The big problem with your argument is that you don't have a model for creators to be paid.
- that's simply not true.
Creators get paid by making things that people want and selling them. What you are arguing is that without a law like copyright/patent, others would be able also to make the same thing once they saw yours. This is true and it is desirable.
People made things for tens of thousands of years before any such laws came to existence and those who are first on the market have the advantage of being the most recognizable with their new invention/modification/piece of art/music/whatever.
Your argument contradicts tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands, no millions of years of life on this planet. By the way, the most successful organisms are those, who can take as much of good stuff from other organisms by copying as possible, just an interesting observation. Those who didn't do so don't exist.
You probably should specify whether you are talking about real time tracking or something that only reads history off of a device. It's cheaper to only read history, for real time you need a constant uplink, but of-course real time gives more interesting potential applications. Also you probably should specify what kind of equipment you are interested in tracking. How precise must the tracking be? Simple things like who will charge/change batteries? How do you see tracking devices attached to the people? What's to stop people from faking the data or simply from covering the devices so they can't get a signal? Or from having 'dead batteries' in the most inopportune moments? How much money do you have for the project? How much time, what are your deadlines? Why are they interested in tracking at all, because based on the reasons for this you probably will have different requirements?
Those are probably just some of the questions you need to get answers to from your management before you start the project, I mean you are looking at a very expensive problem here, I doubt you'll find an off the shelf solution that will be able to meet all of your requirements, but once you know all of your requirements and reasons, you will be able to use existing components, compact wearable GPS systems or maybe cell-phone triangulation, GPS recorders in cars/trucks, GPS recorders on other 'equipment' (what about batteries on this other 'equipment'?) Seems like it's going to be a huge and a very expensive project.
Read this proposal for what it is: a different way to name an attempt of removing anonymity from the web.
The NSTIC, which is in response to one of the near term action items in the President's Cyberspace Policy Review, calls for the creation of an online environment, or an Identity Ecosystem as we refer to it in the strategy, where individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with confidence, trusting the identities of each other and the identities of the infrastructure that the transaction runs on....
- I am sure this is going to be made a requirement for a site to operate at some point, add this to the 'Internet kill switch', add the Patriot Act to it, multiply by Home Land Security and don't forget to factor in the rendition, you are going to have an interesting situation.
The President will be able to shut down portions of the Internet, he will be able to identify who was saying what and when, this entire thing reeks of totalitarianism - complete control by the government over the dissemination of information and total knowledge of who was saying what on which topic plus ability to take action - shut down the dissenting portions of the web and then 'taking the necessary care' of those, who dare to oppose the government in any way, be it direct opposition to specific policies or be it simply providing information to the people that government wants to keep quiet and providing a forum to discuss this information.
For whatever reason the governments of the world got into misguided attempts to 'promote' wealth creation by actually limiting human ability to do so by copying, these misguided attempts include copyrights and patents (though trademarks are really not such a big problem).
Having a good working economy relies on production, not on consumption, and when society starts artificially limiting human ability to produce by copying or in any other way, that society starts losing the edge on its productive capacity and eventually loses its main wealth generator - production (unless of-course, that society does not rely on production but on something else - raw material extraction or wars and stealing things others produce).
Copyright and patent laws kill economy, that's all there is to it.
Personal nuclear power is the way to do this unless there is a ubiquitous grid accessible from almost everywhere. Nuclear power plant that is small enough to fit into an engine compartment, safe enough not to leak/blow somehow for any reason, including a catastrophic event like a car accident, something that cannot be used for weapons production, something that only needs to be 'recharged' once a month/year/few years, that would beat a current electrical or a current gasoline/diesel/natural gas car by economics alone, never mind the great reduction to pollution of air/water... This is what's needed.
Nothing much will change for acceptance of the electrical car until there is something that actually beats not only the electrical battery but also the gasoline and gasoline based engine, and the only thing that can do this is a personal nuclear power plant within the car.
So until there is a way to have a compact nuclear power-plant inside a car, something that uses nuclear material that cannot be used for weapons manufacturing and is constantly providing energy without a need to recharge (until obviously the nuclear material itself needs replenishing) there will be no significant movement in the electric car industry.
There IS another possibility - a system similar to the trolley buses. At least for city and major highway travel, if there was a system that provided constant electrical power and a way to connect to that power, then recharging of a few small batteries in the car could be constant, and that would be enough to power the car for the short periods of time where it cannot attach itself to the grid.
