As a rule privacy has consistently only existed in private dwellings or establishments. What you say between friends in a house is between friends. The internet as a concept is more akin to a public square and while deviant ideals are held behind gated communities on the internet such as pedophilia circles and other illegal activities the vast majority of the "Real ID" argument falls into the public square zone. The idea that an idea is "off-center" enough to cause castigation is probably a bad idea in general or at least arguably two-edged enough to become an issue. What you're trying to say is that these activities are being suppressed because the suppressor doesn't want to become an advocate of their position. Which is fine, but tragic and thus doesn't really matter since the victories made for social equality have been done by flag bearers not the bleachers.
To touch on criminal activity and low level of society: That really has nothing to do with the TOS and Real ID issue, that is a social stigma that is all together associated with normal inter-personal western society. To lay it at the feet of lost privacy on the internet is a stretch. The unfairly listed are rare (less than 5% total) and is something to be dealt with in a court room. If anything individualization gives strength back to the flag bearers in an argument. As I stated before, those who aren't willing to carry the fight for their side due to it being outside of the norm shouldn't be worried about that issue since it isn't central to their life enough to justify it being in the public eye.
Honestly, what in the world forces god not to exist if creation as the bible tells it is inaccurate? It becomes a bit of an obtuse black/white argument that a victory for science is a loss for god when it is really an evolution of our understanding of both science and faith. They are not inversely related.
Wow, in what crazy fun world do you live in? Anything on your being at the time of arrest is libel to be searched up to and including cell phones. The court treats them largely as a journal or anything else considered "personal" but without actual protection. The police cannot compel you to unlock your phone though without a warrant. As for long-term confiscation, I have heard little of that unless somebody is being charged with an actual crime and the phone is considered evidence. Your computer isn't issued a warrant for it's physical space, it's confiscated for data. You're argument is largely one of semantics and frankly the law can just as easily expand to cover a few words in a warrant to gather your data.
As younger officers join the force the 10 minute prospect is going to become silly. It's silly even now as I'm sure there are cloning devices out there that can duplicate your phone's files including encrypted to be deciphered at their leisure. The police aren't out to get you. They're out to keep the peace.
Actually, yes. Only in math does proof exist. Otherwise it's all subjective evidence used in a deductive manner. Call it Schrodinger's Murder. We're not sure if Schrodinger murdered anybody since the actual murder took place in seclusion, it is forever locked in an array of varying options that prevent us from knowing with absolute certainty. Since we can't open the box proverbially we're forced to use deduction and a certain amount of natural assumption within basic linear logic. So to use the phones in the park as an example if the teenagers had the phone prior to and after the park event the logic points to them having a continued linear possession. In other words: no, we're never going to have absolute proof unless the phones had video of them in the park after dark but we can safely say they were there by proxy of their phone possession.
If you want to muddy the water with stranger arguments feel free, that's fundamentally how the western legal system works. You're innocent until proven guilty but if the circumstantial evidence is monumental you mind as well kiss your ass goodbye.
I have no other definition for a group so well entrenched and yet supposedly so well educated in science. First off take a course in the history of science and understand just how developments actually work. We've been wowed by computer sciences for the last two decades and the lightning speed of updates but in the real world of mechanical parts and economics moore's law just doesn't apply. The first EVs used nickel-cadmium batteries the newest models use lithium ion technology. In ten years this aluminum-celmet which is a process that is widely known and thus likely will be trademarked but not patented. We're close to breaking the magic 300 mile range barrier and when we do the EVs will sell.
The overall cynicism of the posters is getting depressing and irresponsible. Science occurs at the speed of humanity, advancements happen every day that takes years to filter into our world. If you don't like reading about cutting edge future technology then stop reading these articles.
Most of the "subsidized price" discount is never directly paid but instead offered as a small take on the monthly contract. Apple sees this as a way to get a more direct cash flow bonus while letting those willing to buy them take their chances getting them hooked up to AT&T or Verizon since I'm fairly sure the GSM antenna doesn't support T-Mobile's frequency though I may be wrong. All this really points to is that Apple is definitively a manufacturer and wishes to remain that way.
What is with the SSD hate? Eternal sunshine of the HDD mind? Seriously, SDDs aren't perfect but are usually still salvageable by a restoration firm because the card blows but the memory is intact. I agree they're not entirely reliable and they have shortened lifespan from what people seem to deal with (my 64 GB SSD going on 2 years and working just fine). I would though for $120-150 easily justify an OS boot drive that holds only programs and the OS while having a larger 1TB+ drive for other work. This just combines that into a standardized system which for the price is actually fairly cheap compared to large 64 MB cached 1TB hard drives if you look at the combination cost and the PCI-E x4 speed.
