Who said anything about a modem or a router? We're not talking single family homes here; we're talking apartment buildings. Give them ethernet plugs in the walls and hide the routers. Even better, just put up a wireless network and hide the routers. If the whole building is getting free internet, why in hell would anybody try to put a modem in every individual apartment?
I would like to thank you, TsuruchiBrian, for engaging with me in a thoughtful discussion about the second amendment to the US Constitution. I think we've both made good points, and perhaps come to a meaningful conclusion. I do not wish to rebut your argument; I am only posting now to say two things:
1. I am defining militia as a citizen-operated organization that is registered with the government. That registration would enable the government to regulate the safety and security of its armory, and possibly other concerns. With those regulations in place, some classes of weapon which would be too dangerous for individual citizens to acquire (especially those classes of weapon which the authors of the constitution could not even imagine) could be made available to those militia. But this is only an idea not directly supported by the constitution; it's my attempt to reimagine the full purpose of the 2nd amendment (allowing citizens to form paramilitary groups to keep the government from overstepping its bounds) to still be reasonable in a world full of such previously unimaginable destruction.
2. Once again, thank you for the all-too-rare opportunity for intelligent conversation on the internet. This is a complicated issue that deserves to be discussed, and by discussing it I think we have revealed flaws in each others' arguments that we would not have considered ourselves. I believe this makes our democracy stronger. Thank you. Let us hope this kind of discussion is not so rare in the future.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank TsuruchiBrian for engaging with me in a thoughtful discussion about the role of gun ownership in our country and what various levels of government are or are not authorized to do. This is a serious issue with many nuances, most of them directly impacting life or death situations. People die every day from both gun violence and from government oppression; we happen to live in a country where the former is more common, but that does not mean I am oblivious to the dangers of overly restricting the rights of the people.
The US Constitution is a living document which has been interpreted in many different ways by many different people in many different generations. We the people of the United States of America are obliged to discuss and debate its role and meaning in our society with every new generation, lest we fail to understand its purpose and its moral and just application. To reduce any aspect of the constitution to such blacks and whites as you have done, beastofburden, is to preclude any meaningful understanding of the foundation of our society. Ultimately, such antagonism and partisanship will lead us into an era where our opinions are dictated by the political elite who have for their own purposes spent enormous resources to convince us that one way or another is not just the right way, but the only way. I pray we do not find ourselves in such a future.
It is within the bounds of the constitution to collect forensic data of every gun sold and connect that data to an ID number printed on the gun (and by extension, make unlawful the removal of those numbers). It would also be constitutional to register those guns to their owners in a national database (and guess who has such a database? Our "friends" the NRA!).
Which part of the constitution provides the federal government with this ability?
It is not prohibited, and state governments can do whatever the hell they want as long as it isn't explicitly prohibited. The federal government can probably get away with it as well because of interstate commerce.
If we were to take it even farther, it would still be constitutional to restrict the sale of all firearms to registered state militia only, placing safety and security restrictions on those militia.
And by denying membership to the state militia to only people you want to have guns, you basically remove any affect the 2nd amendment might have had in restricting what the government could do.
...
There would be mass looting. Do you really want guns in the hands of non-militia members when the time comes to bear our arms?
Yes, because I am not in the national guard, and for all I know, it may be the national guard that we are fighting if that time actually comes.
Registered state militia does not have to mean government. A militia is by definition a very local group, and I would expect to see them form at the town level, or in large cities at the district level. Militias, then, could have anybody they want based solely on the desires of the local people in charge (and who that is would ideally depend on local democracy). With possible exceptions for violent felons and the mentally unstable, which would go along with reasonable safety and security regulations to make sure, among other things, that the militia armory is appropriately secured from theft.
I would like to see super deadly weapons restricted as well. Which is why I would like to see the 2nd amendment changed. But what I think is pretty obvious is that the founding fathers did not want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted in such a way that it places no meaningful restrictions on what the government can do in terms of prohibiting weapons.
In the same way that the 1st amendment was probably not meant to be interpreted as allowing the government to decide when speech could be criminalized, and as long as some speech is allowed (e.g. speech that praises the president), then it is not a violation of the 1st amendment, because you are still free to say whatever you want except the things that are illegal.
