Exactly, they'd be forced to abdicate the internet. But that would put them at a severe disadvantage trying to exist in modern society, encouraging their children to seek more cosmopolitan cultures.
So they're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Use the internet as is, and people will be exposed to things that will endanger their culture. Don't use the internet as it is, and people will be encouraged to outright leave.
Given these two choices, is it really surprising that we expect the orthodox to try to modify the internet so they don't have to deal with it as it is?
That won't help you if you plug your USB device into a compromised system. What's needed is a real hardware lockout, like the physical switches we had on floppy disks back in the day.
Inserting the USB boot stick is quite easy for a Visually impaired person
Or rather, it's no more difficult for a visually impaired person. Even with two functioning eyeballs, it often takes three tries to fit the USB connector.
To know what has and hasn't changed, he can't access the backup at home, like rsync would need to do.
If I understand correctly BackupPC caches the checksums rsync generates to enable exactly that. It would be nice if that was possible with vanilla rsync.
And to all these knee-jerkers, there is no desire to censor or change "your" internet. This is a community of people looking for a way to accept an amazing product into their lives without threatening it.
And, what if they can't? What if free access to information and orthodoxy are incompatible? Which do you think they are going to give up?
All the major GUI toolkits allow you to theme your colors however you like. There are even tools for reconsiling themes across different toolkits. I can't remember the last time I came across an app that didn't source my GTK theme and just look right.
In the absence of such a deal, the company would still have to make a factory somewhere. That means those jobs would still exist, and still contribute taxes to the economy. The sweetheart deals only ensure that it's your city that gets the jobs.
So what we have here isn't a situation where everyone's a winner. These deals make your locality a winner at the expense of others. When looked at it from the perspective of society as a whole, these deals are zero sum or worse. They should not be allowed.
The solution to this is the same as it's been in every app. If you're doing something important, save your work frequently. I have never(literally, not once) used Firefox's restore feature. If I find something I want to keep, I save it or bookmark it. Session restore is a resource wasting nuisance.
if your ultimate goal is the best benefit for the largest number of people, then you allow adults who make bad decisions to suffer the consequences because that's the only way some people ever learn.
Do you have data to support this assertion? What if it's the case that people never learn, even if you allow them to make bad decisions?
Four, if people are hurting themselves now with milk of all things, where does this end?
For the technocrat, it ends when the things being banned cause less harm than the ban itself does.
The only way to really do this is to have everyone strapped to a hospital bed from birth and fed by an IV, by law.
Obviously such a policy would be more harmful than the lack of such a policy. Therefore no technocrat would back such a policy. See how that works?
Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.
But not a scientist's. Determine the assumptions behind the two narratives, at least one of them is flawed. In your example, the right winger who assumes that price fixing and free markets can coexist is obviously mistaken.
If your experiment can be interpreted in two different ways, you didn't design a very good experiment.
The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying.
Unless there's evidence that people dont' read warning labels (they don't), and if there's evidence that banning has a superior outcome than labeling.
If the technocrat's mandate is "keep as many people healthy as possible", then he could easily eschew labeling for a ban if the evidence indicates that's more productive.
In principle yes, but why would a cheap laptop manufacturer include an expensive accurate processor when the cheap inaccurate one is good enough for nearly all their customers?
So we'll probably see something like the situation we see with laptop displays. "Good enough" for a movie is good enough for 90% of people, so that's what the market will be flooded with. Anyone who actually cares about quality will lose out on the economies of scale.
What you're saying is that the claim of immorality is actually a factual claim. If that's the case, we can and should measure those social costs and compare them to the social costs of prohibition. If we did that, we'd find that it's prohibition that is "immoral".
Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
This is a terrifying position. The government should never ever regulate morality. If you think something is immoral, don't do it. When you force your moral values on others, that's tyranny.
Government exists for practical reasons. We are trying to accomplish something by having a government, so every law should have a basis in practicality.
Politicians absolutely should say, 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.'. Because if they say that, that's a falsifiable claim that we can disprove with evidence. That means we can potentially change their minds by presenting evidence. You can't do that when someone has made a subjective moral judgement.
Because they need a lot of energy just to keep the computers running. Whether the line is in use or not has no measurable effect on the power draw.
