But what is the alternative? If government is just the biggest bully, what do you replace it with? There is a long line of people willing to take it's place and take your stuff. I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this brought up before. It's easy to say government has problems, it's not so easy to replace it with something else.
It's not a Generation Y thing, it's a philosophical question. You're basically arguing that a defendant is wholly responsible for the consequences of his action regardless of the weight of those consequences and the arbitrary nature in which they seem to be applied. Some argue that society has some responsibility to enforce laws evenly, clearly and with consequences weighted appropriately to the harm against society done.
What happens now when a vehicle is involved in a deadly situation? Manufacturers are responsible in some cases. Drivers in others. Is it because it's 'on a computer' that it's different than say Firestone tires failing?
My examples were to clarify their nature since many people are either uninformed, or in denial.
Here is the crux of the disagreement. You say it is 'their nature'. The opposing view says it is a matter of environment and circumstances. May I ask, what is it that makes it in 'their nature'? Are you suggesting it is genetic? Saying it is 'their nature', doesn't seem to me to be a better satisfactory answer than lightning is caused by god.
Sadly, the NSA will tap it, regardless of who builds it. Much of the internet infrastructure was initially setup by the government. It was developed by DARPA after all.
I think that's because infrastructure doesn't lend itself to competition. With competition we might get 4 - 30mbps connections to each home instead of just 1 100 mbps connection. I know it's sacrilege in the U.S. to suggest that some things really should be handled by the government but infrastructure really should be. I don't need competing water mains or roads brought to my house. In the same vein, even an incompetent government can put up infrastructure cheaper than the private industry simply because a truly competitive market would require multiple infrastructures.
Consider, 4 providers, each putting up their own infrastructure. Not only are efforts duplicated, but the users are split. So each provider will only get about 1/4 of the subscribers in an area. Which means costs will be about 4 times higher. Not a very good system at all. Now, because infrastructure naturally monopolizes anyway, we wind up with a private company having a monopoly on infrastructure and we have what we have.
He could never know that for a fact. You are attempting to force him to prove a negative to make his point. If you think there are Russian drone attacks then you should provide evidence of it. He can not provide evidence that something didn't happen.
Russian intelligence is every bit as invasive as ours, and is subject to far fewer restrictions. Putin himself recently said that the US is only doing what the Russians have been doing all along. And, don't forget, Putin is the former head of the KGB.
Don't forget Bush Sr. was the director of the CIA. I'm sure Putin did say that but Russia also recently bought drones from the UAE. And if you search for russian drone attacks all you get is stuff about U.S. drones and a few consipiracy theories about Obama.
You're only speculating. I could say that Russia uses space based gamma ray lasers to keep alien invaders at bay. They nobly sacrificed their economy and communism to save the human race while the U.S. enjoyed prosperity and protection. Prove that didn't happen.
Of course the term under consideration in this case was 'money.'
Actually it was currency. Read the original post to which I was replying to. You're arguing with the wrong person. He's the one that felt the judge was 'wrong' and then went on to define currency. I posted a one word question and a link to Wikipedia that disagreed. If the term is continental then by all means, I agree it's hard to define.
Here is the original post to which I was replying to that started this. I didn't even say he was wrong. I only replied 'Really?' with a link to Wikipedia.
Currency? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @05:06PM (#44503149)
Wrong answer. All sorts of things can be exchanged for goods or cash. Currencies are issued and backed by governments. This is bad law.
The OP presented a definition that currency is only issued and backed by governments. I would agree legal tender can be defined that way but most consider currency a broader term than legal tender. In the end, we have a system that leaves it up to judges. While a superior court might offer a better definition I would be surprised if any court rules that bitcoin is not currency.
Distinct from centrally controlled government-issued currencies, private decentralized trust networks support alternative currencies such as Bitcoin, as well as branded currencies that are based on reputation of commercial products.[9]
All in all good, but this one set of words is incorrect. The organisms do not react at all. They vary and if selective pressure is high (ie a high mortality rate), then the species features will be redefined by the survivors. If aliens came to earth and decided to kill everyone except those with 6 fingers on their hands the human race would have 6 fingers on their hands.
Do it yourself experiment:
Take 100 dogs. Get them to stand on their back legs. Take the 10 that stand the longest. Breed them until you have a 100 dogs again. Repeat until you have dogs that are comfortable on 2 legs.
