Thank you for taking the time to reflect on and respond to these questions. In a world consumed with pragmatism and acquisitiveness, it is inspiring to see a person put so much thought and effort into reconciling his principles with his actions.
Keep the pressure on, keep posting these things on your social networks, keep telling your friends. The only thing less effective than telling the government what we want is not telling them what we want. It is a double edged sword; either they do as we say, or we get one more bit of documentation to support reforming the government.
It's basically a book you are trying to spread. How much were the cheapest readers nowdays? Not to put down any hackerist dreams of distributing Raspis all around.. but.. you could include a screen while you are dreaming it up.
Not bad, not bad. I think I've seen touch devices out of China for about $100.
The problem is that every one of those SUB sticks comes pre-loaded(for your convenience...) with all manner of NSA spyware.
I don't know about your local hackerspaces, but the ones I go to all have at least a few people who are pretty hardcore about infosec. If one of those guys says he did is best to make it clean, I would trust both his integrity and ability.
But, the truth is your point still has a great deal of merit. Potentially you could also sell a Raspberry Pi box for the true tinfoil hat afficionado. Even if it can record what you're looking at, that wouldn't help if it never gets connected to a network.
Oh, yeah, for sure (though I'm thinking memory sticks, not DVDs, since optical drives are going the way of the dinosaur). But I'm also helping launch a hackerspace, and I figure if you let the hackerspaces generate a little funding, at a price that people would be happy to pay, everyone wins.
I also assume most would also let you bring your own stick and write a copy on demand. Just the idea of having a wicker basket full of sticks ready to subvert the masses appeals to me.:)
searches for terms deemed to be sensitive to government or privacy concerns have dropped "significantly" in the months since Edward Snowden's revelations in July.
It is hard for me to find this shift to be acceptable. The government's oppressive surveillance must not lead to people changing the information they consume. That is the very epitome of cultural programming, the cost of which is far to great for our society to suffer.
I think we have a solution; decentralized distribution of the very kinds of information that is being chilled. Copies of Wikipedia, Eroid.org, The Anarchists Cookbook (OK, I'm dating myself, and showing my ignorance of modern anarchist material online, but whatever the modern equivalent of that book is), and similar materials, written to 16 Gig USB sticks, and available for purchase at your local hackerspace for $20. Pop it into your computer, and read whatever you want without the goverment spying on you. Maybe even make it a bootable distro, with networking disabled, so you can be truly locked down (except for airgap-jumping attacks, of course, but those are still pretty esoteric). Maybe call it "Thoughtcrime On A Stick". Hmm, actually, I like that name so much I'm grabbing the domain names.
Don't get me wrong, I don't relish the idea of making that sort of information more readily available; what peaceful minded person would? But if the alternative is chilling human knowledge, and the empirical evidence shows that it is already happening, what choice do I have?
"And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes." - Kerry
Does he live in such a powerful echo chamber / reality distortion field that he actually believes what he is saying, or does he have such disdain for the citizens that he is comfortable saying the opposite of what is true, to try to squeeze out a few extra votes from those who don't know any better?
The reply to my letter to the FCC regarding Net Neutrality opened with, "Dear Consumer,", and was purportedly from Tom Wheeler. That's what I am? Not a citizen, but a consumer -- a wallet on legs, to be pried open to get at the sweet, delicious money inside? Equal access to communications doesn't matter, as long as the video entertainment circuses gets a fast lane to keep us numb and the subscription cash flowing. To Kerry perhaps it is the same; I am just a vote, to be manipulated in whatever way necessary to serve the greater good. I wonder if both of them open letters to their spouses, "Dear Vagina." The sad truth is I've had the fortune to know some powerful people, and I wouldn't put that last beyond them were they more candid, and less possessed of glib and alluring insincerity. Perhaps the most telling thing is when a reply that opens, "Dear Consumer" shows that they no longer even grasp what the charade is meant to portray.
We are not the consumers, nor the electorate. We are The People. The government is Ours. I tremble to consider the road between here and their understanding of that.
So unless the DoJ wants to argue that Overstock.com is a "financial service" company merely for accepting Bitcoin, or that the businesses which do convert Bitcoin into traditional currency need to implement some sort of "Know Your Customer's Customers" third party regulation, the tightening of existing regulation will have virtually zero effect.
