The current Internet is too hard to control. Just about anyone can get on and say anything. There is no class structure, no censorship, options for extracting money from users are limited and getting a cohesive message across to everyone who uses it is downright impossible.
What is needed is a tightly regulated Internet where only those with enough good wealth are able to control what is being said and payment is extracted in an easy and orderly fasion. One which all information is available to the right people who can use it to control the unruly mob and masses of the underclasses.
In the past couple centuries the ruling elites have been lax in their duties and the lower classes have risen, creating a "middle class" and fostering the wrongheaded idea that every man is equal. With a new Internet combined with other mass media such wrong ideas can be properly quashed.
It will also catch some pedophiles so it is for the children and anyone who doesn't want it to be this way is obviously a perverted child molester and unpatriotic coward.
The reason we go after copyright infringement, kiddie porn(well porn in general as it is always lumped in if at all possible to kiddie porn), and things like majauana is to make as much of the general populace guilty of something that is both against the law and seen as deeply wrong with the person.
Once this is achieved the person can easily be moved to a status of lesser or non-personhood.
Example is a "Sex Offender" law. Such laws are created inevitably to protect children. However, sex offender includes any offense that is deemed sexual in nature. Public nudity, an argument with a spouse that turns violent which may indeed be an isolated incident and as much at fault with the spouse(I'm not talking about someone who regularly beats their spouse), or just pissing on the sidewalk because there is no where else to go for miles. Everyone is lumped in and assumed to behave like the worst offenders in the group, the serial rapists and violent pedophiles.
1 The False positives problem will be ignored. Already most people and lawmakers consider bit-torrent as a whole to be file sharing and thus piracy. Now they have a way to "ID" the criminals or at least their files. The false positive might work in court but your net connection would be gone long before that case comes due.
2. This might have a chance to work, provided legislation isn't passed to counteract net neutrality. If such is passed this would easily meet any definition of "reasonable" as would any number of other abuses.
3. Why are they encrypted? Must be REALLY guilty then. Though the real problem here is you'll also have to share the keys as well Not much of a problem mind you but a bit more overhead.
And if they can control the content they can charge more for it not only by charging the sender and receiver but also by adding in third party content such as commercials.
In other words what I said above is: It would be like a human reading. It is not wrong or illegal to read a work outloud to oneself generally. It may be wrong in some specific cases that constitute an infringing performance.
Not all performances are infringing. One example is if I were a father and I were to read a book to my child in bed.
It would be the same as a person reading out loud except the machine itself does not have a motive.
Therefore if used for a public performance for profit it would be the profiting individual/person who turned it on who would be responsable for the infringement.
ON the otherhand if used for a private reading to oneself or in private amongst a small group then it would be perfectly within the copy-owner's rights.
You are taking that an 8% unemployment rate equals the actual rate of those who are unemployed. It does not.
First of all that figure does not include retired, children and those who for what ever reason are not interested at all in having a job.
Then you'll wanna figure the people how are willing to work but don't have a job or don't have enough of a job(sorry flipping burgers does not feed a large family).
If you take all the people who don't have a job but would like one you'll need to up that figure to at least one and a half to double or more of what it is now. (Note this is closer to how they measured in the Great Depression, though they also included all "eligible" workers and didn't include women.)
If you add in all the people who are under-employed those who has part-time work that need full time and those who have a job but not enough of one(or two or three in many cases) to fit their needs then you are looking at a figure of at least double that of the reported unemployment rate.
In short the percent of the population that has a job is closer to 60 than it is to 92.
"'Bundling' that forbids vendors from including other programs is where M$ falls foul of the market and law."
Law yes. Market no. The market has no preferences toward stability or growth in any long-term situation or biases towards any greater good. The market is an unthinking non-entity that is invoked to gloss over ideas and trends which economists don't fully understand.
Exactly. It is about how to use math and misuse it. Most courses today focus solely on how to do math and any use of math is so poorly linked into the discussion that it merely becomes another obstacle between the student and getting the drudge work done.
Indeed. There are dissenting scientists from that viewpoint. However they make only a very small minority on the order of dozens or hundreds to one.
