Their reputation has been sullied by the mere fact of who they are. I am a huge supporter of them because they understand that the same rules that apply to unconvicted pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and terrorists also apply to every other US citizen.
Because teen pregnancy and the public health issues that come from unprotected sex cost all of us money. Money in welfare checks, money in government subsidized health clinic visits, and money that flows out of our economy every time someone decides to spend the rest of their lives praying the local factory stays open, despite the fact that there are plenty of people in third world countries who can do that job for 1/10 the pay.
Offshoring, cloud computing, automation, 'do more with less' — all of these have been chipping away at US IT workers' ability to have a job.
The only thing here that is a problem is offshoring. Cloud computing, automation, and doing more with less is our job.
And yet the downsized worker is still unemployed. The summary never said "this is a practice that must end". It only stated that the practice can lead to downsizing.
The facebook plan seems better in that it does not require you to buy extra hardware (unless you don't have a cellphone), it does not require you to carry an extra gadget around, just in case you may decide to access facebook from your public library, and it does not require you to plan your first facebook session from a public terminal several days ahead of time.
That really is insightful. He should have patented it and then told this company, "either pay your lawyers to sue me, or cut out the middleman and pay me"
Murder and theft also have a greater reason to be illegal. They infringe upon the rights of those being murdered or robbed. To me, that is the distinction. Does your society believe that they exist to protect the rights of its' citizens, or do they have some other motive, like enriching the dictator, or enforcing some dogma, such as religion or ideology?
I'm sorry your parents had trouble getting an antenna, but it's not really related to the question of whether your neighbor should be allowed to put your property, and the value of your property at risk.
As for the pursuit of happiness, that is not a constitutional right, and it was never meant to be absolute. If punching children makes me happy, then I am not allowed to pursue that happiness. If putting your neighbor at risk makes you happy, too bad.
And we do not have freedom in the sense that you think. You seem to be arguing that if we do not have absolute freedom, I.E. anarchy, then we have no freedom at all. No, we have limited freedom. In my home state, I am required to insure my car. It is liability, but the principal is the same as the one being discussed here: I cannot make stupid decisions, if those decisions will harm others.
Because your burning pile of crap is too close to my flammable pile of crap. Because the situation endangered neighbors who paid for fire protection, and lowered property values for the entire neighborhood...
No. Life insurance doesn't save your life. It would be analogous to an emergency room doctor standing around, with all of his equipment nearby, watching you die because you don't have health insurance.
If I live next to a wealthy looking neighbor, I can get him to buy my fire insurance for me just by making my property more dangerous to his. Don't want to encourage that.
Isn't this like saying "health insurance will just cause people to do more unhealthy things?" What I'm getting at is that, there is still a cost of having a fire, and that only the dumbest of the dumb would intentional create a fire hazard in exchange for free fire department service.
The fire department waited until the fire crossed the property line before dealing with the fire. Why? The neighbor had paid his fee. With that having been said, I agree 100% that the fire department was endangering others, including those who paid for the protection, by letting the fire burn out of control.
I assume you're exaggerating. You would still need some people in there to replace failing hardware to diagnose network issues that cannot be handled via ssh, and doing plain old testing (simulating network congestion, outages, load testing, and doing so in an environment as close to the deploy environment as possible).
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
For me the big deal is that my local monopoly is comcast. I can go on hulu and watch a show for free, or I can pay 99 cents to get it on demand. I have a vonage phone that I pay $15 a month for, or I can pay comcast $40 per month for their VOIP phone. I can pay 8.95 per month for netflix, and be able to stream movies and shows on my terms, or I can pay comcast $LARGE_AMOUNT for slightly better TV service ($45 for digital, plus $6 for DVR/HD, plus extra for premium channels).
So, the question is, with all these online services cutting into their profits, is it unreasonable to have a concern that they will use throttling/prioritization to give themselves an unfair advantage over all their competitors?
By that logic we should stop allowing private ownership of knives. It only takes one nutcase to cross that thin line between butchering a cow and stabbing a human.
Or we could just accept the fact that 0.001% of humans are nutters and will do stupid stuff regardless, so there's no point punishing the other 99.999% of sane persons who use various tools responsibly.
Would you characterize a bomb threat as "using various tools responsibly"? FWIW, I agree that GP is making a slippery slope argument, but terrorism is about the use of fear to achieve a political agenda. A hollow threat is just as much a terrorist act as a threat that one intends to carry out.
As someone who likes to cook, I am surprised that so many recipe books continue to get published. There are just so many free resources on the internet, but, somehow, Rachael Ray and Paula Deene keep cranking them out.
Here's an idea: do it, rather than posting on Slashdot about it.
He's posting because I'm sure that if one guy did this, he would be laughed out of court, or he would be punished with no regard to guilt, or he would be slapped with some fine that basically amounts to "harrassment/abusing public resources/you pissed us off". If half the country did it, then it might make an interesting protest.
Slashdot Mirror
Their reputation has been sullied by the mere fact of who they are. I am a huge supporter of them because they understand that the same rules that apply to unconvicted pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and terrorists also apply to every other US citizen.
Mr Obama:
Don't Bring your birth certificate!
They'll just blow it up.
Why do you need your school for that, again?
Because teen pregnancy and the public health issues that come from unprotected sex cost all of us money. Money in welfare checks, money in government subsidized health clinic visits, and money that flows out of our economy every time someone decides to spend the rest of their lives praying the local factory stays open, despite the fact that there are plenty of people in third world countries who can do that job for 1/10 the pay.
