You forget that there are positive effects from people being allowed to drive too, not just for them personally, but also for society as a whole. Prohibiting something just because it causes accidents make no sense -- you have to compare the "cost" (in every sense, not just monetary) of allowing the accidents with the "cost" associated with prohibiting the action.
Your "raising the speed limit" is more groundless dreaming. Here's a hint: there are countries where the highways have absolutely no speed-limit whatsoever. I'm living in one of them. (Germany) I can tell you, as can any simple statistic, that this does *not* lead to significantly better driver, nor to less accidents.
I'm guessing you're like 25 max. It's natural then to dream of a world where all the idiots (the OTHERS) are removed from the road whereas you, with your uberskills are allowed to cruise at 200 while sipping a beer.
The real world ain't likely to work like you imagine it though. Get over it.
Freedom of speech, by necessity, includes freedom after speech. In the real world, that usually requires anonymity.
No it doesn't. Not "usually" in any case. That's a pretty strange claim. You are free to say what you want, even if what you say may have consequences. (what is the point of speech without consequences anyway?). It's a relative term anyway, we never did have anything even aproaching total (as in no restrictions, no consequences) freedom of speech. Nor do I think that would be a good idea.
I *do* think that pretty much any utterance that is not a direct threat should be free of punishment from the state. But removing consequences is not something I wish for.
If you say: "I would like to order 3 gadgets shipped to adress so-and-so" you pretty darn well better be prepared to expect that this has consequences. If you later claim it was a joke or something, you should still accept carrying my loss, if nothing more than the wasted postage.
If you say somethin I consider terminally stupid, you should be prepared to be less respected by me. Perhaps even to the point where I'd have no further interest in dealing with you at all. That's life.
Infact, the only way I could react to something you say, with the saying still having no consequence for you would be to act as if I never heard you in the first place. If that's the only reaction you want from me, then why bother telling me anything in the first place ?
So, what is your solution then ? Prevent most people from driving ? Allow cellphone-use, but only if you know the area and it's not rush-hour ? A much harder practice-test prior to being given the license ? (would have the same effect as the first)
It's a tradeoff. We forbid some things even though we're perfectly aware that there's individuals, perhaps even the majority, who can handle it. Should I be allowed to drive while intoxicated on the condition that I pass my driving-test while under the same intoxication ? I'm pretty convinced I'd manage fine to drink say 2 liters of beer and pass the current driving-test, I'm *not* convinced that mean I (and others) should be allowed to do so.
Perfectly correct. People too often don't see that people can benefit from technology even when they don't use it as we do. I know a teacher in a small village in Nepal (don't ask, long story). For them it was a *large* benefit when the village got its first handy. Sure, you had to walk for half an hour to get to the nearest point where it worked, and sure it could only be recharged with a small solar-panel that cost like literally a weeks pay.
But guess what: Knowing what their products sold for in the nearest city allowed the entire village to make more intelligent choises about what to bring along to market-day, and what price to accept from travelling sellers and/or buyers.
In his own words, the handy is more worth to the village than ten healthy hard-working men would be.
No, they don't use it like scandinavian 13-year-old-girls use it (i.e. to send thousands of pointless SMS a month and listen to "ringtones" at $2.99), nor does it have a camera, triband, or look very sexy. Doesn't mean it's useless.
"literacy" is not a on/off term, like many people sometimes use it. The point of literacy is being able to take part (both as consumer and as producer) in the written world. A 6 year old that knows all the letters and can read a normal sentence with simple words in a minute is "literate" in the sense that he knows, in principle, what reading is, and how to do it.
He is however, still closed out from 95%+ of the written world. He is *functionally* illeterate on many (most) fields. As are most of us in *some* fields. Many 30 year olds are not, in practice, able to say read a n average EULA and explain in their own terms what it means, or answer simple questions of the type: "Does this EULA allow you to [x] ?" not even when it really is rather obvious and does not require having studied law to say so.
