I know you're joking (kinda:)), but some major factors are a) intent b) knowing or not knowing. If you really are ignorant about nuclear power, and speak out against it as an individual, that is perfectly fine and legal.
But if know that nuclear is safe and could help climate change, but conspire with media, think tanks, and other groups to knowingly spread lies and falsehoods, lies and falsehoods that can be proven in court to have real world detrimental effects, that certainly is illegal.
If speech can be shown to have led to people's deaths, then it was possibly a criminal act. Shouting fire in a theater to intentionally cause panic: you bet your ass you can be charged with a crime.
If I conspire with people in media, think tanks, and political groups, to convince the public that X is safe, when I and all my co-conspirators know full well that X is not safe, you bet that is a criminal act.
You seem to be operating using a Kindergarten saying "words can never hurt..". That isn't true in the real world.
It was a fucking clock. His engineering teacher could have verified it. Second, if they were really concerned why the fuck was the bomb squad and fire dept not called? They kept that kid for two class periods interrogating him without a lawyer and his parents. The principal trying to force him to write some kind of written confession. Again, without his parents. Do you think that was reasonable? Jeezus.
Also speculating what the kid was up to? Really? Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?
Cuz in 'Murika we do not given the benefit of the doubt to kids with Muslim-sounding names (whatever that means) and/or suffer from Dermal Hypermelaninetis (a condition clearly documented in the "Take Our Country Back" medical manual.)
While I'm completely on his side and think the teachers/cops handled this very poorly, I'm curious where the parents where in this situation the night before.
If I had a kid and they wanted to bring anything unusual (as in, not the class book, pens,paper, etc..) in to show people, I would tell my child to ask the teacher if it was alright, and then bring it in the next day. I mean, it was that way 35'ish years ago at my school. If I wanted to bring anything that wasn't a school supply of some sort, my parents made me ask the teacher if it was OK. Show and tell day was just that: a day to bring in unusual stuff.
Liberal arts majors have not been trained to think logically and solve problems.
Well, I'm not sure what sorts of Liberal Arts people you've encountered, but logical thinking is something a good Liberal Art's degree should certainly teach. And to much greater depth than an engineering or cs degree.
PHIL 0540. Logic.
An introduction to perhaps the most fundamental tool of rational thought: deductive logic. Course begins with basic sentential logic, then moves on to deduction, quantification, and prediction. Argumentation and reasoning may also be addressed at times. No previous experience with logic or philosophy is required.
PHIL 1630. Mathematical Logic.
This course provides a rigorous introduction to the metatheory of classical first-order predicate logic. Topics covered include the syntax, formal semantics, and proof theory of first-order logic, leading up to the completeness theorem and its consequences (the compactness and Lowenheim-Skolem theorems). There will be some discussion of philosophical issues, but the focus of the course will be on the technical material. This course provides a more rigorous and mathematical treatment of material covered in PHIL 0540. No previous familiarity with logic is required, but it may be taken after 0540.
PHIL 1880. Advanced Deductive Logic.
This course provides an introduction to the metatheory of first-order logic. We will prove the completeness of first-order logic. We then move on to the major "limitative" results, including the undecidability of first-order logic, the Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the undefinability in arithmetic of arithmetical truth. Prerequisite: PHIL 0540 or instructor's permission.
That is just a few I pulled from random from Brown's philosophy web site. I major'd in Anthro, minor'd in philosophy and chemistry, and almost minor'd in math. (couldn't decide what I liked). This may be unique to my school (a top 50 liberal arts school), but my chem/math/physics courses did not attempt to teach the fundamentals of logic. We solved a bunch of problems, sure. But all that did was give your practice solving equations. The approach to solving the problem, the methods employed, all the historical various ways you could approach a problem etc.. were largely left up to each individual student to work out.
However, the advanced logic philosophy courses.... jeez. Talk about brain stretching. You were trained to take highly 'grey' subject matter, not black/white problems like 1+2=2, and reduce them logically to basically an equation you could solve.