Perhaps, eventually, but certainly for now there are very few things you can do with Bitcoin. You can't rent a car, buy an airplane ticket, or shop at your local supermarket. Bitcoin can come and go where it pleases, but if you can't turn it into dollars, you can't live on it -- at least for now. And if the government wants to, it can certainly use the same kind of wink-and-a-nudge pressure to keep lots of companies from accepting Bitcoin -- even if they otherwise would. And even where the government doesn't have significant regulatory discretion to flex, most companies don't have a CEO who sees financial libertarianism as a cause worth crossing D.C. over, like Overstock does.
For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.
And that, in turn, is part of the reason the DoJ has been pushing so hard to tighten the Know Your Customer regulations on companies that turn Bitcoin into dollars.
It's also important to keep the pressure on via the official channels, even if we're skeptical whether it will work. Documenting public sentiment and the government's consideration (or lack thereof) is a critical step on the path to better government. Please sign the net neutrality petition and reply to the FCC request for comments, and promote them on your favorite social networks.
The petition is almost up to half the needed signatures in about one week, but the signature rate has been slowing down with the weekend approaching as peoples thoughts turn to beer and barbecue. Please help give it a boost, and/or light it up again Monday or Tuesday, to keep the momentum going during the more active weekdays.
Stocks have no more intrinsic value than our paper currency.
Well, that is true, in a sense, and the same can be said of Bitcoin and gold, though a really sharp person would also say that stocks and currency have a different kind of intrinsic value than Bitcoin and gold. Bitcoin and gold are entirely backed by their rareness, and their rareness is an intrinsic quality of them. Stocks and paper currency are a bit more complicated.
Paper currency and stocks are both backed by two things: The beliefi in the future production of their agency, and the probability that the supply will change. In the case of stocks, that's the company's cashflow and residual value on the production side, and the likelihood to issue more shares or do a stock buyback on the share supply side. For currency it is GDP and the monetary supply.
Government backed fiat currency has the same kind of intrinsic value as equities. Bitcoin has the same kind of intrinsic value as gold. And the former is different from the latter. Which you consider to be "more" intrinsic value is really only a statement of your perspective. Gold and bitcoins have fluctuated more than US currency and blue chip US equities over the past 30 years, but some high risk US equities and fiat currency from less stable nations has fluctuated as much or more.
If your definition of "intrinsic value" is physical demand, none of them have enough to matter (we use a little bit of gold in merchantable goods, but such a tiny amount relative to supply that it doesn't matter). If your definition of "intrinsic value" is some intrinsic property of the token that imbues it with commodity value in a given context, then they all have some such characteristics.
Also, I don't think he thinks we should legally require that any currency be backed by Gold and Silver, he just thinks its a good idea.
Gold has no more intrinsic value than Bitcoin. The physical demand for gold as a conductor, plating material, and for jewelry is a tiny fraction of the amount we pull out of the ground. Its value is entirely backed by its rareness, which is exactly the same as Bitcoin.
The next bit is a little harder to grasp, but I promise you it is worth your time to seriously reflect on: The value of gold is subject to extreme fluctuations (look at the past 30 years). That means if you peg your currency to it, your currency will fluctuate in value. Fluctuations in the value of a currecy make it less reliable as a temporary store of wealth. That, in turn, increases the friction on trade in that currency. Pegging the dollar to gold would make the US less productive internally because of reduced consumer confidence, and encourage the world to shift away from using the dollar as the dominant currency for international trade.
Thatâ(TM)s the basic idea behind a super PAC launching Thursday that wants to destroy super PACs for good. The Mayday PAC, as itâ(TM)s called, seeks to raise enough money to sway five House elections in 2014 and elect representatives who have committed to pressing for serious reform of the campaign finance system.
Is that the only issue that they will press for? Or will they also be required to support Lawrence's position on gun regulation, or any of his other issues? I am all for campaign finance reform and would happily give large to the cause, but I don't support everything Mr. Lessig does, and I'm not sure I believe he has the self-discipline to keep his other issues out of his PAC. I'd love to see five campaign finance reformers elected, but despite my respect for him, I would not want five Lawrence Lessig clones.
speculation that Emfinger has violated FAA rules which prohibit commercial use of small drones. The laws, designed years ago to restrict hobbyists use of model airplanes, may conflict with U.S. First Amendment free press use.
