Charlie Day is a really good actor. It isn't easy to play that stupid if you aren't. And he isn't, he's also a writer and producer. He manages to make Charlie the most likable and sympathetic character on the show. Admittedly, he's pretty much the only one we can sympathize with because he's the only one who isn't a flat out sociopath. Even so, it is kind of hard to make an illiterate delusional retard sympathetic.
But there would be less entropy in 70 character messages. What they need to do is double it to 280, but require every other character to be random. Nobody could hack that!
I'm not making claims as to what is necessary. I'm saying there is already a word for 'social libertarian.' It's called anarchism. An-archy, no archons, no rulers. The only reason we no longer use the word is because of turn of the century government propaganda campaigns designed to link the word to "chaos" and "terrorist."
I like the one where Charlie writes a play to impress the waitress. All the Charlie/Waitress episodes are funny, IMHO, because they are married in real life.
You made it to the third page? The article lost me when they tried to get advice from effective team leads on someone from TCS. It would be so funny if I didn't have such sad vivid memories of the ineffective team leadership displayed every time a Morgan Stanley employee cuckolded any of the management / leads.
Morgan Stanley employees enjoy the Droit de seigneur of Jus primae noctis? Damn. this really IS corporate feudalism.
They don't even need an insider. Just drop some USB sticks near where employees live or work. Someone will take the "ground score" USB stick in to work with them, and click on PORNSHOW.EXE or CUTECATS.EXE to see what it is.
Regulatory capture is hypothetical, a potential danger that can be overcome by writing the laws the right way. I'd say net neutrality would protect against censorship, blackmail, and would not lead to regulatory capture.
Sure, you think it is a joke, but maybe they are just trying to hide from the federal government that is hunting them down for a crime they didn't commit!
I wonder what "The A Team" of IT would look like?
They would be unable or unwilling to kill any process, no matter how corrupt it had become. They could build a Cray out of old disk drives and EISA cards, but if they tried to hack you they would accidentally hit the Pottery Barn right behind you. Most of their proposed solutions would involve tossing someone or something onto or into something else.
As those laws appply to the Internet, they regulate the Internet. Maybe you meant you don't want any new, special laws?
I'm not arguing in favor of this particular regulation. I'm arguing that this pernicious idea that all regulations, all government, all laws are bad, is a stupid and dangerous idea.
Big business almost always gives about 60 percent to the expected winner and 40 percent to the expected loser, to hedge their bets. They don't really care who wins, they just want whoever wins to owe them.
I don't need to prove his claim wrong. Anyone who can look at the sky already knows he is wrong, so wrong that he must in fact have something very wrong with his mind.
You don''t seem to understand what an argument is. Saying the sky is fuchsia is not an argument. Arguments start from propositions and lead to conclusions based on logical operations. One solitary statement is not an argument.
If you need it spelled out, my counterargument, put in formal terms for those too clueless to read between the lines, Person says the sky is fuchsia. All other persons agree the sky is not fuchsia. Anyone who makes statements that are a direct contradiction of fact is crazy
Therefore (an argument needs this to be an actual argument)
The person who thinks the sky is fuchsia is crazy
I was never arguing that the sky is blue. You can't argue that. It is a proposition, and it is either apparent or it isn't.
Gah! No, of course not. I am trying to debate the idea that all regulations are bad. Existing laws and regulations already cover the Internet, so saying you don't want any regulations is kind of silly. As is saying you don't want any new regulations. I for instance, would like to see it made against the law for ISPs to shape traffic based on origin or destination.
Work out the percentages, idiot. They gave nothing to the Democratic governors association, 1 million to the Republicans, and then, whooo! $45,000 to both national parties. I think the overflowing feces receptacle is you.
In general, I agree, but the Internet, IMHO, needs at least one special regulation: no traffic shaping based on endpoints. Traffic shape based on traffic type if you like, but nothing that would let you, as an ISP or backbone provider, blackmail popular sites with the threat of slowdowns. This is really only necessary because of the tremendous consolidation of ISPs and media companies. It's an oligopoly.
