The deadline is for broadcasts to be digital, not HD. HD is just a subset of digital broadcasts, there are also Standard Definition digital broadcasts.
Until I got my ATI HD Wonder Card and started seeing channels 44-1, 44-2, 44-3 and 44-4 all in SD, but still digital, I had thought that the digital deadline meant HD for all channels. But what it really means is that each channel can either have 4 SD broadcasts at the same time or 1 full 1080i broadcasts. Or 1 720p broadcast and 1 SD broadcast at the same time. It is all digital just at different resolutions. Seems that some smaller stations might choose the SD digital content because it will probably be cheaper and they can have more effective channels to broadcast, while the big players will probably go for HD.
What is it that you were trying to do? Did you make the fatal mistake of asking permission to do something before doing it? Never do that. Never. Just do it and if they question it, then that is when you fight. The first rule of citizenship is to never ask permission from your government, unless you need something from them or unless there is no ambiguity about what you want to do and what permit you need to do it and that there is no way they can turn you down.
As it is, there is no way I'm buying any of these new discs because I have a HDTV without that HDCP junk in it, and I don't want my product arbitrarily crippled by The Man.
Well, we should expect the same level of labeling as was forced on music cds when they had copy prevention technology built in which crippled playback on some cd players making the CDs useless. HDCP makes a disc less valuable to the consumer, so they should be labeled accordingly.
I get that. But what has a higher income to the state? Collecting 100% of the funds, minus payouts, OR collecting a small tax on a private gambling site?
Small tax? what country you live in? People are taxed on the winnings, the business would be taxed on any profit, often not very big, but then when the revenue money is payed out as salaries to online casino employees the State and Federal government would get their share, along with property and sales taxes that the employees would be paying. Really when it comes down to it, I doubt their would be a huge reduction in tax revenues if gambling was legal and it took away revenue from the lotteries and brick and mortar casinos, but it might be harder to tell the revenue was from gambling as there would be more indirect tax revenues.
Sure gambling isn't exactly productive for a society, but there are worse things that are allowed to go on.
Funny that Sony decides not to shoot itself in the foot and it gets a headline.
It is amazing that any company ever considered downgrading the signal for non HDCP enabled devices. Talk about arbitrarily limiting your market just when you are trying to grow it.
Using the headtracking on my Z800 to full effect has been a challenge, since I have been largely stuck using the keyboard for FPS gaming. But this thing could really give me some extra freedom of movement. Just need a long enough USB cable and I should be able to manage the cables well enough to do a few 360 degree turns without getting too tangled.
I tried a wireless programmable controller, but the batteries didn't last very long and their seemed to be some latency. This thing should provide all the keyboard commands you could ever need.
The state run lottery is supposed to fund education. Where does the profits from privare gambling go? I am not saying I'm for state run lottery, just that the proceeds go to something most people would like to see funded better.
Well, if it was legal in the US then a percentage of the profits would be collected as income taxes, rather than being forced overseas, and could be used for government purposes such as education or blowing up things or whatever floats your boat.
Casinos generate a lot of taxes for State and Federal governments, this legislation strikes me as mis guided morality crossed with protectionism of the casinos and State lotteries.
I would like to see the breakdown of reasons for not being connected. And how many of those folks that answered the phone didn't think their household was "online" but their kids were dialing into aol when they got home from school. And how many of those people were just using the Internet from their library or school for financial reasons. Or like the guy who didn't check email himself, but had his secretary print out the emails and bring them to him. He was still making use of the Internet at work, just not typing at a keyboard.
And ultimately who the heck cares besides the marketeers for the ISPs? If some people don't want to bother with the Internet, then why is this a problem? Sure Computers could be simpler, but I think if the average computer were more simple (meaning reduced functionality) than it is now, but still as expensive, then a lot fewer people would buy them.
64% of households is a number for the ISPs, for those of us on the web the more interesting numbers would be how many people actually access the web, or email, or some other Internet carried service regardless of the location.
While I'm not one to suggest that he sue for $10,000,000 for "emotional damages" (that's just not right), suing for restoration of his account(s), legal fees to be paid by Blizzard, and a full refund of the amount he has paid to date (to cover the harrassment he has received) is a perfectly acceptable solution. Of course, it's a lot easier to get a lawyer to handle a class action suit for him, so in that case Blizzard would be facing the equivalent of hundreds of these suits at once.