There is a pretty obvious difference between the right of press freedom and commercial use of drones; the commercial part. If the drone operator is getting paid, or under contract, or in any other compensatory relationship with the publisher, it is commercial use of a drone. If he is a hobbyist who happens to catch some interesting footage and lets the news media use it for free, it is non-commercial use. Commercial operation of drones is prohibited. The press is free to report on the footage, and free to display it if they can do so without violating commercial drone operation regulations.
It strikes me the same as attempts to conflate advertising and commercial lobbying with free speech. Compulsory speech -- speech which you are obligated to make under the terms of a business relationship -- is not free speech. Trade is not protected speech. You have a natural right to express your views, but you do not have a natural right to pay others on the condition that they say what you tell them to say.
However, it's worth keeping in mind how the human mind works; in particular its limitations. Our minds and behaviours are inherently flawed. Part of being a smart and responsible person is not just modulating your behaviour, but also designing your life so as to elicit the right kinds of outcomes. A simple example is putting an item that you want to bring with you tomorrow by the door. You could "Just remember to grab it when you leave tomorrow morning!"... So, in principle a cellphone app that disables the phone while driving can be useful. It's for people who recognize that it's a really bad idea to use your phone while driving, and yet are so addicted to their phone that they cannot avoid answering it when it rings.
OK, so tape a piece of paper to your steering wheel that says, "Turn off your phone." You're making this way harder than it is.
He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt.
Of course that is not beyond what he deserved. This is not about what he deserved. The reason we don't torture people is because only people who are mentally damaged, like him, do that to other people -- regardless of what they deserve. I am not mentally damaged, so I don't want to torture people, and won't have my state doing it in my name. Civilized people don't torture people to death. We take bad people and remove them from society, ashamed that they were once allowed to roam free, but not made worse by allowing blood lust to take our minds.
And if you are so inclined, you should seek help. If you're not going to do that, at least keep it to yourself. Pretend you're not a degenerate so you don't debase us as a society. Or, if you can't control it, at least have the decency to leave evidence when your monster drives you to some hideous act so we can catch you and put your deranged ass behind bars with the other animals.
These petitions have been mostly worthless in the past.
The purpose of the petition is double edged. They communicate the will of the people, and if they are ignored, they document the failure of government.
The FCC is nominally an independent agency
The chairman serves at the discretion of The President, and The White House's official statement includes the following:
Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide.
The President would be entirely within his authority to direct the FCC to reclassify data carriers as common carriers, and to terminate Tom Wheeler when he refuses.
the best way to make yourself heard is to file a comment on Proceeding 14-28 at:
That's good, too, though my tendency is to think Tom Wheeler is doing exactly as he intended. Obama is blowing in the wind. There is no chance with the former, the latter might work. More likely both merely document the failure of our government, which is the first step to reforming it.
Also please take a minute to promote the petition for net neutrality and the petition for common carrier. Promote them on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or wherever you normally put such things. The signature count was climbing fast last week, on track to hit 100,000 within a week, but over the weekend they fell below the fold on most of the news and social networks. We need to get the traffic numbers back up.
Ahh, sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I read it as, "OOP was once considered new and silly, just like functional is now." I've been talking to a few too many programmers lately who are jumping on the new hotness bandwagon without realizing it has a long history.
But seriously, welcome to the future. In the 1960s, "real world business software developers" thought that all this "object" stuff was a bunch of academic gobbeldygook
You do know functional programming is older than OO, by a lot, right? See Lisp.
Microsoft donated over 125 million impressions across Xbox 360, Windows 8, and MSN in order to encourage consumers to rediscover teaching through interactive ad units. This media effort is an extension of the Ad Council and TEACH's public service advertising (PSA) campaign, Make More...Throughout March, consumers were able to engage with TEACH "NUads on Xbox", via gesture, voice or controller on their Xbox 360 consoles.
