Agreed. First time I saw it, I immediately went looking for the last article on the 'new look' in hopes that it might contain instructions on how to keep the old one.
Sure, just so long as I get to blame "work is claiming 10 hours of my day but only paying for 10" (rather than "...only paying for 8") on sleep deprivation, too.
if your staff have an hour's commute each way, the time saved by having them close to each other will almost certainly be wiped out by time commuting
What connection do you see between commuting time and working time? Commuting comes out of the employee's personal time. I've never once seen any business which factors it in to the time they're expected to spend working. From the employee's side, that seems a bit off ("work is claiming 10 hours of my day but only paying for 10"), but, from the management side, I don't really see how it could work otherwise. ("Alice is telecommuting, so she has to work 8 hours a day. Bob has an hour commute each way, which leaves him 6 hours to do actual work. And Charlie - it's a 4 hour drive for him to get here, so he just turns around and heads home as soon as he walks in the door. And we pay them all the same.")
Yep. That's the point that I really think needs to be talked about more.
You support the Bush administration in all of its actions because you believe them to be just, benevolent, and noble, who would never misuse power under any circumstances? Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that's true. But will the next guy also be perfect? And the one after that? And the one 20 years from now? No. Even if the current lot are paragons of virtue, you have to remember that, someday, the powers you give them will fall into the hands of someone who will abuse them for personal gain and petty vengeance at every opportunity.
All of a sudden, you're teaching about condoms to kids who can't get an erection.
As you very well should be. Not all kids hit puberty at the same time, so shouldn't you be hitting them with sex ed when the first of them hits puberty, if not earlier? Which means that, yeah, if only one of the boys is far enough along to get an erection, then you're also teaching the rest of the boys who can't.
Your reference to "Not liking the idea of introducing these concepts to hormone driven teens" is also a great reason for teaching kids who can't get an erection about sex. (Yes, I realize you probably didn't mean to be pushing that idea, but it seems like a great point anyhow.) If they have some idea of what's going on, and the potential consequences, before it happens, then that's a lot more likely to help prevent them from doing anything dangerous or irresponsible than if you wait until they're likely to already be "experimenting" on their own.
Or perhaps you have misunderstoon piratpartiet's goals... I get the distinct impression that they're more interested in freedom than simply getting things for free.
Nobody has said that Finnish property laws should be applied in the U.S. Why do you persist in claiming that U.S. property laws should be applied in Finland?
Would you also say that California's property laws should be applied in Oregon? ("What's the point of buying beachfront property if you're not allowed to keep people off your beach?" Yes, I know you said that Oregon "bans ownership of beaches outright", but come on... Do you really think the average owner of beachfront property didn't pay more for it because of the beach or that they don't think of it as "their" beach, even if they don't technically own it?)
If not, then what do you see as the qualitiative difference that makes it OK for Oregon to have a public right to cross beaches, but not OK for Finland to have a public right to cross forests?
If you're blatantly willing to break that law you're probably willing to break others, too.
Yes, but you see, in Scandinavia, you're not breaking the law because it's not illegal. I suspect that many Swedes would consider the American farmer to be an abject asshole for taking such great offense over something that does him no harm. (100% of the Swedes I've talked to about this thread would think that, but, given my sample size of 1, it's not all that statistically significant.)
I find it rather surprising that you would be toting a very Asatru-looking signature while declaring Nordic traditions that date back to the viking era, if not earlier, to be wrong... Granted, I don't know which particular flavor of heathenry you subscribe to, but I've met folks who follow all the major versions and many of the minor ones as well, and every one of them has held some variation on "hospitality" or "hostliness" as a virtue. Meeting a stranger with weapons at the ready and making threats against them when they have shown no sign of ill will is hardly an example of good hospitality.
I don't really see what the point is of owning property if you can't actually control who gets to use it and who doesn't.
