I'd personally lynch a politician if I thought they'd rather represent foreign interests above their own constituents
So what did you think when the SCOTUS cited "foreign laws" when stiking down death sentences for juvenile offenders?
I believe control should pass to a pan-national body
Like the UN and how famously well that group agrees and gets things done efficiently? To whom, exactly, is a theoretical "pan-national" body accountable?
I don't think you can say that the USA has the "most free speech".
If "China" were substituted for "USA" and you were a Chinese citizen on a Chinese discussion site, the logs of the net cafe you used to post that might well aready by confiscated by the local police. As well as those of the moderators who (ironically?) marked it "Insightful".
Does the left believe in gun rights for all humans, not just Americans? I do.
Are you nuts??? Every time I ride the free downtown shuttle bus I have at least four or five fellow passengers who look like they shouldn't be trusted with butter knives, nevermind guns. Moral of the story: NEVER make absolutist statements.
It should suprise no one that a religion started on the largest flood plain in the world has a giant-flood-wipes-out-everything story as part of its mythos. There may well have been some guy whose family and livestock rode out a particularly nasty flood on a raft and this got enhanced and embellished to the current version. But you don't need to be a sarcastic jerk about it.
helped them tabulate and record the deaths and methods of death of millions of people
While that's what the Nazis ended up doing with the things, I really doubt it was in the proposal design spec. Just imagine something like: 1. Vendor's proposed system must keep track of all detainees' arrival and disposal times 2. Proposed system must scale to millions of detainees 3. System must work well in environment heavy with air particulates
I bet it was pitched to IBM as needing a way to keep census data or somesuch. Ask the average person in the mid 1930's if they think millions of Polish and Russian Jews are going to be systematically murdered by a complex German government operation and they'll think you're nuts.
It always gets in the way of people who have been exposed to toxic substances claiming damages
Only if they don't live in the affected area. The logic in this case would apply to everyone in the affected area but say that people in the rest of the world can't sue also. If everyone whose data had been lost in the case at hand had sued instead of everyone even who didn't use the product then they would have had a good case.
But it's more fun to take a distorted over the top view.
A filibuster is defined as a delay, and that's what it is. It says, "Hey, I don't think the majority should be ramrodding this vote through we should delay, talk about it more, and require a larger majority to pass it." That means there is more time to discuss and attempt to sway people away from making a bad decision. There is nothing wrong with that.
A filibuster does not mean to take more time to discuss the matter at hand. It means using obstructionist tactics. In the case of US senate filibusters it definitely does not mean more discussion and definitely means simply using obstructionist tactics. The only discussion that takes place is the senators grumbling about each other to news cameras.
The two party vs multiparty debate will take too long to discuss here.
It does??? Since when was the Pope elected unanimously??? It's a 2/3 vote for the Pope unless the voting and deliberations have dragged on too long without a winner at the 2/3 level. Then it goes down to a simple majority vote.
Giving the minority party a chance to declare that the majority is abusing its status to push through poor legislation is a stupid process?
No, it's not in principle. Actually, I think that in principle it is a most excellent process. However, in modern practice is has become a stupid process. No longer do Senators have to talk what they consider bad legislation to death a-la Mr. Smith goes to Washington, they just refuse to vote and go back to their comfy offices or out to a nice dinner at the Watergate Hotel. No, if it IS bad legislation, then they'll be moved to act to stop it as Jimmy Stewart did. If it's just something they personally dislike, which is basically anything from the other party, they can cause massive amounts of trouble with practically no effort on their own part. Do you really think that is NOT a stupid process? It's great when your party is the one blocking things without effort but when the tide turns, trust me, you'll absolutely hate it.
Microsoft SHOULD have offered updates for free if they screwed something up
Yours is the first post I've come across to actually address the case in question and coincidentally the first to obviously not have read what the case was about. So I will respond:
It wasn't a question of what MS should have done about upgrades or refunds or whatever. It was a question of whether everyone who bought DOS 6 with the buggy compression could sue or whether only people who had lost data because of said buggy compression. Not everyone used the compression. Not everyone who used the compression lost data. So the legal argument, not the moral argument of what this company should do in the name of customer service, is whether or not everyone who bought the product can sue or only the people who actually were affected by loss of data due to the buggy compression scheme. I think it sounds reasonable from a legal point of view that only the people who used and lost data should be able to sue.
Heck no; and I wouldn't want it to be. Utopia is waaaaaay too restrictive a place to live. Read it, then tell me if you want to live there. I wouldn't.
you still may need to power it off to open the case, or replace a part.
