But these are cellphone companies, not telecoms. They have no monopoly except over the spectrum they've paid to use. Telecoms don't even have monopolies anymore. They did in the early 80s, but you can get phone and internet from 2 or 3 different providers just about everywhere. You've got your telco, cable company, satellite and cellular networks to chose from. This isn't even counting the Clecs... but I doubt you even know what that is.
While we're at it, lets get rid of English and Art classes as well. Or at least make them electives. The class they need to make required is some sort of home-finance class. The biggest problem with recent high-school grads is their complete lack of understanding when it comes to credit cards, loans, insurance and retirement. Hell, most of the adults I know are clueless in that regard. Then predatory companies like Chase jump on them with insane interest rates and insurance companies con them into multi-million dollar life insurance packages when their only 19 or 20.
The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.
and what evidence do you have that the person even owns a gun? It's just as likely some ANTI-gun nut trying to stir things up. There are idiots on both sides of this argument and they're all willing to lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goals.
But they are trying very very hard to. And it's a constitutionally protected right. You can dislike and demean that right all you want, that's why it's in the constitution. To protect it even when popular opinion shifts.
That said, no one should be threatening anyone, ever. But this constant attention paid when one jerk does something stupid like this is a bit ridiculous. Yes, there are idiots that own guns, just like there are idiots in any other group you look at. It's like the guy that set fire to that parking lot full of Hummers. He doesn't represent everyone that wants to reduce CO2 emissions any more than this guy represents gun owners. Find him and charge him. Don't come to me and try to make some generalization about an entire group of people that are, by their very ability to purchase a firearm, clearly law abiding citizens.
The summary doesn't mention anything about "WHY" they made this ruling or why there was a lawsuit in the first place.
USAF awarded Russia a no-bid contract on 36 rocket boosters. SpaceX filed suit requesting consideration for the contract. The court filed an injunction to prevent sales being made while the trial moves forward.
If you get a research grant and put a team of scientists together to pick through any data set, I'm pretty sure they could find data supporting just about any theory past or present. So yes.
Net Neutrality is important, but lets not exaggerate what will likely happen. If you live in town, I doubt it will even effect you. If you live in the country however, and all your neighbors watch netflix, your internet connections going to suck on friday/saturday nights. I'm fairly certain that if they start using the issue to block your access to parts of the internet and create walled gardens, the FCC would step in, and if they didn't, it'd end up in front of SCOTUS as 1st amendment issue. I don't think there is anything the ISPs would find less palatable than SCOTUS rulings on their services. I suspect they'd bend over backwards to prevent it going that far.
Yes, but what google is likely doing is scanning email for aggregate data. For example, I'm fairly certain Google and Facebook know before all of us who's going to win elections.
I suspect that all it will take is some paparazzi crashing their drone into some famous persons house (you know, someone whos opinion the government actually cares about) and they'll link that story to story to the one above and "I could have been killed!" yada yada and drones will be banned for civilian use to protect our movie stars. You know it's only a matter of time.
I read about this last week... Yes, if you take any significantly crazy dude from 1000 years ago and examine his theories in a modern light, his theories will likely end up baring an uncanny resemblance to the truth.
I think what they'll do is offer streaming services. That'd be a lot easier for them to police because they could create their own client and force you to use it. However, I think they are vastly over-estimating their customers pain threshold. Especially when 3rd parties are starting to produce their own content and could offer a much more pleasant experience as a selling point.
The problem with all the movie industries attempts to change the dynamics of their sales model has been that they want to both restrict the customers access AND charge the highest rates in the land at the same time.
Once again, the movie industry reveals their complete lack of understanding of their own industry. People have no moral inclination to follow unjust and ridiculous rules/laws. Making your sales model even more ridiculous will just drive more customers into piracy.
I wouldn't know since I don't own an Apple computer. iTunes doesn't support Linux, and using it via windows nearly drove me insane with rage. My kindle doesn't even require a computer... just wifi. How would I get that music into my car? I'm sure there are answers to all these questions, but if they want my money they need to make it easier to buy the music than simply copying it to a USB stick and carrying it out to my car.
Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them.
That's exactly the same standard we're supposed to be using in non-capital cases too!
It is not valid for death sentences to cost more than life sentences. The real problem is that people aren't getting competent and thorough defenses in the initial trial. I would argue it's even more of an injustice for those receiving life sentences because, without the permanence of execution, the public sees it as less of a problem worth fixing.
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing reality and not imaginary worlds where trials were always just and fair.