Certainly a return of money spent thus far on the game would be appropriate if Blizzard has violated its contract. Along with some punative damages for the violation if it can be shown Blizzard could not reasonably be assured that a violation of the agreement took place, but I think a court should do its best to seperate disputing parties and making them restore service in this case might be just asking for more trouble. Blizzard should have a right to do business with whomever it wants within applicable discrimination laws, but once it has done business they need to stick to their agreements. Using 3rd party software is inherent to any application that runs on top of any OS, so it really needs to be more specific than that. If it was the running of macros then there should have been something specific to that, otherwise a reasonable person could have concluded that mapping certain sets of commands to the keyboard would have been allowed under the terms of service.
Firefox is only on workstations -- headless servers typically won't have a web browser
"popular" is a measure of how many people would be using it, not how many installations. I think firefox is used directly by more people than linux, unless you count the fact that google uses linux and more people use google than they do firefox. So, yes Linux does win the popularity contest, just the people voting don't know it.
your customers are paying for an internet connection already and you want to charge them extra to actually use it? Why not charge them an extra $20 a month for their online gaming? Or $75 a month if they want to VPN into work? I suspect you didn't work for free troubleshooting your customer's Internet connection problem, nor do your customer's get Internet access for free, so I don't see your problem? You are doing your job. Vonage's customer support may indeed suck, yes I am a customer and know this first hand. But that doesn't mean that they ISPs should be getting away with screwing over their customers for another dime on top of the charges they are already paying. Whether you like it or not, vonage and the myriad other companies and indivuduals providing services on the Internet are what makes an Internet connection worth paying for in the first place. Blocking services or getting in their way will only make ISPs make less money in the long run, not more.
How does this get a +4? This isn't the "news for Luddites, new technology is dumb" website. It is a new card, that has better performance than the old card. It is more expensive, than the old cards (actually some versions are cheaper than the old cards and have better performance). Deal with it. If you don't care, then go read something else. Go buy a console if you can't deal with choice.
Why wouldn't there be fusion at such high temperatures? Aren't we talking about temperatures well in excess of those needed to make nuclear fusion more likely?
They had previously been using just tungsten, assuming some level of purity, but now using "steel" they could be seeing fusion on any of these atoms: Fe, C, Mn, Si, Cr, Ni, V, W, Mo, or Co which can make up different alloys of steel. Maybe if they can accurately measure what they start with and what they end up with, then we can see if there was any fusion going on, and what was fusing with what.
From reading the article, seems they don't think fusion was responsible for the anomoly, but why wouldn't it be a possibility that the high temperature there migth be some fusion?
give me a break. Since when does "Wall Street" want "stability" in a share price? They would all be out of jobs. I agree with Google, forecasts end up being a company's publically stated goals for performance rather than merely a prediction and can drive the company to do stupid things just to meet an arbitrary number. Far too often key purchases are put off until after the end of quarter and companies go to great, sometimes harmful to future business, lengths to collect revenues before the last of the month just to meet "expectations"
I've seen projects delayed by a week or two, just so a publically traded company didn't have to spend money at the end of the quarter so they could meet expectations. I'm with Google on this one. "Wall Street" can just wait for the actual results and act accordingly.
What about something like the MediaMVP for $100 mentioned in Wired yesterday, so you could use your computer as a media center without having to dedicate it. I've never tried it, so I don't know how much bandwidth this would suck up, but a cool concept.
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 1
sorry, i forgot to add bullets and quotes (and I added a bit):
point by point:
"The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin"
no
"Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper."
no
"Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?"
Libertarianism is about lifting the contraints on individuals not corporations. But it is about lifting contraints on corporations that are really just proxies for contraints on individuals.
"Powerful organizations" derive their power from gifts of legal protection made by the state. They don't die as we do and they are only penalized financially for legal transgressions, but real people are often incarcerated for many years for their transgressions unable to participate in the market and interact with their peers. There is nothing inherent in Libertarianism that would allow Corporations free play, in fact some Libertarians might argue against the Corporation alltogether as an unnatural player in the marketplace. And without that legal framework that the government bestows, a corporation literally is nothing.
"Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes."
no disagreement, Libertarianism is based on a government's responsibility to sparingly use threat or force against its citizens. Very simple, everything should derive from that.
"The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties. That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corporations and industries, which I believe must *always* be regulated by small-d democratic fiat."
Aggregation of power is a central problem with Libertarianism *only if* if you consider the Corporation as equivalent to an individual. But I think you have to realize that indivuals too have very limited ability to aggregate power without the backing of the government through our system of property laws. Wealth and ownership have been defined by a system of common laws and have been codified and modified by statutes. Before the legal framework of the "Corporation" and other organizations as such, the aggregation of wealth was truly only possible through Family inheritence which is something that is codified in laws. I am as ardent a Libertarian as I know, and consider both inheritence and the corporation as matters to be carefully regulated to insure that a free society is not threatened by the concentration of power in undemocractic hands. I see this to not be in conflict with Libertarianism.
Seeing as both inheretence and the corporation are inventions of government, I see nothing inconsistent between Libertarianism and the government regulation of either. Really, using my linear thinking the whole concept of the Corporation could be done away with as really it is just a government empowered contrived entity that has been given abilities beyond that of a regular person. As long as the regulation of corporations isn't really just the excessive regulation or taxation of individuals by proxy, Libertarianism is not naturally against it.
But in a very fundamental way, if the government reserves to itself the right to use threat or force itself to compel people, and in a fundamental way restrains itself and others from the threat or use of force (or more correctly, it punishes such actions). Then by what means do people aggregate power and
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 1
point by point:
The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin
no
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
no
Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?
Libertarianism is about lifting the contraints on individuals not corporations. But it is about lifting contraints on corporations that are really just proxies for contraints on individuals.
"Powerful organizations" derive their power from unnatural gifts from the state. They don't die and they are only penalized financially for legal transgressions. There is nothing in Libertarianism that would allow Corporations free play, in fact some Libertarians might argue against the Corporation alltogether as an unnatural player in the marketplace. And without the legal framework that the government bestows, a corporation literally is nothing.
# Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes.
no disagreement, Libertarianism is based on a government's responsibility to sparingly use threat or force against its citizens. Very simple.
# The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties. That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corporations and industries, which I believe must *always* be regulated by small-d democratic fiat.
Aggregation of power is a central problem with Libertarianism *only if* if you consider the Corporation as equivalent to an individual. But I think you have to realize that indivuals have no ability to aggregate power without the backing of the government. Wealth and ownership have been defined by a system of common laws and have been codified and modified by statutes. Before the legal framework of the "Corporation" and other organizations as such, the aggregation of wealth was truly only possible through Family inheritence which is something that is codified in laws. I am as ardent a Libertarian as I know, and consider both inheritence and the corporation as matters to be carefully regulated to insure that a free society is not threatened by the concentration of power in undemocractic hands. Seeing as both inheretence and the corporation are inventions of government, I see nothing inconsistent with their regulation. As long as the regulation of corporations isn't really just the excessive regulation or taxation of individuals by proxy.
Thats good for you. But for the other 98% of the population want a PC that is already up and running with all the apps, drivers, and configuration set. So it's the much larger market that Dell will chase to sell too. The real money is in companies that buy 20,000 identical systems with a huge service contract. Not us computer geeks that tend to build our own anyways.
Speak for yourself. How is this insightful? I work in a real company with many thousands of Dell computers and at least I like to think I have some influence on purchasing decisions from time to time. Or at least I know that those with more influence than I are also Linux supporters. And not being locked into Windows on Dell hardware has been a major plus along with the fact that you can usually assume good hardware compatibility with Linux at least on the more popular models.
And I expect more and more Linux friendliness from Dell. If they are leaning towards ubuntu, as google seems to be, and it is currently leading in downloads distrowatch, then that is as good a choice as any. So, if they just decided on providing consistent support or even just providing consistent and easily accessible information on ubuntu compatibility of their hardware and hardware components and some easily navigated documentation, then that would make me even more likely to recommend Dell over their competitors.
