that your sig guards you against "think of the children" arguments, and usually I'd agree. But in this case, it is entirely about abused children; that's the whole point.
People that view (and doubly so for those that pay for) child pornography are contributing to and creating a market for the wholesale molestation of children. Every kid that gets molested can lay a part of the blame directly at the feet of these people, and it's fucked up and wrong. You can try to apply any logical loopholes you want, but distilling the issue to those terms makes it pretty tough to argue against. It's not about the guy looking at the picture lustfully; it's that the guy looking at the the picture lustfully is why there are pictures of sexual abuse of children in the first place.
We're also not talking lolitas that look 17 but are actually 28 year old meth addicts. We're talking 10 year olds forced to suck cock or get anally raped so the guy you don't care about can get off on it. So yeah, what you call a "thought crime" I call a rape, and yup, that bit IS 100% my opinion, but it's one I'm willing to defend. Maybe fighting this plague will be like the war on drugs; simply not possible to win. But I can't continue to think of myself as a good person if I don't support the fight anyway. Some things are about personal freedom and the choice to live your life the way you want; but a line gets drawn when others' rights get violated, especially those unable to defend themselves.
Nah, the real world equivalent would be "feel free to do your normal van-related activities around a playground without getting arrested when the fat kid trips and accidentally shows you his ass crack." On the other hand, If you're taking your van out of the way in the hopes the fat kid will trip, yeah, you're a fuckup and did something wrong. This shit really isn't hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Not just the plants, but electrical "refueling" stations need to be as ubiquitous as present day refueling stops. Any large scale switch like this needs to be at least as convenient as maintaining the status quo; with a wee bit of variation from price, social pressure (those crazy Joneses!) or conscience.
Actually, the use of "singular they" is a gender-neutral option in English. I've seen it used more lately, although my middle school English teacher would probably cringe at the idea; it still sounds wrong, somehow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
I would've certainly been re-elected for a third term, but decided not to run again because I'd had enough.
You should be very proud of your accomplishments in the political circle, and this decision was just as important as all the rest. You've had a net positive effect on the system, but knew when it was time to step aside and let a new person with a new perspective have their chance.
It's just shocking to me that it is even possible to serve as a politician for a half-century.
Very good and interesting data. I wonder if "per user" is per node, or per literal user. I knew Korea used more than us, but not by that much. Maybe 300gb is adequate, for now. That said, it means that the 300gb limit is specifically in place for the outlying data points (mega-consumers). I don't know if I like ever having a limit, but I suppose it's not as unfair as it seems at face value.
I do wonder though - if 2 hours of streaming is ~4gb, that's 150 hours of video per month. According to this: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-still-primary-video-medium-but-mobile-exhibits-fastest-growth-21067/nielsen-monthly-time-spent-feb-2012jpg/ we spend 150 (almost) hours per month watching TV. It seems reasonable that as streaming takes the place of plain old TV (and as to-the-node pipes get bigger), our consumption will increase pretty dramatically.
My bad; I am chagrined and not-a-little dumb. Too used to expecting the first paragraph of any story to be about Kim Kardashian or some crap. Still the article's from the end of 2009, and even the usage of the median without a corresponding mean is a *little* bit suspect (I blame my sociology days for distrusting the way statistics are presented by those that have something gain from the presentation). I wonder what the usage is in our future world of 2012, considering all the expanding streaming and social services we have.
This guarantees that successful, smart people will not become politicians. They already earn above the average wage.
That might not be true. It certainly guarantees that successful, smart people who are more interested in personal wealth will not become politicians. Smart, successful people that are more interested in leading the country as a whole instead of expanding their personal empires will become politicians, not to make money or grift off some cream, but to actually attempt to successfully lead. Yes, that's a very rare breed of person, but our leaders should be a rare breed. Yeah, I know. My naivete is showing.
So, how'd you like to quit your well paying job for 4 years to boss people around? You'd have to go back to your coding after your congressional employment is gone. But can a coder, who hasn't done even a single LOC in all these years, easily find a job? Will he be comfortable in a cube after leaving his personal office and a bunch of aides?
Another price to pay to be a leader. It becomes about actually thinking you can lead the country in the right direction for a time, instead of landing a cushy job with chubby aides hanging from the "to-be-diddled" shelf. "Politician" really shouldn't be a lifelong career, and if it wasn't, these "smart successful people" will have an exit plan mapped out prior to running for office. If they don't have one in place, well, what do people who actually DO lose elections after 40 years in office do with themselves? Well, my temporary politicians should do whatever that thing is, too. Write a book. Bang a Kennedy. Ex-patriate to New Zealand to continue the hunt for Orlando Bloom. Whatever; done is done, you did your part, and hopefully you added net value, but let the new dude pick up your torch.
