I thought that I was clear that by "government", I meant federal/state regulators. And by "free", I meant a lack of regulation by said regulators. Maybe that didn't come across - Or maybe you just scanned my post looking for something to pull out of context in order to try to appear insightful by intentionally misinterpreting - I dunno.
Maybe I'm shallow - I'd love to be enlightened, so feel free. I see only three possible scenarios:
1) Corporations are "free" to do what they like without interference from "government". Result: Large corporations conspire to shut out new entries to any significant business segment and screw the consumer and their employees to push the profit to the top.
2) Corporations are mostly "free" but bound by some limits set forth by "government". Result: Same as (1), except that market domination is slightly limited and employees are guaranteed some basic protections from complete exploitation. Back room deals, lobbies, etc push the limits as far as possible to eliminate limits placed on large corporations.
3) Corporations are completely run by the "government". I won't even get into that... If somebody wants to try to pass that off as a good idea, feel free. IMHO, this is only practical in a very limited set of cases - Not general business.
3 ugly scenarios. I have no solutions, I'm just playing the part of an observer right now...
That's how THE market works - all markets. Please don't pretend our current market is anything close to free. Wrong. All markets do not work that way. There are more than a couple where the worth of goods/services/people are government regulated. It's torn apart more than one country in Africa.
"Free market" in its typical usage means free from government interference. Ours isn't entirely free (and off-topic, I don't entirely object). The fact that large corporations hold almost all of the power is largely a result of market freedom. People are free to do what they like. People who do well conspire to do better at the expense of others. Sad, but free. What's your objection? Do you want less freedom so that the government will stop this kind of collusion?
I don't see this getting all the way to the "Enlarge your member" spammers. As soon as somebody got to the line, "Simply apply voltage to your...", the sale would be out the window.
It sounds similar to the rip-proof diamond weave fabric used for hot air balloons. You can cut/puncture it, but the damage will stay isolated. Still, it's far better than the normal situation in these cases where surrounding material near the defect, because it's all interdependent, becomes weaker and perpetuates the damage.
...the amount you pay will be the same regardless of whether I plug into it or not. True. But like I said, I use my bandwidth. If you use start leeching it, I'm paying more per GB. Now, I do password protect my network, so it's obvious to anyone trying to connect that they're not welcome. And, admittedly, folks who do not password protect their networks almost certainly either: 1) Don't know how and probably have bandwidth to spare. 2) Are being altruistic and leaving their network open intentionally.
I would say that connecting to an unsecured network named "Home_net" or "123_any_street_net" would probably be fine. Somebody obviously set up their network and opted not to secure it. But, connecting to a network named "LINKSYS" would be a little shady. True, you're probably taking something from that person that they'll never miss. But only because they're probably clueless, not because they wanted to share what they paid for.
If he didn't have an external plug and were to use mine by plugging in his weedwhacker in once a week, or plugging in the bug zapper when he was outside, I honestly wouldn't give a damn. Me either, but I would expect him to ask before using it the first time. And, if it was flat rate, it would be fine as long as he could reasonably assume that I wouldn't meet my quota on my own.
That's a really sticky point. But, that's the difference between "intentional unauthorized access" and "unintentional unauthorized access". So, the law does address that. The trick is, how do you determine intent?
Yeah, and I suppose that sitting in someone else's light, or perhaps walking on their lawn should be criminalized too? Not really the same thing. This is more like, "I suppose that plugging my A/C into my neighbor's outdoor electrical outlet should be criminalized too? After all, he didn't put a lock-box over it."
I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.
There's nothing environmentally friendly about the production and use of ANY vehicle. I drive my hybrid Vespa 30 miles a day on 1/4 gallon of biofuel that I generate myself from food leavings that I collect from the local landfill. When I get to my destination, I work 14-hour shifts rescuing endangered squirrels, planting trees, sucking huge amounts of ozone into my mighty lungs so that I can re-process it into pine-scented 02, and encouraging others to become more environmentally aware. If I couldn't drive, I be stuck within walking distance of my apartment all day just picking up litter =( .
I defy you to explain why my vehicle is doing net harm to the environment.
..."demanding more than they're worth". This is simply not true, and an especially laughable concept when you have lazy, ignorant executives making more in a month than most actual workers make all year. I agree that the situation with lazy execs making fortunes off of our labor is deplorable. But, just like anything else, you're worth what somebody's willing to pay for you. That's how the free market works. If you can find another employer that feeds its execs less and its grunts more, hire on.