Similarily, it requires a certain knowledge to be able to take part in the computerworld. Taking part in different activities on different levels require different knowledge, and different amounts of knowledge. Not having that knowledge means there are things you can't do.
Now, that's not nessecarily always so bad. If those things you can't do are things that don't matter much to you, it's not much of a handicap. The problem only starts when there's things you'd have large benefits of being able to do, yet you are unable to do them.
My grandmother cannot submit a sensible bug-report for kicker (indeed even though she uses it every week she has no idea that kicker exists, nor what it is). That's not a problem, it doesn't matter to her. She is also unable to say pay her bills online. That *migth* be a problem, perhaps one day she'll care enough to want to learn how to. She *is* however able to read and send email, look at and save pictures of her grandchildren. This *does* matter to her, it was a real handicap for her up to the christmas 3 years ago when she finally got around to learning it.
I don't see what's so wrong about using computer-literacy in this sense.
It's not that much of a surprise that a partner/parent/whatever are considering buying you a present for christmas anyway. If you're actually in regular touch with someone it's mostly not that hard to guess what they would like, even when it comes to games.
Sure, occasionally you'll miss out, happens with books, movies, cds or similar (also popular gifts) too, but it's not that big a deal, furthermore usually wrong games can be swapped-in, assuming they're unopened, or failing that at the least partially recovered on Ebay.
It's not hard to me to guess (allthough I've never specifically asked) that my wife would like Sly 3, or Shadowhearts Covenant, or any Jak & Daxter game she doesn't already own for Christmas. For *new* series, stuff I ain't seen her play, its triciker, still, a general knowledge of what *type* of games and what type of setting she likes lets me make good guesses.
A not-too-complicated RPG with swords in it, say StarOcean would probably work well. A star-wars game is rigth out.
If you don't know enough about games or the person you're buying for to know what a "RPG" is, or if the game you're buying is set in the 1700s or the 3000, then I don't think it's such a good idea to buy it.
It's nothing specific about games btw, I also wouldn't buy a book, a cd, a movie or a piece of clothing without having some more specific idea what the person wants. It's not as if the 13 year old hoping for Harry Potter will be all that satisfied with Kafka. (probably not anyway)
I admit that the comment about americans and security was a little inflamatory. I don't mean that when the balance is convenience/security versus privacy one should and must *always* go for privacy. As you point out, nobody (or as close to nobody as makes no difference) does that.
It is however worth a consideration. Even if the police claims that installing 3781 cameras in the inner city will reduce visible crime by 40%, and even if this is true, it's not (to me) obvious that this is worthwhile.
Even if it so happens that installing a GPS-tracker on your teenager will be a benefit in a few situations (most of which should be exceedingly rare, assuming you've raised your kid sensibly in the first place) it's not obvious to me that it's worthwhile. Even less so is it obvious to me that lying to your child, abusing their trust, spying on them and then lying again ("someone saw you at the rave") is even close to acceptable.
It may be "your" child, but it's not "yours" in the sense that a car, a house or even a dog is yours. A child is a separate individual, with its own separate rigths and interests. It's not obvious you should be allowed to trample all over those, even if you do so "for the security of the child".
Then you have already lost. This would blow up sky high for a gazillion reasons, for example:
What proportion of parents know *more* about mobile phones than their teenage kids ?
What are the odds that a kid will never want to look online for features in his/her phone ? Never visit nokia.com or whatever, that it'll stay unknown in the teenager-community if parents start doing this ?
Offcourse it is only a considerable cause of action in the first place for parents that think lying to and spying on their kids is acceptable.
Pulling up the "security" card was predictable. Americans always do. For some reason I can't manage to reconcile with your history you run like scared little chickens, prepared to give up *any* of the ideals that you are, at the same time, so proud of, over any little promised convenience or "security". I never did get that part of the American psyche.
Yeah I know what they're asking. I just think the answer is: There's no solution to this puzzle. I even consider it pretty likely that serious mathemathicians know this, and only somehow that knowledge failed to influence this article.