Masters in education, good experience in other districts, just moved to the area, you may be a good candidate. Now, if you really want the job, go out and buy some Microsoft products, and then we'll give you a shot. You should also probably make sure you have created a rich and carefully crafted demographic footprint on each of the incumbent cloud surveillance networks:
Well, in addition to Teach.org and redundant social media efforts on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Linkedin, and YouTube,
Prostrate yourself before the oligarchy or be unemployed! Our nation cannot afford to have teachers who have any awareness of the value of attenuating corporate rule or pervasive surveillance! Young minds must be formed only by those who do not question the oligarchs!
Please note that this is a new petition, specifically stating The People's requirement that data carriers be reclassified as common carriers. Yesterday's petition only identified the need for net neutrality. I believe both are valid expressions of the best interests of our society, and have signed both.
Let me put this out there: if they don't want net neutrality, mark my words, all the petitions in the world won't make a whit of difference.
The purpose of such efforts is a double edged sword: If it works, great. If it does not, it is one more bit of documentation that our government has betrayed the will of The People, and must be reformed.
Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house,... So why is so much attention paid to them?
Because if they do work, great. If they do not, they are a way of documenting the fact that the government is not listening. The first step on the road to real reform is documenting the betrayal of will of the people.
Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real policy or legislative changes in government
They're not mutually exclusive. Putting up these petitions, voting for them, and promoting them to others takes very little effort, the cost to competing demands for my resources is almost nonexistent.
such as supporting or working to defeat politicians, supporitng lobbying efforts, or other more traditional methods of interacting with the state?
Not sure about you, but to me, those things are equally on the list of "Things that probably no longer work, the value of doing which is largely in documenting the failure of our government."
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for taking the time to reflect on and respond to these questions. In a world consumed with pragmatism and acquisitiveness, it is inspiring to see a person put so much thought and effort into reconciling his principles with his actions.
Yesterday, the net neutrality petition passed the halfway mark, with 18 days left to go. The FCC request for comments is still live and looking for your feedback, and Mozilla has an alternative in the offing.
Keep the pressure on, keep posting these things on your social networks, keep telling your friends. The only thing less effective than telling the government what we want is not telling them what we want. It is a double edged sword; either they do as we say, or we get one more bit of documentation to support reforming the government.
It's basically a book you are trying to spread. How much were the cheapest readers nowdays? Not to put down any hackerist dreams of distributing Raspis all around.. but.. you could include a screen while you are dreaming it up.
Not bad, not bad. I think I've seen touch devices out of China for about $100.
The problem is that every one of those SUB sticks comes pre-loaded(for your convenience...) with all manner of NSA spyware.
I don't know about your local hackerspaces, but the ones I go to all have at least a few people who are pretty hardcore about infosec. If one of those guys says he did is best to make it clean, I would trust both his integrity and ability.
But, the truth is your point still has a great deal of merit. Potentially you could also sell a Raspberry Pi box for the true tinfoil hat afficionado. Even if it can record what you're looking at, that wouldn't help if it never gets connected to a network.
Those $20 DVDs? Bullshit, those cost $1 at most.
Oh, yeah, for sure (though I'm thinking memory sticks, not DVDs, since optical drives are going the way of the dinosaur). But I'm also helping launch a hackerspace, and I figure if you let the hackerspaces generate a little funding, at a price that people would be happy to pay, everyone wins.
I also assume most would also let you bring your own stick and write a copy on demand. Just the idea of having a wicker basket full of sticks ready to subvert the masses appeals to me. :)
searches for terms deemed to be sensitive to government or privacy concerns have dropped "significantly" in the months since Edward Snowden's revelations in July.
It is hard for me to find this shift to be acceptable. The government's oppressive surveillance must not lead to people changing the information they consume. That is the very epitome of cultural programming, the cost of which is far to great for our society to suffer.
I think we have a solution; decentralized distribution of the very kinds of information that is being chilled. Copies of Wikipedia, Eroid.org, The Anarchists Cookbook (OK, I'm dating myself, and showing my ignorance of modern anarchist material online, but whatever the modern equivalent of that book is), and similar materials, written to 16 Gig USB sticks, and available for purchase at your local hackerspace for $20. Pop it into your computer, and read whatever you want without the goverment spying on you. Maybe even make it a bootable distro, with networking disabled, so you can be truly locked down (except for airgap-jumping attacks, of course, but those are still pretty esoteric). Maybe call it "Thoughtcrime On A Stick". Hmm, actually, I like that name so much I'm grabbing the domain names.
