You speak as though there would ultimately be some form of accountability for failure. Nope. Not going to happen. There will be a lot of political finger pointing over who "broke it" followed by a zillion government controlled solutions to the problem.
I don't think it will quite work that way. Instead, an over-censored and regulated Internet will be declared by those governments "the best of the possible choices." About how you lost a little freedom for security, yada yada.
"As I said, the solution is to simply not use Flash"
Sorry, the solution to what? Thats not a solution , its a problem that has to be solved if you want to look at a number of websites. You might drink the apple koolaid and believe Flash is the work of the devil but we're not all Jobs sheep.
You don't have to drink any Apple Kool-Aid to think Flash is the work of the devil. It's one of the few choices Apple made that I truly support.
You do realise that not all Flash content will migrate, right? A lot of it isn't being looked after by their authors any more.
This is the nature of technology. Yes, everything exists forever, but not necessarily in a form that anyone will care enough about to support. So, works, even available works, will be lost.
Seriously, how did you get to a point where you needed to censor the word 'sex'?!
Maybe he's typing on a public terminal which scans for certain words to ensure people aren't misusing the computer.
I've posted on forums (and I still use those forums) where I couldn't use the word 'grape' without being censored, because it has 'rape' in there. No kidding. They're semi-popular forums for a certain game company as well..
I, however disagree that omniscience and knowing exactly what will happen implies there is no free will. There is enough randomness in the universe such that you cannot predict outcomes down the road, even with 100% perfect prediction methods. At some point we might find that our understanding of the way things work more complete, and what we perceive as random might become purely ordered and predictable, but we don't have any reason yet to think that's the case.
I feel for instance, you can have the -exact- same makeup of the Cosmic Egg (or whatever you want to call the Big Bang) and have the Big Bang go off in identical ways, and yet have completely different results after billions of years. I don't believe reality is that ordered.
3. Adam and Eve were kicked out AFTER they ate from the tree and were corrupted by sin. It was as punishment for disobeying his instructions. Also, they then started to age and die.
And procreate. Don't forget, procreation is punishment from god.
No it isn't, it's supposed to be one of God's gifts and rewards. Of course, there are strings attached:
1) Procreation in "marriage" only. 2) Procreation is God's way furthering life, but procreation without the intent of children is a perversion of the gift. 3) Almost every sexual-related Christian law is related to #2.
If a company can get away with gouging, it's because they have no competition.
It gets slightly murkier when we talk about creative works.
John wants to sell me a cart for $200. Instead, I buy a cart that does the exact same thing of the same quality from Jack for $150. That's competition.
Sony charges too much for Whitney Houston's album. Ok, I'll purchase that album from Warner Music instead. Oh wait, I can't, there's only one seller for that particular album. You can listen to different music from different sellers, so it's not exactly a no competition situation, more of a hybrid.
Ethical behaviour is a property of people, not capitalism.
Here's the problem, most -people- do not care enough about the issues to change their spending habits. They hear about Nike sweatshops, but they do not care enough to not buy Nike products. They hear about Sony increasing the price of Houston's album, or about the Sony rootkit (not likely, few people outside of the Slashdot group care about that), or Sony's support of onerous copyright terms, but they do not care about those issues enough that they will not buy Whitney Houston's Greatest Hits. Nor do they care enough about the issue that they'll say "Well, Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a Sony picture. I guess I won't see it."
The average, everyday non-corporate person doesn't think any of this is nearly as important as you or I do, and they don't have the level of empathy that you seem to assume that they do.
No, that would be some people in them. It simply doesn't apply to corporations, and if it did, that would be a defunct corporation in economical theory.
regulations with enough impact to make a change will have severely adverse consequences of the economy and personal freedom.
Well if your giving me two choices, one is millions of deaths and a billion displaced people living in low-lying coastal regions, or your personal freedoms, then in all truthfulness I say FUCK YOUR PERSONAL FREEDOM.
With all due respect of course...
Devil's Advocate time. And now you understand why the people who seriously don't believe that AGW is man-made, stoppable, or even exists, fight so hard. Because they think this is "fad science" that will fall out of fashion in a decade (like they felt about "global cooling" in the 70s, not that the two are even comparable) and all the carbon credits, pollution controls, and everything else that would come out of fighting AGW are a waste of time of money. So their tactics are to delay, delay at every opportunity, under the belief that with enough delay this will all go away, and everything will go back to normal.