I know a lot of very narrow minded Engineers. They might be great at solving problems in their area of expertise, but they fail hard when they attempt to extend those problem solving abilities to things like politics or social issues. Ditto with Physicians/Surgeons. They are very well trained, and can solve hundreds of different complex medical issues, that they feel like "well of course I can decide whether food stamps make sense given xyz". Well... usually no. They will not be aware of how complex the issue is, and tend to approach the problem way too simply. Like physicians who say losing weight is "only calories in, calories out". Well.... true. True in the sense that you have identified the main equation that governs fat buildup. But completely worthless when solving the real world equation "how can I get this person to lose weight".
Liberal arts/social sciences/philosophy etc.. is much better equipped to provide an actual useful real world answer that accounts of all the 'grey' areas that oftentimes cannot be reduced to simple equations.
Check the device, treat the device as a bomb until you're sure it's not--yes.
In an ideal world, educators would be educated enough to not mistake a simple electronics board with a bomb. In an ideal world, the default position would be "cool, that looks interesting, can you show it to me? Nice work!".
The same goes for guns, knives, chemistry sets, firecrackers, etc. Why assume that the person holding X has evil intent when 99.9999999999% of the time, the person is good? The post 9/11, post columbine (and all the other shootings), mentality is just so hysterical. Statistically speaking you are far more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to be the victim of a bomb or school shooting.
Trump is in - he is the one person who can outspend Bush
Obama's campaign spent 750 million in 2004. If you include all the super pac / outside spending, it is a lot more. I doubt Trump has 2-3 Billion in liquid assets available. (Side note, I heard that if Trump had just put his inherited money from his Dad in an index fund and not touched it, he'd have more money than he does now... imo, it shows that Trump isn't that great of a business man if we can't even beat a moderate percentage market rate).
In the current party, I support Cruz
Just out of curiosity, is that because he's so religious, or is that not a factor for you? If it isn't a factor, what policy objectives does Cruz have that you like? He doesn't stand out to me at all.
I talked to some friends who bicycle in Portland (super bike friendly town) and they all agree that the correct and legal thing to do, is when you approach an intersection that you need to turn left or right at, you need to merge back into traffic as you approach the stop sign or signal. Obviously this is not perfect, and only works when traffic is slowing down coming to a red light intersection or 4 way stop. If you need to take a left, if the light is green and traffic is moving fast, you basically have to stop and wait in the bike lane until there is an opportunity to merge left.
If your town is doing the same thing as mine, this is evident in newer bike lanes paint jobs. The white bike lane will be on the right of the car lane. But right in front of where a car is supposed to stop, the bike lane paint merges left in front of the first stopped car, and that paint is green. So basically at a red light, all the bikes catch up to the cars by riding along side them in the bike lane. Then all the bikes queue up in front of all the cars in that green painted waiting area. Then when the light turns green, all the bikes merge right back into the bike lane as traffic starts up.
Very few drives of bikes or cars seem to know the real rules:(
The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.
That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things.
1. Whether you agree with Lessig on campaign finance restrictions being more important than free speech or not, I'm paraphrasing his group's views fairly. If you disagree, give me an alternative interpretation of his views. Don't just say "Fox News" like that means anything.
We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways...
2. Here in the United States, we don't place NEARLY as many restrictions on speech as most people assume... or as some would like. Other countries don't have the kind of freedoms we enjoy, and so enact tyrannical restrictions on speech. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Also, governments who enact these restrictions are doing the whole "assume buisnesses are evil and government and so-called public interest groups are righteous" thing. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that part from you, Lessig, or those governments.
It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.
3. If part of your plan is "Repeal part of the First Amendment," that should be your first hint that it's a bad plan.
What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance: 3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit. 4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign.
The horrible parts of your plan are steps 3 and 4, and step 6, which you didn't mention.
