What's the benefit in waiting until the day before? As I understand it, Lamar Smith, the congressman who the MPAA bought to lead the attack on the internet, was trying to ram a vote through as fast as possible. The thing was headed to the floor before Christmas, it was only a few reps digging their heels in that delayed it long enough. Are we that sure congress won't just move the vote up and pass it before we get a chance to tell them not to? We know most congresscritters aren't going to suddenly decide they don't want free money from the MPAA and RIAA, and change their mind about the vote in the intervening time on their own.
What's the downside to doing it tomorrow for Google, Facebook, and Twitter anyway? Are they worried that Bing, Myspace, and... competitors to twitter and tumblr that presumably exist... are going to suddenly leap ahead if they go dark for a day?
And why are they talking about just a warning? Google should provide you with your congressperson's contact information IF your congresspeople support SOPA or haven't said they're against it and provide information on any of their opponents running for their seat who oppose SOPA. THAT will be an effective shot across the bow.
He's right. But, it showed poor judgement to say as much. The beer swilling, football watching masses don't get nuance.
Are many of these beer swilling, football watchers the least bit concerned about FOSS when the message is not coming from someone who has made controversial statements on pedophilia?
I think Stallman was rightly not concerned about how the masses would take his statements.
I am no sociologist or in political scientist but an engineer.
And tis truly to your credit (biologist here). I appreciated that you admitted you had no scientific proof. That scientific principle of skepticism is sorely lacking in political discussions, which I think leads to many of the problems we're facing. Maybe it's stronger in some other countries. I have not really seen much evidence of that.
Then i noticed how many Senators and Congress(wo)men had close relatives already in politics.
This is IMHO only possible, because so many seats are rather safe for one of both parties.
I would suggest that's more due to a lack of social mobility and voter apathy. The class of people rich enough for politics doesn't have very much turnover still to this day. And incumbents win nearly every time because people don't bother voting except for the president, then do their best to ignore all politics for 4 years. Maybe it has something to do with lack of education, or maybe it's because local government has so little power compared to the federal government, and most people don't see how most things the federal government does affects them. I don't know. But I do think the causes are a bit more complex than seats are for sale to families. Much as I'm quite certain that the problems facing our nation are more complex than "We have only two political parties."
I know, I voted against at least some of those referendums. The redistricting one in particular, I don't see how an independent commission accountable to no one is going to produce fairer results.
But you're taking it as a given that the 2 party system is a problem. I'm asking: where's the proof that the two party system is causing any problems? I say the form doesn't matter, the people involved are good or corrupt, the voters are active and informed or ignorant, the results are going to be the same whether there is 2 parties or 10 million.
You said it yourself, you had IRV in Oakland, and then got the crackdown. You see the evidence that weakening the party system is not a panacea, yet you still seem to be saying we ought to move to weaken parties. What gives?
If you don't break the grip of the two party system, you will have a ruling aristocracy in less than a generation.
Proof needed please. I'll take it in the form of pointing to other countries which have more than two parties and do not suffer from special interests having undue influence in government, OR in the form of an explanation as to how special interests can buy two parties but can't possibly buy three or more.
Every country that I've heard of with more than two parties has problems with corporations and the wealthy buying the government, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that three is a magic number that you cannot buy off.
After providing said proof, please tell me how we can get a more-than-two-party system without changing the first-past-the-post voting system which makes two parties inevitable. Alternatively, tell me how we can get either one of the parties in power to agree to change the first-past-the-post voting system which benefits both of the major parties.
Two things piss me off about people suggesting something is a problem caused by the two party system: 1) It's never caused by the two-party system and 2) The two-party system is here to stay.
In my haste to make that joke, I failed to notice that the post right below it made that same joke. This will be the last time I try to make a math joke on slashdot.
Reminds me of the headline on the last Time magazine I got before canceling my subscription. It was a few years ago. "DOES THE SUPREME COURT STILL MATTER?"
I was disappointed that the article itself was more than 3 letters long.
