Solyndra gets a lot of criticism, but it's important to note that the program as a whole made money for the public AND spurred energy growth. How is that not a win-win? There were dozens of companies involved, and a few of them didn't pan out, but it is unreasonable to expect a 100% success rate.
The other obvious answer has been tested in Kentucky. Prison yards already have guards... with shotguns... on towers... watching for anything suspicious... you see where I'm going with this?
Do arms include RPG's, heavy machine guns, howitzers, or suitcase nukes? While I'm in favor of legal private ownership of stun guns and tasers, there are basically no reasonable people who think nuclear weapons should be available to all citizens.
From wikipedia: A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.
Therefore, nuclear weapon == Arms
It thus follows that no reasonable person believes in the 2nd amendment.
This is obviously an inflammatory statement to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I know some elderly people who barely worked an honest day in their life. Now they expect to live on Social Security because it's what a "civilized society does."
Since they are elderly, and have few work-gained skills, I would suspect they aren't a good employee for anyone at this stage in their life. Are you suggesting that as a society we should kill them, and have them executed for not being a good enough worker? Or are you simply suggesting to let them starve to death and die of exposure? What exactly are they supposed to "give back" to earn their benefits? And what should we as a society do if they refuse?
Are you aware that you personally, could quit your job, go on welfare, and sit around at home all day, and scrape by with just enough money to eat and keep a roof over your head? Why do you work when you don't "have to"?
Now apply those thoughts of why you work, to other people. It turns out most people are similar, and have hopes and aspirations, want to provide a better life for their families, and want to pursue hobbies, and go to fun places, and so on. The vast majority of people have ambition! Do you really think that fear of starvation is the ONLY thing that makes people get a job?
You are showing an extreme lack of empathy, and making a lot of assumptions about poor people not having hopes and dreams. That honestly says a lot more about yourself than you realize.
Pleading guilty or taking a plea bargain is entirely different than confessing to a crime. In a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt for a bartered reduction in penalty, and have a contract in writing. If you confess to police, you have no more defense. The police have no capacity to grant you leniency for cooperating, no matter what they claim. Instead, you are making it easier for the court system to convict you, by a HUGE margin. You are not only confessing that you committed a crime, but also confirming that a crime occurred. Now the courts have less incentive to offer a plea bargain, and will offer a worse deal or no deal, because they are more certain of a conviction. By confessing, you are giving away the biggest, and often times only, bargaining chip you have.
Counterpoint- Lets say your goal to reduce funding to national security succeeds-
Do you think the spying components will lose money first? Or will the oversight components be first on the chopping block? You want a weaker govt, that means less oversight, right?
OR
Since the govt can't afford to run the program, maybe it will be outsourced to a private company that can provide national security features, and as a bonus they can monetize the information they get by spying, to fund the program by selling directed advertising. Its a win-win for you: Now the govt doesn't have any information on you, and you don't have to pay extra taxes.
Is that the future you want? I understand that point of view just fine, but you are not following it to the logical conclusions.
Yeah, sure: he only wants radical leftists as 'running mates'.
they cheerfully and successfully painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals
A fairly large certain percentage of left wingers and right wingers agree that the govt is broken. The centrist response is to keep the status quo. The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society. The right wing response is to blame government for being bad at governing, and the solution is to dismantle the government, in particular using the starve the beast methodology, to cripple the power the government has by limiting money, and reducing taxes.
The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers. Needless to say, that goes against Lessig's goals, and is why he chooses a left wing running mate.
Revenue generated by advertising is almost pure profit, since you've already built the product and only have ongoing maintenance.
Revenue generated by ecommerce has way more overhead in potentially shipping fees, material costs, and/or labor costs for those goods and services.
This summary and the article seem to use revenue & profit interchangeably, which is not accurate and really tells us nothing.
So if he wants to call a company in Germany, and wonder if it is the middle of the night for them, he would simply have to figure out the sunrise and sunset times in UTC for a geographic region, and then estimate normal business hours?
