...if I have good reason to believe that it's very likely you're going to kill someone on the road, I'd be looking into measures to have your driving license revoked. You'd...what? You think he's going to commit murder, so you're going to take away a piece of paper? Yeah, that'll stop him.
Seriously--this is the failure of thought that leads to a lot of these silly laws. People--smart people, even--think that, if you take away permission, then somebody won't be able to do something bad.
You miss the point that if he's going to do something bad, he probably doesn't care about "permission."
This is why many of us thing the "gun control" laws are silly: they assume that the person bent on committing a violent crime gives a tinker's damn about "permission" to own a gun.
Guess what: he doesn't.
And, beyond that, are you saying that the way to handle somebody you believe is going to commit murder is to waggle your finger at him and say "no, please don't do that?" Seriously--take away a piece of paper? Are you kidding me?
Do something about it! If you have good reason, don't look into taking away his permission slip, look into taking away his freedom. He can't run people down if he's cooling his heels in a jail cell, and if you have (solid) reason to believe he's going to commit murder, he can be legally detained.
These are the twin failures of the "gun control" movement: belief that criminals care about the rules (hint: criminals, by definition, break rules), and belief that behaviour is controlled by objects, instead of people. Address the person--the criminal--not the tool.
[Outsourcing] means "we don't make stuff but want people to think we do while we just slap our label on things." The problem here is that you're working on the theory that "manufacturing" is the only way to add value to a product.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
Pick any company--we'll pick on Dell, since they're the subject of the thread, but the theory works equally well for your neighborhood grocer--and consider what value they bring you.
A product. That's nice. In fact, it's the reason we're looking to engage in commerce in the first place: we want a computer, Dell has a computer.
But Dell--or your grocer, if you want a box of cereal instead of a computer--doesn't just provide "a computer." They provide a computer right now, when you want it. You don't have to wait for custom tooling to be built (or wheat to be milled to flour, mixed with other ingredients, baked, and packaged). They provide a whole computer, instead of parts, saving you both the assembly, and--far more importantly--the (considerable) effort of brokering deals with all of the various vendors. Do you want to call Intel, nVidia, Micron, Creative Labs, Seagate, and 3Com every time you build a system?
Further, companies add value by grading and standardizing parts. Whether you think the quality is high enough or not, you have to admit that it is at least consistent. Companies put considerable effort into making sure of what they get; can you evaluate a shipment of parts yourself to assure quality? How much effort will that take, and how much time? Yes, they get fooled from time to time by counterfeiters--check out some of the leaky capacitor problems--but larger companies have A) greater resources to inspect, and B) more clout if somebody does try to pull a fast one.
Local stores (i.e. not mail order) add utility of place: you can go pick up your box of Chump-O's, or whatever strikes your fancy, down at the corner of 36th and Main, instead of having to go to the factory in Georgia (or wherever), and while you're there, get apples from Washington and oranges from Florida.
Bottom line is, "making stuff" isn't the only way to provide value; in fact, it's one of only dozens. "Slapping our label" on it means that we've done something, even if it's just providing a convenient point of contact, and that's valuable.
Automatics are already tightly regulated, and there have been a total of two (maybe three) homicides where an automatic firearm was used since 1934, when those regulations went into effect
Almost correct: legally-owned automatic firearms have been used in one homicide since 1934. Incidentally, that one was a cop using his duty weapon, which would have been exempted from a ban anyway.
Automatic firearms are not a problem in the United States and suggesting removing them as a solution to gun crime is asinine.
So far, everybody seems to be missing one of the greatest possible uses of this card: covert photography.
Think about it: reporters, or anybody else, can take pictures of, say, government abuse. They get caught, and told to delete the pictures (or have the camera confiscated). But the joke is on the jack-booted thug: the data has already been copied to a laptop in a bag carried by that unassuming guy over -->thataway.
Any opportunity to move data without the destination being easily traced is a great opportunity to route around censorship.
A dollar to every third person in the US, big deal. That was based on my hypothetical. In reality, the cost to develop a drug is almost an order of magnitude higher, at over $800 million (source: http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?ne wsid=29 It also doesn't cover the potential liability after approval (Vioxx, anybody?), it doesn't account for the cost of drugs that don't make it to market, etc. It was a simplified example to illustrate a point, not a comprehensive analysis of every cost and revenue.