If you're willing to lay out the cash, you can get a server that will let you swap out bad cards, memory, and even CPUs while the thing is running without missing a beat.
actually it's quite interesting what is the market of this product
The original market is low income and remote areas. Can you run the Sempron you've quoted as superior off of a small solar panel? That Geode draws a tiny amount of power. AMD planned this thing for second and third world countries that could afford a $200 or $300 PC for the local school. Hook it up to some kind of long range wireless internet and they're all set. If they're offering to sell it more widely at first, it's probably to get the production to a high enough volume that the price can come down so said less weathly can buy them.
Meanwhile, I think it would make a good choice for the innards of a data kiosk.
the success of those haves somewhat depends on the existence of have-nots
A common misconception; free trade economics is not a zero sum game. It is possible to end up with have mores and have not as muches. Note there is a big difference between have not and have not as much. If the have mores have more than the have not as muches is that really so terrible ? If it is terrible, what is your policy solution that is not Socialist? How is your policy solution fair to the established haves while not making the have not as muches dependent upon a welfare state (the sad situation many in the USA find themselves in)?
It sounds like you haven't read Utopia. It is fairly short and quick to read. You can find a free download of it from pdfworld. In summary: everyone in Utopia works not for money or any gain but for the good of the group. It is a vision of perfect socialism. Needless to say, it isn't practical with such a large group as described. Sure, you can get together a hundred or a few hundred people who all want to live that way and it can work well for them. But trying to impose it on a national level and you end up with a corrupt and oppressive oligarchy who controlls the wealth nominally for the group but in reality do so for themselves. See: Soviet Union, mainland China, Cuba, etc, etc, etc.
And is there another country in the americas that calls itself "...of America"? I don't believe there is, but if there was, your point might not be pedantry.
There's the Organization of American States, which promotes interational cooperation and peace in the Americas, and the Association of American States, an international trade promotion body. Both are sponsored by the various governments of the Americas.
an extraordinarily bright future in which technological progress has leapt by such exponentially large bounds that it will be... well, for lack of a better word: 'utopian'.
More's Utopia was a vision of a place where Marxist Socialism actually worked. It had nothing to do with technological progress.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd personally lynch a politician if I thought they'd rather represent foreign interests above their own constituents
So what did you think when the SCOTUS cited "foreign laws" when stiking down death sentences for juvenile offenders?
I believe control should pass to a pan-national body
Like the UN and how famously well that group agrees and gets things done efficiently? To whom, exactly, is a theoretical "pan-national" body accountable?
I don't think you can say that the USA has the "most free speech".
If "China" were substituted for "USA" and you were a Chinese citizen on a Chinese discussion site, the logs of the net cafe you used to post that might well aready by confiscated by the local police. As well as those of the moderators who (ironically?) marked it "Insightful".
Does the left believe in gun rights for all humans, not just Americans? I do.
Are you nuts??? Every time I ride the free downtown shuttle bus I have at least four or five fellow passengers who look like they shouldn't be trusted with butter knives, nevermind guns. Moral of the story: NEVER make absolutist statements.
the Noah thing is a bunch of crap.
It should suprise no one that a religion started on the largest flood plain in the world has a giant-flood-wipes-out-everything story as part of its mythos. There may well have been some guy whose family and livestock rode out a particularly nasty flood on a raft and this got enhanced and embellished to the current version. But you don't need to be a sarcastic jerk about it.
helped them tabulate and record the deaths and methods of death of millions of people
While that's what the Nazis ended up doing with the things, I really doubt it was in the proposal design spec. Just imagine something like:
1. Vendor's proposed system must keep track of all detainees' arrival and disposal times
2. Proposed system must scale to millions of detainees
3. System must work well in environment heavy with air particulates
I bet it was pitched to IBM as needing a way to keep census data or somesuch. Ask the average person in the mid 1930's if they think millions of Polish and Russian Jews are going to be systematically murdered by a complex German government operation and they'll think you're nuts.
Score:2, Flamebait
And someone else obviously doesn't know a humorous ribbing when they see it.
he had some messy handwriting. You think he could have taken a little care.
You don't know many engineer/inventor types, do you?
If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.
You also don't want to be the one who has to clean up after the elephants, if you know what I mean.
Lunging across the room ... WHILE DRIVING.
What the heck are you driving???
men tend to buy beer and diapers at the time
Just FYI: this is a business school urban legend. The one about pop-tarts and approaching hurricanes is not.
Maybe we can think of the Reevers as a Sci-fi equivalent of the bandit gang in Seven Samurai.
a province of China
It's not a province, it's a Republic of China. That's why the labels on manufactured goods say "Made in Taiwan ROC".
It always gets in the way of people who have been exposed to toxic substances claiming damages
Only if they don't live in the affected area. The logic in this case would apply to everyone in the affected area but say that people in the rest of the world can't sue also. If everyone whose data had been lost in the case at hand had sued instead of everyone even who didn't use the product then they would have had a good case.
But it's more fun to take a distorted over the top view.