California pays more in Federal taxes than it receives in earmarks. By and large, Blue states pay in more than they receive while Red states receive more than they pay in (Texas is one of, if not the only, exception to this). So, while Democrats are generally thought of as being for bigger federal government and Republicans are for smaller federal government, the Blue states pay for it and the Red states get the benefit. Go figure.
When Google lobbies one right winger, it's news to Slashdot?
To be fair, consider a Rupert Murdoch or Koch Brothers company lobbying Pelosi. Google tends to project a left wing bent. If I recall at least one of the founders has worked with Obama's campaigns.
Is anyone here aware that his views are shared with a significant portion of the population?
Sadly.
This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
I grew up in Oklahoma and it's a poor state with strong beliefs and poor education. We did not study Evolution in school (this was 15 years ago). We were told there was such a theory and we could read about it but the teacher didn't personally agree with it. Inhofe doesn't just disagree with global warming he does so because the Bible says so.
He's probably wrong about Global Warming, I'll grant that.
Agreed. The problem isn't just that he disagreed, the problem is that he disagreed purely based on an ancient book.
But I daydream about one day when the coin is flipped and Google's lobbying of a left winger (who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier) is shocking news.
Why would that be shocking news? It's pretty well known that Google leans left. That's why this is news and what you suggest would not be. It would not be news if Fox Media raised money for Inhofe.
I meant it partly in jest but it should factor into the expense analysis if they did have to keep the old systems around. I wonder if shorter people might have trouble reaching the scanner. I'm not making any kind of argument here, my mind is just wandering on the topic. I wonder what other biometric systems might have issues with outliers in the population.
Slashdot Mirror
But what is the alternative? If government is just the biggest bully, what do you replace it with? There is a long line of people willing to take it's place and take your stuff. I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this brought up before. It's easy to say government has problems, it's not so easy to replace it with something else.
It's not a Generation Y thing, it's a philosophical question. You're basically arguing that a defendant is wholly responsible for the consequences of his action regardless of the weight of those consequences and the arbitrary nature in which they seem to be applied. Some argue that society has some responsibility to enforce laws evenly, clearly and with consequences weighted appropriately to the harm against society done.
You shouldn't really trust the domain either. It might lead you into thinking this is safe. NSFW.
What happens now when a vehicle is involved in a deadly situation? Manufacturers are responsible in some cases. Drivers in others. Is it because it's 'on a computer' that it's different than say Firestone tires failing?
My examples were to clarify their nature since many people are either uninformed, or in denial.
Here is the crux of the disagreement. You say it is 'their nature'. The opposing view says it is a matter of environment and circumstances. May I ask, what is it that makes it in 'their nature'? Are you suggesting it is genetic? Saying it is 'their nature', doesn't seem to me to be a better satisfactory answer than lightning is caused by god.
It was CTRL+SHIFT+T. The T is for Trades. Control Shifty Trades.
Sadly, the NSA will tap it, regardless of who builds it. Much of the internet infrastructure was initially setup by the government. It was developed by DARPA after all.
I think that's because infrastructure doesn't lend itself to competition. With competition we might get 4 - 30mbps connections to each home instead of just 1 100 mbps connection. I know it's sacrilege in the U.S. to suggest that some things really should be handled by the government but infrastructure really should be. I don't need competing water mains or roads brought to my house. In the same vein, even an incompetent government can put up infrastructure cheaper than the private industry simply because a truly competitive market would require multiple infrastructures.
Consider, 4 providers, each putting up their own infrastructure. Not only are efforts duplicated, but the users are split. So each provider will only get about 1/4 of the subscribers in an area. Which means costs will be about 4 times higher. Not a very good system at all. Now, because infrastructure naturally monopolizes anyway, we wind up with a private company having a monopoly on infrastructure and we have what we have.
At least that's my humble view.
Welcome to slashdot, enjoy your stay.
I think slashdot has bed bugs.
the government now funds NASA to find better ways of finding ever smaller pieces of space junk
About that. I know it's the Air Force but NASA used it too.
Evidently you have never driven on the 101 in California, High speed and earthquakes is a California tradition.
Link Added.
:)
I'm pretty sure you've driven on it
You don't know that for a fact.
He could never know that for a fact. You are attempting to force him to prove a negative to make his point. If you think there are Russian drone attacks then you should provide evidence of it. He can not provide evidence that something didn't happen.
