Thanks for the correction of my fuzzy old memories.:) I thought I had used Gopher in my last year of uni, but must have been mistaken. Probably used it that next summer at my first internship.
Uhm, what exactly did you think my purpose was in bringing up the safe harbor provision?
I am very interested in the thought process that lead to the conclusion that I was arguing that the ISP was liable or the customer should be terminated.
How is municipal wifi different from any commercial ISP? Would a commercial ISP shut itself down if it found one of it's users engaging in illegal activity? No. Of course not. And why not? Because of the safe harbor provisions, no ISP is liable for the illegal activity of its users. Just like the phone company isn't liable when someone calls up a hit man and orders an execution.
Not to be insulting, but your argument simply makes no sense. It shows that you don't understand the purpose of the safe harbor provision, how it operates, or what terms like 'in good faith' mean.
Port 80? That newfangled HTTP thing? Gopher predates HTTP by a fair number of years. You can try that fancy pants modern trick now but back in the day, that would have got you nothing.
Of course, Gopher is newer than Telnet. And Telnet is newer than BBSs. And BBSs are newer than dialing in to the university mainframe over a 300 baud acoustic-coupled modem connected to a teletype, which is where I cut my teeth, sonny boy.
Well, most of us already have everything done. We've got nothing left to do but look at the solid green status lights adorning our racks and consoles, and post brilliant witticisms and cogent analysis to Slashdot.
This isn't about law suits or damages. This is about fanboi bragging rights and in-group versus out-group defense. You see, Apple and Windows users ego-identify with the hardware/software they have bought, and any challenge to their chosen operating system feels like a personal dominance challenge. Claims and counter claims of theft and innovation are the geek equivalent of hooting and feces flinging in the "lower" primates.
We Linux users, on the other hand, are far too intelligent and evolved for such petty squabbling. We know we are better, we don't need to prove it.
Voluntary exchange is a nasty myth. When someone is starving, they will 'voluntarily' trade whatever they have for food. When someone has no shelter, they will do things they do not want to do in order to get shelter.
Although an exchange may be voluntary, and benefit both parties, it may provide no net benefit because the exchange itself creates negative externalities. For instance, waste dumping or pollution. Back in the days of slavery, people engaged in trades that benefited both parties involved, but hurt others, namely the slaves. So, just because something is a voluntary trade does not make it right, and it does not mean the trade creates value.
The free market fails to deliver optimal value in under conditions: externalities (both positive and negative), imbalance of information, and natural monopoly. In addition, there are no checks and balances in the free market. Once one has accumulated enough money, additional money provides no material benefit. What it does is let someone control other people. Money lets one use other people to gain more money, and thus more control over other people.
When government's only function is protection of property, then it's only real function is protecting the haves from the have-nots. Is that how you see government, as protecting the rich from the poor?
As for the depression, you cite a theory not held by most poeple, including most economists. FDR's policies fixed the depression, without him, it would have lasted much, much longer. That is why, in graphs of GDP, you can see things start to get better as soon as his policies were implemented. When the Republicans convinced him that the economy had been fixed, and he needed to stop his policies, the economy tanked again (1937-1938). When he started his policies back up again, things got better. And don't even try the "It was the war!" argument. It's ridiculous. If government spending on a war could fix the economy, then government spending on useful infrastructure can too.
What a specious line of reasoning. According to Mises, government regulation is anathema, and yet lack of regulation let Wall Street destroy the economy. It's a classic example of how the free market, left unregulated, benefits only sociopaths.
The documents, plural, I refer to include the birth announcement in the local newspaper and the doctor's personal statement, as well as the certificate.
You are being quite disingenuous. There was only one reason to make the comment you did: to spread FUD. You want to add weight to the arguments of lunatics who think Obama wasn't born here, without the embarrassment of actually siding with them. Don't even try to deny it.
In New Jersey, the incumbent democrat senator in a perpetually blue state using tens of millions of his own money and with the personal endorsement of the president, loses the election by a wide >5% margin.
Democratic Senator?!?Really? Oh my fucking God you are stupid.
Here's the facts. The Democratic governor of New Jersey was wildly unpopular before the election. Everyone expected Corzine to lose. He came closer than anyone expected. Virginia has, since the 70s, voted for governor the opposite of whichever party controlled the White House.
So, you picked up two governor's seats. Governor's are local politicians and governor's races are based on local, not national politics. In the only upset of this election cycle, you lost a national spot in congress that you have held for 150 years.
Face it, the Republicans are not making any kind of a comeback anytime soon. This was your chance to start building momentum for 2012, and you blew it. The people reject your hate filled message.
Not that it will matter, anyone brainless enough to question whether the current president was born in the US, when his opponents in the campaign couldn't dig up anything substantial, is too freaking stupid to even argue with.
So either you are stupid beyond belief, or you are trying to waste my time.