Course this is all relative and real world performance of SATA II is fast enough to handle Win 7 and most other items currently.
Martial Law doesn't exist. This is a weird concept that seems to flow from too many movies is that the government can establish military rule at will. The problem is in the US is that it cannot supersede the constitution which means every time it has been enforced it has been a crime in itself. The military can come in and act as the police force to establish the supremacy of law again but they can't suspend law (atleast in the US). I absolutely think President Lincoln was a great president for the record but his suspension of habeus corpus was a crime. I'm not 100% sure on Egyptian rights but most western societies don't allow for this excuse. Under a new regime it will depend on how well the telecoms act that will determine most likely whether or not they gain the protection of the new government.
As for Verizon Wireless and Vodafone, the real issue will be to prove that Verizon Wireless and their parent company Verizon Communications had a direct hand in the Egyptian shutdown. Since the shell ownership deal is a rather loose game to play (Vodafone is a partner to Verizon Wireless while Verizon Communications is effectively Verizon Wireless) they could be found at fault by being Vodafone. They could arguably establish that Verizon Wireless has no true control over it's own actions and is a subsidiary of Vodafone and thus is open to being sued regardless. This would not be a black eye for the Obama administration as it would be for Verizon in general. If anything it would bludgeon more right-wing opponents due to Verizon's heavy ties to the pro-business wing of the republican party.
Thus it isn't a core subject offered by High Schools routinely. The job of secondary education is to generate well-rounded, educated, individuals. It is not their job to churn out trade school kids. Thus things like CS, Shop, automotive repair, are all additional subjects that may not be covered. Arguing CS should be added before the other two is arguable in larger school districts but as it stands CS is a highly skilled trade that requires a college degree so offering it as a basic skill in secondary schools is difficult. That being said, why are professors assuming kids know anything when they enter CS 101 or really any 101. I grate my teeth when I teach US History 101 and 102 because they largely walk in knowing a rough outline and I have to start over from scratch but that is how they work. 101/102 are introductory classes, asking people to really excel ahead is difficult.
I've advocated across the board aptitude tests for colleges, drop the SAT/ACT all together and replace them with a more realistic aptitude tests based on their chosen path. Math and Reading clearly are required but a third and fourth section would aid in defining if certain kids need a 101/102 setup or can move up to 110/120 or similar premise. Offering a two-tiered opening year is more effort (and I know more cost on the universities) but I would gladly teach my three specialties and two lower level classes each semester if it would help balance the incoming student body.
Faultless is an issue of manufacturing, more or less a time issue. I wouldn't get too bothered by that since currently I believe all of this is lab work so they're still working on the quality control. Once they find a solid manufacturing technique it'll just be a few years to a decade before near unlimited size is capable (barring a physics issue.)
The article makes a rudimentary statement about graphene and fails to acknowledge that it is a conductor and not a semiconductor. That limits some of its use without using it in a complex composite to create a limited semiconductor material. As it stands now though graphene would be excellent for power transfer and screen technology. I think it will certainly establish a change in the way technology is used as chips grow smaller and screens grow larger and more flexible. We could see folding screens in a few years which would be an amazing improvement over our current systems. Laptops could be equipped with unfolding screens. Smartphones could so the same. Home theaters could become portable in a quite interesting and unique way.
In other words, it will revolutionize the 21st century as our viewing technology makes a giant leap forward but silicon is going to be the dominant semiconductor for atleast the next decade or so while they work out a graphene composite that can cut some of its conductor properties. But graphene could be the answer to the wall viewers, curved displays, and other super-sized designs.
The internet gateways are all owned by telecoms mainly. To bring a gateway online is expensive and has to connect to other telecoms. This would infuriate said telecoms. Hence why the municipalities were trying to setup systems. Public utilities can provide services consistently cheaper and service more people without a need for a large profit margin.
This is working on the assumption it is a loss leader which according to all reports they're not. This bill is an attempt at anti-competitive business practices being done in a way to seem competitive to the average idiot or libertarian (essentially the same thing). When in reality the municipalities aren't losing money they're just running the service at a far more reasonable price. If a private company can't run it cheaper than a public utility why should we be forced to subsidize somebody's stock options? You're quick with the public dollars, but why should I have to pay for Warner's shareholders?
Sure, because you don't gain benefits from your ownership of the land and development. Under your skewed metaphor the government is the landlord which is actually untrue, the government is....well....THE GOVERNMENT. They won't evict you so much as take your unaccounted for wealth and resell it to recoup their losses due to your innate ability to pay for the wealth benefits you gained from said land. In most parts of the US property taxes goes towards schools anyways.
Since you're rallying against taxation, what services don't you want and they can't be ones that don't affect you, because that's just bullying?
