Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps he is in favour of personal liberty and small government?
What does this even mean?
I hear this phrase small government all the time as if it means something, but it really makes no sense.
How do you define small? By number of employees, services or expenditure? Even once you've decided that, who says what is acceptable as a sufficiently small number? Is it 10000? 1000?, or 1? And do you love the idea of a smallness more than effectiveness? Or as an example are you happy to let criminal activity increase because we must keep a small police force?
The whole idea of small or big just sounds stupid. Any governments applies resource where it believes they are needed to benefit the population as a whole. Sometimes more will be needed and other times not so much. How do you believe that small is always the right option all the time? And what if your definition of small is still too big for someone else, how do you reconcile that?
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
while agreeing with Trump that cutting the corporate tax rate would actually be good for most Americans.
Part of the issue here is that if corporate tax is low, I as a contractor simply register as a company, put everything I own in the company name and only pay myself a pittance to minimise income tax.
I'm no tax expert, but I understand that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden and they are exactly the people who are in a position to start companies to minimise their tax if desired. If that happens where do you get tax revenue from?
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
For example, I've always leaned conservative and very much tended to vote Republican. From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).
Interesting. There are plenty of countries that have higher minimum wages, and lower unemployment than the US. That doesn't seem to fit with your explanation?
It seems the ribbon was created to pander to those people who weren't able to figure out toolbar customisations. The ribbon is harder to customise, takes up far too much screen real estate.
The quick access toolbar does this. You add whatever you want to access quickly to the aptly named "Quick Access" toolbar. The ribbon is hidden by default, so you have everything you need, including all the shortcuts, just the same as before. And if you need the ribbon simply pin it on the screen.
There are plenty of reasons to not choose Microsoft, but this one sounds pretty lame.
By 'generally', you mean in your limited experience?
I used to work for Case New Holland, their business is selling million dollar machines to farmers, and they're doing well.
I've also been on a few wine tours where entire regions have been covered in multi-million dollar vineyards.
A friend of mine at school was from a farming family. They're the only people I ever knew who owned a plane.
I'm not sure what you perception of rural is, but I can assure you that among the peasants there are plenty of rich people.
You do realize that adblock plus has sold out to the ad industry, right? It's default behavior is not to block all ads. You have to take action not to see those they deem "acceptable"..
And that action consists of one single tick box. Hardly worth throwing the toys out of the pram for...
Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt.
What if getting access to one of these devices would save your family's lives?
I'm not supporting the abuse of power here, and put the bad cops to the side for a sec, we all know that routine. Ultimately, there are bad people out there who want to kill us, and it the function of law enforcement to stop them. Rather than continually hate on authorities, I'd be more interested in hearing what possible solutions exist for a law enforcement to function within the expectations of society. Because you can bet as soon as it affects your family, you'll be crying that the authorities don't have enough power. Somewhere must exist a happy middle ground.
Then the people they do hire, whine "Can't you make this easier ? It's too hard !"
Isn't it natural to want to make your job easier? I've never heard a trench digger ask for a smaller shovel, or surgeon say to put the implements away, I'll do this one with my bare hands...
Dear FBI,
Backdoors will only let you catch the dumbest of dumb criminals.
That might be good enough.
My bank is full of clever criminals who fleece 0.1% here and 0.2% there to make themselves rich and get away with it.
The stupid crims will hold a gun to your face and may shoot you for $50. Given the choice, I can live with the smart crims.
FBI directors lie to Congress as part of their normal job duties.
So do you, so why do you expect others to behave differently?
This is part of the problem, instead of expecting our teachers, coaches, priests, police, politicians etc to be immune to human behaviour, we should expect it and take appropriate precautions.
I don't think the next generation will side with law enforcement. What did the police ever do for them besides hassle them, give them traffic tickets, and threaten to raid their parties? We have the lowest crime in decades and safest highways ever. Law enforcement is generally not needed and increasingly feared by regular people.
This is a really good point. The police are losing the hearts and minds and seem content to let it drift away. The biggest threat to the rule of law is the lack of buy-in from the people.
As you say, when I was a kid it was dangerous to go out at night. Violent crime was a lot more common and the police were the good guys (mostly) there to protect and serve. We used to have a local cops visit the school and everyone knew them by first name.
Nowadays I feel free to walk the streets any time of night, I sleep with my front door open, I never lock my car, we live in the the safest and most prosperous times. Yet my experience of the Police is some jerks who wants to punish me for the most ridiculously trivial things.
