B) that's pretty much the meaning of the proposed law, isn't it?
In my opinion people should have some privacy in their yard -- less, maybe, than indoors but still more than none. I welcome laws giving me some rights in that area.
"'pedophilia,' in the sense you mean, describes desires upon which to act is harmful and unacceptable."
If you want to split hairs, then it is not harmful or unacceptable for a pedophile to act on his desires by imagining having sex with children while masturbating.
But it would be if he went out and found a child to have sex with.
Dan Savage calls the first kind "gold star pedophiles". It's a tough paraphilia to have.
"Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry."
That's not what tolerate means. (Are you trying to use words the incorrect way again?) If you deny legal rights to a person based on a characteristic, then you aren't tolerating the characteristic.
If you are opposed to homosexuality, but you tolerate them, then you support full equal rights for gay people and then you go out and try to tell them to stop being gay. That's what tolerance means.
"Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive?"
Used in the incorrect way? Why would we assent to using words the wrong way? That would be stupid. Let's not be stupid, let's use words the correct way, which leads to an easy answer.
OP: "posts about how 'just not liking gays' was an okay position to take"
You: "How is forcing someone to like somebody supposed to work?"
He didn't say anything about forcing anyone. He said that it wasn't okay to take the position that you "just don't like gays". The solution isn't to "force" the hater to change, the solution is for the hater to change.
Next time try responding to the actual comment you are responding to.
They don't necessarily need to change its name, they just need to apologize for foisting a shitty browser on the world for almost two decades now. Apologize profusely, in public, in newspapers and on the front page of microsoft.com, then change the OS to include several easy-to-find alternatives, and pinky-swear that you'll never do any bullshit like that again. Then, okay, we will begin to reconsider Internet Exploder. Until then, no.
The inherent value of national fiat currency is as a unit of business with the government of that country -- mainly taxes, but also in commerce with the government. (When enough people use a currency for business with its founding government then they might also use it for other purposes.)
Fewer people care about paying Cuban taxes, or doing business with the Cuban government, so the value of that currency is lower.
Sure, that's true, but living in a dirt hovel in the desert armed with guns and knives, with no computer for a hundred miles around, is even more secure.
At some point people decide to make tradeoffs. A whitelisted internet (your suggestion) is good in one dimension (security) and bad in most of the others (primarily usefulness).
If someone says that rules cause bad outcomes, instead of mitigate them, and everything would be peachy if only we got rid of all rules, is that trolling or just a different point of view?
I don't even necessarily agree that there is no correlation between use and cost after the network is built, but even if I did that still leaves out the cost of building the network. If most users can fit comfortably in the existing bandwidth, but a few users are causing congestion requiring a network upgrade, then the cost of that upgrade is due to the use by those people. Hence, usage is costly. More to the point, metering is more straightforward and fair than throttling.
No, metering usage is the least of all evils, because it's not evil at all. Sell bandwidth like everything else in the world -- the more you use, the more you pay.
Yes. People who use disproportionate data thus clogging networks are assholes -- assholes who paid for the right to clog the network. It is absolutely impossible to blame the assholes for doing something they paid to do and were promised they would be allowed to do.
The problem is the stupid promise of "unlimited" bandwidth. That is both impossible and bad policy. If you want to use a gazillion gigabytes per minute, then the providers should meter out the bandwidth and charge your accordingly. They should stop using the "unlimited" lie and should begin having some tiny modicum of honesty.
When people have to pay for what they use, the natural cost-benefit analysis will mitigate over-use. When people are willing to pay for high usage, then providers will use the money to build more bandwidth. The only problem is the dishonest marketing which causes this whole mess.
Why not just stop selling service that way? Just meter the service by the unit, like all utilities do. Have a base cost plus a usage cost. Done, problem solved. While you are at it, make sure that the marginal cost shrinks as the usage increases -- like all bulk sales do. Also make sure that people are able to cap out of usage, so if they hit the max they want to pay for, you just turn off the service instead of hitting them with huge bills.
All other service plans are dishonest, which means all service plans are dishonest.
I agree. The problem is that they are lying fucksticks, not that their network is faulty.
"Unlimited" would mean infinite, which is nonsense because we live in a finite universe. You can't possibly provide "unlimited" service. They can offer "service not artificially limited", where the limits are natural side effects of the network -- and I think that would be a mostly fair interpretation of the word "unlimited".
