You're supposed to be learning what's in the book, not what slash dots opinion on the subject is.
And this is exactly why the internet is a necessary part of education. Students need the internet so they don't just learn what's in some book written by ultra-politically-correct bureaucrats but are rather exposed to different opinions, and hopefully some critical thinking skills come out of that.
Unicorns are already extinct. I think the idea is that if we kill and eat enough of them we'll get an integer underflow glitch and we'll be back up to 2.1 billion unicorns in the world.
if you take other people's lives from them why should you have any right to live?
That statement, in itself, is very scary. It denies the right to life to people defending themselves, to soldiers, to emergency room doctors who have to choose between one life and another and even to the very executioner who will be supposedly bringing this man to justice. And what happens if someone is executed the day after the trial and exonerating evidence is found 10 years later? Do we say "oops" and move on?
Finally, I don't see why this man has any less right to life than other people. I realize that there is a public interest in keeping him away from society, and a public interest in deterrence, but life imprisonment is just as good, and I would argue even better - he might end up actually helping society with some manual labor.
I'm not saying that he's a fine, upstanding citizen. I am saying that he is NOT a mass-murderer. If we apply the term mass-murderer to someone who kills 2 people, there will be no word left to describe even more serious criminals. Well, knowing the way language works, we'll have murders of 100 people being referred to as "genocides", in a kind of reverse euphemism treadmill.
Where are the bleeding hearts for this asshole's victims and their families?
The bleeding hearts have realized that the sentence the man receives does not in any way undo or mitigate the deaths of the victims and doesn't do much for their families. It just adds 1 more to the body count.
I prefer approval voting. For every candidate on the ballot, you can either vote for him or not vote for him. That would fix the tactical voting problem, since voting for a non-mainstream candidate doesn't affect your ability to choose between the 2 largest parties, so the weaker parties would see more popularity. Also, it would encourage politicians to campaign positively, proposing solutions to problems, rather than relying on a smear campaign against their opponents.
Despite Thomas Jefferson's fantasies, most Americans seem to prefer parties
Can we have proof of this? Maybe some kind of study where Americans were given a genuine choice between voting for parties and voting for individuals and they picked one or the other? From what I can see, most people have never experienced anything that isn't a binary choice between Democrats and Republicans.
Essentially, yes. If you add free flash games on the internet, Solitaire, and a large amount of games from the 1980s, casual games are largely free. Turning these people into someone who demands a 1800x1200 resolution 90 FPS ultra-realistic immersive game experience (all of which costs tens of dollars per player to implement) will turn them into profit-bringing customers.
While he certainly has a point that Apple benefits by its users' belief that the platform is secure, you also have to wonder whether any such publicity from a security company has a marketing subtext, as well.
How exactly are these two objectives different from each other?
I worked for a hotel ISP provider. Every week we received subpoenas for people's activities on the internet. We identified the room they stayed in. The hotel would get a subpoena and would turn over the sign in information and even security camera pictures of the individuals. Usually they paid with credit cards and they were known, but even paying cash they had a picture of the individual. Home ISPs are the same, they know where you live
Good luck subpoenaing coffee shops and asking them who could have accessed their wifi on Tuesday at 10:00-11:30.
With under $1000 in off the shelf equipment I can watch what my neighbor downloads.
Even with $10 billion in NSA top secret equipment it's very difficult to figure out what someone using Tor is downloading.
Frankly if this bothers you -- what weird sick stuff are you into? Stop it.
Stuff which is legal and which most intelligent people agree I should have a right to do but which could get me socially ostracized if everything I do was public. That's the main reason we have a right to privacy in general.
For one thing I wouldn't apply that legal test to punative penalties, only actual demonstrated damage.
Besides that copyright law needs to be fixed anyway.
You wouldn't apply that legal test to punitive penalties. Copyright law needs to be fixed.
In a perfect world, it would work. However, as demonstrated by the aforementioned abuse of copyright law, laws with good intent (the $80,000 fines were originally supposed to apply to publishers, not individuals) are often twisted and abused by those with an agenda. If a law allowing white-collar crimes above $6.9 million to receive the death penalty is passed, copyright law will stay unfixed and the bill will allow punitive and statutory damages to form part of the $6.9 million since most people don't even know the difference between actual, statutory and punitive damages. In the real world, anything that can be abused will be abused.