You failed because you could not answer my questions, got angry, and started swearing. The reasonable majority of people have now dismissed you as an overly emotional, illogical asshole who has nothing to add to the debate. Congratulations.
I think that is merely a semantic difference brought up to "win" an argument. Regulations and laws both state what you can and can't do. Is it against the law to speed, or is that a regulation? Generally, breaking a regulation is against the law.
Let me just ask you, does society have regulations that are not laws? How do they work?
There's already a good word. It means "No hierarchy," but people think it means "no government," even though that would obviously be pronounced "Anocracy."
The word "Libertarian" (in America anyhow) is forever tainted by association with free market radicals.
Okay, so your statement was just a non sequiter requiring no rebuttal because it was tangential to my argument. Sorry I misinterpreted that. I thought you were offering up a counter point.
If you want to see everything bellow, kick everything square in the nuts and it will bellow pretty loudly. If everything is a girl, punch it in the ovaries.
While it is certainly nice to know that existing libel law regulates the Internet, it is not a good argument for an unregulated Internet.
Also, good to know that existing laws against fraud and theft also regulate the Internet. It wouldn't be very safe without those, now would it?
I also agree that we should, in addition to the regulations that are already present, regulate traffic shaping.
Funny how "Excessive" is so often a synonym for "Things I don't like."
We may cheer when mob violence is turned against targets we think deserve it (and I certainly think Scientology deserves some sort of consequences for their actions), but there is a reason mob violence has been replaced by the rule of law in most parts of the world.
I'm not arguing for this new law. I am arguing against the idea that all regulation is bad. Nobody actually thinks that, but they say it anyway. People just don't think of regulation they like as "regulation."
Slashdot Mirror
Bastard, now it is stuck in my head, too.
Champion of the sun.
Master of Karate!
Charlie Day is a really good actor. It isn't easy to play that stupid if you aren't. And he isn't, he's also a writer and producer. He manages to make Charlie the most likable and sympathetic character on the show. Admittedly, he's pretty much the only one we can sympathize with because he's the only one who isn't a flat out sociopath. Even so, it is kind of hard to make an illiterate delusional retard sympathetic.
Anything that gets Twitter to shut its damn hole is a good thing IMHO.
But there would be less entropy in 70 character messages. What they need to do is double it to 280, but require every other character to be random. Nobody could hack that!
I'm not making claims as to what is necessary. I'm saying there is already a word for 'social libertarian.' It's called anarchism. An-archy, no archons, no rulers. The only reason we no longer use the word is because of turn of the century government propaganda campaigns designed to link the word to "chaos" and "terrorist."
I like the one where Charlie writes a play to impress the waitress. All the Charlie/Waitress episodes are funny, IMHO, because they are married in real life.
While I do look forward to a fruitful research partnership, I have to ask for your qualifications. Do you have bosoms? How good are you at heaving?
You made it to the third page? The article lost me when they tried to get advice from effective team leads on someone from TCS. It would be so funny if I didn't have such sad vivid memories of the ineffective team leadership displayed every time a Morgan Stanley employee cuckolded any of the management / leads.
Morgan Stanley employees enjoy the Droit de seigneur of Jus primae noctis? Damn. this really IS corporate feudalism.
They don't even need an insider. Just drop some USB sticks near where employees live or work. Someone will take the "ground score" USB stick in to work with them, and click on PORNSHOW.EXE or CUTECATS.EXE to see what it is.
You do realize I did not post that statement, right? You want user "Sonny Yatsen."
Regulatory capture is hypothetical, a potential danger that can be overcome by writing the laws the right way. I'd say net neutrality would protect against censorship, blackmail, and would not lead to regulatory capture.
Sure, you think it is a joke, but maybe they are just trying to hide from the federal government that is hunting them down for a crime they didn't commit!
I wonder what "The A Team" of IT would look like?
They would be unable or unwilling to kill any process, no matter how corrupt it had become.