When I buy a budget computer from Dell I feel that I am gambing on the hardware being operable under Linux (and I've lucked out so far).
It isn't luck, it is the fact that Dell makes up a large percentage of the market and therefore Linux programmers are more likely to have Dell hardware to work on I choose Dell and expect Linux to work regardless of their stated support because of their marketshare. So, if Michael is reading... I expect Linux to work and that is part of the reason I buy Dell, whenever my expectations are not met it doesn't matter to me that Dell officially supports linux or not. If Linux doesn't work on Dell hardware I will be dissappointed with the hardware and the company.
The term "well regulated militia" has never really been defined anywhere. Also "security of a free State", what does that mean? It's really up to interpretation.
The term "well regulated militia" is laregely irrelevant to the effective meaning of the second ammendment, because it is not the actionable part of the sentence. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is just the rationale for this part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A government with increasing powers with a professional army could easily render then 2nd amendment null and void. That's the danger I was pointing towards. The 2nd amendment is not explicit in its meaning.
Not legally. The dangers to democracy of a superiorly armed standing military force is precisely why the second ammendment was crafted. It has nothing to do with hunting birds or target practice.
But this is exactly the double meaning of the second ammendment, it is the second ammendment which protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, so THEY can regulate the militia. Otherwise, how do you regulate the militia? If militia is too old sounding a word for you, then how do you regulate an armed group of men, except with another armed group of men with greater number? The majority's capability to use force effectively is the only way to ensure democracy against an armed minority, and the minority's capability to use force effectively is the only way to ensure civil rights and freedoms against a tyrannical armed majority. That is why certain laws, such as the right to keep and bear arms without infringment require a two thirds vote to ammend. It is precisely because it is understood that a large enough minority can thwart the majority on certain issues, that some things are too important for a minority to give up and if you can't get at least 66% of the population in support, then you will not be able to overwhelm the opposition.
Yes, there is a danger in a standing army. But the balance of forces is fundamental to any civilization and should be perfectly understood in the meaning of the second ammendment. Democracy is only as meaningful as its citizens are well armed.
you are absolutely correct, but population growth seems to be taking care of itself without drastic action like China had with its one-child policy. You already see Western countries have made it so expensive to have a kid (either purposefully as china did or just through sheer economic scarcity, I'm not sure) that population seems to have peeked or has actually declined.
That will not be a problem because Bush keeps cutting Veteran's benefits, to the tune of over $14 Billion since he took office.
To be fair, Bush is just the idiot who goes along with the budget by signing it, but he is just one of the many idiots that make proposals to spend like there is no tomorrow. Throw the bums out!
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is not clear. Therefore, the presumption that it protects "the people" is incorrect (and not how the Supreme Court has decided on laws violating the 2nd amendment to the Consitution).
The meaning of the second ammendment is pretty damn clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is inconsequential to the effective meaning, but it means BOTH that people need to bear arms in order to regulate the militia (Otherwise how do you practically regulate a militia if you can't bring the threat and force of arms against them?) AND that people need to be allowed to bear arms in order to constitute a militia. Either way you read it, or as I read it both ways, the that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is crystal clear. And is even more clear in the historical context that the American Revolution started after the Redcoats invaded Concord, Massachusetts in order to seize weapons and Colonial powder.
This isn't like the commerce clause that can be extended in crazy ways and still be within the letter of the Constitution. As for the State issue, there is no "Congress shall make no law" part of the Second ammendment. It clearly applies to the States as much as "cruel and unusual punishments" always has.
The only legal questions for the courts should be what constitutes "Arms" in modern society and "infringement" on the Right to keep and bear them.
As for what is an "Arm", I think it would be in keeping with the meaning of the ammendment to consider that "Arms" means any weapon that can be carried by a person such a sword, knife or firearm. Then the only real legal question is what really constitutes infringement on a "right". Is merely requiring registration an infringement? What about licensing requirements and fees?
The legal questions that have been raised about the second ammendment and the myth that has been created about it being "not clear" are purely political in nature, resulting from historical authoritarian trends in American society, and not the result of some alleged ambiguity by the writers or in their words.