I think that everything I have said is consistent with the United States government having meaningful restrictions on how it can infringe upon the right to bear arms and the right to free expression. But "meaningful restriction" does not mean "total restriction". The 2nd amendment was written with an explicit purpose, it is my belief that any restriction on gun ownership and use may be constitutional as long as it is still possible to form a well-regulated militia with meaningful self-defensive force.
I wasn't implying it only granted a limited right to own guns. But it still only prevents certain kinds of gun control. Notice the wording: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people... shall not be infringed. It is telling government that it cannot infringe on the people's right to bear arms (but it can still infringe on any individual's rights), for the purpose of the people forming a well-regulated militia.
And what is it you think I want to do? The 2nd amendment does not promise every individual to obtain any gun for any purpose. It is within the bounds of the constitution to, as happens in most states, ban the sale of guns to convicted felons or the mentally unstable. It is also within the bounds of the constitution to enforce such restrictions with background checks. It is within the bounds of the constitution to collect forensic data of every gun sold and connect that data to an ID number printed on the gun (and by extension, make unlawful the removal of those numbers). It would also be constitutional to register those guns to their owners in a national database (and guess who has such a database? Our "friends" the NRA!).
If we were to take it even farther, it would still be constitutional to restrict the sale of all firearms to registered state militia only, placing safety and security restrictions on those militia. Which I am not advocating; I would only like to see military arms (including anything with an automatic or semi-automatic feature) fall under such a restriction. And even under such a restriction, a small community (which is not the same as some single vigilante type) could respond to tyranny by assembling the militia and opening the armory. And think about what kind of situation we'd be in where that was necessary. We're talking collapse of government authority here, which would probably undermine local law enforcement. There would be mass looting. Do you really want guns in the hands of non-militia members when the time comes to bear our arms?
Yes, but also dangerous. We don't all need personal access to them to have access to entertainment, and the more dangerous weapons need very controlled conditions to be enjoyed safely. I would not be opposed to well-regulated shooting ranges renting out (on their secured premises) some of those weapons that have no other legitimate civilian purpose. That would probably actually be a great way to store such weapons for the purposes of the "well-regulated militia" our founders envisioned with the 2nd amendment (with caveats regarding safety and security regulations).
Welcome to planet Earth, where men and women are different and have different options socially available to them. Where men are not allowed to play the victim (or else they're too sissy) and women are not allowed to have outspoken opinions (or else they're too butch). Sorry your orientation took so long.
A light bulb is not just a wire in a vase, FYI. First, the "wire", or filament, has to be a specific compound that generates light when electrified. As it turned out, every material they could find that would do that would also catch on fire and burn up. So the major innovation of the light bulb is the manufacturing process that removes all the oxygen from inside the bulb (leaving either vacuum or an inert gas) so that the filament does not combust. If we actually had all of that technology before the invention of the light bulb, it would not have taken an Edison-level inventor to put it all together.
That context is not how I ever understood the example. Within the limits of how I interpreted it, it could not be used to punish a speech against the draft. That does not cause immediate panic, nor is it likely to directly cause injury. I made those caveats intentionally, and as written they exclude outlawing speaking out against government policies, even if the government considers them to be vital to the survival of the citizenry.
Rocket propelled grenades? Fully automatic assault rifles (that according to our military don't even have a legitimate purpose there)? Virtually anything that isn't made for hunting or self defense?
She gets away with playing victim because she's a girl.
And if it was a man, he'd find refuge in audacity and just get to be a trolling asshole. The people hating him would only add to his mystique. Women can't do that, but they can play on paternalism to make you feel sorry for them. Kind of a sad trade, if you ask me.
Why are there so many comments marked Troll? It looks like somebody used their mod points to down-vote the opinions he disagrees with and din't even have the self-awareness to use "Overrated".
Hey, those trolls that targeted the overweight kid? Nobody cared about him. Those trolls that targeted the successful woman professional? She has an enormous support network, an enormous professional network, and is well known and well loved. Nobody said the first wasn't a victim of "real" trolling (except you). But it's only understandable that the first story will sink into the depths of obscurity while the second creates an entire social campaign against trolling.
If the trolls are smart, they'll figure out that socially connected woman professionals are not particularly good targets and stick to the people nobody else cares about. But as we all know trolls are not exactly smart; we can only hope they're too dumb to target their trolling better and just give it up entirely.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is designed to keep the government from censoring unpopular speech. It's not because it's a slippery slope. It's because free speech is the underpinning of democracy, and allowing a democratically-elected government to limit it allows the government to alter the basis of its own existence. In essence, the threat is that corrupt politicians would alter the balance of power in their own favor.
