1. I can see it exactly when I want, not have to wait for when it's being broadcast;
2. I don't have to pay subscription or licence fees;
3. I don't increase the wealth of people who are doing just fine already;
4. I don't have to watch any adverts or listen to any annoyingly placed continuity voiceovers;
5. (not very often, but sometimes) I can find higher quality online.
Reasons for waiting for broadcast:
1. Requires less effort - not any issue for anything popular enough;
2. Nice to be able to enjoy something all at the same time - this one is occasionally relevant;
3. Nice to have someone else pace things for you - more relaxing;
4. Concern that unicast streaming is highly inefficient - this bothers me in technical principle, but in practice servers and service providers aren't run in the public interest, so I am happy to hammer them with all Adblocking in place;
5. Well programmed, twisted sense of ethics concerning "intellectual property" .
That's nothing: I had a friend in Texas who was repeatedly misdiagnosed over a decade before it was identified that she needed a gallbladder removed. And it was lucky she had the operation in the month she did, because a short while later her husband split up from her and she had to make do without any insurance for years until her employer finally offered her coverage.
As for my gallstones, the NHS diagnosed me after a few weeks' wait for ultrasound, put me on a 3 month waiting list for operation which ended up being closer to 1 month since I was slotted in at very short notice following a cancellation, and I was better than I'd felt in years after a few days.
None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.
Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"? Last I checked, it didn't intend to create an egalitarian utopia, where the poor weren't being exploited by the rich, but to solve a few fundamental problems.
If you think some of the Foundation's investments are running counter to its specific goals, rather than more hand-wavy goals about progressive work in Third World nations, go ahead and put your case to the guys who do the cost-benefit analysis.
Every charitable mission can be identified as in some way contributing toward some sort of nastiness, even right down to the fact that no bank makes 100% ethical investments for every person's definition of ethical.
Successful man, bright man, ruthless man, and entirely correct.
Bill Gates grew up. Page and Brin may still have some growing up to do, but Bezos has no excuse. And Musk's work has always been overrated, though it's almost geek suicide to suggest so.
How does software like djbdns seem to be nearly free of discovered vulnerabilities? Is it a popularity/type-of-user thing? Or has the code genuinely been written to be almost impenetrable?
tl;dr Why do so many things need fixing in popular pieces of software which could easily command the most competent developers?
If I want a decent HDD setup, I get two with the longest warranty from WD. I've been doing this for the last decade. It's cheap and the setup always works.
If I want an SSD setup, I have no idea where to begin. Everyone says SSDs are faster, but no one says they've found them to be more reliable. Nor do I have consensus on a company which I can be confident about going to each time I want a system drive. Specs and prices seem to vary wildly in a way they don't for more mature HDD tech.
So, I currently have a 2 TB WD Black system drive - what do I replace it with?
Erm, gun culture isn't the same as gun control. One follows the other in the loooong term, and expectations are about gun culture.
To see the positive and negative effects of gun control, look at a country at least a decade later (and consider that boundedness - even it follows a global trend - *is* significant), but more insightfully a century later.
I agree that Russian communism, especially after Lenin, was nothing like Marxism (*), but guns don't make as much of a difference, since psychological manipulation is even more important than physical oppression, and someone bigger than you probably has access to a weapon much bigger than yours too.
(*) It's curious that we make a big deal out of the fact that Stalin called his tyranny "communist", but make little noise about e.g. Mussolini calling his tyranny "corporatist", even though, as fat bastard Benito said:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Being something like what the US has today. Perhaps one day the US will get over its hatred of "communists" and realise that the problem with the USSR was that it was a threat - anything else is detail, and the US has dealt with regimes far worse, providing they have agreed to cooperate.
Well said. The "core tenant" is an unclear proritisation of a vaguely delimited set of rights, and is a fine illustration of what happens when you start by observing a practice and build a theory to justify its extremes.
