No, doubt is not required. You need to be able to recognize which theories have significant supporting evidence and which don't, and you need to be open to new evidence even if it creates doubt where otherwise there was none, but there's nothing wrong with having confidence in a theory which has a lot of evidence behind it.
... Comcast is an consumer ISP, of course the transfer is lopsided - Netflix and the rest of Cogent's customers pay Cogent to upload, Comcast's customers pay Comcast to download. Data is supposed to go in one direction, that's how it's set up.
What you're describing is the typical arrangement between networks in the middle of the process. Let's say that you have a server on network A, and someone on network D requests something from you. Any packet that you send is going to have to traverse networks B and C to get there, and B and C will have a peering arrangement exactly as you describe - those arrangements are intended to account for traffic that's just passing through the network and is generally uniform in both directions. The problem here is that the data isn't passing through Comcast's network, they are the destination. Cogent was trying to deliver the data to Comcast and Comcast refused to put in the equipment necessary to receive it.
Basically, Comcast sells itself as a consumer ISP when it's time to bill their customers and as a backbone ISP when it's time to negotiate peering arrangements. They're double dipping, charging on both ends.
As the AC pointed out, the actual translations is not "Red Sea," it's "sea of reeds" - i.e., a marsh. This makes sense, as the Israelites were in the delta region of Egypt, a marshy place that is not particularly close to the Red Sea. It's also easy to picture some poor people fleeing on foot through a marsh while the pharaoh and his men, riding chariots, would get bogged down.
Thank you, this is exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for from this thread. That looks like an excellent publication that I'd never heard of before.
Citizen's United was in 2010. That was the primary one declaring money as speech and establishing the Super PACs - it lifted any limits on contributions to political organizations that are technically separate from the politicians. This enabled a wealthy donor to contribute as much as they wished to the "Elect Politician X Organization" (Super PAC), though there were still limits on what the wealthy donor could contribute directly to the politician's campaign fund. There are some small differences between a Super PAC and the regular campaign fund, but the distinction is fairly trivial. In essence, Citizen's United was the decision that removed what remaining guards we had against the Oligarchy that the paper is talking about. Again, that was in 2010 and was doubtless factored into this analysis.
I suspect that what you're talking about is the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision which lifted another limit, this one pertaining to contributions to campaign funds, not Super PACs. This one was just a couple weeks ago. So, in other words, I think you and the GP are talking about two different decisions. He's talking about Citizen's United, and you are talking about McCutcheon.
I'm not sure you can lay the blame at rent control's feet. After all, you say yourself that it's housing developers declining to build that causes the problem. If you're going to look at just those two data points, the conclusion you might come to is that this public / private thing that America is obsessed with is a fool's game.
Of course, in reality housing is a lot more complicated than that.
Don't be so hard on them. By doing it this way, they get to stay in business and continue to advocate for network neutrality. If they did it your way they'd quickly lose all their customers and just get swept under the rug.
Ugh. Every once in a while I'm reminded of just how much we've lost (and continue to lose) with the death of print media. Byte was shut down before its time, but there used to be so many good zines like it.
I guess 2600 is still around, maybe I should get a subscription before I forget. Are there any other decent zines still in print? I should do an Ask Slashdot instead of just posting a comment...
So being for gay rights and anti-creationism is right wing?
not religiously affiliated - The religious right may get all the press, but that isn't all there is to being right-wing.
I did read your post about why you picked Gmail - what I'm saying is that your example is not only politically charged, it isn't even an example of the topic at hand. Google did not need to lobby in order to offer Gmail, Google only needed to lobby in order to read peoples' email. This was new at the time, now everyone does it and few of those have privacy policies that are even as good as Google's.
Merely referencing a bad example wouldn't upset me like this one, but you're using the invasion of privacy as a justification for lobbying. "Oh no," you're saying, "if we didn't have this corrupting influence then no one but us would be reading our personal correspondence. We can't have that, what a horrible person that Liz Figueroa was."
What, seriously? It was founded by Charles Koch, it was originally called "The Charles Koch Foundation." The Koch brothers still own it (mostly, it's a partnership) and fund it. They've been one of the primary sources of climate change denying rhetoric, their president used to be a board member of the Ayn Rand institute... how much further right can you get? They're not religiously affiliated, but they are definitely, unquestionably, right-wing.
