The point was the block from Comcast would be unenforceable, because too many users would be affected and complain
Why would it be unenforceable? Who cares if they complain? Why should Comcast listen to them? Why would Comcast care about their customers complaining?
When you're a monopoly, you don't have to worry about things like customer satisfaction. People complain about Comcast all the time, but it doesn't matter because there aren't many other choices so people continue to get service with them, even though they hate it.
In reference to your first question, one is acceptable to almost all of society, the other is abhorred by almost all of society. So you can make your own mind up on that one.
So your argument is that society is correct by definition? Isn't that a tautology?
There have been other societies (including colonial American society) where prison was seen as cruel and unusual punishment, and that punishments should be swift, rather than dragging on for years or decades.
The whole point of jail is that it is meant to be good conditions to rehabilitate the prisoners. At one end of the scale you have some European prison systems that do this amazingly well, with very low recidivist offender rates. At the other end of the scale are some third world country prisons where the prisoners are kept in horrendous conditions.
So a tiny minority of prisons worldwide are doing it right? While the vast majority are horrendous? Doesn't that indicate that society is wrong? America has 25% of the world's incarcerated population, with just 5% of the global population. Our society seems happy to have shitty prisons and people locked up for decades for possessing a plant. Seems to me that going by what society thinks is a bad idea. Nazi German society thought it was a great idea to murder people by the millions just for being different. Aztec society thought it was cool to have human sacrifice.
Your logic is completely broken: in one post, you argue that just because a group of people ("society") decides to murder someone doesn't make it right, but then you argue that just because society decides to lock someone away for decades and torture them, that that's perfectly fine. You can't have it both ways.
And with many weapons systems, you don't "destroy" the target either, you incapacitate it; for flying threats, that means hurting it enough that it just falls out of the sky instead of hitting its target and detonating.
So yes, "take out" is proper layman's terminology.
You do realize that these drones aren't any bigger than a suitcase, don't you? You could probably take one out with a small Estes rocket (with no explosive warhead) if you could hit it.
I believe firefighters are also the most trusted profession here in the US too. Certainly far above police; the police here suck.
I've never heard of a firefighter doing anything to abuse his power, ever. That's certainly not the case with cops, where it's a regular occurrence. I've even read about an asshole policeman, a few years ago, arresting a firefighter because he wouldn't move his fire truck, which he was using to shield an accident scene from traffic. That didn't work out too well for the cop IIRC.
There's a thing called "airspace". Maybe you should go read about it. Cessnas and Beechcraft have to fly over a certain altitude to be legal (except over runways at airports of course). The airspace from your yard up to that limit is not public domain, it's private property. So no, people aren't allowed to just fly their drones wherever they want.
You can't educate alternative medicine kooks in the western world. They don't believe in science, for one thing, and they think the government is actively suppressing the "truth" about alternative medicine. There's a reason they're "kooks"; your term is accurate.
Not only that, the ghosts in Pac-Man aren't even doing anything intentionally to hurt Pac-Man: they're just following the exact same movement pattern they always do. It's not their fault he decided to invade their maze.
Killing a murderer makes you a murderer. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else.
Imprisoning a murderer makes you an imprisoner. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should be imprisoned doesn't make it something else.
Are you saying we shouldn't imprison people too? After all, if you abduct someone and imprison them in your house for a decade, the penalty is quite severe as you're robbing them of a large portion of their lifetime. So why is it OK to do that to criminals?
The simple fact is that we, as a society, have to do bad things to some people in order to keep society functioning smoothly. If we don't, they will destroy society. And I fail to see how killing someone is worse than imprisoning them for most or all of their lifetime, and subjecting them to horrible living conditions.
What do you think happens to a family who lives in a 3rd world country that owns no land, possibly displaced due to warfare, where there are thousands of people competing for jobs that barely pay enough for 1 person to survive off, let alone a family, no access to medical services, no access to clean water, no education and no hope of escaping the cycle of poverty?
Are you really that stupid? If these people are so dirt-poor, how exactly do they afford high-powered rifles capable of taking down elephants and rhinos, plus expensive all-terrain vehicles to chase them with?
Here's a hint: poachers aren't poor starving Africans, they're illegal big-game hunters with a lot of money, and they're in it to make even more money because it's so profitable. They're not even locals. They deserve to be shot.
why not say "Wow, we have achieved something of real practical benefit, A, which directly impacts billions of people and saves our planet.
