The reason why Libertarians (big-L) are not more popular is that most people disagree with them.
Most people I know have libertarian (small-l) leanings, but think that big-L Libertarians are crazy.
One example: I was reading... some political blog... discussing the latest hassles with traveling by air. One big-L Libertarian commented to the effect that it's not worth giving up our essential liberties even it costs millions of lives. (He actually said "millions".) I replied that this is why the Libertarian Party will never gain any political power. No matter how you frame a statement like that, 95% of the population will disagree.
You wouldn't be able to stack multiple desktop CPUs, because it would generate too much heat. But you could stack a CPU on top of its own level 2 cache instead of next to it, making for shorter wires and a faster chip. Or stack a GPU on top of DRAM, so that you could have a 2048-bit bus instead of 256-bit.
Then they just rely on the upper layer to conduct enough heat to keep the low layers cool.
Right. The concept of prior restraint is very important. That you are free to say whatever you want under the constitution doesn't mean that you can't be sued or prosecuted for events resulting from what you say. What it means is that the government can't pass any law that forbids you from saying anything.
This has to be the most stupid and ill-informed comment I've read on/. for a LONG time.
You can't have been reading much lately. Yes, it's complete nonsense, but that accounts for a pretty high percentage of posts even when you're browsing at +5.
But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?
Two answers.
Serious answer: It gets the message out. Local protests are, well, local. The internet is global. Politicians will ignore it, but their paid pollsters won't.
Really serious answer: Protests are mostly pointless to the level of idiocy anyway. Ooh, here come the giant puppetheads! I don't care whether people see your video or not, as long as it keeps you off the streets.
Is it considered censorship that adult movies can't be rated G?
If the US government were to do it, then yes, it would be considered censorship, and a breach of the First Amendment.
Is it censorship that pornography is not allowed in the.gov TLD?
No. The government is not required to host pornography. They are simply not allowed to prevent private individuals from doing so.
Just because it has to be segregated does't mean it is censored.
Any abridgement of the freedom of speech is unconstitutional. That includes legislated categorization, which is why movie ratings are created by the film industry, and not by the government.
This resolution avoids the problem by not actually trying to do anything, but the legislation it calls for would be clearly unconstitutional.
Peak Oil will come and we won't HAVE anything to burn to create greenhouse gases.
Peak Oil has probably already passed. Why do you think gas is so expensive, and leaders of oil states are acting crazy... uh, crazier than usual?
The thing is, there's huge reserves of low-grade oil in places like Alberta, which are profitable to extract at current prices, so it's still going to be a soft landing.
Electrons don't race down copper wires. The electric field moves at a good fraction of the speed of light, but the electrons themselves move at something like one metre per hour.
If it's a voluntary code of practice, then the ASB has no jurisdiction. If it's not voluntary, it's prior restraint... Unfortunately, we don't have the First Amendment here in Oz.
The reason I can't show you apps and real-world residential users is that it doesn't work.
For non-internet multicast apps, there's things like TeleText or whatever it was called where you live. Yeah, no-one uses it anymore, because it sucked.
The value of the internet lies in its ability to provide point-to-point links as needed. Multicast information delivery systems have been tried, and it's the multicast systems that have died out, while the internet has exploded. Multicast over the internet doesn't work, and never has.
If you really want multicast, you can watch free-to-air TV. Yes, it sucks. That's the point.
Unfortunately, our ability to cure diseases and stave off death has pretty much stopped the selection of the strong over the weak
Yes, it's terribly unfortunate that many gene-related disorders can now be treated and that people can live full lives rather than dying horribly at a young age.
The simple and obvious conclusion is that communism simply doesn't work beyond small, dedicated, voluntary groups. The Marxist ideal of communism supplanting capitalism on any scale larger than "small village" is a crock of shit.
Indeed. J. B. S. Haldane - himself a communist - pointed this out in the early 20th century in his famous essay On Being the Right Size (which mostly about scaling in biology, but also discussed other examples of scaling problems). He speculated that a particularly brilliant group of leaders might make communism a success in a country the size of Liechtenstein (population about 30,000).