Your Step 3 gives people taxpayer money. People aren't entitled to "government money" (which in reality, BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS) so they can espouse crackpot views. If you want to run for President, the only people whose money you are entitled to are the people who you can convince that you and your views are important enough to fund. The government shouldn't be paying anyone to speak.
Step 4 is just plain wrong. The government can't (and shouldn't) be allowed to restrict the amount of speech made by an entity, any more than they could prevent a newspaper from printing two editions a day or say that religious services are restricted to an hour long and start throwing pastors in jail if their sermons are too long.
Step 6, which you don't address, concerns the professional media. Under your plan, due to the advertising restrictions you're placing, most people will learn most of their information from the news media. (This is explicitly part of Lessig's May Day plan.) News media coverage is itself a form of advertising, which is left untouched under your and Lessig's plan. If the media decides that they support candidate A versus candidate B, and they slant the news that way, there will be no one to oppose them because your and Lessig's advertising restrictions are keeping them out of the field. (Part of Lessig's bet is that the media will continue to collaborate to pick candidates that he supports.)
1. You used the word 'evil'. I'm fairly certain Lessig doesn't describe businesses/corporations as evil. But he does describe them as non-human, and does not like non-humans having the same power to influence politics that humans do. It really is a "Fox News" (conservative meme in general) to make it seem like liberals/progressives are anti-business. Lessig is not "against business people", which is what your statement felt like when I read it. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way. 2. The point being that we do restrict some kinds of speech. And it isn't wrong to restrict more, if we agree that the benefit to societ
I'm a liberal, so I'm not taking any definitions from Fox. But you are right, in that I got the textbook definition of socialism mixed up. Per google:
"socialism sSHlizm/ noun noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
At work, I know we have a windows update server that all our other servers look it for updates. The windows update server downloads everything, but then you can set a policy that says only push the security updates. Don't update anything else.
I assume a home computer can be pointed to a windows update server on the home network as well?
As an aside - is there such a thing as "Big Egg"? We buy ours from a local farm.
You are very much in the minority. All eggs used in all chain grocery stores in the USA, all eggs used in fast food restaurants, all dried/freeze dried eggs used in boxed cakes/cupcakes mixes in stores, etc.. all of that comes from huge egg producers.
I haven't check in a while, but even our local/organic/vegan friendly Portland Oregon stores carry "Big Egg".
Having several different routes out to the internet is way cheaper than a server farm.
That said, the ease and prevalence of virtualized server farm environments make the cloud a lot less appealing to sys admins now. They push a button and a 'server' is born. It doesn't cost the organization anything, because we already pay for site wide licenses for most things like the OS, database, etc..
We may move some of our test/dev servers to something like Amazon. It would be nice as a dev to be able to create a new server instantly from a template, and not have to put a ticket in to our sys admins. But even then, virtualbox or the like works well enough for bringing servers up/down as needed for testing.
As a developer, I turn off windows automatic updates. Sometimes I allow only security updates to be automated.
Most the stuff that 'breaks' in linux when an update happens are things like video drivers, X, sound, wifi, etc.. very little of that is found in security updates. I wonder if different linux distros have the ability to only allow security updates?
For the record, I have about 10 different flavors of Linux in virtualbox right now, and I have yet to see any of them break after a full update. I wonder if they are artificially more stable inside a VM (which perhaps uses very basic emulated hardware)?
We do expect pedestrians to obey intersection signs and rules though. That is one thing that a lot of cyclists ignore. And at a four way stop, it can get really confusing if 4 cars pull up, and it is car 1's turn to take a left, but a cyclist across the intersection from him goes forward out of turn, blocking car 1's ability to take a left. So then car 2 decides to go because he sees that car 1 cannot, etc...
Cyclists should really be queued up behind the cars in an intersection, not riding up alongside them. I can't see any way around situations like this unless bikes have more dedicated roads (no cars).