Slashdot Mirror
The deadline is for broadcasts to be digital, not HD. HD is just a subset of digital broadcasts, there are also Standard Definition digital broadcasts.
Until I got my ATI HD Wonder Card and started seeing channels 44-1, 44-2, 44-3 and 44-4 all in SD, but still digital, I had thought that the digital deadline meant HD for all channels. But what it really means is that each channel can either have 4 SD broadcasts at the same time or 1 full 1080i broadcasts. Or 1 720p broadcast and 1 SD broadcast at the same time. It is all digital just at different resolutions. Seems that some smaller stations might choose the SD digital content because it will probably be cheaper and they can have more effective channels to broadcast, while the big players will probably go for HD.
What is it that you were trying to do? Did you make the fatal mistake of asking permission to do something before doing it? Never do that. Never. Just do it and if they question it, then that is when you fight. The first rule of citizenship is to never ask permission from your government, unless you need something from them or unless there is no ambiguity about what you want to do and what permit you need to do it and that there is no way they can turn you down.
As it is, there is no way I'm buying any of these new discs because I have a HDTV without that HDCP junk in it, and I don't want my product arbitrarily crippled by The Man.
Well, we should expect the same level of labeling as was forced on music cds when they had copy prevention technology built in which crippled playback on some cd players making the CDs useless. HDCP makes a disc less valuable to the consumer, so they should be labeled accordingly.
I get that. But what has a higher income to the state? Collecting 100% of the funds, minus payouts, OR collecting a small tax on a private gambling site?
Small tax? what country you live in? People are taxed on the winnings, the business would be taxed on any profit, often not very big, but then when the revenue money is payed out as salaries to online casino employees the State and Federal government would get their share, along with property and sales taxes that the employees would be paying. Really when it comes down to it, I doubt their would be a huge reduction in tax revenues if gambling was legal and it took away revenue from the lotteries and brick and mortar casinos, but it might be harder to tell the revenue was from gambling as there would be more indirect tax revenues.
Sure gambling isn't exactly productive for a society, but there are worse things that are allowed to go on.
Funny that Sony decides not to shoot itself in the foot and it gets a headline.
It is amazing that any company ever considered downgrading the signal for non HDCP enabled devices. Talk about arbitrarily limiting your market just when you are trying to grow it.
So, when will we be able to use a worm hole, or jump across wrinkles in space to actually visit this planet, and see it with our own eyes?
When you get of your lazy ass and figure out a way to do so.
Using the headtracking on my Z800 to full effect has been a challenge, since I have been largely stuck using the keyboard for FPS gaming. But this thing could really give me some extra freedom of movement. Just need a long enough USB cable and I should be able to manage the cables well enough to do a few 360 degree turns without getting too tangled.
I tried a wireless programmable controller, but the batteries didn't last very long and their seemed to be some latency. This thing should provide all the keyboard commands you could ever need.
The state run lottery is supposed to fund education. Where does the profits from privare gambling go? I am not saying I'm for state run lottery, just that the proceeds go to something most people would like to see funded better.
Well, if it was legal in the US then a percentage of the profits would be collected as income taxes, rather than being forced overseas, and could be used for government purposes such as education or blowing up things or whatever floats your boat.
Casinos generate a lot of taxes for State and Federal governments, this legislation strikes me as mis guided morality crossed with protectionism of the casinos and State lotteries.
I would like to see the breakdown of reasons for not being connected. And how many of those folks that answered the phone didn't think their household was "online" but their kids were dialing into aol when they got home from school. And how many of those people were just using the Internet from their library or school for financial reasons. Or like the guy who didn't check email himself, but had his secretary print out the emails and bring them to him. He was still making use of the Internet at work, just not typing at a keyboard.
And ultimately who the heck cares besides the marketeers for the ISPs? If some people don't want to bother with the Internet, then why is this a problem? Sure Computers could be simpler, but I think if the average computer were more simple (meaning reduced functionality) than it is now, but still as expensive, then a lot fewer people would buy them.
64% of households is a number for the ISPs, for those of us on the web the more interesting numbers would be how many people actually access the web, or email, or some other Internet carried service regardless of the location.