Seriously, if fair time was given to this issue you'd see at least fifty scientists who agree that global climate change caused by human interaction is a problem that does need to be addressed to every one of the non-agreers. Doesn't mean the nons shouldn't be heard but they should wait their turn after a hundred of their colleagues.
There is real debate and disagreement over what exactly will happen because of that influence and what we can do to change that. Though nearly all except for the small
Dude "Scratch an Itch"? You do know that philosophy has been mostly out for nearly a decade now? You do know that most Linux development is down by programmers who are being paid by a company to do so?
Yes. If you are not guilty then why do you have anything to fear?
Because there is a frighteningly high rate of conviction for INNOCENT people. DNA has helped show that with many cases overturned. Our justice system is a good one but it DOES often make mistakes and OFTEN enough to warrant some caution on the part of the common innocent citizen.
That however is not a valid argument for taking away citizens' rights or jeopardizing those rights with a clerical error.
If they want dna from a suspect they should get a warrant like everyone else. This is done for people who are in custody. There already are means and methods of judging who will be a flight risk or not and DNA testing still is not a field practice so it would only help in a small minority of cases where the person is accused and then fled.
I have no problem with taking DNA of every person who was convicted of a crime(of a certain level, parking tickets for instance probably shouldn't warrant it).
The infantry are the cheep parts. In fact if they die while on duty it costs less as the army doesn't have to shell out for education costs afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
It is! And it is needed.
The current Internet is too hard to control. Just about anyone can get on and say anything. There is no class structure, no censorship, options for extracting money from users are limited and getting a cohesive message across to everyone who uses it is downright impossible.
What is needed is a tightly regulated Internet where only those with enough good wealth are able to control what is being said and payment is extracted in an easy and orderly fasion. One which all information is available to the right people who can use it to control the unruly mob and masses of the underclasses.
In the past couple centuries the ruling elites have been lax in their duties and the lower classes have risen, creating a "middle class" and fostering the wrongheaded idea that every man is equal. With a new Internet combined with other mass media such wrong ideas can be properly quashed.
It will also catch some pedophiles so it is for the children and anyone who doesn't want it to be this way is obviously a perverted child molester and unpatriotic coward.
The reason we go after copyright infringement, kiddie porn(well porn in general as it is always lumped in if at all possible to kiddie porn), and things like majauana is to make as much of the general populace guilty of something that is both against the law and seen as deeply wrong with the person.
Once this is achieved the person can easily be moved to a status of lesser or non-personhood.
Example is a "Sex Offender" law. Such laws are created inevitably to protect children. However, sex offender includes any offense that is deemed sexual in nature. Public nudity, an argument with a spouse that turns violent which may indeed be an isolated incident and as much at fault with the spouse(I'm not talking about someone who regularly beats their spouse), or just pissing on the sidewalk because there is no where else to go for miles. Everyone is lumped in and assumed to behave like the worst offenders in the group, the serial rapists and violent pedophiles.
1 The False positives problem will be ignored. Already most people and lawmakers consider bit-torrent as a whole to be file sharing and thus piracy. Now they have a way to "ID" the criminals or at least their files. The false positive might work in court but your net connection would be gone long before that case comes due.
2. This might have a chance to work, provided legislation isn't passed to counteract net neutrality. If such is passed this would easily meet any definition of "reasonable" as would any number of other abuses.
3. Why are they encrypted? Must be REALLY guilty then. Though the real problem here is you'll also have to share the keys as well Not much of a problem mind you but a bit more overhead.
And if they can control the content they can charge more for it not only by charging the sender and receiver but also by adding in third party content such as commercials.
One more quick thought.
In other words what I said above is:
It would be like a human reading.
It is not wrong or illegal to read a work outloud to oneself generally. It may be wrong in some specific cases that constitute an infringing performance.
Not all performances are infringing.
One example is if I were a father and I were to read a book to my child in bed.
It would be the same as a person reading out loud except the machine itself does not have a motive.
Therefore if used for a public performance for profit it would be the profiting individual/person who turned it on who would be responsable for the infringement.
ON the otherhand if used for a private reading to oneself or in private amongst a small group then it would be perfectly within the copy-owner's rights.
"And I'm going to pretend to like it."
