You can have your right to freedom removed for committing infractions in society. One could argue you still have the right to drive but they remove the privilege and ability. Actually I'd say in this case right and privilege are the same thing. At the end of the day driving is the privilege of using a specific tool (vehicle) to exercise your right of free movement. But whatever, what was the original point again?
The acquisition of territory by force is impermissible. The West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, etc... no more are a part of Israel's territory than Poland and France were a part of Germany.
How do you think those countries came to be countries in the first place?
They were taken by force and became part of the uber nazi state or whatever and then more force came along and returned them to their original owners. Is there a point in time where all borders became fixed and when was that?
Sometimes tech oriented people forget that the computer and the software is only part of the equation.
All software is is a big list of instructions, as soon as the car encounters something it has no instruction for it will crash, and then probably crash.
You could drive in racetracks or other closed courses where people are willing to be put in that kind of risk. When you get on a shared interstate and are inches away from hurtling buckets of metal, I would certainly hope there would be some kind of automated safety control. Personally, I think it's pretty crazy that we have gone so long without really acknowledging how dangerous it is. If there is a safer way to do things and the only downside is not being able to drive on main roads, then we should go for it.
There is a safer way, it's called walking but it's real slow and takes ages to get anywhere. I guess you could walk down to the cotton wool store then to somewhere you can wrap yourself up to insulate yourself from all the very many dangers this world poses.
Did you realize that Disney makes most of it's money from a global audience? So you're objecting to letting foreigners work to support films that are going to be sold in mass in their country, saying instead America has an imperative of protecting the economic interests of middle class US employees at the expense of much poorer, more desperate foreign employees.
That's not just racism, that's colonialism dude.
I don't think anyone is saying disney can't hire foreign workers, what they are saying is it's downright shady to sack your domestic workers and replace them with cheaper foreign labour that you've shipped in for the express purpose of replacing your current workers to save some dollars (also asking the sacked workers to train the new ones). Not even save money that they need for something, just to increase profits. It might not be illegal but it certainly isn't right and to be pissed off about it isn't racism.
Was expected to do the exact same thing, but our staff saw it coming and we 'failed' miserably to enlighten the East Indian HB1's.
I never got why they would ask those being shafted to train their replacements, and when they did why the expected any actual proper training to take place.
Umm, you don't understand how pricing works do you? Increasing the price reduces the demand. Gouging generally refers to a price hike on necessities during an emergency. Disney is not something essential, nor would there ever be an emergency that reduced the supply of Disney. I don't know why you are so angry at Disney, but charging more money to reduce crowds seems pretty reasonable to me.
There's more to it than (+) price = (-) demand. Just look at apple. Disney is the apple of theme parks, there are plenty others out there more reasonably priced and just as good but disney is disney. They aren't even trying to reduce demand at all, just spread it out by making other days seem more appealing by seeming cheaper, but as others have pointed out, places like this are naturally going to most busy in the times when the kids are on school holidays and other public holidays. It's all well and good for adults going without kids who can just take time off work whenever but for the kids, it's got to be in certain times or pull them out of school to go when you can save a little bit of money. The schools don't like that very much. Anyway, I'm not angry at disney. I couldn't care less, all theme parks charge more in peak times (as do a lot of things), it's the way of things and that's naturally going to take advantage of those going for the children. Bottom line is they still want more and more people to go, they just don't want everyone turning up at the same time. Any positives for the customer are incidental side effects.
There is, however, an argument that a good human driver would have recognized the difference in danger and avoided the incident by just driving over the sand bags.
The safety driver thought the bus would yield. That suggests they wouldn't, and that the safety driver would have had the same crash if they had been driving. Unless they were being complacent and trusted the car knew what it was doing.
Google guy obviously hasn't been driving long if he thinks a bus is going to give way, ever.
Disney is doing this, not because of supply and demand, but to gouge even more profits.
I don't think you quite understand how supply and demand (and capitalism) works.
Do you? They're aren't doing anything to meet demand with supply, just putting prices up when demand is up. That's gouging. They can call it whatever they want but they're doing it for the cash money.
