If you want nutbags, you can find them on either side. The second I see the name "Koch brothers" or "Soros" my eyes glaze over. What I fail to understand is why so many people hide behind their partisan beliefs and pretend that when they disagree with other people, the other people are automatically liars, being manipulated, morally bad, etc.
Whatever happened to just disagreeing with somebody?
If you honestly don't believe that the EFF objects to the general conduct rule, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I suspect you're being disingenuous, however.
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.
Snippets:
Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.
I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:
Ironically, one such effort might be responsible for the introduction of the Varroa destructor mite to the West. Brother Adam was a very famous beekeeper living in England who tried to breed an improved bee--the so-called Buckfast bee--by crossing many types of honeybees that were imported from around the world--Italians, Germans, Asian bees, and even some African species. His goals were to breed a better bee after the Isle of Wight disease pretty much destroyed all native English bees.
The ironic part is that the Varroa destructor mite (of Asian origin) was first discovered in England not far from Buckfast abbey, and it's believed that it was probably brought to England as part of one of Brother Adam's shipments.
I think some forget, or never knew, that his first book was published 1996. This guy is not a fast writer.
That's not quite backed up by history. He was pretty darn fast for the first three books, but then it all kind of fell apart. Personally I would say that the first three are very equivalent in terms of quality and I (again, IMHO) continue to enjoy them over several rereads. I have not had any inclination to reread Feast or Dance, though I've had other people tell me that reading them back-to-back was more fulfilling than with a six year gap! My introduction to the series was through the Daenerys chapters from AGOT published as a Novella in Asimov's. I've been reading the other books as soon as they came out, so my perspective is perhaps different from someone who got their first read through in in larger chunks.
Book 1 (AGOT) -- 1996 Book 2 (ACOS) -- 1998 (2 yr) Book 3 (ASOS) -- 2000 (2 yr) Book 4 (AFFC) -- 2005 (5 yr) Book 5 (ADWD) -- 2011 (6yr) Book 6 (TWOW) -- ?? (at least 5yr)
I definitely agree that he's killed off most of his interesting and fun characters, introduced a bunch of boring plotlines ("I am Darkstar--and I am of the night--and I'm mysterious and cool!"), and written himself into an awkward place!
It's been years since I read the entire Dune series as a teenager (I've subsequently reread the first several times), but I remember enjoying God Emperor more than any book other than Dune. I can't say I remember much about it, but given your post, I'm inclined to go back and reread the rest.
Martin already stated that to avoid pulling a Jordan, he wrote the ending first, and gave copies to interested parties. He also wrote the storyline, so it's just the actual textual details and plot twists that haven't been fully hammered out yet.
That's pretty much exactly what Jordan did.
What got me to start reading the series in the first place was his promise that he wouldn't leave the story arc open-ended and then die. He also got a thorough check-up from his doctor giving him a full bill of health prior to starting the TV series.
So that was at least five years ago. I'm not a big fan of the macabre speculation around his health and calculating the odds of his dying vs finishing the series first, but what does seem clear is that he has either written himsef into a wall and doesn't know where to go or he's just bored with writing the books. Can't say I blame him on either side. If I could build a turret on my house, buy a customized Tesla, and fly around the world to meet legions of fans, I would probably be doing that instead too!
More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc
I've read other articles that discuss a similar modification that causes mosquito offspring to be almost entirely male. This has two huge advantages. First, male mosquitos don't bite. Second, after several generations, there is a greatly reduced female population which causes the overall population of mosquitos to crash.
Mosquitos aren't a keystone species in any ecosystem where they live. They aren't the only (or even primary) insect that pollinates a certain plant (e.g., honeybees and almonds). They aren't the only food source for other species. They're just kind of...there...and a huge nuisance for people! If they disappear, other insects will easily whatever small void they leave--at least that's the theory!
I say eradicate the damn things! And get rid of ticks next!
I don't understand the point of your post at all? Yes, other nations have games that are similar to Chess (and that are genetically related to Chess--think 4th cousins twice removed) but that are not Chess and are not even called Chess!
Seems like it would be more fair to compare the costs and specs of Teslas and Leafs (etc.) that will be released in 2017--the Chevy is still 2 years out! The Volt's specs certainly changed while under development. Will be interesting to see if the same hold trues for the Bolt.
I said ignore so 4g/wireless ISPs, so let's just ignore them:-)
In many places, you do have a choice of ISP even with the same connection. I have a choice of Time Warner Cable or, e.g., Earthlink for cable modem access. I leverage this every year for lower rates. I also have a different connection possibility--Frontier (Bleh) for DSL. AT&T is in the process of rolling out fiber that will be available 1Q 2015 (hopefully Google comes soon after). Look at the fiber maps (AT&T, FIOS, Google)--they're expanding incredibly rapidly.