The difficult part was surgery allowing a metal rod to be inserted into the bone in the cat's legs and then somehow getting the body not to reject these, the skin actually grew around the metal without infection. The legs themselves are not really robotic or anything, they are a bit 'wobbly' to allow the cat to adjust the walk but they are static legs, no dynamic actuators of any kind.
I don't really understand why they needed to put the cat under to place the new legs onto the rods, then the cat walked and even jumped onto a pack of toilet paper.
As always the most important part of the entire procedure was using black duct tape to mask the fact that the attached legs were actually made of some brown flexible material before they were attached to the black cat.
You can take anyway you like, I rather enjoy being an ideologue, I can't ever vote for NDP (which I associate with totalitarianism) or for anything named 'Liberal', which I associate with Keynesian in economic sense, the kind that promotes equality of outcomes.
Of-course Canadian conservative party is a liberal party in terms of social issues, it could never be anywhere near the Republican party of USA, and I am a Canadian. Whenever I have a possibility I vote libertarian, if there is no possibility I will vote conservative. Do I need you to take me seriously here? Unlikely. Do you think I take you seriously here? Really?
You are some sort of a dunce, or what? Now you are mixing the punishment that should be brought upon BP for the oil spill AFAIC with the public funding provided to the Canadian politicians.
There is no question, it's not about ideology, it is only about the voting record and Lieberman's voting record very well might have been of almost anybody from the republican party.
I don't think citation is needed for any of that, and excuse me for not caring whether it's Olivia, Olympia or Orelia.
If you don't know that republicans are voting a single block on almost everything, then why would I bother arguing with you?
Simple simple simple example from just days ago, or whatever happened during the health insurance votes or the financial reform votes. Give me a break, this is not even funny with your citation needed crap.
It is funny, Amazon did actually propose this as a way to cut spending and now they are against it.
It's the entire dichotomy of the brains: Q. American people, do you want to reduce the deficit? A. Sure, we want to reduce the deficit, do it! Q. American people, should we cut spending to do that? A. Sure, cut spending, do it! Q. American people, what should we cut out of the spending? A. NOOOOTHING!!!!!
It's funny if it weren't so tragic. Deficit needs to be cut and debts needs to be reduced and repaid. But it will not be done, instead the country will be bankrupted and the USD will be destroyed via hyper-inflation. Same thing can happen to Euro, we'll see.
The government is always running as a huge pyramid scheme, the people who came in early, they paid the least into social security in absolute terms and in proportion to their salaries, and those people got to enjoy really hugely from the rest paying for them. People who came in late are facing much greater payments into the system in both, absolute and relative terms and will probably get very very little back out of the system and they will be forced to wait longer.
So you see, government runs pyramid schemes EVEN if the money that is paid actually can be turned around to make profit, then the government just takes it out of that pot and uses it for whatever and then later says: tough shit.
This is of-course ludicrous, and a very good reason to privatize the Social Security so that the government couldn't do this to that pot, turn it into INSURANCE instead, but something that is not allowed to gamble with money. Something that can make money and not be used for anything other than its original purpose.
--
Now, it seems that my post is of-topic, but it isn't, sometimes it is necessary to provide a backdrop for a comment, something of a context.
Amazon wants something for nothing, it built a business based on Government Subsidies! Think about it for a moment. Government subsidizes the US post office, the Government makes it illegal for private companies to compete with the post office in certain ways, for example it is illegal for anybody to compete with the USPS in delivering the First Class Mail. So government created a monopoly, gives it subsidies and then some businesses figure out how to use these monopolies to their advantage. Then the businesses (Amazon in this case), decide that they don't want to carry some of the tax burden in certain states and they propose cuts in subsidies to the monopoly that helped them to become the business that it is. Then, when these cuts are proposed, Amazon all of a sudden is completely against them, because those cuts would eat into Amazon's profits just as well!
This entire situation is possible because Government got into economy, set up monopolies and then helped certain parasitic businesses that take advantage of the system to succeed. Then, because the government is still failing in economy (obviously), it ends up cutting the services and ends up hurting the bottom line of the business that rely on those monopolies to do what they do.
