Has your cult membership driven you to paranoia now?
and you still don't understand what the concept of rights is
Strange conclusion you make, there.
so what's there to talk about, when you don't get simplest of terms?
That is the best response you have, after I show that ron paul wants to expand corporate rights? If they are not rights, then what do you see them as? What is the redefined word you use to describe what ron paul wants to give to corporations?
There are no group rights, there are no 'rights' of employers or 'rights' of employees, there cannot be an entitlement given to one group and an obligation piled onto another group by gov't, (which is the case with all labour laws, including minimum wage), this is destruction of rights, not creation of rights.
First of all, labour rights do not pile up obligations onto a group. Nobody is forcing anyone to do business. If the employers were, for example, employing only themselves, they would have no minimum wage to worry about.
Furthermore, you just talked about "destruction of rights". Ron paul wants to undo these acts that you attribute to "destruction of rights". How is that not expanding rights, giving rights, or giving more rights?
In other words, you just boxed yourself in with your own words. I'd be interested in seeing you respond, though I won't hold my breath for you to make any kind of meaningful response. You seem to be challenged to even reply without reaching for insults, which indicates you don't actually want to talk to anyone whose opinions differ from your own - that or you have come to realize that your assumptions don't actually work in the real world and this scares you.
... is not due much to the loss of users. It is due primarily to the fact that the investors realized facebook has no long-term business plan. The notion of "bring in users, sell their information" only works for so long. They don't have a good plan for getting users of mobile devices to pay attention to advertising. They don't have a plan to keep users interested. Eventually the novelty wears off.
Facebook wants people to believe they are the next google. They are more likely the next AOL.
One holiday season when I was returning to my original home for a little over a week I considered renting a car to make it easier to get around. Car rental companies utterly rape customers on costs over the holiday (the same imaginary supply and demand bit that causes gas prices to go up and down at convenient times) to the point where I would have paid 10x as much for a really lousy rental car than I did for round trip airfare.
I thought perhaps I could get around the stupidity by trying to rent a car through craigslist. I posted an ad "I want to rent your car" and after getting a reply from one idiot who thought himself funny, the ad was removed within 24 hours.
But there is definitely a market for this. People do have cars that they don't always need, and people have a demand for cars that they need for just a short bit of time. Not everyone has the disposable income to pay a rental car company for a car, either. Even the cheapest Hyundai shitbox gets expensive quickly. A one-week rental of a Hyundai is equal to about 10% of the car's MSRP on the lot.
I heard that Fringe will be starting its final season (and an abridged final season, at that) and the cast will be at Comic-Con. IMHO it is one of the best sci-fi series set on present-day earth that we've seen since... well maybe ever. I would have loved to have seen several more seasons but apparently this is it.
Really, it had practically everything a sci-fi guy could ask for in a series:
Alternate universes
Leonard Nimoy
Time Travel
Leonard Nimoy
A hot leading lady
Leonard Nimoy
Quirky characters
Leonard Nimoy
Cool, but not completely outlandish, technology
Leonard Nimoy
A Cryptography system that rewards viewers for watching multiple episodes
Leonard Nimoy
And did I mention Leonard Nimoy is in it?
It should also get credit for the smartest soundtrack on broadcast television since The Wonder Years (actually it's even better than that).
Yeah, that notion worked real well with Al-Qaeda flew planes into buildings in the US. They were clearly terrified of attacking a nuclear-armed state.
And don't give me the "stateless" argument, either. Just because they weren't affiliated with a state doesn't mean they couldn't be counterattacked. The US used it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq as well. Al-Qadea knew there would be retaliation, and they did it anyways.
In other words, nukes don't prevent wars or violent acts.
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
What? Are YOU new here?
My account may be newer than yours, but I have written far more comments. You haven't even cleared 600 total comments since starting your account. Being as comments posted is generally a good indication of comments read, it would not be unreasonable to say that I read a lot more slashdot comments and discussions than you.
Hence, when I point out that the doctrines of Ron Paul are slashdot political groupthink, I am more likely to know what I am talking about.
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
There is zero evidence to support that notion. While this article hasn't had much comment volume yet, it is already the most commented on in the past several days and it isn't even 12 hours old yet. Just wait until the sun rises across the rest of the western hemisphere and more slashdot paullowers wake up to comment on it. The numbers will go through the roof.