I don't really see what the point is of being so possessive about it. If someone passes through and there is no way for you to know afterwards that they have done so, then it obviously has caused you no harm. So why does it matter? A piece of land isn't like a book or a wallet - someone can't just pick it up, walk away, and not give it back - so there is no need for the ownership of land to be exclusionary of use by others.
Sounds to me like the real owner is ol' Daddy Gubmint.
That's no different than anywhere else in the world. If the government doesn't own the land, then why do you have to pay them rent (property taxes) and why are they able to evict you if they so choose (eminent domain)?
Have you considered that, perhaps, the people in an area where such rights have been recognized for the last few centuries might have already factored them into the value of the land? "The public" may not be writing you a check to help pay off your loan, but, if "the public" believes that their access diminishes the value of the land to you, then I bet you took out a smaller loan in the first place.
Sorry, but he's dead on about the clickwheel. It flat-out sucks.
"Hey, guys, let's make something that looks just like a directional pad, but, instead of moving down a list when you press down, have it do something completely different!"
"Yeah, and then - get this - we can have people move through lists by using a circular motion around the pad, and make the rate that it moves through the list variable, so that it's absolutely impossible to keep track of how far you've moved unless you're looking at the screen as you do it."
"Sweet... and I know how to make it better yet. Once it starts moving, crank the sensitivity up so high that people wil end up jumping the cursor back and forth over the item they want half a dozen times before they can actually get it to stop in the right place."
"Good, but that might actually be useful when using it to fast forward or rewind within a song. In that mode, it should stay as slow as possible so that users are stuck there, going around and around the wheel dozens of times if they want to jump ahead by more than a minute."
"Oh, yes! That is an absolutely perfect idea! The only thing that's missing is to just say 'move your finger around the pad' in the manual with no indication of what that actually means."
You have nothing to support there is a difference between a pedophile that molest someone in their family vs an outsider. Is there a difference? Seems like a matter of convenience to me.
From the GP: "the research suggests that that type of pedophile is very unlikely to change into the kind that molests outside of the family." If it is purely a matter of convenience, as you suggest, then why does the research even make a distinction and why do we not see regular reports of offenders who start off with molesting family members, then move on to the general public?
I'll repeat -- pedophiles are not "cured". They are only contained.
Of course. Nothing can be done to rehabilitate them, which is why molestation has a much lower rate of recidivism than murder, rape, or pretty much any other major felony. (And yet sex offenders are branded for life, while murderers - who, I repeat, are more likely to do it again - can "pay their debt to society" and move on with their lives...)
It makes bulk mail expensive for the sender. I *want* this.
I host an announcement mailing list for one of the local dance communities. There are approximately 500 subscribers - the low end of "bulk", surely, but I'd call it "bulk" nonetheless. The organization on whose behalf the list is run is perpetually short on cash. If bulk mail on that scale becomes expensive, the list goes away and 500 people no longer receive timely email telling them about upcoming classes, dances, etc. How is that better for them?
But maybe 500 people and 2-3 messages/week doesn't count as "bulk" in your view. How many people subscribe to, say, the linux-kernel mailing list? The debian-user mailing list? If you want bulk mail to be expensive, then what will it cost to run those lists, distributing hundreds of messages a day to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of subscribers, and who will pay those bills?
Let me get this straight... "As for individual correspondence, a small notification is sent, telling you that a new message is waiting for you to be picked up at the sender's server." So, every time one of my friends sends me an email messgage, I have to deal with two messages (the notification to go to their server and then the actual message itself), of which one is the actual content.
Congratulations, you've just guaranteed that no less than 50% of the messages I deal with will be spam.
And that's without even getting into questions of preformance (I bet I can access my local mail server faster than I can go out and hit the servers of each and every person who's sent me mail) or reliability (if network problems prevent me from reaching your server at the time I'm reading mail, I can't read your mail).
