Which completely avoids any reason as to why my ISP needs to extort money from the sites I use. If they're needing cash to justify upgrading their infrastructure, they should charge me. I'm the person using it. If they're needing 100x the cash that it's actually going to cost to upgrade their infrastructure, they're just being greedy. They still have no reason to contract with every.com out there.
If you want to prioritize traffic, somebody has to pay for it. You'll ultimately pay for it, but that question is really just about who has to be the bad guy hiking their rates. Why does someone have to pay if I want to prioritize traffic? I do that already... game running to slow? Kill the download. Where're those extra dollars when I prioritize things?
Why does the ISP need the ability to contract with content providers to do this? Why are you in favor of giving the content provider the choice of how important their content is? Wouldn't a better solution be for the ISP to actually ask/me/ what content I want and what content can be scaled back? If I need that download to happen quickly I'd rather have my IPTV degrade while it's downloading at full speed. If I prefer the game, I'd rather it suck my bandwidth than my download. Or are you claiming that the data provider has a better sense of what's important to me than I myself do?
I don't have to know that stealing is 'wrong' to be able to rationally deduce that while stealing may have short-term benefits, it also has long-term detriments, and thus isn't something that I desire to do. I don't have to know/everything/ to be able to think for myself.
God did/not/ prevent Adam and Eve from understanding good and evil. He told them that doing so was against his will. But they were able to think for themselves. I'm not being prevented from understanding the minutae of underwater basket weaving. I don't know the minutae of underwater basket weaving. Am I not allowed to think for myself simply because I don't know everything.
Cassandra knew the future, and tried to use this knowledge, but wasn't believed. Knowledge, for her, was a curse; had she not known, nothing would have changed for the rest of the world, but she personally would have had a happier, more pleasant life.
Claiming that God is malignant because He desired to prevent us from having the pain and suffering that comes with knowing good and evil seems to be a bit..extreme. Claiming that breaking from God allowed self-sufficiency and rational though needs support. Rationality does not require morality. And none of us is truly self-sufficient. As a people, we're still no more self-sufficient than Adam was, we just have to work harder to keep up our standard of living.
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit, they 'would be burned' (using the stove analogy). He didn't burn them, the stove did that. He's spent all the time since then/trying/ to 'treat the burn', to fix the physical problem that came from disobeying the rule.
He didn't have to make the world in such a way that eating the fruit would 'boot [Adam] out onto the street and give hima terminal disease'? A parent doesn't have to buy a stove, or have children. A parent could keep their kids locked in a room where they can't get at the stove.
So if your child touches a hot stove, will you keep the stove from burning him?
Not all classes are of sufficient size that the teacher is able to know each and every student personally. It's a shame, and it greatly lowers the chance for many students to learn, but I don't see how you can blame it on the teachers.
Even if the teachers do know each and every student and the quality of their expected work personally, just because the paper that student turned in was of the quality the teacher expected, doesn't mean that student actually wrote the paper. It's very easy in the world today for a student to do little-to-no work (and thus get little-to-no benefit) and yet hand in quality 'work'. As a teacher, I wouldn't think that any student unable to sufficiently perform on any given assignment deseved high marks on that assignment.
If the best student in the class was unable to spend their weekend writing so they could go out of town with their friends, they don't deserve high marks for the paper they didn't write, and need to learn that. They might understand the topic they were to write about well, but there's more to learn in school than just what comes out of a book. School will hopefully prepare them for their future; if their boss some day tells them to write up a 15-page report by Monday, as a teacher, I'd have failed in my job if I didn't prepare them to do this type of work when it's required. They may know all about the company's new product, but if they can't get it into a form that can be shared with others, it's useless.
How can a big slashdot story/possibly/ be that "Mathematicians are trying to determing P ?= NP"? That's like the breaking news, "SCO is suing someone"!
Of _course_ there have been no vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known. Doesn't everyone know the patch? You know, the one that replaces core MS systems with, oh, say, Linux? Thus, I know the patch for all vulnerabilities for all future MS OSes! WOOT!
If I go to the store looking for XYZ's widget, should they be allowed to stock ABC's widget on the same shelf? What if ABC is the generic brand? People aren't specifically coming in to find ABC's widget, but shouldn't they be able to have the option? Is the store in violation of trademarks by placing two similar products next to each other, even if people will generally be looking for the first one?
