These kinds of "rights" force an obligation on someone else. The way you've defined your "right" not to be hungry implies an obligation on me to provide that right, and if I don't pay up to provide you with this right, I'm going into a cage for some time.
The idea that libertarians are against taxation because they don't want to help the poor completely misses the point. The point is that if I want to help the poor, I will donate my time and money to some cause or charity at my discretion, not because someone told me I had to or else I'd go to jail. Nobody has more right to the fruits of my labor than I do. By taking my money from me (in the form of taxation), that's what you're saying. Sugar-coat it all you want in good intentions and noble causes, and feeding and housing the poor and sick are certainly noble causes, but the moment you define someone's right like that, you've also defined an obligation on someone. That's the point of libertarianism, and that's the point people miss when they criticize libertarians, that there are two sides to these rights as you define them. Yes, someone gets something they might need, but someone else is forced to provide it.
Yes, you do have the right not to be hungry, in that nobody should be allowed to prevent you from feeding yourself. You do have the right to warmth, in that nobody should be allowed to steal your home or your clothes.
The freedom to harm is fundamental, said no libertarian ever.
I had an Atari computer (1200XL I believe). I remember that 9 times out of 10, the computer program in the 3-2-1 Contact would not have an Atari version. I was always so disappointed. Sometimes they would have a little section that would say, "Take the Apple IIe program and change this line to say this, and that line to say that." Little did I know that you could pretty much do this for every program, that BASIC was mostly the same across the platforms, except for a few differences that you could get around.
is an idiot. Most factories that aren't run with slave labor are 90-99% machines. Look up how applesauce gets made, or sleeping bags, sometime. Hell, even with slaves Foxconn is switching to robots. We're running out work to do. My buddy drives truck for a living. 10, 15 years from now that job won't exist. Again, robots.
So, when there's not enough work to go around, what do we do? Do we let 98% starve (lazy bastards), 1% work as slaves and then 1% live like God-Kings? Do you know an alternative? I'm anxious to hear a solution that doesn't boil down to socialism.
You're ignoring the savings that improved productivity gives us. At that point, everything's cheaper. That's why standards of living so greatly improved with the Industrial Revolution. We had machines take over a lot of manual labor, and the standard of living improved for everyone. Yes, the rich got richer, but the poor got richer too, and everyone could buy more things or services.
There will ALWAYS be work to be found. When better-off people (even middle-class) can buy their necessities with less money than they used to be able to because everything's cheaper, they'll have more money left over to spend on other stuff. Somebody's going to fill that role. This is what we mean when we say "the pie gets bigger".
Question: Practically speaking, why would anyone want to fork the Android SDK? If someone wants to make an alternative IDE, they could still build it on top of the existing SDK and require you to download the Android SDK, similar to how the eclipse plug-in works now (I think). I suppose someone with ulterior motives could replace portions of the SDK to insert calls back to their data center into a developers code. But someone like that's not going to worry about what Google tells them.
Can't you just lock your phone before they grab it? One button and the phone is locked. They may be able to pull your SD card but they won't be able to access your accounts.
Isn't profit an indicator of things getting better? If I sell you something, I hopefully make a profit, and your life is better because you valued what I sold you more than you valued what else you could have bought with that money.
This is ridiculous. Nobody's forcing the town to make this deal. If they thought it was a money-loser, they wouldn't have made the deal. If YOU think it's a money-loser, and you can get enough people to agree with you, feel free to vote the bums out on the basis of, "We've got idiot lawmakers who are no good at math." If you can't get enough people to agree with you, either you're wrong, or you live in a town full of other people who aren't good at math and are throwing your tax money down the drain, in which case you should consider either not paying taxes, or moving.
Then if the state of North Dakota decides it's in their best interests to pitch in to pay for tsunami monitoring in California, they can voluntarily write a check every month. OR, if North Dakota benefits from California not being overrun by a tsunami, then they won't mind paying a little more for the goods they receive from California, which will be used to pay for tsunami monitoring.
I imagine most home users don't have IPv6 addresses. Ideally, everyone would slowly start to switch over to IPv6, with sites having both v4 and v6 addresses serving the same content, and users that are connected with a v6 address getting addresses from a DNS that supports v6 would connect using v6. But where I live, I don't get an IPv6 address with Fios. I imagine the big ISPs don't give residential users v6 addresses nationally and globally.
