And the individuals bugaboos. Everyone wants to see the empire's fall as due to their own personal dislikes. Ask the libertarians, they'll blame overregulation. Ask the conservatives, they'll blame socialism. Ask the liberals, they'll blame polluted water or corruption.
You can see it in a more recent event too - the early troubles at the Jamestown colony. It's recent enough to be very well documented, but already we are seeing a number of disparate accounts circulating in popular awareness, one of which (Originating in a Fox column, now persisting as a circular email and blog post) claims that the colony was founded on a system of collective ownership and farmers didn't see any point in farming if the rest of the community would just steal their crop, so they starved to death until a panicked switch to a private-property system and free market economy brought about greatly increased production and prosperity. It's a bunch of lies with a hint of truth mixed in, Dan Brown style, and any real historian would laugh at it - but it still persists, because the myth tells people what they want to hear: A good morality tale, supporting their own particular morality.
And even without the government franchise grant, it'd still be a natural monopoly. Once the first company to market has laid the cable and signed everyone up, it'd be near-impossible for a second to win over enough customers to pay for their own build. Laying cable is hugely expensive.
There's the UK approach: We have the 'company that runs the wires' and the 'company that moves the data.' The BT infrastructure division is obliged to allow any ISP to rent their telephone lines on equal terms*. The company running the last mile service doesn't care about content - they just connect the end users and the ISPs together.
I can't see it taking off in the US though. The political situation isn't favorable to that sort of regulation, and the lobbying influence too strong.
*Though there have been many problems with unofficial sweetheart deals for BT internet, as they are another division of the same company.
A better parallel would be how the widespread use of insecticides in the US opened up ecological niches to the infamous fire ant, paving the way for the very rapid spread of the species.
Coal seems safe because the consequences are diffuse enough not to be noticed. A few thousand more people impaired by mercury exposure, a couple more hurricanes a year - but nothing you can point to and declare 'Coal did this.'
Reminds me of the historically-inaccurate forwarded email that blames the Jamestown famine on communal labor and property, then explains how a switch to private ownership and market capitalism saved them all.
They'd still pick up the carrier - they couldn't tell what you were saying, but they could track where it was coming from. If you want to evade tracking you could use something like very broadband, rapidly-hopping spread spectrum - that would certainly get in the way of any tracking efforts, but it would also need a lot more specialised equipment and skill.
It's a nice idea, and arguably has done a lot to bring down many repressive governments and end many great injustices. The problem is that everyone believes themselves to be righteously protesting - and one man's justified cause is another's anarchy. Take the current Bundy fiasco: Bundy feels that federal land ownership is unjust, therefore he refuses to pay his grazing license (ie, tax). He also feels that protection for endangered species is an unjust law, therefore he ignores repeated court orders to stop grazing his cattle upon land which has herd density restrictions. To some, he is a hero - a brave protester, risking his freedom to strike a symbolic blow against a government out of control. To others, he is a redneck dick who won't pay his taxes and has no respect for the rule of law. It's all subjective.
Armchair psychology aside, there are implications for political debate even in free societies. It's difficult to campaign for the legalisation of X (whatever X is) if you cannot do so anonymously, because most of those campaigning for legalisation probably do X and so would become targets for arrest. This also applies if X is merely very unpopular, to the point that speaking in favor of it would result in protests, possible violence, boycotting of business, etc.
In 1998? The ban on exporting >40bit encryption from the US was only relaxed in 1996, and it took until 2000 for the executive order to be fully implemented. The AOL legal department probably cautioned against it. Besides, it still wouldn't be entirely secure: One side of the key would have to be embedded in the client, where it could be extracted. Plus it would make intercepting messages in transit very difficult, something which would likely earn the ire of the government - the NSA was not so famous as it is today, but it still existed, and would likely have sent men of deniable identity around to warn any company deploying a large scale secure communications platform.
Regular superglue is slightly toxic - or rather the breakdown products are. But only slightly. I've used it to patch up minor wounds a couple of times.
The gun rights supporters oppose training requirements for the same reason pro-choice supporters oppose any forms of restriction on abortion. They both recognise that regulation can easily be used as constitutional workrounds: The government cannot ban X, but they can require X is only available after filling in form 3940-subsection-C in triplicate and submitting to a federal agency which has an annual budget of $50 and a two-year backlog on processing the paperwork.
This is a very common approach in the US, where various levels of government are often working at cross-purposes and actively trying to subvert one another. Witness things like zoning laws being used to ban sexually orientated businesses, or sexual offender exclusion zones that are intentionally overlapped so entire cities are without a square inch not somehow covered. If there was a requirement that individuals were required to undergo gun training and get a license, an anti-gun administration could deliberately underfund the department or set certification standards so high as to be humanly impossible to pass. In the same way that some states have passed laws which require any doctor performing an abortion have admitting privilidges at a local hospital, in full knowledge that for many clinics there are no hospitals within range that would grant such privledges and thus the requirement is intentionally impossible to comply with.