First off this law is about dismantling broadband services provided by the municipalities above cost and were turning a profit but still cheaper than the large telecoms. Under no circumstances were these loss-leaders, so don't go believing the BS the republicans were peddling in this case, they intentionally dismantled the public service to prevent private services from having to compete. This is why by definition public services are definitively better at pricing than private, they need to merely break even to prove worth while while private services need to turn a profit. The less people in North Carolina have access to the internet the better in the eyes of conservatives.
That being said, on the subject of mass transit systems, in a world where the middle class drive cars most of the time the poor and urban require mass transit. In turn they can't afford to subsidize the bus themselves. So as part of the grand scheme of capitalism the richer people need to give the poorer people atleast a modicum of access in order for their life blood to grease the wheels of society. In other words: sometimes you just need to pay for shit so the underclass can keep serving your undeserving ass.
In most cases the only mass transit system available is a bus which is a costly item to run and tends to take up road surface in highly congested areas. Light rail is more efficient but costs more upfront. So either way somebody who never uses it is going to have to pay for it to help everybody else out. But as I stated above, something you just have to do certain things.
I ask you to cite your claims on who is funding who. You'll find most large corporations give far more to right-wing candidates because they are and have always been the pro-business party, left-wing politics tend to favor populism or people-centric ideology. The US has always had this divide between being pro-business vs pro-economic gains. One favors businesses as a person the other society in general. Course you're a false dichotomy troll, so any argument I have with you will always sound half-hollow because humanity has been taught a tit-for-tat argument is better when in reality it usually means people are not perfect and that one is FAR worse than the other.
That being said, yes most of China's leaders are engineers because the first generation leaders were educated in politics and that worked well, the second generation leaders are all engineers and scientists steeped in the politics of China. Just because you're a very good engineer or scientist it doesn't make you a very good ruler. This is why Political scientists tend to become policy wonks and leave lawyers to being the leaders in our society. The "Know Nothing" attitude of right-wing politics pushes the argument against lawyers while most of them are lawyers. Just really not very good ones, largely who fought in corporate law. The very good lawyers tend to stay in their respective practice and rise to Judgeship. China right now though is suffering from too much of a good thing, they're overbuilt for capacity and need an export partner to take their goods. Currently wildcat strikes are occurring inside their country as the standard of living barely increases. China is looking at a crushing blow to their economy if they can't find an exporter soon as their use of Keynesian economics has worked really well except they never based their manufacturing around it. Which is the exact opposite of the US, economists on the right-wing have been pushing Randian theory the last 30 years or so and no our infrastructure has suffered dramatically because of it. We need to switch back to Keynesian and build our way out of this mess.
Being in the UK I don't know what sort of pricing scheme you suffer from, in the US Steam is either equal in pricing on their first-run games (i.e. Portal 2) or substantially discounted (i.e. Orange Box). Their independently developed games are not accessible in stores though, which is what I was getting at. They're offering an open platform for distribution while taking a substantially smaller cut compared to Brick and Mortar stores.
That being said, it was a generic rhetorical statement aimed at the overwhelmingly libertarian "free market" arguments I see thrown around on slashdot as if they were true. Almost all the time they use the term incorrectly or fail to recognize the differences between what is being discussed and how the "free market" has an affect on it. To argue that luxury goods should be cheaper for the have-hots is communism is a bit rough, specifically if you consider basic entertainment a luxury good. In the first and second world TVs, computers, and video games are all generally available commodities that are common amongst the middle and lower class groups. The people we're talking about don't live in adobe huts in a village a hundred miles outside of El Paso. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I don't see a government subsidy for entertainment being a proper answer but I do see a "good behavior" or "lesser off" discount being a good way to build a better society and what is interesting is in the case of video games and steam distribution the only real cost (besides tech and space which is substantial in the big houses but less so for independents) is the cost of labor. In which case discounting is a viable option in limited ways for the have nots while expanding your customer base.
Libertarian dicks of the world UNITE! Quickly, somebody may have insulted wealthy citizens of the world! You must call them incompetent, suggest a below living wage work place, insinuate by definition you're better at life, and make statements about your vastly superior life. Oh wait, you're still posting on slashdot which means most likely if you have a college degree it's in CS/IT and thus you're glorified tech support. It saddens me to think all those wasted degrees being used to bludgeon somebody for feeling left out for being a have-not because you got to jump on a growth industry in it's infancy.