With that as the basis of our right to free speech, the government does still have the power to punish certain speech in very focused situations. For example, you will go to jail if you shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. That situation is limited to "causing immediate panic likely to result in injury to others", and with that limitation the law does not infringe upon our right to express our opinions.
Harassment is not expressing an opinion, it's expressing that you're an asshole. If speech were expressed with paint on canvas, harassment would be throwing the paint in someone else's face. The only way that the right to free speech protects assholes is that it forces prosecutors to prove they are really just being assholes. That's a good thing; there's a difference between throwing paint and painting a picture with it, even if the picture is on someone else's face. But that doesn't mean that shouting "SHITCOCK!" just to piss people off is somehow protected.
So there are two people involved that might be liable: the bot maker (or firearm/automobile manufacturer), and the bot user (or shooter/drunk driver). In two of these three situations, the product was made and marketed for what it was used for. Using an abuse bot to abuse people is not a "misuse" of the product; it is the correct use of a product that shouldn't exist. Similarly, some classes of firearm have no legitimate purpose besides indiscriminate murder in the hands of a lone civilian (but would have legitimate purpose in the hands of the same civilian as part of a "well-regulated militia").
As for the drunk driver, well the car has a legitimate purpose besides crashing into things. It isn't sold to crash into things the way a gun is sold to shoot things. Now, if the car had a "Roman chariot spikes" rim option, they should probably be held at least somewhat liable for customers using their rim spikes to pop other people's tires.
Web hosting is still sold much the same way as over 10 years ago: multiple clients sharing a host, or a dedicated server for much more. Now we have virtual servers too, which have a lot of access and security benefits but are ultimately the same as the first option for load balancing. And if you want anything more, get multiple dedicated servers and a dedicated sysadmin. It's an awful lot of money for the mere possibility of way more web traffic than you've ever imagined would visit at once (note: your statement was broadly directed at all web sites, not just the government, so I'm broadly directing at all web sites too).
Technology gets better all the time, but economics still mostly stay the same.
Same reasoning behind doing things like removing ext3 support in chrome.
Why would a web browser have ext3 support in the first place? Are you one of those people that like to make everything confusing by dropping random words from otherwise meaningful statements? Like "Free as in [Free] Beer"? Um, does that mean freedom because beer is liberating? Well, don't "let the cat out [of the bag]" on that one. It might bring home a mouse. Anyway, maybe I shouldn't "judge a book [by its cover]". As in, never judge a book, ever, for any reason, because clearly your English is better than mine. Why, I could hire you to write my Slashdot comments for me and "kill two birds [with one stone]". Not sure what I would do with the two birds, but then I could at least be an asshole on the internet without ever needing to read what the other assholes have to say.
Anyway, as we all know, once you go Boolean, you never go back. Amen brotha.
This. Notice my "scare quotes" around "better for society". mattack2 has hit on the head exactly what I would have said if it wouldn't have distracted from my point. There's no way to perfectly determine what is best for society, but we do have mostly-good-most-of-the-time ways.
Notice the air quotes around "better for society". I would rather avoid discussing whether that's true, because that discussion is happening elsewhere.
What I want is a a "truly agnostic search engine". That would mean nobody can mess with the search results, not by law and not by hacking. Perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I don't expect Google will ever be that again.
I feel like musing a bit on what would satisfy this desire. There are a few problems with search results: 1) They lack context; 2) They are easily manipulated; 3) They aren't good at translating what we say we want into what we think we want. These three problems are usually alleviated in society by human minds being context-driven and by getting multiple opinions from multiple sources. The natural solution would seem to be for the "search engine" to engage us not with a simple text box, but in some sort of conversation. The search engine would then consult a network of other search engines and try to deliver what looks like the best result. What's the best result? Depends on the conversation, the context, and the value of the results.
All three of those things seem to be beyond the grasp of Google. For one, the closest you'll get to a conversation is its asinine suggestions that are based on what query the other meatbags thought would get Google to spit out the right result, and is just as likely to include pop culture references as whatever you are actually looking for. For two, Google may warn you when a link has been paid for, but otherwise it provides no context about where that page came from, what other things it's good for, what perspective informs it, and how credible it probably is (which is a shame, because I'm pretty certain Google does usually know these things). And for three, while Google might know certain measures of value (but won't tell you because it it doesn't provide context), it has no idea exactly which measure you're interested in right now.
