Oh, and the public high school I went to spent $0 on athletics. Perhaps if you spent more time on logic, you'd have learned not to jump to conclusions [...]
At our school we just had this mat...;-)
I don't know why the other poster a) disagrees with the term "unfunded mandate", or b) wants to pick a fight with you over your typing skills.
We're in agreement: an "unfunded mandate" is a mandatory change which will cost money to meet; and, no additional money is being given to the party who must effect this change. Therefore, the people being told to change are also being told to pay for it.
As to typo fights, he wasn't even specific. Something like, "What do you mean when you say 'speaker'? Do you mean, Speaker of the House? Or the poster?" And, "You're so funny, using 'if you school had chosen' to begin the sentence bashing someone else about grammar!" And, "The world is full of people whose English skills are sub-par. Does it enhance your experience to make fun of and pick fights with them? Do you pick fights with insects? Why not offer constructive criticism instead, like offer a correction instead of a barb?"
But not everyone is worth listening to; hence moderation and the friend/foe system.
Hate for the powers that be to view everyone who is digging through the stacks trying to figure out the recipes for 1950's style solid rocket fuel as a terrorist candidate.
On principles, I agree with you. However, solid rocket fuel leads to a presence in space, from which mere rocks have tons of kinetic energy when dropped. So, yes, I would imagine that people investigating solid rocket fuel should be thoroughly checked out.
I swear, law and military op names have been getting more and more riduculous for years.
Ridiculous to the informed, yes. Unfortunately, however, rather functional on the uninformed. Thus, their use. Which saddens me; third-world countries keep their populace uneducated because it helps the leaders defraud them.
Holy shit, is that what the "No Child Left Behind" unfunded mandate was all about? Give props to education, but no financial support for it--so it looks like the government is doing something good, whereas they're really dumbing us down to be the next soldiers or oil field workers?
You either respect their license, or you are in the wrong.
What are your thoughts on growing your own food? That's genetic copying, and is stealing from the livelihood of the poor farmers. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; see Monsanto and their destruction of a neighbor's crops because Monsanto's customer's seeds had blown onto said neighbor's property. The neighbor never entered into any licensing arrangement with Monsanto, but their crops were destroyed anyway.)
Some day soon (30 years or less), we will have the ability to duplicate material goods, down to the molecule. This will cause immense goodness for the planet: no more starvation, and no need to work. Would you deny this technology from the world merely to prop up a dying "economic scarcity" model?
Why isn't "taping music from the radio" getting the same treatment? It's basically the same thing: obtaining a copy of a music production for zero cost.
I don't believe what you said, either, about the industry being more in the right. Copyrights have only existed for a very short period of time, and in that short period of time the robber barons have distorted them completely, such that nothing that was produced after 1923 will ever be in the public domain.
The most right thing to do is abandon copyright completely. The second-most right thing to do would be to revert it back to its original intent, which allowed a work to receive government-granted monopoly protection for 20 years. (This will not happen until blood runs in the streets.)
There's a big difference between somebody who won't defend themself and somebody who will fight a losing battle.
Exactly. As a child, I never understood the bullies. I would be nice to them, and they'd pound me into the ground again. Then, the instant I started to fight back (around 8th grade), I started gaining respect from them, and actually became friends with some of them.
The biggest difference between doormats and losing fighters is: the aggressor knows exactly what to expect from a doormat: they will get what they want, and the doormat will not challenge them. But a losing fighter, especially one like the silent hair-pulling face-knee-er, makes the bullies worry that they might not obtain what they want without getting hurt in the process.
If my parents had taught me that back when I started getting picked on, I would have had a much easier time up to the beginning of high school.
Second off, no formal study has ever been comissioned to study the subject, but something along the lines of 30% of prisoners report having been raped during their term.
Keep in mind that there's a stigma to admitting to it, and the real statistic is likely higher.
Also, when you give blood, one of the criteria is "have you ever been in a US prison?"
That's enough evidence for me right there. The Red Cross doesn't have a political agenda regarding this issue; they just want to keep the blood supply uncontaminated.
To some extent, it worked, because the senators took their responsibilities seriously.
I would bet that a law declaring the taking of bribes by elected government officials to be a hanging offence would probably make our US senators take their responsibilities more seriously.
Exactly! What I thought, when I read this article: perhaps our engineers will develop better radiation shielding by the time our spacecraft are able to approach the speed of light?
Accesiblity for the blind likely costs more than it generates in revenue.