This is coming from somebody with a doctorate and is a socialist. Jumping on the poor kid's case is stupid, he is either trolling in a poor way to draw out the libertarians and successfully make them all look like bootstrap pulling champs who sound like snobs or just sadly realizing he is a have not with no power to afford entertainment at the premium prices video games amount to. Gabe Newell has made it abundantly clear that Steam isn't about "what the market will bear" so much as putting out good products at a reasonable price. He if anything cut the market's legs out from under it by introducing steam and opening up a world of new opportunities. Even now it's not perfect but better than the Randian fantasies I've seen spew in the last few posts.
I'm calling shennanigans on the argument that "nobody is genuinely without greed in the free market" because the definition of greed is so broad and vague that by merely operating the act of "greed" can be committed. Valve doesn't operate in a vacuum (science pun avoided) and thus can't simply work for magical beans, they need a certain amount of money to keep the office open, people paid, and stock the mini-fridge in the snack room. If anything Valve has attempted to vertically integrate the video game market through their system and open the door to small developers while ousting the biggest capitalists in the system (i.e. Gamestop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, & Production houses). They've cut out numerous middle-men and frankly the process is still evolving.
If anything it seems like they're trying to figure out a way to reward good behavior in both respects. Makes me think of TF2 and the Polycount addition and other pro-player additions.
On an utter sidenote: The term consumer is rather insulting to everybody, I know you didn't use it but to call anybody a "consumer" as if we're mindless drones is a bit ludicrous and Valve is not anti-consumer or anti-player or anything to do with that. Gripes are gripes and if they were grapes they would be sour.
The only problem with that is that most computer servicing isn't worth $20/hr, atleast not at the relative level of service. When you're sitting here unraveling a bitch of a virus or replacing their MB I can understand that rate goes but otherwise cut that rate in about half for most services. Especially since most technicians are associate degree holders or just certificate holders, academic degree creep or not most techs aren't that certified to touch PCs. I've had my video card replaced twice in my laptop from Dell due to it being from the faulty Nvidia group. I could easily have replaced it but I had to wait for a tech for warranty reasons. If I had it off warranty it would have cost $100 for him to show up for 15 minutes of work. The prices are exorbitant because it is a young industry still. It's just now creeping over about 10 years old as a real service and people don't understand the value yet. In another 5-10 years the prices and rogue repairmen will calm down I suspect.
One man's coercion is another man's ideology. We're not all going to agree but throwing racial slurs and degrading statements around the school for the purpose of denigrating another human being is NOT ACCEPTABLE. They're in high school, want to give him detention? Ok, you've suspended him for several days which was just a minor set back while those 50 women now have to live with this the rest of their lives. Charging him with a misdemeanor is a convenient way of punishing his behavior without any long-term side effects. It shows him and fellow citizens that that behavior is NOT ACCEPTABLE. We're coerced to think this way by the group by and large accepting the world view we live in. So I suggest you come off the high horse and join reality.
PS: "Disorderly conduct" is a purpose catch all because the alternative is to use hate speech laws against him which would move it to a felony and leave him locked in prison for upwards of a decade. On a side note, when you call a police officer a "pig" and get upset you were pulled over for whatnot, you're coming off as a dumbass and showing everybody you know nothing and your opinion should be discounted. Rationale is more important than personal distaste.
He would be less revered by muslims if he was found with pornography which is what our imbecilic author is implying. Because the US government has to resort to this sort of denigration after executing him. The odds are it's true, most of the extremist leaders use the religion as a draw to their personal egomaniac ideals. We're finding now most "terrorists" are really disillusioned young men in third world countries with a moderate amount of education, essentially the same men who in the US would have become part of the counterculture are being drawn into a cycle of violence by angry leaders who tout religious ideals but just want to wage a personal war because of their own self-loathing.
Back on the pornography note, numerous times they've found porn in the various raids, they're men with access to the internet and markets. Regardless of how "religious" they may be (which it seems very little) they tend to just be massive hypocrites.
I'm calling bull shit on that. This administration makes attempts to be moderately open compared to the last several Republican administrations. Reagan committed an act of treason in the arms sales. Bush hid numerous documents including the total lack of WMDs in Iraq. The idea that they're somehow some shadow organization is bull. The problem was he made statements that in our current political climate of wanting to know the people and not the issues were hard to actually do. If people focused on the issues instead of the people once more the question of "transparency" would become obsolete.
That being said, I find that the FOIA are nice statements but I doubt they'll win because the photos are an easy emotional tool to be exploited. The individual details are hard to use to rile somebody.
Thank you. I'm glad somebody answered in a logical thoughtful way instead of the goofy knee-jerk "Government is stupid/bad!" that seems to come up so often. The answer is simple and frankly should have been implemented years ago. Cookies are not that wonderful and while I enjoy using them to log in to non-secure websites for simple stuff I am not a big cookie fan otherwise. They're sneaky bastards.
