Yes, but VOIP is actually competitive with other services (telcos HAVE to allow other companies on to their copper, there's no such law or regulation for fiber). Internet is a VERY monopolized market, you're lucky if you have more than one choice (satellite and dial-up hardly qualify as internet these days, so stop suggesting them).
And I'm sick of hearing this argument. The cornerstone of a Democratic government is the right of the people to put forth grievances, have them evaluated, and, if deemed appropriate, acted on.
You think multi-billion-dollar corporations care at all about one customer? Of course they don't, and most people are too stupid to see what they're actually getting, which is a tree-sized dick in their ass.
'Best' does not necessarily mean 'good'. If you had a choice between water someone had crapped in, or water someone had pissed in, would you be saying 'Oh, I'll choose whatever's best and enjoy it, because it's what's best!'? No, you wouldn't.
There's a HUGE difference between a robot that can manage to land on a fixed point on an object, and a robot that can actually LEARN how to land on that object.
Remember, these robots know nothing. Not how to fly, not how to land, nothing, except how to learn.
But there's also a point where science is limited by political correctness, as is the case with stem-cell research, and that should NEVER happen, unless the majority of the populace agrees (which I seriously doubt they would if they were actually properly informed about bloody anything these days).
What if you were to, say, hold a general vote on the issue? I say any major spending, like more than $5 million (totally arbitrary example, of course) would require a nationwide (or statewide/citywide, depending on who it would affect) vote, with a > 50% 'yay' vote required to allow that money to be spent.
Yes, that's what our government is SUPPOSED to do, but it's obvious it doesn't work like that, so let the people decide (and if they fuck it up, they have only themselves to blame).
You're lucky if you can find a class involving a religion besides Christianity, even luckier if any other religion is discussed even close to as much as Christianity would be.
Creationism is certainly based on that very same book now. Even if it isn't, ask any fundie Creationist. They'll tell you it is.
If Creationism were taught in schools, wouldn't Pastafarianism also have a valid claim? After all, they both have exactly the same foundation in provable fact. Why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
I realize Slashdot has a heavy Libertarian bent, with a large sympathetic atheist wing, but Slashdot is not representative of the public as a whole. Quite the opposite. So if you're hoping to let "science" work with no ethical boundaries (as most see them), then you're out of luck. Never gonna happen, at least not in this country.
Nor should it. There has been plenty of media based off the "research without ethical concerns" idea, and some of that is what would most likely actually end up happening. Imagine, you could be just sitting in your house, watching TV, then a bunch of guys wearing black masks breaks down your door and throws you into a black, unmarked van. You wake up strapped to a table, look down, and realize you're missing a few vital organs you'd grown quite attached to over the years.
I don't mean to use scare tactics, but it seems logical to me that that sort of thing would happen quite frequently under the banner of furthering human knowledge. Of course, if you WANTED to be dragged off (assuming they had the mental ability to make a reasoned decision), then why should we say no? It's an opportunity to further human knowledge AND make a person happy at the same time.
In a Capitalistic society, money means power. Offices such as President are just fancy titles that say "I have significantly more money than you ever will, and now I'm going to flaunt my wealth under the guise of being a public servant.".
No truly democratic system can have any position of political power, even if they are elected (because people lie and pander, almost without exception, when presented with a genuine opportunity for significant power). This means the entire idea of a government is undemocratic, though I would be labeled as undemocratic for even thinking that. You see the irony, I trust.
It justifies scary-as-hell ideas such as radical eugenics - that is, everyone's genes are tested and cataloged, then only the best are allowed to breed (or are forced to). Even more radical is those that fail to meet an arbitrary standard are killed, either before being born or after.
But who says that will happen? Why is the "Well, if we do x, then y and then z and then d will happen with 100% certainty!" argument so often used? The fact is, you don't know what would happen. Nobody does, and until someone invents a supercomputer capable of computing every single possible variable in this reality, nobody ever will.
All the results have come from adult stem cells because that's what's being worked with the most. There's way too much controversy over embryonic stem cells, so they use the next-best thing.
However, every single research paper I've read that used adult stem cells either insinuated or flat out said results would have been better/easier/cheaper/quicker if the stem cells had been embryonic.
You don't seem to understand the simple fact that the current tax system FAVORS the rich. Tell me, how the fuck is THAT fair? Giving even more money to the rich just because they're rich?
You know, there are other forms of encryption besides SSL that don't require a certificate of any kind.
Anyway, when this becomes an issue (trust me, it's a 'when'), who signed the certificate will be totally ignored, because the only way to get a certificate that isn't self-signed would be through the.gov, defeating the purpose.
They'd have to change every single pixel in such a way as to make the change transparent to anyone that wasn't looking for it, and then it'd just be a simple matter of breaking the algorithm, implementing a data integrity check and data recovery code of some sort.
No matter what the government would throw at us, we'd break it, do our best to keep the break hidden for as long as possible, and break the next thing that came up, until eventually there'd be enough organization among hackers to simply shut all these filters down.
Do you have a few million dollars to 'donate' to get what you want? No? Well, neither does a vast majority of the US population. Money is all the US government listens to, the lobbyists are just mouthpieces.
Well, no. The absence of Higgs Bosons doesn't mean they don't exist, just that either this particular set of equipment can't create them, or can't detect them.
Anyway, the current model is still useful, even if there really is no Higgs Boson.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but VOIP is actually competitive with other services (telcos HAVE to allow other companies on to their copper, there's no such law or regulation for fiber). Internet is a VERY monopolized market, you're lucky if you have more than one choice (satellite and dial-up hardly qualify as internet these days, so stop suggesting them).