I missed where Lessig was saying anything about a centrally planned system. I was pretty sure he is just trying to get money out of political elections. Where did he make that statement?
This isn't actually true. The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.
That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things. We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways.
There is nothing wrong with that at all. It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.
What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance: 1. Anyone that can gather X signatures is allowed to run for president. 2. All candidates are given equal air time in the form of a series of debates. 3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit. 4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign. No super pacs, etc.. 5. Individual people can donate a small amount to a campaign if they want. 50 bucks or so.
That seems like the absolute best way to given 3rd party candidates a shot, while still allowing individuals to 'cast their vote with their wallet' by donating early to a campaign, which would allow more 'speech' in the form of advertising for that campaign.
In my mind, that would absolutely level the playing field. Tea party candidates, green party, socialist, neocons, whatever. Anyone would have a chance if they can get the signatures.
Reading this post demonstrates Americans have absolutely no idea what socialism is.
They do understand what socialism is in practice, but they do not know that the word "socialism" is the proper term for things we already have in the US. Like..... the friggin "Social Security" program lol. They have just been taught by our horrible media and lying politicians that socialism means communism.
Current status of our welfare systems seems to disagree.
That is a media-fed assumption that people get on welfare and just sit on a couch all day for years. Look up the stats about how long the typical person uses assistance before they get off, and what the demographic makeup of welfare recipients is. I think you'll find it surprising how little the facts line up with stuff politicians go on and on about during election years.
On the other hand, if you leave lots of food on the plates, and the filter in the bottom ever comes loose a little bit, your dishwasher will stop working. All the tubes get clogged with food.
The Alaska situation is completely unique. State and federal governments own all sorts of resources (Forest, minerals, etc..) on their lands, and lease it to private companies to extract. Like logging. In no other state do the people get a cut of those government owned resources.
Falling Skies - Decent, but cheesy. You can tell it was written for the masses and not sci fi fans. Dark Matter - horrible annoying shaky cam, ultra high contrast, everyone's face is always half dark. People of the future apparently love having the lights for a room on the friggin wall shining directly in your eyes. Oh, and boring. Killjoys - I couldn't watch it because they apparently used the exact same camera director that they used for Dark Matter. Massive use of shaky cam, ultra high contrast, etc.. Am I the only one that absolutely hates this 'modern' camera work? Defiance - Pick it up again. It did have a dry streak of episodes that were boring, but it got better. Continuum - last season is coming up. I'd try it again. It starts to get interesting with time travel in later episodes. Under the Dome - I only watched this because there was literally nothing else on most of the time. It is just bearable. Extant - Really? It is one of only a few sci fi shows with a big budget and big actors (Halley Berry and the dad from Supernatural). It gets into all the Asimov robotics dilemmas as well as dealing with aliens. Zoo - I could tell from the trailer it wasn't worth watching. Minority Report - Trailer was horrible. Dominion - Decent Lost Girl - Decent Game of Thrones - must watch. Even when its bad, it is better than most tv on at the time. Forever - Never tried it. The Whisperers - Written for 'family time'. Plot/acting/scripts seem to be targeted to someone around age 12. Strain - Took a while, but it eventually grew on me.
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're joking (kinda:)), but some major factors are a) intent b) knowing or not knowing. If you really are ignorant about nuclear power, and speak out against it as an individual, that is perfectly fine and legal.
But if know that nuclear is safe and could help climate change, but conspire with media, think tanks, and other groups to knowingly spread lies and falsehoods, lies and falsehoods that can be proven in court to have real world detrimental effects, that certainly is illegal.
If speech can be shown to have led to people's deaths, then it was possibly a criminal act. Shouting fire in a theater to intentionally cause panic: you bet your ass you can be charged with a crime.
If I conspire with people in media, think tanks, and political groups, to convince the public that X is safe, when I and all my co-conspirators know full well that X is not safe, you bet that is a criminal act.
You seem to be operating using a Kindergarten saying "words can never hurt..". That isn't true in the real world.