But these asshat motherfuckers aren't even doing that, they are selling as "unlimited" service which is in fact "limited". Fuck those liars.
I agree with everything you said. Fuck those douchebags. One point of pedantry: I would be happy to see them in court in front of a jury of "my" peers. The "jury of your peers" thing is not part of American jurisprudence. If you are American, you can demand an impartial jury, but not a jury of your peers. America doesn't even have a legal "peerage" system so the concept doesn't translate into our laws.
I hear that a lot but I still don't accept that use of the word "agree". I am aware of the TOSs. They do not prevent me from using the service. But to say I "agree" with them would be, in my opinion, stretching that word past its breaking point -- like saying I "agree" with the way our government spends all of its money just because I continue to live here, or like saying I "agree" that the NSA can listen to my phone calls just because I continue to use the phone.
To me the most interesting thing is that this case eliminates the application of "common carrier" status to Gmail (and other similar systems). The entire premise of being a common carrier is that you can't or at least certainly don't inspect the contents of what you carry. The rest of the argument is because if you can and do, then you have an obligation to help us fight the crimes committed on your network. Google is in fact doing the latter, which prevents it from being a common carrier. To some extent that implies that they assume the obligation to continue to fight the crimes committed using Gmail. I'm ambivalent about that.
Slashdot Mirror
B) that's pretty much the meaning of the proposed law, isn't it?
In my opinion people should have some privacy in their yard -- less, maybe, than indoors but still more than none. I welcome laws giving me some rights in that area.
In, what, like 2006 or something. It's been a while now.
"'pedophilia,' in the sense you mean, describes desires upon which to act is harmful and unacceptable."
If you want to split hairs, then it is not harmful or unacceptable for a pedophile to act on his desires by imagining having sex with children while masturbating.
But it would be if he went out and found a child to have sex with.
Dan Savage calls the first kind "gold star pedophiles". It's a tough paraphilia to have.
"Eich did "tolerate" homosexuals by the way- he just didn't think they should marry."
That's not what tolerate means. (Are you trying to use words the incorrect way again?) If you deny legal rights to a person based on a characteristic, then you aren't tolerating the characteristic.
If you are opposed to homosexuality, but you tolerate them, then you support full equal rights for gay people and then you go out and try to tell them to stop being gay. That's what tolerance means.
Next question.
"Scratch homosexual and put in pedophile (used in the broad, incorrect way) and are you still so strongly supportive?"
Used in the incorrect way? Why would we assent to using words the wrong way? That would be stupid. Let's not be stupid, let's use words the correct way, which leads to an easy answer.
Pedophile, yes. Child molester, no.
Next question.
"Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them."
Well, then you don't know the definition of "tolerate".
If you approve of something, then you cannot tolerate it because tolerance implies disapproval. It's part of the definition.
tolerate: allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with without interference
It's not our fault that you can't read a dictionary, or refuse to accept the meanings of words. Look inward.
Straw man.
OP: "posts about how 'just not liking gays' was an okay position to take"
You: "How is forcing someone to like somebody supposed to work?"
He didn't say anything about forcing anyone. He said that it wasn't okay to take the position that you "just don't like gays". The solution isn't to "force" the hater to change, the solution is for the hater to change.
Next time try responding to the actual comment you are responding to.
They don't necessarily need to change its name, they just need to apologize for foisting a shitty browser on the world for almost two decades now. Apologize profusely, in public, in newspapers and on the front page of microsoft.com, then change the OS to include several easy-to-find alternatives, and pinky-swear that you'll never do any bullshit like that again. Then, okay, we will begin to reconsider Internet Exploder. Until then, no.
The inherent value of national fiat currency is as a unit of business with the government of that country -- mainly taxes, but also in commerce with the government. (When enough people use a currency for business with its founding government then they might also use it for other purposes.)
Fewer people care about paying Cuban taxes, or doing business with the Cuban government, so the value of that currency is lower.
Sure, that's true, but living in a dirt hovel in the desert armed with guns and knives, with no computer for a hundred miles around, is even more secure.
At some point people decide to make tradeoffs. A whitelisted internet (your suggestion) is good in one dimension (security) and bad in most of the others (primarily usefulness).