Also note that being rich usually correlates with people skills. To get rich (on your own, not from your grandparents' stash) you need to build a business up from the ground. You need to take risks, to negotiate, to work hard. Those are necessary qualities of a politician. A geek from a basement lair simply does not understand how the world works (nor he wants to.) How will he vote for a budget, for example? My guess is that he will be played like a fiddle by professional bureaucrats, heads of departments and agencies.
Agreed. I'm not saying we should put non-people-people (that's fun to type) in office. I'm saying we should not keep people-people (also fun) in office for longer than a pre-specified maximum term. One thing to keep in mind, also, is that with a constant rotation of people, chances are the bureaucrats won't get to keep playing their fiddles all that long, assuming we can attract a high enough caliber of people-people under a "limited-term" Congress. Imagine if your boss changed every few months. I bet you your bippy you'd stay on your toes and just keep grooving to a productive beat through the exchange, since that's gonna be the only constant. Yeah, it'd suck as the employee, but in this case the "boss" should be providing general direction, not assuming the fiddle-position.
On the other side of the problem, democracy presumes that majority is always right. This has been proven wrong many times in human history. This is doubly so today, when people gladly detach themselves from state problems and focus instead on the TV in front of them. US politicians play on that fact by making the electorate elect them. Once elected, they can do whatever they want, including voting for Obamacare, Patriot act and such. The feedback from voters is delayed by years and very weak. Even then some politicians lose their offices... but a replacement is
Well, we could make the system easier to understand for the noobs (yeah, I agree; that'd be one tough job). Maybe it'd be better to have a bunch of newbies that only make decisions when they're certain they're the right ones than a bunch of asshats that know the system well enough to circumvent the safeties. Hell, maybe simply completely shaking things up for a political generation every 16 years is all that's needed to clear out the rust and oil the machine.
Or maybe make them play the Russian Roulette every election season. Anything that makes it a difficult decision on whether to stay in office to do punch out some bad-ass civic doodies versus leaving office to make your bazillions. Being able to get rich while in office is a shifty little conflict of interest, especially when you factor in the lobbyists. Of COURSE votes are gonna be biased, even if subconsciously (though I rather think it's "blatantly" these days).
Or your threshold thing. Or, you know, whatever. What, am I some sort of career politician that should have all the answers? We both know that if I was, I'd already be running on the "shoot em all and take their wallets" platform. Actually.... hmm. Can I can count on Slashdot's support if I made you all a button or something?
I didn't see the information you cited at the other end of that link, which seems to just announce that a meter has been in place since the end of 2009, starting with Portland. It might be in there somewhere, but I could only spare 5 minutes to poke around. I'm not saying I don't believe you that the median usage is 2-4 GB/mo, but I don't have any data to parse. On top of that, we can probably filter out Comcast internet service users that also subscribe to Comcast's cable or streaming services, as a vast amount of their data usage doesn't count toward a total anyway.
.psd from my home design station overnight so it's RIP'd and ready to print the next morning) etc. Basing my calculations of the leg-work the author in the above link has done, I'd say I'm probably near or past even his family's usage.
This was a pretty good read, and it's a year old: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/dsl-service-cable-service-internet-service,news-10514.html. Data usage has only gone up from there.
I don't know how close my family is to 300 GB a month, but I'm positive we've got at least one stream (and very often 2 or even 3, if either of my kids have friends over and don't want to watch what I am) rolling for ~12 hours of the day (I work days, my spouse nights, and then there's my kids when I have them in the summers. We don't have cable or satellite; Netflix and various streaming services are how we consume media, period. That's not counting torrents, hi-resolution image downloads, software pushes, my office VPN (in my line of work it's not uncommon for me to transfer a 4+ GB
Sure, I may be an outlier now, especially when considering how often I bandy hi-res images about, but everyone's bandwidth usage has been steadily increasing... I'm betting it will continue to do so. Very shortly, 300 GB will be a pretty weak cap, and I'm sure Comcast is banking on people creeping past it, so they can spring their trap on us all (hehe, I love over-vilifying Comcast...).
