In theory, this means that the ISPs could offer higher speeds / download limits at the same price, since they no longer have to worry about the bottlenecks. In practice, they'll just keep the higher profits for themselves, and perhaps offer a symbolic increase to shut the customers up.
While this logic is formally correct, it also leads to the conclusion that we should kick out uneducated people, even if they were born in the country. If that's your argument for complicating the immigration procedures, you can't escape defending the expatriation of uneducated people as well. Now what?
The implied assumption is that immigrants are worthless. You wouldn't be complaining about illegal immigration if the assumption were, instead, that each new immigrant is an added revenue source for the country.
The fallacy in your comparison is that illegal immigration isn't harmful per si - the only "harm" it causes is violation of law. Murder destroys life, regardless of whether it's considered a crime or not.
Of course there are fiscal issues when people hire workers that officially don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that if the immigration process weren't so long and cumbersome the huge majority of illegals would be running to the immigration offices. It's obviously better for the individual to be legal than an alien, and if they still can't do it, then it's somebody else's fault.
The Mexican government can be argued to be at fault for not providing proper employment within the homeland, but defending that point is very naïve. The USA doesn't have a 0% unemployment rate either.
If you understand that it's a hyperbole, it's pointless to question it. There is such a thing as a "reasonable assumption", which is necessary in empiricism. how else can you know the sun will rise tomorrow, if not for the facts that (a) it has risen every day in your lifetime and in the historical record you've had access to, and (b) there are no indications in contrary?
By definition, an information-gathering agency will gather information. Like I said in the parent post, it is to be expected that they will deploy personnel where there is potentially useful information to be gathered. Reasonable expectation dictates that it is safer to assume that wide-use public networks like Facebook are under surveillance than to assume the contrary, in just the same way as we don't make plans based on the possibility that gravity will suddenly become a repulsive force instead of an attractive one. The strength of the expectation is obviously very different, but both are large enough to be safely presumed in the lack of evidence for or against.
The thing to remember is that nobody is forced to post any information, private or otherwise, on the Internet. And nobody is obliged to be honest when they do. If a pedo spams his child-seducing prowess on your network, you should turn him in, if nothing else because he's an idiot and idiots should not be allowed to spread their idiocy by any means.
And no, trolls, I am not advocating the incarceration of stupid people. Mental health institutions are the ones doing that.
A "real reader" is a person who can, and does, read. Any narrower definition is elitist, ignorant and superfluous.
That said, the reason I (and many others) prefer a book over an eReader, and in many cases prefer an old book to a new one, is the sensation of reading, which goes beyond the words. It has to do with the smell, the texture of the paper, the weight of the book in my hands. Even the sings of occasional wear-and-tear often give the book a sense of personality. I take my Sony eReader with me whenever I travel because it's easier to pack than a ton of books. But apart from the "convenience factor", real printed books are still better in every respect.
If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at life. Obviously information-gathering agencies will deploy personnel wherever there are large amounts of potentially useful information to be gathered.
The less people you're actually friends with are on facebook (and the more "mere acquaintances" are your facebook "friends") the more skewered the proportions between your "social interest groups" will be to the program. In a certain social circle, perhaps people will friend each other on facebook after meeting once. In another, perhaps only two percent of them even have facebook. If you happen to move in both, you'd be presumably stamped with many interests from the former and barely any from the latter (or as more intensely interested in the former) when the truth may very well be the opposite.
Case study: people who friend dozens of strangers for the sake of increasing their mafia size in Mafia Wars.
This only works assuming the public use of Facebook is ubiquitous. If only half of your friends are on the network, or if only half of them allow information about them to be publicly visible, the accuracy of the predictions will suffer greatly. This in turn means that the algorithm will more accurately predict the traits of people who have the trait of not caring about their online privacy. It's a calculation based on an assumption. In other words, bollocks.
I'd imagine workers probably don't fill up the tile, i.e. there can only be one military unit in the tile. That's a nice way to solve this issue (though I'd also rather be rid of the workers) though I wonder if they'd consider the settlers and non-General Great Persons as a military unit or not.
Windows may be a product that's delivered, but it's a promise (or rather over 9000 promises, to use the so-old-it-has-arthritis meme) that isn't delivered. Where's my fast, stable an secure computing experience? Arch Linux has it, and Arch Linux is free.
Actually the product's quality has declined quite a bit since the golden days of Windows 1.0 - now it's bloated vaporware. No wonder they've decided to invest in the cloud.
...and goes on to give it a name that five-year-olds everywhere can laugh at until they piss themselves. Presumably that's how he'll collect the urea crystals.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, this means that the ISPs could offer higher speeds / download limits at the same price, since they no longer have to worry about the bottlenecks. In practice, they'll just keep the higher profits for themselves, and perhaps offer a symbolic increase to shut the customers up.
While this logic is formally correct, it also leads to the conclusion that we should kick out uneducated people, even if they were born in the country. If that's your argument for complicating the immigration procedures, you can't escape defending the expatriation of uneducated people as well. Now what?
And how do you measure the hair melanin OF THAT WHICH HAS NO HAIR?