So if Jammie Thomas had pirated 87 songs instead of 24 she would have faced the death penalty? If you support the death penalty at all, then adding large scale white collar crime to the death penalty list is good in theory, but in practice it will get massively abused.
no, it will change because the definition of wealth will change.
Poverty is not about being wealthy. As Wikipedia puts it, "poverty means being unable to afford basic human needs". If the basic human needs are provided for everyone, regardless of the social structure that emerges afterward there will by definition be no poverty.
Why do you assume they won't be beholden to a landlord?
Because land outside of cities is very cheap, and will get even cheaper if the demand to use it for food production disappears. Since the main point of living in cities is not having to drive 3 hours to work, and work will no longer be a part of many people's lives. For those who still want to work, the only kind of work left will largely be the kind you can do with a laptop transferring the fruits of your labor over the internet.
Also, why shouldn't the concept of land ownership disappear entirely? Right now, its only legitimate purposes are privacy and managing agriculture and resource gathering rights. The second purpose will disappear, and the first one can be satisfied with dedicated laws that won't allow someone to gather up a whole bunch of land and rent it out at high prices.
The side of the mercury touching the bowl will be just as imperfect as the bowl. It's the inside. The centrifugal force will push most of the mercury to the sides, and the resulting shape will look like a bowl with a precise curve going from the center to the edges.
Slashdot Mirror
You're supposed to be learning what's in the book, not what slash dots opinion on the subject is.
And this is exactly why the internet is a necessary part of education. Students need the internet so they don't just learn what's in some book written by ultra-politically-correct bureaucrats but are rather exposed to different opinions, and hopefully some critical thinking skills come out of that.
To use Sinister Strike on Crag Boar, go to page 187225, or 314290 if the d100 rolls below your crit rate.
Unicorns are already extinct. I think the idea is that if we kill and eat enough of them we'll get an integer underflow glitch and we'll be back up to 2.1 billion unicorns in the world.
It's a loss leader.
Wikipedia defines that as "a product sold at a low price (at cost or below cost) to stimulate other, profitable sales". Sounds about right.
Seriously, can you think of a better job title?
Shadow Minister
H2O is only for hot water. The formula for cold water is CO2.
Unfortunately, Twitter's limit is in fact 140 characters. Your 105-character post, however, fits in quite nicely.
This for $400 (or $300 without the keyboard) seems to fit the bill.
vim > anything Apple >>> emacs
Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I blame him, although not for the act of fleeing the ring. He agreed to do something he couldn't do, a simple act of dishonesty.
if you take other people's lives from them why should you have any right to live?
That statement, in itself, is very scary. It denies the right to life to people defending themselves, to soldiers, to emergency room doctors who have to choose between one life and another and even to the very executioner who will be supposedly bringing this man to justice. And what happens if someone is executed the day after the trial and exonerating evidence is found 10 years later? Do we say "oops" and move on?
Finally, I don't see why this man has any less right to life than other people. I realize that there is a public interest in keeping him away from society, and a public interest in deterrence, but life imprisonment is just as good, and I would argue even better - he might end up actually helping society with some manual labor.
I'm not saying that he's a fine, upstanding citizen. I am saying that he is NOT a mass-murderer. If we apply the term mass-murderer to someone who kills 2 people, there will be no word left to describe even more serious criminals. Well, knowing the way language works, we'll have murders of 100 people being referred to as "genocides", in a kind of reverse euphemism treadmill.
I'd rather refer to him as a plain old murderer.
One of the principles of modern society is that human death is bad.
Mass murderer? I only see two murders.
Where are the bleeding hearts for this asshole's victims and their families?
The bleeding hearts have realized that the sentence the man receives does not in any way undo or mitigate the deaths of the victims and doesn't do much for their families. It just adds 1 more to the body count.
Customer Service: We're not happy until you're not happy.
