No, if you're referring to the word itself, you put it in quotes and then pluralise outside the quotes, whether you're using single or double quotes. So you'd use "he"s and "she"s or 'he's and 'she's.
It looks better with single quotes, and does give the illusion of using an apostrophe.
By the way, the initial poster who referred to "he's" and "she's" was likely thinking of them as contractions for "he is" and "she is".
This link is personalized for an affiliate to track the amount of visits from Slashdot to the firefly site. The link submitter is most likely profitting from our traffic.
Do you realize how disgusting it sounds to say that everything must be turned into some dollar value?
What's disgusting about it?
Are you asserting that the potential environmental impact of a particular activity should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether to do it or not?
If so, I'd disagree. Environmental damage can be cleaned up; it can be contained so it doesn't affect peoples's health; etc. But these things have associated costs, and he decision should be made by comparing those costs to the expected benefets of the thing in question.
And even at more abstract level, you can still use money as a measuring unit to quantify value. You can come to a general dollar figure for how much you value aesthetics, etc. by comparing the amount of qualitative satisfaction you get from X with the amount of money you'd pay for some good Y which does have a market price.
What's the value of not smelling shit? Well, I'd definitely put up with the smell of shit for enough money. Garbage collectors can demand a premium for their services precisely because of the unpleasantness of the job. At least for them, they've quantified the value of not smelling fetid waste, and decided that the benefits of extra pay outweigh the intangible cost of smelling trash. In that case the quantified dollar value of not smelling trash is at most the amount they get paid above people who do similar, but non-smelly jobs, such as deliveries, etc.
Money is just a tool; it's useful way to abstract value and when used with proper precision can lead you to a much more accurate assessment of relative values then emotional sentimentalism can.
Money is a measure of value which can be used to quantify anything, including intangibles such as environmental impact, etc.
If you want to balance environmental impact againt other relevant factors, and you want to do it in a scientific way, you need to quantify everything in terms of dollar values.
But whether voters want GMO food is irrelevant; it's what consumers want that matters. Voters don't have the right to deny consumers the choice to purchase goods they may want.
I disagree that common law can effectively or practically manage frequency ownership and use. A central entity is really the only recourse, even if they delegate sections down to the local level.
Why? The courts were already beginning to establish precedents for dealing with radio transmission disputes when they were pre-empted by the FCC. Why wouldn't they be able to handle it?
At least the government doesn't have commercial aspirations, or shouldn't under the restrictive charter I mentioned as being given this "new" agency.
I'd much rather deal with organizations with commercial aspirations than organizations with political aspirations: a commercial organization's survival depends on satisfying its customers, al teast at some level. But plotical agencies are completely unaccountable; they get funded by a third party, and lobby for their funds by putting themselves in the spotlight, which often means taking actions just so they can be percieved as doing something, whether or not it needs to be done, or even successfully addresses the problem. Add the tendency toward 'agency capture' inherent in any regulatory bureaucracy, and you'll wind up with a situation like the one we're already in.
Any system always progresses towards an equilibrium, and the equilibrium for modern regulatory agencies is corrupt, over-regulating bureaucracy and agency capture. Common law institutions have, over the centuries, proven themselves far more reliable, and far more compatible with a free society.
Then it would be a good idea for parents not to let their children watch hard-core porn.
In advocating government restrictions over broadcast content, are you suggesting that the government take over parents' responsibility to raise their children properly?
And who is going to take the time to track me down? And once they find me, who is going to arrest me? Who will assess all of this? First and foremost, who is going to prevent manufacture of devices like this?
And who's going to do all of this now?
You certainly have the capacity to interfere with your local police band now, but in doing so, you'd be violating FCC regulations.
Under a common-law approach to radio frequencies, the police dpeartment would own that frequency, and by broadcasting over it, you'd still be breaking the law. Except in this case, the police could take direct action to stop your illegal broadcasting, whereas in the current circumstances, they'd have to ask the FCC to stop you.
Under a common-law approch people would be able to protect their own frequencies, so it would actually make illegal broadcasting more difficult. On the other hand, you wouldn't have anyone cracking down on unlicensed brodcasting that doesn't actually interfere with legitimate uses of the frequencies in question, as the FCC does now. So it'd be a win-win situation for everyone involved.
To extend the frequencies-as-land metaphor, I presuem the Amateur Radio frequencies would be considered public rights-of-way, as in land that everyone has the right to access but that no one in particular, including the goverment, has an exclusive ownership claim to.