Simple, because it's never worked that way before. You can't just invent things without a need for them; it rarely happens. Have you never heard of "necessity is the mother of invention"?
And conversely, it has worked the way I say before, namely with the Apollo program.
No one is going to invent great new technologies while working on social programs.
And finally, why do you think going to the Moon wouldn't have huge benefits at home? If it turns out we can mine resources there, that would be a huge economic boom. Or would you rather that we eliminate the EPA and destroy our environment in the pursuit of mineral resources? You don't think that would have huge economic consequences?
It cost a lot more back then (in relative dollars) because 1) they had never done it before and 2) they didn't have today's technology. We've done it before (though the people involved are all retired or dead, but we still have most of the data), we know how to build better rockets now than we did then, and we have all kinds of other technologies now to keep costs down, whereas back then they had to actually develop lots of new technologies to make it happen. Building rockets and sending people into space isn't the big deal now that it was back then: ask the crew stationed on the ISS right now.
So no, there's no reason it would cost nearly as much this time, unless NASA is that much more inefficient than it was back then.
Manned space exploration already has a terrible return on investment compared to unmanned.
100% wrong. Manned space exploration has a much higher return in economic terms. The Apollo missions had huge economic benefits for the US. Unmanned probes do not. Unmanned probes are excellent for gathering scientific data on far-away places, too far for humans to go at this time, but they don't do much for us technologically the way the Apollo missions did. When you have to send humans where no one has gone before, you end up creating all kinds of new technologies to make it happen, and many of those have uses here on Earth. The Apollo program is the reason we have high-density surface-mount printed circuit boards today, for instance. They were first developed for that program.
How are you going to get those spinoff benefits and discoveries without actually doing work in space, and just sitting around here and funding social programs? You're not. The Apollo program yielded enormous economic benefits for the US due to the new technologies created; those would not have happened if we just increased teacher pay.
I'm not saying social programs and teacher pay increases shouldn't be done, but if you want actual advancement in technology, you have to actually do things which require that advancement. You can't just wait until all social problems are cured. That isn't going to happen for generations.
1) Limits the spread of sever incurable life altering diseases
Polyamorous != promiscuous. Today's "monogamous" Americans seem to be doing a great job spreading diseases around with their "monogamous" ways (which of course involves a lot of cheating).
2) Two adults provides a far more reliable and economically secure situation for raising children
Three or more adults provide an even more reliable and economically secure situation for raising children. With only two adults with one working, when the breadwinner loses his job, the family is screwed. With two working adults in today's two-earner world, if one loses his job, the family probably can't afford to continue that way for long. In a three-adult household with three earners, one job loss isn't that bad. In a four-adult household, it's not a big problem at all.
3) Polyamory aside, most humans are jealous creatures and adultery and cheating in general frequently incite violence
If people are driven to violence because of their partner's actions, they have mental problems and need anger management counseling at a minimum. Becoming violent is never acceptable just because someone else had sex and didn't invite you. That our society has accepted or even condoned such behavior is barbaric and disgusting.
You should look into polyamory. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be constrained to a single sex partner, and there's really no good reason why our society pushes monogamy as hard as it does. It really came about because of land ownership and paternal inheritance.
Poor people can't go to urgent care clinics: they require payment. So they go instead to ERs, where they're not allowed to turn them away until they're stabilized. This is the result of right-wing short-sightedness.
Only dysfunctional organizations allow HR people to make hiring decisions.
Well then, most corporations these days are dysfunctional. At most places I've seen, HR is the one posting ads, recruiting candidates, checking qualifications, etc. They "pre-screen" candidates before passing them to the hiring manager. This of course means the hiring manager has to wade through a bunch of unqualified people because HR is incompetent at checking qualifications for technical people. But that's just how it is in most companies, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The point was the block from Comcast would be unenforceable, because too many users would be affected and complain
Why would it be unenforceable? Who cares if they complain? Why should Comcast listen to them? Why would Comcast care about their customers complaining?
When you're a monopoly, you don't have to worry about things like customer satisfaction. People complain about Comcast all the time, but it doesn't matter because there aren't many other choices so people continue to get service with them, even though they hate it.
Um, not at all?
What exactly are the ComCrap customers going to do, switch to another ISP? Oh wait, there is no other ISP!
This is the whole problem.
