What you describe is merely a bad contract. People are not accustomed to such contracts and as such tend to accept bad ones. I grant it is a problem. That said, the government doesn't need to stipulate the contract. Rather, we need to bootstrap some kind of market consensus as to what a proper contract looks like for any given good or service. Then you have some mechanism where by people become familiar with the distinction. And thus parents in this case know what a reasonable private school contract looks like and what an unreasonable one looks like. End of issue.
Anyone that thinks this sort of nonsense is new is kidding themselves. California and similar states as well as the federal government itself has been out of control for years with this sort of regulation.
Do we NEED to have learn to code regulated? Do you want the FCC regulating the internet?
These things are rarely resolved in court. Rather they are a test of wills. You'll have two sides dicking with each other until one or the other gets tired or fed up enough to give up.
Its like those long drawn out divorce cases. Who is right and who is wrong? The courts don't care. It just rolls along until one side or the other makes a mistake the courts care about or shows any lack of resolve... and then that side collapses.
If both sides are equally unwilling to compromise... take the Apple VS Samsung issue... then get used to that case going on... FOREVER.
You have a right to your opinion and a right to tell other people about your opinion.
You do not have a right to make me care or otherwise force me to comply.
That is the difference between a republic and mob rule.
You either agree with that or you're some mix of ignorant or barbarian. No offense. Really... no offense. But... if you think you have the right to impose your will on other people arbitrarily like that then you do not believe in a society of laws.
My point is that they literally drive intentionally to slow you down. They are obstructing traffic ON PURPOSE. They aren't there because they can't help it or because they're commuting. They're there because they want YOU not to drive. They want YOU to get on a bicycle. And rather then just making a statement about it, they feel they have a right to obstruct traffic ON PURPOSE to make cars less viable.
Which is sort of like car drivers intentionally clipping bicyclists with their cars to make that less practical. Yes, the analogy isn't perfect... They're not causing anyone bodily harm. But they are still presuming the right to influence my behavior in public space.
Its the difference between saying you disagree and getting in my way to stop me. It is the difference between holding a sign up and slashing my tires.
I have no problem with protesting. Protesting is fine.
My problem is with their belief that they can do more then protest.
They have rights... I agree. They have a right to protest.
I have a right to ignore them. That is my right. My right to not agree with them. They want to promote bicycles for example. I don't agree. I want to drive to work in the morning without being slowed down by their stupidity. I have a right to go to work without being intentionally slowed down by their protest.
These people exceed their rights and for that they deserve public scorn.
These people are dangerous radicals if not in action then in concept. Their way of thinking... entitlement... and presumptions are dangerous.
We have people in SF that feel they're entitled to stop traffic to promote bicycles with some frequency. We have people that feel they're entitled to pour sugar in the tanks of industrial machinery for pretty much any construction project.
There is a strain of radical leftism in the SF area that really needs to get its public respect pulled. I am not saying pass a law. I am not saying persecute these people with government power. Rather, I am saying that they depend on a basic level on our acceptance of their behavior and we don't have to accept it.
Their actions are not respectable. It really should stop. Stop granting them respect for their behavior. Its unacceptable.
it seems pretty thin... regardless, the law is stupid. If you sign some papers designating the male as a sperm donor only then obviously he "SHOULD" not be liable for anything indifferent to whether a doctor is used.
There is nothing inherent in the corporate structure that encourages that sort of behavior. It is within the human tendency to exploit opportunities that this weakness exists.
And therefore, the problem if it can be addressed should be addressed at that level.
Suggesting that the issue is just with corporations ignores that similar things happen in any human organization.
As to bad patches and unions... be more specific... your analogy is confusing.
The process of impregnation is not complicated. Man puts goop in cup. Girl takes cup. Puts goop in her birth canal. Girl waits a week or so to see if it resulted in a pregnancy. Rinse and repeat.
Actually you can blame them. They didn't have to tell anyone his name. They could have said "we don't know"... they chose to name him. And in naming him, they screwed him.