The implied assumption is that immigrants are worthless. You wouldn't be complaining about illegal immigration if the assumption were, instead, that each new immigrant is an added revenue source for the country.
The fallacy in your comparison is that illegal immigration isn't harmful per si - the only "harm" it causes is violation of law. Murder destroys life, regardless of whether it's considered a crime or not.
Of course there are fiscal issues when people hire workers that officially don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that if the immigration process weren't so long and cumbersome the huge majority of illegals would be running to the immigration offices. It's obviously better for the individual to be legal than an alien, and if they still can't do it, then it's somebody else's fault.
The Mexican government can be argued to be at fault for not providing proper employment within the homeland, but defending that point is very naïve. The USA doesn't have a 0% unemployment rate either.
> So true.
WTF do you think this is, Twitter?
If you can't add to the conversation, just STFU, OK? Don't be polluting the page with "I agree"s and "So tragic"s and shit like that.
You! Over there, with the seven digit ID. Yes you! This means you too.
This.
Don't you mean the Jedian Popular Front?
But this still makes me giddy for the future of Medicine.
If you understand that it's a hyperbole, it's pointless to question it. There is such a thing as a "reasonable assumption", which is necessary in empiricism. how else can you know the sun will rise tomorrow, if not for the facts that (a) it has risen every day in your lifetime and in the historical record you've had access to, and (b) there are no indications in contrary?
By definition, an information-gathering agency will gather information. Like I said in the parent post, it is to be expected that they will deploy personnel where there is potentially useful information to be gathered. Reasonable expectation dictates that it is safer to assume that wide-use public networks like Facebook are under surveillance than to assume the contrary, in just the same way as we don't make plans based on the possibility that gravity will suddenly become a repulsive force instead of an attractive one. The strength of the expectation is obviously very different, but both are large enough to be safely presumed in the lack of evidence for or against.
The thing to remember is that nobody is forced to post any information, private or otherwise, on the Internet. And nobody is obliged to be honest when they do. If a pedo spams his child-seducing prowess on your network, you should turn him in, if nothing else because he's an idiot and idiots should not be allowed to spread their idiocy by any means.
And no, trolls, I am not advocating the incarceration of stupid people. Mental health institutions are the ones doing that.
A "real reader" is a person who can, and does, read. Any narrower definition is elitist, ignorant and superfluous.
That said, the reason I (and many others) prefer a book over an eReader, and in many cases prefer an old book to a new one, is the sensation of reading, which goes beyond the words. It has to do with the smell, the texture of the paper, the weight of the book in my hands. Even the sings of occasional wear-and-tear often give the book a sense of personality. I take my Sony eReader with me whenever I travel because it's easier to pack than a ton of books. But apart from the "convenience factor", real printed books are still better in every respect.
If you need a leaked document to know that spies are spying, you fail at life. Obviously information-gathering agencies will deploy personnel wherever there are large amounts of potentially useful information to be gathered.
If they make an e-ink screen that smells like an old book, I'll buy it.
The less people you're actually friends with are on facebook (and the more "mere acquaintances" are your facebook "friends") the more skewered the proportions between your "social interest groups" will be to the program. In a certain social circle, perhaps people will friend each other on facebook after meeting once. In another, perhaps only two percent of them even have facebook. If you happen to move in both, you'd be presumably stamped with many interests from the former and barely any from the latter (or as more intensely interested in the former) when the truth may very well be the opposite.
Case study: people who friend dozens of strangers for the sake of increasing their mafia size in Mafia Wars.
There is no such thing as a "threat of coercion". Threats are coercion.
This only works assuming the public use of Facebook is ubiquitous. If only half of your friends are on the network, or if only half of them allow information about them to be publicly visible, the accuracy of the predictions will suffer greatly. This in turn means that the algorithm will more accurately predict the traits of people who have the trait of not caring about their online privacy. It's a calculation based on an assumption. In other words, bollocks.
I'd imagine workers probably don't fill up the tile, i.e. there can only be one military unit in the tile. That's a nice way to solve this issue (though I'd also rather be rid of the workers) though I wonder if they'd consider the settlers and non-General Great Persons as a military unit or not.
Does your post imply that .NET is mature? Or well-tested? I almost spilled my coffee..
to celebrate by getting shitfaced drunk and downloading some Creative Commons-licensed music from P2P networks.
I wondered if anyone would. You get one free Internet.
Windows may be a product that's delivered, but it's a promise (or rather over 9000 promises, to use the so-old-it-has-arthritis meme) that isn't delivered. Where's my fast, stable an secure computing experience? Arch Linux has it, and Arch Linux is free.
Actually the product's quality has declined quite a bit since the golden days of Windows 1.0 - now it's bloated vaporware. No wonder they've decided to invest in the cloud.
Maybe he'll donate a bunch of them to the Red Cross? It still needs to be continually supplied in a viable fashion.
The best solution I can imagine is making deals with local governments... not that they care about the population over there, mind you.
...and goes on to give it a name that five-year-olds everywhere can laugh at until they piss themselves. Presumably that's how he'll collect the urea crystals.
I've always wondered but I never bothered to check Wikipedia... I think I spend too much time in meatspace.
Thanks a lot!