As to the point of Slashdot, that's a good question:-))
I fail to see the third alternative: Either the kid bends over and takes this invasion, or it figths back and refuses to accept it. What's the third alternative then ? The one that happens in the comercials ?
It likely won't, because there's another competition: that from the literally millions of illegal downloads available. If it costs more than people want to pay, they'll simply go get it for free instead. End of story.
And the strange thing is: there actually exists people who think stuff like this will actually help. It's bullshit.
If you do this to a kid, one of two things will happen:
The kid accepts it (perhaps grudgingly) and bows down to an unreasonable invasion of privacy. You've now got a kid less prepared to stand up for its rigths. Unless you think the same kid will later grow up able to figth back when government wants to invade the same rigths with pretty much the same reasoning ("safety")
Or the kid will outfox you. He'll give the handy to a friend who's attending school while himself/herself going to the beach. Or he'll announce he's going to do homework with a pal, then leave the phone-device there and head somewhere else. Or he'll find and use any of the other millions of ways of tricking a device like this. You've now established yourself as an enemy of the kid, someone who must be lied to, someone who doesn't rtust the kid and which the kid should therefore in return not trust.
I actually consider alternative 2 the best case scenario. But for the life of me I can't figure out why any parent (and I am one) should want either of these scenarios to come trough.
Like mostly in such cases, the real problem is in the problem-definition. I was fully aware that it was unlikely that mathemathicians had spent significant time on a problem without discovering something as obvious as this. Still -- the problem as stated has this problem. I can't help it that what they're actually asking is not what they mean to ask.
The problem, as restated by you (the wheel must consist of segments, and the road of identical segments) also inituitively seems unsolvable to me. Essentially, they're asking for a shape that when arranged along a straigth line (the road) has the same shape as when arranged around a circle (the wheel), that doesn't sound possible.
But equally clear, the challenge as stated, is unsolvable. Any reasonable definition of "wheel" requires it to be able to turn multiple rounds, in effect a wheel must be a closed loop.
If the road is the same shape, then the road must also be a closed loop.
There's no way a vehicle can move straigth along a road that is a closed loop. At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.
I think you meant to say that the atmospheric drag depends on surface characteristics and shape, so a feather and a ball bearing drop at different speeds, but I don't see how two shoeboxes with the same profile should drop at different speeds on account of the internal mass!
But it is so. Fairly obviously. For the same reason a baloon filled with water falls quicker than a equal-sized baloon filled with air.
What matters is force/mass. So double both force and mass, and you get the same acceleration.
Doubling the internal mass of a shoebox *does* double the force pulling it towards earth, but here's the thing: it doesn't double the aerodynamic braking from the air.
So, the 0.1 kg box migth have (at say 5m/s) 1N accelerating force from gravity, but 0.5N braking force from the air. result: 0.5N/0.1kg = 5m/s**2 acceleration.
The 1kg box has (at the same speed) 10N accelerating force from gravity and the same 0.5N braking force from the air. result: 9.5N/1.0kg = 9.5m/s**2 acceleration.
I fail to see the relevance. Sure, USA is a country (one consisting of lots of states), the EU has not (yet anyway) integrated where we call them "a country", but the fact that we don't label the EU a "country" has no real influence on the size of the economy. Goods, labour and money flow just about as freely in the EU as they do in the USA.
The "we're so big" argument is crap. It's tantamount to claiming if two smaller countries fuse into a bigger one, then both of them would need more petrol. There's no logical reason why this would be true, assuming the amount of trade between the two countries stay constant.
You're still very very VERY close to saying nothing. Certainly you say nothing of consequence. Let's analyze:
"Web transforms" first, everything changes, including the web, so this is hardly groundbreaking. X transforms is pretty much true for any X, so even though you seem to think otherwise you actually say nothing specifically about the web. It's not a new insigth that the world is in constant change.
"contentful" must be a word you invented on the spot, as marketing loves to do. Can't possibly mean anything else than "full of content". But then it's a circular logic: Content is defined as "that which is contained", in other words, the contents of the web is that which is contained in the web.
