You have literally glossed over everything that happens between birth and death and concluded it to be irrelevant. I'm trying not to godwin, but couldn't your argument also be used to argue that slavery or genocide is also irrelevant. After all, everybody falls into the same three step cycle.
Go fuck yourselves is a registered trademark of the world. If you use this phrase, we will sue your ass into oblivion. If your kindergarten-aged children use it, we will laugh and move on...We have some standards, and suing children falls below them.
Your experiment wouldn't answer the question at hand:
You still need a state that is open about everything except their interaction with other states. The notion that you must choose between totalitarianism, or a level of openness so extreme that it has never been tried before should indicate that you are presenting a false dichotomy.
Also, each state needs to have a set of goals. You may want to have multiple versions of each state, with conflicting goals. At this point, we would be getting closer to realistically modeling whether secrecy in diplomacy is a good thing.
Now, we see it so much, every day, that we have trouble thinking of it as exotic and futuristic. So, you bought your shoes in cyberspace...Big deal. The internet is no longer the "frontier" it used to be, and people interacting online are no longer the tech-savvy elite that you would have expected 28 years ago. Is it any surprise that we now have people scratching their heads about all the virtual reality cliches?
This article has nothing to do with NN. It is a teabagger-horror story about how if them stupid dems had been in charge during the Clinton administration*, they would have passed dumb laws that would have destroyed the internet. Network Neutrality was not one of them.
* Yes, I know Clinton is a democrat who had a democratic congress for the first part of his term. The author of the article never explains the real disconnect between what they would have done in his fantasy, and what they actually did.
The root of the issue is the backtalk and walls of text used to placate users into 'agreeing' without understanding what rights they're sundering.
That and the one-sidedness of the deal. If two people were sitting at a table negotiating a business deal and one of them said:
You can use my product, but I get to dictate how, and I get to rewrite this contract whenever I want, and, if you want to know the new terms, you need to check my website every day, and also, my product may not work. It may damage your equipment. It may yell racial slurs at your co-workers. Who knows? We can't find every bug, and we don't promise to fix it if you find one that we didn't.
Well, 9 out of 10 times. the other guy would walk out before the second sentence. But the "we dictate our terms to you" age has desensitized us to unreasonable terms.
Flash banner ads are a little more difficult, especially if they are delivered via a javascript tag that randomly returns one of several ads, and the one you want is actually in the form of a second javascript tag that returns the flash banner you need. I've never tried to save one of these ads before, but I work for a company that has a website, and sometimes, both we and our advertisers will use javascript-based invocation code, so that we can each do our own ad tracking and verify that the other party is being honest.
With that having been said, I know it can be done, but I don't know how, without having to install additional software and/or firefox plug-ins. I would expect that this would save someone the headache of having to learn how.
Of course I'm just reading this because I was hoping from the title that it would provide a way for people to support the sites they visit with less risk of viruses. Oh, well...
So did he not expect to make money off the wind power itself? Not being argumentative, just asking. It sounds like he got everything he needed to put the wind mills in place, and then gave up because he didn't get a free blow job on his way out the door.
Yes, I did read it. Did you read GP's post? GP _IS_ getting his precious placebo affect when he takes medication, so the only way the placebo affect can be better than the medication itself, is if the placebo affect is somehow working in reverse for him, or if the medication has the opposite of its' intended affect.
People insist on antibiotics, but antibiotics are no better than placebos on viral infections, and placebos don't cause antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria to evolve.
Well, sure, you say that now, but just you wait until we get placebo-resistant strains of bacteria! What'll you do then?!?;)
I'm waiting for placebo-based biological weapons. Some guy blows up a box full of flour on a bus and fifty people die of Anthrax. How would the court case play out on that?
The placebo affect comes from thinking that you are taking medication. If you are actually taking medication, then the placebo affect is part of the treatment as well. So, either you are so anti-medication that for you, the placebo affect works in reverse, or morphine is really a bad drug that doesn't do anything, and you were one of the brave few willing to announce that the emporer has no clothes.
How would a perfect being know it is perfect? One cannot be perfect while there is evidence of a measure between your incarnation and another.
Strong AI is a scale-model, and is completely paralyzed. You must hobble it to get a properly formed system to demonstrate anything human usable (other than identity properties). The fact that some parties go on with this hobbling even after it is proven that the fucking human birth canal is an adequate avenue for all sustainable purposes simply means we have not slaughtered our last traitor to the cause of life.
Anyhow, there is a test built into what you are hinting. There is a reason we are here. It is a very bloody reason and has a very real purpose in the bloodless future; the paralyzed future.
I prefer a post office analogy. The mail man doesn't get to look through your mail and charge you extra for the letters that look "really valuable". Your mailman doesn't get to block the letters from people he doesn't like, or shake down businesses, saying "I know you already paid postage, but you're mailing too much stuff out. I'm gonna have to charge you extra because you can afford to pay it".