Try it. Get a kill-a-watt meter, hook it up to your computer. Then saturate your link. Maybe netcat/dev/zero, you want to do something that won't touch the disc. Try this and you'll see how little network activity actually affects the power you use.
This is the same Supreme Court that upheld cavity searches for overdue traffic fines.
No, the SCOTUS held that a prison/jail is a secure facility, and that the people administrating that facility have a reasonable responsibility to ensure that the safety of the prison/jail is not compromised, and in some cases, it is reasonable and possible to believe that a person would get themselves arrested for a minor crime in order to smuggle a weapon or other item into such a secure facility.
That's the same thing in more words. The fact remains that if a cop wants to arrest you for any reason, and have you sexually abused by jail guards, he can and you have absolutely no recourse.
The statement which I made contains no personal opinion nor implies anything. I have merely stated what THE GOVERNMENT is arguing. And yes, the government has been arguing that it already had this authority since the time of GW Bush.
Fair enough. Would it be more accurate if I said "So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority so you must recognize he is nothing more than a thug with no respect for the rule of law."?
You apparently do not understand what fascism means, otherwise you would not have posted this.
You wouldn't recognize fascism if it detained you indefinitely.
The US was not targeting that individual and had no intention of killing that individual
You don't actually know that, since there have never been any hearings into the issue. Another strike for the "most transparent administration in history". If it was truly an accident, lets an investigation, some hearings, and let the truth come out. The fact that there are none speaks a lot louder than whatever propaganda you're buying into.
BTW, there is no such thing as "trivially unconstitutional". Such a concept is incompatible with the rule of law.
You're wrong there. If a state passed a bill allowing them to print their own non-precious-metal money, then that would be stricken down so fast it would make ones head hurt. Even a first year law student could look at such a provision and go "no."
Oh, I understand that. I just don't think the difference is whether the violation of the constitution is "trivial" or not. There are no trivial violations of the constitution. There are only violations of the constitution that powerful allow, and other violations that the powerful do not allow. All violations of the constitution are equally unconstitutional and invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, they'd be forced to abdicate the internet. But that would put them at a severe disadvantage trying to exist in modern society, encouraging their children to seek more cosmopolitan cultures.
So they're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Use the internet as is, and people will be exposed to things that will endanger their culture. Don't use the internet as it is, and people will be encouraged to outright leave.
Given these two choices, is it really surprising that we expect the orthodox to try to modify the internet so they don't have to deal with it as it is?
Those people can of course sell their stock when the price is higher.
HAHAHAH That's a good one.
That won't help you if you plug your USB device into a compromised system. What's needed is a real hardware lockout, like the physical switches we had on floppy disks back in the day.
Inserting the USB boot stick is quite easy for a Visually impaired person
Or rather, it's no more difficult for a visually impaired person. Even with two functioning eyeballs, it often takes three tries to fit the USB connector.
To know what has and hasn't changed, he can't access the backup at home, like rsync would need to do.
If I understand correctly BackupPC caches the checksums rsync generates to enable exactly that. It would be nice if that was possible with vanilla rsync.
And to all these knee-jerkers, there is no desire to censor or change "your" internet. This is a community of people looking for a way to accept an amazing product into their lives without threatening it.
And, what if they can't? What if free access to information and orthodoxy are incompatible? Which do you think they are going to give up?
It also doesn't help the charedim, that there are organizations like Footsteps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footsteps_(organization) specifically geared to getting people to leave the fold.
I'd argue that leaving the fold helps those particular (former) charedim quite a lot actually.
As I already said, Jews do not generally impose their religious rules on non-Jews, and the ultra-orthodox are not an exception.
Yeah, sure they don't.
All the major GUI toolkits allow you to theme your colors however you like. There are even tools for reconsiling themes across different toolkits. I can't remember the last time I came across an app that didn't source my GTK theme and just look right.
In the absence of such a deal, the company would still have to make a factory somewhere. That means those jobs would still exist, and still contribute taxes to the economy. The sweetheart deals only ensure that it's your city that gets the jobs.
So what we have here isn't a situation where everyone's a winner. These deals make your locality a winner at the expense of others. When looked at it from the perspective of society as a whole, these deals are zero sum or worse. They should not be allowed.
