Converse to your paraphrase is the well armed lamb just shooting the 2 wolves, when it's not also a democracy.
See, the 2 wolves and the lamb are a constitution, a republic, and democracy. Without the democracy, the wolves either starve or eat each other. The rest of the metaphor is left as an exercise for the reader.
Er, my wife is from Ireland, I visit there at least once a year for years, I just got back, it's mostly a farming country. Outside of Dublin and a few other very small cities, it's all farmland and villages. It's grown a high tech industry in the past dozen years, but that's almost all around Dublin. The rest of the country is pretty much the same as it was: climbing out of the Industrial Age, but keeping lots of its Farming Age character. Though evidently its high tech contingent knows how to work Wikipedia - not really proof of anything.
And we're not talking about electric cables. Though I wouldn't expect one: Ireland has this historical thing against dependence on England whenever possible (though England tries to create those dependences for the same reason).
But I do think it's strange that there's no Internet cable to Northern Ireland, which is the UK, and has Belfast and its own cities and Internet demand.
But that map claims to be definitive, so unless there's evidence it's not, I'll accept it.
So whatever Paul's ideological reason, there's no reason to believe he'll protect America's people against the telcos. It doesn't say anything about murder in the Constitution, either...
FWIW, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution includes, for example, no separation of church & state except perhaps no authorization of a state church itself. If Arkansas wanted a state church, though, that would be OK, since the Constitution doesn't "specifically" prohibit it.
Well, a shipping anchor isn't the risk. A single failure bottleneck point is the risk.
When they lay these cables, they're wound together in a single bundle. Since Dublin connects to only a single other point, that's going to be a single cable. A single point where something, like say a sinking ship (or whatever), will disconnect the entire country.
Maybe Paul would make copyrights/patents work appropriately to their media, but he's not in the Congress, so he's got little say over that.
What I mentioned was AT&T snooping on content to "police for privacy", which is in violation of all the laws that the telecom industry has been built on for over a century. Paul's "hands off" government wouldn't stop that. It wouldn't even protect businesses that AT&T abuses its monopoly to prey on, especially the latest announced assaults on Net Neutrality. Since the president is in charge of the DoJ and the FCC among other agencies that are responsible for protecting us from that kind of abuse, those are actual presidential policies that matter. But you ignored them, and converted that into some anarchy fantasy that Paul supporters like to live in.
And while I guess Paul's government wouldn't get in the way of online gangs "policing AT&T" or whatever other "might makes right" adventures they want, that sounds like anarchy to me.
Because the actual effect of Ron Paul's ideology in the real would would be corporate anarchy. Remove the government that is even an imperfect defense against those criminal forces, and the balance falls to the corporate anarchists. Just like it did when they were called "aristocrats" or "invading tribes".
I asked you for Paul's Net Neutrality statement, and pointed out that he's not a Libertarian.
YOu ignored the actually relevant policy question. Instead you gave me two reasons why Paul is not a Libertarian, which is what I said.
You just proved my point perfectly: You Ron Paul supporters are the ultimate hairsplitting cherrypickers. You're so compartmentalized that you'd rather talk about the Republican Party's failure to back up its "Conservative" rhetoric with actions (for 2 or 3 generations now). Of course, that just raises the question of why we'd believe "Libertarians" would be any different when they actually got power with their ideological rhetoric the way Republicans didn't.
I know the subjects here all too well. You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Or even remember the subject we were talking about a second ago, because it makes you look bad.
Sure, but what I'm talking about is a completely dynamic surface (with some resolution probably much lower than the display) that would bump up raised points and edges to match whatever GUI is displayed. If it were really good, it would also allow dragging, with the texture following the drag. That's why I mentioned memory plastic.
You really are great example of the kind of wishful thinking and myth believers who power Ron Paul's campaign.
The Internet was not distributed so it would survive a nuke war. That is a myth. The Internet has had several serious outages since it was started in the late 1960s, even after becoming much more redundant, which show a nuke war would take it out with the first EMP.
The Internet was started as a way to get punch card data between military installations faster and easier than shipping the classified decks of cards around the western US. It was useful enough that people wanted to join it, and its engineers made it open enough that it could be linked up in a distributed architecture, not centralized like the telephone network. But it was never designed to survive a nuke war, and never would. That's just a myth.
Besides, that's not the Internet we're talking about. We're talking about the 1980s Internet (that was called the ARPANet) that Al Gore had to fight people like Ron Paul to fund. Without which visionary government leadership, only some banks and the Pentagon would have had it.
