I'd wager, that is run as well as a company with accountability, all the programs you seem to hate could run twice as well for the same cost.
I'm not sure why this view of corporations persists. Companies minimize expenses in order to maximize profits. The cost of goods or services to the customers of a company has little bearing on the cost to the company of providing/producing those goods or services. The cost of a corporate provided service will be what the market can bear and in the case of a monopoly like the government, that cost will be extremely high. Costs (and corners) are cut for the sole purpose of maximizing profits.
If the government was run like a corporation, the citizens would pay just as much but the higher-ups in government would get bigger salaries. If anything could be done to reduce the expenses of the government, it would be done even if it drastically reduced the quality of the services, and the higher-ups would get bonuses. As far as the customer is concerned, profit is an unwanted added expense.
Or did you mean that we'd have competition between several governments and get to shop around for who we pay our taxes to?
If the claim is false, it could be a felony in Minnesota...
Did you even read your link? It was specifically listed as a misdemeanor, before it was struck down as the other reply noted. [It was explicitly stated that it was a misdemeanor, but a sentence of "not more than one year" is indicative of a misdemeanor as well.]
It is disturbing that libel can be a felony in Colorado, Florida, and Michigan (only if the victim is a bank in Michigan, though).
The scenario you outlined also makes the most sense. If obtaining a fraudulent license was a defense against copyright infringement, then infringement could easily be systematically laundered through phony licenses from other companies. Unless they're obtaining licenses from Phony Licenses Unlimited, proving bad faith would be difficult. Whether or not a license is obtained in good faith is more a matter to be settled by CBC and CNN in this case. It's irrelevant to the case of whether infringement occurred.
It's deteriorated in more ways than just that. For all of the downsides of AMPS (and there were plenty), poor voice quality wasn't really one of them. It was horridly inefficient with spectrum, but enough bandwidth was available for voice communications and poor signal resulted in static on the channel (which we are pretty good at hearing through) instead of the common modern scenario of voice completely dropping out and stuttering every few seconds.
DUI checkpoints absolutely violate the 4th and the dissenting opinions state as much, yet they're allowed.
It's not just the dissenting opinion. The majority opinion states pretty clearly that it violates the Fourth Amendment, but the state really wants to be able to do it, so it therefore doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "In sum, the balance of the State's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment."
You're absolutely correct... and so is he (on the Jefferson quote, not at all on his anti-abortion hysteria).
It's not necessary for everybody to stand up for, or even agree on, every righteous cause. As long as each cause has its proponents, progress can be made. Advocating for one thing passionately is more likely to bring about change than diluting your effort over multiple issues that you are less passionate about.
I think his position is stupid and uninformed, but it's not hypocritical of him to push one cause at the exclusion of all other causes. Plus, he never even mentioned those other topics, so you're just using senseless party-based tribalism to assign him characteristics that he may not have. Lazy, man. Lazy.
Fair enough, but we're still talking tens of pellets tops, which will have a pretty sparse pattern at 200'. You'd never shoot anything that size with buckshot at 200' and be surprised if you missed it. This is compared to using #7.5, #8, or even #9 with hundreds of pellets in a standard load.
If he was using buckshot, he'd have nine (or fewer) pellets to work with. At 200', with all of the spread in the pattern at that distance, he'd be extremely lucky to hit a tiny quadcopter. The pellets may retain the energy to break the quadcopter, but the likelihood of him actually hitting it is even less likely.
He never said anything about the military using them against civilians. The police in the US are increasingly adopting the use of military weapons for their civil duties and sometimes the weapons were obtained directly from the US military.
Many of the riot control agents and devices were originally developed for military use. Some of the active denial systems are already being deployed by law enforcement.
So it's really not an issue of "if", but "when". You don't even need to be in China.
You originally said competence, not intelligence. You're moving the goalposts.
Competence has a huge training component which is not necessarily tied to intelligence. If the culture of one demographic keeps them from pursuing higher education or attending top schools, they will ultimately be less competent as a demographic. This may translate into a correlation between race and competence and still may not be the result of any racism from outside that demographic.