For that matter, the frequency of "Dr. Paul" is an indication of how firmly entrenched his extreme right ideology is here. If we go back to 2004 when Howard Dean was running for the democratic nomination, his 7 slashdot supporters (including myself) did not run around insisting on calling him "Dr. Dean" even though he has the same medical training. Yet the Ron Paul cultists insist on referring to their dear leader as "Dr. Paul". I would wager that if the search engine worked here we would find that the term "Dr. Paul" occurs on slashdot at least 8 times more often than on the internet in general and probably 20x more than in any site where the message is "WAAAAY to the left", as you claim.
I'm not so sure. I would rather have net neutrality myself, and this is exactly the opposite of that (it even says that on the website). It's another of his "let the free market fix all the problems" approaches. Of course some paullowers - especially some of the ones here on slashdot - will insist that he is the lord, savior, and the only source of true knowledge.
I suspect any comments in this discussion that don't support ron paul will likely be quickly and severely moderated into oblivion. Thankfully, I have karma to burn. Others might not be so lucky and might not want to pick a fight here with the leagues of slashdot paullowers.
The Pauls want "internet freedom" - which includes the opposite of net neutrality - so that they can better deploy it as a way to bring in new recruits to their cult. By giving more power to corporations (as they propose) it is easier for them to ensure that their message is heard over the messages that counter their own. They'll be able to pay ISPs and search engines to ensure that traffic searching for counter ideas or even related ideas always end up directing to their website instead.
Just remember, the main difference between a religion and a cult is in the number of adherents. Right now Ron Paul has a cult. A few thousand more worshippers and he has a church (with tax exempt status, of course!).
Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here. If he said tomorrow afternoon that Coca-Cola should indenture their employees to invade Malaysia, slashdot would come out in roaring support of it because his is the majority opinion here, by a long shot. It would quickly be endorsed by slashdot as the greatest idea in the history of mankind - or at least, the greatest idea since ron paul's invention of the internet.
Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.
Indeed. A lot of people regard Zuckerberg as some kind of genius wunderkind who thought up facebook completely on his own, with no existing anything to guide him towards it. Which is, of course, sheer and utter bullshit.
Can he run a business? Who knows. His dad is a small business owner (a dentist, IIRC) and probably has good contacts. Of course the bigger question that nobody knows the answer to is what is the long-term business plan for facebook. There is no sign that anyone has even come up with one, really. People are trying to portray them as the next Microsoft, Apple, or Google. I think if they don't come up with a coherent plan soon they will more likely be the next AOL or CompUSA.
I'm not opposed to the technology outright. I'm just concerned that if it were deployed to the wrong drivers it could diminish the proper degree of fear that they should have for the conditions.
In other words, it could do the same thing that AWD has done in far too many cases, and end up leading to drivers who ignore the laws of physics. The technology itself is neither good nor bad; however the results of having it can be catastrophic in the hands of the wrong, inexperienced drivers.
Personally, I think everyone should learn how to drive in the snow and rain in a RWD car with no traction control and a lot of torque. Once they understand how that works, then they'll realize what they should avoid in other setups. I once drove through a snow squall - near whiteout conditions - in Upstate New York in a 95 mustang GT. I made it through fine, by keeping to a reasonable speed for the conditions and keeping my distance from other vehicles. Every vehicle that was in the ditches (most of which were on their roofs) as I drove past was AWD. Every. Single. One. And most of them were newer than my car as well.
An experienced driver knows how to see through the snow, and what the appropriate speed is to drive when snow is falling. Give technology like this to an inexperienced driver and you could end up with drivers who are not driving appropriately for the conditions - at which point bad things happen. And unfortunately driver errors often have consequences for people beyond just the driver of one car...
The only approach that ever had a meaningful and demonstrable effect on spam was to interrupt the flow of money. It makes sense that the same could be helpful for piracy - or at least, for large-scale piracy. Obviously this does nothing to stop people from burning and sharing discs.
Will this set off radar detectors that drivers are using, or does it operate on different bands? Would it interfere with radar guns used by police depts (I presume the answer to this one is no or it likely wouldn't be approved)?
run a successful high-tech start-up for many decades
How can you possibly say that Zuckerberg will run a company for many decades, when he isn't even many decades old? He hasn't even been old enough to drive a car for a decade, let alone old enough to run a company for "many decades". Being as facebook is doing less-than-brilliantly in the stock market, it seems at the very least overly optimistic to say that it will be around for "many decades".
It is important to shine light on fraudulent work in science, for sure. As others have already pointed out in this discussion, some work is impractical to reproduce and that is not the purpose of peer review any ways.