And the funny (from the outside) thing is how this business behaves itself, just like the rest of the American people:
Q. Amazon, can you pay some taxes here? A. No way, we don't want to operate this way. Q. Amazon, what should be we do about the spending problem and the deficit? A. Cut your services. Q. Amazon, we are going to cut the services, happy? A. NOOOOOO!
--
The entire problem is that people and businesses want something for nothing. The governments figured this out and they run things accordingly and it helps them with elections/reelections/basically with their positions
No, we are not thinking there is any real difference. However note how the republicans are always voting together in a single block, like a machine.
Democrats on the other hand are always faltering: OMG, ponies, we have a majority, I guess we are really screwed now!
Of-course the democrats only use the excuse that there are these big bad republicans and that's why real change is not happening? I mean imagine if democrats had 98% of all the votes, they'd be like: but we really need to convince Olivia Snow, otherwise we could never pass anything, we are really really really fucked now.
The only actual difference between democrats and republicans now is that republicans have gone completely mentally insane, with very rare exceptions (like Ron Paul). They are bat shit crazy and that's their platform now, being bat shit crazy.
However both parties are obviously corporatist and the President is not even a liberal, he is an articulate George Bush and that is why rendition is still here and Gitmo is still opened and your phones can still be tapped without a court order and that is why if this bill passes the President will not veto it and will be more than happy to use it and to extend it as well.
However this does not change the simple truth that Joe Lieberman is a mole.
Think of the children, right? Fast spreading viruses and all that other nonsense, that's in the hands of the admins of the ISPs, who right now can do what they find necessary to fight those threats, that's part of their jobs.
However this bill has nothing to do with any of that. This bill is about Joe Lieberman, about his 187 million dollars he wants in pork belly spending for the Secret Service in his state, it's about the politicians getting tired of all that dissent, of people not watching the news on the approved news channels but getting their information on line from a multitude of separate unrelated and uncontrollable sources. Uncontrollable until this bill passes.
The time limit on the bill? Well, no problem with that either. It's never a problem to extend powers once some of the powers are granted and the infrastructure for this is implemented. Gitmo never closed, rendition never ended, don't forget that. Patriot Act is still active and President can still issue an order for whatever he feels like, and no president likes a real challenge from actual real media (which mostly doesn't exist anymore, but hey, I was surprised by the Rolling Stones Magazine.)
This bill is going to help the politicians to get back to their 'normal', where their bullshit does not propagate through networks for everybody to see put there to see by some schmuck, that is not working for Fox or CNN or whatever. Yeah, they'll be fighting a cyberwar, the same way they are fighting all those other wars for decades now, like the war on drugs. This will never end and the emergency will never end. This is designed to put you back in line and there you are sitting, saying how wonderful an idea this is. They are winning it seems.
Obviously the simplest way to implement such a 'feature' is to go after the ISPs, set some sort of a coordination framework among the ISPs, mandate that those ISPs set up a bunch of new hardware/software/whatever it takes to cut out subnets/IP addresses/entire cables from the rest of the Internet. This is not going to improve the democracy of the country of-course, but that's the point, remove the dissenting voices, and of-course the motives are as always 'pure' - there is a cyberwar going, didn't you know? USA was always in this cyberwar. Just like it was always in the drug war and what seems like a never ending war in Afghanistan.
As always a bunch of people stand to make a bunch of money from such endeavors, and in this case there is also the nice side-effect of making it easier for politicians to lie and to get away with the lies, why with all the power over the networks it would be very easy to declare a state of emergency.
And so what that the bill will limit the amount of time that the President would be able to shut portions of the Internet down? Once this bill passes, it would be easy to amend it or simply to use Presidential order/signature/whatever it takes to continue the portions of the Internet from ever being activated back again.
The cyberwar is like the war on drugs, like the war with terrorism, war on obesity, whatever never-ending war that the government likes to be in. It will never end and you cannot see it and cannot even prove that there is or there isn't a war and if you say anything otherwise you are a terrorist.
Just you wait until they combine the cybersecurity bill with some patriot act/anti-terrorism bill. Ever wondered how do politicians tolerate all of those dissenting opinions, all of those facts to come out through the Internet? Well, they've been thinking and it's a multi-step approach and it's being implemented right now. Soon enough anybody could go to Gitmo on some terrorism charge related to the cybersecurity charge and multiply that by the patriot act and add rendition to it and soon enough you'll be wondering, where is that guy, named Cenk Uygur, where did Rachel Maddow go and what the heck happened to that dude from comedy central, what was his name, Jon Stewart was it?