Say you look up the term "global warming". Are you interested in an objective history of the concept? Are you looking for pure data and research? Are you looking for the politics surrounding it? Are you looking for a place to start a fight? Are you looking to join a community of people who think like you on the issue? Knowing how to get what you want means knowing the measures of value yourself. Maybe you know by now that Wikipedia is the most likely place to find objectivity. It usually takes a college education to know where to find (and how to read) good scholarly material. Politics is even trickier: since every author has a viewpoint (and Google either has no viewpoint, an SEO-hacker biased viewpoint, or your viewpoint, and it won't tell you which), the only way you can get an unbiased view is to somehow survey all viewpoints and figure out for yourself how they fit together and which are most common. Community is even harder. How is Google supposed to know the best places to troll? If you're lucky you'll find a laser-targeted clickbait titled "Top 11 Places to Troll Global Warming Believers/Deniers". Even worse, how is Google supposed to know if you will like any particular community? It's easier to find places ripe for conflict than places you'll actually fit into.
Web search is a hard problem. Google took a shortcut that got us most of the way there: they take the entire internet and filter the results according to your query, then they order them by a search ranking determined by how many other web sites link to that web site. In essence, Google's shortcut to human-like social intelligence is to crowd-source the intelligence to actual humans. Because those humans have motivations other than helping Google, that leaves Google vulnerable to manipulation. Ever since Google became the de facto standard of finding shit on the internet, they've been contending with that manipulation every day. It works...usually. Or at least sometimes. At least it's better than not having Google. But n
Truly sorry about that, but I don't see how patent reform would solve your problem. The way I see it, your problem is that they "withdrew the original from the market". Not that they invented a slightly different version. They may have done it because it enabled them to charge more for the newer drug sold for the same purpose, but you can't force a company to make what you want. Without the original patent, they may not have ever been able to sell either drug anyway.
Drug combinations are a strange beast that probably should not be patentable the same way as the individual compounds. Personally I prefer to buy the individuals and combine them myself. It certainly helps when I have a cough and sinus swelling, but not a runny nose or a fever or any sort of pain, so I really don't want to be taking an antihistamine or a pain killer in some all-in-one. It also helps to avoid phenylephrine, the "fake" sudafed that doesn't work but can't be used to make meth so it's easier to sell. They put that shit in everything. Anyway, I really hope that the "something else" in your preferred drug is available on its own.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about a modem or a router? We're not talking single family homes here; we're talking apartment buildings. Give them ethernet plugs in the walls and hide the routers. Even better, just put up a wireless network and hide the routers. If the whole building is getting free internet, why in hell would anybody try to put a modem in every individual apartment?
We Are All Confident Idiots...In America.
I would like to thank you, TsuruchiBrian, for engaging with me in a thoughtful discussion about the second amendment to the US Constitution. I think we've both made good points, and perhaps come to a meaningful conclusion. I do not wish to rebut your argument; I am only posting now to say two things:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank TsuruchiBrian for engaging with me in a thoughtful discussion about the role of gun ownership in our country and what various levels of government are or are not authorized to do. This is a serious issue with many nuances, most of them directly impacting life or death situations. People die every day from both gun violence and from government oppression; we happen to live in a country where the former is more common, but that does not mean I am oblivious to the dangers of overly restricting the rights of the people.
The US Constitution is a living document which has been interpreted in many different ways by many different people in many different generations. We the people of the United States of America are obliged to discuss and debate its role and meaning in our society with every new generation, lest we fail to understand its purpose and its moral and just application. To reduce any aspect of the constitution to such blacks and whites as you have done, beastofburden, is to preclude any meaningful understanding of the foundation of our society. Ultimately, such antagonism and partisanship will lead us into an era where our opinions are dictated by the political elite who have for their own purposes spent enormous resources to convince us that one way or another is not just the right way, but the only way. I pray we do not find ourselves in such a future.
It is within the bounds of the constitution to collect forensic data of every gun sold and connect that data to an ID number printed on the gun (and by extension, make unlawful the removal of those numbers). It would also be constitutional to register those guns to their owners in a national database (and guess who has such a database? Our "friends" the NRA!).
Which part of the constitution provides the federal government with this ability?
It is not prohibited, and state governments can do whatever the hell they want as long as it isn't explicitly prohibited. The federal government can probably get away with it as well because of interstate commerce.