And I'm sick of hearing this argument. The cornerstone of a Democratic government is the right of the people to put forth grievances, have them evaluated, and, if deemed appropriate, acted on.
You think multi-billion-dollar corporations care at all about one customer? Of course they don't, and most people are too stupid to see what they're actually getting, which is a tree-sized dick in their ass.
'Best' does not necessarily mean 'good'. If you had a choice between water someone had crapped in, or water someone had pissed in, would you be saying 'Oh, I'll choose whatever's best and enjoy it, because it's what's best!'? No, you wouldn't.
There's a HUGE difference between a robot that can manage to land on a fixed point on an object, and a robot that can actually LEARN how to land on that object. Remember, these robots know nothing. Not how to fly, not how to land, nothing, except how to learn.
All running Linux, I trust?
But there's also a point where science is limited by political correctness, as is the case with stem-cell research, and that should NEVER happen, unless the majority of the populace agrees (which I seriously doubt they would if they were actually properly informed about bloody anything these days).
What if you were to, say, hold a general vote on the issue? I say any major spending, like more than $5 million (totally arbitrary example, of course) would require a nationwide (or statewide/citywide, depending on who it would affect) vote, with a > 50% 'yay' vote required to allow that money to be spent.
Yes, that's what our government is SUPPOSED to do, but it's obvious it doesn't work like that, so let the people decide (and if they fuck it up, they have only themselves to blame).
The irony here is absolutely amazing.
You read /., and this SURPRISED you?
You're lucky if you can find a class involving a religion besides Christianity, even luckier if any other religion is discussed even close to as much as Christianity would be.
Creationism is certainly based on that very same book now. Even if it isn't, ask any fundie Creationist. They'll tell you it is.
If Creationism were taught in schools, wouldn't Pastafarianism also have a valid claim? After all, they both have exactly the same foundation in provable fact. Why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
I realize Slashdot has a heavy Libertarian bent, with a large sympathetic atheist wing, but Slashdot is not representative of the public as a whole. Quite the opposite. So if you're hoping to let "science" work with no ethical boundaries (as most see them), then you're out of luck. Never gonna happen, at least not in this country.
Nor should it. There has been plenty of media based off the "research without ethical concerns" idea, and some of that is what would most likely actually end up happening. Imagine, you could be just sitting in your house, watching TV, then a bunch of guys wearing black masks breaks down your door and throws you into a black, unmarked van. You wake up strapped to a table, look down, and realize you're missing a few vital organs you'd grown quite attached to over the years.
I don't mean to use scare tactics, but it seems logical to me that that sort of thing would happen quite frequently under the banner of furthering human knowledge. Of course, if you WANTED to be dragged off (assuming they had the mental ability to make a reasoned decision), then why should we say no? It's an opportunity to further human knowledge AND make a person happy at the same time.
In a Capitalistic society, money means power. Offices such as President are just fancy titles that say "I have significantly more money than you ever will, and now I'm going to flaunt my wealth under the guise of being a public servant.".
No truly democratic system can have any position of political power, even if they are elected (because people lie and pander, almost without exception, when presented with a genuine opportunity for significant power). This means the entire idea of a government is undemocratic, though I would be labeled as undemocratic for even thinking that. You see the irony, I trust.
It justifies scary-as-hell ideas such as radical eugenics - that is, everyone's genes are tested and cataloged, then only the best are allowed to breed (or are forced to). Even more radical is those that fail to meet an arbitrary standard are killed, either before being born or after.
But who says that will happen? Why is the "Well, if we do x, then y and then z and then d will happen with 100% certainty!" argument so often used? The fact is, you don't know what would happen. Nobody does, and until someone invents a supercomputer capable of computing every single possible variable in this reality, nobody ever will.
In other words: fuck up someone else's life if it fits your belief system.
All the results have come from adult stem cells because that's what's being worked with the most. There's way too much controversy over embryonic stem cells, so they use the next-best thing.
However, every single research paper I've read that used adult stem cells either insinuated or flat out said results would have been better/easier/cheaper/quicker if the stem cells had been embryonic.
You don't seem to understand the simple fact that the current tax system FAVORS the rich. Tell me, how the fuck is THAT fair? Giving even more money to the rich just because they're rich?
That's an actual Paris Hilton quote?
Well, fuck, maybe she SHOULD run for president.
You know, there are other forms of encryption besides SSL that don't require a certificate of any kind.
.gov, defeating the purpose.
Anyway, when this becomes an issue (trust me, it's a 'when'), who signed the certificate will be totally ignored, because the only way to get a certificate that isn't self-signed would be through the
They'd have to change every single pixel in such a way as to make the change transparent to anyone that wasn't looking for it, and then it'd just be a simple matter of breaking the algorithm, implementing a data integrity check and data recovery code of some sort.
No matter what the government would throw at us, we'd break it, do our best to keep the break hidden for as long as possible, and break the next thing that came up, until eventually there'd be enough organization among hackers to simply shut all these filters down.
My money is on mass exodus after a president starts yet another war the people don't want.
Don't forget, we elected GWB TWICE.
Do you have a few million dollars to 'donate' to get what you want? No? Well, neither does a vast majority of the US population. Money is all the US government listens to, the lobbyists are just mouthpieces.
Well, no. The absence of Higgs Bosons doesn't mean they don't exist, just that either this particular set of equipment can't create them, or can't detect them.
Anyway, the current model is still useful, even if there really is no Higgs Boson.