If you're making $45k, but have another offer for $47k for similar levels of effort/benefits/job satisfaction, then you're worth $47k and should demand to be paid that much or jump ship. Even if you're contributions generate $250k/year for the company, you're still only worth $47k because that's all that you can market yourself for. If you were in a very scarcely populated field and could generate $250k/year, you would be worth more and could demand more. But, if $45k is all that you can demand from your employer, it's because they believe that they can replace you for someone they can pay $45k. That's how they determine your worth - Just like any other resource.
A sad situation, but not all things in life are what we'd like them to be.
The human body is a far superior machine, and far less expensive. A human less expensive than a car? You obviously either: 1) Don't have children and/or have never tallied what you actually cost to house and maintain. or 2) Live in a box, eat strays that you catch yourself, and don't bother with doctors or hygiene.
That goes for both
b. At any point in time after you cast your vote, you can verfiy that your
vote is counted with the candidate you voted for. and
d. You can vote over the internet. I'd love to verify my vote and I'm not really afraid of voting over the internet. However both cases expose you to possible coercion and a great deal of the computers are infected with malware and should not be trusted to do anything that you don't want stolen or manipulated.
That wasn't very nice - A voting machine is just an adder. The only trick is that it must add perfectly, be tamper-proof, and make sure that nobody is able to contribute more than once.
The only practical applications of this technology are Aibo-like robotic pets, alpine rescue/relief assistants (like St. Bernards of old), and military weaponry. Border patrol? US/Mexico? US/Canada? Or, even better, mount a gun, install some really basic AI and a loud speaker similar to the automated turrets already in the field, and send him out to the DMZ between N Korea/S Korea?
Keep out those pesky reporters, and you've got a genocide on your hands. Or an empty DMZ - There are already turrets between the Koreas that react (potentially fatally) to heat signatures and would treat reporters no different than soldiers. I'm not defending that as the right approach. But, if you could restrict this guy to the right arena, he'd make an effective border patrol agent.
the majority of the American public will be speechless for another and far more unfortunate reason So - Let's let them be heard. Let's put the decision on whether or not to use the machines to a vote. It can be a trial run for Sequoia's machines. If Sequoia tells us that we voted in favor of using their machines, we know they're lying and ditch 'em.
Those are a couple of the major hurdles to jump. I think that it may be easier to train real bats and learn to communicate with them so that you can debrief them when they return from the field...
Why is the controls on your DVR ok, but it's not OK to ahve those control built into the TV? I don't think I've heard anybody suggest that V-chips are a bad idea... Who are you responding to?
The V-chip is a fine tool and a good (although incomplete) step toward regulating what's aired in your home. I don't have one because my TV is ancient, but if I did I'd look into using it. But only as a device that may supplement good parenting. Just like the logging on my DVR - It allows me to see what's been viewed - That's it - One tool that helps me raise my kids. The rest is up to me.
I know in your super world were your children would never do any wrong, and your children would never do anything behind your back, and you are always watching what your children are doing, and watch ALL broadcasts before your children see them this doesn't apply. Wow, I had to read that twice just to make sure you weren't being sarcastic.~
If my kids watched something when I wasn't around, all I would know is the title, the time it was aired, and the time it was viewed. If it's something that I don't recognize/didn't approve, there would be a discussion and possibly consequences. So far, that's been sufficient.
Do you want a commercial advertising the money shots of the new up coming porn movie to be aired during Dora the Explorer? really? Do you really want to be watching cartoons with your children and then have faces of death come on? No. If such things were happening, I'd complain a lot. And disallow any station that broadcast such things. But, I watch enough of what my kids watch to get a pretty good idea for what they're being exposed to. And, I'm typically around when the TV's on - Maybe not watching, but I'd probably hear the shift in tone when PBS-kids spun up Faces of Death right after Super Why.
What network are your kids watching cartoons on? I'd recommend black-listing it and maybe writing a strongly worded letter...
The last time the Chinese government responded to a large gathering of popular dissent, which as you say will surely accompany a high profile global event such as the Olympics, they did it with tanks, tear gas, and machine guns. I suspect that the government would have been much more moderate in the Tienanmen Square incident if the crowds protesting were as nationally diverse as the crowds at the Olympics.
That said, I'd be surprised if they would allow any international protester to remain in the country. I think they would also take some big steps to try to disallow any record of a protest to be aired domestically or internationally.
...it would open the worlds eyes to just what is happens there, how restricted freedoms really are. But will the world really respond in any meaningful way? I think most people realize how oppressive the Chinese government is. But, they sell cheap goods, so we (US-centric here) won't interfere with them economically. (As a side note, I have a graphic on my wall that they gave me at work - A bald eagle soaring in front of an American flag with the phrase "Proud to be an American" emblazoned on it. I have it turned and circled to display the "MADE IN CHINA" mark on the back.) They can treat their neighbors however they choose and we respond by putting 'Free Tibet' bumper stickers on our cars. Military interaction would, of course, be disastrous.