If we were to take it even farther, it would still be constitutional to restrict the sale of all firearms to registered state militia only, placing safety and security restrictions on those militia.
And by denying membership to the state militia to only people you want to have guns, you basically remove any affect the 2nd amendment might have had in restricting what the government could do.
...
There would be mass looting. Do you really want guns in the hands of non-militia members when the time comes to bear our arms?
Yes, because I am not in the national guard, and for all I know, it may be the national guard that we are fighting if that time actually comes.
Registered state militia does not have to mean government. A militia is by definition a very local group, and I would expect to see them form at the town level, or in large cities at the district level. Militias, then, could have anybody they want based solely on the desires of the local people in charge (and who that is would ideally depend on local democracy). With possible exceptions for violent felons and the mentally unstable, which would go along with reasonable safety and security regulations to make sure, among other things, that the militia armory is appropriately secured from theft.
I would like to see super deadly weapons restricted as well. Which is why I would like to see the 2nd amendment changed. But what I think is pretty obvious is that the founding fathers did not want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted in such a way that it places no meaningful restrictions on what the government can do in terms of prohibiting weapons.
In the same way that the 1st amendment was probably not meant to be interpreted as allowing the government to decide when speech could be criminalized, and as long as some speech is allowed (e.g. speech that praises the president), then it is not a violation of the 1st amendment, because you are still free to say whatever you want except the things that are illegal.
I think that everything I have said is consistent with the United States government having meaningful restrictions on how it can infringe upon the right to bear arms and the right to free expression. But "meaningful restriction" does not mean "total restriction". The 2nd amendment was written with an explicit purpose, it is my belief that any restriction on gun ownership and use may be constitutional as long as it is still possible to form a well-regulated militia with meaningful self-defensive force.
I wasn't implying it only granted a limited right to own guns. But it still only prevents certain kinds of gun control. Notice the wording: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people ... shall not be infringed. It is telling government that it cannot infringe on the people's right to bear arms (but it can still infringe on any individual's rights), for the purpose of the people forming a well-regulated militia.
And what is it you think I want to do? The 2nd amendment does not promise every individual to obtain any gun for any purpose. It is within the bounds of the constitution to, as happens in most states, ban the sale of guns to convicted felons or the mentally unstable. It is also within the bounds of the constitution to enforce such restrictions with background checks. It is within the bounds of the constitution to collect forensic data of every gun sold and connect that data to an ID number printed on the gun (and by extension, make unlawful the removal of those numbers). It would also be constitutional to register those guns to their owners in a national database (and guess who has such a database? Our "friends" the NRA!).
If we were to take it even farther, it would still be constitutional to restrict the sale of all firearms to registered state militia only, placing safety and security restrictions on those militia. Which I am not advocating; I would only like to see military arms (including anything with an automatic or semi-automatic feature) fall under such a restriction. And even under such a restriction, a small community (which is not the same as some single vigilante type) could respond to tyranny by assembling the militia and opening the armory. And think about what kind of situation we'd be in where that was necessary. We're talking collapse of government authority here, which would probably undermine local law enforcement. There would be mass looting. Do you really want guns in the hands of non-militia members when the time comes to bear our arms?
So you can protect yourself from tyranny. Not so you can blow shit up for fun.
Shooting guns is entertaining.
Yes, but also dangerous. We don't all need personal access to them to have access to entertainment, and the more dangerous weapons need very controlled conditions to be enjoyed safely. I would not be opposed to well-regulated shooting ranges renting out (on their secured premises) some of those weapons that have no other legitimate civilian purpose. That would probably actually be a great way to store such weapons for the purposes of the "well-regulated militia" our founders envisioned with the 2nd amendment (with caveats regarding safety and security regulations).
What planet is this actually happening on?
Welcome to planet Earth, where men and women are different and have different options socially available to them. Where men are not allowed to play the victim (or else they're too sissy) and women are not allowed to have outspoken opinions (or else they're too butch). Sorry your orientation took so long.
A light bulb is not just a wire in a vase, FYI. First, the "wire", or filament, has to be a specific compound that generates light when electrified. As it turned out, every material they could find that would do that would also catch on fire and burn up. So the major innovation of the light bulb is the manufacturing process that removes all the oxygen from inside the bulb (leaving either vacuum or an inert gas) so that the filament does not combust. If we actually had all of that technology before the invention of the light bulb, it would not have taken an Edison-level inventor to put it all together.