Maybe it's still a bit far-fetched, but they are moving in this direction.
I guess the actual way to fight it could be learned from those Russian operated bot-nets, once the information is outlawed, only the outlaws will have the information? That's what it's coming to and at the hands of people like Joe Lieberman, don't forget it, but just wait and see who ends up voting for it and how the White House stands on the issue.
Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party. This much should be obvious from everything that he has done so far, his stance on the health insurance is a good example.
Remember, he is the guy who wants to spend about 187 million to upgrade the Secret Service systems/hardware (pork belly spending obviously), and now he is the guy who came up with this 'Cybersecurity Bill'.
Obviously this has nothing to do with any cybersecurity, the politicians will approve it, whether republicans or democrats, so that they have a way to kill dissenting opinions and news that the Internet allows to spread around. One of the arguments Lieberman gave for this is that China can do it so USA should also be able to. Does USA want to follow China in terms of treating the dissent, the freedom of press, the freedom in general? I guess now, that everything else is made in China this is just the next logical step - import their governing principles as well (at this point it doesn't seem that much needs to be imported anyway).
That is amusing. Of-course almost any statement has something it that can seem insightful, especially looking at it from the future.
Applications are modularized, most success in operating systems comes from simplifying the individual components and increasing connections between those components. Of-course the cosmic-rays do not cause as much damage to our machines as some had imagined they would but our large programs have plenty of problems with them that are not due to any cosmic-rays but are there simply because of how large the programs are, and that is a function of the number of amount of stuff that our programs do nowadays.
The biggest mistake of your ex-professor is this fundamental misunderstanding of reality, where bugs or any other failures are accepted as long as the failures and problems are offset by the usefulness of the application (product/service) itself.
I mean think about it, the BP Oil leak can actually destroy the Gulf of Mexico and even other larger parts of the ocean and of the coastal lines, but we still are going to use oil, gas and coal just because of how useful they are to us.
So you're trying to make yourself more credible by pointing out how closed-minded you are?
- credible? There is nothing on/. that makes you less 'credible' with the moderators etc. by pointing out you are a libertarian. I have comments here that were at +5 insightful, went down to -1 Troll, came back up to +5 Insightful and then went down to -1 Redundant all within a couple of days from the story.
At the very minimum I can present an interesting argument that people get passionate about./. is about close-mindedness, given the moderation routines.
...and showing that your best argument is an ad hominem?
- just returning a favor.
Unless you missed it, the GP comment has this brilliant point in it:
No "Conservative" ever gets to talk about adscam ever again. EVER. FUCKING. AGAIN.
My response to it is simple: Go fuck yourself, comparing a clear fraud perpetrated by the Liberal government while Chretien/Martin were in office to money spent to secure the G8/G20 events.
Obviously governments are wasteful, but this is not the fraud that Liberals were running.
Well, first of all, thanks for being civil, that really helps to get your point across.
- who said I wanted to be civil with you?
Also as one of the people replying in the same thread pointed out, comparing BP disaster and G20 meeting is a false dichotomy
- both, that guy and you are morons. I am not comparing the disaster to G20. I am saying that just like not spending enough there lead to a disaster, spending enough here could lead to a disaster just as well, and costs of 'cleaning up' disasters are much higher than costs of preventing them.
But since we are talking about BP, your argument is complete bullshit BP is liable, but it's a corporation it has a limited liability, government can sue them only for so much
- you have no idea what a government can do if it had the political will to do it. However most government today are neck deep in economy and taking bribes to have the political will to do the right thing. China had done what it believes is right by pushing Google out of the country, it could have also seized the assets and jailed any representatives of the company.
If a government wants to, has a political will and the correct structure (read: is not neck deep in taking 'contributions' and generally relying on the corporations for the (re)elections) then nothing at all can stop a government from suing. Much lesser transgressions than this oil spill were punished by billions regardless of the well being of a corporation, so your arguments are bullshit.
What do you mean by 'play with your moderator points'?
- as in you should go jerk off to your moderator status.
Slashdot Mirror
The big problem with your argument is that you don't have a model for creators to be paid.
- that's simply not true.
Creators get paid by making things that people want and selling them. What you are arguing is that without a law like copyright/patent, others would be able also to make the same thing once they saw yours. This is true and it is desirable.
