this is just nonsense. people left myspace because facebook was better. Not because of who owned it. Myspace hadn't changed significantly at that point.
Maybe it was more than just the banks? maybe all those well intended regulations had an effect.. like causing the banks to make loans they would not have made otherwise. (hint: housing).
is what you say really true though? i'm american and i'm quite aware of the stereotypes, but, I suspect it has a lot more to do with the areas hit. I remember a certain area of texas got hit pretty hard from a hurricane, but there was very little looting going on. I can't recall if there was looting after 9/11.
a better analogy would be to say you've got 5 cars and now your monthly payments are 2x what you make in a month. Boo hoo if you have to cut your spending.
that's only true because foreign governments are stupid enough to buy our debt. At some point they will not(when they realize we have to print the money to pay), and we will be in a world of shit.
i'm fine with cutting just about anything personally, but everything you would cut, would get a response similiar to the gp. 'you can't cut x, it's too valuable or too important or it's morally wrong'. At the end of the day, if we can't afford it, we can't afford it, it's really irrelevant how badly it is or isn't needed.
OK you call me views simple.. and they are, because they are based in simple facts. You cannot spend more than you make(without bad consequences). whether an individual or a government.
the ratio of kids that can do such things is probably the same, it's just that computers are everywhere now.
So i submit that you are wrong. and so is idiocracy... atleast in the regard that we're getting dumber.
Personally I would suspect that as far as strictly intelligence is concerned, we're the exact same as we were whether you compare to gen y/x/baby boomers/ 500 years ago. Just that knowledge and how quickly knowledge is available upon demand, has changed.
Because the Constitution serves as a boundary for the laws that the government can make. It certainly wasn't intended to be the last word on law in this country. It's vague in many ways and we need specifics. Hence the laws. I'm not claiming that they're all useful. I'm sure there are tons that should be done away with, but someone believe they were useful at some point. I'd be glad to see some serious housecleaning when it comes to the laws on the books already. That doesn't mean that I think they're all useless or that we don't need regulation and enforcement
I really can't see how mounds and mounds of laws that only a very few people have even read, let alone understand is a good thing. And that's just the federal level.
The idea that the Internet will remain free if left in the hands of corporations free of regulation is absolutely insane though.
but that's what freedom is. freedom does not guarantee everything you want in life, but it's the best way to get most of what you want. Freedom is people doing what they want, with themselves and their property, so long as others involved are all consenting. the corps own a lot of the base of the internet, they should be able to do what they want with it. and they have a much more powerful method to determine whether something is good than voting, profit. What they can't do, is defraud you. which we already have laws for, no need for new ones.
but we have more influence over the government than we do over the mega-ISPs that own the Internet infrastructure, and the government is more likely to pursue a path that will maintain the freedom for small companies to innovate, while the large companies have every incentive to lock it down as much as possible.
Not really. I can discontinue my service with my isp or with toyota or whomever. "The nature of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson. The government will not pursue a path to maintain freedom. They will pass more regulations that will hurt small companies far more than the big ones.
They're already trying to double and triple charge for data. You may be fine with paying more while they add nothing of value, but I'm not.
and what if ms charges 50k for windows.
If they can just do that, then what's to stop them from doing it now? That doesn't make sense.
because they don't have their foot in the door at this point. But, i'm sure they will get the power to do what you want.
Because a corporation, even a publicly-owned one, is a dictatorship. The US government is a representative democratic republic, meaning that at any one time there will be many different people making decisions, some of which you can agree with, others which you may not.
for the purposes of this argument, that's huge distinction without a difference. You could swap 'corporation' and 'us government' in your sentences and it changes nothing. And furthermore, you think congress doesn't have influence over the FCC? you think the FCC wouldn't cave, when think of the children types are whining about something?
Saying that you don't want to do business with the entire government based on the views or actions of a small section of it is like saying that you refuse to do business with anyone listed on the New York Stock Exchange because Microsoft screwed you over once.
the NYSE and MS are very different entities. different parts of the federal government, not quite so much.
Exactly, which is why I support Net Neutrality and not an internet kill switch.
net neutrality is control. it's just control, you happen to agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any software companies out there that don't have a lineup of rockstar programmers? lol
The amount of arrogance in software development is amusing to me.
if past wikileaks leaks hints at much, i'd say not a whole lot.
Neither of them are libertarian.
And if you're a true software engineer, you should be able to do both.
Here's a thought, if there weren't so many regulations, there would be more competition.
This idea that somalia is a libertarian paradise is so incredibly wrong and get repeated all the time.
Libertarians are for reducing government power as much as possible. Somolia has plenty of governing powers.
this is just nonsense. people left myspace because facebook was better. Not because of who owned it. Myspace hadn't changed significantly at that point.
