You're right, but only half right. Rich individuals, not just companies, can get these same kinds of special treatment. It's all about how much you've donated to the right Congresscritters.
Even better, the actual police at most airports are local. So for instance, at DFW the TSA might be Federal employees, but the cops who are on hand to do any arresting are employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Guess which laws they enforce first and foremost?
I'm so looking forward to my upcoming vacation so I can see if I can get a TSA goon put on the sex offenders registry.
If there were so many terrorists that the TSA was the only thing stopping them from getting on airplanes, we'd see wreckage in our shopping malls, buses, stadia, movie theaters, anywhere people congregate. The fact that it doesn't happen there means the terrorists simply don't exist.
I didn't want the guy to get away... but we are a nation of laws. We could have easily taken him alive and tried him and eventually executed him. It would have been a legal nightmare, it would have likely ended up in front of the supreme court. But it's what's just and what's right.
Personally, I'm OK with summary execution of bin Laden, for a number of reasons. But that's not important now. What is important is that during the campaign, Obama promised to use the civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. So if it turns out the SEALs executed this guy on orders from the President, how is that going to look? This is the only reason I can think of for why Obama is refusing to release the photos.
Hear hear. I for one am tired of doing or not doing things because of what may happen. It's time for this country to be the "home of the brave" once more.
Living where I do in the suburbs doesn't cost anyone else anything extra. I telecommute, so I use the roads minimally; the sewer system here was built out decades ago and works great; there's less pollution, less crime, and far less trash than in the major city to the south of me; and the major highway I use the most is a toll road, so I pay for it every time I do have to go somewhere.
Here's what I don't get about this: Apple is telling ebook retailers that they have to buy from publishers at a fixed margin. How is the margin of a given ebook publisher any of Apple's business? Apple is basically forcing two other entities to modify or annul the contract they already had, and/or is actively preventing them from agreeing to a future contract that doesn't fit Apple's requirements. How is this not a textbook definition of tortuous interference?
Really, all of your problems have been solved already: people not living in places that are less dense than streetcar suburbs. Raise the price of gas over time, people will move, and we don't have to deal with all off this robot cockery.
Thank you for making the decision for me and my family on where we will live. It's such a relief knowing that people like you, who are so much more smarter than little old me, are out there protecting me from myself.
You assume these people can save the money in the first place, which in my experience is an erroneous assumption.
demonlapin got it right: if you outlaw rent-to-own, you're going to force the people who use those services to go somewhere worse. You will not make their lives better in your attempt to save them from their own stupidity.
He was on record as saying he thought he could bankrupt the US by dragging us into a war in the Middle East. So no, he wasn't smart, not even a little bit.
Article contains comments from a "senior al-Qaeda" member as well as a Taliban spokesman. Both are clamoring for revenge for bin Laden's death, rather than claiming it to be false and that their sheik/imam/whatever is still alive.
The statement I saw was that they dumped him in the ocean to deny his followers a crypt they could go to to revere him. And since both the ISI and al Qaeda have confirmed he was killed, I don't think the deathers are gonna get a lot of followers on this latest conspiracy theory (but then again, there are a lot of crazy and stupid people out there, so I could be wrong).
It's because ISP's margins are pretty slim, and they price out their services based on how much traffic a typical home uses. If you share that connection with your neighbors, suddenly you're using two, three, or more household's worth of data, which will mean they'll need more bandwidth to support you. That increases their costs.
Will the liberty decrease? Surely. Will crime decrease? Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).
Actually, crime will necessarily increase, as there will be more laws to be broken in the first place. Also, history has shown pretty consistently that the more government restricts people's choices in life, the more violent they become. It's a sad fact that no one seems to have learned yet.
Cue the people who don't understand the crucial difference between anarchy and minarchy to come in and state that Somalia is a "libertarian paradise".
The history of municipally owned utilities argues against doing any such thing. Whether it's water, electric, gas, or anything else, if a city is running the show you can be damn sure that corruption, cronyism, and inefficiencies will be along for the ride.
