Yes exactly. Deprive of them your talents. Encourage others to do the same. Maybe it will become structural article of faith amongst really good programmers. Perhaps even develop a license which forbids the software from being used by the financial industry.
Look, it's not just the US that does this, it's every developed nation. The UK does it the EU does it the Far East and Middle East nations do it, no there's no escaping it.
Why do they do it? National security- same reason the US does it.
Fact: the internet is how non-state actors plan their violence, raise their money, spread their vision, do reconnaissance . Of course it gets state scrutiny- as much as the state can bring to it.
The reason that's a Big Deal in the news now is because the U.S. government appears to be contravening the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment and lying about it to the American people, and purely instrumental John Yoo-style of "findings" does not count as "lawful".
It's pretty clear to all Americans that their internet searches, their contacts, the time place and duration of those contacts qualify as their "papers" which the Constitution expressly says shall be free from unreasonable search and further that capturing those and rifling through them, analyzing them, drawing conclusions and inferences about the people behind them and then indexing all that away under the key Smith, John , well that's pretty much the definition of "search".
To Americans, myself included, that's a big fucking deal and something that needs to be publicly, seriously and and in a sustained and methodical way considered with the goal of reaching a consensus about how we should go forward.
The government ignores this at their own peril: the terrorist have as their explicit goal to provoke reactions from the US government which de-legitimize that government in the eyes of its own people. They intend to do this and it's their greatest and perhaps only real weapon.
The purpose of doing that is divide the nation against itself and thus generate home-grown discontents which they can cynically join in a common cause (hating the US government). One of the reasons we haven't been hit the way the UK and say Spain have been is because, aside from sleeper cells composed of foreign nationals, al Queda is having a tough time finding Americans who want to support them locally.
Provoking such responses from the US government also serves to undermine the US government's legitimacy with their foreign partners by de-legitimizing the US with those nation's citizens.
So far, they're winning. They won with Abu Graib (thanks Cheney!!!!! Thanks Yoo !!! ) . They won when they turned the Depatment of Justice into a made-to-order *legal* sausage factory , thanks to Yoo , Cheney, David Addington Jay Bybee and Alberto Gonzales.
Now they're poised to win again with this shit. This time it's structural. As one of his first official acts, Obama nullified and set aside all of messy diapers John Yoo left behind in the DoJ. But this time, it's all going to be carried forward.. it's going structural folks. You need to take this seriously.
This is Obama's legacy. This and what he does about climate change are the things history will judge him on, Obamacare is small beans in comparison.
At this exact moment in history Snowden has given him something no one could have foreseen- the perfect excuse to engage the nation in a meaningful debate over complex and fast changing relationship between personal privacy and national security and the 4th Amendment.
It's been presented to him on a mother fucking silver platter, and is he going to engage the nation like a goddamn motherfucking leader and bring us, together, as a nation, as Americans into a shared and accepted understanding about this issue strong enough to take us forward into the next century or is he going to blink this nettlesome thing before him away and let mere circumstance, some random future chain of unfortunate events decide the issue for us in a way that is incoherent, chaotic, instrumental and divisive?
Which is it going to be, Mr. President? This is an issue that is all, and only, up to you.
That's the REAL issue that no one in the main stream media is talking about.
Look if you don't have to have WIFI at home then don't.
You can buy a USB to rj45 adapter for any device. Buy an 8 or 12 port switch, locate it centrally, run short cords from there to multiple jacks in rooms and from there have short cords available for plugin. Done. Use different color cords for devices in close proximity just to make it easy to trouble shoot.
Its clean, it's convenient you can scale it up as you need and you don't have to worry about all the bad programming bugs that WIFI routers are sporting.
Re; global warming. Let me get this straight. You consider it realistic that all the world's scientists are engaging in a gigantic scam together for grant money and for ideological reasons. This is realistic to you.
However, the world's corporations who explicitly and singly exist to make money , their collusion is unlikely and anyways not a problem because of "free market forces" and anyway government intervention is worse than any kind of collusion. .
So scientists are colluding to lie but the noble corporations are being beaten up by the government and also by scientists who are colluding to engage them in proxy war over global warming for the purpose of destroying them.
More expensive cars means some people drive their cars longer before buying a new one.
A stellar example of two libertarian ploys. One is to use some generally true, yet unquantified fact - "airbags increase car costs" and then causally relate that to some effect, citing no evidence, just "pure reason" - it must be true.
The other ploy is simply to blink away the totality of the situation- we're talking about people dying. We already have a working example of a functioning market in Europe that includes airbags so the US can have airbags also.
This is the essence of libertarianism and free market ideologues-. Start with some self-selected ideas. . Assert about those ideas that they are facts and then treat them as axioms from which truths about the real world can simply be derived.
The total increase in cost in 2002 dollars (when the anlyssi was done) of ALL safety requirements NOT just airbags came to a whopping 4% of the cost fo a car.
So you're just wrong. You cna't go from "air bags increase car csosts" to "fewer people buy new cars " like that because you want to. Self-confirming wishful thinking is the hallmark of libertarians and free market coke snorters. It's the opposite of science, the scientific method (which you mock later in your post) . It's a throwback to the Scholastics of the freaking dark ages
Wikipedia:
"Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. "
This is the opposite of sciNot so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. "
Companies with similar products have similar political goals. I commend you on your deep insight, but I don't see how that delegitimizes their political activity nor do I see how corporate donations and event sponsorship constitute "agitation". Agitation usually means trying to whip up a mob mentality and promoting civil unrest which are not usually tactics used by corporations.