So, in essence, you're saying: "The web is full of that which is contained in the web" which doesn't say anything. A garbage truck is also full of that which is contained in a garbage truck.
Get me rigth. I can see trough your cloudscreen. I see what you're *trying* to say. It's only, you seem so impressed with your own jargon that you fail to see that it *obscures* what you're trying to say rather than illuminate it.
This is frequently the case in marketing, so often that I've come to the conclusion it must be intentional, particularily when, as in this case, the real "message" is boring, obvious or old, in other cases the real message is just a lie, so hiding it is seen as an advantage.
Near as I can say you're saying: "The web is changing. There are more and more services offered over the web. Modern web-applications do more better than the old ones. This trend may continue in the future."
None of that is insigthful or interesting. It was all equally true 5 years ago, and it was all obvious to anyone even back then.
If speeding causes X amount of harm, but being prevented from speeding causes Y of harm, then being prevented is still a net benefit assuming X is larger than X.
You always get this: If someone says it migth be a good thing to have normal private cars factory-set to a max-speed of oh say 90mph, then someone will come along and claim this would be "dangerous" because there exists some exceedingly unlikely hypothetical situation in which this would cause harm.
Problem is, the same people then think they've proven the suggestion bad, when infact they've done nothing of the sort.
It's not enough to show that "idea X" causes some harm to prove X bad. You also need to show that this harm is larger than the benefits of "idea X". Seatbelts kill a few people every year. However they rescue dozens for every single one killed, so on the overall you're likely better off with them than without them. Same goes for airbags, ABS-brakes, ESP, and basically *any* security-technology.
BTW, I'm not saying this is a good idea. All I'm saying is that this particular argument against ("it'll cause harm") ain't very convincing by itself.
First, you ignore the very real issue of defining "porn". Secondly the issue of who should hand out the "big fine" for having something considered porn under some non-.xxx domain (the US government ? Like the rest of the world would stand for that...)
To some, Basic Instinct is porn. It does show a blurry shot, about 0.02 seconds long of a pussy, and it does have graphical, violent sex in it (though you don't see actual penetrations) to others it's not.
To most of the "religious zealots" a lot of stuff the rest of us would consider education migth be porn.
If a site uses illustrations to demonstrate what for example "the missionary position" is, is it porn ? Wikipedia does, should they be given a "big fine" for existing anywhere outside of.xxx ?
I could literally go on endlessly with such examples, there's no fixed line. Attempting to globally enforce a line of what is to be considered "porn" is terminally stupid.
If a certain entertainment-option (such as a game) is not worth the price asked to you, then don't buy it. Selling games at $60 works only when people buy games at $60, and evidently, quite a few do.
Most games fal in price rapidly, so it's not like you can't play the very same game for half the price, if you're willing to wait a few months. If not, and you absolutely *must* have the game at release-day, even at $60, then obviously the price was not too high, but instead correct. It's called a free marketm, get used to it.
Everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit.
I agree 100% with that. Examples of something you owe in return is figthing to preserve those protections, which is exactly what I'm doing. Our society (both) have protections against imprisonment without fair trial. I want to keep those protections. You want to give them up. "A society" is btw not synonymous with "a government".
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
This says nothing about the matter at hand. It says force can't be used against someone for their own good. This would mean forcefully preventing a suicide, or preventing a person from otherwise harming themselves is wrong. I agree mostly, but that's not the issue here. My friend with the bike wasn't held for his own good, nor will the person who refuse to give up his password be held for his own good.
Note that JSM does nto say there is NEVER a case where power can be rightfully excersized over another aagainst his will. There are times when, for the protection of others, it is reasonable to do so - as in the example I gave.
That such times, and such reasons exist are not disputed. I agree 100%. I just don't think that "riding an expensive bike and vietnamese" or "refusing to give up his password" are examples of situations where force should be used against a person for the protection of others. (it's not clear either of the behaviours harm anyone, indeed both are perfectly legal)
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Again a quote I agree with. And one that supports my view rather than yours.
