I know this old (catching up), but I couldn't let it go.
regulation is -never- the answer when it comes to the economy
So it is good for something? Anyways, your against it in this case... got it.
If you can mandate net neutrality over all the net* who is to say that the government can't force ISPs to block certain sites?
Well, we do have these things called elections. Unless rule of law has been broken, I think a clear majority of citizens can still elect representatives that can get things changed. Call me naive if you want.
they should be accountable to the citizens because their land is being used
As wimax comes this may be a more relevant question. But for the most part, every ISP is using public land and certianly public easments and utility propery. So how should we make the companies accountable to the citizens? Maybe choose some representatives to sit down in some sort of committee and estables rules and guidelines for the companies to follow? I think we came to an agreement afterall.
They do include exactly what the sample size is if you use the tool to lookup your specific area. It tells how many in that area and how many nationwide. It even noted that my area had few responses, and told me not use this number for much past "huh, neat". So it wasn't that bad.
As far as "connecting" to the network, I have no issue with what you use, assuming it isn't a device made for malevolence. However, when you come running into my office at 4:56 wanting help with your $latest_awesome_phone, that I know nothing about, then I start to wonder if letting you use your home device for work was a good idea. Or when you want me to enable IMAP because that's all that a single employee's phone supports (and we use Exchange/MAPI like most similar companies), then again, I wonder why we let people use personal devices.
But it is great to think of dumping all the procurement/management onto the end user...
The thing you forget is that if the government is responsible for your healthcare, then they will get to claim authority over your health. It starts with fines for not wearing seat belts. Then they start dictating what foods you may eat. Eventually, there will be edicts dictating what you must wear each day according to how some bureaucrat reads the weather predictions.
The thing you forget is that all of this gubment takeover already happens... except for the "based on the weather" part. You currently get fined for not wearing a seatbelt. You currently are dictated as to what you can eat (FDA) and grow (google "filburn interstate commerce clause"). And you can't walk around naked...
1. You should learn to think for yourself... instead of blindly following others.
2. Nothing I said requires citation... go take a drive in the ghetto this weekend, stop by a goodwill and review a globe. You will have all the info you need.
3. From the Heritage website:
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution--a think tank--whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
It's a conservative think tank with an agenda... not a research organization. You should learn the difference. Look up "objective" (I can think of two definitions for that word that would help you) in Websters for a start (hint: dictionary = objective without an objective).
second link was 404.
First link was full of fallacies, inconsistencies and straw-men.
For instance it talked much about color tvs. Do you know how much a 19" color tv costs? I got one at goodwill for $10 last year. Point rebutted.
It suggested that poor people shouldn't have cars... but a car is a necessity in most any city/county with under 1 million people. Public transportation isn't great here in the US... a car is about as close to a necessity as it gets (if you want them to work, which I suppose you do). Point rebutted.
It talked much about the "crowding" of poor households, but have you ever drove around the ghetto? They have big houses... that nobody wants to live in. It did mention that the idea of "poor" is perhaps skewed and that is true. But poor doesn't mean you have to live in a shanty to qualify. Point rebutted.
It also noted the comparison of poor crowding to Europe, but that's an obvious straw man. We could do the same by comparing the poor of rural AZ to the poor of Southern CA. In whole the US has more room than Europe... point rebutted.
The poor are much better off than median just a few decades ago... but if we keep adding time we can easily get to the point that we define poor as worse than when Jesus lived (or better than slaves, etc.), and 99.9 percent of the country wouldn't be "poor". Times change, things improve and the level of comfort for the poor will go up just as it does for others. I have heard this argument before and can understand part of it... but many people struggle. The definition of struggle may be debated and change over time, but we are not to a point that we can stop helping the poor.
low payments to doctors and hospitals, so only really bad hospitals will take people on this plan
You know, maybe if we had an actual free market like you assholes like to pretend we do, that would already happen. Why isn't there an option for a poor person to go to a doctor for $10? Weren't there any doctors that made C's and D's? Like the guys that work the helpdesk now, those docs should be working for the poor for a bad salary.