In reference to your first question, one is acceptable to almost all of society, the other is abhorred by almost all of society. So you can make your own mind up on that one.
So your argument is that society is correct by definition? Isn't that a tautology?
There have been other societies (including colonial American society) where prison was seen as cruel and unusual punishment, and that punishments should be swift, rather than dragging on for years or decades.
The whole point of jail is that it is meant to be good conditions to rehabilitate the prisoners. At one end of the scale you have some European prison systems that do this amazingly well, with very low recidivist offender rates. At the other end of the scale are some third world country prisons where the prisoners are kept in horrendous conditions.
So a tiny minority of prisons worldwide are doing it right? While the vast majority are horrendous? Doesn't that indicate that society is wrong? America has 25% of the world's incarcerated population, with just 5% of the global population. Our society seems happy to have shitty prisons and people locked up for decades for possessing a plant. Seems to me that going by what society thinks is a bad idea. Nazi German society thought it was a great idea to murder people by the millions just for being different. Aztec society thought it was cool to have human sacrifice.
Your logic is completely broken: in one post, you argue that just because a group of people ("society") decides to murder someone doesn't make it right, but then you argue that just because society decides to lock someone away for decades and torture them, that that's perfectly fine. You can't have it both ways.
Exactly.
And the cops are basically Joffrey Lannister Baratheon.
(and you better damn well have a way of communicating when and where a restricted airspace is
They have that, it's called "TFRs". Any pilot can tell you that. Anyone who doesn't know that has no business flying any kind of aircraft.
You can't "kill" a drone. It's not alive.
And with many weapons systems, you don't "destroy" the target either, you incapacitate it; for flying threats, that means hurting it enough that it just falls out of the sky instead of hitting its target and detonating.
So yes, "take out" is proper layman's terminology.
Seagulls aren't made of metal.
You do realize that these drones aren't any bigger than a suitcase, don't you? You could probably take one out with a small Estes rocket (with no explosive warhead) if you could hit it.
I believe firefighters are also the most trusted profession here in the US too. Certainly far above police; the police here suck.
I've never heard of a firefighter doing anything to abuse his power, ever. That's certainly not the case with cops, where it's a regular occurrence. I've even read about an asshole policeman, a few years ago, arresting a firefighter because he wouldn't move his fire truck, which he was using to shield an accident scene from traffic. That didn't work out too well for the cop IIRC.
There's a thing called "airspace". Maybe you should go read about it. Cessnas and Beechcraft have to fly over a certain altitude to be legal (except over runways at airports of course). The airspace from your yard up to that limit is not public domain, it's private property. So no, people aren't allowed to just fly their drones wherever they want.
I'm pretty sure these are actually mandatory for any new car that comes with xenon (HID) lights, because they're so bright.
Of course, people who retrofit their cars with these headlights almost never put the auto-leveling systems on them.
It IS completely legal in many of those places: those countries have armed troops out there looking for them, and they shoot poachers on sight.
I don't know that it'd be legal for some random person to shoot them though, but it is perfectly legal for their troops.
You can't educate alternative medicine kooks in the western world. They don't believe in science, for one thing, and they think the government is actively suppressing the "truth" about alternative medicine. There's a reason they're "kooks"; your term is accurate.
It IS warranted, and it's exactly what many African countries do: they use military troops to protect these animals, and they shoot poachers on sight.
It's a good thing first-worlders aren't in charge of protecting these animals from well-financed poachers, because they'd all be extinct now.
Not only that, the ghosts in Pac-Man aren't even doing anything intentionally to hurt Pac-Man: they're just following the exact same movement pattern they always do. It's not their fault he decided to invade their maze.
Killing a murderer makes you a murderer. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else.
Imprisoning a murderer makes you an imprisoner. Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should be imprisoned doesn't make it something else.
Are you saying we shouldn't imprison people too? After all, if you abduct someone and imprison them in your house for a decade, the penalty is quite severe as you're robbing them of a large portion of their lifetime. So why is it OK to do that to criminals?
The simple fact is that we, as a society, have to do bad things to some people in order to keep society functioning smoothly. If we don't, they will destroy society. And I fail to see how killing someone is worse than imprisoning them for most or all of their lifetime, and subjecting them to horrible living conditions.
What do you think happens to a family who lives in a 3rd world country that owns no land, possibly displaced due to warfare, where there are thousands of people competing for jobs that barely pay enough for 1 person to survive off, let alone a family, no access to medical services, no access to clean water, no education and no hope of escaping the cycle of poverty?