"UCLA" does not disagree with my facts. Two (count them, two) scientists at UCLA disagree with my facts. Harold Cole and Lee Ohnian are right wing tools, bent on discrediting any 'liberal bias.' There have been numerous refutations of their conclusions since they wrote that paper. Here's one: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
There is no reasoning with Glenn Beck Fans. Might as well try to reason with baboons, you'll get the same result: primate feces thrown in your face. Reasoning with Beck fans simply gives them respect they don't deserve.
It's absolutely true. Hoover screwed things up, and FDR fixed things. Maybe in the minds of free market fanatics, it is different. Wearing blinders doesn't make the truth disappear, though.
As for Maddow's low ratings, two things: first, we free thinking liberals don't need our opinions spoon fed to us. I barely watch her show myself. Second, frightened white men hate strong, smart lesbians.
Chalk it up to whatever you like. The majority of patriotic Americans know Beck is full of shit and his supporters are loons. Nothing you can say can change that fact, just like nothing I could say could change your, uh, what do you use for central processing? A notochord?
I believe you have Rachel Maddow confused with the entire cast of Fox News talking heads. Fox only reports what the Republicans tell them to Report. Rachel reports what her critical thinking and reporting skills lead her to believe.
The Republicans lost a district that hasn't been held by a Democrat for 150 years. That's a big deal. A referendum on the Republican party, even. less than 20% of Americans identify as Republican. The party has lost all credibility, and only angry whiter southerners vote Republican these days.
So, the doctor who delivered Obama, and the newspaper that printed his birth announcement must be in on the scam? And the certificate that Hawaii issued was the only official certificate at the time. No controversy, just a bunch of hateful morons who can't stand the idea of a successful black man. Why would Obama even bother to speak to these wingers? That would just encourage them to waste more of his time.
Wrong. The two situations are nothing alike. People can publish whatever they like, and no one can force them to publish things they don't like. I'm not calling for censorship of anyone, I'm exercising my free speech by calling Beck a lying pansy crybaby who can't find a real fact with a map and a compass.
It's funny that this douche got his ass handed to him by an amateur. It's funny that he got his itty bitty girly feelings hurt. It's hilarious that his moronic fans are rushing to defend him. Poor babies.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the correction of my fuzzy old memories. :) I thought I had used Gopher in my last year of uni, but must have been mistaken. Probably used it that next summer at my first internship.
Eh? What?
Uhm, what exactly did you think my purpose was in bringing up the safe harbor provision?
I am very interested in the thought process that lead to the conclusion that I was arguing that the ISP was liable or the customer should be terminated.
How is municipal wifi different from any commercial ISP? Would a commercial ISP shut itself down if it found one of it's users engaging in illegal activity? No. Of course not. And why not? Because of the safe harbor provisions, no ISP is liable for the illegal activity of its users. Just like the phone company isn't liable when someone calls up a hit man and orders an execution.
Not to be insulting, but your argument simply makes no sense. It shows that you don't understand the purpose of the safe harbor provision, how it operates, or what terms like 'in good faith' mean.
Port 80? That newfangled HTTP thing? Gopher predates HTTP by a fair number of years. You can try that fancy pants modern trick now but back in the day, that would have got you nothing.
Of course, Gopher is newer than Telnet. And Telnet is newer than BBSs. And BBSs are newer than dialing in to the university mainframe over a 300 baud acoustic-coupled modem connected to a teletype, which is where I cut my teeth, sonny boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Harbor
You youngsters and your fancy text based web browsers. In my day, we used gopher, and we LIKED it!
Or simply an older man who likes to fondle you?
Well, most of us already have everything done. We've got nothing left to do but look at the solid green status lights adorning our racks and consoles, and post brilliant witticisms and cogent analysis to Slashdot.
This isn't about law suits or damages. This is about fanboi bragging rights and in-group versus out-group defense. You see, Apple and Windows users ego-identify with the hardware/software they have bought, and any challenge to their chosen operating system feels like a personal dominance challenge. Claims and counter claims of theft and innovation are the geek equivalent of hooting and feces flinging in the "lower" primates.
We Linux users, on the other hand, are far too intelligent and evolved for such petty squabbling. We know we are better, we don't need to prove it.
Voluntary exchange is a nasty myth. When someone is starving, they will 'voluntarily' trade whatever they have for food. When someone has no shelter, they will do things they do not want to do in order to get shelter.
Although an exchange may be voluntary, and benefit both parties, it may provide no net benefit because the exchange itself creates negative externalities. For instance, waste dumping or pollution. Back in the days of slavery, people engaged in trades that benefited both parties involved, but hurt others, namely the slaves. So, just because something is a voluntary trade does not make it right, and it does not mean the trade creates value.
The free market fails to deliver optimal value in under conditions: externalities (both positive and negative), imbalance of information, and natural monopoly. In addition, there are no checks and balances in the free market. Once one has accumulated enough money, additional money provides no material benefit. What it does is let someone control other people. Money lets one use other people to gain more money, and thus more control over other people.
