He said value over, because people do seem to care a lot more about the second than the first.
There are tradeoffs for everything, and just because you value one right over the other doesn't mean you reject one. Even if legally, they're both on the same level, they have different values when it comes to the social perception of things. And that it was matters in the long-term, as that is what defines how much rights/whatever tradeoff we're willing to make concerning those rights.
We seem much more willing to let go of the rights of the first than the second.
Again you forget to mention the fact that he maimed dozens of people as well.
If the guy had not actually killed anyone, and the "150 injured" number were the only one floating around, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
A guy blowing off a bunch of people's legs is not a "weekend" in a many cities.
I'm pretty sure that you can't arrest just any employee. At least in France, only specific people are designated as the legal "scapegoats" for a company's wrongdoing.
but it would have taken 5 words to introduce the concept. We don't have to deal with context switching just because the article writer cba to give a terse explanation for a very domain-specific item.
You're not really wrong here, but there's something awful about being watched all the time and being busted for every minor and often harmless infraction.
I understand the sentiment but speeding is not an "often harmless" infraction. It endagers yourself and those around you. (Semantics about whether the speed limits are set at the right level or not are here as well, but still).
Demographics was a bad choice of word. I mainly meant the fact that Texas is super poor(5th poorest in the nation by poverty rate), and there's a pretty well documented correlation between poverty and educational results.
No, I'm saying that the demographics of Texas (5th poorest state in the nation by poverty rate, among other things) cause the lower rankings, not the school system. The school system gives the tools for motivated children to learn, but when these children don't get three meals a day....
I get that it's a joke, but I'm really tired of hearing people demean Texas' education system.
While the state might not do so well in math and science test comparisons compared to other states, the state excels at making many things available to students that are rare if non-existent elsewhere. The right to a good education is in the state constitution (which also asks for the foundation of "first-class" state universities: University of Texas and Texas A&M), and implements a very broad wealth redistribution scheme (Robin hood plan), which makes sure that even very poor school districts can pay for AP classes, music electives, sports facilities, the works.
Children who show potential are given chances from a very early age to enter advanced-placement courses, and many efforts are made by teachers to identify children who can enter these.
I honestly think that the low rankings of Texas in Math and Science comparisons is more due to demographics than the school system, and in more general rankings the school fares much better. In any case, it goes to great lengths to let children broaden their horizons with their peers, independent of social class.
that isn't the primary incentive for everyone. Ask all your starving artists, hobbyist programmers who somehow landed a job doing what they love, teachers, the list goes on. Money is important for people mainly to be able to live comfortably. Its primary in the same way food is important. The possitive correlation between satisfaction and salary stops after one point.
People who refuse to govern are "radical", because they prevent any form of compromise. Compromise is the center of democracy, and without it, nothing will happen.
The purpose of the electoral college was to avoid having the most important office in the federal gov't be victim to popular fervor. In a direct election, radicals can be too easily elected (see tea party). This system prevents that in theory (along with the voting system of the electors: in seperate areas. This prevented one guy from giving a moving speech and changing the minds of everyone.)
anti-trust rules to break up the banks, and then making sure the FTC doesn't allow the conglomeration to happen again.
We've nationalised every bank over this crisis, we could've taken that opportunity to seperate things out a bit
I had no false positives until maybe 3 weeks ago. It was something urgent and something sent from an adress I communicate with often. Luckily they re-sent a message and that brought it out of the spam bucket, but still... was quite shocked.
in all honesty that assumption is made in so many summaries. I often hear people talking about airbnb, but that's probably more from techcrunch-type sites than slashdot.
My point was mainly that I doubt it was some malaligned plot.
If I ran a burger shop I would assume everyone wants cheese on their hamburgers. and make everyone pay for it. I probably wouldn't last very long but it wouldn't be because of some evil intentions, more that it makes less work for me.
Considering the current state of affairs I agree with you completely.
When I got my ADSL package, I was "forced" into getting TV and a home phone number as well. Granted, the price was reasonable (as in it was a price I was willing to pay for my internet), but I couldn't opt out of the other two services. This is probably what we're going towards.