Exactly. So I would ask geekwithoutsoul, who asked this:
Is the threat of legal action the only really effective way to get companies to create accessible (and thus standard-compliant) websites?
Does the law say anything about web sites?
With text like "the complaint is based on the theory" in TFA, as opposed to text like "the complaint sites law X, section Y, paragraph Z", I think this is more a publicity stunt than an actual case.
To directly answer the question: of course not. You could pay them. Corporations respond to dollars.
Billboards, related ads to entertainment, and entertaining ads will get my eyes and ears.
The billboards are starting to get flashier. There are those "triangle" rotating billboards with three ads that switch every 10 seconds or so; I've also seen some billboards with flashing lights, or even worse the kind in NYC that are animated.
It would be interesting to see government statistics of accidents correlated with the locations of these flashier billboards.
late 1996 or early 1997 [...] Wow....it seems so long ago.
It's because we're getting closer to Advanced Technology #1.
Like in Civilization, the way olden times rush by quickly, but once you start getting closer and closer to modern times, it starts taking longer and longer and then it's 5:30 in the morning and you can only sleep a half hour before school?
Yeah, that's what technology's doing to all of us.;-)
You're right, my bad. I was combining the rebate with the "not taxed" status of donating to charity in my years-old memory of what the FairTax is. Thanks for the refresher!
But, I imagine that the quote means that if you care about the fate of other people and want to help out through enforced systems like taxes, that you have an "emotional disorder"? That's, well... frankly a sick way of thinking. If you don't care about other people, you have failed as a human being.
There's a big difference between your being charitable of your own free will, and your being forced to be charitable at gun-point.
The latter is how taxes work (don't believe me, try to stop paying them).
Most people, if they had the 50% of their income back that the government is stealing at gun-point, would choose to donate a portion of it to a charity. A great example of how to move in that direction is the Fair Tax, which gives a one-for-one tax credit for charitable donations.
This makes sense as well, because charities tend to be orders of magnitude more efficient with their resources than the government. A charity tends to run with 5-20% overhead in administrative costs. The government runs at about a 50% overhead (granted this figure is from 10 years ago). So by giving citizens a $100 break on their taxes when they donate $100 to charity, the law would actually help the market to maximize efficiency of use of resources (by having a likely large portion of those resources controlled by more efficient charities than the IRS).
(For those who don't know, currently the US tax law gives you a break on the earned amount, not the paid amount, which means the break from donating $100 to charity depends on your tax bracket, but it is safe to say it's around a third, meaning you only get a $33 break on your taxes currently for donating $100 to charity.)
I'm not sure what system of force Marxism uses to support its policies, but I'm sure that it's not all beads and flowers. People have to have a threat in order to compete/succeed/aspire, so I'd imagine the threat is being kicked out of the community if they don't produce.
"Produce" seems to me to be a much more nebulous threat than, "Your monthly quota is to sell $X worth of widgets. One month below and you're on probation; two months below and you're fired." Perhaps the Marxists have strict quotas that they need to fill as well, but that would make them basically the same as capitalists except without private ownership.
And besides, why does not caring about other people make one a failure?
Actually, since "Christians" have started getting more political power I find myself less willing to cut any slack to some apparently reasonable person who proclaims "I'm what a Christian really is.". The people censoring books are what a Christian is. The fomenters of mobs are what a Christian is. I've seen them in action, so I recognize them.
I created a new sig the other day. Literally, like 3 days ago. It's quite relevant to this discussion, so for those with sigs turned off, or if I change it later and this post doesn't make sense, here it is:
Religion isn't designed to benefit the religious leaders after their deaths. It gives them power while alive!
The whole point is to fool the audience into looking one way while you stick your hands in their pockets. "You" being the religious leader, of course.
So why do people get so up in arms defending the people defrauding them?
The problem is, the content middle-men will never agree with you. They want a huge cut of a huge number, not a tiny cut of a tiny number -- or even a huge cut of a tiny number.
Yes, but not everyone that owns a TiVo has broadband. They need to keep those phones active for the people they sold lifetime subscriptions to, who have the older units.
Or, as someone else said, "if ( unit == lifetime ) { exercise_disk *= 5; }"
If TiVo doesn't offer lifetife subscriptions anymore, then it might just suggest that they won't be around for anyone's lifetime.
That's not how I'd expect a capitalist to run their business.
I would expect them to continue selling lifetime subscriptions up to and including the day that they file corporate bankruptcy papers.
