Yes, because if there's one thing you can say about the US, it's that it doesn't do enough for businesses....
I am a fan of smaller government, but we have a far more dire need for that to happen on the side of greater personal liberties, with many of the laws we have being problematic because we are so beholden to corporations.
The value of this proposition isn't that it's good for the US economy, it's that a tit-for-tat strategy discourages such ultimatums, and that discouraging such ultimatums allows us to have policies that aren't batshit insane.
That said, I personally think we should be incredibly open about immigration, and that we should put more focus on increasing the quality and lowering the cost of living than just jobs. But policies should be implemented like that for the sake of practical value or principle, not because some big company is throwing a tantrum.
Robber barons usually do try to leave a legacy that doesn't make them look like horrific monsters, but that doesn't change the fact that they are robber barons.
The reality is that, if you're involved in the debate and you care about the income, then you've got something at stake
Who says I care about the outcome? Perhaps I'm just really bothered by appeals to emotion, regardless of the source or subject. No, debate in real life is not like debate club, but that doesn't mean that people don't go into debate with similar mindsets and respect for logic, or that people going in with such mindsets are bad actors. Even in debates where I do hold a certain position, I will sometimes correct the errors of people who are taking positions similar to my own and I appreciate that in kind if my ego allows.
If it helps, how about a metaphor: Each of the two "sides" of the argument are like a team playing tug-of-war. One side pulls in one direction, one side pulls in another. You're saying that their are "neutral" people in between, because they're sitting in the middle, holding onto the rope, but not pulling in either direction. My point is, if they're holding on tightly, then they're not neutral. They're still having an effect on the game by adding inertia to the system, making it harder for either side to win. The only way to be truly neutral would be to let go of the rope.
By similar logic, even an automaton referee is not neutral because they hold both sides to follow the rules, and a judge is not neutral because they decide the case based upon what the law says. You are conflating neutral with non-interference.
Unless what you are interested in is something other than the sides of the debate, in which case, you may be neutral to the sides of the debate (which is what we are talking about here). It's lots of fun to enter a debate where you don't care about the issue, but you have the debate chops to push others around, possibly doing that to the arguments made by both sides. You also may want to play devil's advocate because you care about not having the debate insulated by hivemind (in which case you are arguing against your own actual position) or have a pet peeve or two about usage of certain logical fallacies. I will agree that having an interest in debate is not by itself a reason to dismiss a debater, but to claim that you can't feel neutral towards the issue of debate is unimaginative on your part.
You don't have to be disinterested to be neutral. If your goal was simply to point out logical flaws in arguments made by either side, that wouldn't mean that you favored either side.
Monopoly agreements have been illegal for decades. It's just that infrastructure like this is just naturally monopolistic. The problem here is not government involvement, at least not current government involvement.
On the one hand, it seems to be fair to force users - be they companies or individuals - to pay based on usage. Based on how many packets they put on the network. Currently they do not do that. What they do is to pay for their connection. If you want a very high speed connection, you pay for that.
Except for the part where it doesn't make sense because total usage (e.g. 300 GB in a month) has virtually nothing to do with the actual costs. The costs are tied to the peak bandwidth usage (e.g. 50 mbps), which is what consumers pay. There may be some added costs associated with total usage, but they are insignificant enough that it would cost more to calculate them than the costs they would have.
That would be a much better argument if the ISPs weren't bending over backwards to bend us over for the NSA.
You may think it's a good idea in this regard... but what about when the feds decide they want to enforce other laws via their new powers? Decency laws? Cyber bullying? That doesn't sound so great to me...
That's what we have the first amendment for. The best way to address your concern is to fix the bad precedents set and make it universally clear that Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation and Miller v. California are wrong.
Yes, within this planet, which is utterly unlike the deadly hostile vacuum in space. Thanks for helping my argumen
Crossing the ocean was a dangerous and hostile ordeal as well when we were first colonizing the New World.
Yes, let's "assume" that... Eye roll...
Are you saying that it is actually impossible? I would suggest brushing up on Newton's First Law if you think so, and explaining how Voyager 1 is doing what it's doing.
Absolutely, completely delusional. Thanks for your time, but I stopped right there.
And I will likely stop reading the rest of your posts, as you appear incapable of doing anything other than non-specific whining and calling interest in space exploration a religion.
Colonization is in no way unusual for humans or life in general. But let's forget that and assume that traveling outside of our solar system is impossible. 3D printing in space would potentially be useful for space mining operations, both in regards to reliability and efficiency, and space mining appears to be the most viable way of acquiring some rare substances. Even if that isn't viable, the research done for all of the above probably has some reasonable utility on Earth. So, even if it's all just religious delusions, they are at least productive religious delusions.
To me, it seems more like Google's BoringSSL. It's an unflattering name intended to brutally strike a philosophy of small, simple code. Use of self-deprecating humor doesn't imply that they aren't serious about the code itself.
Your body produces tons of it, and it can be stored and sequenced considerably longer than human lifespans, especially if care is taken to preserve it.
