What do you mean finally?
ESPN360.com has been a good example of network neutrality being broken. Although apparently some people are squabling that it doesn't count because it's a content owner, rather then the ISP, that's causing the violation. I don't think it particularly matters.
And Comcast was caught red-handed throttling P2P protocols.
nehhhh, most of that was the sectarian violence that Saddam was keeping in check which we unwittingly unleashed, and not direct kills by our troops. So if you would, please redirect your rage from the troops to the politicians that ordered the war, and allowed it to go through.
Well, it COULD. But it turns out that a company that installs a $100,000 with 3 engineers to maintain it to replace 100 worker at $10/hr or $2 million/year simply pockets the difference or uses it to undercut their competitor. What have the 100 factory line workers done to deserve a cent? Other then be layed off?
Right, blowback.
But that the low cost of supporting terrorist freedom fighters doesn't have to be a deferred cost to the future. We supported the French resistance in WWII, and they didn't poison all our baguettes. You have to look at the characters you're supporting. Usually someone willing to take your guns and bombs and fight the ruling authority isn't a very nice person. It's possible, but rare.
Power should belong least with those who would seek it.
"WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world."
Actually, I would like them counted and specifically explained how information leaked to wikileaks risked their lives and/or freedom.
Now, if you can point out a lot of people who are now at risk in a very real way, then yeah, I'd call shenanigans on Wikileaks and damn their irresponsibility.
Unless they deserve it.
But if you CAN'T point out who and what exactly is being threatened here, then the only real damage is some embarrassment. Tough. Most of these aren't really secrets, they're just candid and blunt assessments. Some of them WERE secrets, and shit that seriously needed to come to light.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a social and economic reevaluation, [one] that just plain leaves you more time and resources to live a more healthy life in the first place.
A "social and economic reevaluation"? That's a revolution. Usually it involves a lot of warfare and death. But feel free to reevaluate your own life, nobody is stopping you there.
And as far as revolutions go, getting everyone more time or more resources is feasible, but getting everyone BOTH is kind of an impossibility. Who pays for it? I mean, you're essentially arguing that the socio-economic system we currently have should change so that you have to work less and get paid more. That's just a daydream.
Maybe if you made some suggestions about what exactly would change.
Coal. Somewhere around the $5/gallon mark, it becomes economically viable to liquify coal and feed it to cars and whatnot. Bio-fuel, Brazil has been running cars on ethanol for years. Batteries, hydrogen, or hell, even flywheels can store energy. That means grid power can move these things for us. That means coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, solarheat, geothermal, and whatever else they'll cook up. In case you haven't noticed, there's been this alternative energy thing going around. Now, oil IS going to run out. And before it does, it's going to get ludicrously expensive. When the price rises, alternatives look more and more promising. And there will always be alternatives. They may be more expensive, or more polluting, or require virgin sacrifices, but the world will go on. No trend continues forever.
But you don't like that answer. For some reason, you need to feel that the world is going to end. I've never really understood this aspect of humanity. It's been with us since antiquity, and I don't see it going anywhere. So relax, the world is not doomed. Things might change. But they're not going to change that much that fast.
Ah whoops. "Forced to fund an army", not "into". Sorry about that.
Anyway, the government control of breeding rights still stands.
Do you have any idea how much and how many people could eat for the price of one super cruiser? We could make a pipeline from a desalination plant on the Mediterranean to irrigate the middle of the Sahara for that kind of cash.
And since a future Idiocracy is a horrible world, we should only allow the smart people to breed.
OR, since the future is apparently doomed to wide-spread starvation and apocalyptic nightmares, how about we simply stop breeding all together and avoid all that misery.
But seriously, as an alternative, how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy is derived from renewable resources, pollution is kept in check, and doomsayers are laughed at. I think anyone who chooses otherwise is a little cold hearted myself. But what's creepy and evil is when you start viewing other people as a burden, rather then a resource.
HOLY BLOODY HELL. It was a bloody freaking JOKE. A lame one at that. I know that. He knows that. The grandparent knows that. Only wingnuts like superkendel don't know that.
Whoosh. You missed it.
WHOOSH! Do you hear that? It you missing the point. The point is over here, I pointed to it. But you're not over here, you're way the fuck over there. What are you doing over there?
Is this topic SO FREAKING SACRED that we can't joke about it? Can we not even tell people to RELAX over a joke? Seriously Slashdot, get it together!