They could build a Cray out of old disk drives and EISA cards, but if they tried to hack you they would accidentally hit the Pottery Barn right behind you.
Most of their proposed solutions would involve tossing someone or something onto or into something else.
Do you work in a bar in south Philly? How do you like your milk steak cooked, over hard with a side of jellybeans?
Hehe, man I love that show. :)
As those laws appply to the Internet, they regulate the Internet. Maybe you meant you don't want any new, special laws?
I'm not arguing in favor of this particular regulation. I'm arguing that this pernicious idea that all regulations, all government, all laws are bad, is a stupid and dangerous idea.
Big business almost always gives about 60 percent to the expected winner and 40 percent to the expected loser, to hedge their bets. They don't really care who wins, they just want whoever wins to owe them.
I don't need to prove his claim wrong. Anyone who can look at the sky already knows he is wrong, so wrong that he must in fact have something very wrong with his mind.
You don''t seem to understand what an argument is. Saying the sky is fuchsia is not an argument. Arguments start from propositions and lead to conclusions based on logical operations. One solitary statement is not an argument.
If you need it spelled out, my counterargument, put in formal terms for those too clueless to read between the lines,
Person says the sky is fuchsia.
All other persons agree the sky is not fuchsia.
Anyone who makes statements that are a direct contradiction of fact is crazy
Therefore (an argument needs this to be an actual argument)
The person who thinks the sky is fuchsia is crazy
I was never arguing that the sky is blue. You can't argue that. It is a proposition, and it is either apparent or it isn't.
Gah! No, of course not. I am trying to debate the idea that all regulations are bad. Existing laws and regulations already cover the Internet, so saying you don't want any regulations is kind of silly. As is saying you don't want any new regulations. I for instance, would like to see it made against the law for ISPs to shape traffic based on origin or destination.
Work out the percentages, idiot. They gave nothing to the Democratic governors association, 1 million to the Republicans, and then, whooo! $45,000 to both national parties. I think the overflowing feces receptacle is you.
In general, I agree, but the Internet, IMHO, needs at least one special regulation: no traffic shaping based on endpoints. Traffic shape based on traffic type if you like, but nothing that would let you, as an ISP or backbone provider, blackmail popular sites with the threat of slowdowns. This is really only necessary because of the tremendous consolidation of ISPs and media companies. It's an oligopoly.
You failed because you could not answer my questions, got angry, and started swearing. The reasonable majority of people have now dismissed you as an overly emotional, illogical asshole who has nothing to add to the debate. Congratulations.
I think that is merely a semantic difference brought up to "win" an argument. Regulations and laws both state what you can and can't do. Is it against the law to speed, or is that a regulation? Generally, breaking a regulation is against the law.
Let me just ask you, does society have regulations that are not laws? How do they work?
There's already a good word. It means "No hierarchy," but people think it means "no government," even though that would obviously be pronounced "Anocracy."
The word "Libertarian" (in America anyhow) is forever tainted by association with free market radicals.
Okay, so your statement was just a non sequiter requiring no rebuttal because it was tangential to my argument. Sorry I misinterpreted that. I thought you were offering up a counter point.
If you want to see everything bellow, kick everything square in the nuts and it will bellow pretty loudly. If everything is a girl, punch it in the ovaries.
While it is certainly nice to know that existing libel law regulates the Internet, it is not a good argument for an unregulated Internet.
Also, good to know that existing laws against fraud and theft also regulate the Internet. It wouldn't be very safe without those, now would it?
I also agree that we should, in addition to the regulations that are already present, regulate traffic shaping.
Funny how "Excessive" is so often a synonym for "Things I don't like."
We may cheer when mob violence is turned against targets we think deserve it (and I certainly think Scientology deserves some sort of consequences for their actions), but there is a reason mob violence has been replaced by the rule of law in most parts of the world.
I'm not arguing for this new law. I am arguing against the idea that all regulation is bad. Nobody actually thinks that, but they say it anyway. People just don't think of regulation they like as "regulation."