Thats sounds much more complicated than looking up a time zone, and comparing apples to apples.
FYI - the gold plating doesn't improve the sound any, it's what the gold doesn't do that is important. Gold doesn't corrode or rust. It makes zero difference for the first few years, but after 10 years in a slightly humid environment, some cheaper plating materials will oxidize, while gold keeps a consistent connection.
If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let him do it? Or, you could threaten him with the gun, but both you and him know that you can't legally pull the trigger? So he continues to steal your car, and you can't do anything at all to defend your property??
That's very strange to me. But, I live in Texas, and I fully support defending property with lethal force. In Texas, we teach kids at ages 2-4 the concept of mine and yours. There will always be some people who fail to grasp that concept, and they can legally be exterminated.
It's how the legal system in the US works. If you didn't learn this in high school, you simply didn't listen to what was taught to you in the most basic of civics classes.
You are wrong. Maybe these rules apply in your state, but I live in Texas which respects the rights of property owners. I paid attention during my civics classes, thank you very much.
Case 1 - kid running in the yard - Probably not legal to shoot the kid, unless I can prove that I was afraid of him, or that he was some kind of threat to my sunbathing daughter.
Case 2 - False. In Texas, it is completely legal to shoot and kill the intruder, even if they are unarmed. There is no requirement to attempt to retreat. I know this firsthand. FURTHER, I am specifically protected against Civil lawsuits in defense of my home, and such a civil suit would automatically fail.
Case 3 - False - If I kill an armed (or unarmed) intruder, a grand jury would be summoned to look at the evidence, and determine whether I should be charged. In most cases, there would be no indictment and no trial, and likely not a conviction by jury even if there is a trial.
I also have anecdotal evidence to backup these statements- My brother in law shot at a trespasser (example 1), and was not charged. I've attacked an unarmed intruder (example 2), He lived, I was not charged, and I was not sued. My neighbour a street over shot and killed an unarmed man crawling through his window (another example 2). He was not indicted, this is completely legal to kill unarmed intruders in texas. My coworker shot 2 armed men who were trying to break into his house. (Example 3) He was obviously not charged or sued. The notion is ridiculous.
Your state law is not my state law. In my state, the Great State of Texas, I can shoot anybody who comes onto my property and threatens me, or my possessions, in any way.
Can I discharge a gun within city limits if I am under assault on my own property? Or will I get charged with reckless endangerment when I shoot at a home intruder also?
So I get to do all of the work of an HR benefits person, a secretary, an accountant, a corporate lawyer, AND my own job on top of that, plus get no vacation benefits or sick days, and get to pay a big chunk more in extra taxes, all for a bump in pay? It sounds like considerably more bookkeeping. I'd rather do the job I'm specialized in, than do 5 different jobs badly.
What Netflix didn't count on was the fact that residential broadband isn't very profitable to begin with
That doesn't line up with what I've heard- "The cable distribution giants like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their “almost comically profitable” Internet services, according to Craig Moffet, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research. "
I think GMO labels hurt consumers. The name "genetically modified" is disingenuous to begin with. There's a good chance that everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified through evolution by human intervention. To throw some food into a category of "dangerous", because humans used a slightly more scientific approach, with absolutely no evidence of harm, that just so happens to be the cheapest and most productive source of food, would drive consumers away from GMO foods, and then drive farmers to producing far less food in total.
Everybody in rich countries would pay more for food, while people in poorer countries would literally starve to death because of those labels. The labels wouldn't inform consumers of anything. Informed consumers would not care about the label, while uninformed consumers (the vast majority, yourself included) would be actively killing people across the globe with their ignorance and fear.
I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut.
The guy who got famous by dressing up as a pimp to fabricate proof that a housing organization for the poor was involved in a conspiracy to promote underage prostitution?
The same guy who broke into a senators office, to wiretap her phones, to prove that she wasn't "listening" to her constituents?