The cops need a PR makeover, get back into the community as part of the community, as more social oriented workers than para-military bully boys.
The problem with regulating guns in the US is the fact the guns are in the citizens hands to regulate the government.
Really? How is that working out? Do you have examples of where this all this gun ownership enforced regulation the government?
If you allow the government to regulate guns and by proxy regulating itself then you will get tyranny.
Big claim, which falls apart when you know that every other modern democracy that allows government regulation and doesn't have Tyranny. How does that happen under your hypothesis?
History.
Which history? Please enlighten the group because I'm really struggling to think of a historical event where gun-toting natives prevented a government enforcing tyranny on the people. We do however have tens of thousands of examples every year where the people are subject to tyranny from weirdos with guns that shouldn't have access to them.
Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun.
Any argument you might have had just evaporated with this ridiculous statement.
And before you get all uppity and start yet another gun argument, no-one is suggesting to outlaw firearms, gun regulation means allowing sensible people access to sensible weapons, just like in most other western countries that have gun regulations, and healthy gun ownership, but nowhere as many issues.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.
The strategy, like gun regulation, is not elimination, it is to minimise availability. By going after the low hanging fruit, it makes pirate file sharing a less common practice. So the stupid people who can't figure out technology will find it too hard, and so pay for it through legitimate channels instead (have you seen iTunes profit lately?) This strategy only has to make a 10-20% dent in the market and it is worth million of dollars. That doesn't sound that stupid to me.
Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.
According to whom?
Governments don't give rights.
Yes they do.
Governments impose limits on them,
They do that too.
or protect against that happening.
And that as well
But they don't create them.
So at what point did primitive humans magically get rights created from nature? Did Australopithecus have rights? Homo Erectus? Do other primates have rights or just Homo Sapien? You seem to agree that animals don't have rights, so at some point in human evolution rights, must have been created by some force of nature? When did this occur exactly and by what force?
It's all starting to sound a bit religious now...
Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.
They have contact lists as big as medium sized cities. It is fairly easy to be connected to random strangers via two "hubs" that have 10,000 "contacts" each.
Also important to understand does this actually mean anything worthwhile?
eg, One degree means I can go up and talk to that person because I know them. 2 degrees, I might be able to go an introduce myself depending on the situation, and 3 degrees and over are strangers.
So anything over 2 is meaningless outside the mental exercise.
Either that or you completely over-reacting to a pretty poorly written submission that has no real detail in it.
If this is all it takes to fly off the handle, then MS are probably doing the right thing...
A good AI (outside of some sort of drama-like context imposing constraints on what works) should be configurable, to have as much or as little subservience as you want. That's what ownership means.Your computer should do whatever you want it to.
Yes and when I play Counter Strike I want the bots to be nude women, and order me pizza, because I bought Counter Strike, it should do everything I want it to do...
I think the Oberlin example proves there are SJWs.
I think we all know the SJW syndrome, but in here it's The Boy Who Cried SJW.
Socialised medicine? SJW!
Reduce pollution? SJW!
Not wanting to be shot in the face going to the store? SJW!
Everything I don't like? SJW!
The phrase has become the catch cry of the idiots who don't know how to have a rational discussion.
I'm tired of dickheads using the term SJW at every possible opportunity as if it's an automatic argument winning statement.
If you are unable to discuss the nuances of human behaviour without reverting to standard name calling, then please go somewhere else.
Cortana should be treated like a simple piece of computer software, and whether I want to use emacs' Eliza mode to write the next best seller or copy-paste LOL DONGS a thousand times is of no consequence.
It is if the person writing the software doesn't want you to do that with their creation. It's a free world right? If I want to write overly PC-strict bot software, then who are you to try and stop me?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps he is in favour of personal liberty and small government?
What does this even mean?
I hear this phrase small government all the time as if it means something, but it really makes no sense.
How do you define small? By number of employees, services or expenditure? Even once you've decided that, who says what is acceptable as a sufficiently small number? Is it 10000? 1000?, or 1? And do you love the idea of a smallness more than effectiveness? Or as an example are you happy to let criminal activity increase because we must keep a small police force?
The whole idea of small or big just sounds stupid. Any governments applies resource where it believes they are needed to benefit the population as a whole.
Sometimes more will be needed and other times not so much. How do you believe that small is always the right option all the time? And what if your definition of small is still too big for someone else, how do you reconcile that?
while agreeing with Trump that cutting the corporate tax rate would actually be good for most Americans.