Yeah, this has been my reflection in this thread: that there's a difference between a country where each party expects that the other won't be carrying a gun, and a country where one party expects that the other will have a gun. The latter will considerably alter criminal behaviour - if you start banning guns, expectations won't suddenly change, so you will inevitably have a short period where only the criminal comes to the fight with a gun, and some will notice and take advantage of the power imbalance. But, in the long run, things settle, as the criminal learns that making things more lethal than they need be is likely not to his advantage.
Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.
Knife crime in certain parts of the UK is a problem, but is less likely to cause serious injury or death than gun crime. 1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also carrying a knife; 2. A gunshot is more likely to cause a fatal injury than a knife wound.
It doesn't matter much whether guns are easy to obtain. What matters is whether your opponent is likely to have a gun.
Aye, I'm not disagreeing with MSR design, but a failsafe design would be *necessary* - just having competent personnel is not sufficient. Even Chernobyl had a good number of competent personnel, but not coordinated, not in charge, and/or not with the right priorities.
So, "non-aggression" here seems to mean "don't violate people's rights" (among other possible definitions); "rights" means "not having stuff done to your person or property without your consent" (among other possible definitions); and "property" itself has all sorts of contentious definitions. That's a fairly specific and non-universal definition of non-aggression, isn't it?
Anyway, you're not referring to a "tenant" of anything, unless punning in the context of property rights... in which case well played, I guess, although I would say that the Koch brothers are the core "tenants" of libertarianism in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
1. I can see it exactly when I want, not have to wait for when it's being broadcast;
2. I don't have to pay subscription or licence fees;
3. I don't increase the wealth of people who are doing just fine already;
4. I don't have to watch any adverts or listen to any annoyingly placed continuity voiceovers;
5. (not very often, but sometimes) I can find higher quality online.
Reasons for waiting for broadcast:
1. Requires less effort - not any issue for anything popular enough;
2. Nice to be able to enjoy something all at the same time - this one is occasionally relevant;
3. Nice to have someone else pace things for you - more relaxing;
4. Concern that unicast streaming is highly inefficient - this bothers me in technical principle, but in practice servers and service providers aren't run in the public interest, so I am happy to hammer them with all Adblocking in place;
5. Well programmed, twisted sense of ethics concerning "intellectual property" .
Almost always it is the pursuit of short term and/or tactical gain at the expense of long term and/or strategic gain.
And, since everyone with a relevant amount of power knows this, most stupid is in fact evil.
That's nothing: I had a friend in Texas who was repeatedly misdiagnosed over a decade before it was identified that she needed a gallbladder removed. And it was lucky she had the operation in the month she did, because a short while later her husband split up from her and she had to make do without any insurance for years until her employer finally offered her coverage.
As for my gallstones, the NHS diagnosed me after a few weeks' wait for ultrasound, put me on a 3 month waiting list for operation which ended up being closer to 1 month since I was slotted in at very short notice following a cancellation, and I was better than I'd felt in years after a few days.
I'm too old to take that kind of bullshit seriously any more, sorry.
None of the above is counter to philanthropy - these are Foundation investments, not Bill's personal portfolio.
Have you also considered that the Foundation disagrees with your viewpoint that these investments have practices running "counter to the foundation's supposed charitable goals and social mission"? Last I checked, it didn't intend to create an egalitarian utopia, where the poor weren't being exploited by the rich, but to solve a few fundamental problems.
If you think some of the Foundation's investments are running counter to its specific goals, rather than more hand-wavy goals about progressive work in Third World nations, go ahead and put your case to the guys who do the cost-benefit analysis.
Every charitable mission can be identified as in some way contributing toward some sort of nastiness, even right down to the fact that no bank makes 100% ethical investments for every person's definition of ethical.
"Look at Hitler. He also liked dogs."
Can we get over this childish need to declare that everything which isn't pure Randite Objectivism is indistinguishable from Stalinism?
Or he's trying to drag other very wealthy people out of their comfort zone.
He doesn't have to do any of this, you know.
Successful man, bright man, ruthless man, and entirely correct.
Bill Gates grew up. Page and Brin may still have some growing up to do, but Bezos has no excuse. And Musk's work has always been overrated, though it's almost geek suicide to suggest so.