The post office would be a highly lucrative business if they were completely unregulated, for profit, and ran themselves like an ISP. Essentially, they'd look at each package, not as a delivery to be made, but more inventory that they can sell to the intended recipient.
TFA uses the "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" game to tie Network Neutrality in with communism. This article is FUD and John Fund needs to either debate the issue or put on his tin foil hat and go home.
But the mail man does not open your letter and say "oh this is important, we're going to charge you extra for it". I have no problem with the ISP charging for the bandwidth you use. My problem is with them dictating how you use it.
Most of them lived in a time when the church controlled most of the wealth in the world. At the time, you either had to be nobility or clergy to gain even a basic education. So is it any surprise that the people who controlled the education system also made much of the scientific progress?
As for atheists, well, I don't know what we can take credit for. It wouldn't be fair to look at a scientist and say "he's an atheist, therefore atheism gets all the credit", but most modern science is not conducted in Church facilities, and most advances in modern disease treatment do not come from the Vatican, or any other religious organization.
Or to take a slightly different take on the same argument:
Is there anything man can envision that a god cannot create? If a scientist can envision a universe so fantastic that it's life can evolve through a natural process, how can you assert that your god could not have created it?
Of course, it would seem disingenuous coming from an atheist, (like me), but it still seems strange to believe in a god who must have used magic and manual intervention, and who would have had no interest in watching his invention work? It would be like building a car and then choosing to push it to the store, because although you could have made it fully functioning, you wanted it to be missing a few parts.
I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is not a partisan democrat. I have nothing against the guy, but we've argued enough issues so that I would be shocked if he had voted for Obama.
Two words... Dumb pipe... That's what we're supposed to be demanding here.
And I can't help but throw in a little "you're just the mail man. You didn't create the content. You don't own the content. You're just delivering it, so stop trying to charge extra based on what's in the envelope....
The analogy holds because both arguments are based on the slippery slope fallacy. If we allow the government to pass a regulation that defends our rights, then they will use that power to remove our rights...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure "action x is punishable by execution" is a ban on action x.
You have literally glossed over everything that happens between birth and death and concluded it to be irrelevant. I'm trying not to godwin, but couldn't your argument also be used to argue that slavery or genocide is also irrelevant. After all, everybody falls into the same three step cycle.
Go fuck yourselves.
Sincerely,
The World
Go fuck yourselves is a registered trademark of the world. If you use this phrase, we will sue your ass into oblivion. If your kindergarten-aged children use it, we will laugh and move on...We have some standards, and suing children falls below them.
Your experiment wouldn't answer the question at hand:
You still need a state that is open about everything except their interaction with other states. The notion that you must choose between totalitarianism, or a level of openness so extreme that it has never been tried before should indicate that you are presenting a false dichotomy.
Also, each state needs to have a set of goals. You may want to have multiple versions of each state, with conflicting goals. At this point, we would be getting closer to realistically modeling whether secrecy in diplomacy is a good thing.
Just today, I was reading Man Lives In Futuristic Sci-Fi World Where All His Interactions Take Place In Cyberspace. The story goes well with the review. Cyberspace used to be portrayed as this crazy password-protected ghetto where people suffered severe brain damage if someone unplugged their 2400 baud modem while they were online.
Now, we see it so much, every day, that we have trouble thinking of it as exotic and futuristic. So, you bought your shoes in cyberspace...Big deal. The internet is no longer the "frontier" it used to be, and people interacting online are no longer the tech-savvy elite that you would have expected 28 years ago. Is it any surprise that we now have people scratching their heads about all the virtual reality cliches?
This article has nothing to do with NN. It is a teabagger-horror story about how if them stupid dems had been in charge during the Clinton administration*, they would have passed dumb laws that would have destroyed the internet. Network Neutrality was not one of them.
* Yes, I know Clinton is a democrat who had a democratic congress for the first part of his term. The author of the article never explains the real disconnect between what they would have done in his fantasy, and what they actually did.
The root of the issue is the backtalk and walls of text used to placate users into 'agreeing' without understanding what rights they're sundering.
That and the one-sidedness of the deal. If two people were sitting at a table negotiating a business deal and one of them said:
You can use my product, but I get to dictate how, and I get to rewrite this contract whenever I want, and, if you want to know the new terms, you need to check my website every day, and also, my product may not work. It may damage your equipment. It may yell racial slurs at your co-workers. Who knows? We can't find every bug, and we don't promise to fix it if you find one that we didn't.
Well, 9 out of 10 times. the other guy would walk out before the second sentence. But the "we dictate our terms to you" age has desensitized us to unreasonable terms.
Flash banner ads are a little more difficult, especially if they are delivered via a javascript tag that randomly returns one of several ads, and the one you want is actually in the form of a second javascript tag that returns the flash banner you need. I've never tried to save one of these ads before, but I work for a company that has a website, and sometimes, both we and our advertisers will use javascript-based invocation code, so that we can each do our own ad tracking and verify that the other party is being honest.