The only way that the Chinese government would listen to any outside influence would be strong economic sanctions tied to behavioral changes. And we rely on them so thoroughly at this point that sanctions strong enough to be noticed would be suicide...
What if I had an addiction to orange juice and drank it ever hour, on the hour, or else I suddenly got shakey and had withdrawl symptoms - would they add "orange juice addiction" to the list? If a significant number of people were doing the same thing to a degree that it was screwing up their lives? Probably. But, probably just a a strange subset of CDO*. They're treating this as special because there are a lot of people developing real problems (work/personal/etc) because they refuse to get off the damned computer.
Disclaimer: I'm certainly no psychiatrist and have no idea if you need to treat people with this particular problem any different than your standard obsessive.
*CDO = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Don't you hate it when people fail to properly alphabetize their acronyms?
And I'm sure American Slashdotters is a statistically valid subset of the American people, right? Absolutely. Greater than 1e6 accounts? Yep - That's statistically valid, assuming that you can do an accurate survey on them.
Now, if you're asking if we're a random sampling that's representative of the nation at large - Not remotely.
I'd ask you for details of your sex life My girlfriend's name is Jergen's. I find that she's inexpensive, easy to interact with, and leaves a pleasant cherry-almond scent.
I'd ask for details of your finances. Broke. Too much $$ spent on Jergen's and subscription internet sites.
I'd ask what you liked reading as a guilty pleasure No pride = No guilt
discuss your bathroom habits You don't want to know. Really. You don't want to know.
All I'm asking is why won't the Chinese government engage in intellectual debates instead of pretending differences don't exist? When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't race.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that I was clear that by "government", I meant federal/state regulators. And by "free", I meant a lack of regulation by said regulators. Maybe that didn't come across - Or maybe you just scanned my post looking for something to pull out of context in order to try to appear insightful by intentionally misinterpreting - I dunno.
Maybe I'm shallow - I'd love to be enlightened, so feel free. I see only three possible scenarios:
1) Corporations are "free" to do what they like without interference from "government". Result: Large corporations conspire to shut out new entries to any significant business segment and screw the consumer and their employees to push the profit to the top.
2) Corporations are mostly "free" but bound by some limits set forth by "government". Result: Same as (1), except that market domination is slightly limited and employees are guaranteed some basic protections from complete exploitation. Back room deals, lobbies, etc push the limits as far as possible to eliminate limits placed on large corporations.
3) Corporations are completely run by the "government". I won't even get into that... If somebody wants to try to pass that off as a good idea, feel free. IMHO, this is only practical in a very limited set of cases - Not general business.
3 ugly scenarios. I have no solutions, I'm just playing the part of an observer right now...
"Free market" in its typical usage means free from government interference. Ours isn't entirely free (and off-topic, I don't entirely object). The fact that large corporations hold almost all of the power is largely a result of market freedom. People are free to do what they like. People who do well conspire to do better at the expense of others. Sad, but free. What's your objection? Do you want less freedom so that the government will stop this kind of collusion?
I don't see this getting all the way to the "Enlarge your member" spammers. As soon as somebody got to the line, "Simply apply voltage to your...", the sale would be out the window.
It sounds similar to the rip-proof diamond weave fabric used for hot air balloons. You can cut/puncture it, but the damage will stay isolated. Still, it's far better than the normal situation in these cases where surrounding material near the defect, because it's all interdependent, becomes weaker and perpetuates the damage.
...the amount you pay will be the same regardless of whether I plug into it or not. True. But like I said, I use my bandwidth. If you use start leeching it, I'm paying more per GB. Now, I do password protect my network, so it's obvious to anyone trying to connect that they're not welcome. And, admittedly, folks who do not password protect their networks almost certainly either:1) Don't know how and probably have bandwidth to spare.
2) Are being altruistic and leaving their network open intentionally.
I would say that connecting to an unsecured network named "Home_net" or "123_any_street_net" would probably be fine. Somebody obviously set up their network and opted not to secure it. But, connecting to a network named "LINKSYS" would be a little shady. True, you're probably taking something from that person that they'll never miss. But only because they're probably clueless, not because they wanted to share what they paid for. If he didn't have an external plug and were to use mine by plugging in his weedwhacker in once a week, or plugging in the bug zapper when he was outside, I honestly wouldn't give a damn. Me either, but I would expect him to ask before using it the first time. And, if it was flat rate, it would be fine as long as he could reasonably assume that I wouldn't meet my quota on my own.
That's a really sticky point. But, that's the difference between "intentional unauthorized access" and "unintentional unauthorized access". So, the law does address that. The trick is, how do you determine intent?