An editorial warns: "We are seeing for the first time broken families, school dropouts and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world - shoplifting, burglary and violence..."
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
You americans and your "Bill O'Rights", heaven forbid that you should do things for the good of all.
Try reading what the Bill of Rights actually says.
Every American is free to do things for the good of all.
On the other hand, Congress is explicitly forbidden to infringe on the recognized, innate rights of the people.
Governments are designed to limit freedoms because by limiting those freedoms we can make a better world for EVERYONE
Governments are granted certain limited powers by the people; the significance of the Bill of Rights is that it makes clear what the American government is not allowed to do. And that includes passing laws such as this.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
The reason why Libertarians (big-L) are not more popular is that most people disagree with them.
Most people I know have libertarian (small-l) leanings, but think that big-L Libertarians are crazy.
One example: I was reading... some political blog... discussing the latest hassles with traveling by air. One big-L Libertarian commented to the effect that it's not worth giving up our essential liberties even it costs millions of lives. (He actually said "millions".) I replied that this is why the Libertarian Party will never gain any political power. No matter how you frame a statement like that, 95% of the population will disagree.
You wouldn't be able to stack multiple desktop CPUs, because it would generate too much heat. But you could stack a CPU on top of its own level 2 cache instead of next to it, making for shorter wires and a faster chip. Or stack a GPU on top of DRAM, so that you could have a 2048-bit bus instead of 256-bit.
Then they just rely on the upper layer to conduct enough heat to keep the low layers cool.
Right. The concept of prior restraint is very important. That you are free to say whatever you want under the constitution doesn't mean that you can't be sued or prosecuted for events resulting from what you say. What it means is that the government can't pass any law that forbids you from saying anything.
Are you saying that Tesla had never heard of the inverse-square law?
High-fructose corn syrup is used in the US solely due to price protections on sugar, and is largely unknown in the rest of the world.
Ooh, "What is France?", Alex.
Serious answer: It gets the message out. Local protests are, well, local. The internet is global. Politicians will ignore it, but their paid pollsters won't.
Really serious answer: Protests are mostly pointless to the level of idiocy anyway. Ooh, here come the giant puppetheads! I don't care whether people see your video or not, as long as it keeps you off the streets.
Never mind sides. I'll be over here selling popcorn.
This resolution avoids the problem by not actually trying to do anything, but the legislation it calls for would be clearly unconstitutional.
Then again, so is McCain-Feingold.
The thing is, there's huge reserves of low-grade oil in places like Alberta, which are profitable to extract at current prices, so it's still going to be a soft landing.
Electrons don't race down copper wires. The electric field moves at a good fraction of the speed of light, but the electrons themselves move at something like one metre per hour.
If it's a voluntary code of practice, then the ASB has no jurisdiction. If it's not voluntary, it's prior restraint... Unfortunately, we don't have the First Amendment here in Oz.
The reason I can't show you apps and real-world residential users is that it doesn't work.
For non-internet multicast apps, there's things like TeleText or whatever it was called where you live. Yeah, no-one uses it anymore, because it sucked.
Everything you just said is wrong.
The value of the internet lies in its ability to provide point-to-point links as needed. Multicast information delivery systems have been tried, and it's the multicast systems that have died out, while the internet has exploded. Multicast over the internet doesn't work, and never has.
If you really want multicast, you can watch free-to-air TV. Yes, it sucks. That's the point.
Okay, so she's a reptiloid alien in a human skin. She's still hot.
No, they can't. Well, they already have, but they have done so illegally.
... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".
"Congress shall make no law
Every American is free to do things for the good of all.
On the other hand, Congress is explicitly forbidden to infringe on the recognized, innate rights of the people.Governments are granted certain limited powers by the people; the significance of the Bill of Rights is that it makes clear what the American government is not allowed to do. And that includes passing laws such as this.