I was responding to the GP who said "Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use." I disagree with that statement. If you are trying to read into my reply that I think the Internet situation in the US is flawless, you are stretching!
One thing that could immediately become mainstream in the future: nightly, off-site backups. Transferring 1 TB of data over a 10Gbps line takes just under 15 minutes [wolframalpha.com].
Forget the fiber connection, I want a terrabyte data store that reads at 10Gbps!
Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use. they get one choice
I can't believe that is true. It may be that 80% of US citizens have a clear choice of superior ISP to use, but I would think the vast majority of people would have, at a minimum, a choice of DSL and cable. Many now have a choice between DSL/cable/fiber (sometimes same companies are involved in fiber). That also ignores choices like 4g ISPs and satellite.
That's just the problem, though, it's really not inclusive. Ideologies and their adherents are not simple structures. Just to be clear--I'm not asking for your opinion of the following, just take it as an example--Hamas. Hamas builds hospitals. Hamas provides social services in many areas where there are no other social services. Hamas also targets civilians and kills children with suicide bombings. I have talked to many people who will condemn at least some of the suicide attacks on civilians, but refuse to condemn Hamas. The part is not the whole. Even if one was to say "I condemn the violent extremists in Hamas" you give the ideology and the belief a free pass. You ignore the elders who incite and rabble rouse while eschewing violence themselves--they act through proxies. You know the trite quote about evil triumphing when good people do nothing? Well, a lot of good people are willing to ignore an awful lot.
As an atheist, all religions have no basis. However, as long as the people following a religion behave civilly, where's the beef? And my blanket statement, that I condemn extremists who resort to violence, including muslims, christians, and political extremists, obviously includes condemning militant Islamism. Same as condemning militant christianity, etc.
No, there is a very large difference between condemning an individual (and that individual's actions) and condemning an ideology. Condemning an individual is not condemning the whole. Believe me, your perspective here is not unique to me. Over the years, I've discussed similar issues (most frequently the topic comes up with Palestine) with many people who say they condemn suicide bombers, killing of innocents, etc.--and rightfully so!--but who just can't quite bring themselves to condemn the organization/ideology behind it all. As I said earlier, it's stupid to try to be an armchair psychiatrist on Slashdot, and I have no particular interest in trying. I don't know what you believe, I can only read what you write.
Your purposefully and continuously ignoring the obvious is trolling.
I'm of the general opinion that calling an ideological opponent a troll is a cheap and easy cop out. Seems that way to me now. If you're not interested in discussing the topic in a respectful way, you can just stop replying. I don't really know that much is left unsaid at this point.
Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?
Just since you didn't reply to this part of my post, but I thought it was interesting, the culprit behind the creation of modern terrorism--
Russians.
In all seriousness, Russian nihilist revolutionaries really developed the concepts behind modern terrorism. They wanted to bring about revolution by any means necessary, including spectacular assassinations and usage of explosives. They employed tactics like walking into a room full of people, walking right up to the target, putting a gun to the target's head and shooting point blank. They wanted their enemies to know that they could never be safe. Like Horatio and Lars Porsena--if you know your enemies will do literally anything to kill (including burning off a limb!) you, your decision making process is necessarily altered!
You can see how these tactics have echoed down over the last 150 years--does the method of assassination of Archduke Ferdinand show any similarities with this?
These tactics today have almost entirely been adopted by militant Islamists around the world.
What part of "I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists. " don't you understand?
There's a huge difference. You might condemn individuals (who you also excuse by nature of their "mental illness"--thus the genesis of this conversation), but you seem to be very consciously avoiding condemning the IDEOLOGY. That's what I'm curious about--how hard is it to say "I condemn militant Islamism"?
Troll away, but you just look stupider with each post.
Come on, this conversation has been perfectly cordial, there's no need to resort to that kind of nonsense.
Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression.
:-)
s to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand.
You said it better than I have. Humans by and by are a susceptible lot. That doesn't mean that militant Islamism should get a free pass!
Slashdot Mirror
If you want nutbags, you can find them on either side. The second I see the name "Koch brothers" or "Soros" my eyes glaze over. What I fail to understand is why so many people hide behind their partisan beliefs and pretend that when they disagree with other people, the other people are automatically liars, being manipulated, morally bad, etc.
Whatever happened to just disagreeing with somebody?
If you honestly don't believe that the EFF objects to the general conduct rule, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I suspect you're being disingenuous, however.
It was not an objection, it was a request for clarification.. Here is the snip it you conveniently left out:
It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.
Snippets:
Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.
But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”
First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.
We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.
The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.