Here it says that a man who puts safety above all others will never be free. Sometimes being free is so important that one should and must sacrifice personal safety in order to protect freedom. That may mean going to war and risking death to defend freedom, or it migth mean letting the guy with the bike and the one with the password run free, and risk letting a criminal off the hook. Both can be worthwhile sacrifices in the defence of freedom.
You, on the other hand think one should sacrifice freedom on the altar of police-efficiency.
No, for you reading comprehension sklls and for prententing that an occasional act of detention my authorities with a great deal of oversight is equal to Eastern Germany at the height of communism!
First, my "sklls" are doing fine, thank you very much. Second, I happen to know Eastern Germany well, I've actually even lived there for 4 years, it's possible you should choose your examples more wisely.
Third, and most important: Two different states do not need to be identical to share the same label. I'm not saying the DDR and a country in which any police-officer can hold you at will for a month are *identical*, however I *am* saying that I would consider both pretty good examples of a police state.
A is B and C is B does not imply A is identical to C. This is pretty rudimentary logic really. Madonna is a pop-star and Morten Harket is a pop-star does not, as you seem to believe, imply that Madonna is identical to Morten Harket. (only that they share some named trait, in this example both being pop-stars)
Your reading comprehension could also need work. First, being in Norway and being a Norwegian are two different things. Secondly being in Norway does not nessecarily imply *living* in Norway. Third, I don't think I ever wrote that I "am" in Norway, I *did* write what the current *laws* on detention in Norway are. Last, but most important: I really don't see why a person living in a heterogenous environment should respect privacy, the rigth to be presumed innocent and the rigth to be imprisoned only after proper conviction as less important, I certainly don't.
Your example is braindead. A death-threat is, in itself, punishable in most countries. There's a rather large difference between *convicting* someone for a *crime* on the one hand and *imprisoning* someone *without* conviction and *without* that person having comitted any crime on the other hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Your "raising the speed limit" is more groundless dreaming. Here's a hint: there are countries where the highways have absolutely no speed-limit whatsoever. I'm living in one of them. (Germany) I can tell you, as can any simple statistic, that this does *not* lead to significantly better driver, nor to less accidents.
I'm guessing you're like 25 max. It's natural then to dream of a world where all the idiots (the OTHERS) are removed from the road whereas you, with your uberskills are allowed to cruise at 200 while sipping a beer.
The real world ain't likely to work like you imagine it though. Get over it.
No it doesn't. Not "usually" in any case. That's a pretty strange claim. You are free to say what you want, even if what you say may have consequences. (what is the point of speech without consequences anyway?). It's a relative term anyway, we never did have anything even aproaching total (as in no restrictions, no consequences) freedom of speech. Nor do I think that would be a good idea.
I *do* think that pretty much any utterance that is not a direct threat should be free of punishment from the state. But removing consequences is not something I wish for.
If you say: "I would like to order 3 gadgets shipped to adress so-and-so" you pretty darn well better be prepared to expect that this has consequences. If you later claim it was a joke or something, you should still accept carrying my loss, if nothing more than the wasted postage.
If you say somethin I consider terminally stupid, you should be prepared to be less respected by me. Perhaps even to the point where I'd have no further interest in dealing with you at all. That's life.
Infact, the only way I could react to something you say, with the saying still having no consequence for you would be to act as if I never heard you in the first place. If that's the only reaction you want from me, then why bother telling me anything in the first place ?
It's a tradeoff. We forbid some things even though we're perfectly aware that there's individuals, perhaps even the majority, who can handle it. Should I be allowed to drive while intoxicated on the condition that I pass my driving-test while under the same intoxication ? I'm pretty convinced I'd manage fine to drink say 2 liters of beer and pass the current driving-test, I'm *not* convinced that mean I (and others) should be allowed to do so.
But guess what: Knowing what their products sold for in the nearest city allowed the entire village to make more intelligent choises about what to bring along to market-day, and what price to accept from travelling sellers and/or buyers.