I'll spell; it out as many times as necessary. Corporations in in similar industries all share similar goals. If they are allowed a bigger voice in politics on account of being enormously more wealthy than individuals then those goals will be served and not the goals of the majority of people. You claimed (which claim was a lie) to not see the problem with this. Well buddy, that's the problem.
It's amusing to see you are concerned about the connotations of the word "agitation" - which is used correctly (look it up) yet you claim people don't "give" money to corporations. Libertarians love the word games.
And consider this, if one sincerely confuses the meaning of words in their own thinking, then that's an honest mistake. OTOH if one continually "playing dumb" about the shared and obvious meaning of words like "giving" and attempting to cloud the meaning of what is being said , then that's something more like "sociopathic manipulation."
We here having a not-so-nice conversation and what are you doing? Attempting to dodge the sense of what what's being said to you by pretending to believe that when people say "giving money to corporations" they intended to say "donating money to corporations"
It's a form of lying and manipulation., "I am not going to really engage in ideas, I am going to pretend you said something you didn't and see if I can derail your original point, a point for which I have no real rebuttal."
Not having an effective rebuttal to your opponent's point is cause for a review of your own beliefs in people who aren't narcissists. For narcissists it's a signal that they need to engage in verbal sleights of hand .
Fact stands as is- corporations with enormous wealth use that wealth to agitate for policies which are harmful and destructive of the common good while best for their own short term good. If the political system were better engineered to neutralize the differential effectiveness that wealth now provides, the common good would be better served.
Finally, because you seem not to understand this , the point of any democracy is to serve the common good of its members. This does include securing their liberties, but not at the expense of the everyone else.
This is 4th grade shit. Perhaps you were home schooled.
I don't think American auto companies actually claimed they would go broke if they were mandated to install airbags as standard equipment. Rather they claimed that it would raise the cost of their products, making their products less competitive in that segment of the market which wanted lower cost vehicles. No need for you to be hyperbolic.
Lee Iacocca claimed the "Japs" would "eat us (US car companies) alive" to Nixon :
There's not need for your total historical ignorance except that , like all libertarians of which you are decidedly one, you prefer to *hypothesize* about the nature of reality from *first principles* and draw your conclusions deductively rather than, you know, go out and deal with reality as it is.
Fact stands; US automakers resisted the deployment of airbags and in so doing condemned to death thousands of Americans who otherwise would have lived and they did this to line their own pockets and they *could* do this because they are rich in a political system that favors the opinions of the rich at the expense of the rest of the nation's citizens.
You are not "giving money" to corporations when you buy products,
You seem to confuse the concept of "donating' with the concept of "giving". I said giving, not donating.
This is the essence of libertarianism- tell straight up falsehoods which everyone knows are plainly false then engage in a vacuous and elaborate explanation which you hope people will engage with.
You cannot avoid giving money to corporations. In a society whose laws permit the rich to have a far more potent political voice this has real world consequences and nothing you said allays those consequences one iota.
Companies with similar products have similar political goals. I commend you on your deep insight, but I don't see how that delegitimizes their political activity nor do I see how corporate donations and event sponsorship constitute "agitation". Agitation usually means trying to whip up a mob mentality and promoting civil unrest which are not usually tactics used by corporations.
1 Every nation war games every scenario and as a part of securing the ability to realize those scenarios should they have to, they carry on things with potentially sinister applications. News at 11.
2 Just saying this so no one gets drummed up into the idea that "this means they're going to attack!" or "this is totally outrageous !!" It is outrageous, on PlanetNice where humans are banned. Back on Earth, where humans are what they are...goto 1
If you don't like the political activity of a corporation, sell your stock interest in that corporation. Last I heard, no one is forced to buy stock in a particular company.
You seem to hail from another planet. on Earth, it's not possible to avoid giving money to corporations you don't like merely by not buying stock. Politically speaking nearly all telcos are "one" corporation in that they agitate for the same things from candidates. Ditto the cable companies. Ditto the auto industry, which as a group, blocked the deployment of air bags for years falsely claiming they would go broke if they were forced to provide them, all while they were deployed in Europe.
So ooops! I guess corporations and their political activity DOES kill people since there are people who would be alive today if but for the lies the automakers told and the political action they instigated.
Oh, and ditto the above by, oh about a billion times WRT to global warming.Global warming will be corporation's Waterloo.. it's not even a question... it's just a matter of time. But that's another subject.
Those "benefits" got written into tax law and solidified in regulations leading to the situation now of employees being afraid to lose their jobs for fear of losing their healthcare insurance.
Christ jesus god you're not really this big of an asswipe are you? Because the government doesn't provide health care to its citizens gratis or at enormously re4duced and regulated prices like every other developed nation does , because the compromise this nation settled on was the one corporation's campaigned for instead, employer-provided health care, because we have THAT situation, then employees are at fault for not leaving their jobs. Jesus god. I love talking to libertarian freaks online because when else are you going to get the chance to rebut the world view of sociopaths - like Ayn Rand for instance- and expose their thinking for what it is. So please, don't wander off or lose interest on me, OK?
Wealth has always, under any system of laws or govt., provided political power.
Yeah and niggers were always slaves and slavery has always been around and women were never allowed the right to vote and England has always had kings and....yeesh it's AMAZING you can't even self censor your arguments enough to pass as other than sociopath on an online forum where you have all the time in the world to manicure your reply.
Last I checked, corporations don't have the power to execute me, but maybe I missed something.Last I checked, corporations don't have the power to execute me, but maybe I missed something.
Yeah. Two words. Global. Warming.