The obvious solution to all three of these problems would be for me to run a client which receives the notifications of available messages and automatically downloads them to my server... which basically turns it into a more convoluted version of exactly what we have right now. How is that an improvement?
I'm not familiar with Finnish law/tradition, but, under the Swedish equivalent, you are allowed to pass through a fenced field, just so long as you close the gate behind yourself. If you leave the gate open and any animals get in/out, you are considered to be responsible for them and for any damage they may cause.
Note that this is fields, not yards. Most of these open access rights are predicated on you not approaching the house or other buildings on the land unless you intend to talk to the owner. (Although you have the legal right to do these things, it's generally considered polite to stop and say hi to the landowner if you do much more than just passing through.)
As far as the things GP mentioned, three-wheelers would definitely not be allowed. In addition to the "cause no damage" aspect, the open access rights do not apply to off-road use of motor vehicles. Building campfires would be allowed, but you are only allowed to collect dead wood off the ground, not to take any from the trees, and the fire must be built in a safe place which will do no damage. (In particular, putting the fire on exposed rock is forbidden, as the heating and cooling will tend to cause cracks to develop.)
Thanks for pointing out the Free Software connection - I hadn't thought of that and it's one more reason to like it.
Use exactly as they choose... subject to building permits, zoning regulations, etc.
I half remember a quote I saw many years ago to the effect of "Our forefathers went forth, conquered the wilderness, and built great nations. Nowadays you have to get a building permit to put up a new screen door."
An argument could be made that a wireless connection is "advertised" if it is broadcasting its SSID and "available to the public" if it is unencrypted and takes no other measures to prevent any random member of the public from connecting and using it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always believed XML to be more hype than substance. Thanks for stating so well why that is.
Agreed. First time I saw it, I immediately went looking for the last article on the 'new look' in hopes that it might contain instructions on how to keep the old one.
...unless the "Swedish" is written by Møntÿ Pÿthøn.
Sure, just so long as I get to blame "work is claiming 10 hours of my day but only paying for 10" (rather than "...only paying for 8") on sleep deprivation, too.
if your staff have an hour's commute each way, the time saved by having them close to each other will almost certainly be wiped out by time commuting
What connection do you see between commuting time and working time? Commuting comes out of the employee's personal time. I've never once seen any business which factors it in to the time they're expected to spend working. From the employee's side, that seems a bit off ("work is claiming 10 hours of my day but only paying for 10"), but, from the management side, I don't really see how it could work otherwise. ("Alice is telecommuting, so she has to work 8 hours a day. Bob has an hour commute each way, which leaves him 6 hours to do actual work. And Charlie - it's a 4 hour drive for him to get here, so he just turns around and heads home as soon as he walks in the door. And we pay them all the same.")
Yep. That's the point that I really think needs to be talked about more.
You support the Bush administration in all of its actions because you believe them to be just, benevolent, and noble, who would never misuse power under any circumstances? Fine. Assume for the sake of argument that's true. But will the next guy also be perfect? And the one after that? And the one 20 years from now? No. Even if the current lot are paragons of virtue, you have to remember that, someday, the powers you give them will fall into the hands of someone who will abuse them for personal gain and petty vengeance at every opportunity.
All of a sudden, you're teaching about condoms to kids who can't get an erection.
As you very well should be. Not all kids hit puberty at the same time, so shouldn't you be hitting them with sex ed when the first of them hits puberty, if not earlier? Which means that, yeah, if only one of the boys is far enough along to get an erection, then you're also teaching the rest of the boys who can't.
Your reference to "Not liking the idea of introducing these concepts to hormone driven teens" is also a great reason for teaching kids who can't get an erection about sex. (Yes, I realize you probably didn't mean to be pushing that idea, but it seems like a great point anyhow.) If they have some idea of what's going on, and the potential consequences, before it happens, then that's a lot more likely to help prevent them from doing anything dangerous or irresponsible than if you wait until they're likely to already be "experimenting" on their own.