So please, let's find some way to actually bring some free-market fundamentals to healthcare - I guess if it takes government intrusion, so be it.
rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance
Yeah, I see soooo many people at the free clinic with a dozen TVs, multiple new cars and *prada bags. Even if true...
32 inch TV = $500
Car payment = $300
New earrings/luxury item every month = $200
And that is still less than what me and my employer pay each month for my family's healthcare (3 people)
Some of what you say seems illogical.... let me explain.
Out in the country many people have their own wells and don't have to pay for water. If the city government did not provide the water service, someone would start a company doing it if it were cheaper to do so than to have everyone install their own well.
See in the city, we can't have a well every 100 feet to accomodate each house... that wouldn't work. So there MUST be some form of collaboration. Also for profit corporations will always care much less about the earth and long term damage. Jefferson said that as we "pile on top of each other" we will create a bigger government. He was right. There is no avoiding the fact that as we over-populate this earth, we must form some body to govern what happens as interactions with other increase and the ability to "live off the land" is reduced. Or we just start euthanizing people.
I have no interest in robbing my neighbors, and I know they have no interest in robbing me. If you live in a neighborhood where they do, maybe it's time to move
I believe in a free-market system, where anyting goes... so I'll rob you for the gain. I also think if you try to police yourself, robbers would just become migrants, moving from area to area to avoid prosecution. See, the world has evolved since we lived in small remote villages... maybe you should too.
The neighbors get together and confront the thief, and he'll probably apologize and never do it again.
Really? Have you ever met a crook?
If Americans started have twelve children in each family (my great-great-grandfather had that many), our per-capita income would become six times lower
Except they would pull in income, so your math is off (maybe not the whole point, but that's an idiotic statement).
And thus you have defined limited resources... something too many customers, and even employees, do not seem to realize affects "what gets cut" much more than conspiracy and malice. But Alarmist are alive and well in the US and there is a huge group of people that love to follow them.
And let's not forget that one of them sits near your balls, which means I am willing to pay a little extra to make sure it doesn't leak or explode. I imagine insurance, increased product testing and more regulations all add to the price difference as well.
I appreciate that. I am not some dogmatic jerk who refuses to evaluate my beliefs. Frankly 2,3 and 5 have made me reconsider this. And now I see what that guy meant by precedent; although this precedent is much better than going the other way (civilians tried as military).
Don't be so quick to judge, some people are rational and appreciate meaningful debate.
I've used sparklines that were updated "automatically" from the values in a database. The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr. person
You guys went balls to the wall tracking down that asshole that wouldn't contribute for drinking the office coffee, huh?
Hmmm.... What in my post made you think I would be unreceptive to education? I welcome your attempt to educate me. In face the other poster brought up a good point about the Geneva conventions being precisely to keep things cut and dry, but didn't do enough to change my mind (and I still don't see how it would be any different from any other act of terrorism that has been brought to federal court). Please, I am nothing if not flexible.
I just don't get this site... nobody seems to understand that Windows Mobile is actually one of the most "open" mobile systems. Of course Android blew that away by actually being open source. But still WM is open for anyone to create an app and distribute it in just about any way possible. You weren't being sarcastic, were you?
The military does. Or did for older version. The military used to have a strict rule that any software run on classified networks (yeah, 98 ran (and probably still does) on such systems as communications, nuclear, and others) had to be open source or they had to be allowed to view the source. I do not know if this still applies.
- All those officers and enlisted in the Pentagon would be surprised to know they are civilians.
The majority of casualties were civilian. This was not an act of traditional war. This is far, far different than the cut and dry battlefield that the Geneva Conventions were based on.
- Are they going to release KSM if he is acquitted? If not, this is just a show trial and a sham.
If 12 New Yorkers can't find this guy guilty, then I am pretty damn sure he didn't do it. And he will not be realeased in the US, no matter what.