For FRS and GMRS, considering the capabilities of modern technology, this shouldn't even be an issue. Use encrypted digital signals and even radios operating on the same frequency will only hear what's intended for them.
The internet is running quite well enough now. Spam really only affects email, and modern filtering solutions are becoming increasingly effective. The web, which is completely unregulated, does not suffer from these problems and functions exceedingly well.
If the internet were regulated the way radio frequencies are, perhaps we would have less spam and viruses, but we'd also have a much less of everything else.
Who owns what frequency is a matter more efficiently dealt with at common law, without all of the corruption and centralization that having a bureaucracy entails.
And EM emissions certification can easily be accomplished by private organizations, like UL, Consumer Reports, etc.
What we are talking about is the use of a limited resource -- you need laws, regulation and enforcement.
Which is exactly why the FCC ought to be abolished. The article makes note of the fact that in the early days of radio, laws were gradually being developed based on the reality of circumstances in the industry, but the creation of the FCC stifled that process. If things had been allowed to devlelop naturally, we'd today have a good body of common law covering all aspects of radio transmission rights, etc. Instead we have a centralised decision-making body which has inhibited the natural development of technology and stunted its integration into the economy.
All of the problems you're citing with abolishing the FCC are a direct result of the FCC's existence inthe first place: if we'd allowed laws to develop properly, the wireless start-up wouldn't be interfering with the control tower in the first place; but because we've depended on the FCC to sort these issues out, those laws don't exist.
It takes time for new technologies to develop into something economically useful. But laws work the same way; trying to jump-start the introduction of a new techonolgy by applying some artificial schema as a substitute for the gradual development of law will in the long run be as much of an impediment as forcibly standardising an immature technology before all of its problems have been completely worked out.
To say that there aren't limited resources on the internet is a mistake, as well. There are a limited number of IPs and domain names available; there's a finite amount of badwidth available at any given time. But those problems have largely been solved with a minimum of political interference, and the internet works today by mutual cooperation according to constantly developing standards, not by direction from some central authority. If radio waves were treated the same way, we'd be better off.
Think of national parks. We don't NEED the US Forest Service, right? We should just open the parks, abolish all the current rules and let all the tourists/loggers/environmentalists work out standards amongst themselves to protect the land and best use it? RIIIIIIGGHHT...
The problem of working out "standards" for land use has been soved for centuries: it's called private property. The disputes between the groups you mentioned exist only because the land in question is owned by the government and considered "public" -- everyone feels that they have some claim on it. Let loggers chop down their own trees on their own land, let tourists visit wilderness parks run privately as co-ops or for-profit businesses, and either close off land earmarked for environmental conservation as wilderness, or turn it over to conservation groups.
Leaving it in the hands of the Forest Service leaves all the groups involved unsatisfied and makes us deal with the consequences of mismanagement, such as the recent Los Alamos fires.
In both cases the problem is the same: rather than establishing rights in several property in a finite resource, the state decides to view the whole resource as belonging to the public at once, so we wind up trying to balance all possible uses simultaneously. No one can ever be completely satisfied that way.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that a preliminary hearing is a replacement for a Grand Jury, since the Grand Jury is the traditional means of issuing indictments under the common law?
I find it suprising that the above poster, who I presume is from Canada (due to his posting google.ca links) has never heard of Grand Juries, considering that they were used in English Canada, along with most other common-law jurisdictions.
Using BSD code isn't theft. The BSD license has essentially no restrictions on reuse of code. Microsoft's "swiping" of the BSD TCP/IP stack was perfectly legal.
You need to worry about billing, customer service, accounting, marketting, reliability, security, the staff to support all that, etc, etc, etc.
These apply to any business. The point is that people who are competent at running a buisiness will now have the means to start a wireless VoIP business. That entrepreneurs will have to manage their logistics adequately goes without saying.
Yes, let's homogenise and bureaucratise everything right off the bat. That way we won't have to worry about the problems with international and private competition in space exploration, since there won't be any space exploration.
Well, that's one example. But the measurement system the USA and Burma/Myanmar use originated in the Roman Empire. All other countries use the International System of measurements, which originated in France.
A few nitpicks here: first, countries don't use measurment systems at all. Secondly, while it's true that Amiercans, Britons, etc. prefer to use the traditional measurement system that evolved out of Roman units, this is an issue of the rest of the world making up a new standard to challenge existing standards, not the reverse.
By the way, what does Burma/Myanmar have to do with anything?
As for sports, mentioned in the parent, the USA is, in many respects, separated from the rest of the world. The sport called "football" in the rest of the world is called "soccer" in the USA.