Way to pick apart the hypothetical and miss the argument, though.
Here's something I wrote a few years ago, as an adjunct to a research project I did. Pretty well sums up the reason we have IP in the first place.
Why Importing Drugs Hurts Us
I was reading an article today discussing a bill that would ban the import of cut-rate drugs from other countries. Specifically, the author hinted that those who oppose importing drugs (namely the Bush administration) are selling out their constituents health in favor of drug company profits, and that they were Bad People for doing so.
On the face of it, importing medications from Canada, Australia, etc. sounds like a good idea: the drugs are cheaper there, so we can save money by importing them, rather than buying them at home. In the short term, it probably is beneficial.
In the long term, it's disastrous.
Potent, effective medications don't just appear in the bottom of a test tube. Sure, most of them are fairly cheap to produce--chemical mixing and reactions are a fairly well-developed industry, and compounds can be made in massive scale for relatively insignificant amounts of money. These are the marginal costs: the cost of making, say, one pound of the stuff. Let's take a hypothetical drug, Footrex. Footrex cures hoplophobia. Certainly, we can all agree that Footrex is a useful drug--possibly a miracle drug, if it's effective--and that it can improve the quality of life for some people. (Some of us might even argue that it should be put into the water supply.) Let's say that every pound of Footrex costs one dollar to manufacture--the cost of raw materials, the cost of paying the employees, the cost of packaging, etc. A dollar a pound from ten buckets of different chemicals to the boxes in the warehouse, waiting to go on the truck. Let's also assume that a standard dose is 70 grains (deliberately chosen to keep the math simple).
Under these assumptions, then, a price of one cent per dose seems to be the breakeven point, right?
Not even close.
The problem is that, while it only takes a dollar to produce one pound of Footrex, we're working from a known formula--three ounces Hodgdon's, an ounce of Hoppe's #9, two ounces of lead, a trace of copper, etc. Fairly easy to put together. That price reflects the cost of producing Footrex, but it doesn't take into account the cost of developing Footrex. Let's say, then, that it cost $100,000,000 to develop Footrex--research, development, clinical trials, reformulation after the trials, new trials, etc. Those costs are sunk before the first pill gets stuck in those damned blister packs and pill bottles.
Suddenly, that one-cent dose is starting to look like a losing proposition. At that price, Foomaceuticals could sell an infinite amount of the stuff, and still be a hundred million in the hole. Even at $1.01 per dose, they'd have to sell a dose to every third person in the country just to break even.
Now, consider that not every drug makes it to market; in fact, only a small percentage do. Let's call it 1% (in reality, it's much smaller than that). Now, we have to charge $100.01 per dose to cover the costs of everything that went into developing Footrex, and also cover all of the dead ends encountered along the way. And that's if a third of the population (a ridiculously high number for almost all drugs) decides it needs Footrex.
So, Foomaceuticals develops Footrex, and prices it at $125/dose (because they want to make a profit on their not-insignificant investment). People balk at the price, say they can't afford it. Socialists whine that "it isn't fair, poor people can't afford this!" Politicians, always looking for a way to buy more votes, hold Congressional hearings about the high cost of Footrex, and allege that Foomaceuticals is overcharging people for this drug that only costs one cent per dose to produce. Anxious to be seen Doing Something, Congress votes to import barazine HCl (the generic chemical name for Footrex) from Joe's House of Random Compounds, based in Oz. Joe's r
The role of a jury is supposed to be one of determining the facts. Juries are within their domain as long as they only do fact finding. Judges are supposed to determine the law.
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
--John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
It's fine if we are talking about putting your life, or your wife's/ mother's/ sister's/ brother's life on the line to determine the market forces for installing these things. However, I do not want mine on the line for it.
That's why you'd be free to buy your tickets from the airline that does install the lasers.
...but doesn't this say the amendment was withdrawn? (If the link fails to work, look up HR 1268, then Senate Amendment 429, on http://thomas.loc.gov.)