In science, just like every other occupation on earth, there are people doing shoddy and/or fraudulent work. It is a function of humanity in general and no occupation is immune to it. The important thing is that this person has been exposed as a fake, and his identity and record are well known as such. While you cannot prevent every fraud and fake, every time, showing a thorough debunking and dismissal of one when they come does help to discourage future abuses.
If the article is really trying to ask whether or not the command line has "outstayed its welcome", the case of user support is irrelevant and not useful for arguing the case one way or the other. Some users will always have a use for the command line - I for one use it all the time, in both windows and *nix. Just because Joe consumer doesn't use it doesn't mean it isn't "welcome" at all. Feel free to make it less obvious for regular users, but this case doesn't do diddly towards an argument for abolishing it entirely.
If [...] B offers some amount that is higher they will go tell C what the offer was from B and ask them to beat that offer.
And on eBay, each bidder knows when he has been outbid. How is this different?
A couple important ways
eBay auctions follow a time limit. Everyone has a set amount of time to get in their bids and try to outbid the other people who want the same item
eBay auctions don't reveal the identity of the other bidders, or the maximum bids that they placed. In the case of a cronyism driven auction both of those bits of information are likely given away (at least to the favored bidder) in order to get more money for the item
In other words, it really isn't like eBay. Few people would want eBay to operate like that - especially bidders.
Being as ICANN is not telling what is going on, they are likely manipulating the system to maximize their own profits. They have shown lately that the most certainly don't give a damn about the consequences that their crappy decisions have on the internet or any users of it.
So this will make it closer to an auction, which is what should have been done in the first place?
Somewhat (though ultimately no), and no.
It somewhat makes it closer to an auction in that more money wins the contest. However, most auctions follow a time table and have some sort of equal chance for bidding. Bribery - which is likely closer to what ICANN is after as they are openly crooked - does not care about equality. If they have companies A B and C bidding for the gTLD.icannsucksass, they will shop it around to all three. If they like company C better than B, but B offers some amount that is higher they will go tell C what the offer was from B and ask them to beat that offer. In other words, they will take bribes and combine it with cronyism.
As for what should have been done in the first place, the right thing to do was to not sell gTLDs at all. There are many, many, bad things that can come from this and very exceedingly few good things. They are doing this not because it improves anything but because it brings in more money. Read the full statement of what is given to the company who buys a gTLD and tell me that it is not a bad thing...
Slashdot Mirror
... Just like major league baseball.
(since you stalk my comments)
Has your cult membership driven you to paranoia now?
and you still don't understand what the concept of rights is
Strange conclusion you make, there.
so what's there to talk about, when you don't get simplest of terms?
That is the best response you have, after I show that ron paul wants to expand corporate rights? If they are not rights, then what do you see them as? What is the redefined word you use to describe what ron paul wants to give to corporations?
There are no group rights, there are no 'rights' of employers or 'rights' of employees, there cannot be an entitlement given to one group and an obligation piled onto another group by gov't, (which is the case with all labour laws, including minimum wage), this is destruction of rights, not creation of rights.
First of all, labour rights do not pile up obligations onto a group. Nobody is forcing anyone to do business. If the employers were, for example, employing only themselves, they would have no minimum wage to worry about.
Furthermore, you just talked about "destruction of rights". Ron paul wants to undo these acts that you attribute to "destruction of rights". How is that not expanding rights, giving rights, or giving more rights?
In other words, you just boxed yourself in with your own words. I'd be interested in seeing you respond, though I won't hold my breath for you to make any kind of meaningful response. You seem to be challenged to even reply without reaching for insults, which indicates you don't actually want to talk to anyone whose opinions differ from your own - that or you have come to realize that your assumptions don't actually work in the real world and this scares you.
Ron Paul does not "believe in elevating rights of corporations", this is pure pro-government propaganda (pro Democratic government propaganda).
Really? How do these principles that Ron Paul so proudly champions not do exactly that?
Those, along with many other things he has touted as pillars of his campaign, are undoubtedly elevating the rights of corporations.
Ron Paul only promotes individual rights and there are no 'corporate rights' at all, there are no group rights of any kind.
Bullshit. When you give corporations more power over their employees and customers, you give them more rights.
... is not due much to the loss of users. It is due primarily to the fact that the investors realized facebook has no long-term business plan. The notion of "bring in users, sell their information" only works for so long. They don't have a good plan for getting users of mobile devices to pay attention to advertising. They don't have a plan to keep users interested. Eventually the novelty wears off.
Facebook wants people to believe they are the next google. They are more likely the next AOL.