We slide further down the slope that Huxley warned us about
Uh... are you by any chance mixing up Huxley and Orwell or Phillip K Dick? Orwell was the one who wrote 1984 which had a totalitarian government. I don't recall much about pre-crime in that. Thought crimes yes, I think that was the one with that, but even Big Brother waited until you actually committed those crimes to arrest you. Dick was the one who wrote "Minority report" that had precrimes in it (and was turned into a movie.)
Huxley wrote "Brave New World" in which society basically turned into one big pointless orgy. I don't recall anything about precrimes in that one either.
It's also entirely possible you're referring to a specific Huxley quote where he warned about precrime, or police state, or an entirely different Huxley. Which is it?
It's almost as if religious folks -know- that they're wrong. Thus to preserve their wrongheadedness, it's requires to not even learn about the alternatives. (presumably, learning would risk realising that the alternative theories are correct.)
It's evolution. Not making a joke or a pun here here. Religions that had central beliefs which were actually TESTABLE hypotheses were proven wrong and were toppled. No one worships the fire-breathing giant living under the volcano today because we're aware that it's not actually a giant, it's magma and plate tectonics. Those religions which encouraged their followers to be open minded find themselves losing a central power structure.
Today the main religious forces are those that teach their followers that thinking outside the box is evil, and those which aren't based off of anything tangible.
I guess it's time for "make a caricature of the opposing side of the healthcare debate." I'll return with this "Healthco has found that you had a nose before you purchased insurance with us, therefore this was a pre-existing health condition and we are not going to cover your pneumonia. Please pay the full amount of 4 million dollars for your hospitalization."
Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services. Nor can they push a unique identifier on you which is then used as an id by numerous different databases.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that private companies don't have the bigger effect. Facebook is nearly completely voluntary, but the privacy erosion going on there is still on a much bigger scale than some DMV employees breaking the law. I know the general sentiment around here is that you deserve what you get if you sign up for facebook, but I don't take that point of view.
I was talking about the non-native-hawaiian "I BOUGHT MY LITTLE PIECE OF PARADISE! YOU GO AWAY!!!" That is what really irks me, if the ethnic Hawaiians want to carry a grudge, that's stupid but whatever. The mainlanders who transplanted there have absolutely no excuses for anti-outsider attitudes though. I understand tourists can be obnoxious, but you knew what it was like when you moved there. The no trespassing signs on the tiny yards of ugly ranch houses in the suburbs miles from the beach or any hiking trails really seemed ugly to me.
The trail called "stairway to heaven," renovated at great expense to the taxpayers evidently has great views and is one of the best hikes in the US. It also has a guard posted out front to prevent anyone from going into it, as a result of the local neighborhood deciding they didn't want anyone parking on their street. I gather that these were not individuals who would be using the "haole" term either, these were people who made it rich and moved to a beautiful tourist destination, got annoyed with other outsiders, then decided they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
The wii has sold more consoles yes, but that is in spite of, not because of, Nintendo's online offerings (which is what GP was talking about.) You can download some small games, you can through great effort play with some voiceless strangers online for a few games. Anything else that nintendo online offers your smartphone does better.
So the hypothesis would be that pumping toxins into natural gas reserves could not contaminate the water tables. How about we not test that hypothesis? We're already testing the hypothesis that we can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we like and it won't affect anything. I'd prefer that we only risk fucking up one natural resource at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the benefit in waiting until the day before? As I understand it, Lamar Smith, the congressman who the MPAA bought to lead the attack on the internet, was trying to ram a vote through as fast as possible. The thing was headed to the floor before Christmas, it was only a few reps digging their heels in that delayed it long enough. Are we that sure congress won't just move the vote up and pass it before we get a chance to tell them not to? We know most congresscritters aren't going to suddenly decide they don't want free money from the MPAA and RIAA, and change their mind about the vote in the intervening time on their own.
What's the downside to doing it tomorrow for Google, Facebook, and Twitter anyway? Are they worried that Bing, Myspace, and... competitors to twitter and tumblr that presumably exist... are going to suddenly leap ahead if they go dark for a day?
And why are they talking about just a warning? Google should provide you with your congressperson's contact information IF your congresspeople support SOPA or haven't said they're against it and provide information on any of their opponents running for their seat who oppose SOPA. THAT will be an effective shot across the bow.
He's right. But, it showed poor judgement to say as much. The beer swilling, football watching masses don't get nuance.