But most apps will let you press the back button until you're out of the app. This actually does save you some memory because the activity that was active will unload when you back out of it, as opposed to continuing to run in the background when you press the home button. Most apps that need to run in the background will have a service component that runs in the background, and a UI activity that lets you interact with it. If you kill the UI by backing out of it, the service component still runs in the background. In this case, the only way to get out is to press the home button. That makes me wonder, did they disable the back button on the main screen on purpose? Are the UI and the service functionality all wrapped up in the UI activity? In which case killing the UI would also kill the whole app? Or is there a service component as well, and this is just a UI quirk?
I'm in the same boat. I can't believe they can just do this. Unbelievable. I'm just sitting here in shock. Luckily, my school work will be finished in a couple months. Hopefully my wife won't accidentally update the firmware in the mean time, or I'm in big trouble.
I gladly trade my privacy for the convenience Google provides me. I use a lot of their services, and I get two benefits. I get to use their services for free, and, on the rare case that my eye wanders over to an ad, it's usually something I might want to buy.
It's good to be concerned about protecting your privacy. But that doesn't mean that you have to keep your browsing habits, email conversations, etc. from everyone just for its own sake. Google proposes trading that information for lots of convenience. I gladly make that trade. I feel that the services they provide me are worth more than keeping my internet life a secret from them. So Google wins, and I win. I couldn't be happier.
Some pushy salesman at Lockheed Martin wore down the Air Force about how wonderful the Satellite Protection program was. The Air Force stood there wondering whether it really needed the protection program, or whether it would take its chances, seeing how most of these protection programs are ripoffs.
Have you found that using a hypervisor-based virtualization product is better than using a hosted one (VMWare Workstation, VirtualBox, VirtualPC, etc.) for someone that regularly needs to switch OSes? For example, I mostly run Vista. Sometimes I find I need to boot up an XP virtual machine in order to do certain things for work since the apps I need to use will not run on Vista. Sometimes I'm in Linux and won't need my main host OS for a while at a time. I'm also trying to learn to write apps for another OS I'm not supposed to be running on my hardware. That runs on bare metal on a separate drive, under dual-boot. Are products like xVM, ESIx, etc. suitable for installing OSes at home and interacting with the OSes on the same machine on which they're running? Does the fact that you are running a very slim management OS versus a "fat" host OS help conserve resources? In other words, it would be nice to turn off Vista when I'm using XP because I want to devote as many resources as I can to XP when I'm using it.
If I can interact with the guests on the same machine on which they're running, how "transparent" is it that you're running virtualized? Does it run as if I were running VMWare Workstation full-screen? In other words, it fills the screen but pops up a little menu at the top when you put your mouse at the top of the screen?
If the answers to these questions are that I'd be better off using a hypervisor-based product, the only thing really holding me back is the thought of migrating my Vista installation. I'm guessing I can't just take an image of my system and install it as a guest since Windows doesn't like to be moved.
Will xVM (or ESXi or Hyper-V for that matter) run inside a VM? I'd love to try it out before I commit to changing.
If some government official came up to me and told me they were investigating a suspected terrorist and they needed such and such help from me, I'd assume it was a legit request and comply. I'd also assume that the government was the one who would assume the consequences if the request was not valid and I did something I wasn't supposed to do. If it was Joe Blow coming to me and asking me to allow him to wiretap someone, that's different. A government official comes to your door with credentials of authority. Besides, there was no profit in this for these telcos. They didn't gain anything financially by allowing these wiretaps. In fact, they had to pay their employees to work with whoever was asking for these wiretaps when they could have been doing something to help their company's bottom line instead. To me, this smacks of typical left-wing "All corporations are evil, let's get 'em" mantra.
Not just that, but Sony gets a good deal out of this too, by selling more systems. Personally, I bought a PS3 mainly because I was taking a class on programming the Cell, and I am also working on my master's thesis on the Cell. IBM gains a Cell developer, and Sony sold a PS3 to someone who wouldn't have bought it just for the gaming. It's good enough for hobbyists to play with, learn how to program the cell, and see the results. At the same time, by crippling the graphics, Sony doesn't cannibalize their own profits on selling games. If everyone knows going in that Linux running on this thing is not going to give you the performance you'd get by buying a PC, that's fair. It's win-win-win. A corporation or university trying to do more advanced research is not going to buy a PS3, they're going to pony up and buy a real Cell-based machine from IBM (or Mercury). The only people that lose out are the hobbyists trying to learn how to program games for the PS3 who can't afford the dev kit. But don't all game platforms require you to pay for development tools?
Slashdot Mirror
These kinds of "rights" force an obligation on someone else. The way you've defined your "right" not to be hungry implies an obligation on me to provide that right, and if I don't pay up to provide you with this right, I'm going into a cage for some time.