And the same guy who recently lost a libel lawsuit against that same senator, claiming that she implied he committed a felony. (His plea bargain reduced the charges to a misdemeanor instead of being a felony)
The same guy who filmed himself illegally entering the country, smuggling people and material, to prove that ISIS terrorists are also sneaking across? And then after publishing video of himself smuggling, is outraged that Customs agents see him as a potential smuggler?
Everything he does suggests he's a conspiracy nut..
Why should an ideological stance on the regulation of guns and computers be the same? They clearly are different tools with much different uses.
Am I allowed to oppose dumping raw mercury into rivers & streams, if I support freedom to travel by airplane? After all, both are forms of pollution in the same sense that computers and guns can both be used as weapons.
I practice my role-playing and voice acting. One day I'm grandpa fumbling for a card, and yelling at children in the yard, the next day I'll practice my french accent and talk about cheese. The fun part is seeing how far you can go before they give up. The trick is to respond to questions in a way in the first few minutes that make them think they've got a big fish on the hook, then slowly escalate the absurd responses. "My mistress demands I hurt myself thrice daily with this card. Please hang on a minute while I remove it from the spot of punishment." I consider it a victory if I get them to lose their temper and cuss me out.
You seem to acknowledge that the good guy with a gun, most likely, cannot kill or fully disable the shooter in this situation. So now you have to calculate, how many people could potentially be saved in that scenario, versus how many people would be killed if handguns are more widespread. If 5% of the populace is armed now, what happens to the death by gun rates when its 10%, 20%, 75%, 100%? What kind of curved graph does it make? I think most people would agree that 0.01% in the hands of criminals only is bad, just as 100% in the hands of everyone is equally bad. Where is the ideal spot? The thing is, that most people who want guns, already have them. Does it help society to force guns into the hands of people who have chosen not to carry them? Will cheaper guns lead to more people being armed and a safer society? Will the number of random shootings go down by allowing anyone, including the mentally ill, to have easier access to guns without waiting periods?
I've never understood this part of the "more guns" argument: Where the hell is this mysterious population of "good guys" that want to carry guns and would be responsible gun owners, but currently can't get a gun?
P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.
ONE gun in the hands of a ordinary citizen in the movie theater, could have prevented many deaths.
Yes, of course, you've figured it all out. Because an asshole who decides exactly when he can spring an ambush on unsuspecting people, hiding behind cover & wearing body armor, can instantly be taken out by an average handgun holder. Seriously?
You are aware that highly trained and experienced soldiers almost always fail and die under those circumstances right? The shooter has more firepower, better armor, better cover, and the advantage of surprise. I would put the odds somewhere in the 1000 to 1 range for the handgun winning in that scenario. Wtf is it with you rambo types thinking one handgun will just magically win in a firefight?
For the first example, this will happen anytime a site has to generate a password for you, that is to say, millions of times a day. The site has to get the password to you, and can do so by generally email, sms, telephone call, or an in person visit. The same 3 letter agency is monitoring all of those electronic methods, so it really doesn't matter which you use, but email is the cheapest by far. The local network/pc is always going to be the weakest link, so use https for webmail. Splitting sensitive information into two emails makes it much harder for the bad guys. Enough so that it is standard practice for the banking industry and is part of PCI compliance transmitting credit card numbers.
For the second example- so what? It's a one-time temporary password that you picked yourself. The risk of a compromise is minimal, the reward for a hacker is minimal. Is it poor security practice... maybe? But you have to weigh the cost-benefit ratio.
Which anthrax attack are you talking about? The one many years ago, or the attack from a few weeks ago, where our own government sent live anthrax spores through the postal system to unsuspecting labs, exposing dozens of people at minimum, to test if they were ready for just such an attack? (Yes, this really just happened, and it hasn't gotten nearly the airtime it deserves, since it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by the government)
Slashdot Mirror
Have you been to west texas...? It's basically a desert. There isn't much environment to disrupt.