This is the real smoking gun. There are a handful of scientists worldwide that deny the AGW consensus. The question is why? The assumption used to be that they were handsomely paid to do it. That is now fact.
That's a bit of a leap. We know at least one scientist is paid to do this, but all of them, or at least the vast majority? I don't know that this is enough of a smoking gun for that.
It's also not fair to beat somebody up over what somebody else who may or may not have similar beliefs said. If one person who supports cause X says something, and somebody else who supports cause X says something else -- that's not evidence of hypocrisy. It's evidence of disagreement, and if you really do think that everybody who supports cause X agrees on everything, the problem is with you, not them.
Yes, but it's not difficult to infer the original poster's belief, given his stated disdain for NASA administrators. I'd state that logically, it's more likely that the OP also originally derided the context counters to the anti-AGW attacks, as ignoring context was really the only viable attack against the NASA researchers in the first place.
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
In principle, yes (although it's defined in a little more detail in the actual criminal code..).. in practice, I've never heard of hate speech laws being used to surpress anything outside of Westboro Church type stuff.
I believe "hate speech/hate crime" is more commonly used to increase penalities when a crime is committed. IE, something extra that is considered when something else is prosecuted.
The only way for them to do... anything... with the bonds is to dump them on the open market. However, that would crash the price, and the US could simply buy back the bonds at less than their face value, saving money in the long term.
That would be a disaster. Far more than just China relies on the US Bond price not crashing. The fallout for such a thing would be amazing, just the tiniest slippage of the rating from one of the bond agencies through the markets into turmoil for a month.
Every time I walk into a Best Buy I end up asking myself the question "Why am I here and not Fry's?" Their prices are not competitive and their selection is crap
For me the answer is "because Best Buy is 6 minutes away, while Fry's is a minimum 40 minutes away.":-) Until recently Best Buy used to have a phenomenal selection of DVDs, better than Fry's, I'd found. Then I went in there again before Christmas to nab a last-second DVD for a holiday exchange... egads. The selection has been slashed. It's roughly 1/4 to 1/5 the size of what it was just over a year ago. What the hell happened there, and I can't figure out what else is filling up all the space. Large appliances?
Because I can't imagine somebody buying a a big screen TV or even a laptop based solely on online descriptions (unless you're determined to get Apple gear in which case going to a store and poking at the laptop adds nothing to the decision-making process).
I don't see why you wouldn't buy a TV based on online descriptions. Unless you're at a high-end videophile store, the TV you see in a store will most likely be calibrated incorrectly, have the brightness turned Waaaaay up to match the bright store lighting, and an image split and shared with a hundred other TVs which may or may not be the display's native resolution. Seeing a TV at a store is usually a horrible way to get a judge of image quality and online ratings and tests are a more reliable way than your own eyes to get a good idea of the visual quality. Not a bad way of figuring out how the bezel will look to see if it'll match your den, though.
So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich
Yes, yes it does, because the poor and middle class (hey even the upper middle class) need a larger percentage of their income to get by, and the usual government programs that would be the targets of the tax cuts are those which the poor or middle class rely on. Proposals like, say, the flat tax or Herman Cain's ridiculous 9-9-9 plan are even worse, shifting tax burdon to those who don't have the income to pay for it.
Education lifts the masses, but the idea that you are above something because you have been educated is a real crock
Employers enforce this attitude as well. If you're well-educated, you'll find a huge number of doors shut to you because you're "over-qualified" for the job and employers assume you'll quit for something better in a few months, even if you're desperate for work.
Slashdot Mirror
You speak as though there would ultimately be some form of accountability for failure. Nope. Not going to happen. There will be a lot of political finger pointing over who "broke it" followed by a zillion government controlled solutions to the problem.
I don't think it will quite work that way. Instead, an over-censored and regulated Internet will be declared by those governments "the best of the possible choices." About how you lost a little freedom for security, yada yada.
"As I said, the solution is to simply not use Flash"
Sorry, the solution to what? Thats not a solution , its a problem that has to be solved if you want to look at a number of websites. You might drink the apple koolaid and believe Flash is the work of the devil but we're not all Jobs sheep.
