The problem with Democrat's views on gun control is because they all ban the stupidest thing. Take for example the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons, first off, what the hell is an "assault" weapon, its basically a weapon that -looks- dangerous. Somehow, a "dangerous".22 simi-auto was banned because it looked dangerous but yet a revolver shooting a more powerful bullet wouldn't be banned? Aside from constitutional and practical questions, the guns democrats are banning is as laughable as banning a mustang with a top speed of 90 MPH because it looks fast to cut down on speeding while allowing people to keep a mini-van with a top speed of 120 MPH as legal.
What are you talking about? The Constitution of the US is -very- clear if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations. The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers. If there was one document that was written in the 1700s that is the clearest, it would have to be the constitution. What is so unclear about the constitution?
There were more nominees in the primaries that would have been better, not to mention many third-party candidates that would have been better than either.
As opposed to running a nearly entirely closed system on your phone with a network who has helped the NSA on multiple occasions on warrantless wiretaps?
Lets face it, the "hackers" most likely are going to be better than a power-hungry corporation which assists the government whenever possible.
It would fix companies screwing their customers because the only options would be to serve their customers or lose money. When any business is given free money for doing a sub-par job, they will only do a sub-par job because they are getting money but when such a thing is privately funded, if they do a sub-par job they lose customers and quickly die. Because most customers like net neutrality, an ISP which violates it would lose customers and because all ISPs started out on the same level it would be possible for another ISP that was receptive to their customers to take over, because no ISPs were given an unfair advantage.
If you look at a lot of the companies who thought about making flying cars (like Ford in the 1950s) the ideas were usually rejected by the FAA which is, guess what? More government interference.
The internet would be born no matter who designed it. It just so happened that the US government was the only entity that owned enough computers to need a network like that in the early 60s. It wasn't because of some magical government insight, the internet would be born though any entity with enough computers to need such a network, private or government. And who knows, had private enterprise designed the internet from the start, it could have more elegant solutions and such.
No, because private enterprise would find a way to make it work. If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works. With enough research and such, perhaps there would be more interest in what today is considered to be "alternative" energy such as wind and it would be cheap, refined and usable. Of course when the government gives away free money to basically just burn coal, any other solutions are out because they would cost more initial money and look where that puts us today.
And part of it is due to glossing over the fact that broadband networks all have involved massive government subsidies, in the form of rights of way access, local franchise/monopolies, and/or direct subsidies from governments. The paper pretends, instead, that broadband networks are 100% private
The best way to fix it is to... not give handouts, special privileges, or otherwise interfere with private enterprise. Every time the government does it, it fucks up the economy. Every. Single. Time.
Exactly, so someone made a crawler to get publicly available information. This is not news at all anymore than its news that someone could do a google search and use web scrapers to make a profile of any/. user.
See the thing is the profiles were all public someone just made a web crawler to create it then put it up as a torrent download. No privacy was violated that wouldn't be with a normal search.
Well, I took a class at a state university that was like that, the professor insisted on talking about nothing, insisted on you formatting everything just a certain way, would assign a reading assignment then give a test over a totally different one that he had never assigned (but it was on the syllabus! Well, yes it was, but it was supposed to be read 2 weeks after he gave the test....) but, because he was tenured, none of the students could really do anything about it.
And then I took a few classes at the local community college to help speed up the completion of my degree at the state university. There you basically showed up, wrote with halfway understandable phrases and you got an A. Granted, these were for non-degree requirements and just basic courses like psychology and the like that everyone had to take but still, to think that some people could get degrees with that. I had high school classes harder than that that weren't even college-level.
Don't get me wrong, it looks nice on a resume, but if you insist on attaching sample code, or insist on demonstrating your skills during an interview - it'll be more impressive than any degree you get from any university.
It depends who looks at your resume though. Most of the time its a HR drone who thinks that PHP is some kind of street name for a drug. If you can get someone who knows IT to look through your resume, then yes, that would certainly help, but most companies do hiring through HR, not the department you want to work in, which is why you find the guys with a PHD in computer science who turn out buggy code.
I take it you haven't taken any university level classes in the US in the past decade. The classes are worse than high school, the professors are generally unmotivated, the tests are pure regurgitation, there is little free discussion, etc.
Perhaps once the American University system was world-class, but now its nothing but regurgitation in front of brain-dead professors.
What is wrong with the university system is because we've screwed up our high school system to pretty much let -everyone- graduate, a diploma now means nothing. Because of this, people who usually should go to a trade school, or just have on-site training from high school is now attending university to stand out in the job market. So because of this, universities are forced to hire sub par teachers to meet the demand and because no one wants to attend a university with a 60% flunk-out rate, universities lower standards. Of course this is just a cat and mouse game, eventually employers are going to require things beyond a bachelors degree for entry-level jobs, etc.
Fix our high school system by actually -failing- kids who can't do the work. None of this "can I please have extra credit despite me doing nothing but talking in class?" crap that keeps high-profile athletes who are dumber than rocks with "passing" grades.
True, but the phones I've been buying and have really enjoyed are the ones with a retractable keyboard that I only use the software keyboard if I'm too lazy to open up the phone to use the physical keyboard.