Besides which, once a government entity becomes fat and/or dependent on the fees generated from those cables, you just know they'll fight tooth and nail to keep out any competition, like wireless services. And they'll do so with the force of government on their side.
No, it's far better to let private actors, either individuals or businesses, run the show on this one. Besides, as wireless speeds and ranges improve, all of this discussion of last-mile cable is going to be completely moot, anyway. In five years, the idea of having a cable running into your house for phone, internet, or TV is going to be a fading memory.
I'd actually be OK with "more" regulation if it managed to respect private rights more than our current mish mash, and resulted in lower total costs to businesses, consumers, government, society, or some combination of those groups. I just don't see that as likely, as the more laws you add the less free people must necessarily become, and the greater the cost to the people who are charged with living under or enforcing those regulations.
Second, I didn't say "do nothing", I said "more regulation is not the solution". Specifically, the restrictions on ownership, free speech, and right to contract that are reflected in h4rr4r's post are far, far worse than letting companies monetize their networks with unwanted ads.
They also all ignore the root problem: cable companies are granted a municipal monopoly, which leads to them treating their customers like shit because where else are they gonna go? The solution is to enable other companies to compete (and not by limiting what companies can do, but by removing the monopoly protection) and lower the costs of starting such a business (which can't be done with more regulation). Do all this and you'll see much better behavior from the current companies and the new ones (because the ones that don't will be forced out of business).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, but only half right. Rich individuals, not just companies, can get these same kinds of special treatment. It's all about how much you've donated to the right Congresscritters.
I thought it was "if you can't beat them with logic and reason, beat them with a stick"? But hey, this works, too.
Even better, the actual police at most airports are local. So for instance, at DFW the TSA might be Federal employees, but the cops who are on hand to do any arresting are employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety. Guess which laws they enforce first and foremost?
I'm so looking forward to my upcoming vacation so I can see if I can get a TSA goon put on the sex offenders registry.
Esta, dieser, questo, cette, seo, this.
If there were so many terrorists that the TSA was the only thing stopping them from getting on airplanes, we'd see wreckage in our shopping malls, buses, stadia, movie theaters, anywhere people congregate. The fact that it doesn't happen there means the terrorists simply don't exist.
I didn't want the guy to get away... but we are a nation of laws. We could have easily taken him alive and tried him and eventually executed him. It would have been a legal nightmare, it would have likely ended up in front of the supreme court. But it's what's just and what's right.
Personally, I'm OK with summary execution of bin Laden, for a number of reasons. But that's not important now. What is important is that during the campaign, Obama promised to use the civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. So if it turns out the SEALs executed this guy on orders from the President, how is that going to look? This is the only reason I can think of for why Obama is refusing to release the photos.
Hear hear. I for one am tired of doing or not doing things because of what may happen. It's time for this country to be the "home of the brave" once more.
Release the photos.
Your eyes are brown, I bet.
Living where I do in the suburbs doesn't cost anyone else anything extra. I telecommute, so I use the roads minimally; the sewer system here was built out decades ago and works great; there's less pollution, less crime, and far less trash than in the major city to the south of me; and the major highway I use the most is a toll road, so I pay for it every time I do have to go somewhere.
But nice talking out of your ass there.
Here's what I don't get about this: Apple is telling ebook retailers that they have to buy from publishers at a fixed margin. How is the margin of a given ebook publisher any of Apple's business? Apple is basically forcing two other entities to modify or annul the contract they already had, and/or is actively preventing them from agreeing to a future contract that doesn't fit Apple's requirements. How is this not a textbook definition of tortuous interference?
Really, all of your problems have been solved already: people not living in places that are less dense than streetcar suburbs. Raise the price of gas over time, people will move, and we don't have to deal with all off this robot cockery.