How does software like djbdns seem to be nearly free of discovered vulnerabilities? Is it a popularity/type-of-user thing? Or has the code genuinely been written to be almost impenetrable?
tl;dr Why do so many things need fixing in popular pieces of software which could easily command the most competent developers?
If I want a decent HDD setup, I get two with the longest warranty from WD. I've been doing this for the last decade. It's cheap and the setup always works.
If I want an SSD setup, I have no idea where to begin. Everyone says SSDs are faster, but no one says they've found them to be more reliable. Nor do I have consensus on a company which I can be confident about going to each time I want a system drive. Specs and prices seem to vary wildly in a way they don't for more mature HDD tech.
So, I currently have a 2 TB WD Black system drive - what do I replace it with?
What you meant to say is, "Nowhere in the world do roads compete successfully with railroads except thanks to road and motor vehicle subsidies."
Thinking about it, my grandfather barely has eyebrows any more, and my first Chemistry teacher was missing much of the fingers of one hand.
Ah, which geeky kid does not wish for a grandfather who can get anything and a chemistry teacher they're very close to...
Erm, gun culture isn't the same as gun control. One follows the other in the loooong term, and expectations are about gun culture.
To see the positive and negative effects of gun control, look at a country at least a decade later (and consider that boundedness - even it follows a global trend - *is* significant), but more insightfully a century later.
I think that men with bigger guns would have demanded the handing in of firearms before executing a genocide.
Such as in the UK, as you just stated?
I agree that Russian communism, especially after Lenin, was nothing like Marxism (*), but guns don't make as much of a difference, since psychological manipulation is even more important than physical oppression, and someone bigger than you probably has access to a weapon much bigger than yours too.
(*) It's curious that we make a big deal out of the fact that Stalin called his tyranny "communist", but make little noise about e.g. Mussolini calling his tyranny "corporatist", even though, as fat bastard Benito said:
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Being something like what the US has today. Perhaps one day the US will get over its hatred of "communists" and realise that the problem with the USSR was that it was a threat - anything else is detail, and the US has dealt with regimes far worse, providing they have agreed to cooperate.
Well said. The "core tenant" is an unclear proritisation of a vaguely delimited set of rights, and is a fine illustration of what happens when you start by observing a practice and build a theory to justify its extremes.
Yeah, this has been my reflection in this thread: that there's a difference between a country where each party expects that the other won't be carrying a gun, and a country where one party expects that the other will have a gun. The latter will considerably alter criminal behaviour - if you start banning guns, expectations won't suddenly change, so you will inevitably have a short period where only the criminal comes to the fight with a gun, and some will notice and take advantage of the power imbalance. But, in the long run, things settle, as the criminal learns that making things more lethal than they need be is likely not to his advantage.
Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.
Knife crime in certain parts of the UK is a problem, but is less likely to cause serious injury or death than gun crime. 1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also carrying a knife; 2. A gunshot is more likely to cause a fatal injury than a knife wound.
It doesn't matter much whether guns are easy to obtain. What matters is whether your opponent is likely to have a gun.
Aye, I'm not disagreeing with MSR design, but a failsafe design would be *necessary* - just having competent personnel is not sufficient. Even Chernobyl had a good number of competent personnel, but not coordinated, not in charge, and/or not with the right priorities.
Are you from human resources?
I don't get the point here? What is Facebook doing that's new for a datacentre?
and a couple of iPods...
So, $20 for a couple of Apple chargers, which I assume all charge everything non-Apple up to 500mA now? Is there a catch?
So, "non-aggression" here seems to mean "don't violate people's rights" (among other possible definitions); "rights" means "not having stuff done to your person or property without your consent" (among other possible definitions); and "property" itself has all sorts of contentious definitions. That's a fairly specific and non-universal definition of non-aggression, isn't it?
Anyway, you're not referring to a "tenant" of anything, unless punning in the context of property rights... in which case well played, I guess, although I would say that the Koch brothers are the core "tenants" of libertarianism in the US.