Without regulation, there would be no Internet, which was created by regulation, and which was protected by more regulation. Hell, even the Web wouldn't exist as we know it, since the first graphical/multimedia browser was produced by the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) at U Illinois Urbana/Champaigne. Which government funded project Paul would have left to "private sector", which would never have done anything. At most we'd have AOL, if that, because AOL of course copied all the Internet tech the people invested in.
Ron Paul fanboys: born yesterday, think the Internet is a natural element or something, and that the government is too. Ron Paul: no government except what's necessary to pay the defense contractors.
I think GEM is all JME, too. Part of GEM's appeal is that it's the same across all these embedded/dedicated multimedia devices, like BD players, set-top boxes, etc. Where are you getting that GEM is JSE?
No, you're the one saying wiretapping is just the NSA wiretapping, and reducing all the Internet violations I mentioned to that one item Paul says he's against. Which, BTW, is exactly what Paul supporters typically do with their favorite Paul position, like ending the Iraq War, while ignoring his other positions that they should hate (like his opposing the church/state separation, or eliminating public education, or any of his other harebrained schemes).
Paul would let AT&T "police the Internet for piracy", while AT&T would do whatever it wanted with its content analysis snooping. Paul would let AT&T compete deliver on its announced extortions to violate the Net Neutrality that we need to be a fair and open society as well as an open, but fair market.
You want an example about a candidate whose message is inspiring people's deluded, short-sighted, tunnelvision "self interest", you don't have to go to Hitler. You need only look at Ron Paul, who's running for president of Sim City, not a huge, complex place like the USA.
Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?
I am not trying to say you are a liar, but blanket assertions about the Ron Paul your personal version of "libertarianism" imagine him to be sure make you look like one.
BTW, if Paul were a "Libertarian", he wouldn't be a member of the Republican Party. Even when he ran as the LP nominee, he didn't leave the RP or join the LP, and that was 20 years ago. He's at best a "libertarian", whatever that means exactly. These distinctions between members of the Party and adherents to the philosophy are important, because they've each got their "center of gravity", neither of which is entirely consistent with what any one person usually thinks, or wishes, they were.
When you "libertarians" start talking your favorite absolutes, it always comes out nonsense.
There's only a single cable on that map connecting Ireland to the Internet. The English Channel has lots of shipping. That seems like something the Irish government would want to get fixed right away. Maybe another cable to Britain.
Or better yet, a cable to France, for not just geographical diversity but also geopolitical diversity. A cable to the Netherlands would give even better interconnectedness.
And of course it would be even better if that connection landed somewhere else than Dublin, so there's no failure bottleneck point.
Any extra cables would also increase Ireland's overall Internet bandwidth. As that country climbs out of the Industrial Age (and really the Farming Age), it'll need more than one cable. Especially if it doesn't want to get squeezed by some "bottleneck master".
It looks from that map that Sweden and Norway don't have any cables connecting them across the Baltic Sea to the rest of Europe. So they must get their connections from landlines across their huge, mountainous and largely unpopulated peninsula, all the way back to Finland, Russia etc. It's a short run across the strait to Denmark, which already has at least one cable landing terminal, and probably 80%+ of Norwegians/Swedes live right there. I wonder why they don't run that cable. Undersea rights of way have got to be cheaper than across land.
Anyone got a touchscreen surface covered in something that can feed back directly to the touching fingertips? Like a memory plastic which can raise bumps and ridges around the "GUI", so fingertips can easily tell widget boundaries and tell them apart?
Is there some dynamic Braille surface that could be made transparent to do this for everyone? We're all blind behind our fingertips blocking the screen.
Ron Paul thinks anything the government does is socialism. He would never have let the government invest in the Internet the way that it did, and we wouldn't have one now (certainly not the equal-access Internet that's getting everyone online). He wouldn't do anything to stop telcos from blocking or slowing traffic that competes with theirs, or doublecharging servers and consumers (quadruplecharging, really) who already pay for bandwidth, but must pay extra for "on-time" bandwidth ("Network Neutrality").
Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".
The Internet is one of the most obvious places where the people need the government as our collective representative to protect ourselves from the powerful exploiters of the people. There aren't a lot of monarchs in a position to hurt the American people anymore, but we've got plenty of dictatorial, aggressive, imperial corporations. And Ron Paul's government would stay out of the business of protecting us from them.
Sun now has Orbit, which is a GUI layer atop JME (which is the mobile phone multimedia Java) that runs OpenLaszlo LZX code. Android ran around Sun to make its own JVM, Dalvik, but its DEX files directly correspond to Java bytecodes, and can be automatically generated by a tool in the Android SDK.