I agree that opting people in so abruptly is a bit much, but if the "default" for them is a data-inclusive plan that 99% of people take, and its an actual logistical effort for them, then there's nothing inherently evil about not offering an opt-out. I can't ask for my phone to not receive SMS (maybe I can?)
Except we could reach a critical point where the market has expectations about music being "free" (ad supported or whatever) , and the revenue stream isn't interesting enough for a small number of plays, because people won't pay for CDs, not necessarily because they don't have the will, but because it's come out of the social norm. You end up getting providers who are only willing to push out things for the biggest audience possible, even if it might not be the greatest quality.
It's like when you think about HBO, where people pay a monthly fee to watch. They don't have to pander to the largest audience because they have already secured a nice enough revenue stream.They can care about... well maybe about pandering to their current audience , but they can afford to try and do their own thing. Compare that to broadcast networks that have to constantly cancel things because if they don't get humongous ratings, it's simply not affordable for them to produce.
There was some article a while back about the same thing happening in app stores. Because of the existence of free apps, people's willingness to pay is greatly lowered, and you end up getting worse quality software across the board ( a couple steps are in between mind you).
So in some "broadcast" world, everyone ends up in a worse situation. The quality is worse, and the smaller artists do even worse. The reason free markets don't magically fix things is that free market theory is based around people being perfectly informed , capable of thinking "rationally", and there being a good amount of providers. That isn't happening.
Granted I've made the assumption that the general trend is towards ad-supported free networks. We might be heading more to a subscription based model, since it seems people are becoming more and more willing to pay for good things in the digital space.
Slashdot Mirror
He said value over, because people do seem to care a lot more about the second than the first. There are tradeoffs for everything, and just because you value one right over the other doesn't mean you reject one. Even if legally, they're both on the same level, they have different values when it comes to the social perception of things. And that it was matters in the long-term, as that is what defines how much rights/whatever tradeoff we're willing to make concerning those rights. We seem much more willing to let go of the rights of the first than the second.
Again you forget to mention the fact that he maimed dozens of people as well. If the guy had not actually killed anyone, and the "150 injured" number were the only one floating around, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
A guy blowing off a bunch of people's legs is not a "weekend" in a many cities.
I'm pretty sure that you can't arrest just any employee. At least in France, only specific people are designated as the legal "scapegoats" for a company's wrongdoing.
but it would have taken 5 words to introduce the concept. We don't have to deal with context switching just because the article writer cba to give a terse explanation for a very domain-specific item.
So Greece should just stop trying to collect taxes?
You're not really wrong here, but there's something awful about being watched all the time and being busted for every minor and often harmless infraction.
I understand the sentiment but speeding is not an "often harmless" infraction. It endagers yourself and those around you. (Semantics about whether the speed limits are set at the right level or not are here as well, but still).
You call it a buzzword, but being able to make things like this without requiring a mold is pretty different.
Demographics was a bad choice of word. I mainly meant the fact that Texas is super poor(5th poorest in the nation by poverty rate), and there's a pretty well documented correlation between poverty and educational results.
No, I'm saying that the demographics of Texas (5th poorest state in the nation by poverty rate, among other things) cause the lower rankings, not the school system. The school system gives the tools for motivated children to learn, but when these children don't get three meals a day....
I get that it's a joke, but I'm really tired of hearing people demean Texas' education system.
While the state might not do so well in math and science test comparisons compared to other states, the state excels at making many things available to students that are rare if non-existent elsewhere. The right to a good education is in the state constitution (which also asks for the foundation of "first-class" state universities: University of Texas and Texas A&M), and implements a very broad wealth redistribution scheme (Robin hood plan), which makes sure that even very poor school districts can pay for AP classes, music electives, sports facilities, the works. Children who show potential are given chances from a very early age to enter advanced-placement courses, and many efforts are made by teachers to identify children who can enter these.