Don't get me wrong, I don't relish the idea of making that sort of information more readily available; what peaceful minded person would? But if the alternative is chilling human knowledge, and the empirical evidence shows that it is already happening, what choice do I have?
"And while I expect you to hold the United States to the standards that I've outlined, I also hope that you won't let the world forget the places where those who hold their government to standards go to jail rather than win prizes." - Kerry
Does he live in such a powerful echo chamber / reality distortion field that he actually believes what he is saying, or does he have such disdain for the citizens that he is comfortable saying the opposite of what is true, to try to squeeze out a few extra votes from those who don't know any better?
The reply to my letter to the FCC regarding Net Neutrality opened with, "Dear Consumer,", and was purportedly from Tom Wheeler. That's what I am? Not a citizen, but a consumer -- a wallet on legs, to be pried open to get at the sweet, delicious money inside? Equal access to communications doesn't matter, as long as the video entertainment circuses gets a fast lane to keep us numb and the subscription cash flowing. To Kerry perhaps it is the same; I am just a vote, to be manipulated in whatever way necessary to serve the greater good. I wonder if both of them open letters to their spouses, "Dear Vagina." The sad truth is I've had the fortune to know some powerful people, and I wouldn't put that last beyond them were they more candid, and less possessed of glib and alluring insincerity. Perhaps the most telling thing is when a reply that opens, "Dear Consumer" shows that they no longer even grasp what the charade is meant to portray.
We are not the consumers, nor the electorate. We are The People. The government is Ours. I tremble to consider the road between here and their understanding of that.
So unless the DoJ wants to argue that Overstock.com is a "financial service" company merely for accepting Bitcoin, or that the businesses which do convert Bitcoin into traditional currency need to implement some sort of "Know Your Customer's Customers" third party regulation, the tightening of existing regulation will have virtually zero effect.
Perhaps, eventually, but certainly for now there are very few things you can do with Bitcoin. You can't rent a car, buy an airplane ticket, or shop at your local supermarket. Bitcoin can come and go where it pleases, but if you can't turn it into dollars, you can't live on it -- at least for now. And if the government wants to, it can certainly use the same kind of wink-and-a-nudge pressure to keep lots of companies from accepting Bitcoin -- even if they otherwise would. And even where the government doesn't have significant regulatory discretion to flex, most companies don't have a CEO who sees financial libertarianism as a cause worth crossing D.C. over, like Overstock does.
For all the Ponzi-this, tulips-that that gets posted every time Bitcoin makes the news, this is one of the problems they're trying to solve. A prude at Chase or the DoJ can't close your bank accounts if you have no need of a bank in the first place.
And that, in turn, is part of the reason the DoJ has been pushing so hard to tighten the Know Your Customer regulations on companies that turn Bitcoin into dollars.
It's also important to keep the pressure on via the official channels, even if we're skeptical whether it will work. Documenting public sentiment and the government's consideration (or lack thereof) is a critical step on the path to better government. Please sign the net neutrality petition and reply to the FCC request for comments, and promote them on your favorite social networks.
The petition is almost up to half the needed signatures in about one week, but the signature rate has been slowing down with the weekend approaching as peoples thoughts turn to beer and barbecue. Please help give it a boost, and/or light it up again Monday or Tuesday, to keep the momentum going during the more active weekdays.
Stocks have no more intrinsic value than our paper currency.
Well, that is true, in a sense, and the same can be said of Bitcoin and gold, though a really sharp person would also say that stocks and currency have a different kind of intrinsic value than Bitcoin and gold. Bitcoin and gold are entirely backed by their rareness, and their rareness is an intrinsic quality of them. Stocks and paper currency are a bit more complicated.
Paper currency and stocks are both backed by two things: The beliefi in the future production of their agency, and the probability that the supply will change. In the case of stocks, that's the company's cashflow and residual value on the production side, and the likelihood to issue more shares or do a stock buyback on the share supply side. For currency it is GDP and the monetary supply.
Government backed fiat currency has the same kind of intrinsic value as equities. Bitcoin has the same kind of intrinsic value as gold. And the former is different from the latter. Which you consider to be "more" intrinsic value is really only a statement of your perspective. Gold and bitcoins have fluctuated more than US currency and blue chip US equities over the past 30 years, but some high risk US equities and fiat currency from less stable nations has fluctuated as much or more.