Which would create exactly the kind of tiny, static political class that you seemed to be bitching about when you mentioned the King of England. By legally excluding private political donations, only self-financed, mega-wealthy candidates or candidates willing to flaunt campaign funding laws would have any real chance of challenging incumbents for national office.
You seem to have not comprehended the notion. PUBLICLY funded elections come from TAXES from EVERYONE and are distributed EVENLY amongst the candidates. Who gets funded is an outstanding issue, some type of run off is needed but since we can do it for the Fucking Final Four every year, i bet we can work it out fairly.
Your argument repeatedly refers to some kind of political elite inevitability. But that's the WHOLE POINT of reforming laws- to prevent a political elite from grasping too much power. You want people to do what the fuck ever they want and call it freedom. What people do is grab power. What stops people is laws. You shit all over the notion of freedom curtailing law. Yet that's the only reason you're not ass up in your local gay warlord's sex torture machine right now, because THAT'S where things go when people are 'free" to wield power as they see fit.
Everyone needs to be stopped from having to
Why do you think the NSA wants to watch Americans?
on
A Climate of Violence?
·
· Score: 1
This is the only real reason I can think of for the NSA program spying on Americans. They think things are going to get very ugly. Very ugly.
If you *really* care about freedom and civil liberties and don't just enjoy getting apoplectic over those *ideas* , you might want to consider doing everything you can to make sure the environmental preques for those things continues to viable. No food, no liberty. Trust me.
Java continued to carry the stigma of being slow, and rightfully so, because it was horrendously slow for desktop use until Project Mustang (Java 6). Java 6 marked a point where Java not only no longer sucked for desktop application use, but actually became quite good at it.
If this were true, I would have known about it. Consider Intellij IDE -a java desktop client - has been superfast since at least 2001 . You can't say an IDE isn't a *real* desktop client since most desktop clients do a LOT less than IDEs have to.
It's just not true what you said. It's just a matter of facts being one way or the other .
This is a lie on so many levels it's heard to know where to begin.
You make it sound like they're all of one mind WRT politics. They're a "voluntary grouping" , right? But they're not. They're just there to work and pay the bills; they haven't "voluntarily grouped " for political reasons at all.
Yet you force them to accept what the corporation does and use their presence in the corporation are a a kind of justification, hey,. they're there as a voluntary group! They can leave if they don't like it!
Of course they could leave their job. As if. I love it when this argument finally gets down to "if you don't like it , you are free to leave your job / state / nation" part . It's a joke and factually as untrue as "if you don't like it, you can leave your job, lose your house, wreck your credit and live on the street" . Only in an adolescent fantasy world does this kind of logic exist.
What's more, it puts unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people merely because they're rich. That's the real world effect. It's no different than 18th century England with a king and the various barons. They wield the real power. But this is what democracy was invented to prevent. You seem to overlook that basic fact. Democracy is a means to an end- the opportunity for citizens to participated as equals in government. You turn it into a circus of perverts, gleefully shaking their packages at the whole POINT of democracy through some fucking "voluntary group" horseshit.
People should be limited in how much they can give candidates. Candidates elections should be publicly funded. Elections should be of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations. and the tiny sliver of people who run them.
The update to this story is worth considering. What they';re saying now is it wasn't the guy's home ISP, it was the fact that he was using a company computer. But the guy was a former employee of that company. So he still had their computer- I am guessing a laptop. So I can guess he very very recently left that company. This is where it gets interesting.
Did he leave or was he fired? Because if he left, then why would the company who owns the laptop *even consider* that his Googling a recently-in-the-news story amounted to terrorism and call the cops?
If he was *fired* however, then it starts to make sense (presuming we are being told the truth and have the facts).
That implies that the firing was not pretty. Anyone who works for a living knows managers who don't ike you for any personal or frivolous reason have the ability through HR departments to trump up charges against you. "Performance Improvement Programs" and other such names are HR speak for "get the fuck out we don't like you". . Probably the vast majority of firings are of this type- no real cause except someone doesn't like you.
People get very angry when this kind of slander-without-consequence is directed at them; especially when it results in denying them the ability to pay their bills and they've done nothing wrong.
HR departments know very well that people get angry when they lie about them then fire them. They have all kinds of precautions they take when they're firing someone. They also worry about the person coming back and going postal.
This is what happened then, right? They abused this guy, then got paranoid that the guy was going to get even. Or there is real animosity from the company and they were watching his searches hoping to find anything they could use as an excuse to call the Feds .
Thinking about it some more, I would not be surprised to find out that the Feds know (now) that this is what the company was doing,. That companies do this as a kind "kiss off" gesture to employees they really hate. They said they get 100 of these calls a week. A week? Really? Really? What county reasonably suspects it has 100*52 = 5200 suspected terrorists in it? It's not about terrorism. It's about disgruntled employees and companies that have learned how to trigger the Homeland Security response on people they have fucked over.
I wonder what the Feds or locals actually think of this use of their resources. I wonder if they don't see it as a problem they can't do anything about, lest one real one slip by. It's like all the false home security alarms that were going off. Finally they said if it goes off and it's nothing, homeowner/company pays costs of response. That solved that problem.
Wonder how long it will be until they say the same thing to these abusive companies. Hard not to see this as a cynical abuse of the system. Cops have to respond. Companies know this. OPh look, backpacks and pressure cookers- BINGO! Lets turn 'em in.... HAW HAW HAW HAW..
Lesson here? Don't use your company's computers, cellphone or network at home.
