This is an ideological test for you all, and you're flunking! This is the free market at work
The first tenant of the free market is that all players have equal information and access, so sorry, you've flunked reading even the summary. Using a botnet to storm the ticket seller's site is not "able and willing to buy in volume" in the free market sense.
all that is needed to fix this is for tickets to be tied to the credit card
All you need to fix this is for tickets to be sold in an auction format. If the highest bidder is a scalper then they won't be able to sell it at a higher price on the marketplace. Presto, no more scalpers. Now to only make sure the bands get the increases in ticket retail values and not TicketMaster or the record companies.
I'm saying, then, that the idea and spirit of HOV lanes
Yeah, except that in a nation of lawyers the idea and spirit mean practically nothing and its the literal word and even exact punctuation that mean the most. Just take the interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment as starting examples.
I've seen corporations where an executive sends an email to the whole company encouraging ppl to vote a certain way
I've worked at a major hospital network where the 'advocacy' office would email everyone before elections urging us to all vote for all Democrats because they were more likely to boost Medicare/Medicaid spending. The emails would go on to talk about the organization budget in general and heavily imply there may be layoffs if there wasn't more revenue coming soon.
I'm reminded of voting in the MaxHeadroom world where viewers tune to the channel of their candidate at voting time.
But seriously, this seems like a well intended idea with an amazing amount of problems. The most obvious is that the phone company's computers and networking gear have many places to intercept the record of how you voted.
The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom. The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit. "It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."
In what kind of church do teen girls get a damaged reputation and ridicule for being labeled a virgin?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a link to find their nearest local branch?
your device will still work at USB 2.0 speeds...the computer will tell you
Frankly, it is most irritating that XP on my old laptop with USB 1 complains that the device could be faster and offers to show me a list of ports so I can pick a faster one. WTF - I already know there is no USB 2 port in the thing. How many tech support calls are made when less technical users get this? It should suggest I go get an adapter but the list of ports is worse than useless; it implies that one of the other ports will do the job.
but it also says the took the phones for voice calls, so where they really off?
Dragging the thing along so it can be turned on in a crisis to make a call at the exorbitant international roaming rates is a perfectly reasonable emergency plan - I was in Europe on business with a coworker who brought a Blackberry along for just that. It was $1.80 per minute if he called anyone so he didn't - although his wife called the thing regularly for emergencies about the kids misbehaving or what color to get the kitchen repainted. The look on his face as he took those calls and thought about the charges was quite entertaining. The person in the article was much wiser to bring the family along with him.
Because you didn't RTFA: Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500
That bag contained his private property that he had just purchased
And that's the whole point of the receipt - to show that it was now his property. In answer to your sarcastic question, said receipt also shows the cash register contains his money. Receipts are the cornerstone of Western economies and showing them as proof of ownership is what makes everything work. Whether its land with a house on it or a pack of gum, showing the receipt makes everyone back off or go through a lot of hassle with the courts. There are plenty of places in the world with crappily run economies where receipts are NOT good enough - a ficticious circuit city in, say, Burma, would pay a bribe to the policeman and get their merchandise back from this guy, receipt or no.
The guy in this article seems to be going by the truism 'possession is 9/10 ownership', which is a cute saying but not true at all: a receipt is 99.99999% of ownership. Merchandise in a store belongs to the store and the receipt shows that now it belongs to you. The receipt is the unassailable proof that you can take it out, not merely holding the thing and claiming it's yours now. The store is perfectly within its rights to have inventory controls such that employee 1 rings up the sale and employee 2 at the door checks the receipts on exiting merchandise.
For more on the role of receipts in the economy, see: The Mystery of Capital by deSoto.
Look, I'm not trying to argue a certain position and I'm not even a libertarian myself - I just think some of their ideas are interesting from a theoretical point of view so I follow a lot of it. I'm just pointing out that the ACLU and the libertarians don't agree on almost everything except privacy issues, where they do seem to agree a lot. All the things you've pointed out here are good reasons but you've taken the same position as the ACLU and not the position of libertarians. BTW, don't confuse 'libertarian', the people who run some candidate every cycle for president (I forget his name) with 'civil libertarian' which is the ACLU. Anyway, I can pick the libertarian points apart as well as the ACLU's because I think they're both too extreme. Please see the Cato institute for more: www.cato.org . If you live in a state near Colorado, try to pick up John Caldera on 850 KOA: http://www.850koa.com/pages/shows_caldara.html
I find it strange that libertarians would "spit acid" at the mention of the ACLU given that the mission of the ACLU is to protect civil liberties that are threatened by the government. That a libertarian would deride an organization dedicated to their civil liberties seems rather counter-productive, wouldn't you think?