Fair enough. It's also possible that, since I agree with what they want to accomplish, I may have projected my reasons onto them.
Or perhaps you have misunderstoon piratpartiet's goals... I get the distinct impression that they're more interested in freedom than simply getting things for free.
Nøw yøu just need tø be intrøduced tø the "ø" HTML element...
Nobody has said that Finnish property laws should be applied in the U.S. Why do you persist in claiming that U.S. property laws should be applied in Finland?
Would you also say that California's property laws should be applied in Oregon? ("What's the point of buying beachfront property if you're not allowed to keep people off your beach?" Yes, I know you said that Oregon "bans ownership of beaches outright", but come on... Do you really think the average owner of beachfront property didn't pay more for it because of the beach or that they don't think of it as "their" beach, even if they don't technically own it?)
If not, then what do you see as the qualitiative difference that makes it OK for Oregon to have a public right to cross beaches, but not OK for Finland to have a public right to cross forests?
If you're blatantly willing to break that law you're probably willing to break others, too.
Yes, but you see, in Scandinavia, you're not breaking the law because it's not illegal. I suspect that many Swedes would consider the American farmer to be an abject asshole for taking such great offense over something that does him no harm. (100% of the Swedes I've talked to about this thread would think that, but, given my sample size of 1, it's not all that statistically significant.)
I find it rather surprising that you would be toting a very Asatru-looking signature while declaring Nordic traditions that date back to the viking era, if not earlier, to be wrong... Granted, I don't know which particular flavor of heathenry you subscribe to, but I've met folks who follow all the major versions and many of the minor ones as well, and every one of them has held some variation on "hospitality" or "hostliness" as a virtue. Meeting a stranger with weapons at the ready and making threats against them when they have shown no sign of ill will is hardly an example of good hospitality.
I don't really see what the point is of owning property if you can't actually control who gets to use it and who doesn't.
I don't really see what the point is of being so possessive about it. If someone passes through and there is no way for you to know afterwards that they have done so, then it obviously has caused you no harm. So why does it matter? A piece of land isn't like a book or a wallet - someone can't just pick it up, walk away, and not give it back - so there is no need for the ownership of land to be exclusionary of use by others.
Sounds to me like the real owner is ol' Daddy Gubmint.
That's no different than anywhere else in the world. If the government doesn't own the land, then why do you have to pay them rent (property taxes) and why are they able to evict you if they so choose (eminent domain)?
Have you considered that, perhaps, the people in an area where such rights have been recognized for the last few centuries might have already factored them into the value of the land? "The public" may not be writing you a check to help pay off your loan, but, if "the public" believes that their access diminishes the value of the land to you, then I bet you took out a smaller loan in the first place.
I take it you don't attempt to change playlists while driving or jump ahead 20 minutes in news podcasts to get to the next segment, then...
a G unit with an expensive pair of Nike shoes
Damn... They're making Nikes in GUNDAM sizes now?
Sorry, but he's dead on about the clickwheel. It flat-out sucks.
"Hey, guys, let's make something that looks just like a directional pad, but, instead of moving down a list when you press down, have it do something completely different!"
"Yeah, and then - get this - we can have people move through lists by using a circular motion around the pad, and make the rate that it moves through the list variable, so that it's absolutely impossible to keep track of how far you've moved unless you're looking at the screen as you do it."
"Sweet... and I know how to make it better yet. Once it starts moving, crank the sensitivity up so high that people wil end up jumping the cursor back and forth over the item they want half a dozen times before they can actually get it to stop in the right place."
"Good, but that might actually be useful when using it to fast forward or rewind within a song. In that mode, it should stay as slow as possible so that users are stuck there, going around and around the wheel dozens of times if they want to jump ahead by more than a minute."
"Oh, yes! That is an absolutely perfect idea! The only thing that's missing is to just say 'move your finger around the pad' in the manual with no indication of what that actually means."
Yeah, that's a terrific interface alright...