What device are they using to watch? Mine use their PC or our Wii, but I can just about guarantee my PS3 uses significantly more bandwidth than either. Plus, you look at a household where it's not just a few hours a day, but rather 4 rooms all streaming different programs to 4 different devices? These are the houses that require a fast enough pipe to keep up with all that traffic, and they're also the houses that'll gobble that 300 GB cap like a Saltine cracker (the teenage years are a bitch, man).
Someday everybody who consumes video will be a diehard Netflix (more accurately: streaming) user. The simple success of Netflix, Hulu, and the like are pretty powerful heralds of the streaming age. Plus, as a former CenturyLink shill, I can tell you that about 75%* of the bandwidth speed increases I'd sell were *exclusively* to improve streaming services. It's possible I was just good at selling it for that, but it was uncanny.
A huge pipe + hefty fees for going over the limit = nasty, nasty overages on the bill. Seems like we're going backwards in time; like when we were all overusing minutes or racking up long distance charges. I'm not a fan. On top of all that, it's not easy for the average user to track exactly how much bandwidth Netflix uses. I'm fairly savvy, and really have no reason to track my usage at the moment, so I haven't really thought that much about it. As of this moment, I'm sure my HD PS3 uses significantly more bandwidth than my non-HD WII, but who knows exactly what I used last month, total? I guess I could monitor my router logs, if it's smart enough to track data like that, or maybe I can run a network tracking application from a central server... but can Grandma do that? Should she have to? Should I? I'm absolutely SURE that Comcast'd be happy to inform me when I go over my 300 GB limit for a fee, but... oh, wait.
I'm all for letting Comcast shape their internal traffic however they want, so long a the savings or some other benefit get to their customers, but this seems far worse than a simple cap on non-Comcast services; people are gonna get nailed for overage charges and not even really know why, for sure, but have to pay it anyway. When they complain, the Comcast reps will happily add Comcast's streaming service to their bill, informing them that it'll save them money over Netflix or Hulu in the long run (and they'll be right, though it'll be due to Comcast being assholes in the first place). Pretty sneaky, all laid out.
*The other 25% was split among those who did heavy downloads and needed the speed, those trying out a faster speed to see if it would improve gaming or browsing speeds, and other "classical" reasons for a bigger pipe.
What I wouldn't give to be able to vote for [ ] A Giant Sandwich (Unaffiliated). Of course, there are people who'd for [ ] A Douche-Turd (Cthulu), too.
Maybe. But I can tell you that the opportunities for me to "pay as little tax as possible" don't even approach my standard deduction. Maybe if I had the capital to donate a couple cars a year or hire an accountant to go over every purchase or lose the sweet spot amount of cash in Vegas or whatever the hell other small time tricks there are, I might stand a chance at paying a lower percentage tax.
As it is, I'm pretty much guaranteed to be paying 30% or so. Besides, I don't really want to have to play the "find the best loophole to exploit without losing MORE money buying into the loophole in the first place" game. I don't mind paying taxes; I get a LOT of stuff for doing it, from roads to infrastructure to reliable power and more. I just want it to be fair across the board, and a standardized percentage of earnings seems pretty damn fair to me.
Every time I hear the phrase "career politician" I want to gag. The simple fact that being a politician CAN be a life long career is screwed up. A major point of our goverment's design is to have representatives rotating in and out in an effort to combat entrenchment. Well.... the assholes even get RICH on being entrenched.
I figure politicians should only be paid the average wage of the state they represent (that'd incentive for broad spectrum growth, yeah?), and then punted out after 4 years no matter what.
Having a job where you can vote on your own raise is some serious bullshit; being able to keep that job for 50 years (I'm not exaggerating, either: http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm) is bullshit squared. Yeah, yeah; the people keep voting them back into office... but it shouldn't even be possible.
It's also too soon to really know what's causing many of this issues because the servers have been so erratic. What I thought was my stupid PK5000 router from CenturyLink was actually "emergency maintenence".
I wonder if Leoric is STILL flailing away on my poor Demon Hunter, and I know I'll be clearing a couple of cathedral levels tonight. I ended up just re-playing through act one using the European realms; I may just continue on that way since I don't really care about the RMAH (maybe if I thought I could dedicate the time to start up a D3 Item Brokerage... blah).
However, some stuff IS known and documented. For example, I LOVED the bug that boots you all the way to client login when you equip a shield on your [get this] shield using NPC templar. It's funny, too, that people were not prepared to deal with this (note: being "prepared" doesn't mean you have to be "happy"). Tthe whole thing feels like perfectly synced deja vu of the Diablo 2 launch a decade ago.