Apple has already given the data away to marketers.
^ TROLL
You're right, they don't give away data, they sold it. Probably for twice what it was worth because they put in a shiny folder with an apple logo on it.
Where do you people get this shit from? It's like you want to be charged more for less and are ok with that because hey it's the american way to have corps fuck everyone and do what they want because it's their god fucking given right to maximise profits at the expense of all else. It's always 'hyper regulation' 'strict' regulation as if somehow every packet is going to have to through 50 more hops to validate or whatever. The situation you guys have now is so shit precisely because you have 2 main companies nationwide that hold the bulk the power and you think the fix for the situation give them more?!? It doesn't help they're so misleading in what they say (patriot act round 2)
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.
What makes fox news or cnn more valid than icanhazcheezburger? who decides? the isps based on who's paying more I'd wager. The only one of those that needs specific treatment is netflix for the streaming video. This works fine now without paying extra. This basically says there's no problem at the moment. Net neutralities aim to keep it as it is by ensuring no company can charge more for certain traffic, basically keeping the network neutral. What you are pushing for is their ability to do exactly the opposite. You want to get to site x but they have an issue with provider y who in your scenario are perfectly able and justified in shutting down access as punishment or whatever.
The against crowd keep saying that without that the internet will starve and die because...and then lead into a bunch of intelligent sounding babble that isn't really relevant or mean much at all, all hyperbole and strawmen. How is paying a premium to get youtube instantly and making the users who pay less wait 5 mins for buffering going to help 'innovation'? It can't. Basically what will happen long term if this goes through is create another net, like china, irans or one which cant leave the country without being inspected. The rest of the world will duplicate whatever infrastructure is only available in the US, duplicate any services (basically the big websites, that is if they just don't move out on their own) and route around the fucking problem. Meanwhile you're left with slower internet, less sites and higher costs, and for what? The corporations?
The real strawman is, the against net neutrality crowd aren't trying to keep it as it is like they might pretend. They are trying to charge more and monetise more and punish those who won't and net neutrality is a response to stop that. Not the other way around. We don't have these problems in the UK and no one else does either. God knows we all have companies that would love to have a go at it and if it goes through there they might have a crack. But at the moment we have enough healthy competition in the ISP market that it wouldn't even get put on a memo. Anyone suggesting it would quickly lose customers to any of the other ISP (of which there are plenty in competition helping to keep prices down, gee now what does that remind me of).
Not neccessary. Its obvious, looking back over the last 20 years of net neutrality, that theres been a complete lack of innovation, absolutely no diversity and no investment in the internet as a result of this government legislative stranglehold...
Maybe where you live, look outside the US and you'll see a thriving internet. So how do you think being able to charge more, block/change whatever traffic you want and essentially removing the barriers to entry and replacing it with a vast gaping chasm is going to help?
They are only being fed lies by the corporations against net neutrality. I'd love to see how Comcast and time Warner have "donated" (bribed) to lobbyists as well as directly and indirectly to the candidates parties
I'd love to hear what they are being told net neutrality actually is and how that is being sold to them. Basically all this is is corps trying to get government blessing to fuck over their customers even more, extract as much money as possible while giving as little service as possible. It's no wonder the US internet situation is seen as a joke internationally, especially that they practically invented it and gave it to the world. That genie is well and truly gone and no amount of anything can get it back in the bottle. I wonder how long it will be before they try and extend it to GPS signals? If you want accuracy you have to pay, the free version will add random time delays to signals giving you a 500 mile radius circle you could be anywhere in.
Slashdot Mirror
You spelled porn wrong.
I rammed a speedboat into it and it broke.
You can have your right to freedom removed for committing infractions in society. One could argue you still have the right to drive but they remove the privilege and ability. Actually I'd say in this case right and privilege are the same thing. At the end of the day driving is the privilege of using a specific tool (vehicle) to exercise your right of free movement. But whatever, what was the original point again?
The problem is that they were foreign military invaders
So two guys in a jeep counts an invasion these days?