Realizing the extreme behavior of making up anything it wants would pretty certainly lead to the unlikely event of Congress impeaching one or all justices. There is a balance. It's as good as humans can do- there are no non-human alternatives. That balance is not a static thing, it moves this back and forth . At any given instant in time, it's may be moving away from correctness. People who live during that time become distressed and agitate for change. Then it moves back, Laughably enough the FISA court was set up and functioned as a part of that moving back to correctness. Now, it seems to be moving away from correctness. Sucks to be us . Time to advocate for change.
That's just the way it is. Times change and the court takes a while to catch up and see the light. Most of the bad decisions for civil liberties are 5-4 majorities with Alito et al in the wrong. So it's close.
Uh since around 1.3 the JIT optimization for java has led to blindly fast code containing optimizations which are not even available to C++ . Dynamic compiling allows for branch prediction to be more accurately, unlike malloc, the GC knows where to look for free memory and returns it from the last bit of memory you just requested, if you know where pointers are pointing at compile time, you can put them in registers. C++ and other statically compile languages don't have this information, so it stores them in cache, but the JIT can acquire this information and store it in a register. It's the difference between a register to register test and reading from disk.
There are tons of other stuff like this. I don't have it committed to memory, and compiler technology is not my thing but if you look around you'll see that actually GC and JIT are theoretical advantages in terms of speed and those advantages are being realized. It can even figure out what chip it's being run on at runtime and optimize the code for that chip.
The Java is Slow Meme is left over from 1995 before there was even HotSpot.
Not bashing any other language here. C# could also avail itself of these advantages.
What if their reasoning goes like this: Inhofe is dangerous. We cannot now influence Inhofe. If Inhofe takes our money, then Inhofe will be, in part, dependent upon us. If we can create a financial dependency between Inhofe and his constituents, we can use that dependency to influence Inhofe. We can threaten to withdraw jobs, close plants, relocate.
That is what most people complain corporations do, right? That is the source of their power along with campaign contributions. It seems to work, or at least everyone bitches about it as though is does work. I believe it works.
So....
What good is a purity-play if it doesn't get you what you need- influence?
I don't know this is their thinking. It could very well be their thinking. Note my signature and check my last posts if you think I have priorities other than climate change abatement or am shilling for anyone. I am just a person looking to deal with reality in any way that is effective.
That all nations see the digitization of communication as a way to gain leverage over competitive fields in which they're participants People gotta talk and what they talk about and say is everything. So no surprises here. Everything is always an arms race and always will be until such time as 1) everyone has enough of everything 2) the innate jealousies, innate anti-social appetites , the innate urge to be alpha and have more than other people or hurt other people instead of just leaving them alone, are removed from human character.
Until then, it's going to be like this. People possessed of religious belief needing to kill or convert others. Men and women competing for limited power, prestige, mates and stuff . This is what we evolved to do. This is what had survival value. This is the ground upon which all other considerations are framed and no one even questions it and no one is immune.
This is what we are and will continue to be until and unless we decide that enough is enough and begin the process of re-working our nature from the genes up.
You seem to confuse claiming a legal basis with there actually being a legal basis. The executive and military's lawyers can claim anything they want to; anything at all, as a legal basis. You can SAY anything, but that's not how legality is determined.
It's determined by Congress and SCOTUS. SCOTUS will decide if this is legal under current law and the Constitution. . If it finds that it is, Congress can effectively override the SCOTUS decision by making new law which prohibits what they're doing explicitly.
People claim it's illegal. They may be correct. Clearly snooping on everyone all the time so you can bring up anything about anyone any time can lead to a dysfunctional democracy. The potential for blackmail at every level of government is astronomically high. We have historical precedent- it's what Hoover did. OF course we don't even need that precedent since we *know what human nature is* and what people will do for power generally.
Huge powers like atiimic bombs are actually safer in this respect since you can't set a bomb off on one person and you can't do it without everyopne knowing. But blackmail is another matter.
Then there's things more subtle than blackmail. There's knowing a lot about someone and influencing the course of their lives based upon that knowledge. You're a person who fits this profile and statistically speaking people with your profile can't be relied on to lie if their superior tells them to.
Therefore, I'll call up my peers in industry and tell them not to hire you, that you can't be trusted to lie about all the things industry needs you to lie about. In fact, overall, for mysterious reasons you're going to find post-college employment prospects strangely limited.
In fact, some people who fit some profiles - people who are likely to go on and be especially effective - tend to die at an early age in tragic auto accidents and such like. We call it the "kill em early" program.
Then there's targeted, selected enforcement of laws against people who fit THIS profile and have said THESE kinds of things.
Knowing a lot about people is a form of power. Knowing everything about people is a form of unlimited power. No one gets unlimited power. No one.
What's the diff between a Snowden-level Booze employee and TSA employees? The fact is, once your security state is big enough, it's hard to find quality help to staff it. I can guarantee you that lots of sociopaths-with-ambition are studying to become NSA contractors right now. They're going to get hired and they're going to get access. Are we supposed to just conveniently forget everything we've learned about human nature ??
Creating a gigantic security apparatus with unlimited power staffed by contractors is the national security equivalent to programming while only thinking about the happy path of execution. It's a joke and a time bomb waiting to go off.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes exactly. Deprive of them your talents. Encourage others to do the same. Maybe it will become structural article of faith amongst really good programmers. Perhaps even develop a license which forbids the software from being used by the financial industry.
Look, it's not just the US that does this, it's every developed nation. The UK does it the EU does it the Far East and Middle East nations do it, no there's no escaping it.
Why do they do it? National security- same reason the US does it.