I would also expect to see them begin to market the lifetime subscriptions more heavily.
So this, to me, does not indicate that they're going out of business any time sooner. It indicates to me that they want to maximize their revenue, and they feel that they'll be around longer than $250 / $13/month = 19.2 months or under 2 years. By no longer selling lifetime contracts, they will be net positive within two years, on new sales. And, it'll be recurring revenue, instead of a one-time income and then recurring expenses (powering the servers that serve the program guide, paying to have all those phone numbers to dial-in, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
At our school we just had this mat... ;-)
I don't know why the other poster a) disagrees with the term "unfunded mandate", or b) wants to pick a fight with you over your typing skills.
We're in agreement: an "unfunded mandate" is a mandatory change which will cost money to meet; and, no additional money is being given to the party who must effect this change. Therefore, the people being told to change are also being told to pay for it.
As to typo fights, he wasn't even specific. Something like, "What do you mean when you say 'speaker'? Do you mean, Speaker of the House? Or the poster?" And, "You're so funny, using 'if you school had chosen' to begin the sentence bashing someone else about grammar!" And, "The world is full of people whose English skills are sub-par. Does it enhance your experience to make fun of and pick fights with them? Do you pick fights with insects? Why not offer constructive criticism instead, like offer a correction instead of a barb?"
But not everyone is worth listening to; hence moderation and the friend/foe system.
I appreciate the obvious statement, but mine is even more so: I never said the TCP/IP stack lived in ftp.exe; I was giving two examples.
On principles, I agree with you. However, solid rocket fuel leads to a presence in space, from which mere rocks have tons of kinetic energy when dropped. So, yes, I would imagine that people investigating solid rocket fuel should be thoroughly checked out.
Good luck reading anything into humanity's motives by watching Slashdot moderators' actions, or the responses that we Slashbots have... ;-)
Also (this is on Windows XP), "strings ftp.exe" shows:
Ridiculous to the informed, yes. Unfortunately, however, rather functional on the uninformed. Thus, their use. Which saddens me; third-world countries keep their populace uneducated because it helps the leaders defraud them.
Holy shit, is that what the "No Child Left Behind" unfunded mandate was all about? Give props to education, but no financial support for it--so it looks like the government is doing something good, whereas they're really dumbing us down to be the next soldiers or oil field workers?
Fine. Copyrights of the nature you're discussing are basically fantasy as well.
What are your thoughts on growing your own food? That's genetic copying, and is stealing from the livelihood of the poor farmers. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; see Monsanto and their destruction of a neighbor's crops because Monsanto's customer's seeds had blown onto said neighbor's property. The neighbor never entered into any licensing arrangement with Monsanto, but their crops were destroyed anyway.)
Some day soon (30 years or less), we will have the ability to duplicate material goods, down to the molecule. This will cause immense goodness for the planet: no more starvation, and no need to work. Would you deny this technology from the world merely to prop up a dying "economic scarcity" model?
Why isn't "taping music from the radio" getting the same treatment? It's basically the same thing: obtaining a copy of a music production for zero cost.
I don't believe what you said, either, about the industry being more in the right. Copyrights have only existed for a very short period of time, and in that short period of time the robber barons have distorted them completely, such that nothing that was produced after 1923 will ever be in the public domain.
The most right thing to do is abandon copyright completely. The second-most right thing to do would be to revert it back to its original intent, which allowed a work to receive government-granted monopoly protection for 20 years. (This will not happen until blood runs in the streets.)
Exactly. As a child, I never understood the bullies. I would be nice to them, and they'd pound me into the ground again. Then, the instant I started to fight back (around 8th grade), I started gaining respect from them, and actually became friends with some of them.
The biggest difference between doormats and losing fighters is: the aggressor knows exactly what to expect from a doormat: they will get what they want, and the doormat will not challenge them. But a losing fighter, especially one like the silent hair-pulling face-knee-er, makes the bullies worry that they might not obtain what they want without getting hurt in the process.
If my parents had taught me that back when I started getting picked on, I would have had a much easier time up to the beginning of high school.
Keep in mind that there's a stigma to admitting to it, and the real statistic is likely higher.
Also, when you give blood, one of the criteria is "have you ever been in a US prison?"
That's enough evidence for me right there. The Red Cross doesn't have a political agenda regarding this issue; they just want to keep the blood supply uncontaminated.
As well, we could form our own "xmlrs Delay^WInvestigation Group"...