Slashdot Mirror
As a rule privacy has consistently only existed in private dwellings or establishments. What you say between friends in a house is between friends. The internet as a concept is more akin to a public square and while deviant ideals are held behind gated communities on the internet such as pedophilia circles and other illegal activities the vast majority of the "Real ID" argument falls into the public square zone. The idea that an idea is "off-center" enough to cause castigation is probably a bad idea in general or at least arguably two-edged enough to become an issue. What you're trying to say is that these activities are being suppressed because the suppressor doesn't want to become an advocate of their position. Which is fine, but tragic and thus doesn't really matter since the victories made for social equality have been done by flag bearers not the bleachers.
To touch on criminal activity and low level of society: That really has nothing to do with the TOS and Real ID issue, that is a social stigma that is all together associated with normal inter-personal western society. To lay it at the feet of lost privacy on the internet is a stretch. The unfairly listed are rare (less than 5% total) and is something to be dealt with in a court room. If anything individualization gives strength back to the flag bearers in an argument. As I stated before, those who aren't willing to carry the fight for their side due to it being outside of the norm shouldn't be worried about that issue since it isn't central to their life enough to justify it being in the public eye.
I chuckled.
Honestly, what in the world forces god not to exist if creation as the bible tells it is inaccurate? It becomes a bit of an obtuse black/white argument that a victory for science is a loss for god when it is really an evolution of our understanding of both science and faith. They are not inversely related.
Wow, in what crazy fun world do you live in? Anything on your being at the time of arrest is libel to be searched up to and including cell phones. The court treats them largely as a journal or anything else considered "personal" but without actual protection. The police cannot compel you to unlock your phone though without a warrant. As for long-term confiscation, I have heard little of that unless somebody is being charged with an actual crime and the phone is considered evidence. Your computer isn't issued a warrant for it's physical space, it's confiscated for data. You're argument is largely one of semantics and frankly the law can just as easily expand to cover a few words in a warrant to gather your data.
As younger officers join the force the 10 minute prospect is going to become silly. It's silly even now as I'm sure there are cloning devices out there that can duplicate your phone's files including encrypted to be deciphered at their leisure. The police aren't out to get you. They're out to keep the peace.
Actually, yes. Only in math does proof exist. Otherwise it's all subjective evidence used in a deductive manner. Call it Schrodinger's Murder. We're not sure if Schrodinger murdered anybody since the actual murder took place in seclusion, it is forever locked in an array of varying options that prevent us from knowing with absolute certainty. Since we can't open the box proverbially we're forced to use deduction and a certain amount of natural assumption within basic linear logic. So to use the phones in the park as an example if the teenagers had the phone prior to and after the park event the logic points to them having a continued linear possession. In other words: no, we're never going to have absolute proof unless the phones had video of them in the park after dark but we can safely say they were there by proxy of their phone possession.
If you want to muddy the water with stranger arguments feel free, that's fundamentally how the western legal system works. You're innocent until proven guilty but if the circumstantial evidence is monumental you mind as well kiss your ass goodbye.
I have no other definition for a group so well entrenched and yet supposedly so well educated in science. First off take a course in the history of science and understand just how developments actually work. We've been wowed by computer sciences for the last two decades and the lightning speed of updates but in the real world of mechanical parts and economics moore's law just doesn't apply. The first EVs used nickel-cadmium batteries the newest models use lithium ion technology. In ten years this aluminum-celmet which is a process that is widely known and thus likely will be trademarked but not patented. We're close to breaking the magic 300 mile range barrier and when we do the EVs will sell.
The overall cynicism of the posters is getting depressing and irresponsible. Science occurs at the speed of humanity, advancements happen every day that takes years to filter into our world. If you don't like reading about cutting edge future technology then stop reading these articles.
Most of the "subsidized price" discount is never directly paid but instead offered as a small take on the monthly contract. Apple sees this as a way to get a more direct cash flow bonus while letting those willing to buy them take their chances getting them hooked up to AT&T or Verizon since I'm fairly sure the GSM antenna doesn't support T-Mobile's frequency though I may be wrong. All this really points to is that Apple is definitively a manufacturer and wishes to remain that way.
What is with the SSD hate? Eternal sunshine of the HDD mind? Seriously, SDDs aren't perfect but are usually still salvageable by a restoration firm because the card blows but the memory is intact. I agree they're not entirely reliable and they have shortened lifespan from what people seem to deal with (my 64 GB SSD going on 2 years and working just fine). I would though for $120-150 easily justify an OS boot drive that holds only programs and the OS while having a larger 1TB+ drive for other work. This just combines that into a standardized system which for the price is actually fairly cheap compared to large 64 MB cached 1TB hard drives if you look at the combination cost and the PCI-E x4 speed.