Fact: the internet is how non-state actors plan their violence, raise their money, spread their vision, do reconnaissance . Of course it gets state scrutiny- as much as the state can bring to it.
The reason that's a Big Deal in the news now is because the U.S. government appears to be contravening the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment and lying about it to the American people, and purely instrumental John Yoo-style of "findings" does not count as "lawful".
It's pretty clear to all Americans that their internet searches, their contacts, the time place and duration of those contacts qualify as their "papers" which the Constitution expressly says shall be free from unreasonable search and further that capturing those and rifling through them, analyzing them, drawing conclusions and inferences about the people behind them and then indexing all that away under the key Smith, John , well that's pretty much the definition of "search".
To Americans, myself included, that's a big fucking deal and something that needs to be publicly, seriously and and in a sustained and methodical way considered with the goal of reaching a consensus about how we should go forward.
The government ignores this at their own peril: the terrorist have as their explicit goal to provoke reactions from the US government which de-legitimize that government in the eyes of its own people. They intend to do this and it's their greatest and perhaps only real weapon.
The purpose of doing that is divide the nation against itself and thus generate home-grown discontents which they can cynically join in a common cause (hating the US government). One of the reasons we haven't been hit the way the UK and say Spain have been is because, aside from sleeper cells composed of foreign nationals, al Queda is having a tough time finding Americans who want to support them locally.
Provoking such responses from the US government also serves to undermine the US government's legitimacy with their foreign partners by de-legitimizing the US with those nation's citizens.
So far, they're winning. They won with Abu Graib (thanks Cheney!!!!! Thanks Yoo !!! ) . They won when they turned the Depatment of Justice into a made-to-order *legal* sausage factory , thanks to Yoo , Cheney, David Addington Jay Bybee and Alberto Gonzales.
Now they're poised to win again with this shit. This time it's structural. As one of his first official acts, Obama nullified and set aside all of messy diapers John Yoo left behind in the DoJ. But this time, it's all going to be carried forward.. it's going structural folks. You need to take this seriously.
This is Obama's legacy. This and what he does about climate change are the things history will judge him on, Obamacare is small beans in comparison.
At this exact moment in history Snowden has given him something no one could have foreseen- the perfect excuse to engage the nation in a meaningful debate over complex and fast changing relationship between personal privacy and national security and the 4th Amendment.
It's been presented to him on a mother fucking silver platter, and is he going to engage the nation like a goddamn motherfucking leader and bring us, together, as a nation, as Americans into a shared and accepted understanding about this issue strong enough to take us forward into the next century or is he going to blink this nettlesome thing before him away and let mere circumstance, some random future chain of unfortunate events decide the issue for us in a way that is incoherent, chaotic, instrumental and divisive?
Which is it going to be, Mr. President? This is an issue that is all, and only, up to you.
That's the REAL issue that no one in the main stream media is talking about.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216
Says it all.
Look if you don't have to have WIFI at home then don't.
You can buy a USB to rj45 adapter for any device. Buy an 8 or 12 port switch, locate it centrally, run short cords from there to multiple jacks in rooms and from there have short cords available for plugin. Done. Use different color cords for devices in close proximity just to make it easy to trouble shoot.
Its clean, it's convenient you can scale it up as you need and you don't have to worry about all the bad programming bugs that WIFI routers are sporting.
Accurate and widely available information about reality is a mortal threat to your business model.
What does that say about what you do for a living?
Re; global warming. Let me get this straight. You consider it realistic that all the world's scientists are engaging in a gigantic scam together for grant money and for ideological reasons. This is realistic to you.
However, the world's corporations who explicitly and singly exist to make money , their collusion is unlikely and anyways not a problem because of "free market forces" and anyway government intervention is worse than any kind of collusion. .
So scientists are colluding to lie but the noble corporations are being beaten up by the government and also by scientists who are colluding to engage them in proxy war over global warming for the purpose of destroying them.
You're insane.
How many people are going to die because deniers are effectively shouting "no fire" in a proven-to-be burning theater?
Denier == terrorist.
Yeah and their contributions are limited because there's a cap on how much you can donate
More expensive cars means some people drive their cars longer before buying a new one.
A stellar example of two libertarian ploys. One is to use some generally true, yet unquantified fact - "airbags increase car costs" and then causally relate that to some effect, citing no evidence, just "pure reason" - it must be true.
The other ploy is simply to blink away the totality of the situation- we're talking about people dying. We already have a working example of a functioning market in Europe that includes airbags so the US can have airbags also.
This is the essence of libertarianism and free market ideologues-. Start with some self-selected ideas. . Assert about those ideas that they are facts and then treat them as axioms from which truths about the real world can simply be derived.
The total increase in cost in 2002 dollars (when the anlyssi was done) of ALL safety requirements NOT just airbags came to a whopping 4% of the cost fo a car.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809834.html
So you're just wrong. You cna't go from "air bags increase car csosts" to "fewer people buy new cars " like that because you want to. Self-confirming wishful thinking is the hallmark of libertarians and free market coke snorters. It's the opposite of science, the scientific method (which you mock later in your post) . It's a throwback to the Scholastics of the freaking dark ages
Wikipedia:
"Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. "
This is the opposite of sciNot so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. "
Companies with similar products have similar political goals. I commend you on your deep insight, but I don't see how that delegitimizes their political activity nor do I see how corporate donations and event sponsorship constitute "agitation". Agitation usually means trying to whip up a mob mentality and promoting civil unrest which are not usually tactics used by corporations.