While I'm not one to suggest that he sue for $10,000,000 for "emotional damages" (that's just not right), suing for restoration of his account(s), legal fees to be paid by Blizzard, and a full refund of the amount he has paid to date (to cover the harrassment he has received) is a perfectly acceptable solution. Of course, it's a lot easier to get a lawyer to handle a class action suit for him, so in that case Blizzard would be facing the equivalent of hundreds of these suits at once.
Certainly a return of money spent thus far on the game would be appropriate if Blizzard has violated its contract. Along with some punative damages for the violation if it can be shown Blizzard could not reasonably be assured that a violation of the agreement took place, but I think a court should do its best to seperate disputing parties and making them restore service in this case might be just asking for more trouble. Blizzard should have a right to do business with whomever it wants within applicable discrimination laws, but once it has done business they need to stick to their agreements. Using 3rd party software is inherent to any application that runs on top of any OS, so it really needs to be more specific than that. If it was the running of macros then there should have been something specific to that, otherwise a reasonable person could have concluded that mapping certain sets of commands to the keyboard would have been allowed under the terms of service.
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
Cardinal Richelieu
That number also works for guilt by association, since only 6 degrees seperate us all.
Firefox is only on workstations -- headless servers typically won't have a web browser
"popular" is a measure of how many people would be using it, not how many installations. I think firefox is used directly by more people than linux, unless you count the fact that google uses linux and more people use google than they do firefox. So, yes Linux does win the popularity contest, just the people voting don't know it.
your customers are paying for an internet connection already and you want to charge them extra to actually use it? Why not charge them an extra $20 a month for their online gaming? Or $75 a month if they want to VPN into work? I suspect you didn't work for free troubleshooting your customer's Internet connection problem, nor do your customer's get Internet access for free, so I don't see your problem? You are doing your job. Vonage's customer support may indeed suck, yes I am a customer and know this first hand. But that doesn't mean that they ISPs should be getting away with screwing over their customers for another dime on top of the charges they are already paying. Whether you like it or not, vonage and the myriad other companies and indivuduals providing services on the Internet are what makes an Internet connection worth paying for in the first place. Blocking services or getting in their way will only make ISPs make less money in the long run, not more.
How does this get a +4? This isn't the "news for Luddites, new technology is dumb" website. It is a new card, that has better performance than the old card. It is more expensive, than the old cards (actually some versions are cheaper than the old cards and have better performance). Deal with it. If you don't care, then go read something else. Go buy a console if you can't deal with choice.
NO FUSION.
Why wouldn't there be fusion at such high temperatures? Aren't we talking about temperatures well in excess of those needed to make nuclear fusion more likely?
They had previously been using just tungsten, assuming some level of purity, but now using "steel" they could be seeing fusion on any of these atoms: Fe, C, Mn, Si, Cr, Ni, V, W, Mo, or Co which can make up different alloys of steel. Maybe if they can accurately measure what they start with and what they end up with, then we can see if there was any fusion going on, and what was fusing with what.
From reading the article, seems they don't think fusion was responsible for the anomoly, but why wouldn't it be a possibility that the high temperature there migth be some fusion?
give me a break. Since when does "Wall Street" want "stability" in a share price? They would all be out of jobs. I agree with Google, forecasts end up being a company's publically stated goals for performance rather than merely a prediction and can drive the company to do stupid things just to meet an arbitrary number. Far too often key purchases are put off until after the end of quarter and companies go to great, sometimes harmful to future business, lengths to collect revenues before the last of the month just to meet "expectations"
I've seen projects delayed by a week or two, just so a publically traded company didn't have to spend money at the end of the quarter so they could meet expectations. I'm with Google on this one. "Wall Street" can just wait for the actual results and act accordingly.
What about something like the MediaMVP for $100
mentioned in Wired yesterday, so you could use your computer as a media center without having to dedicate it. I've never tried it, so I don't know how much bandwidth this would suck up, but a cool concept.
point by point:
no
no
Libertarianism is about lifting the contraints on individuals not corporations. But it is about lifting contraints on corporations that are really just proxies for contraints on individuals.