Thank you for making the decision for me and my family on where we will live. It's such a relief knowing that people like you, who are so much more smarter than little old me, are out there protecting me from myself.
Anyone else seeing what looks like chants to Cthulu written in Orcish at the bottom of the page for today's QOTD?
Mel is turning over in his grave.
You had 41 characters left, I used them.
No, our economy is shit right now. But the war in Afghanistan didn't cause that, other, completely unrelated issues did.
If you think $444 billion over 10 years is enough to sink the US economy, you're not paying attention to just how large it is.
You assume these people can save the money in the first place, which in my experience is an erroneous assumption.
demonlapin got it right: if you outlaw rent-to-own, you're going to force the people who use those services to go somewhere worse. You will not make their lives better in your attempt to save them from their own stupidity.
He was on record as saying he thought he could bankrupt the US by dragging us into a war in the Middle East. So no, he wasn't smart, not even a little bit.
Ah, but did you do those things with a gooey interface in visual basic? If not, you're not a true uberhacker.
Still cheaper than a divorce. Just sayin'.
Ha! I'm not checking that first link at work. Nice try, smart guy.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/201152141416432205.html
Article contains comments from a "senior al-Qaeda" member as well as a Taliban spokesman. Both are clamoring for revenge for bin Laden's death, rather than claiming it to be false and that their sheik/imam/whatever is still alive.
The statement I saw was that they dumped him in the ocean to deny his followers a crypt they could go to to revere him. And since both the ISI and al Qaeda have confirmed he was killed, I don't think the deathers are gonna get a lot of followers on this latest conspiracy theory (but then again, there are a lot of crazy and stupid people out there, so I could be wrong).
It's because ISP's margins are pretty slim, and they price out their services based on how much traffic a typical home uses. If you share that connection with your neighbors, suddenly you're using two, three, or more household's worth of data, which will mean they'll need more bandwidth to support you. That increases their costs.
Will the liberty decrease? Surely. Will crime decrease? Yes, most certainly, especially the violent kind (outright theft etc).
Actually, crime will necessarily increase, as there will be more laws to be broken in the first place. Also, history has shown pretty consistently that the more government restricts people's choices in life, the more violent they become. It's a sad fact that no one seems to have learned yet.
Cue the people who don't understand the crucial difference between anarchy and minarchy to come in and state that Somalia is a "libertarian paradise".
The history of municipally owned utilities argues against doing any such thing. Whether it's water, electric, gas, or anything else, if a city is running the show you can be damn sure that corruption, cronyism, and inefficiencies will be along for the ride.
Besides which, once a government entity becomes fat and/or dependent on the fees generated from those cables, you just know they'll fight tooth and nail to keep out any competition, like wireless services. And they'll do so with the force of government on their side.
No, it's far better to let private actors, either individuals or businesses, run the show on this one. Besides, as wireless speeds and ranges improve, all of this discussion of last-mile cable is going to be completely moot, anyway. In five years, the idea of having a cable running into your house for phone, internet, or TV is going to be a fading memory.
I'd actually be OK with "more" regulation if it managed to respect private rights more than our current mish mash, and resulted in lower total costs to businesses, consumers, government, society, or some combination of those groups. I just don't see that as likely, as the more laws you add the less free people must necessarily become, and the greater the cost to the people who are charged with living under or enforcing those regulations.
First off, fuck you with the name calling.
Second, I didn't say "do nothing", I said "more regulation is not the solution". Specifically, the restrictions on ownership, free speech, and right to contract that are reflected in h4rr4r's post are far, far worse than letting companies monetize their networks with unwanted ads.
They also all ignore the root problem: cable companies are granted a municipal monopoly, which leads to them treating their customers like shit because where else are they gonna go? The solution is to enable other companies to compete (and not by limiting what companies can do, but by removing the monopoly protection) and lower the costs of starting such a business (which can't be done with more regulation). Do all this and you'll see much better behavior from the current companies and the new ones (because the ones that don't will be forced out of business).