As to the government, they really don't amend their laws to take new circumstances into consideration. This whole sperm donor thing is not something the law understands at a deep level.
Should the judge be holding this guy accountable? Obviously not. But at some level it might not be entirely his fault since that might just be how the law is written and it isn't his job to say which laws are and are not reasonable. Rather, it is his job to judge how specific circumstances interact with the law.
In any case, let this be a lesson to men in general. Don't donate your sperm to two crazy girls over the internet.
Rather then simply ticking off each element as satisfactory or not and then moving on, you must understand that each is instead a much more complicated variable which itself might be a combination of many complex sub variables.
As such, the infrustructure of no place can be treated like some binary switch that is acceptable or not. Rather, it is an equation that influences the COST of producing goods.
Other factors when taken together with these factors yields a final cost per unit production. And THAT number is currently low enough to draw production away from the US where the cost per unit production is higher.
However, that does not mean that infrastructure in the US is not superior to China for example or that US infrastructure doesn't contribute more to productivity per unit then chinese productivity. Merely, that when all variables are calculated, the chinese manufacture is cheaper.
These attempts to oversimplify things do neither of us a service. It does not impress me and therefore has no rhetorical utility in this discussion. But more importantly, you cheat yourself of actually understanding what is a very interesting an complex issue that has real world solutions.
A common refrain from people that oversimplify is that we have to accept third world wages and working conditions to compete with the chinese. This is not accurate. Rather, we must leverage our advantages and we do have many of them to compensate for our disadvantages.
It is not a binary solution set but is rather a dynamic flow with clouds of interrelated variables of dynamically varying significance.
Frankly, I think that answers the rest of your questions sufficiently for this venue. Take from it what you will. But the doom and defeatism is intellectually lazy and not worthy of respect or acknowledgment.
1. no harder to hack in then any other hack tool that does the same thing. so you're no less safe then you are now.
2. The system could use any port number you wanted so that would be some security... there would of course be password protection and encryption. So I don't really understand your confusion.
Mostly what Logmein does is provide instant DDNS services.
All you have to do is build DDNS into your VNC server and you have the same thing. It is not complicated and it would be just about as simple as Logmein, for free, and beyond the control of rapacious companies trying to milk small time users of unreasonable fees.
its a super simple HTTP file server program. You load it up and give people the URL provided by the program and they can directly access files you host on your own computer.
I takes about 2 minutes to set up if you know what you're doing. Not much more if you don't.
All of it can be automated. You do not need a centralized server. Some combination of UPnP and DDNS is all you need.
Too many use these systems and getting kicked out into the cold should remind the community that we can and should develop our own VPN solutions free of corporate constraints.
So if I cited a report from a tabloid that the sun rose in the east and set in the west, that would be invalid even though you of course know that it did rise in the east and set in the west?
Come now... You don't like a source? I have to ask "so what"? If the information is correct then who cares where it came from is immaterial and its frankly petty to fixate on it when it doesn't really matter.
Regardless, I was using that as part of a larger argument about the politicization of the environmental movement.
It didn't used to be this much of a partisan agent. And frankly, it is unreasonable to expect cooperation and trust from all quarters of society when you are acting as the agent of a self interested faction of that society.
Quibble as I'm sure you will, but you'll just be attempting to avoid my point.
Slashdot Mirror
What you describe is merely a bad contract. People are not accustomed to such contracts and as such tend to accept bad ones. I grant it is a problem. That said, the government doesn't need to stipulate the contract. Rather, we need to bootstrap some kind of market consensus as to what a proper contract looks like for any given good or service. Then you have some mechanism where by people become familiar with the distinction. And thus parents in this case know what a reasonable private school contract looks like and what an unreasonable one looks like. End of issue.
Anyone that thinks this sort of nonsense is new is kidding themselves. California and similar states as well as the federal government itself has been out of control for years with this sort of regulation.
Do we NEED to have learn to code regulated? Do you want the FCC regulating the internet?
Etc.
Its madness. Kill it with fire.
in a long long time.