You're either with us or against us, right?
I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
Disregarding your rant against Fox News, the EFF had some serious objections too:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?
Would be breeding a better bee. One that is more resistant to mites, insecticides, wax moths, etc., and that isn't so susceptible to CCD.
Lots of people are working on this. One example is the Minnesota Hygienic Bee.
Ironically, one such effort might be responsible for the introduction of the Varroa destructor mite to the West. Brother Adam was a very famous beekeeper living in England who tried to breed an improved bee--the so-called Buckfast bee--by crossing many types of honeybees that were imported from around the world--Italians, Germans, Asian bees, and even some African species. His goals were to breed a better bee after the Isle of Wight disease pretty much destroyed all native English bees.
The ironic part is that the Varroa destructor mite (of Asian origin) was first discovered in England not far from Buckfast abbey, and it's believed that it was probably brought to England as part of one of Brother Adam's shipments.
Nicely said!
Ironically, Verizon sold off their North Carolina services to a Connecticut based company (Frontier).
I think some forget, or never knew, that his first book was published 1996. This guy is not a fast writer.
That's not quite backed up by history. He was pretty darn fast for the first three books, but then it all kind of fell apart. Personally I would say that the first three are very equivalent in terms of quality and I (again, IMHO) continue to enjoy them over several rereads. I have not had any inclination to reread Feast or Dance, though I've had other people tell me that reading them back-to-back was more fulfilling than with a six year gap! My introduction to the series was through the Daenerys chapters from AGOT published as a Novella in Asimov's. I've been reading the other books as soon as they came out, so my perspective is perhaps different from someone who got their first read through in in larger chunks.
Book 1 (AGOT) -- 1996
Book 2 (ACOS) -- 1998 (2 yr)
Book 3 (ASOS) -- 2000 (2 yr)
Book 4 (AFFC) -- 2005 (5 yr)
Book 5 (ADWD) -- 2011 (6yr)
Book 6 (TWOW) -- ?? (at least 5yr)
I definitely agree that he's killed off most of his interesting and fun characters, introduced a bunch of boring plotlines ("I am Darkstar--and I am of the night--and I'm mysterious and cool!"), and written himself into an awkward place!
It's been years since I read the entire Dune series as a teenager (I've subsequently reread the first several times), but I remember enjoying God Emperor more than any book other than Dune. I can't say I remember much about it, but given your post, I'm inclined to go back and reread the rest.
Martin already stated that to avoid pulling a Jordan, he wrote the ending first, and gave copies to interested parties. He also wrote the storyline, so it's just the actual textual details and plot twists that haven't been fully hammered out yet.
That's pretty much exactly what Jordan did.
What got me to start reading the series in the first place was his promise that he wouldn't leave the story arc open-ended and then die. He also got a thorough check-up from his doctor giving him a full bill of health prior to starting the TV series.
So that was at least five years ago. I'm not a big fan of the macabre speculation around his health and calculating the odds of his dying vs finishing the series first, but what does seem clear is that he has either written himsef into a wall and doesn't know where to go or he's just bored with writing the books. Can't say I blame him on either side. If I could build a turret on my house, buy a customized Tesla, and fly around the world to meet legions of fans, I would probably be doing that instead too!
More legitimate concerns like damaging the ecosystem due to an over projected population decline resulting in less food for insects, etc
I've read other articles that discuss a similar modification that causes mosquito offspring to be almost entirely male. This has two huge advantages. First, male mosquitos don't bite. Second, after several generations, there is a greatly reduced female population which causes the overall population of mosquitos to crash.
Mosquitos aren't a keystone species in any ecosystem where they live. They aren't the only (or even primary) insect that pollinates a certain plant (e.g., honeybees and almonds). They aren't the only food source for other species. They're just kind of...there...and a huge nuisance for people! If they disappear, other insects will easily whatever small void they leave--at least that's the theory!
I say eradicate the damn things! And get rid of ticks next!
I don't understand the point of your post at all? Yes, other nations have games that are similar to Chess (and that are genetically related to Chess--think 4th cousins twice removed) but that are not Chess and are not even called Chess!
Chess != Shogi != Shatranj != etc...
Seems like it would be more fair to compare the costs and specs of Teslas and Leafs (etc.) that will be released in 2017--the Chevy is still 2 years out! The Volt's specs certainly changed while under development. Will be interesting to see if the same hold trues for the Bolt.
I said ignore so 4g/wireless ISPs, so let's just ignore them :-)
In many places, you do have a choice of ISP even with the same connection. I have a choice of Time Warner Cable or, e.g., Earthlink for cable modem access. I leverage this every year for lower rates. I also have a different connection possibility--Frontier (Bleh) for DSL. AT&T is in the process of rolling out fiber that will be available 1Q 2015 (hopefully Google comes soon after). Look at the fiber maps (AT&T, FIOS, Google)--they're expanding incredibly rapidly.