Come on. This is no trial in any real sense of the word. Other observers have pointed out that no one wants to see this guy walk, so the judges and prosecution will go through any contortion, no matter how ridiculous, to see him convicted. Whatever rulings they issue will then become precedent the Govt can use against everyday criminals (i.e., you and me).
And neither was the case for the the unabomber, OKC bombing or any other big trial. This is no different. As for precedent... where do you live that planning (and following thru) to kill thousands isn't already firmly against the law?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the *enemy*. He cannot be rehabilitated. He cannot be reconstructed. He and his comrades would seek the overthrow of our system of government and its replacement with Sharia law. He is not a common criminal, and it is disrespectful to treat him like one - and you should always respect your enemy. Send him to his god and be done with it.
You mean the fee that is stated in the lease you signed? It probably also has a clause that they can kick you out. There are reasons for this stuff. More people means more frequent trash pickups, higher insurance payments (probably stated in their policy that they must report accurately, or be fined), more parking used, plus they have no idea who is there (sex offender, guy who's trashed a dozen apartments, etc). I am not trying to say this isn't an issue, but crying foul because you want to avoid the $50 application fee doesn't seem like a strong position. Really the same goes for growing weed, which is why they have been allowed to use warrents for these type of "searches". "Monitoring" as you say, would be a much bigger issue. But focused searches granted with some valid concern would seem in line with our current policies, right or wrong.
Really it's much simpler to find a biological girl with low self-esteem.
Damn... that made me laugh so hard I cried. I don't know why, because it is true, but after that long convo about robots is was just a very good punch line. WP.
Is there anything wrong with rape and murder of a robot? I know people that pretend to do this right now in their bedroom. Is the same as your example of "no legal consequences"?
Slashdot Mirror
regulation is -never- the answer when it comes to the economy
So it is good for something? Anyways, your against it in this case... got it.
If you can mandate net neutrality over all the net* who is to say that the government can't force ISPs to block certain sites?
Well, we do have these things called elections. Unless rule of law has been broken, I think a clear majority of citizens can still elect representatives that can get things changed. Call me naive if you want.
they should be accountable to the citizens because their land is being used
As wimax comes this may be a more relevant question. But for the most part, every ISP is using public land and certianly public easments and utility propery. So how should we make the companies accountable to the citizens? Maybe choose some representatives to sit down in some sort of committee and estables rules and guidelines for the companies to follow? I think we came to an agreement afterall.
They do include exactly what the sample size is if you use the tool to lookup your specific area. It tells how many in that area and how many nationwide. It even noted that my area had few responses, and told me not use this number for much past "huh, neat". So it wasn't that bad.
As far as "connecting" to the network, I have no issue with what you use, assuming it isn't a device made for malevolence. However, when you come running into my office at 4:56 wanting help with your $latest_awesome_phone, that I know nothing about, then I start to wonder if letting you use your home device for work was a good idea. Or when you want me to enable IMAP because that's all that a single employee's phone supports (and we use Exchange/MAPI like most similar companies), then again, I wonder why we let people use personal devices.
But it is great to think of dumping all the procurement/management onto the end user...
The thing you forget is that if the government is responsible for your healthcare, then they will get to claim authority over your health. It starts with fines for not wearing seat belts. Then they start dictating what foods you may eat. Eventually, there will be edicts dictating what you must wear each day according to how some bureaucrat reads the weather predictions.
The thing you forget is that all of this gubment takeover already happens... except for the "based on the weather" part. You currently get fined for not wearing a seatbelt. You currently are dictated as to what you can eat (FDA) and grow (google "filburn interstate commerce clause"). And you can't walk around naked...
So what are we afraid of happening again?
2. Nothing I said requires citation... go take a drive in the ghetto this weekend, stop by a goodwill and review a globe. You will have all the info you need.
3. From the Heritage website:
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution--a think tank--whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
It's a conservative think tank with an agenda... not a research organization. You should learn the difference. Look up "objective" (I can think of two definitions for that word that would help you) in Websters for a start (hint: dictionary = objective without an objective).
second link was 404.