Course this is all relative and real world performance of SATA II is fast enough to handle Win 7 and most other items currently.
Martial Law doesn't exist. This is a weird concept that seems to flow from too many movies is that the government can establish military rule at will. The problem is in the US is that it cannot supersede the constitution which means every time it has been enforced it has been a crime in itself. The military can come in and act as the police force to establish the supremacy of law again but they can't suspend law (atleast in the US). I absolutely think President Lincoln was a great president for the record but his suspension of habeus corpus was a crime. I'm not 100% sure on Egyptian rights but most western societies don't allow for this excuse. Under a new regime it will depend on how well the telecoms act that will determine most likely whether or not they gain the protection of the new government.
As for Verizon Wireless and Vodafone, the real issue will be to prove that Verizon Wireless and their parent company Verizon Communications had a direct hand in the Egyptian shutdown. Since the shell ownership deal is a rather loose game to play (Vodafone is a partner to Verizon Wireless while Verizon Communications is effectively Verizon Wireless) they could be found at fault by being Vodafone. They could arguably establish that Verizon Wireless has no true control over it's own actions and is a subsidiary of Vodafone and thus is open to being sued regardless. This would not be a black eye for the Obama administration as it would be for Verizon in general. If anything it would bludgeon more right-wing opponents due to Verizon's heavy ties to the pro-business wing of the republican party.
Thus it isn't a core subject offered by High Schools routinely. The job of secondary education is to generate well-rounded, educated, individuals. It is not their job to churn out trade school kids. Thus things like CS, Shop, automotive repair, are all additional subjects that may not be covered. Arguing CS should be added before the other two is arguable in larger school districts but as it stands CS is a highly skilled trade that requires a college degree so offering it as a basic skill in secondary schools is difficult. That being said, why are professors assuming kids know anything when they enter CS 101 or really any 101. I grate my teeth when I teach US History 101 and 102 because they largely walk in knowing a rough outline and I have to start over from scratch but that is how they work. 101/102 are introductory classes, asking people to really excel ahead is difficult.
I've advocated across the board aptitude tests for colleges, drop the SAT/ACT all together and replace them with a more realistic aptitude tests based on their chosen path. Math and Reading clearly are required but a third and fourth section would aid in defining if certain kids need a 101/102 setup or can move up to 110/120 or similar premise. Offering a two-tiered opening year is more effort (and I know more cost on the universities) but I would gladly teach my three specialties and two lower level classes each semester if it would help balance the incoming student body.
Faultless is an issue of manufacturing, more or less a time issue. I wouldn't get too bothered by that since currently I believe all of this is lab work so they're still working on the quality control. Once they find a solid manufacturing technique it'll just be a few years to a decade before near unlimited size is capable (barring a physics issue.)
The article makes a rudimentary statement about graphene and fails to acknowledge that it is a conductor and not a semiconductor. That limits some of its use without using it in a complex composite to create a limited semiconductor material. As it stands now though graphene would be excellent for power transfer and screen technology. I think it will certainly establish a change in the way technology is used as chips grow smaller and screens grow larger and more flexible. We could see folding screens in a few years which would be an amazing improvement over our current systems. Laptops could be equipped with unfolding screens. Smartphones could so the same. Home theaters could become portable in a quite interesting and unique way.
In other words, it will revolutionize the 21st century as our viewing technology makes a giant leap forward but silicon is going to be the dominant semiconductor for atleast the next decade or so while they work out a graphene composite that can cut some of its conductor properties. But graphene could be the answer to the wall viewers, curved displays, and other super-sized designs.
The internet gateways are all owned by telecoms mainly. To bring a gateway online is expensive and has to connect to other telecoms. This would infuriate said telecoms. Hence why the municipalities were trying to setup systems. Public utilities can provide services consistently cheaper and service more people without a need for a large profit margin.
This is working on the assumption it is a loss leader which according to all reports they're not. This bill is an attempt at anti-competitive business practices being done in a way to seem competitive to the average idiot or libertarian (essentially the same thing). When in reality the municipalities aren't losing money they're just running the service at a far more reasonable price. If a private company can't run it cheaper than a public utility why should we be forced to subsidize somebody's stock options? You're quick with the public dollars, but why should I have to pay for Warner's shareholders?
Sure, because you don't gain benefits from your ownership of the land and development. Under your skewed metaphor the government is the landlord which is actually untrue, the government is....well....THE GOVERNMENT. They won't evict you so much as take your unaccounted for wealth and resell it to recoup their losses due to your innate ability to pay for the wealth benefits you gained from said land. In most parts of the US property taxes goes towards schools anyways.
Since you're rallying against taxation, what services don't you want and they can't be ones that don't affect you, because that's just bullying?