I dunno.... with so much of the logic (like, nearly all of it; even more than WoW) locked down server-side* it seems like it'd be easier to just write a new game with the same interface and textures than patch an existing client. Maybe they could just install a local version of the server logic in a patch? I dunno... but it seems really, really nasty, considering how stupid the client currently is.
*My guess is they've done this to make absolutely sure the real-money AH is "secure". My guess is also that the AH's had serious issues on release day anyway, which is why they're still down at the time of this post.
This is also the Hipster's Guide to Hipstering. Which, I guess, is "cool" now. Fuck em all. What's "cool" is being able to afford food, rent, and vacations. The "cool" kids can enjoy the fact that the rest of us giggle about em from Cabo.
It was depressing thinking no one cared when in reality no one knew.
These are not mutually exclusive.
:)
I hope the surgery was successful, though.
If we're going there, why not go full retarded and claim that taking a photograph of someone steals their soul [google.com].
This is why I said the analogy breaks down
In the moral sense I agree with you; in the legal sense I'm not sure what you mean, but I don't think I agree.
I just meant that it's illegal to view or possess child porn in most jurisdictions. In fact "viewing" has been rather draconian in it's interpretation, until the judge from TFA weighed in.
The first half of that statement is tragic, I'll agree, but I don't agree with the "so [that]" connection you made between it and the last half.
I'll say it this way then. A victim of child molestation is damaged greatly. Getting off on the evidence of that tragedy is also a pretty screwed up act, all by itself, and one that should continue to be punishable.
Sometimes acts that don't hurt anybody directly are still crimes. I'll leave it up to you to research others, or not. Thank you very much for the discussion, though. It's been a good one, but I don't think we'll convince each other.
We just need to ensure more don't get made.
Definitely. For the rest of it all.... I guess our life experiences have been different. I understand your arguments, but I don't agree with your conclusions. That's ok though; we have the same ultimate goal. Maybe we should go into politics together; most of those asshats can't even compromise over what to have for lunch.
First time I've ever seen the "copyright isn't theft" argument used in a discussion of child porn. :) I agree with you that the analogy breaks down if you're looking at the photo as property, and the viewing of the photo as "stealing" the child's image for sexual purposes, but that's not the point.
We can distill this entire discussion down to two conflicting concepts. I believe it is simply wrong, both morally (via "gut") and legally (via research) to view child pornography with the intent of gaining sexual gratification in some form (I also applaud the judge's decision for all the reasons many others have applauded it in other posts). Your position (I think; feel free to correct) is that since the exploitation has already occurred, no further damage is being done to the exploited child, so the viewers of child pornography are not damaging that child, or any other (there's also a sprinkle of privacy violations thrown in - more on this in a moment).
Logically this has led to your position also being that the resources spent on investigating or prosecuting a viewer of child porn would be better spent on going after the creators. My position logically leads to creators, distributors, and viewers ALL be investigated, prosecuted, and rehabilitated (to the extend our justice system is capable), with priority given to the creators and distributors, all while providing the suspects with all the rights they are entitled to, including extreme discretion on the part of the investigators, as even a mistaken accusation relating to child pornography WILL lead to the suspect's ruination.
I don't believe the law enforcement resource pool is so small that this cannot be done. As for privacy concerns; the proper due process we all clamor for daily on this forum takes care of this issue. I'm aware that simplifying the situation to this degree borders on naivete, but without cutting to the heart of the issue, we'll go around in circles yet again. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. On the other hand, I can see all of your points making total sense to items like simulated child porn, child porn where the subject is nearly an adult, or looks to be an adult, or teenagers sending nudies to each other, etc. All gray areas, for sure. Freaky tentacle cartoons loaded with bukakke? Sure, have at; not my thing, but I don't care what gets you going.
But I'm thinking of the 10 year old girl having her life and psyche wrecked so some damaged mind can rub out that quick one.. That's wrong, and try as I might, I can't think my way around it being wrong (and, as a freedom loving fellow, I've spent quite a bit of brain cycles on it). Maybe we need more definitions of what we mean when we say "child porn".
You've confused "intent" with Orwell's "thoughtcrime". Many actions are only crimes when the intent behind the action is criminal. Killing someone, acquiring stolen property, or damaging property are all examples of this. With intent, they are murder, theft, and vandalism, respectively. Without intent they could be war, ebay, or faulty brakes. Even without intent, consequences are often required anyway; from simple guilt to financial ruin to civil recompense.
