This person chooses to live in an area where the investment can not be recouped. He has the money to live there. If he wishes to be connected, he can come up with the money to pay for the connection.
This is analogous to someone owning a large piece of property with a private dirt road from the main road to the house and on to another main road and wanting the government to pave his dirt road, but also wanting the road to be private so he can go as fast as he wants on it.
The roads, highways, and bridges are not subsidized. They are fully funded by the government. The subsidized broadband connections would benefit and enhance private entities, namely the telecom companies.
Also, the roads are public. The cops monitor what happens on the roads. If the government puts in broadband connections, will the cops be able to monitor the connection as they do the roads?
Come on folks. These are politicians. The only thing they actually know about is getting elected.
On top of that, I noticed some things. First, on most topics the candidates follow party lines.
Second, I notice that McCain support increasing the cap, but Obama doesn't say if he supports that or not. He talks about a complete overhaul and some goals of that overhaul, but not what the overhaul would be.
Third,for IP protection, the article spells out the positions of Clinton and McCain. But, then it soft-peddles Obama's response which boils down to "Obama promised in his technology white paper to "ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere." The summary of positions focuses not on the part where he supports IP protection , but rather on the standards part. That is dishonest reporting.
Fourth, in the privacy part, the article writer(s) chooses a different sub-issue for each candidate. For Clinton, the Privacy Bill of Rights, which protects consumer and medical records is chosen. For Obama, the issue of cyber-criminals, malware, and ID theft. But for McCain, the issue is warrantless wiretaps. That is cherry-picking issues and answers to bias opinion.
You did not say "censor oneself when Mom is listening". You said "Do you tell your mother every single thing you tell your wife in bed?". That is not even close to the same thing.
Why don't we plug that into your last statement:
Yeah, I remember that, and I'm failing to see how "Do you tell your mother every single thing you tell your wife in bed?" is not analogous to "censors oneself when Big Brother is listening".
Oh, now that we use your own fucking words, your argument falls flat.
Maybe if you weren't a lying little shit who didn't try to retro-actively try to change what was said you could actual put for a decent argument.
You obviously learned to argue from your leftists teachers, who, when faces with an argument they can't win, try to change what they have said or the scope of the argument.
Hi, shithead. Maybe you should check out how the separation of powers and checks and balances work.
Here, let me help you: If the President feels a law is unconstitutional, he can fail to enforce it. From there, Congress has two options: impeachment or involving the Judicial branch. Then the Judicial branch can either find the law unconstitutional or it can find that the President is out of order and tell him to enforce the law. Then, if the President does not enforce the law, Congress can then impeach him.
You are trying to use the False Dilemma by providing only two possible choices "Tell everything to everyone" or "Hide everything". Sorry, little man, but that won't do.
And, it is also red herring because former has nothing to do with the discussion. It is a transparent attempt to change the subject from one you can not argue to one you can. This is not about discussing one's sex life with one's mother. This is about data retention and why people might not want data retained. In every case I can think of, it is because said people have done something wrong.
You need to wait until you grow up before joining this conversation, because you obviously have no clue how to argue a point.
his is the perfect argument against the standard 'I have nothing to hide' argumentation.
I guess you didn't think that those 11% might have something to hide. Maybe they were breaking the law. Maybe they were being unethical, which would include semi-legal things like cheating on their SOs. Maybe they are, like so many people on/., paranoid.
The mere fact that 11% changed their behavior does not mean or even imply a problem with said argument. It does imply that 11% actually did have something to hide.
And, that is what I think is behind all this paranoia and over-reaction. You all have something to hide.
The President's first duty is to the Constitution, not the laws passed by Congress. Is first duty is to the supreme law of the land, not the laws passed by Congress.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution first.
Now, please, go blow your brains out before you infect others with your ignorance.
Apparently, you failed Civics. There is nodispensable branch of the government.
Each individual branch can override any other branch, and in some cases the other two branches.