Digital Technical Support: 1-800-Nikon-UX ( 1-800-645-6689 ). Have your digital product, serial number and computer (if applicable) available. First level telephone support is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/ php/enduser/std_adp.php?&p_faqid=238 They also give a phone number to call to buy a copy of Nikon Capture; that number is 1-877-876-4770.
Funny enough, I'm in the market for a camera right now. I've been looking forward to the release of the D50 for a while now, and it looks like it's officially been announced (in the UK, anyway). Pity they had to go and pull a bonehead move like this; guess I'll have to drop a thousand bucks on somebody else's products.
For 200+ years, Congress has just said that 99% of their rules are allowed because they affect interstate commerce in some vague, tertiary way, and they do have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Actually, most of that comes from the landmark case Wickard v. Filburn, ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1942. That case has been instrumental in expanding Congress's power to regulate commerce, regardless if whether it crosses state lines. The recent US v. Lopez case hinges upon that doctrine; the Supreme Court's opinion on that case talks about Wickard in pretty plain language:
"[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as `direct' or `indirect.' " Id., at 125.
The Wickard Court emphasized that although Filburn's own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.
Jones & Laughlin Steel, Darby, and Wickard ushered in an era of Commerce Clause jurisprudence that greatly expanded the previously defined authority of Congress under that Clause. In part, this was a recognition of the great changes that had occurred in the way business was carried on in this country. Enterprises that had once been local or at most regional in nature had become national in scope. But the doctrinal change also reflected a view that earlier Commerce Clause cases artificially had constrained the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
For the full opinion in US v. Lopez, with more explanation of these precedents, visit http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html. In Lopez, the court overturned an overreaching restriction because it did not materially affect interstate commerce.
Fortunately, we're not bound by precedent set in German courts. That whole "sovereign nation" thing.
(Not that I don't want the GPL to be valid--I do, and I think it is--just that I don't think foreign courts ought to have jurisdiction over American legal matters.)
Re:Under Sharia law, the scammers get a hand cut o
on
419 Scammer Gets Scammed
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
According to the Bible, if you find a thief breaking in, you can simply kill him.
That's how it is according to Oklahoma law, too, and many other states.
It's called the "make my day" law: if I find you breaking into my home (castle doctrine), you are presumed to be there with the capability and intent to do me harm. Accordingly, I can employ lethal force in my own defense. And, for the record, I don't consider this barbaric at all: if you're invading my home, why should I have to stand at grave disadvantage and risk of grievous bodily harm while determining what your plans are? Out on the street, in public, etc., yes--circumstances are open to interpretation, and I need to be sure that the threat actually exists. When you break into my home, though, you're explicitly demonstrating some threat, even unarmed. There is no confusion about your intent when you've broken into my home: you're there to break the law, and you've demonstrated that by doing so (B&E is illegal). How many more laws you're going to break, I don't know, but I'm not obliged to wait for you to start assaulting/killing/raping/etc. me/my family before I act defensively.
Anyhow, no, Islam is not unique in how it deals with home invasion, but I don't consider that barbaric, just good defensive practice. As for hand-chopping, well, I don't care for the practice (I think it is barbaric), and I don't like the idea of selling him into slavery, either (though I'm quite fond of the idea of restitution), but I don't get to make those decisions (at least not until I take over the world).
Did anybody else notice that whois.sc is using IE (or IE libraries) to take the screenshots? I took a look at my flight school's web site, and the center pane was misaligned; this is due to a CSS bug in IE that I've not yet worked around. I also took a look at my homepage, and it rendered one of the transparent PNGs on a grey background (with the normally-invisible black text clearly visible--it should say "If you can read this text, click 'about this site' to find out why!" "About This Site" is a page that talks about IE bugs.). It should be noted that I'm looking at whois.sc with Moz, so the rendering issue isn't here; also, the screenshot image is a JPEG.
1) It goes to High Cost telecom services (when Joe Blow built his house 40 miles away from the closest neighbor but wants phone service that doesn't cost $400 a month.)
...and probably also pays less rent, property tax, etc. If Joe chooses to live in such a way as to exclude himself from the low-cost infrastructure, I don't see where it's my responsibility to, essentially, supplement his income to the amount required to overcome his additional infrastructure costs.