First off this law is about dismantling broadband services provided by the municipalities above cost and were turning a profit but still cheaper than the large telecoms. Under no circumstances were these loss-leaders, so don't go believing the BS the republicans were peddling in this case, they intentionally dismantled the public service to prevent private services from having to compete. This is why by definition public services are definitively better at pricing than private, they need to merely break even to prove worth while while private services need to turn a profit. The less people in North Carolina have access to the internet the better in the eyes of conservatives.
That being said, on the subject of mass transit systems, in a world where the middle class drive cars most of the time the poor and urban require mass transit. In turn they can't afford to subsidize the bus themselves. So as part of the grand scheme of capitalism the richer people need to give the poorer people atleast a modicum of access in order for their life blood to grease the wheels of society. In other words: sometimes you just need to pay for shit so the underclass can keep serving your undeserving ass.
In most cases the only mass transit system available is a bus which is a costly item to run and tends to take up road surface in highly congested areas. Light rail is more efficient but costs more upfront. So either way somebody who never uses it is going to have to pay for it to help everybody else out. But as I stated above, something you just have to do certain things.
I ask you to cite your claims on who is funding who. You'll find most large corporations give far more to right-wing candidates because they are and have always been the pro-business party, left-wing politics tend to favor populism or people-centric ideology. The US has always had this divide between being pro-business vs pro-economic gains. One favors businesses as a person the other society in general. Course you're a false dichotomy troll, so any argument I have with you will always sound half-hollow because humanity has been taught a tit-for-tat argument is better when in reality it usually means people are not perfect and that one is FAR worse than the other.
That being said, yes most of China's leaders are engineers because the first generation leaders were educated in politics and that worked well, the second generation leaders are all engineers and scientists steeped in the politics of China. Just because you're a very good engineer or scientist it doesn't make you a very good ruler. This is why Political scientists tend to become policy wonks and leave lawyers to being the leaders in our society. The "Know Nothing" attitude of right-wing politics pushes the argument against lawyers while most of them are lawyers. Just really not very good ones, largely who fought in corporate law. The very good lawyers tend to stay in their respective practice and rise to Judgeship. China right now though is suffering from too much of a good thing, they're overbuilt for capacity and need an export partner to take their goods. Currently wildcat strikes are occurring inside their country as the standard of living barely increases. China is looking at a crushing blow to their economy if they can't find an exporter soon as their use of Keynesian economics has worked really well except they never based their manufacturing around it. Which is the exact opposite of the US, economists on the right-wing have been pushing Randian theory the last 30 years or so and no our infrastructure has suffered dramatically because of it. We need to switch back to Keynesian and build our way out of this mess.
Being in the UK I don't know what sort of pricing scheme you suffer from, in the US Steam is either equal in pricing on their first-run games (i.e. Portal 2) or substantially discounted (i.e. Orange Box). Their independently developed games are not accessible in stores though, which is what I was getting at. They're offering an open platform for distribution while taking a substantially smaller cut compared to Brick and Mortar stores.
That being said, it was a generic rhetorical statement aimed at the overwhelmingly libertarian "free market" arguments I see thrown around on slashdot as if they were true. Almost all the time they use the term incorrectly or fail to recognize the differences between what is being discussed and how the "free market" has an affect on it. To argue that luxury goods should be cheaper for the have-hots is communism is a bit rough, specifically if you consider basic entertainment a luxury good. In the first and second world TVs, computers, and video games are all generally available commodities that are common amongst the middle and lower class groups. The people we're talking about don't live in adobe huts in a village a hundred miles outside of El Paso. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I don't see a government subsidy for entertainment being a proper answer but I do see a "good behavior" or "lesser off" discount being a good way to build a better society and what is interesting is in the case of video games and steam distribution the only real cost (besides tech and space which is substantial in the big houses but less so for independents) is the cost of labor. In which case discounting is a viable option in limited ways for the have nots while expanding your customer base.
Libertarian dicks of the world UNITE! Quickly, somebody may have insulted wealthy citizens of the world! You must call them incompetent, suggest a below living wage work place, insinuate by definition you're better at life, and make statements about your vastly superior life. Oh wait, you're still posting on slashdot which means most likely if you have a college degree it's in CS/IT and thus you're glorified tech support. It saddens me to think all those wasted degrees being used to bludgeon somebody for feeling left out for being a have-not because you got to jump on a growth industry in it's infancy.