If someone says that rules cause bad outcomes, instead of mitigate them, and everything would be peachy if only we got rid of all rules, is that trolling or just a different point of view?
Oh, yeah, it's trolling. For sure.
Yeah. It's supposed to be difficult to surveil people. These days it isn't very difficult, so we're moving in the right direction.
I don't even necessarily agree that there is no correlation between use and cost after the network is built, but even if I did that still leaves out the cost of building the network. If most users can fit comfortably in the existing bandwidth, but a few users are causing congestion requiring a network upgrade, then the cost of that upgrade is due to the use by those people. Hence, usage is costly. More to the point, metering is more straightforward and fair than throttling.
No, metering usage is the least of all evils, because it's not evil at all. Sell bandwidth like everything else in the world -- the more you use, the more you pay.
Yes. People who use disproportionate data thus clogging networks are assholes -- assholes who paid for the right to clog the network. It is absolutely impossible to blame the assholes for doing something they paid to do and were promised they would be allowed to do.
The problem is the stupid promise of "unlimited" bandwidth. That is both impossible and bad policy. If you want to use a gazillion gigabytes per minute, then the providers should meter out the bandwidth and charge your accordingly. They should stop using the "unlimited" lie and should begin having some tiny modicum of honesty.
When people have to pay for what they use, the natural cost-benefit analysis will mitigate over-use. When people are willing to pay for high usage, then providers will use the money to build more bandwidth. The only problem is the dishonest marketing which causes this whole mess.
"Yep, this would be the most honest thing to do."
Ding ding! We have a winner -- now we know why that will never happen!
No. It would be like getting on the road, having it be 3/4 empty, but being forced to slow down because yesterday you drove a lot of miles.
And that wouldn't make any sense. All reasonable people see why that is stupid.
If the network is congested, fine,service will slow down naturally. That means there is no need whatsoever to limit bandwidth artificially.
The true solution is to sell the service honestly, which means metering it and never using the word "unlimited". Nothing in the universe is unlimited.
Why not just stop selling service that way? Just meter the service by the unit, like all utilities do. Have a base cost plus a usage cost. Done, problem solved. While you are at it, make sure that the marginal cost shrinks as the usage increases -- like all bulk sales do. Also make sure that people are able to cap out of usage, so if they hit the max they want to pay for, you just turn off the service instead of hitting them with huge bills.
All other service plans are dishonest, which means all service plans are dishonest.
I agree. The problem is that they are lying fucksticks, not that their network is faulty.
"Unlimited" would mean infinite, which is nonsense because we live in a finite universe. You can't possibly provide "unlimited" service. They can offer "service not artificially limited", where the limits are natural side effects of the network -- and I think that would be a mostly fair interpretation of the word "unlimited".
But these asshat motherfuckers aren't even doing that, they are selling as "unlimited" service which is in fact "limited". Fuck those liars.
I agree with everything you said. Fuck those douchebags. One point of pedantry: I would be happy to see them in court in front of a jury of "my" peers. The "jury of your peers" thing is not part of American jurisprudence. If you are American, you can demand an impartial jury, but not a jury of your peers. America doesn't even have a legal "peerage" system so the concept doesn't translate into our laws.
"What distinguishes a mensch from a barbarian is"
foreskin?
I hear that a lot but I still don't accept that use of the word "agree". I am aware of the TOSs. They do not prevent me from using the service. But to say I "agree" with them would be, in my opinion, stretching that word past its breaking point -- like saying I "agree" with the way our government spends all of its money just because I continue to live here, or like saying I "agree" that the NSA can listen to my phone calls just because I continue to use the phone.
To me the most interesting thing is that this case eliminates the application of "common carrier" status to Gmail (and other similar systems). The entire premise of being a common carrier is that you can't or at least certainly don't inspect the contents of what you carry. The rest of the argument is because if you can and do, then you have an obligation to help us fight the crimes committed on your network. Google is in fact doing the latter, which prevents it from being a common carrier. To some extent that implies that they assume the obligation to continue to fight the crimes committed using Gmail. I'm ambivalent about that.
You were one of the people they were trying to chase away. They don't want you back.
"Covered in dimples"
You mean cellulite? Yeah, that's not generally considered an attractive trait.