AOL "died" before broadband came along. AOL, like Compuserve, was a walled garden before it was an ISP (proper). Once the internet as a whole began to provide more compelling content, forums, etc, they shifted to a primary ISP role, but prior to that access to the internet was limited and sketchy.
AOL becoming an ISP was the way that it died. Before that, it was an absolutely huge service with tons of subscribers.
Fair enough. I don't understand why didn't you say that then, rather than defending the mis-quote. Sorry for my heavy-handed response though.
I was actually being cheeky with the followup post, too, by defending my use of "known". I really do need to work on my delivery, though. Even in real life I tend to deliver my jokes a little too deadpan and just get weird looks in response. So I can't fault you for not knowing that I was joking... and history tells me that I'm just going to keep at it!
Honestly, I didn't expect this level of seriousness in response to the comment. I was drinking a bit and it made me chuckle to use her apocryphal quote to tie a comment about elites being parted from their head to the response that the elites could control them with food. It seemed less funny if I pointed out that it originated from someone whose head was not removed in revolution or if I provided an accurate interpretation of the statement instead of a flippant one.
I expected an eyeroll at worst, but I suppose tone has never been communicated well in comments. Perhaps I should have added a winky face?;)
How is it bullshit? He can't pay market prices for things because of the way that things are current structured, but he addressed this by saying that he thinks things should be structured differently: "I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me." There weren't always oil and dairy subsidies and we could do away with them again.
There are many very reasonable things that I want that aren't currently feasible due to the way that our system is structured, too. The structure of society can change, and has continuously changed throughout history. In the grand scheme of things, ending oil or dairy subsidies is a pretty minor tweak to the system.
I don't totally with his stance but it isn't clear that you're actually putting forth any clear argument at all. What is your actual argument?
Well, he's paying for the government subsidies through taxes, so why would he pay that fraction again until the subsidies are discontinued? Since the subsidies are many steps above his interaction at the retail stores, by what mechanism would he even pay the extra money if he wanted to?
In your mind, are those the only two options available to us? Have the government restrict the things that we can do for our own good or voluntarily pay extra to subsidized industries. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
However, Australia has almost no guns, or gun deaths. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
You guys seem to fixate on the lack of gun deaths like it's some sort of magnificent selling point, but it just isn't a relevant factor for the vast majority of Americans.
Most Americans never face any sort of gun-related violence at all. I don't know anybody who's ever been shot or has shot anybody in the US. Gun violence in the US is largely perpetrated by the urban poor against other urban poor. Nobody else in the US, besides professional worriers, lives their life in fear of being shot.
I notice that the poor, who are responsible for nearly all of the gun deaths in the US, are conspicuously absent from your invitation to immigrate to Australia, by the way.
The last sentence of the summary was awesomely qualified:
This new G+ community will discuss means and methods to protect our rights related to encrypted communications, unfettered by government efforts to undermine our privacy in this context.
They had to really stretch that sentence to get around the irony of hosting a privacy advocacy group on Google's servers!
The Google Apps bundles for Cyanogenmod can be used as a means to find most of the components of the apps. It's not perfect, but it's a start. There are still components of stock CM that contact Google, so it goes much deeper.
Myopic developer knows the ins and outs of their system and assumes that everybody else must also magically know as much as they do. It's like when you walk into a store that you've never been into, ask the borderline retarded clerk where to find an item, and watch the cretinous condescending look they give you as they think about how they know where that item is and that you must be an idiot for not knowing.
It's very very much like that situation. The inability to comprehend a perspective outside of your own is a shortcoming and character flaw at best (and a common symptom of serious mental deficiency at worst).
This is like uninstalling the music player and then complain that the DLNA server is still running.
If the music player turned on the DLNA server, that would be a valid complaint. Any changes that an app makes to the system should be unmade when that app is uninstalled, especially if those changes are very specific to that app. (There may be multiple apps that require a service and so there may need to be a system in place to insure that apps don't interfere with each other, but just leaving services running after apps are uninstalled is sloppy.)