With that having been said, I know it can be done, but I don't know how, without having to install additional software and/or firefox plug-ins. I would expect that this would save someone the headache of having to learn how.
Of course I'm just reading this because I was hoping from the title that it would provide a way for people to support the sites they visit with less risk of viruses. Oh, well...
So did he not expect to make money off the wind power itself? Not being argumentative, just asking. It sounds like he got everything he needed to put the wind mills in place, and then gave up because he didn't get a free blow job on his way out the door.
Yes, I did read it. Did you read GP's post? GP _IS_ getting his precious placebo affect when he takes medication, so the only way the placebo affect can be better than the medication itself, is if the placebo affect is somehow working in reverse for him, or if the medication has the opposite of its' intended affect.
He no longer works here, though I can't imagine why.
You seem to be alluding to his termination, but I imagine that it is just as likely that he got a higher-paying job somewhere else.
Well, sure, you say that now, but just you wait until we get placebo-resistant strains of bacteria! What'll you do then?!? ;)
I'm waiting for placebo-based biological weapons. Some guy blows up a box full of flour on a bus and fifty people die of Anthrax. How would the court case play out on that?
The placebo affect comes from thinking that you are taking medication. If you are actually taking medication, then the placebo affect is part of the treatment as well. So, either you are so anti-medication that for you, the placebo affect works in reverse, or morphine is really a bad drug that doesn't do anything, and you were one of the brave few willing to announce that the emporer has no clothes.
I would suspect the first option.
"They dilute a compound until they're actually giving somebody water..."
A minor distinction, perhaps, but one worth making. The majority of homoeopathic 'medicines' contain literally zero active ingredient.
That and the choice of "active ingredient" is usually bunk.
How would a perfect being know it is perfect? One cannot be perfect while there is evidence of a measure between your incarnation and another.
Strong AI is a scale-model, and is completely paralyzed. You must hobble it to get a properly formed system to demonstrate anything human usable (other than identity properties). The fact that some parties go on with this hobbling even after it is proven that the fucking human birth canal is an adequate avenue for all sustainable purposes simply means we have not slaughtered our last traitor to the cause of life.
Anyhow, there is a test built into what you are hinting. There is a reason we are here. It is a very bloody reason and has a very real purpose in the bloodless future; the paralyzed future.
Does anybody know what this guy is talking about?
I don't know what the cable companies do, but most people with contracts do have early termination fees.
I prefer a post office analogy. The mail man doesn't get to look through your mail and charge you extra for the letters that look "really valuable". Your mailman doesn't get to block the letters from people he doesn't like, or shake down businesses, saying "I know you already paid postage, but you're mailing too much stuff out. I'm gonna have to charge you extra because you can afford to pay it".
The post office would be a highly lucrative business if they were completely unregulated, for profit, and ran themselves like an ISP. Essentially, they'd look at each package, not as a delivery to be made, but more inventory that they can sell to the intended recipient.
TFA uses the "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" game to tie Network Neutrality in with communism. This article is FUD and John Fund needs to either debate the issue or put on his tin foil hat and go home.
But the mail man does not open your letter and say "oh this is important, we're going to charge you extra for it". I have no problem with the ISP charging for the bandwidth you use. My problem is with them dictating how you use it.
Most of them lived in a time when the church controlled most of the wealth in the world. At the time, you either had to be nobility or clergy to gain even a basic education. So is it any surprise that the people who controlled the education system also made much of the scientific progress?
As for atheists, well, I don't know what we can take credit for. It wouldn't be fair to look at a scientist and say "he's an atheist, therefore atheism gets all the credit", but most modern science is not conducted in Church facilities, and most advances in modern disease treatment do not come from the Vatican, or any other religious organization.
Or to take a slightly different take on the same argument:
Is there anything man can envision that a god cannot create? If a scientist can envision a universe so fantastic that it's life can evolve through a natural process, how can you assert that your god could not have created it?
Of course, it would seem disingenuous coming from an atheist, (like me), but it still seems strange to believe in a god who must have used magic and manual intervention, and who would have had no interest in watching his invention work? It would be like building a car and then choosing to push it to the store, because although you could have made it fully functioning, you wanted it to be missing a few parts.
I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is not a partisan democrat. I have nothing against the guy, but we've argued enough issues so that I would be shocked if he had voted for Obama.
Two words... Dumb pipe... That's what we're supposed to be demanding here.
And I can't help but throw in a little "you're just the mail man. You didn't create the content. You don't own the content. You're just delivering it, so stop trying to charge extra based on what's in the envelope....
Some packets are more equal than others.
Yes. Those filled with cash will buy your visitors a faster connection.
The analogy holds because both arguments are based on the slippery slope fallacy. If we allow the government to pass a regulation that defends our rights, then they will use that power to remove our rights...