First link was full of fallacies, inconsistencies and straw-men.
For instance it talked much about color tvs. Do you know how much a 19" color tv costs? I got one at goodwill for $10 last year. Point rebutted.
It suggested that poor people shouldn't have cars... but a car is a necessity in most any city/county with under 1 million people. Public transportation isn't great here in the US... a car is about as close to a necessity as it gets (if you want them to work, which I suppose you do). Point rebutted.
It talked much about the "crowding" of poor households, but have you ever drove around the ghetto? They have big houses... that nobody wants to live in. It did mention that the idea of "poor" is perhaps skewed and that is true. But poor doesn't mean you have to live in a shanty to qualify. Point rebutted.
It also noted the comparison of poor crowding to Europe, but that's an obvious straw man. We could do the same by comparing the poor of rural AZ to the poor of Southern CA. In whole the US has more room than Europe... point rebutted.
The poor are much better off than median just a few decades ago... but if we keep adding time we can easily get to the point that we define poor as worse than when Jesus lived (or better than slaves, etc.), and 99.9 percent of the country wouldn't be "poor". Times change, things improve and the level of comfort for the poor will go up just as it does for others. I have heard this argument before and can understand part of it... but many people struggle. The definition of struggle may be debated and change over time, but we are not to a point that we can stop helping the poor.
low payments to doctors and hospitals, so only really bad hospitals will take people on this plan
You know, maybe if we had an actual free market like you assholes like to pretend we do, that would already happen. Why isn't there an option for a poor person to go to a doctor for $10? Weren't there any doctors that made C's and D's? Like the guys that work the helpdesk now, those docs should be working for the poor for a bad salary.
So please, let's find some way to actually bring some free-market fundamentals to healthcare - I guess if it takes government intrusion, so be it.
rather have multiple TV's, cars and luxury items rather than buy health insurance
Yeah, I see soooo many people at the free clinic with a dozen TVs, multiple new cars and *prada bags. Even if true...
32 inch TV = $500
Car payment = $300
New earrings/luxury item every month = $200
And that is still less than what me and my employer pay each month for my family's healthcare (3 people)
*The real ones.
Out in the country many people have their own wells and don't have to pay for water. If the city government did not provide the water service, someone would start a company doing it if it were cheaper to do so than to have everyone install their own well.
See in the city, we can't have a well every 100 feet to accomodate each house... that wouldn't work. So there MUST be some form of collaboration. Also for profit corporations will always care much less about the earth and long term damage. Jefferson said that as we "pile on top of each other" we will create a bigger government. He was right. There is no avoiding the fact that as we over-populate this earth, we must form some body to govern what happens as interactions with other increase and the ability to "live off the land" is reduced. Or we just start euthanizing people.
I have no interest in robbing my neighbors, and I know they have no interest in robbing me. If you live in a neighborhood where they do, maybe it's time to move
I believe in a free-market system, where anyting goes... so I'll rob you for the gain. I also think if you try to police yourself, robbers would just become migrants, moving from area to area to avoid prosecution. See, the world has evolved since we lived in small remote villages... maybe you should too.
The neighbors get together and confront the thief, and he'll probably apologize and never do it again.
Really? Have you ever met a crook?
If Americans started have twelve children in each family (my great-great-grandfather had that many), our per-capita income would become six times lower
Except they would pull in income, so your math is off (maybe not the whole point, but that's an idiotic statement).
And thus you have defined limited resources... something too many customers, and even employees, do not seem to realize affects "what gets cut" much more than conspiracy and malice. But Alarmist are alive and well in the US and there is a huge group of people that love to follow them.
You can setup Outlook to use IMAP for Gmail and it works. It's slow to sync, but it works.
Outlook 2007 with Gmail
And let's not forget that one of them sits near your balls, which means I am willing to pay a little extra to make sure it doesn't leak or explode. I imagine insurance, increased product testing and more regulations all add to the price difference as well.