It goes to for Low Income telecommunications. Anyone that has 'life line' service (my grandmother has it, she's on a fixed income) that's very cheap so that she can call 911 if she gets sick. Without it, her phone bill would be affordable to her.
I assume you mean unaffordable. In any case, my income is fixed, too; I haven't seen a raise in some time, and, in fact, have seen my pay cut a couple of times. Again, I don't see where it's my job to provide for your grandmother. If it's that critically important to you that she have phone service, why don't you pay for it? Does the phone company there have some sort of rule saying that only the occupant of the home is permitted to pay the bill?
It also goes to Rural Health Care to supplement the cost of providing health care to rural towns or locations. They supplement their Internet Access (for Medical purposes) and Telecommunications; without this, there would be a lot fewer resources available to rural health care clinics that may provide health care to 2,000 people who otherwise would have to drive 100 miles.
Funny enough, I work in this very industry: I connect and support teleradiology systems. Several of our clients use Federal grant money to pay for their connections. Most of them are community- (locally-) funded hospitals. If the community can fund a hospital, surely a T1 won't be that big of a deal. Doubly true if the Feds quit mugging them for a third of their paycheques, and squandering it inefficiently (as this article points out).
Finally, it provides access to Schools and Libraries to help bring a low telecommunications cost for both the telephones in a school and for Internet Access (whatever is required from the ISP all the way to the classroom demarcation point).
See previous comment. %s/hospital/school/g.
Internet access to every classroom? Bah! I went to a school with new computers in every classroom, connected to the network, with at least a T1 feeding the thing, and I'm inclined to think more than that. Know what I saw of it? Teachers e-mailing each other for things that work just fine through inter-building mail, and the near-daily announcement that "the network is down, teachers, please turn off your computers." The only machines that students were even permitted to use were the lab machines (ancient IBM terminals, don't recall the model, but monitor and machine integrated, like an eMac), and the only network access they had was to the networked printers. Big deal. There was more "educational" software in the Apple II lab across the hall.
And, while we're on the subject of "educational" software, what, exactly, does it teach that can't be taught without the nifty box with the glowing screen? Has math changed with the advent computers? Does 1 + 1 still equal 2? Is dy/dx of x^2 + 3x + 5 still equal to 2x + 3? Did I miss something here? As far as I've seen, the only thing computers have really done to education is to spawn a generation of kids who can't give a presentation without reading from a glitzy PowerPoint presentation (with little actual content), one that doesn't know spelling or grammar beyond the little green and red squigglies under the words (warranty, BTW, and, in the English language, we don't generally capitalize nouns (more of a German thing, really), and plural-possessive "school" would be "schools,'" with the apostrophe after the trailing "s" ), and one that
What about vetting at least the image-based spam for checksumming? Scan the e-mail for image links (or images included inline). If there's a link, check it against the known list of spam links. If it's in the list, mark the message as spam. Spammers will quickly figure that trick out, though, so step two would be for Google to follow those links, and retrieve the images. Run a checksum of the image file itself; if there are a lot (say, a thousand) messages including the same image, tag it as spam. This combines spam filtering with the fun of reminding spammers that Google has an order of magnitude more bandwidth than they do. Use their own messages against them: the more you spam, the bigger the Slashdotting (Googling? Alas, that word's already taken.)
For bonus points, keep the downloaded images in the Google cache; keeps them available for the mail user, alleviating the load on the sending site for legitimate messages, and keeps them available for, well, the Google cache.
Slashdot Mirror
...if I have good reason to believe that it's very likely you're going to kill someone on the road, I'd be looking into measures to have your driving license revoked. You'd...what? You think he's going to commit murder, so you're going to take away a piece of paper? Yeah, that'll stop him.Seriously--this is the failure of thought that leads to a lot of these silly laws. People--smart people, even--think that, if you take away permission, then somebody won't be able to do something bad.
You miss the point that if he's going to do something bad, he probably doesn't care about "permission."
This is why many of us thing the "gun control" laws are silly: they assume that the person bent on committing a violent crime gives a tinker's damn about "permission" to own a gun.