So, the standard philosophical counterargument is "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" but I suspect that despite the fact that the edgucated world as a whole had already resolved that capital punishment is immoral over a thousand years ago, you'll continue to lack empathy for those you feel "don't deserve it" so I'll argue from your point of view.
Lets make several points so you can disagree with them directly if you feel you need to: 1. Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them. They get guarenteed retrials and the evidence has to be air tight. As a result, capital punishement trials costs states many millions of dollars each. 2. Murder trials are very difficult on the victims family. In order to get a conviction the prosecution needs to present very gory details, interview the family on the stand in depth, etc... 3. Prison is worse than death.
So, if you want to save money, save the family grief, and punish the prisoner in pretty much the worst method available legally, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. You don't even need to be an ethical person to know that it's the right thing to do from every perspective. When even the catholic church things what you're doing is too barbaric, you know you're doing something wrong.
Amazon understands piracy. Is so damned easy to order books on my Kindle I don't even bother to download them even though it'd save me $8. It's just not worth me getting out of my reading chair and dinking around with it. I can search for the book, click a button, viola. The prices aren't crazy and I can get my books when I want them. If the music and movie industries did something similar I'd probobly start paying them again as well. But when they still think they can manipulate how, when, and where I watch their content... force me to watch inane previews, bribe my TV manufacturer to limit its features... all just to extort the maximum profit out of me, it's just easier to pirate it.
This is the fundamental problem with federal regulation. If the government controls how you can make money, those with money will seek to control the government. I'm not suggesting a solution, I don't have one. But understanding that "more regulation" will likely do just as much harm as it does good is important to this debate.
Something designed for games can be re-purposed for something else? Wow... Next you'll be telling me that new Internet thing with all the porn can also host cat videos.
Frankly, if I could just find a service that would burn my mail instead of delivering it to my door, I'd be happy. I have to empty the bin into my fireplace every few months and it's irritating.
Slashdot Mirror
But these are cellphone companies, not telecoms. They have no monopoly except over the spectrum they've paid to use. Telecoms don't even have monopolies anymore. They did in the early 80s, but you can get phone and internet from 2 or 3 different providers just about everywhere. You've got your telco, cable company, satellite and cellular networks to chose from. This isn't even counting the Clecs... but I doubt you even know what that is.
While we're at it, lets get rid of English and Art classes as well. Or at least make them electives. The class they need to make required is some sort of home-finance class. The biggest problem with recent high-school grads is their complete lack of understanding when it comes to credit cards, loans, insurance and retirement. Hell, most of the adults I know are clueless in that regard. Then predatory companies like Chase jump on them with insane interest rates and insurance companies con them into multi-million dollar life insurance packages when their only 19 or 20.
The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.
and what evidence do you have that the person even owns a gun? It's just as likely some ANTI-gun nut trying to stir things up. There are idiots on both sides of this argument and they're all willing to lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goals.
But they are trying very very hard to. And it's a constitutionally protected right. You can dislike and demean that right all you want, that's why it's in the constitution. To protect it even when popular opinion shifts.
That said, no one should be threatening anyone, ever. But this constant attention paid when one jerk does something stupid like this is a bit ridiculous. Yes, there are idiots that own guns, just like there are idiots in any other group you look at. It's like the guy that set fire to that parking lot full of Hummers. He doesn't represent everyone that wants to reduce CO2 emissions any more than this guy represents gun owners. Find him and charge him. Don't come to me and try to make some generalization about an entire group of people that are, by their very ability to purchase a firearm, clearly law abiding citizens.
The summary doesn't mention anything about "WHY" they made this ruling or why there was a lawsuit in the first place.
USAF awarded Russia a no-bid contract on 36 rocket boosters. SpaceX filed suit requesting consideration for the contract. The court filed an injunction to prevent sales being made while the trial moves forward.
If you get a research grant and put a team of scientists together to pick through any data set, I'm pretty sure they could find data supporting just about any theory past or present. So yes.
Net Neutrality is important, but lets not exaggerate what will likely happen. If you live in town, I doubt it will even effect you. If you live in the country however, and all your neighbors watch netflix, your internet connections going to suck on friday/saturday nights. I'm fairly certain that if they start using the issue to block your access to parts of the internet and create walled gardens, the FCC would step in, and if they didn't, it'd end up in front of SCOTUS as 1st amendment issue. I don't think there is anything the ISPs would find less palatable than SCOTUS rulings on their services. I suspect they'd bend over backwards to prevent it going that far.