I'll spell; it out as many times as necessary. Corporations in in similar industries all share similar goals. If they are allowed a bigger voice in politics on account of being enormously more wealthy than individuals then those goals will be served and not the goals of the majority of people. You claimed (which claim was a lie) to not see the problem with this. Well buddy, that's the problem.
It's amusing to see you are concerned about the connotations of the word "agitation" - which is used correctly (look it up) yet you claim people don't "give" money to corporations. Libertarians love the word games.
And consider this, if one sincerely confuses the meaning of words in their own thinking, then that's an honest mistake. OTOH if one continually "playing dumb" about the shared and obvious meaning of words like "giving" and attempting to cloud the meaning of what is being said , then that's something more like "sociopathic manipulation ."
We here having a not-so-nice conversation and what are you doing? Attempting to dodge the sense of what what's being said to you by pretending to believe that when people say "giving money to corporations" they intended to say "donating money to corporations"
It's a form of lying and manipulation., "I am not going to really engage in ideas, I am going to pretend you said something you didn't and see if I can derail your original point, a point for which I have no real rebuttal."
Not having an effective rebuttal to your opponent's point is cause for a review of your own beliefs in people who aren't narcissists. For narcissists it's a signal that they need to engage in verbal sleights of hand .
Fact stands as is- corporations with enormous wealth use that wealth to agitate for policies which are harmful and destructive of the common good while best for their own short term good. If the political system were better engineered to neutralize the differential effectiveness that wealth now provides, the common good would be better served.
Finally, because you seem not to understand this , the point of any democracy is to serve the common good of its members. This does include securing their liberties, but not at the expense of the everyone else.
This is 4th grade shit. Perhaps you were home schooled.
I don't think American auto companies actually claimed they would go broke if they were mandated to install airbags as standard equipment. Rather they claimed that it would raise the cost of their products, making their products less competitive in that segment of the market which wanted lower cost vehicles. No need for you to be hyperbolic.
Lee Iacocca claimed the "Japs" would "eat us (US car companies) alive" to Nixon :
http://books.google.com/books?id=-7JU3Xk3NTgC&lpg=PA111&ots=j3Z9hOa6NI&dq=airbag%20nader%20iacocca&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q=airbag%20nader%20iacocca&f=false
There's not need for your total historical ignorance except that , like all libertarians of which you are decidedly one, you prefer to *hypothesize* about the nature of reality from *first principles* and draw your conclusions deductively rather than, you know, go out and deal with reality as it is.
Fact stands; US automakers resisted the deployment of airbags and in so doing condemned to death thousands of Americans who otherwise would have lived and they did this to line their own pockets and they *could* do this because they are rich in a political system that favors the opinions of the rich at the expense of the rest of the nation's citizens.
You are not "giving money" to corporations when you buy products,
You seem to confuse the concept of "donating' with the concept of "giving". I said giving, not donating.
This is the essence of libertarianism- tell straight up falsehoods which everyone knows are plainly false then engage in a vacuous and elaborate explanation which you hope people will engage with.
You cannot avoid giving money to corporations. In a society whose laws permit the rich to have a far more potent political voice this has real world consequences and nothing you said allays those consequences one iota.
Companies with similar products have similar political goals. I commend you on your deep insight, but I don't see how that delegitimizes their political activity nor do I see how corporate donations and event sponsorship constitute "agitation". Agitation usually means trying to whip up a mob mentality and promoting civil unrest which are not usually tactics used by corporations.
You can tell
1 Every nation war games every scenario and as a part of securing the ability to realize those scenarios should they have to, they carry on things with potentially sinister applications. News at 11.
2 Just saying this so no one gets drummed up into the idea that "this means they're going to attack!" or "this is totally outrageous !!" It is outrageous, on PlanetNice where humans are banned. Back on Earth, where humans are what they are ...goto 1
If you don't like the political activity of a corporation, sell your stock interest in that corporation. Last I heard, no one is forced to buy stock in a particular company.
You seem to hail from another planet. on Earth, it's not possible to avoid giving money to corporations you don't like merely by not buying stock. Politically speaking nearly all telcos are "one" corporation in that they agitate for the same things from candidates. Ditto the cable companies. Ditto the auto industry, which as a group, blocked the deployment of air bags for years falsely claiming they would go broke if they were forced to provide them, all while they were deployed in Europe.
So ooops! I guess corporations and their political activity DOES kill people since there are people who would be alive today if but for the lies the automakers told and the political action they instigated.
Oh, and ditto the above by, oh about a billion times WRT to global warming.Global warming will be corporation's Waterloo.. it's not even a question... it's just a matter of time. But that's another subject.
Those "benefits" got written into tax law and solidified in regulations leading to the situation now of employees being afraid to lose their jobs for fear of losing their healthcare insurance.
Christ jesus god you're not really this big of an asswipe are you? Because the government doesn't provide health care to its citizens gratis or at enormously re4duced and regulated prices like every other developed nation does , because the compromise this nation settled on was the one corporation's campaigned for instead, employer-provided health care, because we have THAT situation, then employees are at fault for not leaving their jobs. Jesus god. I love talking to libertarian freaks online because when else are you going to get the chance to rebut the world view of sociopaths - like Ayn Rand for instance- and expose their thinking for what it is. So please, don't wander off or lose interest on me, OK?
Wealth has always, under any system of laws or govt., provided political power.
Yeah and niggers were always slaves and slavery has always been around and women were never allowed the right to vote and England has always had kings and ....yeesh it's AMAZING you can't even self censor your arguments enough to pass as other than sociopath on an online forum where you have all the time in the world to manicure your reply.