Russian intelligence is every bit as invasive as ours, and is subject to far fewer restrictions. Putin himself recently said that the US is only doing what the Russians have been doing all along. And, don't forget, Putin is the former head of the KGB.
Don't forget Bush Sr. was the director of the CIA. I'm sure Putin did say that but Russia also recently bought drones from the UAE. And if you search for russian drone attacks all you get is stuff about U.S. drones and a few consipiracy theories about Obama.
You're only speculating. I could say that Russia uses space based gamma ray lasers to keep alien invaders at bay. They nobly sacrificed their economy and communism to save the human race while the U.S. enjoyed prosperity and protection. Prove that didn't happen.
Of course the term under consideration in this case was 'money.'
Actually it was currency. Read the original post to which I was replying to. You're arguing with the wrong person. He's the one that felt the judge was 'wrong' and then went on to define currency. I posted a one word question and a link to Wikipedia that disagreed. If the term is continental then by all means, I agree it's hard to define.
Here is the original post to which I was replying to that started this. I didn't even say he was wrong. I only replied 'Really?' with a link to Wikipedia.
Currency? (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @05:06PM (#44503149)
Wrong answer. All sorts of things can be exchanged for goods or cash. Currencies are issued and backed by governments. This is bad law.
The OP presented a definition that currency is only issued and backed by governments. I would agree legal tender can be defined that way but most consider currency a broader term than legal tender. In the end, we have a system that leaves it up to judges. While a superior court might offer a better definition I would be surprised if any court rules that bitcoin is not currency.
Currencies are issued and backed by governments.
Really?
Distinct from centrally controlled government-issued currencies, private decentralized trust networks support alternative currencies such as Bitcoin, as well as branded currencies that are based on reputation of commercial products.[9]
cause organisms to react to factors
All in all good, but this one set of words is incorrect. The organisms do not react at all. They vary and if selective pressure is high (ie a high mortality rate), then the species features will be redefined by the survivors. If aliens came to earth and decided to kill everyone except those with 6 fingers on their hands the human race would have 6 fingers on their hands.
Do it yourself experiment:
Take 100 dogs. Get them to stand on their back legs. Take the 10 that stand the longest. Breed them until you have a 100 dogs again. Repeat until you have dogs that are comfortable on 2 legs.
Or you can see in Soviet Russia fox turns to dog.
Actually, it is "in like Flynn". The movie was also spoofing the saying. However, it is common for people to think is "in like Flint".
Even CNN used the word credit right next to the screenshot
Missing link
Seemed a lot easier 14 years ago :)
Plus Spock is in the 1998 TV movie The older BBC version is on.
There's little evidence that people are getting genetically smarter. It has more to do with improved nutrition and education than anything else.
California pays more in Federal taxes than it receives in earmarks. By and large, Blue states pay in more than they receive while Red states receive more than they pay in (Texas is one of, if not the only, exception to this). So, while Democrats are generally thought of as being for bigger federal government and Republicans are for smaller federal government, the Blue states pay for it and the Red states get the benefit. Go figure.
When Google lobbies one right winger, it's news to Slashdot?
To be fair, consider a Rupert Murdoch or Koch Brothers company lobbying Pelosi. Google tends to project a left wing bent. If I recall at least one of the founders has worked with Obama's campaigns.
Is anyone here aware that his views are shared with a significant portion of the population?
Sadly.
This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
I grew up in Oklahoma and it's a poor state with strong beliefs and poor education. We did not study Evolution in school (this was 15 years ago). We were told there was such a theory and we could read about it but the teacher didn't personally agree with it. Inhofe doesn't just disagree with global warming he does so because the Bible says so.
He's probably wrong about Global Warming, I'll grant that.
Agreed. The problem isn't just that he disagreed, the problem is that he disagreed purely based on an ancient book.
But I daydream about one day when the coin is flipped and Google's lobbying of a left winger (who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier) is shocking news.
Why would that be shocking news? It's pretty well known that Google leans left. That's why this is news and what you suggest would not be. It would not be news if Fox Media raised money for Inhofe.
I meant it partly in jest but it should factor into the expense analysis if they did have to keep the old systems around. I wonder if shorter people might have trouble reaching the scanner. I'm not making any kind of argument here, my mind is just wandering on the topic. I wonder what other biometric systems might have issues with outliers in the population.