A filibuster is defined as a delay, and that's what it is. It says, "Hey, I don't think the majority should be ramrodding this vote through we should delay, talk about it more, and require a larger majority to pass it." That means there is more time to discuss and attempt to sway people away from making a bad decision. There is nothing wrong with that.
A filibuster does not mean to take more time to discuss the matter at hand. It means using obstructionist tactics. In the case of US senate filibusters it definitely does not mean more discussion and definitely means simply using obstructionist tactics. The only discussion that takes place is the senators grumbling about each other to news cameras.
The two party vs multiparty debate will take too long to discuss here.
until they can find someone they all like?
Works for the Vatican.
It does??? Since when was the Pope elected unanimously??? It's a 2/3 vote for the Pope unless the voting and deliberations have dragged on too long without a winner at the 2/3 level. Then it goes down to a simple majority vote.
Giving the minority party a chance to declare that the majority is abusing its status to push through poor legislation is a stupid process?
No, it's not in principle. Actually, I think that in principle it is a most excellent process. However, in modern practice is has become a stupid process. No longer do Senators have to talk what they consider bad legislation to death a-la Mr. Smith goes to Washington, they just refuse to vote and go back to their comfy offices or out to a nice dinner at the Watergate Hotel. No, if it IS bad legislation, then they'll be moved to act to stop it as Jimmy Stewart did. If it's just something they personally dislike, which is basically anything from the other party, they can cause massive amounts of trouble with practically no effort on their own part. Do you really think that is NOT a stupid process? It's great when your party is the one blocking things without effort but when the tide turns, trust me, you'll absolutely hate it.
Microsoft SHOULD have offered updates for free if they screwed something up
Yours is the first post I've come across to actually address the case in question and coincidentally the first to obviously not have read what the case was about. So I will respond:
It wasn't a question of what MS should have done about upgrades or refunds or whatever. It was a question of whether everyone who bought DOS 6 with the buggy compression could sue or whether only people who had lost data because of said buggy compression. Not everyone used the compression. Not everyone who used the compression lost data. So the legal argument, not the moral argument of what this company should do in the name of customer service, is whether or not everyone who bought the product can sue or only the people who actually were affected by loss of data due to the buggy compression scheme. I think it sounds reasonable from a legal point of view that only the people who used and lost data should be able to sue.
It's not so terrible, but is it utopian?
Heck no; and I wouldn't want it to be. Utopia is waaaaaay too restrictive a place to live. Read it, then tell me if you want to live there. I wouldn't.
you still may need to power it off to open the case, or replace a part.
If you're willing to lay out the cash, you can get a server that will let you swap out bad cards, memory, and even CPUs while the thing is running without missing a beat.
Budget?
actually it's quite interesting what is the market of this product
The original market is low income and remote areas. Can you run the Sempron you've quoted as superior off of a small solar panel? That Geode draws a tiny amount of power. AMD planned this thing for second and third world countries that could afford a $200 or $300 PC for the local school. Hook it up to some kind of long range wireless internet and they're all set. If they're offering to sell it more widely at first, it's probably to get the production to a high enough volume that the price can come down so said less weathly can buy them.
Meanwhile, I think it would make a good choice for the innards of a data kiosk.
You can find a free download of it from pdfworld
Make that PlanetPDF. Oops.
the success of those haves somewhat depends on the existence of have-nots
A common misconception; free trade economics is not a zero sum game. It is possible to end up with have mores and have not as muches. Note there is a big difference between have not and have not as much. If the have mores have more than the have not as muches is that really so terrible ? If it is terrible, what is your policy solution that is not Socialist? How is your policy solution fair to the established haves while not making the have not as muches dependent upon a welfare state (the sad situation many in the USA find themselves in)?
It sounds like you haven't read Utopia. It is fairly short and quick to read. You can find a free download of it from pdfworld. In summary: everyone in Utopia works not for money or any gain but for the good of the group. It is a vision of perfect socialism. Needless to say, it isn't practical with such a large group as described. Sure, you can get together a hundred or a few hundred people who all want to live that way and it can work well for them. But trying to impose it on a national level and you end up with a corrupt and oppressive oligarchy who controlls the wealth nominally for the group but in reality do so for themselves. See: Soviet Union, mainland China, Cuba, etc, etc, etc.
And is there another country in the americas that calls itself "...of America"? I don't believe there is, but if there was, your point might not be pedantry.
There's the Organization of American States, which promotes interational cooperation and peace in the Americas, and the Association of American States, an international trade promotion body. Both are sponsored by the various governments of the Americas.
an extraordinarily bright future in which technological progress has leapt by such exponentially large bounds that it will be... well, for lack of a better word: 'utopian'.
More's Utopia was a vision of a place where Marxist Socialism actually worked. It had nothing to do with technological progress.