Last I checked, corporations don't have the power to execute me, but maybe I missed something.Last I checked, corporations don't have the power to execute me, but maybe I missed something.
Yeah. Two words. Global. Warming.
Which would create exactly the kind of tiny, static political class that you seemed to be bitching about when you mentioned the King of England. By legally excluding private political donations, only self-financed, mega-wealthy candidates or candidates willing to flaunt campaign funding laws would have any real chance of challenging incumbents for national office.
You seem to have not comprehended the notion. PUBLICLY funded elections come from TAXES from EVERYONE and are distributed EVENLY amongst the candidates. Who gets funded is an outstanding issue, some type of run off is needed but since we can do it for the Fucking Final Four every year, i bet we can work it out fairly.
Your argument repeatedly refers to some kind of political elite inevitability. But that's the WHOLE POINT of reforming laws- to prevent a political elite from grasping too much power. You want people to do what the fuck ever they want and call it freedom. What people do is grab power. What stops people is laws. You shit all over the notion of freedom curtailing law. Yet that's the only reason you're not ass up in your local gay warlord's sex torture machine right now, because THAT'S where things go when people are 'free" to wield power as they see fit.
Everyone needs to be stopped from having to
This is the only real reason I can think of for the NSA program spying on Americans. They think things are going to get very ugly. Very ugly.
If you *really* care about freedom and civil liberties and don't just enjoy getting apoplectic over those *ideas* , you might want to consider doing everything you can to make sure the environmental preques for those things continues to viable. No food, no liberty. Trust me.
Java continued to carry the stigma of being slow, and rightfully so, because it was horrendously slow for desktop use until Project Mustang (Java 6). Java 6 marked a point where Java not only no longer sucked for desktop application use, but actually became quite good at it.
If this were true, I would have known about it. Consider Intellij IDE -a java desktop client - has been superfast since at least 2001 . You can't say an IDE isn't a *real* desktop client since most desktop clients do a LOT less than IDEs have to.
It's just not true what you said. It's just a matter of facts being one way or the other .
"Corporations are voluntary grouping of people"
This is a lie on so many levels it's heard to know where to begin.
You make it sound like they're all of one mind WRT politics. They're a "voluntary grouping" , right? But they're not. They're just there to work and pay the bills; they haven't "voluntarily grouped " for political reasons at all.
Yet you force them to accept what the corporation does and use their presence in the corporation are a a kind of justification, hey,. they're there as a voluntary group! They can leave if they don't like it!
Of course they could leave their job. As if. I love it when this argument finally gets down to "if you don't like it , you are free to leave your job / state / nation" part . It's a joke and factually as untrue as "if you don't like it, you can leave your job, lose your house, wreck your credit and live on the street" . Only in an adolescent fantasy world does this kind of logic exist.
What's more, it puts unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people merely because they're rich. That's the real world effect. It's no different than 18th century England with a king and the various barons. They wield the real power. But this is what democracy was invented to prevent. You seem to overlook that basic fact. Democracy is a means to an end- the opportunity for citizens to participated as equals in government. You turn it into a circus of perverts, gleefully shaking their packages at the whole POINT of democracy through some fucking "voluntary group" horseshit.
People should be limited in how much they can give candidates. Candidates elections should be publicly funded. Elections should be of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations. and the tiny sliver of people who run them.
Nothing could be simpler to understand.
The update to this story is worth considering. What they';re saying now is it wasn't the guy's home ISP, it was the fact that he was using a company computer. But the guy was a former employee of that company. So he still had their computer- I am guessing a laptop. So I can guess he very very recently left that company. This is where it gets interesting.
Did he leave or was he fired? Because if he left, then why would the company who owns the laptop *even consider* that his Googling a recently-in-the-news story amounted to terrorism and call the cops?
If he was *fired* however, then it starts to make sense (presuming we are being told the truth and have the facts).
That implies that the firing was not pretty. Anyone who works for a living knows managers who don't ike you for any personal or frivolous reason have the ability through HR departments to trump up charges against you. "Performance Improvement Programs" and other such names are HR speak for "get the fuck out we don't like you". . Probably the vast majority of firings are of this type- no real cause except someone doesn't like you.
People get very angry when this kind of slander-without-consequence is directed at them; especially when it results in denying them the ability to pay their bills and they've done nothing wrong.
HR departments know very well that people get angry when they lie about them then fire them. They have all kinds of precautions they take when they're firing someone. They also worry about the person coming back and going postal.
This is what happened then, right? They abused this guy, then got paranoid that the guy was going to get even. Or there is real animosity from the company and they were watching his searches hoping to find anything they could use as an excuse to call the Feds .
Thinking about it some more, I would not be surprised to find out that the Feds know (now) that this is what the company was doing,. That companies do this as a kind "kiss off" gesture to employees they really hate. They said they get 100 of these calls a week. A week? Really? Really? What county reasonably suspects it has 100*52 = 5200 suspected terrorists in it? It's not about terrorism. It's about disgruntled employees and companies that have learned how to trigger the Homeland Security response on people they have fucked over.
I wonder what the Feds or locals actually think of this use of their resources. I wonder if they don't see it as a problem they can't do anything about, lest one real one slip by. It's like all the false home security alarms that were going off. Finally they said if it goes off and it's nothing, homeowner /company pays costs of response. That solved that problem.
Wonder how long it will be until they say the same thing to these abusive companies. Hard not to see this as a cynical abuse of the system. Cops have to respond. Companies know this. OPh look, backpacks and pressure cookers- BINGO! Lets turn 'em in.... HAW HAW HAW HAW..