No no no. Don't pretend to like it. Liking it might mean another good review. Disliking it means a bad book review.
Give them a panning. Any book has its flaws and you can find them and point them out.
Drive your truck right through those plot-holes and tell the world about it!
Uhm.... no.
You are taking that an 8% unemployment rate equals the actual rate of those who are unemployed. It does not.
First of all that figure does not include retired, children and those who for what ever reason are not interested at all in having a job.
Then you'll wanna figure the people how are willing to work but don't have a job or don't have enough of a job(sorry flipping burgers does not feed a large family).
If you take all the people who don't have a job but would like one you'll need to up that figure to at least one and a half to double or more of what it is now. (Note this is closer to how they measured in the Great Depression, though they also included all "eligible" workers and didn't include women.)
If you add in all the people who are under-employed those who has part-time work that need full time and those who have a job but not enough of one(or two or three in many cases) to fit their needs then you are looking at a figure of at least double that of the reported unemployment rate.
In short the percent of the population that has a job is closer to 60 than it is to 92.
"'Bundling' that forbids vendors from including other programs is where M$ falls foul of the market and law."
Law yes. Market no. The market has no preferences toward stability or growth in any long-term situation or biases towards any greater good. The market is an unthinking non-entity that is invoked to gloss over ideas and trends which economists don't fully understand.
Exactly. It is about how to use math and misuse it. Most courses today focus solely on how to do math and any use of math is so poorly linked into the discussion that it merely becomes another obstacle between the student and getting the drudge work done.
Darrell not Darren, at least by my printing
Try
How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff
Oooh dictionary time!
Hypothesis - Noun
In science jumping to conclusions has its very own step in the Scientific Method; it is called the hypothesis.
Indeed. There are dissenting scientists from that viewpoint. However they make only a very small minority on the order of dozens or hundreds to one.
Seriously, if fair time was given to this issue you'd see at least fifty scientists who agree that global climate change caused by human interaction is a problem that does need to be addressed to every one of the non-agreers. Doesn't mean the nons shouldn't be heard but they should wait their turn after a hundred of their colleagues.
There is real debate and disagreement over what exactly will happen because of that influence and what we can do to change that. Though nearly all except for the small
Of course he said that because he is selling software.
Hardware costs cut into his possible profit margin.
Apple has changed that and it failed. I doubt Apple will be trying that again soon at least until the corporate culture sees some major changes.
You sir have never worked in tech support or talked to anyone who does.
That beast does exist.
Offer to buy Canonical? No that'd just pull the anti-trust lawyers up; better to "help" Canonical with a "donation" and buy some stock in the company.
Dude "Scratch an Itch"? You do know that philosophy has been mostly out for nearly a decade now? You do know that most Linux development is down by programmers who are being paid by a company to do so?
Also there is more than one measure of pace for the desktop market.
There is the measure that compares number of desktops running system A vs system B.
There is also the number of new desktops that run a vs b.
Also keep in mind that many of the Linux systems are often reported twice as dual boot systems with both windows and Linux.
Actually it will be just like that other twenty five times with a small but steady and increasing GROWTH rate.
Why? If it installs and breaks the system then the user may have no choice but to go and get a new computer with vista on it.
If they had kept up to date like good little users then they wouldn't of had this problem so it isn't MS's fault.
There are non-felonies where such collection might be warranted, but for the most part yes.
Yes. If you are not guilty then why do you have anything to fear?
Because there is a frighteningly high rate of conviction for INNOCENT people. DNA has helped show that with many cases overturned. Our justice system is a good one but it DOES often make mistakes and OFTEN enough to warrant some caution on the part of the common innocent citizen.
That however is not a valid argument for taking away citizens' rights or jeopardizing those rights with a clerical error.
If they want dna from a suspect they should get a warrant like everyone else. This is done for people who are in custody. There already are means and methods of judging who will be a flight risk or not and DNA testing still is not a field practice so it would only help in a small minority of cases where the person is accused and then fled.
I have no problem with taking DNA of every person who was convicted of a crime(of a certain level, parking tickets for instance probably shouldn't warrant it).
The infantry are the cheep parts. In fact if they die while on duty it costs less as the army doesn't have to shell out for education costs afterwards.