"Powerful organizations" derive their power from gifts of legal protection made by the state. They don't die as we do and they are only penalized financially for legal transgressions, but real people are often incarcerated for many years for their transgressions unable to participate in the market and interact with their peers. There is nothing inherent in Libertarianism that would allow Corporations free play, in fact some Libertarians might argue against the Corporation alltogether as an unnatural player in the marketplace. And without that legal framework that the government bestows, a corporation literally is nothing.
no disagreement, Libertarianism is based on a government's responsibility to sparingly use threat or force against its citizens. Very simple, everything should derive from that.
Aggregation of power is a central problem with Libertarianism *only if* if you consider the Corporation as equivalent to an individual. But I think you have to realize that indivuals too have very limited ability to aggregate power without the backing of the government through our system of property laws. Wealth and ownership have been defined by a system of common laws and have been codified and modified by statutes. Before the legal framework of the "Corporation" and other organizations as such, the aggregation of wealth was truly only possible through Family inheritence which is something that is codified in laws. I am as ardent a Libertarian as I know, and consider both inheritence and the corporation as matters to be carefully regulated to insure that a free society is not threatened by the concentration of power in undemocractic hands. I see this to not be in conflict with Libertarianism.
Seeing as both inheretence and the corporation are inventions of government, I see nothing inconsistent between Libertarianism and the government regulation of either. Really, using my linear thinking the whole concept of the Corporation could be done away with as really it is just a government empowered contrived entity that has been given abilities beyond that of a regular person. As long as the regulation of corporations isn't really just the excessive regulation or taxation of individuals by proxy, Libertarianism is not naturally against it.
But in a very fundamental way, if the government reserves to itself the right to use threat or force itself to compel people, and in a fundamental way restrains itself and others from the threat or use of force (or more correctly, it punishes such actions). Then by what means do people aggregate power and
point by point:
The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin
no
Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.
no
Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?
Libertarianism is about lifting the contraints on individuals not corporations. But it is about lifting contraints on corporations that are really just proxies for contraints on individuals.
"Powerful organizations" derive their power from unnatural gifts from the state. They don't die and they are only penalized financially for legal transgressions. There is nothing in Libertarianism that would allow Corporations free play, in fact some Libertarians might argue against the Corporation alltogether as an unnatural player in the marketplace. And without the legal framework that the government bestows, a corporation literally is nothing.
# Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes.
no disagreement, Libertarianism is based on a government's responsibility to sparingly use threat or force against its citizens. Very simple.
# The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties. That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corporations and industries, which I believe must *always* be regulated by small-d democratic fiat.
Aggregation of power is a central problem with Libertarianism *only if* if you consider the Corporation as equivalent to an individual. But I think you have to realize that indivuals have no ability to aggregate power without the backing of the government. Wealth and ownership have been defined by a system of common laws and have been codified and modified by statutes. Before the legal framework of the "Corporation" and other organizations as such, the aggregation of wealth was truly only possible through Family inheritence which is something that is codified in laws. I am as ardent a Libertarian as I know, and consider both inheritence and the corporation as matters to be carefully regulated to insure that a free society is not threatened by the concentration of power in undemocractic hands. Seeing as both inheretence and the corporation are inventions of government, I see nothing inconsistent with their regulation. As long as the regulation of corporations isn't really just the excessive regulation or taxation of individuals by proxy.
Thats good for you. But for the other 98% of the population want a PC that is already up and running with all the apps, drivers, and configuration set. So it's the much larger market that Dell will chase to sell too. The real money is in companies that buy 20,000 identical systems with a huge service contract. Not us computer geeks that tend to build our own anyways.
Speak for yourself. How is this insightful? I work in a real company with many thousands of Dell computers and at least I like to think I have some influence on purchasing decisions from time to time. Or at least I know that those with more influence than I are also Linux supporters. And not being locked into Windows on Dell hardware has been a major plus along with the fact that you can usually assume good hardware compatibility with Linux at least on the more popular models.
And I expect more and more Linux friendliness from Dell. If they are leaning towards ubuntu, as google seems to be, and it is currently leading in downloads distrowatch, then that is as good a choice as any. So, if they just decided on providing consistent support or even just providing consistent and easily accessible information on ubuntu compatibility of their hardware and hardware components and some easily navigated documentation, then that would make me even more likely to recommend Dell over their competitors.