Lesson here? Don't use your company's computers, cellphone or network at home.
Realizing the extreme behavior of making up anything it wants would pretty certainly lead to the unlikely event of Congress impeaching one or all justices. There is a balance. It's as good as humans can do- there are no non-human alternatives. That balance is not a static thing, it moves this back and forth . At any given instant in time, it's may be moving away from correctness. People who live during that time become distressed and agitate for change. Then it moves back, Laughably enough the FISA court was set up and functioned as a part of that moving back to correctness. Now, it seems to be moving away from correctness. Sucks to be us . Time to advocate for change.
That's just the way it is. Times change and the court takes a while to catch up and see the light. Most of the bad decisions for civil liberties are 5-4 majorities with Alito et al in the wrong. So it's close.
Uh since around 1.3 the JIT optimization for java has led to blindly fast code containing optimizations which are not even available to C++ . Dynamic compiling allows for branch prediction to be more accurately, unlike malloc, the GC knows where to look for free memory and returns it from the last bit of memory you just requested, if you know where pointers are pointing at compile time, you can put them in registers. C++ and other statically compile languages don't have this information, so it stores them in cache, but the JIT can acquire this information and store it in a register. It's the difference between a register to register test and reading from disk.
There are tons of other stuff like this. I don't have it committed to memory, and compiler technology is not my thing but if you look around you'll see that actually GC and JIT are theoretical advantages in terms of speed and those advantages are being realized. It can even figure out what chip it's being run on at runtime and optimize the code for that chip.
The Java is Slow Meme is left over from 1995 before there was even HotSpot.
Not bashing any other language here. C# could also avail itself of these advantages.
What if their reasoning goes like this: Inhofe is dangerous. We cannot now influence Inhofe. If Inhofe takes our money, then Inhofe will be, in part, dependent upon us. If we can create a financial dependency between Inhofe and his constituents, we can use that dependency to influence Inhofe. We can threaten to withdraw jobs, close plants, relocate.
That is what most people complain corporations do, right? That is the source of their power along with campaign contributions. It seems to work, or at least everyone bitches about it as though is does work. I believe it works.
So....
What good is a purity-play if it doesn't get you what you need- influence?
I don't know this is their thinking. It could very well be their thinking. Note my signature and check my last posts if you think I have priorities other than climate change abatement or am shilling for anyone. I am just a person looking to deal with reality in any way that is effective.
That all nations see the digitization of communication as a way to gain leverage over competitive fields in which they're participants People gotta talk and what they talk about and say is everything. So no surprises here. Everything is always an arms race and always will be until such time as 1) everyone has enough of everything 2) the innate jealousies, innate anti-social appetites , the innate urge to be alpha and have more than other people or hurt other people instead of just leaving them alone, are removed from human character.
Until then, it's going to be like this. People possessed of religious belief needing to kill or convert others. Men and women competing for limited power, prestige, mates and stuff . This is what we evolved to do. This is what had survival value. This is the ground upon which all other considerations are framed and no one even questions it and no one is immune.
This is what we are and will continue to be until and unless we decide that enough is enough and begin the process of re-working our nature from the genes up.
please please come to my starbucks. Oh god please let them come to my starbucks.
You seem to confuse claiming a legal basis with there actually being a legal basis. The executive and military's lawyers can claim anything they want to; anything at all, as a legal basis. You can SAY anything, but that's not how legality is determined.
It's determined by Congress and SCOTUS. SCOTUS will decide if this is legal under current law and the Constitution. . If it finds that it is, Congress can effectively override the SCOTUS decision by making new law which prohibits what they're doing explicitly.
People claim it's illegal. They may be correct. Clearly snooping on everyone all the time so you can bring up anything about anyone any time can lead to a dysfunctional democracy. The potential for blackmail at every level of government is astronomically high. We have historical precedent- it's what Hoover did. OF course we don't even need that precedent since we *know what human nature is* and what people will do for power generally.
Huge powers like atiimic bombs are actually safer in this respect since you can't set a bomb off on one person and you can't do it without everyopne knowing. But blackmail is another matter.
Then there's things more subtle than blackmail. There's knowing a lot about someone and influencing the course of their lives based upon that knowledge. You're a person who fits this profile and statistically speaking people with your profile can't be relied on to lie if their superior tells them to.
Therefore, I'll call up my peers in industry and tell them not to hire you, that you can't be trusted to lie about all the things industry needs you to lie about. In fact, overall, for mysterious reasons you're going to find post-college employment prospects strangely limited.
In fact, some people who fit some profiles - people who are likely to go on and be especially effective - tend to die at an early age in tragic auto accidents and such like. We call it the "kill em early" program.
Then there's targeted, selected enforcement of laws against people who fit THIS profile and have said THESE kinds of things.
Knowing a lot about people is a form of power. Knowing everything about people is a form of unlimited power. No one gets unlimited power. No one.
For anyone who isn't aware, the 5th circuit is generally taken to be conservative while the 9th is generally taken to be liberal
What's the diff between a Snowden-level Booze employee and TSA employees? The fact is, once your security state is big enough, it's hard to find quality help to staff it. I can guarantee you that lots of sociopaths-with-ambition are studying to become NSA contractors right now. They're going to get hired and they're going to get access. Are we supposed to just conveniently forget everything we've learned about human nature ??
Creating a gigantic security apparatus with unlimited power staffed by contractors is the national security equivalent to programming while only thinking about the happy path of execution. It's a joke and a time bomb waiting to go off.