It was a fucking clock. His engineering teacher could have verified it. Second, if they were really concerned why the fuck was the bomb squad and fire dept not called? They kept that kid for two class periods interrogating him without a lawyer and his parents. The principal trying to force him to write some kind of written confession. Again, without his parents. Do you think that was reasonable? Jeezus.
Also speculating what the kid was up to? Really? Why not just give him the benefit of the doubt?
Cuz in 'Murika we do not given the benefit of the doubt to kids with Muslim-sounding names (whatever that means) and/or suffer from Dermal Hypermelaninetis (a condition clearly documented in the "Take Our Country Back" medical manual.)
While I'm completely on his side and think the teachers/cops handled this very poorly, I'm curious where the parents where in this situation the night before.
If I had a kid and they wanted to bring anything unusual (as in, not the class book, pens,paper, etc..) in to show people, I would tell my child to ask the teacher if it was alright, and then bring it in the next day. I mean, it was that way 35'ish years ago at my school. If I wanted to bring anything that wasn't a school supply of some sort, my parents made me ask the teacher if it was OK. Show and tell day was just that: a day to bring in unusual stuff.
Liberal arts majors have not been trained to think logically and solve problems.
Well, I'm not sure what sorts of Liberal Arts people you've encountered, but logical thinking is something a good Liberal Art's degree should certainly teach. And to much greater depth than an engineering or cs degree.
PHIL 0540. Logic.
An introduction to perhaps the most fundamental tool of rational thought: deductive logic. Course begins with basic sentential logic, then moves on to deduction, quantification, and prediction. Argumentation and reasoning may also be addressed at times. No previous experience with logic or philosophy is required.
PHIL 1630. Mathematical Logic.
This course provides a rigorous introduction to the metatheory of classical first-order predicate logic. Topics covered include the syntax, formal semantics, and proof theory of first-order logic, leading up to the completeness theorem and its consequences (the compactness and Lowenheim-Skolem theorems). There will be some discussion of philosophical issues, but the focus of the course will be on the technical material. This course provides a more rigorous and mathematical treatment of material covered in PHIL 0540. No previous familiarity with logic is required, but it may be taken after 0540.
PHIL 1880. Advanced Deductive Logic.
This course provides an introduction to the metatheory of first-order logic. We will prove the completeness of first-order logic. We then move on to the major "limitative" results, including the undecidability of first-order logic, the Gödel incompleteness theorems, and the undefinability in arithmetic of arithmetical truth. Prerequisite: PHIL 0540 or instructor's permission.
That is just a few I pulled from random from Brown's philosophy web site. I major'd in Anthro, minor'd in philosophy and chemistry, and almost minor'd in math. (couldn't decide what I liked). This may be unique to my school (a top 50 liberal arts school), but my chem/math/physics courses did not attempt to teach the fundamentals of logic. We solved a bunch of problems, sure. But all that did was give your practice solving equations. The approach to solving the problem, the methods employed, all the historical various ways you could approach a problem etc.. were largely left up to each individual student to work out.
However, the advanced logic philosophy courses.... jeez. Talk about brain stretching. You were trained to take highly 'grey' subject matter, not black/white problems like 1+2=2, and reduce them logically to basically an equation you could solve.
I know a lot of very narrow minded Engineers. They might be great at solving problems in their area of expertise, but they fail hard when they attempt to extend those problem solving abilities to things like politics or social issues. Ditto with Physicians/Surgeons. They are very well trained, and can solve hundreds of different complex medical issues, that they feel like "well of course I can decide whether food stamps make sense given xyz". Well... usually no. They will not be aware of how complex the issue is, and tend to approach the problem way too simply. Like physicians who say losing weight is "only calories in, calories out". Well.... true. True in the sense that you have identified the main equation that governs fat buildup. But completely worthless when solving the real world equation "how can I get this person to lose weight".