In his own words, the handy is more worth to the village than ten healthy hard-working men would be.
No, they don't use it like scandinavian 13-year-old-girls use it (i.e. to send thousands of pointless SMS a month and listen to "ringtones" at $2.99), nor does it have a camera, triband, or look very sexy. Doesn't mean it's useless.
He is however, still closed out from 95%+ of the written world. He is *functionally* illeterate on many (most) fields. As are most of us in *some* fields. Many 30 year olds are not, in practice, able to say read a n average EULA and explain in their own terms what it means, or answer simple questions of the type: "Does this EULA allow you to [x] ?" not even when it really is rather obvious and does not require having studied law to say so.
Similarily, it requires a certain knowledge to be able to take part in the computerworld. Taking part in different activities on different levels require different knowledge, and different amounts of knowledge. Not having that knowledge means there are things you can't do.
Now, that's not nessecarily always so bad. If those things you can't do are things that don't matter much to you, it's not much of a handicap. The problem only starts when there's things you'd have large benefits of being able to do, yet you are unable to do them.
My grandmother cannot submit a sensible bug-report for kicker (indeed even though she uses it every week she has no idea that kicker exists, nor what it is). That's not a problem, it doesn't matter to her. She is also unable to say pay her bills online. That *migth* be a problem, perhaps one day she'll care enough to want to learn how to. She *is* however able to read and send email, look at and save pictures of her grandchildren. This *does* matter to her, it was a real handicap for her up to the christmas 3 years ago when she finally got around to learning it.
I don't see what's so wrong about using computer-literacy in this sense.
Sure, occasionally you'll miss out, happens with books, movies, cds or similar (also popular gifts) too, but it's not that big a deal, furthermore usually wrong games can be swapped-in, assuming they're unopened, or failing that at the least partially recovered on Ebay.
It's not hard to me to guess (allthough I've never specifically asked) that my wife would like Sly 3, or Shadowhearts Covenant, or any Jak & Daxter game she doesn't already own for Christmas. For *new* series, stuff I ain't seen her play, its triciker, still, a general knowledge of what *type* of games and what type of setting she likes lets me make good guesses.
A not-too-complicated RPG with swords in it, say StarOcean would probably work well. A star-wars game is rigth out.
If you don't know enough about games or the person you're buying for to know what a "RPG" is, or if the game you're buying is set in the 1700s or the 3000, then I don't think it's such a good idea to buy it.
It's nothing specific about games btw, I also wouldn't buy a book, a cd, a movie or a piece of clothing without having some more specific idea what the person wants. It's not as if the 13 year old hoping for Harry Potter will be all that satisfied with Kafka. (probably not anyway)
It is however worth a consideration. Even if the police claims that installing 3781 cameras in the inner city will reduce visible crime by 40%, and even if this is true, it's not (to me) obvious that this is worthwhile.
Even if it so happens that installing a GPS-tracker on your teenager will be a benefit in a few situations (most of which should be exceedingly rare, assuming you've raised your kid sensibly in the first place) it's not obvious to me that it's worthwhile. Even less so is it obvious to me that lying to your child, abusing their trust, spying on them and then lying again ("someone saw you at the rave") is even close to acceptable.
It may be "your" child, but it's not "yours" in the sense that a car, a house or even a dog is yours. A child is a separate individual, with its own separate rigths and interests. It's not obvious you should be allowed to trample all over those, even if you do so "for the security of the child".
Sure. It's not that hard either. Get a shell account somewhere outside the ISPs filters, use SSH and portforwarding and off you go.
As to the point of Slashdot, that's a good question :-))
I fail to see the third alternative: Either the kid bends over and takes this invasion, or it figths back and refuses to accept it. What's the third alternative then ? The one that happens in the comercials ?
It likely won't, because there's another competition: that from the literally millions of illegal downloads available. If it costs more than people want to pay, they'll simply go get it for free instead. End of story.