Are you really that stupid? If these people are so dirt-poor, how exactly do they afford high-powered rifles capable of taking down elephants and rhinos, plus expensive all-terrain vehicles to chase them with?
Here's a hint: poachers aren't poor starving Africans, they're illegal big-game hunters with a lot of money, and they're in it to make even more money because it's so profitable. They're not even locals. They deserve to be shot.
why not say "Wow, we have achieved something of real practical benefit, A, which directly impacts billions of people and saves our planet.
Simple, because it's never worked that way before. You can't just invent things without a need for them; it rarely happens. Have you never heard of "necessity is the mother of invention"?
And conversely, it has worked the way I say before, namely with the Apollo program.
No one is going to invent great new technologies while working on social programs.
And finally, why do you think going to the Moon wouldn't have huge benefits at home? If it turns out we can mine resources there, that would be a huge economic boom. Or would you rather that we eliminate the EPA and destroy our environment in the pursuit of mineral resources? You don't think that would have huge economic consequences?
You're not an engineer, are you?
It cost a lot more back then (in relative dollars) because 1) they had never done it before and 2) they didn't have today's technology. We've done it before (though the people involved are all retired or dead, but we still have most of the data), we know how to build better rockets now than we did then, and we have all kinds of other technologies now to keep costs down, whereas back then they had to actually develop lots of new technologies to make it happen. Building rockets and sending people into space isn't the big deal now that it was back then: ask the crew stationed on the ISS right now.
So no, there's no reason it would cost nearly as much this time, unless NASA is that much more inefficient than it was back then.
Manned space exploration already has a terrible return on investment compared to unmanned.
100% wrong. Manned space exploration has a much higher return in economic terms. The Apollo missions had huge economic benefits for the US. Unmanned probes do not. Unmanned probes are excellent for gathering scientific data on far-away places, too far for humans to go at this time, but they don't do much for us technologically the way the Apollo missions did. When you have to send humans where no one has gone before, you end up creating all kinds of new technologies to make it happen, and many of those have uses here on Earth. The Apollo program is the reason we have high-density surface-mount printed circuit boards today, for instance. They were first developed for that program.
How are you going to get those spinoff benefits and discoveries without actually doing work in space, and just sitting around here and funding social programs? You're not. The Apollo program yielded enormous economic benefits for the US due to the new technologies created; those would not have happened if we just increased teacher pay.
I'm not saying social programs and teacher pay increases shouldn't be done, but if you want actual advancement in technology, you have to actually do things which require that advancement. You can't just wait until all social problems are cured. That isn't going to happen for generations.
1) Limits the spread of sever incurable life altering diseases
Polyamorous != promiscuous. Today's "monogamous" Americans seem to be doing a great job spreading diseases around with their "monogamous" ways (which of course involves a lot of cheating).
2) Two adults provides a far more reliable and economically secure situation for raising children
Three or more adults provide an even more reliable and economically secure situation for raising children. With only two adults with one working, when the breadwinner loses his job, the family is screwed. With two working adults in today's two-earner world, if one loses his job, the family probably can't afford to continue that way for long. In a three-adult household with three earners, one job loss isn't that bad. In a four-adult household, it's not a big problem at all.
3) Polyamory aside, most humans are jealous creatures and adultery and cheating in general frequently incite violence
If people are driven to violence because of their partner's actions, they have mental problems and need anger management counseling at a minimum. Becoming violent is never acceptable just because someone else had sex and didn't invite you. That our society has accepted or even condoned such behavior is barbaric and disgusting.
You should look into polyamory. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be constrained to a single sex partner, and there's really no good reason why our society pushes monogamy as hard as it does. It really came about because of land ownership and paternal inheritance.
Poor people can't go to urgent care clinics: they require payment. So they go instead to ERs, where they're not allowed to turn them away until they're stabilized. This is the result of right-wing short-sightedness.
Only dysfunctional organizations allow HR people to make hiring decisions.
Well then, most corporations these days are dysfunctional. At most places I've seen, HR is the one posting ads, recruiting candidates, checking qualifications, etc. They "pre-screen" candidates before passing them to the hiring manager. This of course means the hiring manager has to wade through a bunch of unqualified people because HR is incompetent at checking qualifications for technical people. But that's just how it is in most companies, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.