Whooshfortheloveofgodwhooooooosh!
So libertarians are for the draft and enforcing birth control when they actually have to solve problems? I'm sorry, I really don't like to be the voice against moderation, but if you think that the world is overpopulated, it needs fixing, and to do that the government needs to outlaw having multiple babies, then you're not really libertarian. I know it's not an all or nothing sort of thing, but you're arguing for the draft and government control of people's reproduction rights.
Well that's true, but when claiming that we need to "lose" half the populace, I'd appreciate a little bit of a disclaimer least people get all eugenicsy.
And getting at a deeper issue, overpopulation is not the problem. People are a resource. They can convert food, shelter, security, and entertainment into real meaningful productive work that helps everyone more then it costs everyone. If that wasn't true, then society is a farce.
Now, pollution and emission are externalizations of factories, cars, farms, and whatnot. Those can be dealt with, but it takes real meaningful productive work.
I'm sorry, but this line right here makes you evil. Plain old fashioned evil. The type of evil megalomaniac that wants to KILL OFF THREE BILLION PEOPLE.
Now now, I guess I have to take that back. If you're willing to make a show of good will, and volunteer to be one of the first of the 3 billion, then I guess you're not evil.
Well?
Right, they can't turn you down, but what's stopping them from setting the rate at a ludicrous amount because they noticed you just searched Bing for diabetes?
"You can't be turned down" is irrelevant because they can charge you whatever they want.
My goodness! If that's the case, then would you please inform me where I am?
Or is that some sort of metaphorical sort of "already dead"?
Also, if you haven't noticed, we still use wheels. I'm kind of a big fan of this prior invention, and see no real need to "tear it all down" and start anew. I'm quite happy to simply build off of it and expand it.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean finally?
ESPN360.com has been a good example of network neutrality being broken. Although apparently some people are squabling that it doesn't count because it's a content owner, rather then the ISP, that's causing the violation. I don't think it particularly matters.
And Comcast was caught red-handed throttling P2P protocols.
nehhhh, most of that was the sectarian violence that Saddam was keeping in check which we unwittingly unleashed, and not direct kills by our troops. So if you would, please redirect your rage from the troops to the politicians that ordered the war, and allowed it to go through.
Well, it COULD. But it turns out that a company that installs a $100,000 with 3 engineers to maintain it to replace 100 worker at $10/hr or $2 million/year simply pockets the difference or uses it to undercut their competitor. What have the 100 factory line workers done to deserve a cent? Other then be layed off?
Oh, well why didn't you ask! Here you go, and here and... well, they're working on it.
Right, blowback.
But that the low cost of supporting terrorist freedom fighters doesn't have to be a deferred cost to the future. We supported the French resistance in WWII, and they didn't poison all our baguettes. You have to look at the characters you're supporting. Usually someone willing to take your guns and bombs and fight the ruling authority isn't a very nice person. It's possible, but rare.
Power should belong least with those who would seek it.
"WikiLeaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world."
Actually, I would like them counted and specifically explained how information leaked to wikileaks risked their lives and/or freedom.
Now, if you can point out a lot of people who are now at risk in a very real way, then yeah, I'd call shenanigans on Wikileaks and damn their irresponsibility.
Unless they deserve it.
But if you CAN'T point out who and what exactly is being threatened here, then the only real damage is some embarrassment. Tough. Most of these aren't really secrets, they're just candid and blunt assessments. Some of them WERE secrets, and shit that seriously needed to come to light.
Would you like help with:
Please continue working while a black-bagger is dispatched to your cubical.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a social and economic reevaluation, [one] that just plain leaves you more time and resources to live a more healthy life in the first place.
A "social and economic reevaluation"? That's a revolution. Usually it involves a lot of warfare and death. But feel free to reevaluate your own life, nobody is stopping you there.
And as far as revolutions go, getting everyone more time or more resources is feasible, but getting everyone BOTH is kind of an impossibility. Who pays for it? I mean, you're essentially arguing that the socio-economic system we currently have should change so that you have to work less and get paid more. That's just a daydream.
Maybe if you made some suggestions about what exactly would change.
By the time you get done with half that list, you'll have forgotten everything from the start of the list.
That comes with age.