Part of the issue here is that if corporate tax is low, I as a contractor simply register as a company, put everything I own in the company name and only pay myself a pittance to minimise income tax.
I'm no tax expert, but I understand that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden and they are exactly the people who are in a position to start companies to minimise their tax if desired. If that happens where do you get tax revenue from?
For example, I've always leaned conservative and very much tended to vote Republican. From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).
Interesting. There are plenty of countries that have higher minimum wages, and lower unemployment than the US. That doesn't seem to fit with your explanation?
It seems the ribbon was created to pander to those people who weren't able to figure out toolbar customisations. The ribbon is harder to customise, takes up far too much screen real estate.
The quick access toolbar does this. You add whatever you want to access quickly to the aptly named "Quick Access" toolbar. The ribbon is hidden by default, so you have everything you need, including all the shortcuts, just the same as before. And if you need the ribbon simply pin it on the screen.
There are plenty of reasons to not choose Microsoft, but this one sounds pretty lame.
I look up a keyboard shortcut if possible.
Which means the ribbon is useless to me.
The shortcuts are still there, in fact there are more of them now.
It takes up a bunch of space with buttons I don't need
And the ribbon is hidden by default, you have to pin it if you want it visible all the time.
I pay nothing for Linux. I pay nothing for LibreOffice.
No upfront financial cost, but what about the cost of social isolation?
By 'generally', you mean in your limited experience? I used to work for Case New Holland, their business is selling million dollar machines to farmers, and they're doing well.
I've also been on a few wine tours where entire regions have been covered in multi-million dollar vineyards.
A friend of mine at school was from a farming family. They're the only people I ever knew who owned a plane.
I'm not sure what you perception of rural is, but I can assure you that among the peasants there are plenty of rich people.
You do realize that adblock plus has sold out to the ad industry, right? It's default behavior is not to block all ads. You have to take action not to see those they deem "acceptable". .
And that action consists of one single tick box. Hardly worth throwing the toys out of the pram for...
Will the industry relent and allow Government access to data from these devices?
If they or any company does, then they should be boycotted until they go bankrupt.
What if getting access to one of these devices would save your family's lives?
I'm not supporting the abuse of power here, and put the bad cops to the side for a sec, we all know that routine. Ultimately, there are bad people out there who want to kill us, and it the function of law enforcement to stop them. Rather than continually hate on authorities, I'd be more interested in hearing what possible solutions exist for a law enforcement to function within the expectations of society. Because you can bet as soon as it affects your family, you'll be crying that the authorities don't have enough power. Somewhere must exist a happy middle ground.
Then the people they do hire, whine "Can't you make this easier ? It's too hard !"
Isn't it natural to want to make your job easier? I've never heard a trench digger ask for a smaller shovel, or surgeon say to put the implements away, I'll do this one with my bare hands...
Dear FBI, Backdoors will only let you catch the dumbest of dumb criminals.
That might be good enough.
My bank is full of clever criminals who fleece 0.1% here and 0.2% there to make themselves rich and get away with it. The stupid crims will hold a gun to your face and may shoot you for $50. Given the choice, I can live with the smart crims.
FBI directors lie to Congress as part of their normal job duties.
So do you, so why do you expect others to behave differently?
This is part of the problem, instead of expecting our teachers, coaches, priests, police, politicians etc to be immune to human behaviour, we should expect it and take appropriate precautions.
I don't think the next generation will side with law enforcement. What did the police ever do for them besides hassle them, give them traffic tickets, and threaten to raid their parties? We have the lowest crime in decades and safest highways ever. Law enforcement is generally not needed and increasingly feared by regular people.
This is a really good point. The police are losing the hearts and minds and seem content to let it drift away. The biggest threat to the rule of law is the lack of buy-in from the people.
As you say, when I was a kid it was dangerous to go out at night. Violent crime was a lot more common and the police were the good guys (mostly) there to protect and serve. We used to have a local cops visit the school and everyone knew them by first name.
Nowadays I feel free to walk the streets any time of night, I sleep with my front door open, I never lock my car, we live in the the safest and most prosperous times. Yet my experience of the Police is some jerks who wants to punish me for the most ridiculously trivial things.
The cops need a PR makeover, get back into the community as part of the community, as more social oriented workers than para-military bully boys.
The problem with regulating guns in the US is the fact the guns are in the citizens hands to regulate the government.
Really? How is that working out? Do you have examples of where this all this gun ownership enforced regulation the government?
