No. That is not the definition. Free markets, as opposed to top-down dirigiste economies have been very clearly defined by many people (see Karl Menger and the Austrian School among many others). No proponent or defender of Free Markets defines it as you just did.
What an ignorant racist statement. What's the gov't but a corporation with guns and the law at it's back. Maybe you should consider trying to limit its powers as opposed to expanding it and saying stupid things.
So you think the busy bodies who want to control everybody are capitalists? The problem is the people who want to control everyone AND hate personal responsibility. Trespass on someones lawn and drown in their pool? Unfair make people build a wall. Don't like your neighbor painting their house pink? Make a law.
The solution is to have a constitutionally limited government (restrict what the gov't can do) and hold them to that.
Whoops - looks like lots of people hate that idea and prefer that the government can pass whatever laws it wants and then bitches when they cease being citizens and instead morph into serfs.
I was wondering about this. If an entity restricts password length then does that indicate that they are keeping the passwords in clear text? Let me make that clearer - if the company is salting and hashing the password would there be any reason whatsoever (going back to legacy systems here) for them to limit either character length or character (eg: no special characters)
And ALL the ones I know are on the left. Go to Park Slope, Brooklyn, start talking about vaccinations (especially forcing kids to be vaccinated) and see how far you go.
As far as I know (not being a constitutional lawyer) the first amendment provision that against establishing a state religion is not the same thing is different. You can't say that someone must be (or must not be) a Methodist, or Baptist, or Sunni or whatever. That is different from believing or not believing in a deity.
I don't think you know what conservative means. (And yes the previous guy sounds racist; and yes there will be a black,brown,yellow, red or green presidents within the next 50 yrs - if not 20).
Conservatives - whether you like them or not - have been opposed to increasing Federal power (as opposed to the States). This doesn't mean that people, such as myself, who are opposed to Imperial Washington are Conservative. But to say that Obama is Conservative is ridiculous.
common sense is that if I drop a hammer it will fall. Newton, and our concept of gravity, may explain it - but it's still under the rubric of "common sense".
That's what I do. I have an electric tea kettle and drink tea all day. That means I have to go fill the tea kettle and go on bathroom breaks. I try to walk down a few flights of stairs and walk back up every 2-3 hours as well. (I haven't fully incorporated that into my routine yet.)
Yes. It will make their life easier. A short term gain - at what price? Consolidating even more power in Imperial Washington and reducing the only real check and balance to the federal leviathan - the states. I'm not saying that states automatically do things better than the Federal Govt - they obviously don't. But continual chipping away at the power of states and placing it in Washington is something to be concerned about. And what are we doing it for - to make it easier for Google to lay fiber and gain more customers.
So Big Brother regulation breeds competition? I'm not saying the republicans (especially those in power) are for free markets but what makes you possibly think that FCC regulation would lead to more competition? The problem is in state regulation - and you think Federal legislation will magically solve the problem? Or do you think - perhaps it will lead to more centralized control, a more centralized bureaucracy that creates another "too big to fail" monstrosity.
Trading dozens of poorly run state systems with one huge system is not going to help.
Slashdot Mirror
No. That is not the definition. Free markets, as opposed to top-down dirigiste economies have been very clearly defined by many people (see Karl Menger and the Austrian School among many others). No proponent or defender of Free Markets defines it as you just did.
Bitcoin != exchanges.
You needn't and shouldn't keep your money in exchanges.
First of all free market != anarchic capitalism.
Second not all libertarians are for "anarchic capitalism."
Yeah. Perhaps. :-)
What an ignorant racist statement. What's the gov't but a corporation with guns and the law at it's back. Maybe you should consider trying to limit its powers as opposed to expanding it and saying stupid things.
So there was no unemployment before capitalism? There was no unemployment in 1960's China or in today's North Korea? Get a grip.
So you think the busy bodies who want to control everybody are capitalists? The problem is the people who want to control everyone AND hate personal responsibility. Trespass on someones lawn and drown in their pool? Unfair make people build a wall. Don't like your neighbor painting their house pink? Make a law. The solution is to have a constitutionally limited government (restrict what the gov't can do) and hold them to that. Whoops - looks like lots of people hate that idea and prefer that the government can pass whatever laws it wants and then bitches when they cease being citizens and instead morph into serfs.
I love pandora. It introduces me to music and artists I've never heard before.
What are your sources for people being killed by cops. I've been looking for some (sources) and haven't found any.
You don't mind if I borrow your sig do you? :-)
OK. Makes sense that not all special characters were included in the past but doesn't the ALT key allow one to add special characters?
As for example: Ç ü Æ
nice. good catch.
That's interesting. I can see not bothering salting the password but for an ISP to not hash passwords doesn't make sense to me.
Nonetheless I am more bothered by places requiring short passwords (it messes up my algorithm)
Thx. that's been gnawing at me for a while.
Right.
Let me rephrase. If an entity restricts password length then can one "assume" that they are keeping the passwords in cleartext and not hashing?
I was wondering about this. If an entity restricts password length then does that indicate that they are keeping the passwords in clear text? Let me make that clearer - if the company is salting and hashing the password would there be any reason whatsoever (going back to legacy systems here) for them to limit either character length or character (eg: no special characters)
:-) That very well could be a point of agreement.
And ALL the ones I know are on the left. Go to Park Slope, Brooklyn, start talking about vaccinations (especially forcing kids to be vaccinated) and see how far you go.
As far as I know (not being a constitutional lawyer) the first amendment provision that against establishing a state religion is not the same thing is different. You can't say that someone must be (or must not be) a Methodist, or Baptist, or Sunni or whatever. That is different from believing or not believing in a deity.
I'm a pastafarian myself so I'm cool with that.
I don't think you know what conservative means. (And yes the previous guy sounds racist; and yes there will be a black,brown,yellow, red or green presidents within the next 50 yrs - if not 20).
Conservatives - whether you like them or not - have been opposed to increasing Federal power (as opposed to the States). This doesn't mean that people, such as myself, who are opposed to Imperial Washington are Conservative. But to say that Obama is Conservative is ridiculous.
common sense is that if I drop a hammer it will fall. Newton, and our concept of gravity, may explain it - but it's still under the rubric of "common sense".
Which is why the young are leaving France in droves. This practice has made companies sclerotic and they don't hire because they can't fire.
That's what I do. I have an electric tea kettle and drink tea all day. That means I have to go fill the tea kettle and go on bathroom breaks. I try to walk down a few flights of stairs and walk back up every 2-3 hours as well. (I haven't fully incorporated that into my routine yet.)
Yes. It will make their life easier. A short term gain - at what price? Consolidating even more power in Imperial Washington and reducing the only real check and balance to the federal leviathan - the states. I'm not saying that states automatically do things better than the Federal Govt - they obviously don't. But continual chipping away at the power of states and placing it in Washington is something to be concerned about. And what are we doing it for - to make it easier for Google to lay fiber and gain more customers.
So Big Brother regulation breeds competition? I'm not saying the republicans (especially those in power) are for free markets but what makes you possibly think that FCC regulation would lead to more competition? The problem is in state regulation - and you think Federal legislation will magically solve the problem? Or do you think - perhaps it will lead to more centralized control, a more centralized bureaucracy that creates another "too big to fail" monstrosity.
Trading dozens of poorly run state systems with one huge system is not going to help.