That context is not how I ever understood the example. Within the limits of how I interpreted it, it could not be used to punish a speech against the draft. That does not cause immediate panic, nor is it likely to directly cause injury. I made those caveats intentionally, and as written they exclude outlawing speaking out against government policies, even if the government considers them to be vital to the survival of the citizenry.
Rocket propelled grenades? Fully automatic assault rifles (that according to our military don't even have a legitimate purpose there)? Virtually anything that isn't made for hunting or self defense?
She gets away with playing victim because she's a girl.
And if it was a man, he'd find refuge in audacity and just get to be a trolling asshole. The people hating him would only add to his mystique. Women can't do that, but they can play on paternalism to make you feel sorry for them. Kind of a sad trade, if you ask me.
Why are there so many comments marked Troll? It looks like somebody used their mod points to down-vote the opinions he disagrees with and din't even have the self-awareness to use "Overrated".
Men are plenty good at finding ways to undermine each other too. Example: you.
Hey, those trolls that targeted the overweight kid? Nobody cared about him. Those trolls that targeted the successful woman professional? She has an enormous support network, an enormous professional network, and is well known and well loved. Nobody said the first wasn't a victim of "real" trolling (except you). But it's only understandable that the first story will sink into the depths of obscurity while the second creates an entire social campaign against trolling.
If the trolls are smart, they'll figure out that socially connected woman professionals are not particularly good targets and stick to the people nobody else cares about. But as we all know trolls are not exactly smart; we can only hope they're too dumb to target their trolling better and just give it up entirely.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is designed to keep the government from censoring unpopular speech. It's not because it's a slippery slope. It's because free speech is the underpinning of democracy, and allowing a democratically-elected government to limit it allows the government to alter the basis of its own existence. In essence, the threat is that corrupt politicians would alter the balance of power in their own favor.
With that as the basis of our right to free speech, the government does still have the power to punish certain speech in very focused situations. For example, you will go to jail if you shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. That situation is limited to "causing immediate panic likely to result in injury to others", and with that limitation the law does not infringe upon our right to express our opinions.
Harassment is not expressing an opinion, it's expressing that you're an asshole. If speech were expressed with paint on canvas, harassment would be throwing the paint in someone else's face. The only way that the right to free speech protects assholes is that it forces prosecutors to prove they are really just being assholes. That's a good thing; there's a difference between throwing paint and painting a picture with it, even if the picture is on someone else's face. But that doesn't mean that shouting "SHITCOCK!" just to piss people off is somehow protected.
So there are two people involved that might be liable: the bot maker (or firearm/automobile manufacturer), and the bot user (or shooter/drunk driver). In two of these three situations, the product was made and marketed for what it was used for. Using an abuse bot to abuse people is not a "misuse" of the product; it is the correct use of a product that shouldn't exist. Similarly, some classes of firearm have no legitimate purpose besides indiscriminate murder in the hands of a lone civilian (but would have legitimate purpose in the hands of the same civilian as part of a "well-regulated militia").
As for the drunk driver, well the car has a legitimate purpose besides crashing into things. It isn't sold to crash into things the way a gun is sold to shoot things. Now, if the car had a "Roman chariot spikes" rim option, they should probably be held at least somewhat liable for customers using their rim spikes to pop other people's tires.
Web hosting is still sold much the same way as over 10 years ago: multiple clients sharing a host, or a dedicated server for much more. Now we have virtual servers too, which have a lot of access and security benefits but are ultimately the same as the first option for load balancing. And if you want anything more, get multiple dedicated servers and a dedicated sysadmin. It's an awful lot of money for the mere possibility of way more web traffic than you've ever imagined would visit at once (note: your statement was broadly directed at all web sites, not just the government, so I'm broadly directing at all web sites too).
Technology gets better all the time, but economics still mostly stay the same.
If you don't know how to convince them they're doing it wrong, what makes you so sure they're doing it wrong?
Same reasoning behind doing things like removing ext3 support in chrome.
Why would a web browser have ext3 support in the first place? Are you one of those people that like to make everything confusing by dropping random words from otherwise meaningful statements? Like "Free as in [Free] Beer"? Um, does that mean freedom because beer is liberating? Well, don't "let the cat out [of the bag]" on that one. It might bring home a mouse. Anyway, maybe I shouldn't "judge a book [by its cover]". As in, never judge a book, ever, for any reason, because clearly your English is better than mine. Why, I could hire you to write my Slashdot comments for me and "kill two birds [with one stone]". Not sure what I would do with the two birds, but then I could at least be an asshole on the internet without ever needing to read what the other assholes have to say.