That is assuming that everybody who would support seceding voted. However, it appears that the demographics that supported seceding (younger people) were ones that have lower voter turnout and are less likely or able to vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything kept secret is a 'national security issue,' so that's a piss poor excuse.
Yes, because if there's one thing you can say about the US, it's that it doesn't do enough for businesses....
I am a fan of smaller government, but we have a far more dire need for that to happen on the side of greater personal liberties, with many of the laws we have being problematic because we are so beholden to corporations.
The value of this proposition isn't that it's good for the US economy, it's that a tit-for-tat strategy discourages such ultimatums, and that discouraging such ultimatums allows us to have policies that aren't batshit insane.
That said, I personally think we should be incredibly open about immigration, and that we should put more focus on increasing the quality and lowering the cost of living than just jobs. But policies should be implemented like that for the sake of practical value or principle, not because some big company is throwing a tantrum.
Robber barons usually do try to leave a legacy that doesn't make them look like horrific monsters, but that doesn't change the fact that they are robber barons.
Two problems with that are that if nobody is behind a leak, it's far easier to dispel, and the government may be able to find you anyway.
How about this. We'll give you the more consistent 'aluminium' if you drop 'zed' for the more consistent 'zee.'
Presumably, the kind of pants with pockets at least as big as an iPhone 6+.
The claim of that article is that other metal phones are prone to bending. Perhaps the solution is to not make metal phones.
"Fuck the NSA" is far too gentle. As an actual patriotic American, my stance would be "nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I'm not questioning what an IMSI catcher does. I'm questioning whether or not a stingray has undisclosed capabilities beyond that of an IMSI catcher.
Who says I care about the outcome? Perhaps I'm just really bothered by appeals to emotion, regardless of the source or subject. No, debate in real life is not like debate club, but that doesn't mean that people don't go into debate with similar mindsets and respect for logic, or that people going in with such mindsets are bad actors. Even in debates where I do hold a certain position, I will sometimes correct the errors of people who are taking positions similar to my own and I appreciate that in kind if my ego allows.
By similar logic, even an automaton referee is not neutral because they hold both sides to follow the rules, and a judge is not neutral because they decide the case based upon what the law says. You are conflating neutral with non-interference.
Unless, of course, they have additional functions outside of those that have been publicly disclosed.
Unless what you are interested in is something other than the sides of the debate, in which case, you may be neutral to the sides of the debate (which is what we are talking about here). It's lots of fun to enter a debate where you don't care about the issue, but you have the debate chops to push others around, possibly doing that to the arguments made by both sides. You also may want to play devil's advocate because you care about not having the debate insulated by hivemind (in which case you are arguing against your own actual position) or have a pet peeve or two about usage of certain logical fallacies. I will agree that having an interest in debate is not by itself a reason to dismiss a debater, but to claim that you can't feel neutral towards the issue of debate is unimaginative on your part.
I was taking more of an evolutionary imperative perspective. We seek immortality, and achieve it somewhat through having offspring.
You don't have to be disinterested to be neutral. If your goal was simply to point out logical flaws in arguments made by either side, that wouldn't mean that you favored either side.
Monopoly agreements have been illegal for decades. It's just that infrastructure like this is just naturally monopolistic. The problem here is not government involvement, at least not current government involvement.
Except for the part where it doesn't make sense because total usage (e.g. 300 GB in a month) has virtually nothing to do with the actual costs. The costs are tied to the peak bandwidth usage (e.g. 50 mbps), which is what consumers pay. There may be some added costs associated with total usage, but they are insignificant enough that it would cost more to calculate them than the costs they would have.
That's what we have the first amendment for. The best way to address your concern is to fix the bad precedents set and make it universally clear that Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation and Miller v. California are wrong.
If you are advocating for the universe, that's a valid argument. I think most of us are more concerned about humans than the universe though.
Crossing the ocean was a dangerous and hostile ordeal as well when we were first colonizing the New World.
Are you saying that it is actually impossible? I would suggest brushing up on Newton's First Law if you think so, and explaining how Voyager 1 is doing what it's doing.
And I will likely stop reading the rest of your posts, as you appear incapable of doing anything other than non-specific whining and calling interest in space exploration a religion.
Colonization is in no way unusual for humans or life in general. But let's forget that and assume that traveling outside of our solar system is impossible. 3D printing in space would potentially be useful for space mining operations, both in regards to reliability and efficiency, and space mining appears to be the most viable way of acquiring some rare substances. Even if that isn't viable, the research done for all of the above probably has some reasonable utility on Earth. So, even if it's all just religious delusions, they are at least productive religious delusions.
To me, it seems more like Google's BoringSSL. It's an unflattering name intended to brutally strike a philosophy of small, simple code. Use of self-deprecating humor doesn't imply that they aren't serious about the code itself.
Your body produces tons of it, and it can be stored and sequenced considerably longer than human lifespans, especially if care is taken to preserve it.
1 in 4 is way too low for any country. I would say you are hard pressed to find any group of people with anything lower than 80%.
That is assuming that everybody who would support seceding voted. However, it appears that the demographics that supported seceding (younger people) were ones that have lower voter turnout and are less likely or able to vote.