I pay for and use my bandwidth. If you start stealing it, you would certainly inconvenience me.
I defy you to explain why my vehicle is doing net harm to the environment.
..."demanding more than they're worth". This is simply not true, and an especially laughable concept when you have lazy, ignorant executives making more in a month than most actual workers make all year. I agree that the situation with lazy execs making fortunes off of our labor is deplorable. But, just like anything else, you're worth what somebody's willing to pay for you. That's how the free market works. If you can find another employer that feeds its execs less and its grunts more, hire on.If you're making $45k, but have another offer for $47k for similar levels of effort/benefits/job satisfaction, then you're worth $47k and should demand to be paid that much or jump ship. Even if you're contributions generate $250k/year for the company, you're still only worth $47k because that's all that you can market yourself for. If you were in a very scarcely populated field and could generate $250k/year, you would be worth more and could demand more. But, if $45k is all that you can demand from your employer, it's because they believe that they can replace you for someone they can pay $45k. That's how they determine your worth - Just like any other resource.
A sad situation, but not all things in life are what we'd like them to be.
1) Don't have children and/or have never tallied what you actually cost to house and maintain.
or
2) Live in a box, eat strays that you catch yourself, and don't bother with doctors or hygiene.
vote is counted with the candidate you voted for. and d. You can vote over the internet. I'd love to verify my vote and I'm not really afraid of voting over the internet. However both cases expose you to possible coercion and a great deal of the computers are infected with malware and should not be trusted to do anything that you don't want stolen or manipulated.
That wasn't very nice - A voting machine is just an adder. The only trick is that it must add perfectly, be tamper-proof, and make sure that nobody is able to contribute more than once.
Wait... That does sound kinda tough...
...people who don't understand the issue have no basis for commenting on it. If I wasn't guilty of it so often myself, I'd use that as a sig...Those are a couple of the major hurdles to jump. I think that it may be easier to train real bats and learn to communicate with them so that you can debrief them when they return from the field...
The V-chip is a fine tool and a good (although incomplete) step toward regulating what's aired in your home. I don't have one because my TV is ancient, but if I did I'd look into using it. But only as a device that may supplement good parenting. Just like the logging on my DVR - It allows me to see what's been viewed - That's it - One tool that helps me raise my kids. The rest is up to me. I know in your super world were your children would never do any wrong, and your children would never do anything behind your back, and you are always watching what your children are doing, and watch ALL broadcasts before your children see them this doesn't apply. Wow, I had to read that twice just to make sure you weren't being sarcastic.~
If my kids watched something when I wasn't around, all I would know is the title, the time it was aired, and the time it was viewed. If it's something that I don't recognize/didn't approve, there would be a discussion and possibly consequences. So far, that's been sufficient. Do you want a commercial advertising the money shots of the new up coming porn movie to be aired during Dora the Explorer? really?
Do you really want to be watching cartoons with your children and then have faces of death come on? No. If such things were happening, I'd complain a lot. And disallow any station that broadcast such things. But, I watch enough of what my kids watch to get a pretty good idea for what they're being exposed to. And, I'm typically around when the TV's on - Maybe not watching, but I'd probably hear the shift in tone when PBS-kids spun up Faces of Death right after Super Why.
What network are your kids watching cartoons on? I'd recommend black-listing it and maybe writing a strongly worded letter...
Cheers.
That said, I'd be surprised if they would allow any international protester to remain in the country. I think they would also take some big steps to try to disallow any record of a protest to be aired domestically or internationally.
...it would open the worlds eyes to just what is happens there, how restricted freedoms really are. But will the world really respond in any meaningful way? I think most people realize how oppressive the Chinese government is. But, they sell cheap goods, so we (US-centric here) won't interfere with them economically. (As a side note, I have a graphic on my wall that they gave me at work - A bald eagle soaring in front of an American flag with the phrase "Proud to be an American" emblazoned on it. I have it turned and circled to display the "MADE IN CHINA" mark on the back.) They can treat their neighbors however they choose and we respond by putting 'Free Tibet' bumper stickers on our cars. Military interaction would, of course, be disastrous.The only way that the Chinese government would listen to any outside influence would be strong economic sanctions tied to behavioral changes. And we rely on them so thoroughly at this point that sanctions strong enough to be noticed would be suicide...
Any ideas?
Disclaimer: I'm certainly no psychiatrist and have no idea if you need to treat people with this particular problem any different than your standard obsessive.
*CDO = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Don't you hate it when people fail to properly alphabetize their acronyms?
Now, if you're asking if we're a random sampling that's representative of the nation at large - Not remotely.