You don't have to drink any Apple Kool-Aid to think Flash is the work of the devil. It's one of the few choices Apple made that I truly support.
It's PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME! Peanut butter jelly time! Peanut butter with a jelly on top!
Peanut Butter Jelly Time is just annoying enough to be ported to new platforms. >_>
You do realise that not all Flash content will migrate, right? A lot of it isn't being looked after by their authors any more.
This is the nature of technology. Yes, everything exists forever, but not necessarily in a form that anyone will care enough about to support. So, works, even available works, will be lost.
TurboTax online. When I did my taxes on it, it was almost entirely flash-based.
why is that hard to understand?
Not necessarily harder to understand, but I suppose it could be harder to predict.
What you say is of interest, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Six of what? Don't leave me hanging!
Seriously, how did you get to a point where you needed to censor the word 'sex'?!
Maybe he's typing on a public terminal which scans for certain words to ensure people aren't misusing the computer.
I've posted on forums (and I still use those forums) where I couldn't use the word 'grape' without being censored, because it has 'rape' in there. No kidding. They're semi-popular forums for a certain game company as well..
One of my favorite comic takes on Christianity: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2292#comic
I, however disagree that omniscience and knowing exactly what will happen implies there is no free will. There is enough randomness in the universe such that you cannot predict outcomes down the road, even with 100% perfect prediction methods. At some point we might find that our understanding of the way things work more complete, and what we perceive as random might become purely ordered and predictable, but we don't have any reason yet to think that's the case.
I feel for instance, you can have the -exact- same makeup of the Cosmic Egg (or whatever you want to call the Big Bang) and have the Big Bang go off in identical ways, and yet have completely different results after billions of years. I don't believe reality is that ordered.
3. Adam and Eve were kicked out AFTER they ate from the tree and were corrupted by sin. It was as punishment for disobeying his instructions. Also, they then started to age and die.
And procreate. Don't forget, procreation is punishment from god.
No it isn't, it's supposed to be one of God's gifts and rewards. Of course, there are strings attached:
1) Procreation in "marriage" only.
2) Procreation is God's way furthering life, but procreation without the intent of children is a perversion of the gift.
3) Almost every sexual-related Christian law is related to #2.
If a company can get away with gouging, it's because they have no competition.
It gets slightly murkier when we talk about creative works.
John wants to sell me a cart for $200. Instead, I buy a cart that does the exact same thing of the same quality from Jack for $150. That's competition.
Sony charges too much for Whitney Houston's album. Ok, I'll purchase that album from Warner Music instead. Oh wait, I can't, there's only one seller for that particular album. You can listen to different music from different sellers, so it's not exactly a no competition situation, more of a hybrid.
Ethical behaviour is a property of people, not capitalism.
Here's the problem, most -people- do not care enough about the issues to change their spending habits. They hear about Nike sweatshops, but they do not care enough to not buy Nike products. They hear about Sony increasing the price of Houston's album, or about the Sony rootkit (not likely, few people outside of the Slashdot group care about that), or Sony's support of onerous copyright terms, but they do not care about those issues enough that they will not buy Whitney Houston's Greatest Hits. Nor do they care enough about the issue that they'll say "Well, Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a Sony picture. I guess I won't see it."
The average, everyday non-corporate person doesn't think any of this is nearly as important as you or I do, and they don't have the level of empathy that you seem to assume that they do.
No, that would be some people in them. It simply doesn't apply to corporations, and if it did, that would be a defunct corporation in economical theory.
Corporations are people, my friend! :-)
Did that help the Last Temptation of Christ?
regulations with enough impact to make a change will have severely adverse consequences of the economy and personal freedom.
Well if your giving me two choices, one is millions of deaths and a billion displaced people living in low-lying coastal regions, or your personal freedoms, then in all truthfulness I say FUCK YOUR PERSONAL FREEDOM.
With all due respect of course...
Devil's Advocate time.
And now you understand why the people who seriously don't believe that AGW is man-made, stoppable, or even exists, fight so hard. Because they think this is "fad science" that will fall out of fashion in a decade (like they felt about "global cooling" in the 70s, not that the two are even comparable) and all the carbon credits, pollution controls, and everything else that would come out of fighting AGW are a waste of time of money. So their tactics are to delay, delay at every opportunity, under the belief that with enough delay this will all go away, and everything will go back to normal.