I really can't believe it took so long for them to make something like that, I figured that the Android/iPhone keyboard would look at finger movements on each key to try to see if you pressed in the center like you wanted that letter or far to the side like you didn't and adjust accordingly much like this. But I guess not.
Sure, but he was dead long before e-books really took off. A lot of authors such as J.K. Rowlings have come out and said that they will not have their books be digitized (of course, she recently reversed this decision) just like a lot of artists don't offer downloads of their music such as the Beatles. Artists/authors who do this generally end up reducing their possible income and long-term reputation.
(note how many are "classics" published long ago where no one gets a cut)
Um, isn't the entire point of Project Gutenberg to be an online repository of public domain texts? I mean, I guess a few CC titles might qualify, but the entire site is made for public domain books.
I think that it has to go beyond the story, I've read the books and thought they were good, but certainly not the greatest author ever (yeah, a lot of it has to be because translations usually destroy the language while leaving the story sort of intact) but really, Larsson/his estate has done a great job of hitting every media possible, audiobooks, e-books, paperbacks, movies, etc.
There have been some really great stories I've read that because they didn't branch out into other media types and formats, they just haven't had the success as other mediocre stories. Look at Twilight for an example. Had Stephanie Meyer shunned electronic distribution and other technologies the books would have certainly been a moderate success, but nowhere near the empire it is today. Oh and yes, while I was at Barnes and Noble they had a Twilight -graphic novel- in case reading a book with like a fifth grade reading level is too hard for you...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just saying that if we look back the fact that all this can be done for $20 or $30, technology has come a long ways and the fact that we can put this in the hands of the third world they would have stuff that we wouldn't have had 30 years ago in most schools. Less of a disagreement and more of a "lets take a step back and think of how far we've came" post.
Yes, but when things are free and memory is cheap, why -not- download them all?
Even 2 GB is a lot of memory when it comes to text files, if I'm not paying for them, why not download them for various reasons? This is important because people are spending what? $10 a download? I'll download free files till my hard drive fills up, but spending money on downloads is a different thing.
You know, I think this might be more of a testament to why a lack of ideologies preventing people from selling e-books makes them money.
So many authors have come out and refused to sell e-books rather than embracing them. With a dead author like Stieg Larsson, there isn't any ideology keeping his estate from selling books in every way possible, and that has been a great thing for them.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with Democrat's views on gun control is because they all ban the stupidest thing. Take for example the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons, first off, what the hell is an "assault" weapon, its basically a weapon that -looks- dangerous. Somehow, a "dangerous" .22 simi-auto was banned because it looked dangerous but yet a revolver shooting a more powerful bullet wouldn't be banned? Aside from constitutional and practical questions, the guns democrats are banning is as laughable as banning a mustang with a top speed of 90 MPH because it looks fast to cut down on speeding while allowing people to keep a mini-van with a top speed of 120 MPH as legal.
and the Constitution almost never is,
What are you talking about? The Constitution of the US is -very- clear if you don't try to view it in tinted glasses of various political affiliations. The founders didn't just write a constitution and nothing else, they all wrote lots of books, lots of papers. If there was one document that was written in the 1700s that is the clearest, it would have to be the constitution. What is so unclear about the constitution?
HINT
There were more nominees in the primaries that would have been better, not to mention many third-party candidates that would have been better than either.
As opposed to running a nearly entirely closed system on your phone with a network who has helped the NSA on multiple occasions on warrantless wiretaps?
Lets face it, the "hackers" most likely are going to be better than a power-hungry corporation which assists the government whenever possible.
Really says alot about Apple's policies if the mass media is treating this like a feature and a good thing to be able to jailbreak it.
It would fix companies screwing their customers because the only options would be to serve their customers or lose money. When any business is given free money for doing a sub-par job, they will only do a sub-par job because they are getting money but when such a thing is privately funded, if they do a sub-par job they lose customers and quickly die. Because most customers like net neutrality, an ISP which violates it would lose customers and because all ISPs started out on the same level it would be possible for another ISP that was receptive to their customers to take over, because no ISPs were given an unfair advantage.
If you look at a lot of the companies who thought about making flying cars (like Ford in the 1950s) the ideas were usually rejected by the FAA which is, guess what? More government interference.
The internet would be born no matter who designed it. It just so happened that the US government was the only entity that owned enough computers to need a network like that in the early 60s. It wasn't because of some magical government insight, the internet would be born though any entity with enough computers to need such a network, private or government. And who knows, had private enterprise designed the internet from the start, it could have more elegant solutions and such.
No, because private enterprise would find a way to make it work. If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works. With enough research and such, perhaps there would be more interest in what today is considered to be "alternative" energy such as wind and it would be cheap, refined and usable. Of course when the government gives away free money to basically just burn coal, any other solutions are out because they would cost more initial money and look where that puts us today.
And part of it is due to glossing over the fact that broadband networks all have involved massive government subsidies, in the form of rights of way access, local franchise/monopolies, and/or direct subsidies from governments. The paper pretends, instead, that broadband networks are 100% private
The best way to fix it is to... not give handouts, special privileges, or otherwise interfere with private enterprise. Every time the government does it, it fucks up the economy. Every. Single. Time.