People made things for tens of thousands of years before any such laws came to existence and those who are first on the market have the advantage of being the most recognizable with their new invention/modification/piece of art/music/whatever.
Your argument contradicts tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands, no millions of years of life on this planet. By the way, the most successful organisms are those, who can take as much of good stuff from other organisms by copying as possible, just an interesting observation. Those who didn't do so don't exist.
You don't have to use the most radioactive elements, the most active plutonium or uranium, I think you are overreacting there.
You probably should specify whether you are talking about real time tracking or something that only reads history off of a device. It's cheaper to only read history, for real time you need a constant uplink, but of-course real time gives more interesting potential applications. Also you probably should specify what kind of equipment you are interested in tracking. How precise must the tracking be? Simple things like who will charge/change batteries? How do you see tracking devices attached to the people? What's to stop people from faking the data or simply from covering the devices so they can't get a signal? Or from having 'dead batteries' in the most inopportune moments? How much money do you have for the project? How much time, what are your deadlines? Why are they interested in tracking at all, because based on the reasons for this you probably will have different requirements?
Those are probably just some of the questions you need to get answers to from your management before you start the project, I mean you are looking at a very expensive problem here, I doubt you'll find an off the shelf solution that will be able to meet all of your requirements, but once you know all of your requirements and reasons, you will be able to use existing components, compact wearable GPS systems or maybe cell-phone triangulation, GPS recorders in cars/trucks, GPS recorders on other 'equipment' (what about batteries on this other 'equipment'?) Seems like it's going to be a huge and a very expensive project.
Read this proposal for what it is: a different way to name an attempt of removing anonymity from the web.
The NSTIC, which is in response to one of the near term action items in the President's Cyberspace Policy Review, calls for the creation of an online environment, or an Identity Ecosystem as we refer to it in the strategy, where individuals and organizations can complete online transactions with confidence, trusting the identities of each other and the identities of the infrastructure that the transaction runs on. ...
- I am sure this is going to be made a requirement for a site to operate at some point, add this to the 'Internet kill switch', add the Patriot Act to it, multiply by Home Land Security and don't forget to factor in the rendition, you are going to have an interesting situation.
The President will be able to shut down portions of the Internet, he will be able to identify who was saying what and when, this entire thing reeks of totalitarianism - complete control by the government over the dissemination of information and total knowledge of who was saying what on which topic plus ability to take action - shut down the dissenting portions of the web and then 'taking the necessary care' of those, who dare to oppose the government in any way, be it direct opposition to specific policies or be it simply providing information to the people that government wants to keep quiet and providing a forum to discuss this information.
For whatever reason the governments of the world got into misguided attempts to 'promote' wealth creation by actually limiting human ability to do so by copying, these misguided attempts include copyrights and patents (though trademarks are really not such a big problem).
Having a good working economy relies on production, not on consumption, and when society starts artificially limiting human ability to produce by copying or in any other way, that society starts losing the edge on its productive capacity and eventually loses its main wealth generator - production (unless of-course, that society does not rely on production but on something else - raw material extraction or wars and stealing things others produce).
Copyright and patent laws kill economy, that's all there is to it.
Personal nuclear power is the way to do this unless there is a ubiquitous grid accessible from almost everywhere. Nuclear power plant that is small enough to fit into an engine compartment, safe enough not to leak/blow somehow for any reason, including a catastrophic event like a car accident, something that cannot be used for weapons production, something that only needs to be 'recharged' once a month/year/few years, that would beat a current electrical or a current gasoline/diesel/natural gas car by economics alone, never mind the great reduction to pollution of air/water... This is what's needed.
Nothing much will change for acceptance of the electrical car until there is something that actually beats not only the electrical battery but also the gasoline and gasoline based engine, and the only thing that can do this is a personal nuclear power plant within the car.
So until there is a way to have a compact nuclear power-plant inside a car, something that uses nuclear material that cannot be used for weapons manufacturing and is constantly providing energy without a need to recharge (until obviously the nuclear material itself needs replenishing) there will be no significant movement in the electric car industry.
There IS another possibility - a system similar to the trolley buses. At least for city and major highway travel, if there was a system that provided constant electrical power and a way to connect to that power, then recharging of a few small batteries in the car could be constant, and that would be enough to power the car for the short periods of time where it cannot attach itself to the grid.