One holiday season when I was returning to my original home for a little over a week I considered renting a car to make it easier to get around. Car rental companies utterly rape customers on costs over the holiday (the same imaginary supply and demand bit that causes gas prices to go up and down at convenient times) to the point where I would have paid 10x as much for a really lousy rental car than I did for round trip airfare.
I thought perhaps I could get around the stupidity by trying to rent a car through craigslist. I posted an ad "I want to rent your car" and after getting a reply from one idiot who thought himself funny, the ad was removed within 24 hours.
But there is definitely a market for this. People do have cars that they don't always need, and people have a demand for cars that they need for just a short bit of time. Not everyone has the disposable income to pay a rental car company for a car, either. Even the cheapest Hyundai shitbox gets expensive quickly. A one-week rental of a Hyundai is equal to about 10% of the car's MSRP on the lot.
Really, it had practically everything a sci-fi guy could ask for in a series:
And did I mention Leonard Nimoy is in it?
It should also get credit for the smartest soundtrack on broadcast television since The Wonder Years (actually it's even better than that).
You crazy kids and your new terms. I've never heard of a "niggling" flaw.
Yeah, that notion worked real well with Al-Qaeda flew planes into buildings in the US. They were clearly terrified of attacking a nuclear-armed state.
And don't give me the "stateless" argument, either. Just because they weren't affiliated with a state doesn't mean they couldn't be counterattacked. The US used it as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq as well. Al-Qadea knew there would be retaliation, and they did it anyways.
In other words, nukes don't prevent wars or violent acts.
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
What? Are YOU new here?
My account may be newer than yours, but I have written far more comments. You haven't even cleared 600 total comments since starting your account. Being as comments posted is generally a good indication of comments read, it would not be unreasonable to say that I read a lot more slashdot comments and discussions than you.
Hence, when I point out that the doctrines of Ron Paul are slashdot political groupthink, I am more likely to know what I am talking about.
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
There is zero evidence to support that notion. While this article hasn't had much comment volume yet, it is already the most commented on in the past several days and it isn't even 12 hours old yet. Just wait until the sun rises across the rest of the western hemisphere and more slashdot paullowers wake up to comment on it. The numbers will go through the roof.
For that matter, the frequency of "Dr. Paul" is an indication of how firmly entrenched his extreme right ideology is here. If we go back to 2004 when Howard Dean was running for the democratic nomination, his 7 slashdot supporters (including myself) did not run around insisting on calling him "Dr. Dean" even though he has the same medical training. Yet the Ron Paul cultists insist on referring to their dear leader as "Dr. Paul". I would wager that if the search engine worked here we would find that the term "Dr. Paul" occurs on slashdot at least 8 times more often than on the internet in general and probably 20x more than in any site where the message is "WAAAAY to the left", as you claim.
the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
You're wrong on several things:
Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.
I'm not so sure. I would rather have net neutrality myself, and this is exactly the opposite of that (it even says that on the website). It's another of his "let the free market fix all the problems" approaches. Of course some paullowers - especially some of the ones here on slashdot - will insist that he is the lord, savior, and the only source of true knowledge.
I suspect any comments in this discussion that don't support ron paul will likely be quickly and severely moderated into oblivion. Thankfully, I have karma to burn. Others might not be so lucky and might not want to pick a fight here with the leagues of slashdot paullowers.
The Pauls want "internet freedom" - which includes the opposite of net neutrality - so that they can better deploy it as a way to bring in new recruits to their cult. By giving more power to corporations (as they propose) it is easier for them to ensure that their message is heard over the messages that counter their own. They'll be able to pay ISPs and search engines to ensure that traffic searching for counter ideas or even related ideas always end up directing to their website instead.
Just remember, the main difference between a religion and a cult is in the number of adherents. Right now Ron Paul has a cult. A few thousand more worshippers and he has a church (with tax exempt status, of course!).
Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here. If he said tomorrow afternoon that Coca-Cola should indenture their employees to invade Malaysia, slashdot would come out in roaring support of it because his is the majority opinion here, by a long shot. It would quickly be endorsed by slashdot as the greatest idea in the history of mankind - or at least, the greatest idea since ron paul's invention of the internet.
Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.
Indeed. A lot of people regard Zuckerberg as some kind of genius wunderkind who thought up facebook completely on his own, with no existing anything to guide him towards it. Which is, of course, sheer and utter bullshit.