Solyndra gets a lot of criticism, but it's important to note that the program as a whole made money for the public AND spurred energy growth. How is that not a win-win? There were dozens of companies involved, and a few of them didn't pan out, but it is unreasonable to expect a 100% success rate.
The other obvious answer has been tested in Kentucky. Prison yards already have guards... with shotguns... on towers... watching for anything suspicious... you see where I'm going with this?
Do arms include RPG's, heavy machine guns, howitzers, or suitcase nukes? While I'm in favor of legal private ownership of stun guns and tasers, there are basically no reasonable people who think nuclear weapons should be available to all citizens.
From wikipedia: A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.
Therefore, nuclear weapon == Arms
It thus follows that no reasonable person believes in the 2nd amendment.
This is obviously an inflammatory statement to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I know some elderly people who barely worked an honest day in their life. Now they expect to live on Social Security because it's what a "civilized society does."
Since they are elderly, and have few work-gained skills, I would suspect they aren't a good employee for anyone at this stage in their life. Are you suggesting that as a society we should kill them, and have them executed for not being a good enough worker? Or are you simply suggesting to let them starve to death and die of exposure? What exactly are they supposed to "give back" to earn their benefits? And what should we as a society do if they refuse?
Are you aware that you personally, could quit your job, go on welfare, and sit around at home all day, and scrape by with just enough money to eat and keep a roof over your head? Why do you work when you don't "have to"?
Now apply those thoughts of why you work, to other people. It turns out most people are similar, and have hopes and aspirations, want to provide a better life for their families, and want to pursue hobbies, and go to fun places, and so on. The vast majority of people have ambition! Do you really think that fear of starvation is the ONLY thing that makes people get a job?
You are showing an extreme lack of empathy, and making a lot of assumptions about poor people not having hopes and dreams. That honestly says a lot more about yourself than you realize.
Pleading guilty or taking a plea bargain is entirely different than confessing to a crime. In a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt for a bartered reduction in penalty, and have a contract in writing. If you confess to police, you have no more defense. The police have no capacity to grant you leniency for cooperating, no matter what they claim. Instead, you are making it easier for the court system to convict you, by a HUGE margin. You are not only confessing that you committed a crime, but also confirming that a crime occurred. Now the courts have less incentive to offer a plea bargain, and will offer a worse deal or no deal, because they are more certain of a conviction. By confessing, you are giving away the biggest, and often times only, bargaining chip you have.
Counterpoint- Lets say your goal to reduce funding to national security succeeds-
Do you think the spying components will lose money first? Or will the oversight components be first on the chopping block? You want a weaker govt, that means less oversight, right?
OR
Since the govt can't afford to run the program, maybe it will be outsourced to a private company that can provide national security features, and as a bonus they can monetize the information they get by spying, to fund the program by selling directed advertising. Its a win-win for you: Now the govt doesn't have any information on you, and you don't have to pay extra taxes.
Is that the future you want? I understand that point of view just fine, but you are not following it to the logical conclusions.
Yeah, sure: he only wants radical leftists as 'running mates'.
they cheerfully and successfully painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals
A fairly large certain percentage of left wingers and right wingers agree that the govt is broken. The centrist response is to keep the status quo. The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society. The right wing response is to blame government for being bad at governing, and the solution is to dismantle the government, in particular using the starve the beast methodology, to cripple the power the government has by limiting money, and reducing taxes.
The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers. Needless to say, that goes against Lessig's goals, and is why he chooses a left wing running mate.
Revenue generated by advertising is almost pure profit, since you've already built the product and only have ongoing maintenance.
Revenue generated by ecommerce has way more overhead in potentially shipping fees, material costs, and/or labor costs for those goods and services.
This summary and the article seem to use revenue & profit interchangeably, which is not accurate and really tells us nothing.
So if he wants to call a company in Germany, and wonder if it is the middle of the night for them, he would simply have to figure out the sunrise and sunset times in UTC for a geographic region, and then estimate normal business hours?