Guess what: he doesn't.
And, beyond that, are you saying that the way to handle somebody you believe is going to commit murder is to waggle your finger at him and say "no, please don't do that?" Seriously--take away a piece of paper? Are you kidding me?
Do something about it! If you have good reason, don't look into taking away his permission slip, look into taking away his freedom. He can't run people down if he's cooling his heels in a jail cell, and if you have (solid) reason to believe he's going to commit murder, he can be legally detained.
These are the twin failures of the "gun control" movement: belief that criminals care about the rules (hint: criminals, by definition, break rules), and belief that behaviour is controlled by objects, instead of people. Address the person--the criminal--not the tool.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
Pick any company--we'll pick on Dell, since they're the subject of the thread, but the theory works equally well for your neighborhood grocer--and consider what value they bring you.
A product. That's nice. In fact, it's the reason we're looking to engage in commerce in the first place: we want a computer, Dell has a computer.
But Dell--or your grocer, if you want a box of cereal instead of a computer--doesn't just provide "a computer." They provide a computer right now, when you want it. You don't have to wait for custom tooling to be built (or wheat to be milled to flour, mixed with other ingredients, baked, and packaged). They provide a whole computer, instead of parts, saving you both the assembly, and--far more importantly--the (considerable) effort of brokering deals with all of the various vendors. Do you want to call Intel, nVidia, Micron, Creative Labs, Seagate, and 3Com every time you build a system?
Further, companies add value by grading and standardizing parts. Whether you think the quality is high enough or not, you have to admit that it is at least consistent. Companies put considerable effort into making sure of what they get; can you evaluate a shipment of parts yourself to assure quality? How much effort will that take, and how much time? Yes, they get fooled from time to time by counterfeiters--check out some of the leaky capacitor problems--but larger companies have A) greater resources to inspect, and B) more clout if somebody does try to pull a fast one.
Local stores (i.e. not mail order) add utility of place: you can go pick up your box of Chump-O's, or whatever strikes your fancy, down at the corner of 36th and Main, instead of having to go to the factory in Georgia (or wherever), and while you're there, get apples from Washington and oranges from Florida.
Bottom line is, "making stuff" isn't the only way to provide value; in fact, it's one of only dozens. "Slapping our label" on it means that we've done something, even if it's just providing a convenient point of contact, and that's valuable.
Perhaps you should take that as a sign that it's time to leave that city and move someplace with a more sane cost of living.
Or a rock band.
Pepper spray is also next to useless. A better option is a spray can of WD40 at the eyes. I'm told that's very nasty, and effective.
A better solution yet is a 1911, and in the majority of states, it can be legally carried with a "shall-issue" permit.
Automatics are already tightly regulated, and there have been a total of two (maybe three) homicides where an automatic firearm was used since 1934, when those regulations went into effect
Almost correct: legally-owned automatic firearms have been used in one homicide since 1934. Incidentally, that one was a cop using his duty weapon, which would have been exempted from a ban anyway.
Automatic firearms are not a problem in the United States and suggesting removing them as a solution to gun crime is asinine.
True.
So far, everybody seems to be missing one of the greatest possible uses of this card: covert photography.
Think about it: reporters, or anybody else, can take pictures of, say, government abuse. They get caught, and told to delete the pictures (or have the camera confiscated). But the joke is on the jack-booted thug: the data has already been copied to a laptop in a bag carried by that unassuming guy over -->thataway.
Any opportunity to move data without the destination being easily traced is a great opportunity to route around censorship.
A dollar to every third person in the US, big deal.e wsid=29 It also doesn't cover the potential liability after approval (Vioxx, anybody?), it doesn't account for the cost of drugs that don't make it to market, etc. It was a simplified example to illustrate a point, not a comprehensive analysis of every cost and revenue.
That was based on my hypothetical. In reality, the cost to develop a drug is almost an order of magnitude higher, at over $800 million (source: http://csdd.tufts.edu/NewsEvents/RecentNews.asp?n
Way to pick apart the hypothetical and miss the argument, though.
The role of a jury is supposed to be one of determining the facts. Juries are within their domain as long as they only do fact finding. Judges are supposed to determine the law.
