The argument that the constitution's protections for private property apply to the internet is a poor one. The internet is a device created by commons (Darpa), which over time allowed everyone to use it. The idea of sacred inviolable private property comprising parts of it is hollow, since it does not function except as a whole. We need to determine what we want this internet to be, and legislate that. If prior rules of private ownership get in the way, modify them to allow us to create the internet we need. I want it to be a place where information and access is shared and available equally. If someone else wants it instead to be a place they can make as much money as possible by whatever advantage they can gain, then we should discuss and determine the outcome.
It may be true that "Americans pay more per unit of broadband speed than our competitors", but our ISP's make more money than their ISP's. Or maybe they waste more money, I forget.
Agree. My immediate thought upon reading the intro was "use with virtually tethered tablet for use near a base station, like in the house." The speed of the connection allows for an ultralight tablet with "unlimited" supportive stuff off the tablet and located at the base. Doesn't appear to do anything I can envision for the true classic desktop itself; perhaps improved server connection at home? Dunno.
And it will introduce another wireless standard with which to confuse the masses. And to add to phones.
It would be useful to compare this survey with one that estimated the gains or productivity arrived from fair use of other works. What literature, art, music, programs, inventions, etc. derived from building upon other works have contributed to the GDP?
You can begin by adding most of the annual income and net worth of Disney.
"Welcome to flight 345 Newark to San Francisco. "Your pilot for today's flight is Sheila Wells, and she's located in Oklahoma City, though during today's flight in a couple hours she will be driving to the day-care center to pick up her kids. Co-pilot is Joe Smith in Miami, who is also piloting a terrorist hunter north of Kabul, and watching drug runners from two drones over Michoacan. "Your plane is programmed to ascend to an altitude of 35,000 feet and stay there through central California, and will be traveling at a speed of 525 mph. "Your fight attendants are the very capable team located in Sao Paulo, Brazil, so please let them know via your blue intercom button if there's anything you need. "Sit back and watch the safety instruction video. "Thank you for flying with us, and enjoy the flight."
I don't care if it's been written many times here, any unaltered recording of police procedures conducted in public must not be prohibited from being recorded. Fair Police have nothing to fear from an objective record, and citizens have nothing to fear from police who agree to be observed.
>>are we not revealing that we only like it when we are in control?
Speaking for myself, we are revealing that we only like it when it makes sense to us.
The descriptions of the rewriting of history in this reference don't appear to correlate with what I learned is history, they appear to be a constructed history fit to the preconceived ideas of someone who, yes, I don't agree with politically. I did not, and still don't, believe that my concept of this history was overly biased to fit my beliefs. This one is.
Exactly. It can't be both an exciting new substance, and safe for human use.
If it's new, how are you sure it's safe? You must mean it doesn't immediately poison you or asphyxiate you or stab you. Before I can be sure it's safe (if it's new) I want the bejesus tested out of it.
Care to start testing it by slapping a wad of it on your arm for a week or two? Breathe deeply.
I'd like to see complete studies of this before jumping on the bandwagon. For example, all the neutrons don't nicely run into uranium atoms and make the bad stuff disappear - there will be fallout from this process (so to speak), there will be other bad byproducts created, and there will be byproducts of the normal fission process that are not "made to dissappear" by this new magic (as portrayed) process. Does anyone have a link to a study conducted over several weeks/months/years analyzing all the products of this process vs. the processes used now?
My health care payments, for the same coverage and the same provider and the same source (everything the same) went from $670 to $1184 this month.
I am trying to decide, quickly, what to do about it.
Secondarily, I wonder if this increase actually reflects cost increases, and if it has something to do with positioning profits of the provider in advance of the limits that will be invoked if HCR passes. Right now I am at their mercy.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
>>if this is going to affect roughly 1/6th of our economy, let's study and get it right.
But it's a step in the right direction (while not perfect or even ideal), and we have been trying to address this for decades with no progress. The evidence, I think, points to special interests blocking progress in order to maintain profits from the status quo. So it's actually better to pass this now and fix as best we can later (if we don't fix anything, it's still better than not passing it).
And by fix it, I personally mean remove more profit motive - remove profits - from the health care industry itself. There is no room for consideration of profit over health care decisions: people die.
And when I think about it, I have to say the same for the entire rest of the economy: we are here to make things better for all of us, not to create an environment for a few of us to get super-rich.
Slashdot Mirror
So now we have wild animals that can be classfied as radioactive waste?
Put it in the freezer for 50,000 years!
Is anyone working on breeding an animal that concentrates human-made radioactive pollution, a biological wild skimmer?
The argument that the constitution's protections for private property apply to the internet is a poor one.
The internet is a device created by commons (Darpa), which over time allowed everyone to use it. The idea of sacred inviolable private property comprising parts of it is hollow, since it does not function except as a whole.
We need to determine what we want this internet to be, and legislate that. If prior rules of private ownership get in the way, modify them to allow us to create the internet we need.
I want it to be a place where information and access is shared and available equally.
If someone else wants it instead to be a place they can make as much money as possible by whatever advantage they can gain, then we should discuss and determine the outcome.