Thats sounds much more complicated than looking up a time zone, and comparing apples to apples.
FYI - the gold plating doesn't improve the sound any, it's what the gold doesn't do that is important. Gold doesn't corrode or rust. It makes zero difference for the first few years, but after 10 years in a slightly humid environment, some cheaper plating materials will oxidize, while gold keeps a consistent connection.
If a guy is stealing your car, would you just watch him and let him do it? Or, you could threaten him with the gun, but both you and him know that you can't legally pull the trigger? So he continues to steal your car, and you can't do anything at all to defend your property??
That's very strange to me. But, I live in Texas, and I fully support defending property with lethal force. In Texas, we teach kids at ages 2-4 the concept of mine and yours. There will always be some people who fail to grasp that concept, and they can legally be exterminated.
It's how the legal system in the US works. If you didn't learn this in high school, you simply didn't listen to what was taught to you in the most basic of civics classes.
You are wrong. Maybe these rules apply in your state, but I live in Texas which respects the rights of property owners. I paid attention during my civics classes, thank you very much.
Case 1 - kid running in the yard - Probably not legal to shoot the kid, unless I can prove that I was afraid of him, or that he was some kind of threat to my sunbathing daughter.
Case 2 - False. In Texas, it is completely legal to shoot and kill the intruder, even if they are unarmed. There is no requirement to attempt to retreat. I know this firsthand. FURTHER, I am specifically protected against Civil lawsuits in defense of my home, and such a civil suit would automatically fail.
Case 3 - False - If I kill an armed (or unarmed) intruder, a grand jury would be summoned to look at the evidence, and determine whether I should be charged. In most cases, there would be no indictment and no trial, and likely not a conviction by jury even if there is a trial.
I also have anecdotal evidence to backup these statements- My brother in law shot at a trespasser (example 1), and was not charged. I've attacked an unarmed intruder (example 2), He lived, I was not charged, and I was not sued. My neighbour a street over shot and killed an unarmed man crawling through his window (another example 2). He was not indicted, this is completely legal to kill unarmed intruders in texas. My coworker shot 2 armed men who were trying to break into his house. (Example 3) He was obviously not charged or sued. The notion is ridiculous.
Your state law is not my state law. In my state, the Great State of Texas, I can shoot anybody who comes onto my property and threatens me, or my possessions, in any way.
Can I discharge a gun within city limits if I am under assault on my own property? Or will I get charged with reckless endangerment when I shoot at a home intruder also?
So I get to do all of the work of an HR benefits person, a secretary, an accountant, a corporate lawyer, AND my own job on top of that, plus get no vacation benefits or sick days, and get to pay a big chunk more in extra taxes, all for a bump in pay? It sounds like considerably more bookkeeping. I'd rather do the job I'm specialized in, than do 5 different jobs badly.
What Netflix didn't count on was the fact that residential broadband isn't very profitable to begin with
That doesn't line up with what I've heard- "The cable distribution giants like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their “almost comically profitable” Internet services, according to Craig Moffet, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research. "
I think GMO labels hurt consumers. The name "genetically modified" is disingenuous to begin with. There's a good chance that everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified through evolution by human intervention. To throw some food into a category of "dangerous", because humans used a slightly more scientific approach, with absolutely no evidence of harm, that just so happens to be the cheapest and most productive source of food, would drive consumers away from GMO foods, and then drive farmers to producing far less food in total.
Everybody in rich countries would pay more for food, while people in poorer countries would literally starve to death because of those labels. The labels wouldn't inform consumers of anything. Informed consumers would not care about the label, while uninformed consumers (the vast majority, yourself included) would be actively killing people across the globe with their ignorance and fear.
I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut.
The guy who got famous by dressing up as a pimp to fabricate proof that a housing organization for the poor was involved in a conspiracy to promote underage prostitution?