This isn't actually correct. "Football" only refers to Soccer in the British Isles. In the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it refers to a game derived from rugby. In most other countries, English isn't the dominant language, so neither "football" nor "soccer" would be used to describe the sport. Granted, in some cases a version of the word "football" was incorporated into the local language, such as the Spanish "fútbol".
I think these sports examples are meaningful because one purpose of international sports competition is to promote union between the nations. ... If the USA had a national team that was respected in a "world standard" sport such as football, then perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Do you really beleive that, or are you just trolling? The notion that centuries-old hostilities -- influenced by religious ideology and competing nationalisms -- will just evaporate over a game of soccer is absurd.
The model for all modern police forces is the London Metropolitan Police, established in the mid-nineteenth century by Sir Robert Peel. One of his nine principles, justifying the existence of an official police force in the context of the traditions of the common law, was:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
The fact is that if your rights are being violated, it's your duty to defend them. The official police can't be everywhere and can't do everything. To depend solely on them gives criminals and aggressors opportunities to harm others that they wouldn't have if individuals were willing to take responsibility for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not free, just substantially cheaper.
I've heard that it also costs somewhat marginally less.
No, if you're referring to the word itself, you put it in quotes and then pluralise outside the quotes, whether you're using single or double quotes. So you'd use "he"s and "she"s or 'he's and 'she's.
It looks better with single quotes, and does give the illusion of using an apostrophe.
By the way, the initial poster who referred to "he's" and "she's" was likely thinking of them as contractions for "he is" and "she is".
This link is personalized for an affiliate to track the amount of visits from Slashdot to the firefly site. The link submitter is most likely profitting from our traffic.
Err... So?
I never used TI-Writer, but messed around in BASIC a lot, so it's black-on-cyan for me.
Do you realize how disgusting it sounds to say that everything must be turned into some dollar value?
What's disgusting about it?
Are you asserting that the potential environmental impact of a particular activity should be the sole determining factor in deciding whether to do it or not?
If so, I'd disagree. Environmental damage can be cleaned up; it can be contained so it doesn't affect peoples's health; etc. But these things have associated costs, and he decision should be made by comparing those costs to the expected benefets of the thing in question.
And even at more abstract level, you can still use money as a measuring unit to quantify value. You can come to a general dollar figure for how much you value aesthetics, etc. by comparing the amount of qualitative satisfaction you get from X with the amount of money you'd pay for some good Y which does have a market price.
What's the value of not smelling shit? Well, I'd definitely put up with the smell of shit for enough money. Garbage collectors can demand a premium for their services precisely because of the unpleasantness of the job. At least for them, they've quantified the value of not smelling fetid waste, and decided that the benefits of extra pay outweigh the intangible cost of smelling trash. In that case the quantified dollar value of not smelling trash is at most the amount they get paid above people who do similar, but non-smelly jobs, such as deliveries, etc.
Money is just a tool; it's useful way to abstract value and when used with proper precision can lead you to a much more accurate assessment of relative values then emotional sentimentalism can.
Money is a measure of value which can be used to quantify anything, including intangibles such as environmental impact, etc.
If you want to balance environmental impact againt other relevant factors, and you want to do it in a scientific way, you need to quantify everything in terms of dollar values.
And muggers mug people all the time.
The fact that it's happened doesn't mean that anyone had the right to do it.
But whether voters want GMO food is irrelevant; it's what consumers want that matters. Voters don't have the right to deny consumers the choice to purchase goods they may want.
The concept of right-of-way precludes the issuance of licenses, as licenses would imply ownership of the resource in question by the licensor.
Public right-of-way is precisely as its name implies; a licensing scheme would be incompatible with the premise.
I'd much rather deal with organizations with commercial aspirations than organizations with political aspirations: a commercial organization's survival depends on satisfying its customers, al teast at some level. But plotical agencies are completely unaccountable; they get funded by a third party, and lobby for their funds by putting themselves in the spotlight, which often means taking actions just so they can be percieved as doing something, whether or not it needs to be done, or even successfully addresses the problem. Add the tendency toward 'agency capture' inherent in any regulatory bureaucracy, and you'll wind up with a situation like the one we're already in.
Any system always progresses towards an equilibrium, and the equilibrium for modern regulatory agencies is corrupt, over-regulating bureaucracy and agency capture. Common law institutions have, over the centuries, proven themselves far more reliable, and far more compatible with a free society.
Then it would be a good idea for parents not to let their children watch hard-core porn.
In advocating government restrictions over broadcast content, are you suggesting that the government take over parents' responsibility to raise their children properly?