Maybe they can balance this nonsense by mandating science teaching in any religion classes taught in Louisiana.
Apparently Hu was on first.
It may be true that "Americans pay more per unit of broadband speed than our competitors", but our ISP's make more money than their ISP's.
Or maybe they waste more money, I forget.
Agree. My immediate thought upon reading the intro was "use with virtually tethered tablet for use near a base station, like in the house."
The speed of the connection allows for an ultralight tablet with "unlimited" supportive stuff off the tablet and located at the base.
Doesn't appear to do anything I can envision for the true classic desktop itself; perhaps improved server connection at home? Dunno.
And it will introduce another wireless standard with which to confuse the masses.
And to add to phones.
It would be useful to compare this survey with one that estimated the gains or productivity arrived from fair use of other works. What literature, art, music, programs, inventions, etc. derived from building upon other works have contributed to the GDP?
You can begin by adding most of the annual income and net worth of Disney.
We're told there is no money for healthcare, education, job stimulus, etc., yet here is an $800M no-debate wet kiss to the telcos.
Watch all the other give-aways that keep happening despite there being "no money".
i know not all crowds are dumb, but from looking at the postings on Fark maybe just his crowds might be.
Self
Giving your life for your country doesn't excuse your financial contractual responsibilities.
Unless you're a corporation, then you can cancel your end at any time with no penalty.
God, I love this country! :sarcasm,off //anger, that's still simmering.
...what, they've also created a sunscreen that is activated in the shade?
"Welcome to flight 345 Newark to San Francisco.
"Your pilot for today's flight is Sheila Wells, and she's located in Oklahoma City, though during today's flight in a couple hours she will be driving to the day-care center to pick up her kids. Co-pilot is Joe Smith in Miami, who is also piloting a terrorist hunter north of Kabul, and watching drug runners from two drones over Michoacan.
"Your plane is programmed to ascend to an altitude of 35,000 feet and stay there through central California, and will be traveling at a speed of 525 mph.
"Your fight attendants are the very capable team located in Sao Paulo, Brazil, so please let them know via your blue intercom button if there's anything you need.
"Sit back and watch the safety instruction video.
"Thank you for flying with us, and enjoy the flight."
I don't care if it's been written many times here, any unaltered recording of police procedures conducted in public must not be prohibited from being recorded.
Fair Police have nothing to fear from an objective record, and citizens have nothing to fear from police who agree to be observed.
I'm more surprised that when something bad happens, the victim often says "I was lucky", when if they were lucky it would not have happened at all.
Here we can strike.
Though sometimes the police are brought in, it's hardly ever that bloody.
A mere glimpse at the power of GoogleStats.
Einstein did what many physicists thought was impossible, so now they are even.
Next year Princeton or Stanford will design an AA-series plane that is lighter still.
>>are we not revealing that we only like it when we are in control?
Speaking for myself, we are revealing that we only like it when it makes sense to us.
The descriptions of the rewriting of history in this reference don't appear to correlate with what I learned is history, they appear to be a constructed history fit to the preconceived ideas of someone who, yes, I don't agree with politically. I did not, and still don't, believe that my concept of this history was overly biased to fit my beliefs. This one is.
between education and job training. This article just helps prove that point.
Exactly. It can't be both an exciting new substance, and safe for human use.
If it's new, how are you sure it's safe?
You must mean it doesn't immediately poison you or asphyxiate you or stab you.
Before I can be sure it's safe (if it's new) I want the bejesus tested out of it.
Care to start testing it by slapping a wad of it on your arm for a week or two? Breathe deeply.
I'd like to see complete studies of this before jumping on the bandwagon.
For example, all the neutrons don't nicely run into uranium atoms and make the bad stuff disappear - there will be fallout from this process (so to speak), there will be other bad byproducts created, and there will be byproducts of the normal fission process that are not "made to dissappear" by this new magic (as portrayed) process.
Does anyone have a link to a study conducted over several weeks/months/years analyzing all the products of this process vs. the processes used now?
My health care payments, for the same coverage and the same provider and the same source (everything the same) went from $670 to $1184 this month.
I am trying to decide, quickly, what to do about it.
Secondarily, I wonder if this increase actually reflects cost increases, and if it has something to do with positioning profits of the provider in advance of the limits that will be invoked if HCR passes.
Right now I am at their mercy.
>>if this is going to affect roughly 1/6th of our economy, let's study and get it right.
But it's a step in the right direction (while not perfect or even ideal), and we have been trying to address this for decades with no progress.
The evidence, I think, points to special interests blocking progress in order to maintain profits from the status quo.
So it's actually better to pass this now and fix as best we can later (if we don't fix anything, it's still better than not passing it).
And by fix it, I personally mean remove more profit motive - remove profits - from the health care industry itself.
There is no room for consideration of profit over health care decisions: people die.
And when I think about it, I have to say the same for the entire rest of the economy: we are here to make things better for all of us, not to create an environment for a few of us to get super-rich.
I believe it's a Big Lebowski reference.