I've debated a lot of gun rights supporters, and I get a distinct impression that they are heavily influenced by just what you describe. They seem fixated on scenarios that could come straight out of a movie - they love to talk about how they will defend their family against home invasion, or shoot a mugger, or stop the rampaging gunmen before he kills innocent people.
I have two. Though one is in rather bad cosmetic condition following a failed attempt to mod it many years ago, it still functions perfectly. Recently taken out of use, but only because I wanted the windows key.
You're getting distracted in trying to answer the question posed, when the question itsself is missing the point.
Life isn't the issue here. Life is misdirection. No-one outside of a few of the strictest Buddhist groups actually cares about life itsself - as is demonstrated with every animal slaughtered for meat, every pest rodent killed with traps or poison, and every insect swatted because they look ugly and dirty. The real question shouldn't be over when human life begins* - the question is when, for purposes of moral judgement, a new awareness emerges which is deserving of some form of recognition or protection. There's some vagueness in this question too, because there is no 'magic moment' at which awareness flicks on light a switch, but it should be possible for everyone to at least agree that it can't happen before there is brain with some level of function. No brain, no problem!
It gets a bit ugly the more you go into it, with pitfalls awaiting in matters such as comparative abilities of newborn humans and adult animals, but this approach at least provides something of a concrete framework which can be worked with. The only alternative is the special pleading approach: 'Humans lives must be protected because they are made of magic soul dust.'
*An awkward question its-self - one may as well ask when a new fire begins as one candle is lit from another.
First thing google told me to do, yes. Good thing I spotted that it was going to try to uninstall a few things like libc. I can't remember what I did exactly, but something to wipe the list of pending jobs so it wouldn't try to rollback the 'failed' installation of essential packages,
Ever looked at a cartoon, or illustrated character? It's human instinct. We can interpret emotion in just two dots an a line:) Illustrated characters can easily express hyper-emotional levels far beyond what a real face could manage, an ability often utilised for dramatic or comedic effect. It wouldn't be a matter of willingness to delude onesself - even if you know the emotion is fake, it would take a deliberate effort not to be deluded subconsciously.
Slashdot Mirror
And the individuals bugaboos. Everyone wants to see the empire's fall as due to their own personal dislikes. Ask the libertarians, they'll blame overregulation. Ask the conservatives, they'll blame socialism. Ask the liberals, they'll blame polluted water or corruption.
You can see it in a more recent event too - the early troubles at the Jamestown colony. It's recent enough to be very well documented, but already we are seeing a number of disparate accounts circulating in popular awareness, one of which (Originating in a Fox column, now persisting as a circular email and blog post) claims that the colony was founded on a system of collective ownership and farmers didn't see any point in farming if the rest of the community would just steal their crop, so they starved to death until a panicked switch to a private-property system and free market economy brought about greatly increased production and prosperity. It's a bunch of lies with a hint of truth mixed in, Dan Brown style, and any real historian would laugh at it - but it still persists, because the myth tells people what they want to hear: A good morality tale, supporting their own particular morality.
And even without the government franchise grant, it'd still be a natural monopoly. Once the first company to market has laid the cable and signed everyone up, it'd be near-impossible for a second to win over enough customers to pay for their own build. Laying cable is hugely expensive.
There's the UK approach: We have the 'company that runs the wires' and the 'company that moves the data.' The BT infrastructure division is obliged to allow any ISP to rent their telephone lines on equal terms*. The company running the last mile service doesn't care about content - they just connect the end users and the ISPs together.
I can't see it taking off in the US though. The political situation isn't favorable to that sort of regulation, and the lobbying influence too strong.
*Though there have been many problems with unofficial sweetheart deals for BT internet, as they are another division of the same company.
A better parallel would be how the widespread use of insecticides in the US opened up ecological niches to the infamous fire ant, paving the way for the very rapid spread of the species.
Coal seems safe because the consequences are diffuse enough not to be noticed. A few thousand more people impaired by mercury exposure, a couple more hurricanes a year - but nothing you can point to and declare 'Coal did this.'
... and blast at things with ray guns.
FOR SCIENCE!
Cool.
Reminds me of the historically-inaccurate forwarded email that blames the Jamestown famine on communal labor and property, then explains how a switch to private ownership and market capitalism saved them all.
Netflix is also a competitor. A successful netflix means fewer people paying for cable television.
They'd still pick up the carrier - they couldn't tell what you were saying, but they could track where it was coming from. If you want to evade tracking you could use something like very broadband, rapidly-hopping spread spectrum - that would certainly get in the way of any tracking efforts, but it would also need a lot more specialised equipment and skill.
It's a nice idea, and arguably has done a lot to bring down many repressive governments and end many great injustices. The problem is that everyone believes themselves to be righteously protesting - and one man's justified cause is another's anarchy. Take the current Bundy fiasco: Bundy feels that federal land ownership is unjust, therefore he refuses to pay his grazing license (ie, tax). He also feels that protection for endangered species is an unjust law, therefore he ignores repeated court orders to stop grazing his cattle upon land which has herd density restrictions. To some, he is a hero - a brave protester, risking his freedom to strike a symbolic blow against a government out of control. To others, he is a redneck dick who won't pay his taxes and has no respect for the rule of law. It's all subjective.