Maybe it was more than just the banks? maybe all those well intended regulations had an effect.. like causing the banks to make loans they would not have made otherwise. (hint: housing).
how is it a bad thing? i can look at code i'm completely unfamiliar with and get a good idea of what's going on... much harder to do without it..
finally some respect for us 6 digiters!!
I've only waited a decade for this!
oh, from a guy who makes an ascii dick..
is what you say really true though? i'm american and i'm quite aware of the stereotypes, but, I suspect it has a lot more to do with the areas hit. I remember a certain area of texas got hit pretty hard from a hurricane, but there was very little looting going on. I can't recall if there was looting after 9/11.
of course. it would be impossible for anyone to advocate what i advocate, without want the rich to rape the poor.
a better analogy would be to say you've got 5 cars and now your monthly payments are 2x what you make in a month. Boo hoo if you have to cut your spending.
I'm not advocating starving, i'd advocating eating the right amount.
republicans have done little the lower the debt(with a few exceptions), as you may have noticed. So you're really just playing partisan politics.
that's only true because foreign governments are stupid enough to buy our debt. At some point they will not(when they realize we have to print the money to pay), and we will be in a world of shit.
i'm fine with cutting just about anything personally, but everything you would cut, would get a response similiar to the gp. 'you can't cut x, it's too valuable or too important or it's morally wrong'. At the end of the day, if we can't afford it, we can't afford it, it's really irrelevant how badly it is or isn't needed.
OK you call me views simple.. and they are, because they are based in simple facts. You cannot spend more than you make(without bad consequences). whether an individual or a government.
You know, there's a concept you may find interesting, that you really can't spend more than you can afford, no matter how much you want something...
the ratio of kids that can do such things is probably the same, it's just that computers are everywhere now.
So i submit that you are wrong. and so is idiocracy... atleast in the regard that we're getting dumber.
Personally I would suspect that as far as strictly intelligence is concerned, we're the exact same as we were whether you compare to gen y/x/baby boomers/ 500 years ago. Just that knowledge and how quickly knowledge is available upon demand, has changed.
"It's never the right time to have kids, but it's always the right time for screwing. God's not a dumbshit. He knows how it works." ~ shitmydadsays
you are mistaken. money is the reason. profit and all that. people don't just make shit for nothing.
And without money, do you think you would be typing this on that nice computer you have, and being able to communicate with people you'll never meet?
god damnit, where are my italics! lol
Because the Constitution serves as a boundary for the laws that the government can make. It certainly wasn't intended to be the last word on law in this country. It's vague in many ways and we need specifics. Hence the laws. I'm not claiming that they're all useful. I'm sure there are tons that should be done away with, but someone believe they were useful at some point. I'd be glad to see some serious housecleaning when it comes to the laws on the books already. That doesn't mean that I think they're all useless or that we don't need regulation and enforcement
I really can't see how mounds and mounds of laws that only a very few people have even read, let alone understand is a good thing. And that's just the federal level.
The idea that the Internet will remain free if left in the hands of corporations free of regulation is absolutely insane though.
but that's what freedom is. freedom does not guarantee everything you want in life, but it's the best way to get most of what you want. Freedom is people doing what they want, with themselves and their property, so long as others involved are all consenting. the corps own a lot of the base of the internet, they should be able to do what they want with it. and they have a much more powerful method to determine whether something is good than voting, profit. What they can't do, is defraud you. which we already have laws for, no need for new ones.
but we have more influence over the government than we do over the mega-ISPs that own the Internet infrastructure, and the government is more likely to pursue a path that will maintain the freedom for small companies to innovate, while the large companies have every incentive to lock it down as much as possible.
Not really. I can discontinue my service with my isp or with toyota or whomever. "The nature of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson. The government will not pursue a path to maintain freedom. They will pass more regulations that will hurt small companies far more than the big ones.
They're already trying to double and triple charge for data. You may be fine with paying more while they add nothing of value, but I'm not.
and what if ms charges 50k for windows.
If they can just do that, then what's to stop them from doing it now? That doesn't make sense.
because they don't have their foot in the door at this point. But, i'm sure they will get the power to do what you want.
Because a corporation, even a publicly-owned one, is a dictatorship. The US government is a representative democratic republic, meaning that at any one time there will be many different people making decisions, some of which you can agree with, others which you may not.
for the purposes of this argument, that's huge distinction without a difference. You could swap 'corporation' and 'us government' in your sentences and it changes nothing. And furthermore, you think congress doesn't have influence over the FCC? you think the FCC wouldn't cave, when think of the children types are whining about something?
Saying that you don't want to do business with the entire government based on the views or actions of a small section of it is like saying that you refuse to do business with anyone listed on the New York Stock Exchange because Microsoft screwed you over once.
the NYSE and MS are very different entities. different parts of the federal government, not quite so much.
Exactly, which is why I support Net Neutrality and not an internet kill switch.
net neutrality is control. it's just control, you happen to agree with.