So you think that unprotected teen sex is a good idea because it worked out for somebody you know?
Offshoring, cloud computing, automation, 'do more with less' — all of these have been chipping away at US IT workers' ability to have a job.
The only thing here that is a problem is offshoring. Cloud computing, automation, and doing more with less is our job.
And yet the downsized worker is still unemployed. The summary never said "this is a practice that must end". It only stated that the practice can lead to downsizing.
"You'll be sorry in 10 years, when your daughter is the one screwing all the guys because she's bored."
Go to the safe celibate City, where her purity will be preserved, nay, NOURISHED, by the wholesome and caring young men who abide there.
Or to one where safe sex education consists of more than just a video of Brystol Palin screaming "DON'T DO IT!"
what is the source of this glaring psychological defect so many of us share about the nature of the internet?
Narcissism.
The facebook plan seems better in that it does not require you to buy extra hardware (unless you don't have a cellphone), it does not require you to carry an extra gadget around, just in case you may decide to access facebook from your public library, and it does not require you to plan your first facebook session from a public terminal several days ahead of time.
That really is insightful. He should have patented it and then told this company, "either pay your lawyers to sue me, or cut out the middleman and pay me"
The device was placed without his knowledge. So, unless:
lax gun control laws would not have helped, here.
Murder and theft also have a greater reason to be illegal. They infringe upon the rights of those being murdered or robbed. To me, that is the distinction. Does your society believe that they exist to protect the rights of its' citizens, or do they have some other motive, like enriching the dictator, or enforcing some dogma, such as religion or ideology?
I'm sorry your parents had trouble getting an antenna, but it's not really related to the question of whether your neighbor should be allowed to put your property, and the value of your property at risk.
As for the pursuit of happiness, that is not a constitutional right, and it was never meant to be absolute. If punching children makes me happy, then I am not allowed to pursue that happiness. If putting your neighbor at risk makes you happy, too bad.
And we do not have freedom in the sense that you think. You seem to be arguing that if we do not have absolute freedom, I.E. anarchy, then we have no freedom at all. No, we have limited freedom. In my home state, I am required to insure my car. It is liability, but the principal is the same as the one being discussed here: I cannot make stupid decisions, if those decisions will harm others.
There's no reason that one should have a choice
Why not?
Because your burning pile of crap is too close to my flammable pile of crap. Because the situation endangered neighbors who paid for fire protection, and lowered property values for the entire neighborhood...
No. Life insurance doesn't save your life. It would be analogous to an emergency room doctor standing around, with all of his equipment nearby, watching you die because you don't have health insurance.
If I live next to a wealthy looking neighbor, I can get him to buy my fire insurance for me just by making my property more dangerous to his. Don't want to encourage that.
Isn't this like saying "health insurance will just cause people to do more unhealthy things?" What I'm getting at is that, there is still a cost of having a fire, and that only the dumbest of the dumb would intentional create a fire hazard in exchange for free fire department service.
The fire department waited until the fire crossed the property line before dealing with the fire. Why? The neighbor had paid his fee. With that having been said, I agree 100% that the fire department was endangering others, including those who paid for the protection, by letting the fire burn out of control.
It's always nice having an unpopular name that will not be adopted by porn stars.
Lempdeck Von Scrotomeuncher
I assume you're exaggerating. You would still need some people in there to replace failing hardware to diagnose network issues that cannot be handled via ssh, and doing plain old testing (simulating network congestion, outages, load testing, and doing so in an environment as close to the deploy environment as possible).
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
For me the big deal is that my local monopoly is comcast. I can go on hulu and watch a show for free, or I can pay 99 cents to get it on demand. I have a vonage phone that I pay $15 a month for, or I can pay comcast $40 per month for their VOIP phone. I can pay 8.95 per month for netflix, and be able to stream movies and shows on my terms, or I can pay comcast $LARGE_AMOUNT for slightly better TV service ($45 for digital, plus $6 for DVR/HD, plus extra for premium channels).
So, the question is, with all these online services cutting into their profits, is it unreasonable to have a concern that they will use throttling/prioritization to give themselves an unfair advantage over all their competitors?
By that logic we should stop allowing private ownership of knives. It only takes one nutcase to cross that thin line between butchering a cow and stabbing a human.
Or we could just accept the fact that 0.001% of humans are nutters and will do stupid stuff regardless, so there's no point punishing the other 99.999% of sane persons who use various tools responsibly.
Would you characterize a bomb threat as "using various tools responsibly"? FWIW, I agree that GP is making a slippery slope argument, but terrorism is about the use of fear to achieve a political agenda. A hollow threat is just as much a terrorist act as a threat that one intends to carry out.
I love the way "I'm feeling lucky" appears next to each suggestion.
As someone who likes to cook, I am surprised that so many recipe books continue to get published. There are just so many free resources on the internet, but, somehow, Rachael Ray and Paula Deene keep cranking them out.
Are you saying Aliens might be more susceptible to T&A?
Isn't everybody?
There is also some noise of a "counterpart device for men" in the works
My balls aren't that big.
Here's an idea: do it, rather than posting on Slashdot about it.
He's posting because I'm sure that if one guy did this, he would be laughed out of court, or he would be punished with no regard to guilt, or he would be slapped with some fine that basically amounts to "harrassment/abusing public resources/you pissed us off". If half the country did it, then it might make an interesting protest.