The acquisition of territory by force is impermissible. The West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, etc... no more are a part of Israel's territory than Poland and France were a part of Germany.
How do you think those countries came to be countries in the first place?
They were taken by force and became part of the uber nazi state or whatever and then more force came along and returned them to their original owners. Is there a point in time where all borders became fixed and when was that?
Not a fan of ninjas?
http://www.realultimatepower.net
Show me 30,000 people killed a year by strong encryption - heck, show me 3 people killed a year by strong encryption.
Ask the FBI, by the way they go on strong encryption has killed millions.
Sometimes tech oriented people forget that the computer and the software is only part of the equation.
All software is is a big list of instructions, as soon as the car encounters something it has no instruction for it will crash, and then probably crash.
Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.
Except driving is not now nor has it ever been a right.
Get a license, you now have the right to drive. Move along.
You could drive in racetracks or other closed courses where people are willing to be put in that kind of risk. When you get on a shared interstate and are inches away from hurtling buckets of metal, I would certainly hope there would be some kind of automated safety control. Personally, I think it's pretty crazy that we have gone so long without really acknowledging how dangerous it is. If there is a safer way to do things and the only downside is not being able to drive on main roads, then we should go for it.
There is a safer way, it's called walking but it's real slow and takes ages to get anywhere. I guess you could walk down to the cotton wool store then to somewhere you can wrap yourself up to insulate yourself from all the very many dangers this world poses.
It's true in the same way this is.
Did you realize that Disney makes most of it's money from a global audience? So you're objecting to letting foreigners work to support films that are going to be sold in mass in their country, saying instead America has an imperative of protecting the economic interests of middle class US employees at the expense of much poorer, more desperate foreign employees.
That's not just racism, that's colonialism dude.
I don't think anyone is saying disney can't hire foreign workers, what they are saying is it's downright shady to sack your domestic workers and replace them with cheaper foreign labour that you've shipped in for the express purpose of replacing your current workers to save some dollars (also asking the sacked workers to train the new ones). Not even save money that they need for something, just to increase profits. It might not be illegal but it certainly isn't right and to be pissed off about it isn't racism.
It would seem that, apparently, you did.
Was expected to do the exact same thing, but our staff saw it coming and we 'failed' miserably to enlighten the East Indian HB1's.
I never got why they would ask those being shafted to train their replacements, and when they did why the expected any actual proper training to take place.
Umm, you don't understand how pricing works do you? Increasing the price reduces the demand. Gouging generally refers to a price hike on necessities during an emergency. Disney is not something essential, nor would there ever be an emergency that reduced the supply of Disney. I don't know why you are so angry at Disney, but charging more money to reduce crowds seems pretty reasonable to me.
There's more to it than (+) price = (-) demand. Just look at apple. Disney is the apple of theme parks, there are plenty others out there more reasonably priced and just as good but disney is disney. They aren't even trying to reduce demand at all, just spread it out by making other days seem more appealing by seeming cheaper, but as others have pointed out, places like this are naturally going to most busy in the times when the kids are on school holidays and other public holidays. It's all well and good for adults going without kids who can just take time off work whenever but for the kids, it's got to be in certain times or pull them out of school to go when you can save a little bit of money. The schools don't like that very much. Anyway, I'm not angry at disney. I couldn't care less, all theme parks charge more in peak times (as do a lot of things), it's the way of things and that's naturally going to take advantage of those going for the children. Bottom line is they still want more and more people to go, they just don't want everyone turning up at the same time. Any positives for the customer are incidental side effects.
There is, however, an argument that a good human driver would have recognized the difference in danger and avoided the incident by just driving over the sand bags.
The safety driver thought the bus would yield. That suggests they wouldn't, and that the safety driver would have had the same crash if they had been driving. Unless they were being complacent and trusted the car knew what it was doing.
Google guy obviously hasn't been driving long if he thinks a bus is going to give way, ever.
Disney is doing this, not because of supply and demand, but to gouge even more profits.
I don't think you quite understand how supply and demand (and capitalism) works.