Can he run a business? Who knows. His dad is a small business owner (a dentist, IIRC) and probably has good contacts. Of course the bigger question that nobody knows the answer to is what is the long-term business plan for facebook. There is no sign that anyone has even come up with one, really. People are trying to portray them as the next Microsoft, Apple, or Google. I think if they don't come up with a coherent plan soon they will more likely be the next AOL or CompUSA.
I'm not opposed to the technology outright. I'm just concerned that if it were deployed to the wrong drivers it could diminish the proper degree of fear that they should have for the conditions.
In other words, it could do the same thing that AWD has done in far too many cases, and end up leading to drivers who ignore the laws of physics. The technology itself is neither good nor bad; however the results of having it can be catastrophic in the hands of the wrong, inexperienced drivers.
Personally, I think everyone should learn how to drive in the snow and rain in a RWD car with no traction control and a lot of torque. Once they understand how that works, then they'll realize what they should avoid in other setups. I once drove through a snow squall - near whiteout conditions - in Upstate New York in a 95 mustang GT. I made it through fine, by keeping to a reasonable speed for the conditions and keeping my distance from other vehicles. Every vehicle that was in the ditches (most of which were on their roofs) as I drove past was AWD. Every. Single. One. And most of them were newer than my car as well.
An experienced driver knows how to see through the snow, and what the appropriate speed is to drive when snow is falling. Give technology like this to an inexperienced driver and you could end up with drivers who are not driving appropriately for the conditions - at which point bad things happen. And unfortunately driver errors often have consequences for people beyond just the driver of one car...
The only approach that ever had a meaningful and demonstrable effect on spam was to interrupt the flow of money. It makes sense that the same could be helpful for piracy - or at least, for large-scale piracy. Obviously this does nothing to stop people from burning and sharing discs.
Will this set off radar detectors that drivers are using, or does it operate on different bands? Would it interfere with radar guns used by police depts (I presume the answer to this one is no or it likely wouldn't be approved)?
run a successful high-tech start-up for many decades
How can you possibly say that Zuckerberg will run a company for many decades, when he isn't even many decades old? He hasn't even been old enough to drive a car for a decade, let alone old enough to run a company for "many decades". Being as facebook is doing less-than-brilliantly in the stock market, it seems at the very least overly optimistic to say that it will be around for "many decades".
It is important to shine light on fraudulent work in science, for sure. As others have already pointed out in this discussion, some work is impractical to reproduce and that is not the purpose of peer review any ways.
In science, just like every other occupation on earth, there are people doing shoddy and/or fraudulent work. It is a function of humanity in general and no occupation is immune to it. The important thing is that this person has been exposed as a fake, and his identity and record are well known as such. While you cannot prevent every fraud and fake, every time, showing a thorough debunking and dismissal of one when they come does help to discourage future abuses.
If the article is really trying to ask whether or not the command line has "outstayed its welcome", the case of user support is irrelevant and not useful for arguing the case one way or the other. Some users will always have a use for the command line - I for one use it all the time, in both windows and *nix. Just because Joe consumer doesn't use it doesn't mean it isn't "welcome" at all. Feel free to make it less obvious for regular users, but this case doesn't do diddly towards an argument for abolishing it entirely.
If [...] B offers some amount that is higher they will go tell C what the offer was from B and ask them to beat that offer.
And on eBay, each bidder knows when he has been outbid. How is this different?
A couple important ways
In other words, it really isn't like eBay. Few people would want eBay to operate like that - especially bidders.
Being as ICANN is not telling what is going on, they are likely manipulating the system to maximize their own profits. They have shown lately that the most certainly don't give a damn about the consequences that their crappy decisions have on the internet or any users of it.
I must say, this is another case of the overrated tag being abused and ... overrated.
So this will make it closer to an auction, which is what should have been done in the first place?
Somewhat (though ultimately no), and no.
.icannsucksass, they will shop it around to all three. If they like company C better than B, but B offers some amount that is higher they will go tell C what the offer was from B and ask them to beat that offer. In other words, they will take bribes and combine it with cronyism.
It somewhat makes it closer to an auction in that more money wins the contest. However, most auctions follow a time table and have some sort of equal chance for bidding. Bribery - which is likely closer to what ICANN is after as they are openly crooked - does not care about equality. If they have companies A B and C bidding for the gTLD
As for what should have been done in the first place, the right thing to do was to not sell gTLDs at all. There are many, many, bad things that can come from this and very exceedingly few good things. They are doing this not because it improves anything but because it brings in more money. Read the full statement of what is given to the company who buys a gTLD and tell me that it is not a bad thing...