Fracking is just another tool in the arsenal of getting hydrocarbons from the ground. Doing it too close to underground wells, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. I would suggest that these cases come down to negligence and/or greed on the part of the individual drilling company rather than an systematic failure of the process as a whole.
That is only true in isolation; that is, only if you and your victim are the only people to witness. Otherwise, there will probably be consequences. Do that to someone in your same hypothetical absence of government in front of the victim's friends or family or other such group that we humans have evolved to form so readily, and I highly doubt that you would be walking away "without consequence".
So called "inherent rights" and "natural rights" are not necessarily, clear, discrete properties of an organism or a person or however you are defining us. Rather, they are more like emergent properties that will emerge naturally from being the gregarious social organism we have evolved to be. Rights appear because of the "social contract" of being such an organism.
My hypothetical example was a simple one to illustrate that there are no inherent rights. You complicated the example to include society/government protection to illustrate that the inherent rights are not truly inherent but are a result of societal convention and the governments that, well, govern us.
And if you think in such a place a person can do anything like you suggested in your hypothetical example, you are also much mistaken. There will be consequences. Take away someone's "right to life" and unjustly kill them in front of anyone, friend or family or other, who thinks fondly of them for feels you are being unjust, and you may just find there are consequences to infringing on someone's so-called rights.
Since my hypothetical example was, uhhhhhm hypothetical, that is clearly not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the "inherent" rights in The Constitution are not very inherent in those countries.
The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.
In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.
And if you still think those rights are "inherent" then I suggest you take a trip to Somalia or Afghanistan or Syria or Bahrain.
Because in the context of online identity they go hand in hand.
Anonymity in online groups allows some people to behave in hostile, disruptive and slanderous ways because they do not have to be held accountable for what they say.
Using your real identity or having a pseudonym that can easily be linked to your real identity makes people behave in a more cooperative and constructive way because they could be held accountable for their words.
Yeah because Apple are saints, Sony is run by clones of Mr Rogers, Microsoft cares more about it's customers than profits and Rupert Murdoch is just misunderstood.
All corporations are corrupt and vile. Some of them are just better at hiding it.
If all they did was break in and publish how they were able to do it then I would agree with you but they didn't stop there. They published the personal details of millions of customers including passwords and credit card info.
To use your analogy, to show that the "Emperor is Naked" you don't have to piss on the peasants.
Because they can more easily write off the expense of vendor package/consulting and because management needs a vendor to blame/sue if things go wrong.
When you buy something like ClearCase IBM will help you install and configure it. They will also offer consulting services to customize. These expenses easily be identified (invoices, etc.) as a tax writeoff. An open source VCS will still require installation, configuration and customization but is more likely to be done internally and is harder to identify as a tax writeoff.
The other issue is liability, for lack of a better term. Having a vendor standing behind a product is an important consideration for corporations if and when things go wrong.
FYI, I was technical lead on a multi-million dollar VCS replacement project that considered two vendor and one open source tool. The open source tool was only there as leverage against the vendors and was never seriously considered for the reasons I indicated above..
Don't come here and start mouthing off like you know what you're talking about when you clearly are too lazy to get past the summary and expect everyone else to do the work explaining it for you. You must be an MBA graduate.
A number of years ago my then ISP switched their email to Hotmail. As first I didn't care because I had my own mail server and didn't need use any of my included accounts. Then they required me to create a Hotmail profile to access their support site so I left.
Unfortunately a lot of large ISPs outsource their email to Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.
But if someone objects strongly enough, there's a plethora of e-mail providers out there that they can pick from.
It doesn't make it right, but the most effective complaint form is simply walking away to another provider that treats you better. With ISPs and several other services, that's sometimes tough, but with e-mail it's easy.
Free options are always going to have privacy issues.
A non-free option is to register your own domain and get basic web/email hosting, total cost $25 - $75/year depending on the registrar and hosting company you use.
Slashdot Mirror
Urine is likely cleaner than what you normally find on ATMs. So you're doing a public service by "rinsing off" the keypad.
Then what you should have said was "Gecko is old news. Webkit is where the future is."
Then you would be comparing apples to apples instead of apples to apple trees.
Hey, at 45 I'm not much better off.
Firefox is a browser, Webkit is a layout engine.
What's your point?
Fracking is just another tool in the arsenal of getting hydrocarbons from the ground. Doing it too close to underground wells, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. I would suggest that these cases come down to negligence and/or greed on the part of the individual drilling company rather than an systematic failure of the process as a whole.
FTFY
That is only true in isolation; that is, only if you and your victim are the only people to witness. Otherwise, there will probably be consequences. Do that to someone in your same hypothetical absence of government in front of the victim's friends or family or other such group that we humans have evolved to form so readily, and I highly doubt that you would be walking away "without consequence".