When I buy a budget computer from Dell I feel that I am gambing on the hardware being operable under Linux (and I've lucked out so far).
It isn't luck, it is the fact that Dell makes up a large percentage of the market and therefore Linux programmers are more likely to have Dell hardware to work on I choose Dell and expect Linux to work regardless of their stated support because of their marketshare. So, if Michael is reading... I expect Linux to work and that is part of the reason I buy Dell, whenever my expectations are not met it doesn't matter to me that Dell officially supports linux or not. If Linux doesn't work on Dell hardware I will be dissappointed with the hardware and the company.
The term "well regulated militia" has never really been defined anywhere. Also "security of a free State", what does that mean? It's really up to interpretation.
The term "well regulated militia" is laregely irrelevant to the effective meaning of the second ammendment, because it is not the actionable part of the sentence. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is just the rationale for this part "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A government with increasing powers with a professional army could easily render then 2nd amendment null and void. That's the danger I was pointing towards. The 2nd amendment is not explicit in its meaning.
Not legally. The dangers to democracy of a superiorly armed standing military force is precisely why the second ammendment was crafted. It has nothing to do with hunting birds or target practice.
But this is exactly the double meaning of the second ammendment, it is the second ammendment which protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, so THEY can regulate the militia. Otherwise, how do you regulate the militia? If militia is too old sounding a word for you, then how do you regulate an armed group of men, except with another armed group of men with greater number? The majority's capability to use force effectively is the only way to ensure democracy against an armed minority, and the minority's capability to use force effectively is the only way to ensure civil rights and freedoms against a tyrannical armed majority. That is why certain laws, such as the right to keep and bear arms without infringment require a two thirds vote to ammend. It is precisely because it is understood that a large enough minority can thwart the majority on certain issues, that some things are too important for a minority to give up and if you can't get at least 66% of the population in support, then you will not be able to overwhelm the opposition.
Yes, there is a danger in a standing army. But the balance of forces is fundamental to any civilization and should be perfectly understood in the meaning of the second ammendment. Democracy is only as meaningful as its citizens are well armed.
you are absolutely correct, but population growth seems to be taking care of itself without drastic action like China had with its one-child policy. You already see Western countries have made it so expensive to have a kid (either purposefully as china did or just through sheer economic scarcity, I'm not sure) that population seems to have peeked or has actually declined.
That will not be a problem because Bush keeps cutting Veteran's benefits, to the tune of over $14 Billion since he took office.
To be fair, Bush is just the idiot who goes along with the budget by signing it, but he is just one of the many idiots that make proposals to spend like there is no tomorrow. Throw the bums out!
Vote Libertarian.
The meaning of the 2nd amendment is not clear. Therefore, the presumption that it protects "the people" is incorrect (and not how the Supreme Court has decided on laws violating the 2nd amendment to the Consitution).
The meaning of the second ammendment is pretty damn clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first part is inconsequential to the effective meaning, but it means BOTH that people need to bear arms in order to regulate the militia (Otherwise how do you practically regulate a militia if you can't bring the threat and force of arms against them?) AND that people need to be allowed to bear arms in order to constitute a militia. Either way you read it, or as I read it both ways, the that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is crystal clear. And is even more clear in the historical context that the American Revolution started after the Redcoats invaded Concord, Massachusetts in order to seize weapons and Colonial powder.
This isn't like the commerce clause that can be extended in crazy ways and still be within the letter of the Constitution. As for the State issue, there is no "Congress shall make no law" part of the Second ammendment. It clearly applies to the States as much as "cruel and unusual punishments" always has.
The only legal questions for the courts should be what constitutes "Arms" in modern society and "infringement" on the Right to keep and bear them.
As for what is an "Arm", I think it would be in keeping with the meaning of the ammendment to consider that "Arms" means any weapon that can be carried by a person such a sword, knife or firearm. Then the only real legal question is what really constitutes infringement on a "right". Is merely requiring registration an infringement? What about licensing requirements and fees?
The legal questions that have been raised about the second ammendment and the myth that has been created about it being "not clear" are purely political in nature, resulting from historical authoritarian trends in American society, and not the result of some alleged ambiguity by the writers or in their words.