Liberal arts/social sciences/philosophy etc.. is much better equipped to provide an actual useful real world answer that accounts of all the 'grey' areas that oftentimes cannot be reduced to simple equations.
Check the device, treat the device as a bomb until you're sure it's not--yes.
In an ideal world, educators would be educated enough to not mistake a simple electronics board with a bomb. In an ideal world, the default position would be "cool, that looks interesting, can you show it to me? Nice work!".
The same goes for guns, knives, chemistry sets, firecrackers, etc. Why assume that the person holding X has evil intent when 99.9999999999% of the time, the person is good? The post 9/11, post columbine (and all the other shootings), mentality is just so hysterical. Statistically speaking you are far more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to be the victim of a bomb or school shooting.
Trump is in - he is the one person who can outspend Bush
Obama's campaign spent 750 million in 2004. If you include all the super pac / outside spending, it is a lot more. I doubt Trump has 2-3 Billion in liquid assets available. (Side note, I heard that if Trump had just put his inherited money from his Dad in an index fund and not touched it, he'd have more money than he does now... imo, it shows that Trump isn't that great of a business man if we can't even beat a moderate percentage market rate).
In the current party, I support Cruz
Just out of curiosity, is that because he's so religious, or is that not a factor for you? If it isn't a factor, what policy objectives does Cruz have that you like? He doesn't stand out to me at all.
I talked to some friends who bicycle in Portland (super bike friendly town) and they all agree that the correct and legal thing to do, is when you approach an intersection that you need to turn left or right at, you need to merge back into traffic as you approach the stop sign or signal. Obviously this is not perfect, and only works when traffic is slowing down coming to a red light intersection or 4 way stop. If you need to take a left, if the light is green and traffic is moving fast, you basically have to stop and wait in the bike lane until there is an opportunity to merge left.
If your town is doing the same thing as mine, this is evident in newer bike lanes paint jobs. The white bike lane will be on the right of the car lane. But right in front of where a car is supposed to stop, the bike lane paint merges left in front of the first stopped car, and that paint is green. So basically at a red light, all the bikes catch up to the cars by riding along side them in the bike lane. Then all the bikes queue up in front of all the cars in that green painted waiting area. Then when the light turns green, all the bikes merge right back into the bike lane as traffic starts up.
Very few drives of bikes or cars seem to know the real rules:(
The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.
That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things.
1. Whether you agree with Lessig on campaign finance restrictions being more important than free speech or not, I'm paraphrasing his group's views fairly. If you disagree, give me an alternative interpretation of his views. Don't just say "Fox News" like that means anything.
We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways...
2. Here in the United States, we don't place NEARLY as many restrictions on speech as most people assume... or as some would like. Other countries don't have the kind of freedoms we enjoy, and so enact tyrannical restrictions on speech. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Also, governments who enact these restrictions are doing the whole "assume buisnesses are evil and government and so-called public interest groups are righteous" thing. I'm still waiting for the evidence on that part from you, Lessig, or those governments.
It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.
3. If part of your plan is "Repeal part of the First Amendment," that should be your first hint that it's a bad plan.
What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance:
3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit.
4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign.
The horrible parts of your plan are steps 3 and 4, and step 6, which you didn't mention.
Your Step 3 gives people taxpayer money. People aren't entitled to "government money" (which in reality, BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYERS) so they can espouse crackpot views. If you want to run for President, the only people whose money you are entitled to are the people who you can convince that you and your views are important enough to fund. The government shouldn't be paying anyone to speak.
Step 4 is just plain wrong. The government can't (and shouldn't) be allowed to restrict the amount of speech made by an entity, any more than they could prevent a newspaper from printing two editions a day or say that religious services are restricted to an hour long and start throwing pastors in jail if their sermons are too long.