You misparsed that. They said they're going to "get tough;" they're going to send Birmingham Small Arms after violators!
It's fine if we are talking about putting your life, or your wife's/ mother's/ sister's/ brother's life on the line to determine the market forces for installing these things. However, I do not want mine on the line for it.
That's why you'd be free to buy your tickets from the airline that does install the lasers.
...but doesn't this say the amendment was withdrawn? (If the link fails to work, look up HR 1268, then Senate Amendment 429, on http://thomas.loc.gov.)
Digital Technical Support:/ php/enduser/std_adp.php?&p_faqid=238
1-800-Nikon-UX ( 1-800-645-6689 ). Have your digital product, serial number and computer (if applicable) available. First level telephone support is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg
They also give a phone number to call to buy a copy of Nikon Capture; that number is 1-877-876-4770.
Funny enough, I'm in the market for a camera right now. I've been looking forward to the release of the D50 for a while now, and it looks like it's officially been announced (in the UK, anyway). Pity they had to go and pull a bonehead move like this; guess I'll have to drop a thousand bucks on somebody else's products.
...how many LoCs of storage space will it need?
it isn't theft anymore, because most people believe it's not really wrong
Ah, so, if most people don't think it's wrong, then it's OK?
Consider: in the 1700's, most people didn't have a problem with slavery. Was it wrong?
Yes, Virginia, there are moral absolutes.
For 200+ years, Congress has just said that 99% of their rules are allowed because they affect interstate commerce in some vague, tertiary way, and they do have the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Actually, most of that comes from the landmark case Wickard v. Filburn, ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1942. That case has been instrumental in expanding Congress's power to regulate commerce, regardless if whether it crosses state lines. The recent US v. Lopez case hinges upon that doctrine; the Supreme Court's opinion on that case talks about Wickard in pretty plain language:
For the full opinion in US v. Lopez, with more explanation of these precedents, visit http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.Z
That's probably the most polite way of saying "fuck off" I've ever heard.
They are litterally (sic) *hanging* themselves
Literally, eh? So, exactly what sort of rope are they using? Are they going with a gallows, or just making do with trees?
Or perhaps you're just illiterate.
It stood up in court recently in Germany, AFAIK
Fortunately, we're not bound by precedent set in German courts. That whole "sovereign nation" thing.
(Not that I don't want the GPL to be valid--I do, and I think it is--just that I don't think foreign courts ought to have jurisdiction over American legal matters.)
According to the Bible, if you find a thief breaking in, you can simply kill him.
That's how it is according to Oklahoma law, too, and many other states.
It's called the "make my day" law: if I find you breaking into my home (castle doctrine), you are presumed to be there with the capability and intent to do me harm. Accordingly, I can employ lethal force in my own defense. And, for the record, I don't consider this barbaric at all: if you're invading my home, why should I have to stand at grave disadvantage and risk of grievous bodily harm while determining what your plans are? Out on the street, in public, etc., yes--circumstances are open to interpretation, and I need to be sure that the threat actually exists. When you break into my home, though, you're explicitly demonstrating some threat, even unarmed. There is no confusion about your intent when you've broken into my home: you're there to break the law, and you've demonstrated that by doing so (B&E is illegal). How many more laws you're going to break, I don't know, but I'm not obliged to wait for you to start assaulting/killing/raping/etc. me/my family before I act defensively.
Anyhow, no, Islam is not unique in how it deals with home invasion, but I don't consider that barbaric, just good defensive practice. As for hand-chopping, well, I don't care for the practice (I think it is barbaric), and I don't like the idea of selling him into slavery, either (though I'm quite fond of the idea of restitution), but I don't get to make those decisions (at least not until I take over the world).
Did anybody else notice that whois.sc is using IE (or IE libraries) to take the screenshots? I took a look at my flight school's web site, and the center pane was misaligned; this is due to a CSS bug in IE that I've not yet worked around. I also took a look at my homepage, and it rendered one of the transparent PNGs on a grey background (with the normally-invisible black text clearly visible--it should say "If you can read this text, click 'about this site' to find out why!" "About This Site" is a page that talks about IE bugs.). It should be noted that I'm looking at whois.sc with Moz, so the rendering issue isn't here; also, the screenshot image is a JPEG.