If your definition of "intrinsic value" is physical demand, none of them have enough to matter (we use a little bit of gold in merchantable goods, but such a tiny amount relative to supply that it doesn't matter). If your definition of "intrinsic value" is some intrinsic property of the token that imbues it with commodity value in a given context, then they all have some such characteristics.
Also, I don't think he thinks we should legally require that any currency be backed by Gold and Silver, he just thinks its a good idea.
Gold has no more intrinsic value than Bitcoin. The physical demand for gold as a conductor, plating material, and for jewelry is a tiny fraction of the amount we pull out of the ground. Its value is entirely backed by its rareness, which is exactly the same as Bitcoin.
The next bit is a little harder to grasp, but I promise you it is worth your time to seriously reflect on: The value of gold is subject to extreme fluctuations (look at the past 30 years). That means if you peg your currency to it, your currency will fluctuate in value. Fluctuations in the value of a currecy make it less reliable as a temporary store of wealth. That, in turn, increases the friction on trade in that currency. Pegging the dollar to gold would make the US less productive internally because of reduced consumer confidence, and encourage the world to shift away from using the dollar as the dominant currency for international trade.
If you pledge your money to Republicans only, it is statistically very unlikely that they would be for gun control.
Heh, if only I could support almost anything else the Republicans take a hard line on. :)
This is the only issue that the PAC will press for.
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Boyko. I will be supporting your project.
Thatâ(TM)s the basic idea behind a super PAC launching Thursday that wants to destroy super PACs for good. The Mayday PAC, as itâ(TM)s called, seeks to raise enough money to sway five House elections in 2014 and elect representatives who have committed to pressing for serious reform of the campaign finance system.
Is that the only issue that they will press for? Or will they also be required to support Lawrence's position on gun regulation, or any of his other issues? I am all for campaign finance reform and would happily give large to the cause, but I don't support everything Mr. Lessig does, and I'm not sure I believe he has the self-discipline to keep his other issues out of his PAC. I'd love to see five campaign finance reformers elected, but despite my respect for him, I would not want five Lawrence Lessig clones.
speculation that Emfinger has violated FAA rules which prohibit commercial use of small drones. The laws, designed years ago to restrict hobbyists use of model airplanes, may conflict with U.S. First Amendment free press use.
There is a pretty obvious difference between the right of press freedom and commercial use of drones; the commercial part. If the drone operator is getting paid, or under contract, or in any other compensatory relationship with the publisher, it is commercial use of a drone. If he is a hobbyist who happens to catch some interesting footage and lets the news media use it for free, it is non-commercial use. Commercial operation of drones is prohibited. The press is free to report on the footage, and free to display it if they can do so without violating commercial drone operation regulations.
It strikes me the same as attempts to conflate advertising and commercial lobbying with free speech. Compulsory speech -- speech which you are obligated to make under the terms of a business relationship -- is not free speech. Trade is not protected speech. You have a natural right to express your views, but you do not have a natural right to pay others on the condition that they say what you tell them to say.
However, it's worth keeping in mind how the human mind works; in particular its limitations. Our minds and behaviours are inherently flawed. Part of being a smart and responsible person is not just modulating your behaviour, but also designing your life so as to elicit the right kinds of outcomes. A simple example is putting an item that you want to bring with you tomorrow by the door. You could "Just remember to grab it when you leave tomorrow morning!" ... So, in principle a cellphone app that disables the phone while driving can be useful. It's for people who recognize that it's a really bad idea to use your phone while driving, and yet are so addicted to their phone that they cannot avoid answering it when it rings.
OK, so tape a piece of paper to your steering wheel that says, "Turn off your phone." You're making this way harder than it is.
He shot someone and watched as his two friends buried her ALIVE. 20 minutes of semi-conscious agony ending in a heartattack vs. breathing dirt.
Of course that is not beyond what he deserved. This is not about what he deserved. The reason we don't torture people is because only people who are mentally damaged, like him, do that to other people -- regardless of what they deserve. I am not mentally damaged, so I don't want to torture people, and won't have my state doing it in my name. Civilized people don't torture people to death. We take bad people and remove them from society, ashamed that they were once allowed to roam free, but not made worse by allowing blood lust to take our minds.