Step 6, which you don't address, concerns the professional media. Under your plan, due to the advertising restrictions you're placing, most people will learn most of their information from the news media. (This is explicitly part of Lessig's May Day plan.) News media coverage is itself a form of advertising, which is left untouched under your and Lessig's plan. If the media decides that they support candidate A versus candidate B, and they slant the news that way, there will be no one to oppose them because your and Lessig's advertising restrictions are keeping them out of the field. (Part of Lessig's bet is that the media will continue to collaborate to pick candidates that he supports.)
1. You used the word 'evil'. I'm fairly certain Lessig doesn't describe businesses/corporations as evil. But he does describe them as non-human, and does not like non-humans having the same power to influence politics that humans do. It really is a "Fox News" (conservative meme in general) to make it seem like liberals/progressives are anti-business. Lessig is not "against business people", which is what your statement felt like when I read it. Sorry if you didn't mean it that way.
2. The point being that we do restrict some kinds of speech. And it isn't wrong to restrict more, if we agree that the benefit to societ
I'm a liberal, so I'm not taking any definitions from Fox. But you are right, in that I got the textbook definition of socialism mixed up. Per google:
"socialism
sSHlizm/
noun
noun: socialism
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
At work, I know we have a windows update server that all our other servers look it for updates. The windows update server downloads everything, but then you can set a policy that says only push the security updates. Don't update anything else.
I assume a home computer can be pointed to a windows update server on the home network as well?
As an aside - is there such a thing as "Big Egg"? We buy ours from a local farm.
You are very much in the minority. All eggs used in all chain grocery stores in the USA, all eggs used in fast food restaurants, all dried/freeze dried eggs used in boxed cakes/cupcakes mixes in stores, etc.. all of that comes from huge egg producers.
I haven't check in a while, but even our local/organic/vegan friendly Portland Oregon stores carry "Big Egg".
Having several different routes out to the internet is way cheaper than a server farm.
That said, the ease and prevalence of virtualized server farm environments make the cloud a lot less appealing to sys admins now. They push a button and a 'server' is born. It doesn't cost the organization anything, because we already pay for site wide licenses for most things like the OS, database, etc..
We may move some of our test/dev servers to something like Amazon. It would be nice as a dev to be able to create a new server instantly from a template, and not have to put a ticket in to our sys admins. But even then, virtualbox or the like works well enough for bringing servers up/down as needed for testing.
"And MS SQL rules the DB world"
Really? Without looking I would assume the number of installs by product would be something like
1. MySQL
2. Oracle
3. MS SQL
4. Postgres
I just found a site that ranks them (no clue how they obtain the data though...)
http://db-engines.com/en/ranking
MS SQL is 3rd. I got 1,2 swapped as well, Oracle is #1. And I was surprised that MongoDB was in slot 4 and postgres is 5.
As a developer, I turn off windows automatic updates. Sometimes I allow only security updates to be automated.
Most the stuff that 'breaks' in linux when an update happens are things like video drivers, X, sound, wifi, etc.. very little of that is found in security updates. I wonder if different linux distros have the ability to only allow security updates?
For the record, I have about 10 different flavors of Linux in virtualbox right now, and I have yet to see any of them break after a full update. I wonder if they are artificially more stable inside a VM (which perhaps uses very basic emulated hardware)?
We do expect pedestrians to obey intersection signs and rules though. That is one thing that a lot of cyclists ignore. And at a four way stop, it can get really confusing if 4 cars pull up, and it is car 1's turn to take a left, but a cyclist across the intersection from him goes forward out of turn, blocking car 1's ability to take a left. So then car 2 decides to go because he sees that car 1 cannot, etc...
Cyclists should really be queued up behind the cars in an intersection, not riding up alongside them. I can't see any way around situations like this unless bikes have more dedicated roads (no cars).
I missed where Lessig was saying anything about a centrally planned system. I was pretty sure he is just trying to get money out of political elections. Where did he make that statement?
The original superpac was strictly non-partisan.
This isn't actually true. The group's rhetoric assumes that businesses (and buisnessmen) shouldn't be able to fund politics because business (and businessmen) are evil, while government (and so called public interest groups) are righteous.