1) It goes to High Cost telecom services (when Joe Blow built his house 40 miles away from the closest neighbor but wants phone service that doesn't cost $400 a month.)
...and probably also pays less rent, property tax, etc. If Joe chooses to live in such a way as to exclude himself from the low-cost infrastructure, I don't see where it's my responsibility to, essentially, supplement his income to the amount required to overcome his additional infrastructure costs.
It goes to for Low Income telecommunications. Anyone that has 'life line' service (my grandmother has it, she's on a fixed income) that's very cheap so that she can call 911 if she gets sick. Without it, her phone bill would be affordable to her.
I assume you mean unaffordable. In any case, my income is fixed, too; I haven't seen a raise in some time, and, in fact, have seen my pay cut a couple of times. Again, I don't see where it's my job to provide for your grandmother. If it's that critically important to you that she have phone service, why don't you pay for it? Does the phone company there have some sort of rule saying that only the occupant of the home is permitted to pay the bill?
It also goes to Rural Health Care to supplement the cost of providing health care to rural towns or locations. They supplement their Internet Access (for Medical purposes) and Telecommunications; without this, there would be a lot fewer resources available to rural health care clinics that may provide health care to 2,000 people who otherwise would have to drive 100 miles.
Funny enough, I work in this very industry: I connect and support teleradiology systems. Several of our clients use Federal grant money to pay for their connections. Most of them are community- (locally-) funded hospitals. If the community can fund a hospital, surely a T1 won't be that big of a deal. Doubly true if the Feds quit mugging them for a third of their paycheques, and squandering it inefficiently (as this article points out).
Finally, it provides access to Schools and Libraries to help bring a low telecommunications cost for both the telephones in a school and for Internet Access (whatever is required from the ISP all the way to the classroom demarcation point).
See previous comment. %s/hospital/school/g.
Internet access to every classroom? Bah! I went to a school with new computers in every classroom, connected to the network, with at least a T1 feeding the thing, and I'm inclined to think more than that. Know what I saw of it? Teachers e-mailing each other for things that work just fine through inter-building mail, and the near-daily announcement that "the network is down, teachers, please turn off your computers." The only machines that students were even permitted to use were the lab machines (ancient IBM terminals, don't recall the model, but monitor and machine integrated, like an eMac), and the only network access they had was to the networked printers. Big deal. There was more "educational" software in the Apple II lab across the hall.
And, while we're on the subject of "educational" software, what, exactly, does it teach that can't be taught without the nifty box with the glowing screen? Has math changed with the advent computers? Does 1 + 1 still equal 2? Is dy/dx of x^2 + 3x + 5 still equal to 2x + 3? Did I miss something here? As far as I've seen, the only thing computers have really done to education is to spawn a generation of kids who can't give a presentation without reading from a glitzy PowerPoint presentation (with little actual content), one that doesn't know spelling or grammar beyond the little green and red squigglies under the words (warranty, BTW, and, in the English language, we don't generally capitalize nouns (more of a German thing, really), and plural-possessive "school" would be "schools,'" with the apostrophe after the trailing "s" ), and one that
What about vetting at least the image-based spam for checksumming? Scan the e-mail for image links (or images included inline). If there's a link, check it against the known list of spam links. If it's in the list, mark the message as spam. Spammers will quickly figure that trick out, though, so step two would be for Google to follow those links, and retrieve the images. Run a checksum of the image file itself; if there are a lot (say, a thousand) messages including the same image, tag it as spam. This combines spam filtering with the fun of reminding spammers that Google has an order of magnitude more bandwidth than they do. Use their own messages against them: the more you spam, the bigger the Slashdotting (Googling? Alas, that word's already taken.)
For bonus points, keep the downloaded images in the Google cache; keeps them available for the mail user, alleviating the load on the sending site for legitimate messages, and keeps them available for, well, the Google cache.
There seems to be a lot of talk about India on SlashDot lately. Are the editors being outsourced there too?
If so, it could only improve the editors' grammar.