I can't watch the Youtube video, I'm on dial-up...::sigh:: However, I can read the title and I know what Night Trap is, and I know that it has nothing to do with Gmail. My issue with your Gmail example is that Figueroa did not "want to ban it." She wanted to pass legislation that would prohibit Google from collecting marketing data by going through their customers' email. Cato turned that into "democratic senator attempting to prohibit innovative new business strategy" (I paraphrase) but at no point did Figueroa try to prevent Google from offering an email service, only from violating peoples' privacy.
As the AC points out, your example is bullshit. You could have picked network neutrality, the recent Netflix / Comcast deal makes it very low-hanging fruit, but no - you have to go with a right-wing smear campaign by the Cato institute on a Democratic senator. Brilliant.
It's not about releasing an underpowered console, it's about focusing on performance as a selling point. The Wii U can't do what either of them can graphically, but it's the only one I actually want. No DRM bullshit, no ads, no camera in my living room, the games are actually fun, off screen play... I'm getting a little sick of people treating this like it's a two horse race.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Most of the proponents of nuclear power recognize it as an interim step - something a lot less dirty than fossil fuels, but still not the goal. We would need to be doing the fusion research regardless.
You make three completely independent statements here. The first is a statement of fact: homicides are disproportionately common among young African American males. The second is an unsupported opinion: gun control isn't going to help reduce those murder rates. The third is another opinion, though I believe this one has a certain amount of support: Nor can those murder rates be explained through racism or bias in the justice system. - It's my understanding that a disproportionate level of poverty has been shown to play a significant role in the disproportionate level of violence among African American males.
Your claim about the insincerity of politicians and especially about our current president is way off base on this. Some politicians sure, there are some that have been very resistant to anything that might alleviate poverty, decrying handouts and claiming that the poor should be dependent on the largesse of the rich. The president has been extremely consistent though about resisting cuts that would impact the poorest Americans.
When I was in US, I was very puzzled at the lack of empathy in public discourse towards prison rape. This was especially surprising since US leads the world in incarceration rate
These are related statistics. They both stem from the idea that criminals, all criminals regardless of crime, are somehow different from regular folks and not deserving of compassion. It's not something that you'll ever hear explicitly stated, but implicitly when people talk about the need to be "tough on crime" and the unshakable faith that ever harsher sentences are the right approach to addressing the problem.
Actually scratch that, with slightly more careful reading I can answer my own question:
Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
According to this link, given by sribe earlier in the comments, the actual number of newly insured people is 9.3 million. The 7.1 million number is people who did it through the website only.
I'd like to see where you're getting your figure of 5 million canceled policies.
I guess we know how the masses feel. Goodbye bookstores and movies theaters, hello Twitter and Vine.
You seem to have interpreted the summary as another "our attention spans are shrinking!" article, that isn't how I read it. This is talking about how people approach lengthier bodies of text, it has nothing to do with Twitter or Vine on the surface, and I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing. What the article is saying is that we are adapting to adsorb information quickly rather than thoroughly. My claim: both things are valuable.
There are certainly problems with that plan, but the idea that you deserve some kind of compensation for basic changes to trading or how the market works is staggeringly egocentric.
Yes, you can be publicly christian in China, they ostensibly have "freedom of religion," but you have to join a state-run church. It's joining an underground church, with allegiance outside of their influence, that will get you in trouble.
You last point isn't really an obstacle, they can still call themselves married.
I'd like to take it further really, "civil union" is still a little too close to marriage and we want to get away from any semblance of government participation in a religious practice. What we're really talking about here are the legal benefits bestowed by that status, and they don't have to come as a lump - break them off into separate contracts. A couple can sign a contract for property sharing, another contract for hospital visitation rights, etc. The added abstraction of using contracts means that there's no excuse to put any limits on who can sign them: why limit property sharing to just couples? Why can't your whole hippie commune sign a contract together?
Doing it this way means that you are free to be married or unmarried according to your own religious beliefs: if you are part of a gay couple and you want to get married your church can perform the service and that's that, you're married. If someone else comes along and says that according to their religion you aren't really married then that's fine too. You can just disagree, as you doubtless do with other aspects of your beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy a Toughpad 4K for $6000 if you want. Panasonic seems to have these guys beat in every category, including most expensive.
No, doubt is not required. You need to be able to recognize which theories have significant supporting evidence and which don't, and you need to be open to new evidence even if it creates doubt where otherwise there was none, but there's nothing wrong with having confidence in a theory which has a lot of evidence behind it.