The ACLU is in favor of government protection for the rights of small special interest groups, the ACLU is definitely NOT for protecting individual rights from government interference which is what the libertarian movement is all about. I know their name contains the phrase 'civil liberties' but look at their case record: The ACLU argues in favor of school bussing (not to mention mandatory attendance at public schools), smoking bans in restraunts, anti-trust legislation, etc, etc. The libertarian would argue against public schools in the first place, nevermind bussing, the rights of business owners to decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments, the rights of business owners to collude, etc, etc.
Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?
Furthermore, are the people in question actually libertarians or do they just say they are as a way of trying to be cool and outside the mainstream? I know several IT geeks who claim libertarianism I think because they associate it with the EFF. Meanwhile one donates money to the ACLU and the other to PETA and others sympathise with Earth First, et al. I know real libertarians spit acid at the mention of the ACLU, probably roll their eyes at PETA and certainly don't like the anti-personal property policies of the other ultra greens. Remember kids, in terms of individual rights and less government it goes: Communist - liberal - conservative - libertarian
You could get rid of those gigabit cards and use a dual head MB
The network adapters that come build into consumer motherboards are pretty simple; at $165 the ones quoted by the gp almost certainly do a lot, if not all, of the network overhead processing onboard. This is much more important when trying to squeeze flops out of your cluster than saving a card slot or a few $s.
That doesn't even address the Administration's promotion of torture while Gonzales was White House counsel, and his own calling the Geneva Convention's protections "obsolete" and "quaint"
I've read the 2002 memo on the application of the geneva conventions and was suprised to see you call it a promotion of turture; I've just finished re-reading it and still can find only that it is a detached analysis of the treaty vs the detainees in question. Perhaps you prefer someone who starts from an emotional point of view and works backwards to the conclusion. I see nothing in that saying 'turture is good and here's why' or 'torture is bad and here's why'. Actually, it's nothing but a bunch of dry history on the conventions, their application over the years, and the difference between high powers and failed states. Maybe it was too dry and you didn't make it all the way through? Maybe you are a defense attourney who prefers the immediate emotional reaction? Your web link is broken, so I couldn't see.
Anyway, I have to agree that the current war "renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments." It's enough that Mike Moore is complaining that the detainees in Guantanamo get good health care but if they get provided microscopes and a quick-mart, I'll really be irritated. Apparently you disagree, but that's your option. You really think detainees in Guantanamo should be getting pay advances in accordance with Geneva 3?
You've selectively copy-n-pasted from the link you've provided. The rest is: The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court Which is what I already said. Again, enforcing the law and maintaining integrity of the DoJ is all about how cases get triaged; when one likes the cases picked it's integrity and when not it's politics.
one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing
Where did that come into the job description? The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices. He (or she) doesn't even have to give legal advice to members of the senate (they have their own lawyers), nevermind oversighting them. The only politics involved in the job is what kinds of cases (or even specific cases) the federal government should persue. There aren't enough federal marshals to catch and enough judges to try every potential criminal for every case. Someone has to triage it. When people think other types of cases should be persued or specific cases should be dropped they yell 'politics!' as a distractor.
If you did, then you'd probably go to jail. You are only allowed to do a proportionate response to the threat
Where do you live? Here in the USA where I am, and the last three states within which I've lived, intruders in the home conducting theft and assault most certainly may be countered with deadly force.
Dogs don't understand the law. Bring in a predator.
RTFA - The monkeys killed the dogs already.
Now a real Predator, that would be another story, but he'd proceed to kill all the village men after he was done with the monkeys, so that's probably out.
You mean you would shoot a human that makes rude gestures to you?
I'd put shooting high on the list of options for a human that broke into my house, sexually harrassed my woman, and stole my food. If you'd read the article you'd see the monkeys were actually grabbing the women's breasts AND making additional lewd gestures.
What's the difference between magic and any sufficiently advanced technology? I submit Jesus was from the 29th century and thrown back in time after a plasma bubble in his antimater flux capacitor created a rift in the subspace matrix.... oh, wait, no, I've just watched too many Voyager reruns.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, yeah, you got me; no excuses. maybe the first tenants of free markets are primary leaseholders?
This is an ideological test for you all, and you're flunking! This is the free market at work
The first tenant of the free market is that all players have equal information and access, so sorry, you've flunked reading even the summary. Using a botnet to storm the ticket seller's site is not "able and willing to buy in volume" in the free market sense.
all that is needed to fix this is for tickets to be tied to the credit card
All you need to fix this is for tickets to be sold in an auction format. If the highest bidder is a scalper then they won't be able to sell it at a higher price on the marketplace. Presto, no more scalpers. Now to only make sure the bands get the increases in ticket retail values and not TicketMaster or the record companies.