Slashdot Mirror
Which completely avoids any reason as to why my ISP needs to extort money from the sites I use. If they're needing cash to justify upgrading their infrastructure, they should charge me. I'm the person using it. If they're needing 100x the cash that it's actually going to cost to upgrade their infrastructure, they're just being greedy. They still have no reason to contract with every .com out there.
Why does the ISP need the ability to contract with content providers to do this? Why are you in favor of giving the content provider the choice of how important their content is? Wouldn't a better solution be for the ISP to actually ask /me/ what content I want and what content can be scaled back? If I need that download to happen quickly I'd rather have my IPTV degrade while it's downloading at full speed. If I prefer the game, I'd rather it suck my bandwidth than my download. Or are you claiming that the data provider has a better sense of what's important to me than I myself do?
I don't have to know that stealing is 'wrong' to be able to rationally deduce that while stealing may have short-term benefits, it also has long-term detriments, and thus isn't something that I desire to do. I don't have to know /everything/ to be able to think for myself.
/not/ prevent Adam and Eve from understanding good and evil. He told them that doing so was against his will. But they were able to think for themselves. I'm not being prevented from understanding the minutae of underwater basket weaving. I don't know the minutae of underwater basket weaving. Am I not allowed to think for myself simply because I don't know everything.
God did
Cassandra knew the future, and tried to use this knowledge, but wasn't believed. Knowledge, for her, was a curse; had she not known, nothing would have changed for the rest of the world, but she personally would have had a happier, more pleasant life.
Claiming that God is malignant because He desired to prevent us from having the pain and suffering that comes with knowing good and evil seems to be a bit..extreme. Claiming that breaking from God allowed self-sufficiency and rational though needs support. Rationality does not require morality. And none of us is truly self-sufficient. As a people, we're still no more self-sufficient than Adam was, we just have to work harder to keep up our standard of living.
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the fruit, they 'would be burned' (using the stove analogy). He didn't burn them, the stove did that. He's spent all the time since then /trying/ to 'treat the burn', to fix the physical problem that came from disobeying the rule.
He didn't have to make the world in such a way that eating the fruit would 'boot [Adam] out onto the street and give hima terminal disease'? A parent doesn't have to buy a stove, or have children. A parent could keep their kids locked in a room where they can't get at the stove.
So if your child touches a hot stove, will you keep the stove from burning him?
So Microsoft is being used to make use of Yahoo! in trying to throw click fraud at Google.
Are we missing anyone?
Not all classes are of sufficient size that the teacher is able to know each and every student personally. It's a shame, and it greatly lowers the chance for many students to learn, but I don't see how you can blame it on the teachers.
Even if the teachers do know each and every student and the quality of their expected work personally, just because the paper that student turned in was of the quality the teacher expected, doesn't mean that student actually wrote the paper. It's very easy in the world today for a student to do little-to-no work (and thus get little-to-no benefit) and yet hand in quality 'work'. As a teacher, I wouldn't think that any student unable to sufficiently perform on any given assignment deseved high marks on that assignment.
If the best student in the class was unable to spend their weekend writing so they could go out of town with their friends, they don't deserve high marks for the paper they didn't write, and need to learn that. They might understand the topic they were to write about well, but there's more to learn in school than just what comes out of a book. School will hopefully prepare them for their future; if their boss some day tells them to write up a 15-page report by Monday, as a teacher, I'd have failed in my job if I didn't prepare them to do this type of work when it's required. They may know all about the company's new product, but if they can't get it into a form that can be shared with others, it's useless.
Sorry, but that would have to be "A-freaking-MAN". "Men" is plural and doesn't work with an "A".
It depends on if you're trying for a studlyCaps patent or not.
How can a big slashdot story /possibly/ be that "Mathematicians are trying to determing P ?= NP"? That's like the breaking news, "SCO is suing someone"!
Oh.
Nevermind.
Of _course_ there have been no vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known. Doesn't everyone know the patch? You know, the one that replaces core MS systems with, oh, say, Linux? Thus, I know the patch for all vulnerabilities for all future MS OSes! WOOT!
To make changing rooms go opaque, of course. I think the better question is why gerbils need to use changing rooms.
If I go to the store looking for XYZ's widget, should they be allowed to stock ABC's widget on the same shelf? What if ABC is the generic brand? People aren't specifically coming in to find ABC's widget, but shouldn't they be able to have the option? Is the store in violation of trademarks by placing two similar products next to each other, even if people will generally be looking for the first one?
Does anyone else have a problem with the "Star Wars Episode I - Ceremonial Princess Leia" on the Toys 'R' Us page?