If you do this to a kid, one of two things will happen:
I actually consider alternative 2 the best case scenario. But for the life of me I can't figure out why any parent (and I am one) should want either of these scenarios to come trough.
Not really. A infinite circle is still only *locally* straigth, not globally straigth.
The problem, as restated by you (the wheel must consist of segments, and the road of identical segments) also inituitively seems unsolvable to me. Essentially, they're asking for a shape that when arranged along a straigth line (the road) has the same shape as when arranged around a circle (the wheel), that doesn't sound possible.
If the road is the same shape, then the road must also be a closed loop.
There's no way a vehicle can move straigth along a road that is a closed loop. At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.
But it is so. Fairly obviously. For the same reason a baloon filled with water falls quicker than a equal-sized baloon filled with air.
What matters is force/mass. So double both force and mass, and you get the same acceleration.
Doubling the internal mass of a shoebox *does* double the force pulling it towards earth, but here's the thing: it doesn't double the aerodynamic braking from the air. So, the 0.1 kg box migth have (at say 5m/s) 1N accelerating force from gravity, but 0.5N braking force from the air. result: 0.5N/0.1kg = 5m/s**2 acceleration.
The 1kg box has (at the same speed) 10N accelerating force from gravity and the same 0.5N braking force from the air. result: 9.5N/1.0kg = 9.5m/s**2 acceleration.
I fail to see the relevance. Sure, USA is a country (one consisting of lots of states), the EU has not (yet anyway) integrated where we call them "a country", but the fact that we don't label the EU a "country" has no real influence on the size of the economy. Goods, labour and money flow just about as freely in the EU as they do in the USA.
The "we're so big" argument is crap. It's tantamount to claiming if two smaller countries fuse into a bigger one, then both of them would need more petrol. There's no logical reason why this would be true, assuming the amount of trade between the two countries stay constant.
"Web transforms" first, everything changes, including the web, so this is hardly groundbreaking. X transforms is pretty much true for any X, so even though you seem to think otherwise you actually say nothing specifically about the web. It's not a new insigth that the world is in constant change.
"contentful" must be a word you invented on the spot, as marketing loves to do. Can't possibly mean anything else than "full of content". But then it's a circular logic: Content is defined as "that which is contained", in other words, the contents of the web is that which is contained in the web.
So, in essence, you're saying: "The web is full of that which is contained in the web" which doesn't say anything. A garbage truck is also full of that which is contained in a garbage truck.
Get me rigth. I can see trough your cloudscreen. I see what you're *trying* to say. It's only, you seem so impressed with your own jargon that you fail to see that it *obscures* what you're trying to say rather than illuminate it.
This is frequently the case in marketing, so often that I've come to the conclusion it must be intentional, particularily when, as in this case, the real "message" is boring, obvious or old, in other cases the real message is just a lie, so hiding it is seen as an advantage.
Near as I can say you're saying: "The web is changing. There are more and more services offered over the web. Modern web-applications do more better than the old ones. This trend may continue in the future."
None of that is insigthful or interesting. It was all equally true 5 years ago, and it was all obvious to anyone even back then.
Here's a hint: throwing around buzzwords doesn't indicate you actually said anything.
You always get this: If someone says it migth be a good thing to have normal private cars factory-set to a max-speed of oh say 90mph, then someone will come along and claim this would be "dangerous" because there exists some exceedingly unlikely hypothetical situation in which this would cause harm.
Problem is, the same people then think they've proven the suggestion bad, when infact they've done nothing of the sort.
It's not enough to show that "idea X" causes some harm to prove X bad. You also need to show that this harm is larger than the benefits of "idea X". Seatbelts kill a few people every year. However they rescue dozens for every single one killed, so on the overall you're likely better off with them than without them. Same goes for airbags, ABS-brakes, ESP, and basically *any* security-technology.
BTW, I'm not saying this is a good idea. All I'm saying is that this particular argument against ("it'll cause harm") ain't very convincing by itself.