The difficult part was surgery allowing a metal rod to be inserted into the bone in the cat's legs and then somehow getting the body not to reject these, the skin actually grew around the metal without infection. The legs themselves are not really robotic or anything, they are a bit 'wobbly' to allow the cat to adjust the walk but they are static legs, no dynamic actuators of any kind.
I don't really understand why they needed to put the cat under to place the new legs onto the rods, then the cat walked and even jumped onto a pack of toilet paper.
As always the most important part of the entire procedure was using black duct tape to mask the fact that the attached legs were actually made of some brown flexible material before they were attached to the black cat.
You can take anyway you like, I rather enjoy being an ideologue, I can't ever vote for NDP (which I associate with totalitarianism) or for anything named 'Liberal', which I associate with Keynesian in economic sense, the kind that promotes equality of outcomes.
Of-course Canadian conservative party is a liberal party in terms of social issues, it could never be anywhere near the Republican party of USA, and I am a Canadian. Whenever I have a possibility I vote libertarian, if there is no possibility I will vote conservative. Do I need you to take me seriously here? Unlikely. Do you think I take you seriously here? Really?
You are some sort of a dunce, or what? Now you are mixing the punishment that should be brought upon BP for the oil spill AFAIC with the public funding provided to the Canadian politicians.
Back at you with whatever you have there, buster.
There is no question, it's not about ideology, it is only about the voting record and Lieberman's voting record very well might have been of almost anybody from the republican party.
of-course, and the social security money is not used for anything else ever, it just sits there collecting the interest.
I don't think citation is needed for any of that, and excuse me for not caring whether it's Olivia, Olympia or Orelia.
If you don't know that republicans are voting a single block on almost everything, then why would I bother arguing with you?
Simple simple simple example from just days ago, or whatever happened during the health insurance votes or the financial reform votes. Give me a break, this is not even funny with your citation needed crap.
It is funny, Amazon did actually propose this as a way to cut spending and now they are against it.
It's the entire dichotomy of the brains:
Q. American people, do you want to reduce the deficit?
A. Sure, we want to reduce the deficit, do it!
Q. American people, should we cut spending to do that?
A. Sure, cut spending, do it!
Q. American people, what should we cut out of the spending?
A. NOOOOTHING!!!!!
It's funny if it weren't so tragic. Deficit needs to be cut and debts needs to be reduced and repaid. But it will not be done, instead the country will be bankrupted and the USD will be destroyed via hyper-inflation. Same thing can happen to Euro, we'll see.
The government is always running as a huge pyramid scheme, the people who came in early, they paid the least into social security in absolute terms and in proportion to their salaries, and those people got to enjoy really hugely from the rest paying for them. People who came in late are facing much greater payments into the system in both, absolute and relative terms and will probably get very very little back out of the system and they will be forced to wait longer.
After all, people are living longer and the government didn't imagine that could happen. -that's senator Alan Simpson saying exactly that.
So you see, government runs pyramid schemes EVEN if the money that is paid actually can be turned around to make profit, then the government just takes it out of that pot and uses it for whatever and then later says: tough shit.
This is of-course ludicrous, and a very good reason to privatize the Social Security so that the government couldn't do this to that pot, turn it into INSURANCE instead, but something that is not allowed to gamble with money. Something that can make money and not be used for anything other than its original purpose.
--
Now, it seems that my post is of-topic, but it isn't, sometimes it is necessary to provide a backdrop for a comment, something of a context.
Amazon wants something for nothing, it built a business based on Government Subsidies! Think about it for a moment. Government subsidizes the US post office, the Government makes it illegal for private companies to compete with the post office in certain ways, for example it is illegal for anybody to compete with the USPS in delivering the First Class Mail. So government created a monopoly, gives it subsidies and then some businesses figure out how to use these monopolies to their advantage. Then the businesses (Amazon in this case), decide that they don't want to carry some of the tax burden in certain states and they propose cuts in subsidies to the monopoly that helped them to become the business that it is. Then, when these cuts are proposed, Amazon all of a sudden is completely against them, because those cuts would eat into Amazon's profits just as well!
This entire situation is possible because Government got into economy, set up monopolies and then helped certain parasitic businesses that take advantage of the system to succeed. Then, because the government is still failing in economy (obviously), it ends up cutting the services and ends up hurting the bottom line of the business that rely on those monopolies to do what they do.