I would bet that a law declaring the taking of bribes by elected government officials to be a hanging offence would probably make our US senators take their responsibilities more seriously.
Yes, and the AC GP said not only type, but also dose. So with the proper shielding, it doesn't matter what type of radiation it shifts into.
Exactly! What I thought, when I read this article: perhaps our engineers will develop better radiation shielding by the time our spacecraft are able to approach the speed of light?
Exactly. So I would ask geekwithoutsoul, who asked this:
Does the law say anything about web sites?
With text like "the complaint is based on the theory" in TFA, as opposed to text like "the complaint sites law X, section Y, paragraph Z", I think this is more a publicity stunt than an actual case.
To directly answer the question: of course not. You could pay them. Corporations respond to dollars.
The billboards are starting to get flashier. There are those "triangle" rotating billboards with three ads that switch every 10 seconds or so; I've also seen some billboards with flashing lights, or even worse the kind in NYC that are animated.
It would be interesting to see government statistics of accidents correlated with the locations of these flashier billboards.
It's because we're getting closer to Advanced Technology #1.
Like in Civilization, the way olden times rush by quickly, but once you start getting closer and closer to modern times, it starts taking longer and longer and then it's 5:30 in the morning and you can only sleep a half hour before school?
Yeah, that's what technology's doing to all of us. ;-)
You're right, my bad. I was combining the rebate with the "not taxed" status of donating to charity in my years-old memory of what the FairTax is. Thanks for the refresher!
There's a big difference between your being charitable of your own free will, and your being forced to be charitable at gun-point.
The latter is how taxes work (don't believe me, try to stop paying them).
Most people, if they had the 50% of their income back that the government is stealing at gun-point, would choose to donate a portion of it to a charity. A great example of how to move in that direction is the Fair Tax, which gives a one-for-one tax credit for charitable donations.
This makes sense as well, because charities tend to be orders of magnitude more efficient with their resources than the government. A charity tends to run with 5-20% overhead in administrative costs. The government runs at about a 50% overhead (granted this figure is from 10 years ago). So by giving citizens a $100 break on their taxes when they donate $100 to charity, the law would actually help the market to maximize efficiency of use of resources (by having a likely large portion of those resources controlled by more efficient charities than the IRS).
(For those who don't know, currently the US tax law gives you a break on the earned amount, not the paid amount, which means the break from donating $100 to charity depends on your tax bracket, but it is safe to say it's around a third, meaning you only get a $33 break on your taxes currently for donating $100 to charity.)
I'm not sure what system of force Marxism uses to support its policies, but I'm sure that it's not all beads and flowers. People have to have a threat in order to compete/succeed/aspire, so I'd imagine the threat is being kicked out of the community if they don't produce.
"Produce" seems to me to be a much more nebulous threat than, "Your monthly quota is to sell $X worth of widgets. One month below and you're on probation; two months below and you're fired." Perhaps the Marxists have strict quotas that they need to fill as well, but that would make them basically the same as capitalists except without private ownership.
And besides, why does not caring about other people make one a failure?
I created a new sig the other day. Literally, like 3 days ago. It's quite relevant to this discussion, so for those with sigs turned off, or if I change it later and this post doesn't make sense, here it is:
The whole point is to fool the audience into looking one way while you stick your hands in their pockets. "You" being the religious leader, of course.
So why do people get so up in arms defending the people defrauding them?
It's a weird fucking world, man.
The problem is, the content middle-men will never agree with you. They want a huge cut of a huge number, not a tiny cut of a tiny number -- or even a huge cut of a tiny number.
So: paint the current year on the roof of your house.
Or, as someone else said, "if ( unit == lifetime ) { exercise_disk *= 5; }"
Well, I interpreted the plasma to be the monitor exploding. But whatever, I got 2 funnies out of it. ;-)
That's not how I'd expect a capitalist to run their business.
I would expect them to continue selling lifetime subscriptions up to and including the day that they file corporate bankruptcy papers.
I would also expect to see them begin to market the lifetime subscriptions more heavily.
So this, to me, does not indicate that they're going out of business any time sooner. It indicates to me that they want to maximize their revenue, and they feel that they'll be around longer than $250 / $13/month = 19.2 months or under 2 years. By no longer selling lifetime contracts, they will be net positive within two years, on new sales. And, it'll be recurring revenue, instead of a one-time income and then recurring expenses (powering the servers that serve the program guide, paying to have all those phone numbers to dial-in, etc).