These things are rarely resolved in court. Rather they are a test of wills. You'll have two sides dicking with each other until one or the other gets tired or fed up enough to give up.
Its like those long drawn out divorce cases. Who is right and who is wrong? The courts don't care. It just rolls along until one side or the other makes a mistake the courts care about or shows any lack of resolve... and then that side collapses.
If both sides are equally unwilling to compromise... take the Apple VS Samsung issue... then get used to that case going on... FOREVER.
These things are pointless.
Yeah because prior to the revolution, anyone could vote on laws, debate issues, and get the matter passed by a government of elected officials.
Oh wait... we had a king and you're an ignorant moron.
You seriously said something so stupid that at this point you may only speak when spoken too...
Shoo...
*makes brushing motions*
Children...
Pretty much.
You have a right to your opinion and a right to tell other people about your opinion.
You do not have a right to make me care or otherwise force me to comply.
That is the difference between a republic and mob rule.
You either agree with that or you're some mix of ignorant or barbarian. No offense. Really... no offense. But... if you think you have the right to impose your will on other people arbitrarily like that then you do not believe in a society of laws.
My point is that they literally drive intentionally to slow you down. They are obstructing traffic ON PURPOSE. They aren't there because they can't help it or because they're commuting. They're there because they want YOU not to drive. They want YOU to get on a bicycle. And rather then just making a statement about it, they feel they have a right to obstruct traffic ON PURPOSE to make cars less viable.
Which is sort of like car drivers intentionally clipping bicyclists with their cars to make that less practical. Yes, the analogy isn't perfect... They're not causing anyone bodily harm. But they are still presuming the right to influence my behavior in public space.
Its not okay.
Protesting is fine. Obstructing is not.
Its the difference between saying you disagree and getting in my way to stop me. It is the difference between holding a sign up and slashing my tires.
I have no problem with protesting. Protesting is fine.
My problem is with their belief that they can do more then protest.
They have rights... I agree. They have a right to protest.
I have a right to ignore them. That is my right. My right to not agree with them. They want to promote bicycles for example. I don't agree. I want to drive to work in the morning without being slowed down by their stupidity. I have a right to go to work without being intentionally slowed down by their protest.
These people exceed their rights and for that they deserve public scorn.
These people are dangerous radicals if not in action then in concept. Their way of thinking... entitlement... and presumptions are dangerous.
We have people in SF that feel they're entitled to stop traffic to promote bicycles with some frequency. We have people that feel they're entitled to pour sugar in the tanks of industrial machinery for pretty much any construction project.
There is a strain of radical leftism in the SF area that really needs to get its public respect pulled. I am not saying pass a law. I am not saying persecute these people with government power. Rather, I am saying that they depend on a basic level on our acceptance of their behavior and we don't have to accept it.
Their actions are not respectable. It really should stop. Stop granting them respect for their behavior. Its unacceptable.
it seems pretty thin... regardless, the law is stupid. If you sign some papers designating the male as a sperm donor only then obviously he "SHOULD" not be liable for anything indifferent to whether a doctor is used.
You could always say it was a different guy. What are they going to do... a paternity test?
There is nothing inherent in the corporate structure that encourages that sort of behavior. It is within the human tendency to exploit opportunities that this weakness exists.
And therefore, the problem if it can be addressed should be addressed at that level.
Suggesting that the issue is just with corporations ignores that similar things happen in any human organization.
As to bad patches and unions... be more specific... your analogy is confusing.
Really, these people are living up to the worst reputations of capitalism.
Collusion between competitors ruins the game.
If they're going to do that, then we as consumers might as well start colluding.
Or do we need to start unionizing the programmers? I mean... it sounds drastic but this is a serious issue.
they could have said they simply didn't know. And who after all could prove otherwise?
Is this really so complicated?
Where did I eat lunch last tuesday? Have any idea? No one does. I paid cash.
Either involve the government and prepare to get everything logged. Or don't and don't.
I think he just gave them some sperm in a cup.