And the funny (from the outside) thing is how this business behaves itself, just like the rest of the American people:
Q. Amazon, can you pay some taxes here?
A. No way, we don't want to operate this way.
Q. Amazon, what should be we do about the spending problem and the deficit?
A. Cut your services.
Q. Amazon, we are going to cut the services, happy?
A. NOOOOOO!
--
The entire problem is that people and businesses want something for nothing. The governments figured this out and they run things accordingly and it helps them with elections/reelections/basically with their positions
No, we are not thinking there is any real difference. However note how the republicans are always voting together in a single block, like a machine.
Democrats on the other hand are always faltering: OMG, ponies, we have a majority, I guess we are really screwed now!
Of-course the democrats only use the excuse that there are these big bad republicans and that's why real change is not happening? I mean imagine if democrats had 98% of all the votes, they'd be like: but we really need to convince Olivia Snow, otherwise we could never pass anything, we are really really really fucked now.
The only actual difference between democrats and republicans now is that republicans have gone completely mentally insane, with very rare exceptions (like Ron Paul). They are bat shit crazy and that's their platform now, being bat shit crazy.
However both parties are obviously corporatist and the President is not even a liberal, he is an articulate George Bush and that is why rendition is still here and Gitmo is still opened and your phones can still be tapped without a court order and that is why if this bill passes the President will not veto it and will be more than happy to use it and to extend it as well.
However this does not change the simple truth that Joe Lieberman is a mole.
Think of the children, right? Fast spreading viruses and all that other nonsense, that's in the hands of the admins of the ISPs, who right now can do what they find necessary to fight those threats, that's part of their jobs.
However this bill has nothing to do with any of that. This bill is about Joe Lieberman, about his 187 million dollars he wants in pork belly spending for the Secret Service in his state, it's about the politicians getting tired of all that dissent, of people not watching the news on the approved news channels but getting their information on line from a multitude of separate unrelated and uncontrollable sources. Uncontrollable until this bill passes.
The time limit on the bill? Well, no problem with that either. It's never a problem to extend powers once some of the powers are granted and the infrastructure for this is implemented. Gitmo never closed, rendition never ended, don't forget that. Patriot Act is still active and President can still issue an order for whatever he feels like, and no president likes a real challenge from actual real media (which mostly doesn't exist anymore, but hey, I was surprised by the Rolling Stones Magazine.)
This bill is going to help the politicians to get back to their 'normal', where their bullshit does not propagate through networks for everybody to see put there to see by some schmuck, that is not working for Fox or CNN or whatever. Yeah, they'll be fighting a cyberwar, the same way they are fighting all those other wars for decades now, like the war on drugs. This will never end and the emergency will never end. This is designed to put you back in line and there you are sitting, saying how wonderful an idea this is. They are winning it seems.
Obviously the simplest way to implement such a 'feature' is to go after the ISPs, set some sort of a coordination framework among the ISPs, mandate that those ISPs set up a bunch of new hardware/software/whatever it takes to cut out subnets/IP addresses/entire cables from the rest of the Internet. This is not going to improve the democracy of the country of-course, but that's the point, remove the dissenting voices, and of-course the motives are as always 'pure' - there is a cyberwar going, didn't you know? USA was always in this cyberwar. Just like it was always in the drug war and what seems like a never ending war in Afghanistan.
As always a bunch of people stand to make a bunch of money from such endeavors, and in this case there is also the nice side-effect of making it easier for politicians to lie and to get away with the lies, why with all the power over the networks it would be very easy to declare a state of emergency.
And so what that the bill will limit the amount of time that the President would be able to shut portions of the Internet down? Once this bill passes, it would be easy to amend it or simply to use Presidential order/signature/whatever it takes to continue the portions of the Internet from ever being activated back again.
The cyberwar is like the war on drugs, like the war with terrorism, war on obesity, whatever never-ending war that the government likes to be in. It will never end and you cannot see it and cannot even prove that there is or there isn't a war and if you say anything otherwise you are a terrorist.
Just you wait until they combine the cybersecurity bill with some patriot act/anti-terrorism bill. Ever wondered how do politicians tolerate all of those dissenting opinions, all of those facts to come out through the Internet? Well, they've been thinking and it's a multi-step approach and it's being implemented right now. Soon enough anybody could go to Gitmo on some terrorism charge related to the cybersecurity charge and multiply that by the patriot act and add rendition to it and soon enough you'll be wondering, where is that guy, named Cenk Uygur, where did Rachel Maddow go and what the heck happened to that dude from comedy central, what was his name, Jon Stewart was it?