Are many of these beer swilling, football watchers the least bit concerned about FOSS when the message is not coming from someone who has made controversial statements on pedophilia? I think Stallman was rightly not concerned about how the masses would take his statements.
I am no sociologist or in political scientist but an engineer.
And tis truly to your credit (biologist here). I appreciated that you admitted you had no scientific proof. That scientific principle of skepticism is sorely lacking in political discussions, which I think leads to many of the problems we're facing. Maybe it's stronger in some other countries. I have not really seen much evidence of that.
Then i noticed how many Senators and Congress(wo)men had close relatives already in politics. This is IMHO only possible, because so many seats are rather safe for one of both parties.
I would suggest that's more due to a lack of social mobility and voter apathy. The class of people rich enough for politics doesn't have very much turnover still to this day. And incumbents win nearly every time because people don't bother voting except for the president, then do their best to ignore all politics for 4 years. Maybe it has something to do with lack of education, or maybe it's because local government has so little power compared to the federal government, and most people don't see how most things the federal government does affects them. I don't know. But I do think the causes are a bit more complex than seats are for sale to families. Much as I'm quite certain that the problems facing our nation are more complex than "We have only two political parties."
I know, I voted against at least some of those referendums. The redistricting one in particular, I don't see how an independent commission accountable to no one is going to produce fairer results.
But you're taking it as a given that the 2 party system is a problem. I'm asking: where's the proof that the two party system is causing any problems? I say the form doesn't matter, the people involved are good or corrupt, the voters are active and informed or ignorant, the results are going to be the same whether there is 2 parties or 10 million.
You said it yourself, you had IRV in Oakland, and then got the crackdown. You see the evidence that weakening the party system is not a panacea, yet you still seem to be saying we ought to move to weaken parties. What gives?
And Google is helping them to abuse little guys. "Don't be evil", huh?
I think the "but pick battles you can actually win" was appended to it a while ago.
If you don't break the grip of the two party system, you will have a ruling aristocracy in less than a generation.
Proof needed please. I'll take it in the form of pointing to other countries which have more than two parties and do not suffer from special interests having undue influence in government, OR in the form of an explanation as to how special interests can buy two parties but can't possibly buy three or more.
Every country that I've heard of with more than two parties has problems with corporations and the wealthy buying the government, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that three is a magic number that you cannot buy off.
After providing said proof, please tell me how we can get a more-than-two-party system without changing the first-past-the-post voting system which makes two parties inevitable. Alternatively, tell me how we can get either one of the parties in power to agree to change the first-past-the-post voting system which benefits both of the major parties.
Two things piss me off about people suggesting something is a problem caused by the two party system: 1) It's never caused by the two-party system and 2) The two-party system is here to stay.
Proof that you can make anyone out to be a hypocrite through creative manipulation of context.
In my haste to make that joke, I failed to notice that the post right below it made that same joke. This will be the last time I try to make a math joke on slashdot.
I suspect the numbering system may not be as simple as each generation adding 360 to the number.
It could, for instance, be that the number is 360 to a power that keeps increasing. The first one started at zero, 360^0=1. The second, 360^1=360.
If my hypothesis is correct, the third xbox will go with the formula 360^3 and will be called the Xbox 129600.
Considering I pay the city for trash pick up they should be the ones to sort it, in my opinion
Rather than having two wastebins and passively sorting it yourself, you'd rather spend tax dollars for someone else to actively sort it afterward?
Reminds me of the headline on the last Time magazine I got before canceling my subscription. It was a few years ago. "DOES THE SUPREME COURT STILL MATTER?"
I was disappointed that the article itself was more than 3 letters long.
We slide further down the slope that Huxley warned us about
Uh... are you by any chance mixing up Huxley and Orwell or Phillip K Dick? Orwell was the one who wrote 1984 which had a totalitarian government. I don't recall much about pre-crime in that. Thought crimes yes, I think that was the one with that, but even Big Brother waited until you actually committed those crimes to arrest you. Dick was the one who wrote "Minority report" that had precrimes in it (and was turned into a movie.)
Huxley wrote "Brave New World" in which society basically turned into one big pointless orgy. I don't recall anything about precrimes in that one either.