This is coming from somebody with a doctorate and is a socialist. Jumping on the poor kid's case is stupid, he is either trolling in a poor way to draw out the libertarians and successfully make them all look like bootstrap pulling champs who sound like snobs or just sadly realizing he is a have not with no power to afford entertainment at the premium prices video games amount to. Gabe Newell has made it abundantly clear that Steam isn't about "what the market will bear" so much as putting out good products at a reasonable price. He if anything cut the market's legs out from under it by introducing steam and opening up a world of new opportunities. Even now it's not perfect but better than the Randian fantasies I've seen spew in the last few posts.
I'm calling shennanigans on the argument that "nobody is genuinely without greed in the free market" because the definition of greed is so broad and vague that by merely operating the act of "greed" can be committed. Valve doesn't operate in a vacuum (science pun avoided) and thus can't simply work for magical beans, they need a certain amount of money to keep the office open, people paid, and stock the mini-fridge in the snack room. If anything Valve has attempted to vertically integrate the video game market through their system and open the door to small developers while ousting the biggest capitalists in the system (i.e. Gamestop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, & Production houses). They've cut out numerous middle-men and frankly the process is still evolving. If anything it seems like they're trying to figure out a way to reward good behavior in both respects. Makes me think of TF2 and the Polycount addition and other pro-player additions. On an utter sidenote: The term consumer is rather insulting to everybody, I know you didn't use it but to call anybody a "consumer" as if we're mindless drones is a bit ludicrous and Valve is not anti-consumer or anti-player or anything to do with that. Gripes are gripes and if they were grapes they would be sour.
The only problem with that is that most computer servicing isn't worth $20/hr, atleast not at the relative level of service. When you're sitting here unraveling a bitch of a virus or replacing their MB I can understand that rate goes but otherwise cut that rate in about half for most services. Especially since most technicians are associate degree holders or just certificate holders, academic degree creep or not most techs aren't that certified to touch PCs. I've had my video card replaced twice in my laptop from Dell due to it being from the faulty Nvidia group. I could easily have replaced it but I had to wait for a tech for warranty reasons. If I had it off warranty it would have cost $100 for him to show up for 15 minutes of work. The prices are exorbitant because it is a young industry still. It's just now creeping over about 10 years old as a real service and people don't understand the value yet. In another 5-10 years the prices and rogue repairmen will calm down I suspect.
One man's coercion is another man's ideology. We're not all going to agree but throwing racial slurs and degrading statements around the school for the purpose of denigrating another human being is NOT ACCEPTABLE. They're in high school, want to give him detention? Ok, you've suspended him for several days which was just a minor set back while those 50 women now have to live with this the rest of their lives. Charging him with a misdemeanor is a convenient way of punishing his behavior without any long-term side effects. It shows him and fellow citizens that that behavior is NOT ACCEPTABLE. We're coerced to think this way by the group by and large accepting the world view we live in. So I suggest you come off the high horse and join reality. PS: "Disorderly conduct" is a purpose catch all because the alternative is to use hate speech laws against him which would move it to a felony and leave him locked in prison for upwards of a decade. On a side note, when you call a police officer a "pig" and get upset you were pulled over for whatnot, you're coming off as a dumbass and showing everybody you know nothing and your opinion should be discounted. Rationale is more important than personal distaste.
He would be less revered by muslims if he was found with pornography which is what our imbecilic author is implying. Because the US government has to resort to this sort of denigration after executing him. The odds are it's true, most of the extremist leaders use the religion as a draw to their personal egomaniac ideals. We're finding now most "terrorists" are really disillusioned young men in third world countries with a moderate amount of education, essentially the same men who in the US would have become part of the counterculture are being drawn into a cycle of violence by angry leaders who tout religious ideals but just want to wage a personal war because of their own self-loathing. Back on the pornography note, numerous times they've found porn in the various raids, they're men with access to the internet and markets. Regardless of how "religious" they may be (which it seems very little) they tend to just be massive hypocrites.
Windows 7 is now closing in on the dominant OS as XP finally tottles off to die. This is news, how?
I'm calling bull shit on that. This administration makes attempts to be moderately open compared to the last several Republican administrations. Reagan committed an act of treason in the arms sales. Bush hid numerous documents including the total lack of WMDs in Iraq. The idea that they're somehow some shadow organization is bull. The problem was he made statements that in our current political climate of wanting to know the people and not the issues were hard to actually do. If people focused on the issues instead of the people once more the question of "transparency" would become obsolete. That being said, I find that the FOIA are nice statements but I doubt they'll win because the photos are an easy emotional tool to be exploited. The individual details are hard to use to rile somebody.
Thank you. I'm glad somebody answered in a logical thoughtful way instead of the goofy knee-jerk "Government is stupid/bad!" that seems to come up so often. The answer is simple and frankly should have been implemented years ago. Cookies are not that wonderful and while I enjoy using them to log in to non-secure websites for simple stuff I am not a big cookie fan otherwise. They're sneaky bastards.