The prophets of 1970 said:
The world would be covered in ice by now.
I'm saying, then, that the idea and spirit of HOV lanes
Yeah, except that in a nation of lawyers the idea and spirit mean practically nothing and its the literal word and even exact punctuation that mean the most. Just take the interstate commerce clause and the 14th amendment as starting examples.
I've seen corporations where an executive sends an email to the whole company encouraging ppl to vote a certain way
I've worked at a major hospital network where the 'advocacy' office would email everyone before elections urging us to all vote for all Democrats because they were more likely to boost Medicare/Medicaid spending. The emails would go on to talk about the organization budget in general and heavily imply there may be layoffs if there wasn't more revenue coming soon.
I'm reminded of voting in the MaxHeadroom world where viewers tune to the channel of their candidate at voting time.
But seriously, this seems like a well intended idea with an amazing amount of problems. The most obvious is that the phone company's computers and networking gear have many places to intercept the record of how you voted.
The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.
The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit.
"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."
In what kind of church do teen girls get a damaged reputation and ridicule for being labeled a virgin?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a link to find their nearest local branch?
your device will still work at USB 2.0 speeds...the computer will tell you
Frankly, it is most irritating that XP on my old laptop with USB 1 complains that the device could be faster and offers to show me a list of ports so I can pick a faster one. WTF - I already know there is no USB 2 port in the thing. How many tech support calls are made when less technical users get this? It should suggest I go get an adapter but the list of ports is worse than useless; it implies that one of the other ports will do the job.
Russia refers to their inanimate objects as masculine, the US feminine, and Germany as "it". It has always been such, for whatever reason
Look up WWII history: Russia had 'the motherland', Germany had 'the fatherland' and the US had "the US".
but it also says the took the phones for voice calls, so where they really off?
Dragging the thing along so it can be turned on in a crisis to make a call at the exorbitant international roaming rates is a perfectly reasonable emergency plan - I was in Europe on business with a coworker who brought a Blackberry along for just that. It was $1.80 per minute if he called anyone so he didn't - although his wife called the thing regularly for emergencies about the kids misbehaving or what color to get the kitchen repainted. The look on his face as he took those calls and thought about the charges was quite entertaining. The person in the article was much wiser to bring the family along with him.
Because you didn't RTFA:
Under terms of the Clean Air Act--in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off--anyone (dealer, consumer, automaker) involved in an out-of-bounds PZEV sale could be subject to civil fines of up to $27,500
That bag contained his private property that he had just purchased
And that's the whole point of the receipt - to show that it was now his property. In answer to your sarcastic question, said receipt also shows the cash register contains his money.
Receipts are the cornerstone of Western economies and showing them as proof of ownership is what makes everything work. Whether its land with a house on it or a pack of gum, showing the receipt makes everyone back off or go through a lot of hassle with the courts. There are plenty of places in the world with crappily run economies where receipts are NOT good enough - a ficticious circuit city in, say, Burma, would pay a bribe to the policeman and get their merchandise back from this guy, receipt or no.
The guy in this article seems to be going by the truism 'possession is 9/10 ownership', which is a cute saying but not true at all: a receipt is 99.99999% of ownership. Merchandise in a store belongs to the store and the receipt shows that now it belongs to you. The receipt is the unassailable proof that you can take it out, not merely holding the thing and claiming it's yours now. The store is perfectly within its rights to have inventory controls such that employee 1 rings up the sale and employee 2 at the door checks the receipts on exiting merchandise.
For more on the role of receipts in the economy, see: The Mystery of Capital by deSoto.
Look, I'm not trying to argue a certain position and I'm not even a libertarian myself - I just think some of their ideas are interesting from a theoretical point of view so I follow a lot of it. I'm just pointing out that the ACLU and the libertarians don't agree on almost everything except privacy issues, where they do seem to agree a lot. All the things you've pointed out here are good reasons but you've taken the same position as the ACLU and not the position of libertarians. BTW, don't confuse 'libertarian', the people who run some candidate every cycle for president (I forget his name) with 'civil libertarian' which is the ACLU. Anyway, I can pick the libertarian points apart as well as the ACLU's because I think they're both too extreme. Please see the Cato institute for more: www.cato.org . If you live in a state near Colorado, try to pick up John Caldera on 850 KOA: http://www.850koa.com/pages/shows_caldara.html
I find it strange that libertarians would "spit acid" at the mention of the ACLU given that the mission of the ACLU is to protect civil liberties that are threatened by the government. That a libertarian would deride an organization dedicated to their civil liberties seems rather counter-productive, wouldn't you think?