I was responding to the GP who said "Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use." I disagree with that statement. If you are trying to read into my reply that I think the Internet situation in the US is flawless, you are stretching!
One thing that could immediately become mainstream in the future: nightly, off-site backups. Transferring 1 TB of data over a 10Gbps line takes just under 15 minutes [wolframalpha.com].
Forget the fiber connection, I want a terrabyte data store that reads at 10Gbps!
She can't get cable ?
Something like 80% of US citizens don't have a choice in the matter of which ISP they use. they get one choice
I can't believe that is true. It may be that 80% of US citizens have a clear choice of superior ISP to use, but I would think the vast majority of people would have, at a minimum, a choice of DSL and cable. Many now have a choice between DSL/cable/fiber (sometimes same companies are involved in fiber). That also ignores choices like 4g ISPs and satellite.
Haha, thanks for posting. That was just pathetic!!!
is inclusive, not exclusive. Go troll elsewhere.
That's just the problem, though, it's really not inclusive. Ideologies and their adherents are not simple structures. Just to be clear--I'm not asking for your opinion of the following, just take it as an example--Hamas. Hamas builds hospitals. Hamas provides social services in many areas where there are no other social services. Hamas also targets civilians and kills children with suicide bombings. I have talked to many people who will condemn at least some of the suicide attacks on civilians, but refuse to condemn Hamas. The part is not the whole. Even if one was to say "I condemn the violent extremists in Hamas" you give the ideology and the belief a free pass. You ignore the elders who incite and rabble rouse while eschewing violence themselves--they act through proxies. You know the trite quote about evil triumphing when good people do nothing? Well, a lot of good people are willing to ignore an awful lot.
As an atheist, all religions have no basis. However, as long as the people following a religion behave civilly, where's the beef? And my blanket statement, that I condemn extremists who resort to violence, including muslims, christians, and political extremists, obviously includes condemning militant Islamism. Same as condemning militant christianity, etc.
No, there is a very large difference between condemning an individual (and that individual's actions) and condemning an ideology. Condemning an individual is not condemning the whole. Believe me, your perspective here is not unique to me. Over the years, I've discussed similar issues (most frequently the topic comes up with Palestine) with many people who say they condemn suicide bombers, killing of innocents, etc.--and rightfully so!--but who just can't quite bring themselves to condemn the organization/ideology behind it all. As I said earlier, it's stupid to try to be an armchair psychiatrist on Slashdot, and I have no particular interest in trying. I don't know what you believe, I can only read what you write.
Your purposefully and continuously ignoring the obvious is trolling.
I'm of the general opinion that calling an ideological opponent a troll is a cheap and easy cop out. Seems that way to me now. If you're not interested in discussing the topic in a respectful way, you can just stop replying. I don't really know that much is left unsaid at this point.
Here's a bit of neat trivia--without googling, do you know where the modern concept of terrorism originated?
Just since you didn't reply to this part of my post, but I thought it was interesting, the culprit behind the creation of modern terrorism--
Russians.
In all seriousness, Russian nihilist revolutionaries really developed the concepts behind modern terrorism. They wanted to bring about revolution by any means necessary, including spectacular assassinations and usage of explosives. They employed tactics like walking into a room full of people, walking right up to the target, putting a gun to the target's head and shooting point blank. They wanted their enemies to know that they could never be safe. Like Horatio and Lars Porsena--if you know your enemies will do literally anything to kill (including burning off a limb!) you, your decision making process is necessarily altered!
You can see how these tactics have echoed down over the last 150 years--does the method of assassination of Archduke Ferdinand show any similarities with this?
These tactics today have almost entirely been adopted by militant Islamists around the world.
What part of "I have no problem condemning extremists who resort to violence. That includes muslims, christians, and political extremists. " don't you understand?
There's a huge difference. You might condemn individuals (who you also excuse by nature of their "mental illness"--thus the genesis of this conversation), but you seem to be very consciously avoiding condemning the IDEOLOGY. That's what I'm curious about--how hard is it to say "I condemn militant Islamism"?
Troll away, but you just look stupider with each post.
Come on, this conversation has been perfectly cordial, there's no need to resort to that kind of nonsense.
Sorry - couldn't resist having a little fun with your expression.
:-)
s to your argument, I might suggest that these wackos would have fallen for any number wacko world views or philosophies, but in these instances happened to have found the Muslim religion close at hand.
You said it better than I have. Humans by and by are a susceptible lot. That doesn't mean that militant Islamism should get a free pass!