The idea that libertarians are against taxation because they don't want to help the poor completely misses the point. The point is that if I want to help the poor, I will donate my time and money to some cause or charity at my discretion, not because someone told me I had to or else I'd go to jail. Nobody has more right to the fruits of my labor than I do. By taking my money from me (in the form of taxation), that's what you're saying. Sugar-coat it all you want in good intentions and noble causes, and feeding and housing the poor and sick are certainly noble causes, but the moment you define someone's right like that, you've also defined an obligation on someone. That's the point of libertarianism, and that's the point people miss when they criticize libertarians, that there are two sides to these rights as you define them. Yes, someone gets something they might need, but someone else is forced to provide it.
Yes, you do have the right not to be hungry, in that nobody should be allowed to prevent you from feeding yourself. You do have the right to warmth, in that nobody should be allowed to steal your home or your clothes.
The freedom to harm is fundamental, said no libertarian ever.
I had an Atari computer (1200XL I believe). I remember that 9 times out of 10, the computer program in the 3-2-1 Contact would not have an Atari version. I was always so disappointed. Sometimes they would have a little section that would say, "Take the Apple IIe program and change this line to say this, and that line to say that." Little did I know that you could pretty much do this for every program, that BASIC was mostly the same across the platforms, except for a few differences that you could get around.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the smartphones?!?!
One of the few lesser-known games I remember playing on my NES.
So why not make it a smart watch? Especially if it'll do things I was going to buy a fitbit to do.
is an idiot. Most factories that aren't run with slave labor are 90-99% machines. Look up how applesauce gets made, or sleeping bags, sometime. Hell, even with slaves Foxconn is switching to robots. We're running out work to do. My buddy drives truck for a living. 10, 15 years from now that job won't exist. Again, robots.
So, when there's not enough work to go around, what do we do? Do we let 98% starve (lazy bastards), 1% work as slaves and then 1% live like God-Kings? Do you know an alternative? I'm anxious to hear a solution that doesn't boil down to socialism.
You're ignoring the savings that improved productivity gives us. At that point, everything's cheaper. That's why standards of living so greatly improved with the Industrial Revolution. We had machines take over a lot of manual labor, and the standard of living improved for everyone. Yes, the rich got richer, but the poor got richer too, and everyone could buy more things or services.
There will ALWAYS be work to be found. When better-off people (even middle-class) can buy their necessities with less money than they used to be able to because everything's cheaper, they'll have more money left over to spend on other stuff. Somebody's going to fill that role. This is what we mean when we say "the pie gets bigger".
Question: Practically speaking, why would anyone want to fork the Android SDK? If someone wants to make an alternative IDE, they could still build it on top of the existing SDK and require you to download the Android SDK, similar to how the eclipse plug-in works now (I think). I suppose someone with ulterior motives could replace portions of the SDK to insert calls back to their data center into a developers code. But someone like that's not going to worry about what Google tells them.
Can't you just lock your phone before they grab it? One button and the phone is locked. They may be able to pull your SD card but they won't be able to access your accounts.
7,338 tanks destroyed by phalanxes
Isn't profit an indicator of things getting better? If I sell you something, I hopefully make a profit, and your life is better because you valued what I sold you more than you valued what else you could have bought with that money.
This is ridiculous. Nobody's forcing the town to make this deal. If they thought it was a money-loser, they wouldn't have made the deal. If YOU think it's a money-loser, and you can get enough people to agree with you, feel free to vote the bums out on the basis of, "We've got idiot lawmakers who are no good at math." If you can't get enough people to agree with you, either you're wrong, or you live in a town full of other people who aren't good at math and are throwing your tax money down the drain, in which case you should consider either not paying taxes, or moving.
Or WALL-E?
Then if the state of North Dakota decides it's in their best interests to pitch in to pay for tsunami monitoring in California, they can voluntarily write a check every month. OR, if North Dakota benefits from California not being overrun by a tsunami, then they won't mind paying a little more for the goods they receive from California, which will be used to pay for tsunami monitoring.
I imagine most home users don't have IPv6 addresses. Ideally, everyone would slowly start to switch over to IPv6, with sites having both v4 and v6 addresses serving the same content, and users that are connected with a v6 address getting addresses from a DNS that supports v6 would connect using v6. But where I live, I don't get an IPv6 address with Fios. I imagine the big ISPs don't give residential users v6 addresses nationally and globally.