Yes, it's fucked up. Yes, it's nasty.
But it's not exactly news, nor is it the Smoking Gun that so many people seem to think it is.
The original poster is saying "this doesn't change anything, does it?"
No.... the big argument, the smoking gun, is the preponderance of documents in which HI discusses hiding funds and controlling information channels.
It's depressing to have to say that this is situation normal when it comes to politics and legal matters. :-(
This is the real smoking gun. There are a handful of scientists worldwide that deny the AGW consensus. The question is why? The assumption used to be that they were handsomely paid to do it. That is now fact.
That's a bit of a leap. We know at least one scientist is paid to do this, but all of them, or at least the vast majority? I don't know that this is enough of a smoking gun for that.
It's also not fair to beat somebody up over what somebody else who may or may not have similar beliefs said. If one person who supports cause X says something, and somebody else who supports cause X says something else -- that's not evidence of hypocrisy. It's evidence of disagreement, and if you really do think that everybody who supports cause X agrees on everything, the problem is with you, not them.
Yes, but it's not difficult to infer the original poster's belief, given his stated disdain for NASA administrators. I'd state that logically, it's more likely that the OP also originally derided the context counters to the anti-AGW attacks, as ignoring context was really the only viable attack against the NASA researchers in the first place.
That can be defined so broadly, that it would definitely suppress a lot of speech.
In principle, yes (although it's defined in a little more detail in the actual criminal code..).. in practice, I've never heard of hate speech laws being used to surpress anything outside of Westboro Church type stuff.
I believe "hate speech/hate crime" is more commonly used to increase penalities when a crime is committed. IE, something extra that is considered when something else is prosecuted.
The only way for them to do... anything... with the bonds is to dump them on the open market. However, that would crash the price, and the US could simply buy back the bonds at less than their face value, saving money in the long term.
That would be a disaster. Far more than just China relies on the US Bond price not crashing. The fallout for such a thing would be amazing, just the tiniest slippage of the rating from one of the bond agencies through the markets into turmoil for a month.
Every time I walk into a Best Buy I end up asking myself the question "Why am I here and not Fry's?" Their prices are not competitive and their selection is crap
For me the answer is "because Best Buy is 6 minutes away, while Fry's is a minimum 40 minutes away." :-)
Until recently Best Buy used to have a phenomenal selection of DVDs, better than Fry's, I'd found. Then I went in there again before Christmas to nab a last-second DVD for a holiday exchange... egads. The selection has been slashed. It's roughly 1/4 to 1/5 the size of what it was just over a year ago. What the hell happened there, and I can't figure out what else is filling up all the space. Large appliances?
Because I can't imagine somebody buying a a big screen TV or even a laptop based solely on online descriptions (unless you're determined to get Apple gear in which case going to a store and poking at the laptop adds nothing to the decision-making process).
I don't see why you wouldn't buy a TV based on online descriptions. Unless you're at a high-end videophile store, the TV you see in a store will most likely be calibrated incorrectly, have the brightness turned Waaaaay up to match the bright store lighting, and an image split and shared with a hundred other TVs which may or may not be the display's native resolution. Seeing a TV at a store is usually a horrible way to get a judge of image quality and online ratings and tests are a more reliable way than your own eyes to get a good idea of the visual quality. Not a bad way of figuring out how the bezel will look to see if it'll match your den, though.
So if you cut everyone's taxes by 2%, that favors the rich
Yes, yes it does, because the poor and middle class (hey even the upper middle class) need a larger percentage of their income to get by, and the usual government programs that would be the targets of the tax cuts are those which the poor or middle class rely on. Proposals like, say, the flat tax or Herman Cain's ridiculous 9-9-9 plan are even worse, shifting tax burdon to those who don't have the income to pay for it.
Education lifts the masses, but the idea that you are above something because you have been educated is a real crock
Employers enforce this attitude as well. If you're well-educated, you'll find a huge number of doors shut to you because you're "over-qualified" for the job and employers assume you'll quit for something better in a few months, even if you're desperate for work.