Coal. Somewhere around the $5/gallon mark, it becomes economically viable to liquify coal and feed it to cars and whatnot. Bio-fuel, Brazil has been running cars on ethanol for years. Batteries, hydrogen, or hell, even flywheels can store energy. That means grid power can move these things for us. That means coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, solarheat, geothermal, and whatever else they'll cook up. In case you haven't noticed, there's been this alternative energy thing going around. Now, oil IS going to run out. And before it does, it's going to get ludicrously expensive. When the price rises, alternatives look more and more promising. And there will always be alternatives. They may be more expensive, or more polluting, or require virgin sacrifices, but the world will go on. No trend continues forever.
But you don't like that answer. For some reason, you need to feel that the world is going to end. I've never really understood this aspect of humanity. It's been with us since antiquity, and I don't see it going anywhere. So relax, the world is not doomed. Things might change. But they're not going to change that much that fast.
Oh, well you see, that's a problem with a third party interface that works in conjunction with craigslist.
It's called Humanity.
. . .
Really? That's what it took?
Huh. Apparently I need to take notes. Bravo nedlohs. Still though, that was a pretty fun rant.
Ah whoops. "Forced to fund an army", not "into". Sorry about that.
Anyway, the government control of breeding rights still stands.
Do you have any idea how much and how many people could eat for the price of one super cruiser? We could make a pipeline from a desalination plant on the Mediterranean to irrigate the middle of the Sahara for that kind of cash.
And since a future Idiocracy is a horrible world, we should only allow the smart people to breed.
OR, since the future is apparently doomed to wide-spread starvation and apocalyptic nightmares, how about we simply stop breeding all together and avoid all that misery.
But seriously, as an alternative, how about I choose a future in which there's plenty of food, energy is derived from renewable resources, pollution is kept in check, and doomsayers are laughed at. I think anyone who chooses otherwise is a little cold hearted myself. But what's creepy and evil is when you start viewing other people as a burden, rather then a resource.
So everyone remember that as your mother serves you pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving in two days.
HOLY BLOODY HELL. It was a bloody freaking JOKE. A lame one at that. I know that. He knows that. The grandparent knows that. Only wingnuts like superkendel don't know that.
Whoosh. You missed it.
WHOOSH! Do you hear that? It you missing the point. The point is over here, I pointed to it. But you're not over here, you're way the fuck over there. What are you doing over there?
Is this topic SO FREAKING SACRED that we can't joke about it? Can we not even tell people to RELAX over a joke? Seriously Slashdot, get it together!
Whooshfortheloveofgodwhooooooosh!
Wait, really?
The government sets limits to the price of various health services?
Well that was easy then. Now they can do that then what's the point of insurance companies?
So libertarians are for the draft and enforcing birth control when they actually have to solve problems? I'm sorry, I really don't like to be the voice against moderation, but if you think that the world is overpopulated, it needs fixing, and to do that the government needs to outlaw having multiple babies, then you're not really libertarian. I know it's not an all or nothing sort of thing, but you're arguing for the draft and government control of people's reproduction rights.
Well that's true, but when claiming that we need to "lose" half the populace, I'd appreciate a little bit of a disclaimer least people get all eugenicsy.
And getting at a deeper issue, overpopulation is not the problem. People are a resource. They can convert food, shelter, security, and entertainment into real meaningful productive work that helps everyone more then it costs everyone. If that wasn't true, then society is a farce.
Now, pollution and emission are externalizations of factories, cars, farms, and whatnot. Those can be dealt with, but it takes real meaningful productive work.
We need to lose about 3 billion people,
I'm sorry, but this line right here makes you evil. Plain old fashioned evil. The type of evil megalomaniac that wants to KILL OFF THREE BILLION PEOPLE.
Now now, I guess I have to take that back. If you're willing to make a show of good will, and volunteer to be one of the first of the 3 billion, then I guess you're not evil.
Well?
That's the joke. Really, you hit it right on the head. It's exactly like that. That's why it's funny. Or at least it was, till you showed up.
Right, they can't turn you down, but what's stopping them from setting the rate at a ludicrous amount because they noticed you just searched Bing for diabetes?
"You can't be turned down" is irrelevant because they can charge you whatever they want.
Sooooooo they just bought a billion dollars worth of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?
My goodness! If that's the case, then would you please inform me where I am?
Or is that some sort of metaphorical sort of "already dead"?
Also, if you haven't noticed, we still use wheels. I'm kind of a big fan of this prior invention, and see no real need to "tear it all down" and start anew. I'm quite happy to simply build off of it and expand it.