So OSS4 has been available under GPL terms for some time now. Why don't the kernel folks give it another look?
The solution to this is the same as it's been in every app. If you're doing something important, save your work frequently. I have never(literally, not once) used Firefox's restore feature. If I find something I want to keep, I save it or bookmark it. Session restore is a resource wasting nuisance.
That's not love, that's marketing.
What's the point of Origin? Why not just set up a shopping cart on your website and offer direct downloads?
if your ultimate goal is the best benefit for the largest number of people, then you allow adults who make bad decisions to suffer the consequences because that's the only way some people ever learn.
Do you have data to support this assertion? What if it's the case that people never learn, even if you allow them to make bad decisions?
Four, if people are hurting themselves now with milk of all things, where does this end?
For the technocrat, it ends when the things being banned cause less harm than the ban itself does.
The only way to really do this is to have everyone strapped to a hospital bed from birth and fed by an IV, by law.
Obviously such a policy would be more harmful than the lack of such a policy. Therefore no technocrat would back such a policy. See how that works?
Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.
But not a scientist's. Determine the assumptions behind the two narratives, at least one of them is flawed. In your example, the right winger who assumes that price fixing and free markets can coexist is obviously mistaken.
If your experiment can be interpreted in two different ways, you didn't design a very good experiment.
The only thing a real technocrat would be concerned about is that milk of any kind is labelled accurately so that customers know what they're buying.
Unless there's evidence that people dont' read warning labels (they don't), and if there's evidence that banning has a superior outcome than labeling.
If the technocrat's mandate is "keep as many people healthy as possible", then he could easily eschew labeling for a ban if the evidence indicates that's more productive.
In principle yes, but why would a cheap laptop manufacturer include an expensive accurate processor when the cheap inaccurate one is good enough for nearly all their customers?
Generally, it's pulled entirely from the moralizer's ass.
So we'll probably see something like the situation we see with laptop displays. "Good enough" for a movie is good enough for 90% of people, so that's what the market will be flooded with. Anyone who actually cares about quality will lose out on the economies of scale.
We have laws against rape because the vast majority of the populace does not want to be raped. This is not a moral judgement, it's practical.
What you're saying is that the claim of immorality is actually a factual claim. If that's the case, we can and should measure those social costs and compare them to the social costs of prohibition. If we did that, we'd find that it's prohibition that is "immoral".
Politicians are free to say: 'I think people on drugs should be punished because drugs are immoral.' That's a moral call, albeit a rather stupid one in my opinion. What they shouldn't do is say: 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.' That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
This is a terrifying position. The government should never ever regulate morality. If you think something is immoral, don't do it. When you force your moral values on others, that's tyranny.
Government exists for practical reasons. We are trying to accomplish something by having a government, so every law should have a basis in practicality.
Politicians absolutely should say, 'I want to reduce drug use, and sending all users to prison is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.'. Because if they say that, that's a falsifiable claim that we can disprove with evidence. That means we can potentially change their minds by presenting evidence. You can't do that when someone has made a subjective moral judgement.
Because they need a lot of energy just to keep the computers running. Whether the line is in use or not has no measurable effect on the power draw.
Try it. Get a kill-a-watt meter, hook it up to your computer. Then saturate your link. Maybe netcat /dev/zero, you want to do something that won't touch the disc. Try this and you'll see how little network activity actually affects the power you use.
That's the same thing in more words. The fact remains that if a cop wants to arrest you for any reason, and have you sexually abused by jail guards, he can and you have absolutely no recourse.
Fair enough. Would it be more accurate if I said "So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority so you must recognize he is nothing more than a thug with no respect for the rule of law."?
You wouldn't recognize fascism if it detained you indefinitely.
The US was not targeting that individual and had no intention of killing that individual
You don't actually know that, since there have never been any hearings into the issue. Another strike for the "most transparent administration in history". If it was truly an accident, lets an investigation, some hearings, and let the truth come out. The fact that there are none speaks a lot louder than whatever propaganda you're buying into.
Oh, I understand that. I just don't think the difference is whether the violation of the constitution is "trivial" or not. There are no trivial violations of the constitution. There are only violations of the constitution that powerful allow, and other violations that the powerful do not allow. All violations of the constitution are equally unconstitutional and invalid.