But most apps will let you press the back button until you're out of the app. This actually does save you some memory because the activity that was active will unload when you back out of it, as opposed to continuing to run in the background when you press the home button. Most apps that need to run in the background will have a service component that runs in the background, and a UI activity that lets you interact with it. If you kill the UI by backing out of it, the service component still runs in the background. In this case, the only way to get out is to press the home button. That makes me wonder, did they disable the back button on the main screen on purpose? Are the UI and the service functionality all wrapped up in the UI activity? In which case killing the UI would also kill the whole app? Or is there a service component as well, and this is just a UI quirk?
I'll pay for my own security, pay for my own fire protection services, and save my own money for retirement as I see fit.
I'm in the same boat. I can't believe they can just do this. Unbelievable. I'm just sitting here in shock. Luckily, my school work will be finished in a couple months. Hopefully my wife won't accidentally update the firmware in the mean time, or I'm in big trouble.
I gladly trade my privacy for the convenience Google provides me. I use a lot of their services, and I get two benefits. I get to use their services for free, and, on the rare case that my eye wanders over to an ad, it's usually something I might want to buy.
It's good to be concerned about protecting your privacy. But that doesn't mean that you have to keep your browsing habits, email conversations, etc. from everyone just for its own sake. Google proposes trading that information for lots of convenience. I gladly make that trade. I feel that the services they provide me are worth more than keeping my internet life a secret from them. So Google wins, and I win. I couldn't be happier.
I hear Pauly Shore's available
My first thought was:
Some pushy salesman at Lockheed Martin wore down the Air Force about how wonderful the Satellite Protection program was. The Air Force stood there wondering whether it really needed the protection program, or whether it would take its chances, seeing how most of these protection programs are ripoffs.
Have you found that using a hypervisor-based virtualization product is better than using a hosted one (VMWare Workstation, VirtualBox, VirtualPC, etc.) for someone that regularly needs to switch OSes? For example, I mostly run Vista. Sometimes I find I need to boot up an XP virtual machine in order to do certain things for work since the apps I need to use will not run on Vista. Sometimes I'm in Linux and won't need my main host OS for a while at a time. I'm also trying to learn to write apps for another OS I'm not supposed to be running on my hardware. That runs on bare metal on a separate drive, under dual-boot. Are products like xVM, ESIx, etc. suitable for installing OSes at home and interacting with the OSes on the same machine on which they're running? Does the fact that you are running a very slim management OS versus a "fat" host OS help conserve resources? In other words, it would be nice to turn off Vista when I'm using XP because I want to devote as many resources as I can to XP when I'm using it.
If I can interact with the guests on the same machine on which they're running, how "transparent" is it that you're running virtualized? Does it run as if I were running VMWare Workstation full-screen? In other words, it fills the screen but pops up a little menu at the top when you put your mouse at the top of the screen?
If the answers to these questions are that I'd be better off using a hypervisor-based product, the only thing really holding me back is the thought of migrating my Vista installation. I'm guessing I can't just take an image of my system and install it as a guest since Windows doesn't like to be moved.
Will xVM (or ESXi or Hyper-V for that matter) run inside a VM? I'd love to try it out before I commit to changing.
If some government official came up to me and told me they were investigating a suspected terrorist and they needed such and such help from me, I'd assume it was a legit request and comply. I'd also assume that the government was the one who would assume the consequences if the request was not valid and I did something I wasn't supposed to do. If it was Joe Blow coming to me and asking me to allow him to wiretap someone, that's different. A government official comes to your door with credentials of authority. Besides, there was no profit in this for these telcos. They didn't gain anything financially by allowing these wiretaps. In fact, they had to pay their employees to work with whoever was asking for these wiretaps when they could have been doing something to help their company's bottom line instead. To me, this smacks of typical left-wing "All corporations are evil, let's get 'em" mantra.
Not just that, but Sony gets a good deal out of this too, by selling more systems. Personally, I bought a PS3 mainly because I was taking a class on programming the Cell, and I am also working on my master's thesis on the Cell. IBM gains a Cell developer, and Sony sold a PS3 to someone who wouldn't have bought it just for the gaming. It's good enough for hobbyists to play with, learn how to program the cell, and see the results. At the same time, by crippling the graphics, Sony doesn't cannibalize their own profits on selling games. If everyone knows going in that Linux running on this thing is not going to give you the performance you'd get by buying a PC, that's fair. It's win-win-win. A corporation or university trying to do more advanced research is not going to buy a PS3, they're going to pony up and buy a real Cell-based machine from IBM (or Mercury). The only people that lose out are the hobbyists trying to learn how to program games for the PS3 who can't afford the dev kit. But don't all game platforms require you to pay for development tools?
If the government came to me and asked me to do something, I would pretty reasonably assume that they wouldn't then come back and prosecute me for it.
So, kinda like what Doc Brown invented?