Yes, but what google is likely doing is scanning email for aggregate data. For example, I'm fairly certain Google and Facebook know before all of us who's going to win elections.
Right, and its totally safe in the "Eye" of the tornado. As long as you keep pace with it, you'll remain unscathed!
Actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...
I suspect that all it will take is some paparazzi crashing their drone into some famous persons house (you know, someone whos opinion the government actually cares about) and they'll link that story to story to the one above and "I could have been killed!" yada yada and drones will be banned for civilian use to protect our movie stars. You know it's only a matter of time.
If it weren't wicked, it wouldn't be funny. Humor is always based on another persons pain.
You need to familiarize yourself with browser plug-ins...
I read about this last week... Yes, if you take any significantly crazy dude from 1000 years ago and examine his theories in a modern light, his theories will likely end up baring an uncanny resemblance to the truth.
I think what they'll do is offer streaming services. That'd be a lot easier for them to police because they could create their own client and force you to use it. However, I think they are vastly over-estimating their customers pain threshold. Especially when 3rd parties are starting to produce their own content and could offer a much more pleasant experience as a selling point.
The problem with all the movie industries attempts to change the dynamics of their sales model has been that they want to both restrict the customers access AND charge the highest rates in the land at the same time.
Once again, the movie industry reveals their complete lack of understanding of their own industry. People have no moral inclination to follow unjust and ridiculous rules/laws. Making your sales model even more ridiculous will just drive more customers into piracy.
Thats fine, if they do that I'll just pirate it. I'm paying for the convenience of not having to go find the damned book.
I wouldn't know since I don't own an Apple computer. iTunes doesn't support Linux, and using it via windows nearly drove me insane with rage. My kindle doesn't even require a computer... just wifi. How would I get that music into my car? I'm sure there are answers to all these questions, but if they want my money they need to make it easier to buy the music than simply copying it to a USB stick and carrying it out to my car.
There are cases where the good of society overrides the individual's freedom.
Every totalitarian government in human history has made the same argument.
That's exactly the same standard we're supposed to be using in non-capital cases too!
It is not valid for death sentences to cost more than life sentences. The real problem is that people aren't getting competent and thorough defenses in the initial trial. I would argue it's even more of an injustice for those receiving life sentences because, without the permanence of execution, the public sees it as less of a problem worth fixing.
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing reality and not imaginary worlds where trials were always just and fair.
So, the standard philosophical counterargument is "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" but I suspect that despite the fact that the edgucated world as a whole had already resolved that capital punishment is immoral over a thousand years ago, you'll continue to lack empathy for those you feel "don't deserve it" so I'll argue from your point of view.
Lets make several points so you can disagree with them directly if you feel you need to:
1. Capital punishment costs orders of magnitude more money than Life in prison. The trials have to be rigorous, and therough, we have to be absolutely sure of the defendants guilt before we execute them. They get guarenteed retrials and the evidence has to be air tight. As a result, capital punishement trials costs states many millions of dollars each.
2. Murder trials are very difficult on the victims family. In order to get a conviction the prosecution needs to present very gory details, interview the family on the stand in depth, etc...
3. Prison is worse than death.
So, if you want to save money, save the family grief, and punish the prisoner in pretty much the worst method available legally, let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. You don't even need to be an ethical person to know that it's the right thing to do from every perspective. When even the catholic church things what you're doing is too barbaric, you know you're doing something wrong.
Amazon understands piracy. Is so damned easy to order books on my Kindle I don't even bother to download them even though it'd save me $8. It's just not worth me getting out of my reading chair and dinking around with it. I can search for the book, click a button, viola. The prices aren't crazy and I can get my books when I want them. If the music and movie industries did something similar I'd probobly start paying them again as well. But when they still think they can manipulate how, when, and where I watch their content... force me to watch inane previews, bribe my TV manufacturer to limit its features... all just to extort the maximum profit out of me, it's just easier to pirate it.
This is the fundamental problem with federal regulation. If the government controls how you can make money, those with money will seek to control the government. I'm not suggesting a solution, I don't have one. But understanding that "more regulation" will likely do just as much harm as it does good is important to this debate.
Something designed for games can be re-purposed for something else? Wow... Next you'll be telling me that new Internet thing with all the porn can also host cat videos.
Frankly, if I could just find a service that would burn my mail instead of delivering it to my door, I'd be happy. I have to empty the bin into my fireplace every few months and it's irritating.
The human brains hardware is not the difficult part. As usual, software is where the magic is.