Yes, and most of us ignore it.
Armchair psychology aside, there are implications for political debate even in free societies. It's difficult to campaign for the legalisation of X (whatever X is) if you cannot do so anonymously, because most of those campaigning for legalisation probably do X and so would become targets for arrest. This also applies if X is merely very unpopular, to the point that speaking in favor of it would result in protests, possible violence, boycotting of business, etc.
People never wanted buggy whips. People wanted transport. Buggy whips were just a means to that end.
Can't speak globally, but in the UK most mobile applications are carrier-level NATed v4.
There's little reason for content providers to go to IPv6, because hardly any consumers can reach them there.
In 1998? The ban on exporting >40bit encryption from the US was only relaxed in 1996, and it took until 2000 for the executive order to be fully implemented. The AOL legal department probably cautioned against it. Besides, it still wouldn't be entirely secure: One side of the key would have to be embedded in the client, where it could be extracted. Plus it would make intercepting messages in transit very difficult, something which would likely earn the ire of the government - the NSA was not so famous as it is today, but it still existed, and would likely have sent men of deniable identity around to warn any company deploying a large scale secure communications platform.
It's 'Wesen.' Pronounced 'Vessen' as it's a german word, and follows their pronounciation rules. W can be prounced as V.
Regular superglue is slightly toxic - or rather the breakdown products are. But only slightly. I've used it to patch up minor wounds a couple of times.
The gun rights supporters oppose training requirements for the same reason pro-choice supporters oppose any forms of restriction on abortion. They both recognise that regulation can easily be used as constitutional workrounds: The government cannot ban X, but they can require X is only available after filling in form 3940-subsection-C in triplicate and submitting to a federal agency which has an annual budget of $50 and a two-year backlog on processing the paperwork.
This is a very common approach in the US, where various levels of government are often working at cross-purposes and actively trying to subvert one another. Witness things like zoning laws being used to ban sexually orientated businesses, or sexual offender exclusion zones that are intentionally overlapped so entire cities are without a square inch not somehow covered. If there was a requirement that individuals were required to undergo gun training and get a license, an anti-gun administration could deliberately underfund the department or set certification standards so high as to be humanly impossible to pass. In the same way that some states have passed laws which require any doctor performing an abortion have admitting privilidges at a local hospital, in full knowledge that for many clinics there are no hospitals within range that would grant such privledges and thus the requirement is intentionally impossible to comply with.
I've debated a lot of gun rights supporters, and I get a distinct impression that they are heavily influenced by just what you describe. They seem fixated on scenarios that could come straight out of a movie - they love to talk about how they will defend their family against home invasion, or shoot a mugger, or stop the rampaging gunmen before he kills innocent people.
I have two. Though one is in rather bad cosmetic condition following a failed attempt to mod it many years ago, it still functions perfectly. Recently taken out of use, but only because I wanted the windows key.
You're getting distracted in trying to answer the question posed, when the question itsself is missing the point.
Life isn't the issue here. Life is misdirection. No-one outside of a few of the strictest Buddhist groups actually cares about life itsself - as is demonstrated with every animal slaughtered for meat, every pest rodent killed with traps or poison, and every insect swatted because they look ugly and dirty. The real question shouldn't be over when human life begins* - the question is when, for purposes of moral judgement, a new awareness emerges which is deserving of some form of recognition or protection. There's some vagueness in this question too, because there is no 'magic moment' at which awareness flicks on light a switch, but it should be possible for everyone to at least agree that it can't happen before there is brain with some level of function. No brain, no problem!
It gets a bit ugly the more you go into it, with pitfalls awaiting in matters such as comparative abilities of newborn humans and adult animals, but this approach at least provides something of a concrete framework which can be worked with. The only alternative is the special pleading approach: 'Humans lives must be protected because they are made of magic soul dust.'
*An awkward question its-self - one may as well ask when a new fire begins as one candle is lit from another.
I was really making the point that political labels are so adaptable as to be to some extent meaningless.
First thing google told me to do, yes. Good thing I spotted that it was going to try to uninstall a few things like libc. I can't remember what I did exactly, but something to wipe the list of pending jobs so it wouldn't try to rollback the 'failed' installation of essential packages,
Ever looked at a cartoon, or illustrated character? It's human instinct. We can interpret emotion in just two dots an a line :) Illustrated characters can easily express hyper-emotional levels far beyond what a real face could manage, an ability often utilised for dramatic or comedic effect. It wouldn't be a matter of willingness to delude onesself - even if you know the emotion is fake, it would take a deliberate effort not to be deluded subconsciously.
These are noteable for being a few of the places in the UK where the pronounciation actually reflects the spelling.