OpenLaszlo can also be compiled into SWF (Flash) and DHTML. But the JME itself is also included in every Blu-Ray player (now the only HD disc format) as BD-J. And JME is also the execution environment for DVB, OCAP/ACAP.
OpenLaszlo can target what looks like the most complete range of devices, all from a single codebase. Is that the future of all GUI programming as the "convergence" finally comes together? Is all other programming going to be used "under the hood" on servers, and by "plastic surgeons" tweaking all that generated code into working properly on every device it gets tested on, once it's "written once"?
Because Bush defines "broadband" as 200Kbps (yes, kilobits). And "everyone" means that even if only one person in a ZIPcode could buy 200Kbps broadband, that ZIPcode is checked off as if everyone in it could get it. And considering the $TRILLIONS Bush has burned in handouts to his cronies (especially the telcos, these days his favorites), the definition of "affordable" is left as an exercise to the reader.
Those relatively few readers whose broadband connection can access this page.
Meanwhile, Japan has already deployed 100Mbps to 85% of its households; their average is 93Mbps; expects ubiquitous access to 100Mbps by 2010. And maybe they're not even lying about it like Bush is.
What other competitive advantages over our foreign competition has the US completely squandered in the decade since we were sitting on top of the world, by spinning our wheels (or tank treads) while the rest of the world has been busy beating us at our own games?
Any tweaks Microsoft made to Yahoo mail would be to fold it into Hotmail/MSN, and/or Outlook/Exchange.
I'd expect Google to compete with that in a way that Yahoo didn't stimulate because Yahoo wasn't a threat to Google, despite its (possibly) superior email system.
Slashdot Mirror
Except this isn't democracy. It's sharia.
Converse to your paraphrase is the well armed lamb just shooting the 2 wolves, when it's not also a democracy.
See, the 2 wolves and the lamb are a constitution, a republic, and democracy. Without the democracy, the wolves either starve or eat each other. The rest of the metaphor is left as an exercise for the reader.
Er, my wife is from Ireland, I visit there at least once a year for years, I just got back, it's mostly a farming country. Outside of Dublin and a few other very small cities, it's all farmland and villages. It's grown a high tech industry in the past dozen years, but that's almost all around Dublin. The rest of the country is pretty much the same as it was: climbing out of the Industrial Age, but keeping lots of its Farming Age character. Though evidently its high tech contingent knows how to work Wikipedia - not really proof of anything.
And we're not talking about electric cables. Though I wouldn't expect one: Ireland has this historical thing against dependence on England whenever possible (though England tries to create those dependences for the same reason).
But I do think it's strange that there's no Internet cable to Northern Ireland, which is the UK, and has Belfast and its own cities and Internet demand.
But that map claims to be definitive, so unless there's evidence it's not, I'll accept it.
Whoa, that sounds really cool and doable. What are these particular liquids called? Or are they really just called "particular liquids"?
OTOH, Ron Paul is the #1 candidate for The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's idea of "technology", which is probably the Psychic Friends Network.
You are correct.
So whatever Paul's ideological reason, there's no reason to believe he'll protect America's people against the telcos. It doesn't say anything about murder in the Constitution, either...
FWIW, Paul's interpretation of the Constitution includes, for example, no separation of church & state except perhaps no authorization of a state church itself. If Arkansas wanted a state church, though, that would be OK, since the Constitution doesn't "specifically" prohibit it.
Well, a shipping anchor isn't the risk. A single failure bottleneck point is the risk.
When they lay these cables, they're wound together in a single bundle. Since Dublin connects to only a single other point, that's going to be a single cable. A single point where something, like say a sinking ship (or whatever), will disconnect the entire country.
Thanks, that's a very interesting insight into MHP/GEM/BD-J from the DVB perspective, and Phillips' influential version of it.
Maybe Paul would make copyrights/patents work appropriately to their media, but he's not in the Congress, so he's got little say over that.
What I mentioned was AT&T snooping on content to "police for privacy", which is in violation of all the laws that the telecom industry has been built on for over a century. Paul's "hands off" government wouldn't stop that. It wouldn't even protect businesses that AT&T abuses its monopoly to prey on, especially the latest announced assaults on Net Neutrality. Since the president is in charge of the DoJ and the FCC among other agencies that are responsible for protecting us from that kind of abuse, those are actual presidential policies that matter. But you ignored them, and converted that into some anarchy fantasy that Paul supporters like to live in.
And while I guess Paul's government wouldn't get in the way of online gangs "policing AT&T" or whatever other "might makes right" adventures they want, that sounds like anarchy to me.