When government's only function is protection of property, then it's only real function is protecting the haves from the have-nots. Is that how you see government, as protecting the rich from the poor?
As for the depression, you cite a theory not held by most poeple, including most economists. FDR's policies fixed the depression, without him, it would have lasted much, much longer. That is why, in graphs of GDP, you can see things start to get better as soon as his policies were implemented. When the Republicans convinced him that the economy had been fixed, and he needed to stop his policies, the economy tanked again (1937-1938). When he started his policies back up again, things got better. And don't even try the "It was the war!" argument. It's ridiculous. If government spending on a war could fix the economy, then government spending on useful infrastructure can too.
What a specious line of reasoning. According to Mises, government regulation is anathema, and yet lack of regulation let Wall Street destroy the economy. It's a classic example of how the free market, left unregulated, benefits only sociopaths.
The documents, plural, I refer to include the birth announcement in the local newspaper and the doctor's personal statement, as well as the certificate.
You are being quite disingenuous. There was only one reason to make the comment you did: to spread FUD. You want to add weight to the arguments of lunatics who think Obama wasn't born here, without the embarrassment of actually siding with them. Don't even try to deny it.
Government spending creates prosperity. Many of FDR's projects created real value, like the electric companies or the arts programs.
Oh, and the folks at Mises are lunatics. Mainstream economists continue to ignore them.
I heard that too. Why would so many people say that if it weren't true?
In New Jersey, the incumbent democrat senator in a perpetually blue state using tens of millions of his own money and with the personal endorsement of the president, loses the election by a wide >5% margin.
Democratic Senator?!? Really? Oh my fucking God you are stupid.
Here's the facts. The Democratic governor of New Jersey was wildly unpopular before the election. Everyone expected Corzine to lose. He came closer than anyone expected. Virginia has, since the 70s, voted for governor the opposite of whichever party controlled the White House.
So, you picked up two governor's seats. Governor's are local politicians and governor's races are based on local, not national politics. In the only upset of this election cycle, you lost a national spot in congress that you have held for 150 years.
Face it, the Republicans are not making any kind of a comeback anytime soon. This was your chance to start building momentum for 2012, and you blew it. The people reject your hate filled message.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Idiot.
Are you seriously asserting that you think Obama was not born in the USA? Really?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Not that it will matter, anyone brainless enough to question whether the current president was born in the US, when his opponents in the campaign couldn't dig up anything substantial, is too freaking stupid to even argue with.
So either you are stupid beyond belief, or you are trying to waste my time.
"UCLA" does not disagree with my facts. Two (count them, two) scientists at UCLA disagree with my facts. Harold Cole and Lee Ohnian are right wing tools, bent on discrediting any 'liberal bias.' There have been numerous refutations of their conclusions since they wrote that paper. Here's one:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
There is no reasoning with Glenn Beck Fans. Might as well try to reason with baboons, you'll get the same result: primate feces thrown in your face. Reasoning with Beck fans simply gives them respect they don't deserve.
It's absolutely true. Hoover screwed things up, and FDR fixed things. Maybe in the minds of free market fanatics, it is different. Wearing blinders doesn't make the truth disappear, though.
As for Maddow's low ratings, two things: first, we free thinking liberals don't need our opinions spoon fed to us. I barely watch her show myself. Second, frightened white men hate strong, smart lesbians.
Chalk it up to whatever you like. The majority of patriotic Americans know Beck is full of shit and his supporters are loons. Nothing you can say can change that fact, just like nothing I could say could change your, uh, what do you use for central processing? A notochord?
I believe you have Rachel Maddow confused with the entire cast of Fox News talking heads. Fox only reports what the Republicans tell them to Report. Rachel reports what her critical thinking and reporting skills lead her to believe.
The Republicans lost a district that hasn't been held by a Democrat for 150 years. That's a big deal. A referendum on the Republican party, even. less than 20% of Americans identify as Republican. The party has lost all credibility, and only angry whiter southerners vote Republican these days.
So, the doctor who delivered Obama, and the newspaper that printed his birth announcement must be in on the scam? And the certificate that Hawaii issued was the only official certificate at the time. No controversy, just a bunch of hateful morons who can't stand the idea of a successful black man. Why would Obama even bother to speak to these wingers? That would just encourage them to waste more of his time.
Wrong. The two situations are nothing alike. People can publish whatever they like, and no one can force them to publish things they don't like. I'm not calling for censorship of anyone, I'm exercising my free speech by calling Beck a lying pansy crybaby who can't find a real fact with a map and a compass.
It's funny that this douche got his ass handed to him by an amateur. It's funny that he got his itty bitty girly feelings hurt. It's hilarious that his moronic fans are rushing to defend him. Poor babies.