The same guy who broke into a senators office, to wiretap her phones, to prove that she wasn't "listening" to her constituents?
And the same guy who recently lost a libel lawsuit against that same senator, claiming that she implied he committed a felony. (His plea bargain reduced the charges to a misdemeanor instead of being a felony)
The same guy who filmed himself illegally entering the country, smuggling people and material, to prove that ISIS terrorists are also sneaking across? And then after publishing video of himself smuggling, is outraged that Customs agents see him as a potential smuggler?
Everything he does suggests he's a conspiracy nut..
Why should an ideological stance on the regulation of guns and computers be the same? They clearly are different tools with much different uses.
Am I allowed to oppose dumping raw mercury into rivers & streams, if I support freedom to travel by airplane? After all, both are forms of pollution in the same sense that computers and guns can both be used as weapons.
I practice my role-playing and voice acting. One day I'm grandpa fumbling for a card, and yelling at children in the yard, the next day I'll practice my french accent and talk about cheese. The fun part is seeing how far you can go before they give up. The trick is to respond to questions in a way in the first few minutes that make them think they've got a big fish on the hook, then slowly escalate the absurd responses. "My mistress demands I hurt myself thrice daily with this card. Please hang on a minute while I remove it from the spot of punishment." I consider it a victory if I get them to lose their temper and cuss me out.
You seem to acknowledge that the good guy with a gun, most likely, cannot kill or fully disable the shooter in this situation. So now you have to calculate, how many people could potentially be saved in that scenario, versus how many people would be killed if handguns are more widespread. If 5% of the populace is armed now, what happens to the death by gun rates when its 10%, 20%, 75%, 100%? What kind of curved graph does it make? I think most people would agree that 0.01% in the hands of criminals only is bad, just as 100% in the hands of everyone is equally bad. Where is the ideal spot? The thing is, that most people who want guns, already have them. Does it help society to force guns into the hands of people who have chosen not to carry them? Will cheaper guns lead to more people being armed and a safer society? Will the number of random shootings go down by allowing anyone, including the mentally ill, to have easier access to guns without waiting periods?
I've never understood this part of the "more guns" argument: Where the hell is this mysterious population of "good guys" that want to carry guns and would be responsible gun owners, but currently can't get a gun?
P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.
ONE gun in the hands of a ordinary citizen in the movie theater, could have prevented many deaths.
Yes, of course, you've figured it all out. Because an asshole who decides exactly when he can spring an ambush on unsuspecting people, hiding behind cover & wearing body armor, can instantly be taken out by an average handgun holder. Seriously?
You are aware that highly trained and experienced soldiers almost always fail and die under those circumstances right? The shooter has more firepower, better armor, better cover, and the advantage of surprise. I would put the odds somewhere in the 1000 to 1 range for the handgun winning in that scenario. Wtf is it with you rambo types thinking one handgun will just magically win in a firefight?
For the first example, this will happen anytime a site has to generate a password for you, that is to say, millions of times a day. The site has to get the password to you, and can do so by generally email, sms, telephone call, or an in person visit. The same 3 letter agency is monitoring all of those electronic methods, so it really doesn't matter which you use, but email is the cheapest by far. The local network/pc is always going to be the weakest link, so use https for webmail. Splitting sensitive information into two emails makes it much harder for the bad guys. Enough so that it is standard practice for the banking industry and is part of PCI compliance transmitting credit card numbers.
For the second example- so what? It's a one-time temporary password that you picked yourself. The risk of a compromise is minimal, the reward for a hacker is minimal. Is it poor security practice... maybe? But you have to weigh the cost-benefit ratio.
Which anthrax attack are you talking about? The one many years ago, or the attack from a few weeks ago, where our own government sent live anthrax spores through the postal system to unsuspecting labs, exposing dozens of people at minimum, to test if they were ready for just such an attack? (Yes, this really just happened, and it hasn't gotten nearly the airtime it deserves, since it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by the government)