I think the mistake here is in allowing companies to set their own privacy policies.
... Comcast is an consumer ISP, of course the transfer is lopsided - Netflix and the rest of Cogent's customers pay Cogent to upload, Comcast's customers pay Comcast to download. Data is supposed to go in one direction, that's how it's set up.
What you're describing is the typical arrangement between networks in the middle of the process. Let's say that you have a server on network A, and someone on network D requests something from you. Any packet that you send is going to have to traverse networks B and C to get there, and B and C will have a peering arrangement exactly as you describe - those arrangements are intended to account for traffic that's just passing through the network and is generally uniform in both directions. The problem here is that the data isn't passing through Comcast's network, they are the destination. Cogent was trying to deliver the data to Comcast and Comcast refused to put in the equipment necessary to receive it.
Basically, Comcast sells itself as a consumer ISP when it's time to bill their customers and as a backbone ISP when it's time to negotiate peering arrangements. They're double dipping, charging on both ends.
As the AC pointed out, the actual translations is not "Red Sea," it's "sea of reeds" - i.e., a marsh. This makes sense, as the Israelites were in the delta region of Egypt, a marshy place that is not particularly close to the Red Sea. It's also easy to picture some poor people fleeing on foot through a marsh while the pharaoh and his men, riding chariots, would get bogged down.
Thank you, that was exactly what I was looking for. I'd never heard of these before and suddenly I feel like I've been missing out.
Thank you, this is exactly the sort of thing that I was looking for from this thread. That looks like an excellent publication that I'd never heard of before.
Citizen's United was in 2010. That was the primary one declaring money as speech and establishing the Super PACs - it lifted any limits on contributions to political organizations that are technically separate from the politicians. This enabled a wealthy donor to contribute as much as they wished to the "Elect Politician X Organization" (Super PAC), though there were still limits on what the wealthy donor could contribute directly to the politician's campaign fund. There are some small differences between a Super PAC and the regular campaign fund, but the distinction is fairly trivial. In essence, Citizen's United was the decision that removed what remaining guards we had against the Oligarchy that the paper is talking about. Again, that was in 2010 and was doubtless factored into this analysis.
I suspect that what you're talking about is the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision which lifted another limit, this one pertaining to contributions to campaign funds, not Super PACs. This one was just a couple weeks ago. So, in other words, I think you and the GP are talking about two different decisions. He's talking about Citizen's United, and you are talking about McCutcheon.
I'm not sure you can lay the blame at rent control's feet. After all, you say yourself that it's housing developers declining to build that causes the problem. If you're going to look at just those two data points, the conclusion you might come to is that this public / private thing that America is obsessed with is a fool's game.
Of course, in reality housing is a lot more complicated than that.
Don't be so hard on them. By doing it this way, they get to stay in business and continue to advocate for network neutrality. If they did it your way they'd quickly lose all their customers and just get swept under the rug.
Ugh. Every once in a while I'm reminded of just how much we've lost (and continue to lose) with the death of print media. Byte was shut down before its time, but there used to be so many good zines like it.
I guess 2600 is still around, maybe I should get a subscription before I forget. Are there any other decent zines still in print? I should do an Ask Slashdot instead of just posting a comment...
So being for gay rights and anti-creationism is right wing?
not religiously affiliated - The religious right may get all the press, but that isn't all there is to being right-wing.
I did read your post about why you picked Gmail - what I'm saying is that your example is not only politically charged, it isn't even an example of the topic at hand. Google did not need to lobby in order to offer Gmail, Google only needed to lobby in order to read peoples' email. This was new at the time, now everyone does it and few of those have privacy policies that are even as good as Google's.
Merely referencing a bad example wouldn't upset me like this one, but you're using the invasion of privacy as a justification for lobbying. "Oh no," you're saying, "if we didn't have this corrupting influence then no one but us would be reading our personal correspondence. We can't have that, what a horrible person that Liz Figueroa was."
nor is Cato right wing
What, seriously? It was founded by Charles Koch, it was originally called "The Charles Koch Foundation." The Koch brothers still own it (mostly, it's a partnership) and fund it. They've been one of the primary sources of climate change denying rhetoric, their president used to be a board member of the Ayn Rand institute... how much further right can you get? They're not religiously affiliated, but they are definitely, unquestionably, right-wing.