First, you ignore the very real issue of defining "porn". Secondly the issue of who should hand out the "big fine" for having something considered porn under some non-.xxx domain (the US government ? Like the rest of the world would stand for that...)
To some, Basic Instinct is porn. It does show a blurry shot, about 0.02 seconds long of a pussy, and it does have graphical, violent sex in it (though you don't see actual penetrations) to others it's not.
To most of the "religious zealots" a lot of stuff the rest of us would consider education migth be porn.
If a site uses illustrations to demonstrate what for example "the missionary position" is, is it porn ? Wikipedia does, should they be given a "big fine" for existing anywhere outside of .xxx ?
I could literally go on endlessly with such examples, there's no fixed line. Attempting to globally enforce a line of what is to be considered "porn" is terminally stupid.
If a certain entertainment-option (such as a game) is not worth the price asked to you, then don't buy it. Selling games at $60 works only when people buy games at $60, and evidently, quite a few do.
Most games fal in price rapidly, so it's not like you can't play the very same game for half the price, if you're willing to wait a few months. If not, and you absolutely *must* have the game at release-day, even at $60, then obviously the price was not too high, but instead correct. It's called a free marketm, get used to it.
I agree 100% with that. Examples of something you owe in return is figthing to preserve those protections, which is exactly what I'm doing. Our society (both) have protections against imprisonment without fair trial. I want to keep those protections. You want to give them up. "A society" is btw not synonymous with "a government". The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
This says nothing about the matter at hand. It says force can't be used against someone for their own good. This would mean forcefully preventing a suicide, or preventing a person from otherwise harming themselves is wrong. I agree mostly, but that's not the issue here. My friend with the bike wasn't held for his own good, nor will the person who refuse to give up his password be held for his own good.
Note that JSM does nto say there is NEVER a case where power can be rightfully excersized over another aagainst his will. There are times when, for the protection of others, it is reasonable to do so - as in the example I gave.
That such times, and such reasons exist are not disputed. I agree 100%. I just don't think that "riding an expensive bike and vietnamese" or "refusing to give up his password" are examples of situations where force should be used against a person for the protection of others. (it's not clear either of the behaviours harm anyone, indeed both are perfectly legal)
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
Again a quote I agree with. And one that supports my view rather than yours.
Here it says that a man who puts safety above all others will never be free. Sometimes being free is so important that one should and must sacrifice personal safety in order to protect freedom. That may mean going to war and risking death to defend freedom, or it migth mean letting the guy with the bike and the one with the password run free, and risk letting a criminal off the hook. Both can be worthwhile sacrifices in the defence of freedom.
You, on the other hand think one should sacrifice freedom on the altar of police-efficiency.
First, my "sklls" are doing fine, thank you very much. Second, I happen to know Eastern Germany well, I've actually even lived there for 4 years, it's possible you should choose your examples more wisely.
Third, and most important: Two different states do not need to be identical to share the same label. I'm not saying the DDR and a country in which any police-officer can hold you at will for a month are *identical*, however I *am* saying that I would consider both pretty good examples of a police state.
A is B and C is B does not imply A is identical to C. This is pretty rudimentary logic really. Madonna is a pop-star and Morten Harket is a pop-star does not, as you seem to believe, imply that Madonna is identical to Morten Harket. (only that they share some named trait, in this example both being pop-stars)
Your reading comprehension could also need work. First, being in Norway and being a Norwegian are two different things. Secondly being in Norway does not nessecarily imply *living* in Norway. Third, I don't think I ever wrote that I "am" in Norway, I *did* write what the current *laws* on detention in Norway are. Last, but most important: I really don't see why a person living in a heterogenous environment should respect privacy, the rigth to be presumed innocent and the rigth to be imprisoned only after proper conviction as less important, I certainly don't.
Your example is braindead. A death-threat is, in itself, punishable in most countries. There's a rather large difference between *convicting* someone for a *crime* on the one hand and *imprisoning* someone *without* conviction and *without* that person having comitted any crime on the other hand.