If you allow the government to regulate guns and by proxy regulating itself then you will get tyranny.
Big claim, which falls apart when you know that every other modern democracy that allows government regulation and doesn't have Tyranny. How does that happen under your hypothesis?
History.
Which history? Please enlighten the group because I'm really struggling to think of a historical event where gun-toting natives prevented a government enforcing tyranny on the people. We do however have tens of thousands of examples every year where the people are subject to tyranny from weirdos with guns that shouldn't have access to them.
Their argument is like liberals trying to outlaw firearms: they make a basic assumption that 'guns are evil, therefore get rid of guns' when in reality people kill people, and eliminating guns won't really do a damn thing; someone wants to kill, they'll find a way, gun or no gun.
Any argument you might have had just evaporated with this ridiculous statement.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hi...
http://www.ajpmonline.org/arti...
And before you get all uppity and start yet another gun argument, no-one is suggesting to outlaw firearms, gun regulation means allowing sensible people access to sensible weapons, just like in most other western countries that have gun regulations, and healthy gun ownership, but nowhere as many issues.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Never mind the fact that filesharing is never, ever going to go away, either; they're fighting a losing battle.
The strategy, like gun regulation, is not elimination, it is to minimise availability. By going after the low hanging fruit, it makes pirate file sharing a less common practice. So the stupid people who can't figure out technology will find it too hard, and so pay for it through legitimate channels instead (have you seen iTunes profit lately?) This strategy only has to make a 10-20% dent in the market and it is worth million of dollars. That doesn't sound that stupid to me.
Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.
According to whom?
Governments don't give rights.
Yes they do.
Governments impose limits on them,
They do that too.
or protect against that happening.
And that as well
But they don't create them.
So at what point did primitive humans magically get rights created from nature? Did Australopithecus have rights? Homo Erectus? Do other primates have rights or just Homo Sapien? You seem to agree that animals don't have rights, so at some point in human evolution rights, must have been created by some force of nature? When did this occur exactly and by what force?
It's all starting to sound a bit religious now...
Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.
You really are grasping at straws now...
They have contact lists as big as medium sized cities. It is fairly easy to be connected to random strangers via two "hubs" that have 10,000 "contacts" each.
Also important to understand does this actually mean anything worthwhile?
eg, One degree means I can go up and talk to that person because I know them. 2 degrees, I might be able to go an introduce myself depending on the situation, and 3 degrees and over are strangers.
So anything over 2 is meaningless outside the mental exercise.
Suppose every person on the planet knows 50 people.
If each of those people know 50 people with no overlap
And this is where the theory falls over. Because there is overlap, and unlike raw numbers, human relationships are not evenly distributed.
United social power can be a real scum squasher.
From what I've seen of Facebook, the extent of anyone's protest is to click like or share. Any more than that is too much effort.
Either that or you completely over-reacting to a pretty poorly written submission that has no real detail in it.
If this is all it takes to fly off the handle, then MS are probably doing the right thing...
A good AI (outside of some sort of drama-like context imposing constraints on what works) should be configurable, to have as much or as little subservience as you want. That's what ownership means.Your computer should do whatever you want it to.
Yes and when I play Counter Strike I want the bots to be nude women, and order me pizza, because I bought Counter Strike, it should do everything I want it to do...
I think the Oberlin example proves there are SJWs.
I think we all know the SJW syndrome, but in here it's The Boy Who Cried SJW.
Socialised medicine? SJW!
Reduce pollution? SJW!
Not wanting to be shot in the face going to the store? SJW!
Everything I don't like? SJW!
The phrase has become the catch cry of the idiots who don't know how to have a rational discussion.
- People are tired of the SJW shitposting.
I'm tired of dickheads using the term SJW at every possible opportunity as if it's an automatic argument winning statement.
If you are unable to discuss the nuances of human behaviour without reverting to standard name calling, then please go somewhere else.
Annnd humanity reaches a new low for stupidity.
But let's keep anthropomorphizing electronics because /sarcasm clearly they are indistinguishable from a real human.
In some cases they already are, so when do you think should we start applying some order to this technology?
What a dumb-ass.
Yes, yes you are...
Cortana should be treated like a simple piece of computer software, and whether I want to use emacs' Eliza mode to write the next best seller or copy-paste LOL DONGS a thousand times is of no consequence.
It is if the person writing the software doesn't want you to do that with their creation. It's a free world right? If I want to write overly PC-strict bot software, then who are you to try and stop me?