I prefer approval voting. For every candidate on the ballot, you can either vote for him or not vote for him. That would fix the tactical voting problem, since voting for a non-mainstream candidate doesn't affect your ability to choose between the 2 largest parties, so the weaker parties would see more popularity. Also, it would encourage politicians to campaign positively, proposing solutions to problems, rather than relying on a smear campaign against their opponents.
Despite Thomas Jefferson's fantasies, most Americans seem to prefer parties
Can we have proof of this? Maybe some kind of study where Americans were given a genuine choice between voting for parties and voting for individuals and they picked one or the other? From what I can see, most people have never experienced anything that isn't a binary choice between Democrats and Republicans.
Essentially, yes. If you add free flash games on the internet, Solitaire, and a large amount of games from the 1980s, casual games are largely free. Turning these people into someone who demands a 1800x1200 resolution 90 FPS ultra-realistic immersive game experience (all of which costs tens of dollars per player to implement) will turn them into profit-bringing customers.
While he certainly has a point that Apple benefits by its users' belief that the platform is secure, you also have to wonder whether any such publicity from a security company has a marketing subtext, as well.
How exactly are these two objectives different from each other?
I worked for a hotel ISP provider. Every week we received subpoenas for people's activities on the internet. We identified the room they stayed in. The hotel would get a subpoena and would turn over the sign in information and even security camera pictures of the individuals. Usually they paid with credit cards and they were known, but even paying cash they had a picture of the individual. Home ISPs are the same, they know where you live
Good luck subpoenaing coffee shops and asking them who could have accessed their wifi on Tuesday at 10:00-11:30.
With under $1000 in off the shelf equipment I can watch what my neighbor downloads.
Even with $10 billion in NSA top secret equipment it's very difficult to figure out what someone using Tor is downloading.
Frankly if this bothers you -- what weird sick stuff are you into? Stop it.
Stuff which is legal and which most intelligent people agree I should have a right to do but which could get me socially ostracized if everything I do was public. That's the main reason we have a right to privacy in general.
For one thing I wouldn't apply that legal test to punative penalties, only actual demonstrated damage.
Besides that copyright law needs to be fixed anyway.
You wouldn't apply that legal test to punitive penalties. Copyright law needs to be fixed.
In a perfect world, it would work. However, as demonstrated by the aforementioned abuse of copyright law, laws with good intent (the $80,000 fines were originally supposed to apply to publishers, not individuals) are often twisted and abused by those with an agenda. If a law allowing white-collar crimes above $6.9 million to receive the death penalty is passed, copyright law will stay unfixed and the bill will allow punitive and statutory damages to form part of the $6.9 million since most people don't even know the difference between actual, statutory and punitive damages. In the real world, anything that can be abused will be abused.
So if Jammie Thomas had pirated 87 songs instead of 24 she would have faced the death penalty? If you support the death penalty at all, then adding large scale white collar crime to the death penalty list is good in theory, but in practice it will get massively abused.
Poverty will be eradicated
no, it will change because the definition of wealth will change.
Poverty is not about being wealthy. As Wikipedia puts it, "poverty means being unable to afford basic human needs". If the basic human needs are provided for everyone, regardless of the social structure that emerges afterward there will by definition be no poverty.
Why do you assume they won't be beholden to a landlord?
Because land outside of cities is very cheap, and will get even cheaper if the demand to use it for food production disappears. Since the main point of living in cities is not having to drive 3 hours to work, and work will no longer be a part of many people's lives. For those who still want to work, the only kind of work left will largely be the kind you can do with a laptop transferring the fruits of your labor over the internet.
Also, why shouldn't the concept of land ownership disappear entirely? Right now, its only legitimate purposes are privacy and managing agriculture and resource gathering rights. The second purpose will disappear, and the first one can be satisfied with dedicated laws that won't allow someone to gather up a whole bunch of land and rent it out at high prices.
The side of the mercury touching the bowl will be just as imperfect as the bowl. It's the inside. The centrifugal force will push most of the mercury to the sides, and the resulting shape will look like a bowl with a precise curve going from the center to the edges.