And if you are so inclined, you should seek help. If you're not going to do that, at least keep it to yourself. Pretend you're not a degenerate so you don't debase us as a society. Or, if you can't control it, at least have the decency to leave evidence when your monster drives you to some hideous act so we can catch you and put your deranged ass behind bars with the other animals.
These petitions have been mostly worthless in the past.
The purpose of the petition is double edged. They communicate the will of the people, and if they are ignored, they document the failure of government.
The FCC is nominally an independent agency
The chairman serves at the discretion of The President, and The White House's official statement includes the following:
Absent net neutrality, the Internet could turn into a high-priced private toll road that would be inaccessible to the next generation of visionaries. The resulting decline in the development of advanced online apps and services would dampen demand for broadband and ultimately discourage investment in broadband infrastructure. An open Internet removes barriers to investment worldwide.
The President would be entirely within his authority to direct the FCC to reclassify data carriers as common carriers, and to terminate Tom Wheeler when he refuses.
the best way to make yourself heard is to file a comment on Proceeding 14-28 at:
That's good, too, though my tendency is to think Tom Wheeler is doing exactly as he intended. Obama is blowing in the wind. There is no chance with the former, the latter might work. More likely both merely document the failure of our government, which is the first step to reforming it.
Also please take a minute to promote the petition for net neutrality and the petition for common carrier. Promote them on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or wherever you normally put such things. The signature count was climbing fast last week, on track to hit 100,000 within a week, but over the weekend they fell below the fold on most of the news and social networks. We need to get the traffic numbers back up.
Uhm... where did you get that I didn't know this?
Ahh, sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I read it as, "OOP was once considered new and silly, just like functional is now." I've been talking to a few too many programmers lately who are jumping on the new hotness bandwagon without realizing it has a long history.
But seriously, welcome to the future. In the 1960s, "real world business software developers" thought that all this "object" stuff was a bunch of academic gobbeldygook
You do know functional programming is older than OO, by a lot, right? See Lisp.
Microsoft donated over 125 million impressions across Xbox 360, Windows 8, and MSN in order to encourage consumers to rediscover teaching through interactive ad units. This media effort is an extension of the Ad Council and TEACH's public service advertising (PSA) campaign, Make More...Throughout March, consumers were able to engage with TEACH "NUads on Xbox", via gesture, voice or controller on their Xbox 360 consoles.
Masters in education, good experience in other districts, just moved to the area, you may be a good candidate. Now, if you really want the job, go out and buy some Microsoft products, and then we'll give you a shot. You should also probably make sure you have created a rich and carefully crafted demographic footprint on each of the incumbent cloud surveillance networks:
Well, in addition to Teach.org and redundant social media efforts on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Linkedin, and YouTube,
Prostrate yourself before the oligarchy or be unemployed! Our nation cannot afford to have teachers who have any awareness of the value of attenuating corporate rule or pervasive surveillance! Young minds must be formed only by those who do not question the oligarchs!
Please note that this is a new petition, specifically stating The People's requirement that data carriers be reclassified as common carriers. Yesterday's petition only identified the need for net neutrality. I believe both are valid expressions of the best interests of our society, and have signed both.
Let me put this out there: if they don't want net neutrality, mark my words, all the petitions in the world won't make a whit of difference.
The purpose of such efforts is a double edged sword: If it works, great. If it does not, it is one more bit of documentation that our government has betrayed the will of The People, and must be reformed.
Serious question. These petitions are clearly not only completely absent any actual legal or procedural relevance; they are routinely ignored by the white house, ... So why is so much attention paid to them?
Because if they do work, great. If they do not, they are a way of documenting the fact that the government is not listening. The first step on the road to real reform is documenting the betrayal of will of the people.
Isn't it better to use your time and money towards things that could result in some real policy or legislative changes in government
They're not mutually exclusive. Putting up these petitions, voting for them, and promoting them to others takes very little effort, the cost to competing demands for my resources is almost nonexistent.
such as supporting or working to defeat politicians, supporitng lobbying efforts, or other more traditional methods of interacting with the state?
Not sure about you, but to me, those things are equally on the list of "Things that probably no longer work, the value of doing which is largely in documenting the failure of our government."