So called "inherent rights" and "natural rights" are not necessarily, clear, discrete properties of an organism or a person or however you are defining us. Rather, they are more like emergent properties that will emerge naturally from being the gregarious social organism we have evolved to be. Rights appear because of the "social contract" of being such an organism.
My hypothetical example was a simple one to illustrate that there are no inherent rights. You complicated the example to include society/government protection to illustrate that the inherent rights are not truly inherent but are a result of societal convention and the governments that, well, govern us.
And if you think in such a place a person can do anything like you suggested in your hypothetical example, you are also much mistaken. There will be consequences. Take away someone's "right to life" and unjustly kill them in front of anyone, friend or family or other, who thinks fondly of them for feels you are being unjust, and you may just find there are consequences to infringing on someone's so-called rights.
Since my hypothetical example was, uhhhhhm hypothetical, that is clearly not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that the "inherent" rights in The Constitution are not very inherent in those countries.
The founding fathers did a job on you. There are no "inherent" or "natural" rights independent of any government. That's a bunch of philosophical rhetoric that they used to sell The Constitution. It looks great on paper but in the absence of government or society it's not even worth wiping your bum with it.
In the real world, in the absence of government, I could walk up to you and smash you in the head with a rock killing you and then take everything you have without consequence. There's your "inherent" rights.
And if you still think those rights are "inherent" then I suggest you take a trip to Somalia or Afghanistan or Syria or Bahrain.
Well said. I wish I had some mod points for you.
Wonder Twin powers...ACTIVATE!!
Because in the context of online identity they go hand in hand.
Anonymity in online groups allows some people to behave in hostile, disruptive and slanderous ways because they do not have to be held accountable for what they say.
Using your real identity or having a pseudonym that can easily be linked to your real identity makes people behave in a more cooperative and constructive way because they could be held accountable for their words.
Yeah because Apple are saints, Sony is run by clones of Mr Rogers, Microsoft cares more about it's customers than profits and Rupert Murdoch is just misunderstood.
All corporations are corrupt and vile. Some of them are just better at hiding it.
If all they did was break in and publish how they were able to do it then I would agree with you but they didn't stop there. They published the personal details of millions of customers including passwords and credit card info.
To use your analogy, to show that the "Emperor is Naked" you don't have to piss on the peasants.
FREE TOPIARY???
Sounds like they just don't want to pay for their sculpted shrubbery. The plants just want to be free.
Because they can more easily write off the expense of vendor package/consulting and because management needs a vendor to blame/sue if things go wrong.
When you buy something like ClearCase IBM will help you install and configure it. They will also offer consulting services to customize. These expenses easily be identified (invoices, etc.) as a tax writeoff. An open source VCS will still require installation, configuration and customization but is more likely to be done internally and is harder to identify as a tax writeoff.
The other issue is liability, for lack of a better term. Having a vendor standing behind a product is an important consideration for corporations if and when things go wrong.
FYI, I was technical lead on a multi-million dollar VCS replacement project that considered two vendor and one open source tool. The open source tool was only there as leverage against the vendors and was never seriously considered for the reasons I indicated above..
That's how I read it as well.
Awesome Dune reference. Frank Herbert would be proud.
That would be my guess. I would also suggest staying away from any country that has caved to the U.S. in the past.
This is all explained in the article and PDF.
Don't come here and start mouthing off like you know what you're talking about when you clearly are too lazy to get past the summary and expect everyone else to do the work explaining it for you. You must be an MBA graduate.
The article and the PDF will answer all your questions.
Lazy AC that wants to be spoon fed information.
Go home and change your diaper.
We do, after all, compete (however humorously) on the basis of UID here on slashdot
Suck it 153816!!!!
I realize that there are 136,082 people out there that could potentially pounce on me but I had to do it.
A number of years ago my then ISP switched their email to Hotmail. As first I didn't care because I had my own mail server and didn't need use any of my included accounts. Then they required me to create a Hotmail profile to access their support site so I left.
Unfortunately a lot of large ISPs outsource their email to Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.
Yes I know there are no "free" options. I was using "free" in the sense that most people who use these services use it, that it does not cost money.
I thought since I went on to explain the cost of hosting your own private email it was clear which definition of "free" I was using.
Surely a statement that bold requires a source.
A source? On Slashdot????
You're kidding, right?
But if someone objects strongly enough, there's a plethora of e-mail providers out there that they can pick from.
It doesn't make it right, but the most effective complaint form is simply walking away to another provider that treats you better. With ISPs and several other services, that's sometimes tough, but with e-mail it's easy.
Free options are always going to have privacy issues.
A non-free option is to register your own domain and get basic web/email hosting, total cost $25 - $75/year depending on the registrar and hosting company you use.