I appreciate that. I am not some dogmatic jerk who refuses to evaluate my beliefs. Frankly 2,3 and 5 have made me reconsider this. And now I see what that guy meant by precedent; although this precedent is much better than going the other way (civilians tried as military).
Don't be so quick to judge, some people are rational and appreciate meaningful debate.
But the site is down, so you can't apply.
(I'm trying to start a new meme, here)
I've used sparklines that were updated "automatically" from the values in a database. The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr. person
You guys went balls to the wall tracking down that asshole that wouldn't contribute for drinking the office coffee, huh?
Hmmm.... What in my post made you think I would be unreceptive to education? I welcome your attempt to educate me. In face the other poster brought up a good point about the Geneva conventions being precisely to keep things cut and dry, but didn't do enough to change my mind (and I still don't see how it would be any different from any other act of terrorism that has been brought to federal court). Please, I am nothing if not flexible.
I just don't get this site... nobody seems to understand that Windows Mobile is actually one of the most "open" mobile systems. Of course Android blew that away by actually being open source. But still WM is open for anyone to create an app and distribute it in just about any way possible. You weren't being sarcastic, were you?
The military does. Or did for older version. The military used to have a strict rule that any software run on classified networks (yeah, 98 ran (and probably still does) on such systems as communications, nuclear, and others) had to be open source or they had to be allowed to view the source. I do not know if this still applies.
- All those officers and enlisted in the Pentagon would be surprised to know they are civilians.
The majority of casualties were civilian. This was not an act of traditional war. This is far, far different than the cut and dry battlefield that the Geneva Conventions were based on.
- Are they going to release KSM if he is acquitted? If not, this is just a show trial and a sham.
If 12 New Yorkers can't find this guy guilty, then I am pretty damn sure he didn't do it. And he will not be realeased in the US, no matter what.
Come on. This is no trial in any real sense of the word. Other observers have pointed out that no one wants to see this guy walk, so the judges and prosecution will go through any contortion, no matter how ridiculous, to see him convicted. Whatever rulings they issue will then become precedent the Govt can use against everyday criminals (i.e., you and me).
And neither was the case for the the unabomber, OKC bombing or any other big trial. This is no different. As for precedent... where do you live that planning (and following thru) to kill thousands isn't already firmly against the law?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the *enemy*. He cannot be rehabilitated. He cannot be reconstructed. He and his comrades would seek the overthrow of our system of government and its replacement with Sharia law. He is not a common criminal, and it is disrespectful to treat him like one - and you should always respect your enemy. Send him to his god and be done with it.
Oh yeah, the prez was the one prejudging, eh?
Yeah you're right... sometimes the ACLU does take up questionable cases, but I guess 11 out of 12 ain't bad!
You mean the fee that is stated in the lease you signed? It probably also has a clause that they can kick you out. There are reasons for this stuff. More people means more frequent trash pickups, higher insurance payments (probably stated in their policy that they must report accurately, or be fined), more parking used, plus they have no idea who is there (sex offender, guy who's trashed a dozen apartments, etc). I am not trying to say this isn't an issue, but crying foul because you want to avoid the $50 application fee doesn't seem like a strong position. Really the same goes for growing weed, which is why they have been allowed to use warrents for these type of "searches". "Monitoring" as you say, would be a much bigger issue. But focused searches granted with some valid concern would seem in line with our current policies, right or wrong.
Really it's much simpler to find a biological girl with low self-esteem.
Damn... that made me laugh so hard I cried. I don't know why, because it is true, but after that long convo about robots is was just a very good punch line. WP.
I should have said, I know people that pretend to do this to other PEOPLE. It may have sounded like I meant they pretend to rape and murder robots.
Is there anything wrong with rape and murder of a robot? I know people that pretend to do this right now in their bedroom. Is the same as your example of "no legal consequences"?
OH SNAP!
You Socrateed it to him!