Maybe it's still a bit far-fetched, but they are moving in this direction.
I guess the actual way to fight it could be learned from those Russian operated bot-nets, once the information is outlawed, only the outlaws will have the information? That's what it's coming to and at the hands of people like Joe Lieberman, don't forget it, but just wait and see who ends up voting for it and how the White House stands on the issue.
Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party. This much should be obvious from everything that he has done so far, his stance on the health insurance is a good example.
Remember, he is the guy who wants to spend about 187 million to upgrade the Secret Service systems/hardware (pork belly spending obviously), and now he is the guy who came up with this 'Cybersecurity Bill'.
Obviously this has nothing to do with any cybersecurity, the politicians will approve it, whether republicans or democrats, so that they have a way to kill dissenting opinions and news that the Internet allows to spread around. One of the arguments Lieberman gave for this is that China can do it so USA should also be able to. Does USA want to follow China in terms of treating the dissent, the freedom of press, the freedom in general? I guess now, that everything else is made in China this is just the next logical step - import their governing principles as well (at this point it doesn't seem that much needs to be imported anyway).
That is amusing. Of-course almost any statement has something it that can seem insightful, especially looking at it from the future.
Applications are modularized, most success in operating systems comes from simplifying the individual components and increasing connections between those components. Of-course the cosmic-rays do not cause as much damage to our machines as some had imagined they would but our large programs have plenty of problems with them that are not due to any cosmic-rays but are there simply because of how large the programs are, and that is a function of the number of amount of stuff that our programs do nowadays.
The biggest mistake of your ex-professor is this fundamental misunderstanding of reality, where bugs or any other failures are accepted as long as the failures and problems are offset by the usefulness of the application (product/service) itself.
I mean think about it, the BP Oil leak can actually destroy the Gulf of Mexico and even other larger parts of the ocean and of the coastal lines, but we still are going to use oil, gas and coal just because of how useful they are to us.
Well, obviously now they do it, that the Russian president got an account with them and Obama said that from now on that's how they'll communicate!
So you're trying to make yourself more credible by pointing out how closed-minded you are?
- credible? There is nothing on /. that makes you less 'credible' with the moderators etc. by pointing out you are a libertarian. I have comments here that were at +5 insightful, went down to -1 Troll, came back up to +5 Insightful and then went down to -1 Redundant all within a couple of days from the story.
At the very minimum I can present an interesting argument that people get passionate about. /. is about close-mindedness, given the moderation routines.
...and showing that your best argument is an ad hominem?
- just returning a favor.
Unless you missed it, the GP comment has this brilliant point in it:
No "Conservative" ever gets to talk about adscam ever again. EVER. FUCKING. AGAIN.
My response to it is simple: Go fuck yourself, comparing a clear fraud perpetrated by the Liberal government while Chretien/Martin were in office to money spent to secure the G8/G20 events.
Obviously governments are wasteful, but this is not the fraud that Liberals were running.
Well, first of all, thanks for being civil, that really helps to get your point across.
- who said I wanted to be civil with you?
Also as one of the people replying in the same thread pointed out, comparing BP disaster and G20 meeting is a false dichotomy
- both, that guy and you are morons. I am not comparing the disaster to G20. I am saying that just like not spending enough there lead to a disaster, spending enough here could lead to a disaster just as well, and costs of 'cleaning up' disasters are much higher than costs of preventing them.
But since we are talking about BP, your argument is complete bullshit BP is liable, but it's a corporation it has a limited liability, government can sue them only for so much
- you have no idea what a government can do if it had the political will to do it. However most government today are neck deep in economy and taking bribes to have the political will to do the right thing. China had done what it believes is right by pushing Google out of the country, it could have also seized the assets and jailed any representatives of the company.
If a government wants to, has a political will and the correct structure (read: is not neck deep in taking 'contributions' and generally relying on the corporations for the (re)elections) then nothing at all can stop a government from suing. Much lesser transgressions than this oil spill were punished by billions regardless of the well being of a corporation, so your arguments are bullshit.
What do you mean by 'play with your moderator points'?
- as in you should go jerk off to your moderator status.
Cheers.
It's G8 followed by G20 in the same country.
Ha, you really take yourself seriously, don't you?
Godwin invoked I believe.