It's also entirely possible you're referring to a specific Huxley quote where he warned about precrime, or police state, or an entirely different Huxley. Which is it?
I found Kotaku and RockPaperShotgun and they serve me gaming news just fine. As for TF2, Reddit does great job.
I don't understand. TF2 news? You need gaming news for a specific online FPS? One that has it's own humorous blog with tons of information on every small detail about the game? One that sends you messages when you log on and that you must be online to really play?
There are far more readily available sources than dredging up something 6-9 kilometers under the sea.
Not for the mermen we were talking about initially!
It's almost as if religious folks -know- that they're wrong. Thus to preserve their wrongheadedness, it's requires to not even learn about the alternatives. (presumably, learning would risk realising that the alternative theories are correct.)
It's evolution. Not making a joke or a pun here here. Religions that had central beliefs which were actually TESTABLE hypotheses were proven wrong and were toppled. No one worships the fire-breathing giant living under the volcano today because we're aware that it's not actually a giant, it's magma and plate tectonics. Those religions which encouraged their followers to be open minded find themselves losing a central power structure.
Today the main religious forces are those that teach their followers that thinking outside the box is evil, and those which aren't based off of anything tangible.
I guess it's time for "make a caricature of the opposing side of the healthcare debate." I'll return with this "Healthco has found that you had a nose before you purchased insurance with us, therefore this was a pre-existing health condition and we are not going to cover your pneumonia. Please pay the full amount of 4 million dollars for your hospitalization."
Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services. Nor can they push a unique identifier on you which is then used as an id by numerous different databases.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that private companies don't have the bigger effect. Facebook is nearly completely voluntary, but the privacy erosion going on there is still on a much bigger scale than some DMV employees breaking the law. I know the general sentiment around here is that you deserve what you get if you sign up for facebook, but I don't take that point of view.
We must do this or the system goes bankrupt! We want simple! We are liberals! We are right!
Both sides seem pretty black to me, kettle. The conservatives were saying cut education, state parks, and state programs, no taxes no taxes no taxes.
Now we don't just gaze. We rip that mother******* open with lasers!
I was talking about the non-native-hawaiian "I BOUGHT MY LITTLE PIECE OF PARADISE! YOU GO AWAY!!!" That is what really irks me, if the ethnic Hawaiians want to carry a grudge, that's stupid but whatever. The mainlanders who transplanted there have absolutely no excuses for anti-outsider attitudes though. I understand tourists can be obnoxious, but you knew what it was like when you moved there. The no trespassing signs on the tiny yards of ugly ranch houses in the suburbs miles from the beach or any hiking trails really seemed ugly to me.
The trail called "stairway to heaven," renovated at great expense to the taxpayers evidently has great views and is one of the best hikes in the US. It also has a guard posted out front to prevent anyone from going into it, as a result of the local neighborhood deciding they didn't want anyone parking on their street. I gather that these were not individuals who would be using the "haole" term either, these were people who made it rich and moved to a beautiful tourist destination, got annoyed with other outsiders, then decided they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Rich college douchebags from Michigan and Dubai, get the fuck out.
That's an interesting coalition right there...
Dumb-fuck Christian military savages from Texas and Mississippi, get the fuck out.
This does annoy me too. Why conservatives move here is beyond me.
Anybody who was not born in this state, get the fuck out. We're sick of you polluting our culture and driving our living costs through the roof!
Having met people from LA, that's a good thing. Anyway, I'm on my way out, though not because of this post.
Oh, right, cost too. Duh...
The wii has sold more consoles yes, but that is in spite of, not because of, Nintendo's online offerings (which is what GP was talking about.) You can download some small games, you can through great effort play with some voiceless strangers online for a few games. Anything else that nintendo online offers your smartphone does better.
Free wifi, free public healthcare, beaches, great weather... were it not for the hostility to outsiders, Hawaii would be heaven on Earth.
So the hypothesis would be that pumping toxins into natural gas reserves could not contaminate the water tables. How about we not test that hypothesis? We're already testing the hypothesis that we can release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we like and it won't affect anything. I'd prefer that we only risk fucking up one natural resource at a time.