Because the actual effect of Ron Paul's ideology in the real would would be corporate anarchy. Remove the government that is even an imperfect defense against those criminal forces, and the balance falls to the corporate anarchists. Just like it did when they were called "aristocrats" or "invading tribes".
I asked you for Paul's Net Neutrality statement, and pointed out that he's not a Libertarian.
YOu ignored the actually relevant policy question. Instead you gave me two reasons why Paul is not a Libertarian, which is what I said.
You just proved my point perfectly: You Ron Paul supporters are the ultimate hairsplitting cherrypickers. You're so compartmentalized that you'd rather talk about the Republican Party's failure to back up its "Conservative" rhetoric with actions (for 2 or 3 generations now). Of course, that just raises the question of why we'd believe "Libertarians" would be any different when they actually got power with their ideological rhetoric the way Republicans didn't.
I know the subjects here all too well. You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Or even remember the subject we were talking about a second ago, because it makes you look bad.
Sure, but what I'm talking about is a completely dynamic surface (with some resolution probably much lower than the display) that would bump up raised points and edges to match whatever GUI is displayed. If it were really good, it would also allow dragging, with the texture following the drag. That's why I mentioned memory plastic.
You really are great example of the kind of wishful thinking and myth believers who power Ron Paul's campaign.
The Internet was not distributed so it would survive a nuke war. That is a myth. The Internet has had several serious outages since it was started in the late 1960s, even after becoming much more redundant, which show a nuke war would take it out with the first EMP.
The Internet was started as a way to get punch card data between military installations faster and easier than shipping the classified decks of cards around the western US. It was useful enough that people wanted to join it, and its engineers made it open enough that it could be linked up in a distributed architecture, not centralized like the telephone network. But it was never designed to survive a nuke war, and never would. That's just a myth.
Besides, that's not the Internet we're talking about. We're talking about the 1980s Internet (that was called the ARPANet) that Al Gore had to fight people like Ron Paul to fund. Without which visionary government leadership, only some banks and the Pentagon would have had it.
Without regulation, there would be no Internet, which was created by regulation, and which was protected by more regulation. Hell, even the Web wouldn't exist as we know it, since the first graphical/multimedia browser was produced by the National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA) at U Illinois Urbana/Champaigne. Which government funded project Paul would have left to "private sector", which would never have done anything. At most we'd have AOL, if that, because AOL of course copied all the Internet tech the people invested in.
Ron Paul fanboys: born yesterday, think the Internet is a natural element or something, and that the government is too. Ron Paul: no government except what's necessary to pay the defense contractors.
I think GEM is all JME, too. Part of GEM's appeal is that it's the same across all these embedded/dedicated multimedia devices, like BD players, set-top boxes, etc. Where are you getting that GEM is JSE?
No, you're the one saying wiretapping is just the NSA wiretapping, and reducing all the Internet violations I mentioned to that one item Paul says he's against. Which, BTW, is exactly what Paul supporters typically do with their favorite Paul position, like ending the Iraq War, while ignoring his other positions that they should hate (like his opposing the church/state separation, or eliminating public education, or any of his other harebrained schemes).
Paul would let AT&T "police the Internet for piracy", while AT&T would do whatever it wanted with its content analysis snooping. Paul would let AT&T compete deliver on its announced extortions to violate the Net Neutrality that we need to be a fair and open society as well as an open, but fair market.
You want an example about a candidate whose message is inspiring people's deluded, short-sighted, tunnelvision "self interest", you don't have to go to Hitler. You need only look at Ron Paul, who's running for president of Sim City, not a huge, complex place like the USA.
Where's Ron Paul's Net Neutrality policy statement? His votes to intervene against market manipulation and monopoly during his long House career?
I am not trying to say you are a liar, but blanket assertions about the Ron Paul your personal version of "libertarianism" imagine him to be sure make you look like one.
BTW, if Paul were a "Libertarian", he wouldn't be a member of the Republican Party. Even when he ran as the LP nominee, he didn't leave the RP or join the LP, and that was 20 years ago. He's at best a "libertarian", whatever that means exactly. These distinctions between members of the Party and adherents to the philosophy are important, because they've each got their "center of gravity", neither of which is entirely consistent with what any one person usually thinks, or wishes, they were.
When you "libertarians" start talking your favorite absolutes, it always comes out nonsense.
There's only a single cable on that map connecting Ireland to the Internet. The English Channel has lots of shipping. That seems like something the Irish government would want to get fixed right away. Maybe another cable to Britain.