Oh,and the Executive is not exactly required to enforce any law the Legislative passes. It is very easy for the Executive to simply provide ineffective enforcement either through no agency, or through unlimited warning, to simply not bringing the cases to trial by making deals.
No, it doesn't it. The OP asked "Why is it that the *nix users seem to have BSOD issues on an infinitely higher rate than the rest of the world?"
Your answer does not address the significant difference in the number of BSODs experienced by the vast majority Windows user and number experienced by *nix advocate/users.
You answer "Why do so many *nix user switch to *nix from Windows when they get a BSOD?" You do not answer the question asked.
Would they know how to get an update, fork, or bugfix from another source? Would they know how to apply it as a patch? Would they be able to compile the source as some things require?
You assume that they would be out looking for such things, which is a false assumption. Also, you assume they will pay enough attention to the community that they will know that "fooby" is a better fork of "barbas"
Why is it they have BSODs at a much higher rate than other Windows users.
I haven't have a BSOD in months, possibly years. The only time I have had any trouble with my machine has been when I use OpenOffice, and that is because OOo is such a pig.
And, I don't run anti-virus on one of my WinXP computers and I have yet to get infected. Of course, I don't run around to all the porn/cheat/warez sites and follow safe computing habits.
Why do they have BSODs in the first place, let alone have them at five times the rate of everyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
Public roads are not owned and operated for profit by private companies.
Your analogy, and thus your argument, fails.
This person chooses to live in an area where the investment can not be recouped. He has the money to live there. If he wishes to be connected, he can come up with the money to pay for the connection.
This is analogous to someone owning a large piece of property with a private dirt road from the main road to the house and on to another main road and wanting the government to pave his dirt road, but also wanting the road to be private so he can go as fast as he wants on it.
The roads, highways, and bridges are not subsidized. They are fully funded by the government. The subsidized broadband connections would benefit and enhance private entities, namely the telecom companies.
Also, the roads are public. The cops monitor what happens on the roads. If the government puts in broadband connections, will the cops be able to monitor the connection as they do the roads?
So, pay for it yourself. There is no need for my tax dollars to subsidize running broadband out to your rural residence.
So, basically, a replay of the early 1970s
Seeing as how most people don't like the Mac guy in those commercials, you might want to be careful what you wish for.
Come on folks. These are politicians. The only thing they actually know about is getting elected.
On top of that, I noticed some things.
First, on most topics the candidates follow party lines.
Second, I notice that McCain support increasing the cap, but Obama doesn't say if he supports that or not. He talks about a complete overhaul and some goals of that overhaul, but not what the overhaul would be.
Third,for IP protection, the article spells out the positions of Clinton and McCain. But, then it soft-peddles Obama's response which boils down to "Obama promised in his technology white paper to "ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere." The summary of positions focuses not on the part where he supports IP protection , but rather on the standards part. That is dishonest reporting.
Fourth, in the privacy part, the article writer(s) chooses a different sub-issue for each candidate. For Clinton, the Privacy Bill of Rights, which protects consumer and medical records is chosen.
For Obama, the issue of cyber-criminals, malware, and ID theft. But for McCain, the issue is warrantless wiretaps. That is cherry-picking issues and answers to bias opinion.
You mean when the Black Panthers were setting bombs and killing cops?
I don't have to. She is smarter than you are.
Why don't we plug that into your last statement:
Oh, now that we use your own fucking words, your argument falls flat.
Maybe if you weren't a lying little shit who didn't try to retro-actively try to change what was said you could actual put for a decent argument.
You obviously learned to argue from your leftists teachers, who, when faces with an argument they can't win, try to change what they have said or the scope of the argument.
Hi, shithead. Maybe you should check out how the separation of powers and checks and balances work.
Here, let me help you: If the President feels a law is unconstitutional, he can fail to enforce it. From there, Congress has two options: impeachment or involving the Judicial branch. Then the Judicial branch can either find the law unconstitutional or it can find that the President is out of order and tell him to enforce the law. Then, if the President does not enforce the law, Congress can then impeach him.