You certainly have the capacity to interfere with your local police band now, but in doing so, you'd be violating FCC regulations.
Under a common-law approach to radio frequencies, the police dpeartment would own that frequency, and by broadcasting over it, you'd still be breaking the law. Except in this case, the police could take direct action to stop your illegal broadcasting, whereas in the current circumstances, they'd have to ask the FCC to stop you.
Under a common-law approch people would be able to protect their own frequencies, so it would actually make illegal broadcasting more difficult. On the other hand, you wouldn't have anyone cracking down on unlicensed brodcasting that doesn't actually interfere with legitimate uses of the frequencies in question, as the FCC does now. So it'd be a win-win situation for everyone involved.
To extend the frequencies-as-land metaphor, I presuem the Amateur Radio frequencies would be considered public rights-of-way, as in land that everyone has the right to access but that no one in particular, including the goverment, has an exclusive ownership claim to.
For FRS and GMRS, considering the capabilities of modern technology, this shouldn't even be an issue. Use encrypted digital signals and even radios operating on the same frequency will only hear what's intended for them.
The internet is running quite well enough now. Spam really only affects email, and modern filtering solutions are becoming increasingly effective. The web, which is completely unregulated, does not suffer from these problems and functions exceedingly well.
If the internet were regulated the way radio frequencies are, perhaps we would have less spam and viruses, but we'd also have a much less of everything else.
Who owns what frequency is a matter more efficiently dealt with at common law, without all of the corruption and centralization that having a bureaucracy entails.
And EM emissions certification can easily be accomplished by private organizations, like UL, Consumer Reports, etc.
That leaves only the negative aspects.
All of the problems you're citing with abolishing the FCC are a direct result of the FCC's existence inthe first place: if we'd allowed laws to develop properly, the wireless start-up wouldn't be interfering with the control tower in the first place; but because we've depended on the FCC to sort these issues out, those laws don't exist.
It takes time for new technologies to develop into something economically useful. But laws work the same way; trying to jump-start the introduction of a new techonolgy by applying some artificial schema as a substitute for the gradual development of law will in the long run be as much of an impediment as forcibly standardising an immature technology before all of its problems have been completely worked out.
To say that there aren't limited resources on the internet is a mistake, as well. There are a limited number of IPs and domain names available; there's a finite amount of badwidth available at any given time. But those problems have largely been solved with a minimum of political interference, and the internet works today by mutual cooperation according to constantly developing standards, not by direction from some central authority. If radio waves were treated the same way, we'd be better off.
The problem of working out "standards" for land use has been soved for centuries: it's called private property. The disputes between the groups you mentioned exist only because the land in question is owned by the government and considered "public" -- everyone feels that they have some claim on it. Let loggers chop down their own trees on their own land, let tourists visit wilderness parks run privately as co-ops or for-profit businesses, and either close off land earmarked for environmental conservation as wilderness, or turn it over to conservation groups.
Leaving it in the hands of the Forest Service leaves all the groups involved unsatisfied and makes us deal with the consequences of mismanagement, such as the recent Los Alamos fires.
In both cases the problem is the same: rather than establishing rights in several property in a finite resource, the state decides to view the whole resource as belonging to the public at once, so we wind up trying to balance all possible uses simultaneously. No one can ever be completely satisfied that way.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that a preliminary hearing is a replacement for a Grand Jury, since the Grand Jury is the traditional means of issuing indictments under the common law?
I find it suprising that the above poster, who I presume is from Canada (due to his posting google.ca links) has never heard of Grand Juries, considering that they were used in English Canada, along with most other common-law jurisdictions.
Using BSD code isn't theft. The BSD license has essentially no restrictions on reuse of code. Microsoft's "swiping" of the BSD TCP/IP stack was perfectly legal.
Yes, let's homogenise and bureaucratise everything right off the bat. That way we won't have to worry about the problems with international and private competition in space exploration, since there won't be any space exploration.
By the way, what does Burma/Myanmar have to do with anything?This isn't actually correct. "Football" only refers to Soccer in the British Isles. In the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it refers to a game derived from rugby. In most other countries, English isn't the dominant language, so neither "football" nor "soccer" would be used to describe the sport. Granted, in some cases a version of the word "football" was incorporated into the local language, such as the Spanish "fútbol". Do you really beleive that, or are you just trolling? The notion that centuries-old hostilities -- influenced by religious ideology and competing nationalisms -- will just evaporate over a game of soccer is absurd.
With all those hands, it sounds like we're back to Hinduism, not Judaism.