Or better yet, a cable to France, for not just geographical diversity but also geopolitical diversity. A cable to the Netherlands would give even better interconnectedness.
And of course it would be even better if that connection landed somewhere else than Dublin, so there's no failure bottleneck point.
Any extra cables would also increase Ireland's overall Internet bandwidth. As that country climbs out of the Industrial Age (and really the Farming Age), it'll need more than one cable. Especially if it doesn't want to get squeezed by some "bottleneck master".
It looks from that map that Sweden and Norway don't have any cables connecting them across the Baltic Sea to the rest of Europe. So they must get their connections from landlines across their huge, mountainous and largely unpopulated peninsula, all the way back to Finland, Russia etc. It's a short run across the strait to Denmark, which already has at least one cable landing terminal, and probably 80%+ of Norwegians/Swedes live right there. I wonder why they don't run that cable. Undersea rights of way have got to be cheaper than across land.
Anyone got a touchscreen surface covered in something that can feed back directly to the touching fingertips? Like a memory plastic which can raise bumps and ridges around the "GUI", so fingertips can easily tell widget boundaries and tell them apart?
Is there some dynamic Braille surface that could be made transparent to do this for everyone? We're all blind behind our fingertips blocking the screen.
Who did you vote for in 2000, and in 2004 (primaries and general)?
Moderation 0
30% Insightful
30% Underrated
20% Flamebait
PaulBot trollMods don't want to talk about Ron Paul's abdication of our government power to protect us from corporations. They don't even want to admit it. They just want a stampede to corporate anarchy.
AFAICT, BD-J is indeed based on JME.
Ron Paul thinks anything the government does is socialism. He would never have let the government invest in the Internet the way that it did, and we wouldn't have one now (certainly not the equal-access Internet that's getting everyone online). He wouldn't do anything to stop telcos from blocking or slowing traffic that competes with theirs, or doublecharging servers and consumers (quadruplecharging, really) who already pay for bandwidth, but must pay extra for "on-time" bandwidth ("Network Neutrality").
Ron Paul would let corporations do whatever they want with the Internet, which includes AT&T's plans to violate Net Neutrality and snoop on content (to police for "piracy"), avoid equal access for competition, and every other dirty trick they invent in what passes for their "innovation".
The Internet is one of the most obvious places where the people need the government as our collective representative to protect ourselves from the powerful exploiters of the people. There aren't a lot of monarchs in a position to hurt the American people anymore, but we've got plenty of dictatorial, aggressive, imperial corporations. And Ron Paul's government would stay out of the business of protecting us from them.
Sun now has Orbit, which is a GUI layer atop JME (which is the mobile phone multimedia Java) that runs OpenLaszlo LZX code. Android ran around Sun to make its own JVM, Dalvik, but its DEX files directly correspond to Java bytecodes, and can be automatically generated by a tool in the Android SDK.
OpenLaszlo can also be compiled into SWF (Flash) and DHTML. But the JME itself is also included in every Blu-Ray player (now the only HD disc format) as BD-J. And JME is also the execution environment for DVB, OCAP/ACAP.
OpenLaszlo can target what looks like the most complete range of devices, all from a single codebase. Is that the future of all GUI programming as the "convergence" finally comes together? Is all other programming going to be used "under the hood" on servers, and by "plastic surgeons" tweaking all that generated code into working properly on every device it gets tested on, once it's "written once"?
And where's the OpenLaszlo GUI IDE already?
According to Bush, every American can now get affordable broadband.
Because Bush defines "broadband" as 200Kbps (yes, kilobits). And "everyone" means that even if only one person in a ZIPcode could buy 200Kbps broadband, that ZIPcode is checked off as if everyone in it could get it. And considering the $TRILLIONS Bush has burned in handouts to his cronies (especially the telcos, these days his favorites), the definition of "affordable" is left as an exercise to the reader.
Those relatively few readers whose broadband connection can access this page.
Meanwhile, Japan has already deployed 100Mbps to 85% of its households; their average is 93Mbps; expects ubiquitous access to 100Mbps by 2010. And maybe they're not even lying about it like Bush is.
What other competitive advantages over our foreign competition has the US completely squandered in the decade since we were sitting on top of the world, by spinning our wheels (or tank treads) while the rest of the world has been busy beating us at our own games?
Any tweaks Microsoft made to Yahoo mail would be to fold it into Hotmail/MSN, and/or Outlook/Exchange.
I'd expect Google to compete with that in a way that Yahoo didn't stimulate because Yahoo wasn't a threat to Google, despite its (possibly) superior email system.