That is a very 'fox media' skewed view of things. We place limits on speech all the time. Some countries recognize that unlimited 'speech' in the form of money, does more harm than good, and restrict that 'speech' in various ways.
There is nothing wrong with that at all. It would likely require an amendment to our constitution.
What is so horrible about a system like this, for instance:
1. Anyone that can gather X signatures is allowed to run for president.
2. All candidates are given equal air time in the form of a series of debates.
3. Each candidate is given X dollars from the government to use how they see fit.
4. Very little if any 'outside' money is allowed. No advertising about issues at all unless it comes from the campaign. No super pacs, etc..
5. Individual people can donate a small amount to a campaign if they want. 50 bucks or so.
That seems like the absolute best way to given 3rd party candidates a shot, while still allowing individuals to 'cast their vote with their wallet' by donating early to a campaign, which would allow more 'speech' in the form of advertising for that campaign.
In my mind, that would absolutely level the playing field. Tea party candidates, green party, socialist, neocons, whatever. Anyone would have a chance if they can get the signatures.
Or, instead of guessing why they are doing what they are doing, you could google a bit and not speculate...
http://www.quora.com/Why-do-refugees-in-Hungary-throw-away-the-food-they-receive
Reading this post demonstrates Americans have absolutely no idea what socialism is.
They do understand what socialism is in practice, but they do not know that the word "socialism" is the proper term for things we already have in the US. Like..... the friggin "Social Security" program lol. They have just been taught by our horrible media and lying politicians that socialism means communism.
Current status of our welfare systems seems to disagree.
That is a media-fed assumption that people get on welfare and just sit on a couch all day for years. Look up the stats about how long the typical person uses assistance before they get off, and what the demographic makeup of welfare recipients is. I think you'll find it surprising how little the facts line up with stuff politicians go on and on about during election years.
On the other hand, if you leave lots of food on the plates, and the filter in the bottom ever comes loose a little bit, your dishwasher will stop working. All the tubes get clogged with food.
You are mixing up socialism and communism.
We have socialism in America right now. Like... "Social Security"....it happens to be pretty popular.
The Alaska situation is completely unique. State and federal governments own all sorts of resources (Forest, minerals, etc..) on their lands, and lease it to private companies to extract. Like logging. In no other state do the people get a cut of those government owned resources.
Falling Skies - Decent, but cheesy. You can tell it was written for the masses and not sci fi fans.
Dark Matter - horrible annoying shaky cam, ultra high contrast, everyone's face is always half dark. People of the future apparently love having the lights for a room on the friggin wall shining directly in your eyes. Oh, and boring.
Killjoys - I couldn't watch it because they apparently used the exact same camera director that they used for Dark Matter. Massive use of shaky cam, ultra high contrast, etc.. Am I the only one that absolutely hates this 'modern' camera work?
Defiance - Pick it up again. It did have a dry streak of episodes that were boring, but it got better.
Continuum - last season is coming up. I'd try it again. It starts to get interesting with time travel in later episodes.
Under the Dome - I only watched this because there was literally nothing else on most of the time. It is just bearable.
Extant - Really? It is one of only a few sci fi shows with a big budget and big actors (Halley Berry and the dad from Supernatural). It gets into all the Asimov robotics dilemmas as well as dealing with aliens.
Zoo - I could tell from the trailer it wasn't worth watching.
Minority Report - Trailer was horrible.
Dominion - Decent
Lost Girl - Decent
Game of Thrones - must watch. Even when its bad, it is better than most tv on at the time.
Forever - Never tried it.
The Whisperers - Written for 'family time'. Plot/acting/scripts seem to be targeted to someone around age 12.
Strain - Took a while, but it eventually grew on me.
Apparently, we've just passed step 3
Who is 'we'? 100% of the US Republican congress folks are still somewhere between 1 and 3.