The fact is, viewing naked children performing sexual acts for pleasure IS intended, with a REAL criminal intent and a REAL criminal possession (albeit a digital one). Even Orwell's thoughtcrimes were 100% imaginary; this was the entire reason why 1984 was so compelling. We SHOULD be avoiding prosecution of thoughts when no crime has been committed, especially since it's human nature to have an imagination. Just my dreams alone would land me in a Minister of Love's office.
But, and this is the true line in the sand, the moment there's a real child represented, it's not thought anymore. I really don't understand why this distinction is so hard to comprehend. I'm as much for due process, intent, and avoiding accidental (or nefarious) arrests of innocent people as anybody on this forum. Kids getting in trouble for sexting is stupid. An 18 year old kid and his 16 year old daughter should have at, so long as they're careful. I applaud the NYC judge's decision in the article, too.
I will NOT extend my general live and let live way of thinking to the creation, disbursement, and yes, intentional viewing for sexual gratification, of sexually exploited children. If you, somehow, can, I must question either your logic or your sincerity.
Hrrm. We need an analogous comparison. Something less... wrenching.
If a theft is committed, and the thief sells his ill-gotten gains to another person, the buyer commits a crime if he knew exactly what he was buying and did so knowingly. That's what needs to be proven for that crime, which is either possession of stolen property or receipt of stolen property, depending on the jurisdiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods)
It's clear that the buyer contributed to the thief's crime in this case, as the thief profits even more from the original crime, but the possession or purchase of the stolen goods is a crime all by itself. By the same arguments given above, I can say that the buyer doesn't harm the original owner any further; that crime's already been committed, and the stuff's gone. So, why is it illegal? Well, near as I can tell, because it perpetuates and aggravates an already committed crime.
Intellectually, I can draw a parallel to the original creator of child porn, and those that view (receive/possess/whatever) it. It's extremely hard not to jump to conclusions and write my arguments without venom, for obvious reasons, but in attempting to remove the ugliest aspect, I think there are already cases where the precedent has been set, without any "think of the children!" skew.
Well, reading over your response twice, the second time with less vitriol, I can see we want the same end result. Good enough for me. Though if the kid was one of my daughters, I wouldn't see much of a difference between the photographer and the viewers. I'd want them all to pay, and yes, that's vengeance, not justice, and I own it.
In your opinion. But I don't think people should be arrested for thought crimes.
Actually, it's not in my opinion, in terms of legal right and wrong. It is illegal to view child pornography when you have the intent to do so. Sort of the point of the court judgement in TFA. It's wrong illegally, and since you mention, yes, it IS my opinion that it's wrong, morally, too. As for the thought crimes bit; it's not a thought crime at all. Imagining child porn would be a thought crime. Viewing actual child porn is not. There's a nice, big, clear difference there.
Looking at a picture is not at all the same thing as raping someone. I don't really care if some guy is looking at a picture lustfully. I really don't.
No, it's not the same as a forcible sexual assault on the child's person. Good work on pointing that out. On the other hand, it IS a rape (or sexual violation) of that child's image and innocence, as I said. Perhaps I should have said that it's not right for someone to revel in a child's documented molestation, instead. I note that your sig guards you against "think of the children" arguments, and usually I'd agree. But in this case, it is entirely about abused children; that's the whole point.
People that view (and doubly so for those that pay for) child pornography are contributing to and creating a market for the wholesale molestation of children. Every kid that gets molested can lay a part of the blame directly at the feet of these people, and it's fucked up and wrong. You can try to apply any logical loopholes you want, but distilling the issue to those terms makes it pretty tough to argue against. It's not about the guy looking at the picture lustfully; it's that the guy looking at the the picture lustfully is why there are pictures of sexual abuse of children in the first place.
We're also not talking lolitas that look 17 but are actually 28 year old meth addicts. We're talking 10 year olds forced to suck cock or get anally raped so the guy you don't care about can get off on it. So yeah, what you call a "thought crime" I call a rape, and yup, that bit IS 100% my opinion, but it's one I'm willing to defend. Maybe fighting this plague will be like the war on drugs; simply not possible to win. But I can't continue to think of myself as a good person if I don't support the fight anyway. Some things are about personal freedom and the choice to live your life the way you want; but a line gets drawn when others' rights get violated, especially those unable to defend themselves.
Nah, the real world equivalent would be "feel free to do your normal van-related activities around a playground without getting arrested when the fat kid trips and accidentally shows you his ass crack." On the other hand, If you're taking your van out of the way in the hopes the fat kid will trip, yeah, you're a fuckup and did something wrong. This shit really isn't hard.