Um, I'm a bit confused on how the UAE is related to India, last time I checked they were entirely different regions of the world.
Exactly, so someone made a crawler to get publicly available information. This is not news at all anymore than its news that someone could do a google search and use web scrapers to make a profile of any /. user.
See the thing is the profiles were all public someone just made a web crawler to create it then put it up as a torrent download. No privacy was violated that wouldn't be with a normal search.
Well, I took a class at a state university that was like that, the professor insisted on talking about nothing, insisted on you formatting everything just a certain way, would assign a reading assignment then give a test over a totally different one that he had never assigned (but it was on the syllabus! Well, yes it was, but it was supposed to be read 2 weeks after he gave the test....) but, because he was tenured, none of the students could really do anything about it.
And then I took a few classes at the local community college to help speed up the completion of my degree at the state university. There you basically showed up, wrote with halfway understandable phrases and you got an A. Granted, these were for non-degree requirements and just basic courses like psychology and the like that everyone had to take but still, to think that some people could get degrees with that. I had high school classes harder than that that weren't even college-level.
Don't get me wrong, it looks nice on a resume, but if you insist on attaching sample code, or insist on demonstrating your skills during an interview - it'll be more impressive than any degree you get from any university.
It depends who looks at your resume though. Most of the time its a HR drone who thinks that PHP is some kind of street name for a drug. If you can get someone who knows IT to look through your resume, then yes, that would certainly help, but most companies do hiring through HR, not the department you want to work in, which is why you find the guys with a PHD in computer science who turn out buggy code.
I take it you haven't taken any university level classes in the US in the past decade. The classes are worse than high school, the professors are generally unmotivated, the tests are pure regurgitation, there is little free discussion, etc.
Perhaps once the American University system was world-class, but now its nothing but regurgitation in front of brain-dead professors.
What is wrong with the university system is because we've screwed up our high school system to pretty much let -everyone- graduate, a diploma now means nothing. Because of this, people who usually should go to a trade school, or just have on-site training from high school is now attending university to stand out in the job market. So because of this, universities are forced to hire sub par teachers to meet the demand and because no one wants to attend a university with a 60% flunk-out rate, universities lower standards. Of course this is just a cat and mouse game, eventually employers are going to require things beyond a bachelors degree for entry-level jobs, etc.
Fix our high school system by actually -failing- kids who can't do the work. None of this "can I please have extra credit despite me doing nothing but talking in class?" crap that keeps high-profile athletes who are dumber than rocks with "passing" grades.
True, but the phones I've been buying and have really enjoyed are the ones with a retractable keyboard that I only use the software keyboard if I'm too lazy to open up the phone to use the physical keyboard.
I really can't believe it took so long for them to make something like that, I figured that the Android/iPhone keyboard would look at finger movements on each key to try to see if you pressed in the center like you wanted that letter or far to the side like you didn't and adjust accordingly much like this. But I guess not.
Sure, but he was dead long before e-books really took off. A lot of authors such as J.K. Rowlings have come out and said that they will not have their books be digitized (of course, she recently reversed this decision) just like a lot of artists don't offer downloads of their music such as the Beatles. Artists/authors who do this generally end up reducing their possible income and long-term reputation.
(note how many are "classics" published long ago where no one gets a cut)
Um, isn't the entire point of Project Gutenberg to be an online repository of public domain texts? I mean, I guess a few CC titles might qualify, but the entire site is made for public domain books.
I think that it has to go beyond the story, I've read the books and thought they were good, but certainly not the greatest author ever (yeah, a lot of it has to be because translations usually destroy the language while leaving the story sort of intact) but really, Larsson/his estate has done a great job of hitting every media possible, audiobooks, e-books, paperbacks, movies, etc.
There have been some really great stories I've read that because they didn't branch out into other media types and formats, they just haven't had the success as other mediocre stories. Look at Twilight for an example. Had Stephanie Meyer shunned electronic distribution and other technologies the books would have certainly been a moderate success, but nowhere near the empire it is today. Oh and yes, while I was at Barnes and Noble they had a Twilight -graphic novel- in case reading a book with like a fifth grade reading level is too hard for you...
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just saying that if we look back the fact that all this can be done for $20 or $30, technology has come a long ways and the fact that we can put this in the hands of the third world they would have stuff that we wouldn't have had 30 years ago in most schools. Less of a disagreement and more of a "lets take a step back and think of how far we've came" post.
Yes, but when things are free and memory is cheap, why -not- download them all?
Even 2 GB is a lot of memory when it comes to text files, if I'm not paying for them, why not download them for various reasons? This is important because people are spending what? $10 a download? I'll download free files till my hard drive fills up, but spending money on downloads is a different thing.
You know, I think this might be more of a testament to why a lack of ideologies preventing people from selling e-books makes them money.
So many authors have come out and refused to sell e-books rather than embracing them. With a dead author like Stieg Larsson, there isn't any ideology keeping his estate from selling books in every way possible, and that has been a great thing for them.