The ACLU is in favor of government protection for the rights of small special interest groups, the ACLU is definitely NOT for protecting individual rights from government interference which is what the libertarian movement is all about. I know their name contains the phrase 'civil liberties' but look at their case record: The ACLU argues in favor of school bussing (not to mention mandatory attendance at public schools), smoking bans in restraunts, anti-trust legislation, etc, etc. The libertarian would argue against public schools in the first place, nevermind bussing, the rights of business owners to decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments, the rights of business owners to collude, etc, etc.
Can you cite your source for this data? Or are you just assuming this because some of your friends are libertarians?
Furthermore, are the people in question actually libertarians or do they just say they are as a way of trying to be cool and outside the mainstream? I know several IT geeks who claim libertarianism I think because they associate it with the EFF. Meanwhile one donates money to the ACLU and the other to PETA and others sympathise with Earth First, et al. I know real libertarians spit acid at the mention of the ACLU, probably roll their eyes at PETA and certainly don't like the anti-personal property policies of the other ultra greens.
Remember kids, in terms of individual rights and less government it goes:
Communist - liberal - conservative - libertarian
You could get rid of those gigabit cards and use a dual head MB
The network adapters that come build into consumer motherboards are pretty simple; at $165 the ones quoted by the gp almost certainly do a lot, if not all, of the network overhead processing onboard. This is much more important when trying to squeeze flops out of your cluster than saving a card slot or a few $s.
I appreciate your long reply but fear we must agree to disagree; this forum as it is too unwieldy for such lengthy dialog.
That doesn't even address the Administration's promotion of torture while Gonzales was White House counsel, and his own calling the Geneva Convention's protections "obsolete" and "quaint"
I've read the 2002 memo on the application of the geneva conventions and was suprised to see you call it a promotion of turture; I've just finished re-reading it and still can find only that it is a detached analysis of the treaty vs the detainees in question. Perhaps you prefer someone who starts from an emotional point of view and works backwards to the conclusion. I see nothing in that saying 'turture is good and here's why' or 'torture is bad and here's why'. Actually, it's nothing but a bunch of dry history on the conventions, their application over the years, and the difference between high powers and failed states. Maybe it was too dry and you didn't make it all the way through? Maybe you are a defense attourney who prefers the immediate emotional reaction? Your web link is broken, so I couldn't see.
Anyway, I have to agree that the current war "renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments." It's enough that Mike Moore is complaining that the detainees in Guantanamo get good health care but if they get provided microscopes and a quick-mart, I'll really be irritated. Apparently you disagree, but that's your option. You really think detainees in Guantanamo should be getting pay advances in accordance with Geneva 3?
You've selectively copy-n-pasted from the link you've provided. The rest is:
The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court
Which is what I already said. Again, enforcing the law and maintaining integrity of the DoJ is all about how cases get triaged; when one likes the cases picked it's integrity and when not it's politics.
one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing
Where did that come into the job description? The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices. He (or she) doesn't even have to give legal advice to members of the senate (they have their own lawyers), nevermind oversighting them. The only politics involved in the job is what kinds of cases (or even specific cases) the federal government should persue. There aren't enough federal marshals to catch and enough judges to try every potential criminal for every case. Someone has to triage it. When people think other types of cases should be persued or specific cases should be dropped they yell 'politics!' as a distractor.
If you did, then you'd probably go to jail. You are only allowed to do a proportionate response to the threat
Where do you live? Here in the USA where I am, and the last three states within which I've lived, intruders in the home conducting theft and assault most certainly may be countered with deadly force.
Dogs don't understand the law. Bring in a predator.
RTFA - The monkeys killed the dogs already.
Now a real Predator, that would be another story, but he'd proceed to kill all the village men after he was done with the monkeys, so that's probably out.
You mean you would shoot a human that makes rude gestures to you?
I'd put shooting high on the list of options for a human that broke into my house, sexually harrassed my woman, and stole my food. If you'd read the article you'd see the monkeys were actually grabbing the women's breasts AND making additional lewd gestures.
Whats the difference between a Miracle and Magic?
What's the difference between magic and any sufficiently advanced technology? I submit Jesus was from the 29th century and thrown back in time after a plasma bubble in his antimater flux capacitor created a rift in the subspace matrix.... oh, wait, no, I've just watched too many Voyager reruns.