Now, please go stick you head back up your ass.
That is not the choice you provided now it it? Remember this:
I believe those were YOUR words.
That is why you are a dumb ass and can not win this argument. Now, please shut the fuck up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Oh, look, another epic fail.
You are trying to use the False Dilemma by providing only two possible choices "Tell everything to everyone" or "Hide everything". Sorry, little man, but that won't do.
And, it is also red herring because former has nothing to do with the discussion. It is a transparent attempt to change the subject from one you can not argue to one you can. This is not about discussing one's sex life with one's mother. This is about data retention and why people might not want data retained. In every case I can think of, it is because said people have done something wrong.
You need to wait until you grow up before joining this conversation, because you obviously have no clue how to argue a point.
I guess you didn't think that those 11% might have something to hide. Maybe they were breaking the law. Maybe they were being unethical, which would include semi-legal things like cheating on their SOs. Maybe they are, like so many people on
The mere fact that 11% changed their behavior does not mean or even imply a problem with said argument. It does imply that 11% actually did have something to hide.
And, that is what I think is behind all this paranoia and over-reaction. You all have something to hide.
The President's first duty is to the Constitution, not the laws passed by Congress. Is first duty is to the supreme law of the land, not the laws passed by Congress.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If the President believes a law is unconstitutional, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution first.
Now, please, go blow your brains out before you infect others with your ignorance.
Wow, talk about ignorance.
McCain's adviser says something and it is attributed to McCain.
And you compare it to that? That is the best you can do?
Here let me fix that for you: would be akin to replacing "Man's friend shoots 3 family members dead" with "Man shoots family of 3".
That is what the headline and, by virtue of your defense of the headline, you are doing.
If you are too stupid to see that, you are letting your political bias get in the way and you should probable kill yourself.
Apparently, you failed Civics. There is nodispensable branch of the government.
Each individual branch can override any other branch, and in some cases the other two branches.
Oh,and the Executive is not exactly required to enforce any law the Legislative passes. It is very easy for the Executive to simply provide ineffective enforcement either through no agency, or through unlimited warning, to simply not bringing the cases to trial by making deals.
Should read "McCain adviser supports asking telecoms for assistance"
But, then that wouldn't be the sensationalist, muck-raking, lie of a headline the submitter wanted.
What is it like being a lying propagandist, "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property"?
No, it doesn't it. The OP asked "Why is it that the *nix users seem to have BSOD issues on an infinitely higher rate than the rest of the world?"
Your answer does not address the significant difference in the number of BSODs experienced by the vast majority Windows user and number experienced by *nix advocate/users.
You answer "Why do so many *nix user switch to *nix from Windows when they get a BSOD?" You do not answer the question asked.
Would they know how to get an update, fork, or bugfix from another source?
Would they know how to apply it as a patch?
Would they be able to compile the source as some things require?
You assume that they would be out looking for such things, which is a false assumption.
Also, you assume they will pay enough attention to the community that they will know that "fooby" is a better fork of "barbas"
That does not answer the OP's question.
Why is it they have BSODs at a much higher rate than other Windows users.
I haven't have a BSOD in months, possibly years. The only time I have had any trouble with my machine has been when I use OpenOffice, and that is because OOo is such a pig.
And, I don't run anti-virus on one of my WinXP computers and I have yet to get infected. Of course, I don't run around to all the porn/cheat/warez sites and follow safe computing habits.
Why do they have BSODs in the first place, let alone have them at five times the rate of everyone else?
Your comment implies that open source is not as good as commercial software.
If open source is so good and so ready for the desktop, then this should not be news.
Nope. And, the fact that you have been modded "troll" proves it.
FTA:
And what, pray tell, is your audio software?
What part of "does not have the skills and/or resources" did you not understand?
You can not hire someone to do the wiring if you don't have the money to pay them.