Do you? They're aren't doing anything to meet demand with supply, just putting prices up when demand is up. That's gouging. They can call it whatever they want but they're doing it for the cash money.
Apple has already given the data away to marketers.
^ TROLL
You're right, they don't give away data, they sold it. Probably for twice what it was worth because they put in a shiny folder with an apple logo on it.
add more sharks, preferably with laser beams.
....
Where do you people get this shit from? It's like you want to be charged more for less and are ok with that because hey it's the american way to have corps fuck everyone and do what they want because it's their god fucking given right to maximise profits at the expense of all else. It's always 'hyper regulation' 'strict' regulation as if somehow every packet is going to have to through 50 more hops to validate or whatever. The situation you guys have now is so shit precisely because you have 2 main companies nationwide that hold the bulk the power and you think the fix for the situation give them more?!? It doesn't help they're so misleading in what they say (patriot act round 2)
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.
What makes fox news or cnn more valid than icanhazcheezburger? who decides? the isps based on who's paying more I'd wager. The only one of those that needs specific treatment is netflix for the streaming video. This works fine now without paying extra. This basically says there's no problem at the moment. Net neutralities aim to keep it as it is by ensuring no company can charge more for certain traffic, basically keeping the network neutral. What you are pushing for is their ability to do exactly the opposite. You want to get to site x but they have an issue with provider y who in your scenario are perfectly able and justified in shutting down access as punishment or whatever.
...and then lead into a bunch of intelligent sounding babble that isn't really relevant or mean much at all, all hyperbole and strawmen. How is paying a premium to get youtube instantly and making the users who pay less wait 5 mins for buffering going to help 'innovation'? It can't. Basically what will happen long term if this goes through is create another net, like china, irans or one which cant leave the country without being inspected. The rest of the world will duplicate whatever infrastructure is only available in the US, duplicate any services (basically the big websites, that is if they just don't move out on their own) and route around the fucking problem. Meanwhile you're left with slower internet, less sites and higher costs, and for what? The corporations?
The against crowd keep saying that without that the internet will starve and die because
The real strawman is, the against net neutrality crowd aren't trying to keep it as it is like they might pretend. They are trying to charge more and monetise more and punish those who won't and net neutrality is a response to stop that. Not the other way around. We don't have these problems in the UK and no one else does either. God knows we all have companies that would love to have a go at it and if it goes through there they might have a crack. But at the moment we have enough healthy competition in the ISP market that it wouldn't even get put on a memo. Anyone suggesting it would quickly lose customers to any of the other ISP (of which there are plenty in competition helping to keep prices down, gee now what does that remind me of).
Net neutrality is like dictating that public roads is open to everyone.
Without net neutrality it's like having different speed limits and restrictions depending on which brand of car you use.
Also having to pay the owner of every road you go down. The quicker you want to go the more you gotta pay.
Not neccessary. Its obvious, looking back over the last 20 years of net neutrality, that theres been a complete lack of innovation, absolutely no diversity and no investment in the internet as a result of this government legislative stranglehold...
Maybe where you live, look outside the US and you'll see a thriving internet. So how do you think being able to charge more, block/change whatever traffic you want and essentially removing the barriers to entry and replacing it with a vast gaping chasm is going to help?
They are only being fed lies by the corporations against net neutrality. I'd love to see how Comcast and time Warner have "donated" (bribed) to lobbyists as well as directly and indirectly to the candidates parties
I'd love to hear what they are being told net neutrality actually is and how that is being sold to them. Basically all this is is corps trying to get government blessing to fuck over their customers even more, extract as much money as possible while giving as little service as possible. It's no wonder the US internet situation is seen as a joke internationally, especially that they practically invented it and gave it to the world. That genie is well and truly gone and no amount of anything can get it back in the bottle. I wonder how long it will be before they try and extend it to GPS signals? If you want accuracy you have to pay, the free version will add random time delays to signals giving you a 500 mile radius circle you could be anywhere in.
Isn't that who they're asking?
and spoiled American workers will be made to train their H1-B replacements!
Just sayin'
Teach them wrong, as a joke.