I honestly think that the low rankings of Texas in Math and Science comparisons is more due to demographics than the school system, and in more general rankings the school fares much better. In any case, it goes to great lengths to let children broaden their horizons with their peers, independent of social class.
>What people will care about are things like talking while eating or eating with your mouth open. These things are universal for a very good reason.
Guess you've never been to asia
that isn't the primary incentive for everyone. Ask all your starving artists, hobbyist programmers who somehow landed a job doing what they love, teachers, the list goes on. Money is important for people mainly to be able to live comfortably. Its primary in the same way food is important. The possitive correlation between satisfaction and salary stops after one point.
People who refuse to govern are "radical", because they prevent any form of compromise. Compromise is the center of democracy, and without it, nothing will happen.
Like many things it was a compromise, but there's a pretty long and convincing justification in the federalist.
The purpose of the electoral college was to avoid having the most important office in the federal gov't be victim to popular fervor. In a direct election, radicals can be too easily elected (see tea party). This system prevents that in theory (along with the voting system of the electors: in seperate areas. This prevented one guy from giving a moving speech and changing the minds of everyone.)
anti-trust rules to break up the banks, and then making sure the FTC doesn't allow the conglomeration to happen again. We've nationalised every bank over this crisis, we could've taken that opportunity to seperate things out a bit
I had no false positives until maybe 3 weeks ago. It was something urgent and something sent from an adress I communicate with often. Luckily they re-sent a message and that brought it out of the spam bucket, but still... was quite shocked.
(2 multiplied by itself)57885160 times, which gives a very long list of 4s.
we need parentheses in English for ambiguity.
in all honesty that assumption is made in so many summaries. I often hear people talking about airbnb, but that's probably more from techcrunch-type sites than slashdot.
If he used CCleaner to reverse-engineer the file and there was a clause in the TOS forbidding that, it might be a problem right?
My point was mainly that I doubt it was some malaligned plot.
If I ran a burger shop I would assume everyone wants cheese on their hamburgers. and make everyone pay for it. I probably wouldn't last very long but it wouldn't be because of some evil intentions, more that it makes less work for me.
Considering the current state of affairs I agree with you completely.
When I got my ADSL package, I was "forced" into getting TV and a home phone number as well. Granted, the price was reasonable (as in it was a price I was willing to pay for my internet), but I couldn't opt out of the other two services. This is probably what we're going towards.
I agree that opting people in so abruptly is a bit much, but if the "default" for them is a data-inclusive plan that 99% of people take, and its an actual logistical effort for them, then there's nothing inherently evil about not offering an opt-out. I can't ask for my phone to not receive SMS (maybe I can?)
I doubt that it's the case here though.
> a plot I think it's more due to market research than anything. Most people want data.
Except we could reach a critical point where the market has expectations about music being "free" (ad supported or whatever) , and the revenue stream isn't interesting enough for a small number of plays, because people won't pay for CDs, not necessarily because they don't have the will, but because it's come out of the social norm. You end up getting providers who are only willing to push out things for the biggest audience possible, even if it might not be the greatest quality.
... well maybe about pandering to their current audience , but they can afford to try and do their own thing. Compare that to broadcast networks that have to constantly cancel things because if they don't get humongous ratings, it's simply not affordable for them to produce.
It's like when you think about HBO, where people pay a monthly fee to watch. They don't have to pander to the largest audience because they have already secured a nice enough revenue stream.They can care about
There was some article a while back about the same thing happening in app stores. Because of the existence of free apps, people's willingness to pay is greatly lowered, and you end up getting worse quality software across the board ( a couple steps are in between mind you).
So in some "broadcast" world, everyone ends up in a worse situation. The quality is worse, and the smaller artists do even worse. The reason free markets don't magically fix things is that free market theory is based around people being perfectly informed , capable of thinking "rationally", and there being a good amount of providers. That isn't happening.
Granted I've made the assumption that the general trend is towards ad-supported free networks. We might be heading more to a subscription based model, since it seems people are becoming more and more willing to pay for good things in the digital space.