::sigh:: However, I can read the title and I know what Night Trap is, and I know that it has nothing to do with Gmail. My issue with your Gmail example is that Figueroa did not "want to ban it." She wanted to pass legislation that would prohibit Google from collecting marketing data by going through their customers' email. Cato turned that into "democratic senator attempting to prohibit innovative new business strategy" (I paraphrase) but at no point did Figueroa try to prevent Google from offering an email service, only from violating peoples' privacy.
I can't watch the Youtube video, I'm on dial-up...
As the AC points out, your example is bullshit. You could have picked network neutrality, the recent Netflix / Comcast deal makes it very low-hanging fruit, but no - you have to go with a right-wing smear campaign by the Cato institute on a Democratic senator. Brilliant.
It's not about releasing an underpowered console, it's about focusing on performance as a selling point. The Wii U can't do what either of them can graphically, but it's the only one I actually want. No DRM bullshit, no ads, no camera in my living room, the games are actually fun, off screen play... I'm getting a little sick of people treating this like it's a two horse race.
These things are not mutually exclusive. Most of the proponents of nuclear power recognize it as an interim step - something a lot less dirty than fossil fuels, but still not the goal. We would need to be doing the fusion research regardless.
You make three completely independent statements here. The first is a statement of fact: homicides are disproportionately common among young African American males. The second is an unsupported opinion: gun control isn't going to help reduce those murder rates. The third is another opinion, though I believe this one has a certain amount of support: Nor can those murder rates be explained through racism or bias in the justice system. - It's my understanding that a disproportionate level of poverty has been shown to play a significant role in the disproportionate level of violence among African American males.
Your claim about the insincerity of politicians and especially about our current president is way off base on this. Some politicians sure, there are some that have been very resistant to anything that might alleviate poverty, decrying handouts and claiming that the poor should be dependent on the largesse of the rich. The president has been extremely consistent though about resisting cuts that would impact the poorest Americans.
When I was in US, I was very puzzled at the lack of empathy in public discourse towards prison rape. This was especially surprising since US leads the world in incarceration rate
These are related statistics. They both stem from the idea that criminals, all criminals regardless of crime, are somehow different from regular folks and not deserving of compassion. It's not something that you'll ever hear explicitly stated, but implicitly when people talk about the need to be "tough on crime" and the unshakable faith that ever harsher sentences are the right approach to addressing the problem.
Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
According to this link, given by sribe earlier in the comments, the actual number of newly insured people is 9.3 million. The 7.1 million number is people who did it through the website only.
I'd like to see where you're getting your figure of 5 million canceled policies.
I guess we know how the masses feel. Goodbye bookstores and movies theaters, hello Twitter and Vine.
You seem to have interpreted the summary as another "our attention spans are shrinking!" article, that isn't how I read it. This is talking about how people approach lengthier bodies of text, it has nothing to do with Twitter or Vine on the surface, and I don't see it as necessarily a bad thing. What the article is saying is that we are adapting to adsorb information quickly rather than thoroughly. My claim: both things are valuable.
There are certainly problems with that plan, but the idea that you deserve some kind of compensation for basic changes to trading or how the market works is staggeringly egocentric.
Yes, you can be publicly christian in China, they ostensibly have "freedom of religion," but you have to join a state-run church. It's joining an underground church, with allegiance outside of their influence, that will get you in trouble.
Having a lot of fingers isn't monopolistic, having one giant finger that takes up the whole pie is.
Besides, this isn't a new finger: Google already did this with the Nexus Q.
You last point isn't really an obstacle, they can still call themselves married.
I'd like to take it further really, "civil union" is still a little too close to marriage and we want to get away from any semblance of government participation in a religious practice. What we're really talking about here are the legal benefits bestowed by that status, and they don't have to come as a lump - break them off into separate contracts. A couple can sign a contract for property sharing, another contract for hospital visitation rights, etc. The added abstraction of using contracts means that there's no excuse to put any limits on who can sign them: why limit property sharing to just couples? Why can't your whole hippie commune sign a contract together?
Doing it this way means that you are free to be married or unmarried according to your own religious beliefs: if you are part of a gay couple and you want to get married your church can perform the service and that's that, you're married. If someone else comes along and says that according to their religion you aren't really married then that's fine too. You can just disagree, as you doubtless do with other aspects of your beliefs.