The process of impregnation is not complicated. Man puts goop in cup. Girl takes cup. Puts goop in her birth canal. Girl waits a week or so to see if it resulted in a pregnancy. Rinse and repeat.
Actually you can blame them. They didn't have to tell anyone his name. They could have said "we don't know"... they chose to name him. And in naming him, they screwed him.
As to the government, they really don't amend their laws to take new circumstances into consideration. This whole sperm donor thing is not something the law understands at a deep level.
Should the judge be holding this guy accountable? Obviously not. But at some level it might not be entirely his fault since that might just be how the law is written and it isn't his job to say which laws are and are not reasonable. Rather, it is his job to judge how specific circumstances interact with the law.
In any case, let this be a lesson to men in general. Don't donate your sperm to two crazy girls over the internet.
1. You're drawing the wrong conclusions.
Rather then simply ticking off each element as satisfactory or not and then moving on, you must understand that each is instead a much more complicated variable which itself might be a combination of many complex sub variables.
As such, the infrustructure of no place can be treated like some binary switch that is acceptable or not. Rather, it is an equation that influences the COST of producing goods.
Other factors when taken together with these factors yields a final cost per unit production. And THAT number is currently low enough to draw production away from the US where the cost per unit production is higher.
However, that does not mean that infrastructure in the US is not superior to China for example or that US infrastructure doesn't contribute more to productivity per unit then chinese productivity. Merely, that when all variables are calculated, the chinese manufacture is cheaper.
These attempts to oversimplify things do neither of us a service. It does not impress me and therefore has no rhetorical utility in this discussion. But more importantly, you cheat yourself of actually understanding what is a very interesting an complex issue that has real world solutions.
A common refrain from people that oversimplify is that we have to accept third world wages and working conditions to compete with the chinese. This is not accurate. Rather, we must leverage our advantages and we do have many of them to compensate for our disadvantages.
It is not a binary solution set but is rather a dynamic flow with clouds of interrelated variables of dynamically varying significance.
Frankly, I think that answers the rest of your questions sufficiently for this venue. Take from it what you will. But the doom and defeatism is intellectually lazy and not worthy of respect or acknowledgment.
1. no harder to hack in then any other hack tool that does the same thing. so you're no less safe then you are now.
2. The system could use any port number you wanted so that would be some security... there would of course be password protection and encryption. So I don't really understand your confusion.
We could do that as well.
Its really not that complicated.
Mostly what Logmein does is provide instant DDNS services.
All you have to do is build DDNS into your VNC server and you have the same thing. It is not complicated and it would be just about as simple as Logmein, for free, and beyond the control of rapacious companies trying to milk small time users of unreasonable fees.
Check out HFS:
http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/
its a super simple HTTP file server program. You load it up and give people the URL provided by the program and they can directly access files you host on your own computer.
I takes about 2 minutes to set up if you know what you're doing. Not much more if you don't.
All of it can be automated. You do not need a centralized server. Some combination of UPnP and DDNS is all you need.
meant VNC... or RDP if you prefer...
As to central servers, there are some very simple ways to make this work for non-technical people. All non-technical people need is a polished system.
Too many use these systems and getting kicked out into the cold should remind the community that we can and should develop our own VPN solutions free of corporate constraints.
Did I say anything that was inaccurate or are you just fishing for a point?
and the soviets were very good about protecting the environment.
Quit now. You're wrong. Communism is bad for the environment.
So if I cited a report from a tabloid that the sun rose in the east and set in the west, that would be invalid even though you of course know that it did rise in the east and set in the west?
Come now... You don't like a source? I have to ask "so what"? If the information is correct then who cares where it came from is immaterial and its frankly petty to fixate on it when it doesn't really matter.
Regardless, I was using that as part of a larger argument about the politicization of the environmental movement.
It didn't used to be this much of a partisan agent. And frankly, it is unreasonable to expect cooperation and trust from all quarters of society when you are acting as the agent of a self interested faction of that society.
Quibble as I'm sure you will, but you'll just be attempting to avoid my point.