You have nothing to support there is a difference between a pedophile that molest someone in their family vs an outsider. Is there a difference? Seems like a matter of convenience to me.
From the GP: "the research suggests that that type of pedophile is very unlikely to change into the kind that molests outside of the family." If it is purely a matter of convenience, as you suggest, then why does the research even make a distinction and why do we not see regular reports of offenders who start off with molesting family members, then move on to the general public?
I'll repeat -- pedophiles are not "cured". They are only contained.
Of course. Nothing can be done to rehabilitate them, which is why molestation has a much lower rate of recidivism than murder, rape, or pretty much any other major felony. (And yet sex offenders are branded for life, while murderers - who, I repeat, are more likely to do it again - can "pay their debt to society" and move on with their lives...)
It makes bulk mail expensive for the sender. I *want* this.
I host an announcement mailing list for one of the local dance communities. There are approximately 500 subscribers - the low end of "bulk", surely, but I'd call it "bulk" nonetheless. The organization on whose behalf the list is run is perpetually short on cash. If bulk mail on that scale becomes expensive, the list goes away and 500 people no longer receive timely email telling them about upcoming classes, dances, etc. How is that better for them?
But maybe 500 people and 2-3 messages/week doesn't count as "bulk" in your view. How many people subscribe to, say, the linux-kernel mailing list? The debian-user mailing list? If you want bulk mail to be expensive, then what will it cost to run those lists, distributing hundreds of messages a day to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of subscribers, and who will pay those bills?
Let me get this straight... "As for individual correspondence, a small notification is sent, telling you that a new message is waiting for you to be picked up at the sender's server." So, every time one of my friends sends me an email messgage, I have to deal with two messages (the notification to go to their server and then the actual message itself), of which one is the actual content.
Congratulations, you've just guaranteed that no less than 50% of the messages I deal with will be spam.
And that's without even getting into questions of preformance (I bet I can access my local mail server faster than I can go out and hit the servers of each and every person who's sent me mail) or reliability (if network problems prevent me from reaching your server at the time I'm reading mail, I can't read your mail).
The obvious solution to all three of these problems would be for me to run a client which receives the notifications of available messages and automatically downloads them to my server... which basically turns it into a more convoluted version of exactly what we have right now. How is that an improvement?
No, that just degrades. Nothing graceful about it.
...unless you work for the NSA.
I'm not familiar with Finnish law/tradition, but, under the Swedish equivalent, you are allowed to pass through a fenced field, just so long as you close the gate behind yourself. If you leave the gate open and any animals get in/out, you are considered to be responsible for them and for any damage they may cause.
Note that this is fields, not yards. Most of these open access rights are predicated on you not approaching the house or other buildings on the land unless you intend to talk to the owner. (Although you have the legal right to do these things, it's generally considered polite to stop and say hi to the landowner if you do much more than just passing through.)
As far as the things GP mentioned, three-wheelers would definitely not be allowed. In addition to the "cause no damage" aspect, the open access rights do not apply to off-road use of motor vehicles. Building campfires would be allowed, but you are only allowed to collect dead wood off the ground, not to take any from the trees, and the fire must be built in a safe place which will do no damage. (In particular, putting the fire on exposed rock is forbidden, as the heating and cooling will tend to cause cracks to develop.)
Thanks for pointing out the Free Software connection - I hadn't thought of that and it's one more reason to like it.
Use exactly as they choose... subject to building permits, zoning regulations, etc.
I half remember a quote I saw many years ago to the effect of "Our forefathers went forth, conquered the wilderness, and built great nations. Nowadays you have to get a building permit to put up a new screen door."
An argument could be made that a wireless connection is "advertised" if it is broadcasting its SSID and "available to the public" if it is unencrypted and takes no other measures to prevent any random member of the public from connecting and using it.
Yes, it is sad, but it's not his fault. There was only one name to come up with (in the Senate, at least).