Anyway, as we all know, once you go Boolean, you never go back. Amen brotha.
Who gets to decide what is "better for society"?
Society does.
This. Notice my "scare quotes" around "better for society". mattack2 has hit on the head exactly what I would have said if it wouldn't have distracted from my point. There's no way to perfectly determine what is best for society, but we do have mostly-good-most-of-the-time ways.
Notice the air quotes around "better for society". I would rather avoid discussing whether that's true, because that discussion is happening elsewhere.
What I want is a a "truly agnostic search engine". That would mean nobody can mess with the search results, not by law and not by hacking. Perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I don't expect Google will ever be that again.
I feel like musing a bit on what would satisfy this desire. There are a few problems with search results: 1) They lack context; 2) They are easily manipulated; 3) They aren't good at translating what we say we want into what we think we want. These three problems are usually alleviated in society by human minds being context-driven and by getting multiple opinions from multiple sources. The natural solution would seem to be for the "search engine" to engage us not with a simple text box, but in some sort of conversation. The search engine would then consult a network of other search engines and try to deliver what looks like the best result. What's the best result? Depends on the conversation, the context, and the value of the results.
All three of those things seem to be beyond the grasp of Google. For one, the closest you'll get to a conversation is its asinine suggestions that are based on what query the other meatbags thought would get Google to spit out the right result, and is just as likely to include pop culture references as whatever you are actually looking for. For two, Google may warn you when a link has been paid for, but otherwise it provides no context about where that page came from, what other things it's good for, what perspective informs it, and how credible it probably is (which is a shame, because I'm pretty certain Google does usually know these things). And for three, while Google might know certain measures of value (but won't tell you because it it doesn't provide context), it has no idea exactly which measure you're interested in right now.
Say you look up the term "global warming". Are you interested in an objective history of the concept? Are you looking for pure data and research? Are you looking for the politics surrounding it? Are you looking for a place to start a fight? Are you looking to join a community of people who think like you on the issue? Knowing how to get what you want means knowing the measures of value yourself. Maybe you know by now that Wikipedia is the most likely place to find objectivity. It usually takes a college education to know where to find (and how to read) good scholarly material. Politics is even trickier: since every author has a viewpoint (and Google either has no viewpoint, an SEO-hacker biased viewpoint, or your viewpoint, and it won't tell you which), the only way you can get an unbiased view is to somehow survey all viewpoints and figure out for yourself how they fit together and which are most common. Community is even harder. How is Google supposed to know the best places to troll? If you're lucky you'll find a laser-targeted clickbait titled "Top 11 Places to Troll Global Warming Believers/Deniers". Even worse, how is Google supposed to know if you will like any particular community? It's easier to find places ripe for conflict than places you'll actually fit into.
Web search is a hard problem. Google took a shortcut that got us most of the way there: they take the entire internet and filter the results according to your query, then they order them by a search ranking determined by how many other web sites link to that web site. In essence, Google's shortcut to human-like social intelligence is to crowd-source the intelligence to actual humans. Because those humans have motivations other than helping Google, that leaves Google vulnerable to manipulation. Ever since Google became the de facto standard of finding shit on the internet, they've been contending with that manipulation every day. It works...usually. Or at least sometimes. At least it's better than not having Google. But n
Truly sorry about that, but I don't see how patent reform would solve your problem. The way I see it, your problem is that they "withdrew the original from the market". Not that they invented a slightly different version. They may have done it because it enabled them to charge more for the newer drug sold for the same purpose, but you can't force a company to make what you want. Without the original patent, they may not have ever been able to sell either drug anyway.
Drug combinations are a strange beast that probably should not be patentable the same way as the individual compounds. Personally I prefer to buy the individuals and combine them myself. It certainly helps when I have a cough and sinus swelling, but not a runny nose or a fever or any sort of pain, so I really don't want to be taking an antihistamine or a pain killer in some all-in-one. It also helps to avoid phenylephrine, the "fake" sudafed that doesn't work but can't be used to make meth so it's easier to sell. They put that shit in everything. Anyway, I really hope that the "something else" in your preferred drug is available on its own.