If you installed a music player that enabled a DNLA server then uninstalled it, why would you expect it to leave the DLNA server running?
It's the syndication model. There may be a price for everything, but exclusivity is enforced by the hypothetical price being outrageously high (~$2/ep would kill Netflix). The dollar model presumes that the dollar theater could pay the same price as the expensive theater and get the same access and that both of them are negotiating with a third-party rights holder.
Unless the amount of money that Hulu is getting for each ad is shockingly high (It's $25-30 CPM), the cost for Netflix to acquire similar rights would be fairly reasonable and they would have likely already done so. Since the holders of the media distribution rights actually own Hulu, it's likely that Hulu is not paying the same price for new shows that Netflix would have to pay (hypothetically, if such an offer was even realistically on the table).
If breaking exclusivity was just a matter of being a bigger company, then Hulu would show Netflix's exclusive content. The key part of my argument, which you keep skirting around, is that Hulu is owned by the media companies and that their exclusive access to those companies' content comes from that fact and not that their ads are allowing them to pay exorbitant royalties.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd wager, that is run as well as a company with accountability, all the programs you seem to hate could run twice as well for the same cost.
I'm not sure why this view of corporations persists. Companies minimize expenses in order to maximize profits. The cost of goods or services to the customers of a company has little bearing on the cost to the company of providing/producing those goods or services. The cost of a corporate provided service will be what the market can bear and in the case of a monopoly like the government, that cost will be extremely high. Costs (and corners) are cut for the sole purpose of maximizing profits.
If the government was run like a corporation, the citizens would pay just as much but the higher-ups in government would get bigger salaries. If anything could be done to reduce the expenses of the government, it would be done even if it drastically reduced the quality of the services, and the higher-ups would get bonuses. As far as the customer is concerned, profit is an unwanted added expense.
Or did you mean that we'd have competition between several governments and get to shop around for who we pay our taxes to?
If the claim is false, it could be a felony in Minnesota...
Did you even read your link? It was specifically listed as a misdemeanor, before it was struck down as the other reply noted. [It was explicitly stated that it was a misdemeanor, but a sentence of "not more than one year" is indicative of a misdemeanor as well.]
It is disturbing that libel can be a felony in Colorado, Florida, and Michigan (only if the victim is a bank in Michigan, though).
The scenario you outlined also makes the most sense. If obtaining a fraudulent license was a defense against copyright infringement, then infringement could easily be systematically laundered through phony licenses from other companies. Unless they're obtaining licenses from Phony Licenses Unlimited, proving bad faith would be difficult. Whether or not a license is obtained in good faith is more a matter to be settled by CBC and CNN in this case. It's irrelevant to the case of whether infringement occurred.
It's deteriorated in more ways than just that. For all of the downsides of AMPS (and there were plenty), poor voice quality wasn't really one of them. It was horridly inefficient with spectrum, but enough bandwidth was available for voice communications and poor signal resulted in static on the channel (which we are pretty good at hearing through) instead of the common modern scenario of voice completely dropping out and stuttering every few seconds.
DUI checkpoints absolutely violate the 4th and the dissenting opinions state as much, yet they're allowed.
It's not just the dissenting opinion. The majority opinion states pretty clearly that it violates the Fourth Amendment, but the state really wants to be able to do it, so it therefore doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
You're absolutely correct... and so is he (on the Jefferson quote, not at all on his anti-abortion hysteria).
It's not necessary for everybody to stand up for, or even agree on, every righteous cause. As long as each cause has its proponents, progress can be made. Advocating for one thing passionately is more likely to bring about change than diluting your effort over multiple issues that you are less passionate about.
I think his position is stupid and uninformed, but it's not hypocritical of him to push one cause at the exclusion of all other causes. Plus, he never even mentioned those other topics, so you're just using senseless party-based tribalism to assign him characteristics that he may not have. Lazy, man. Lazy.
Fair enough, but we're still talking tens of pellets tops, which will have a pretty sparse pattern at 200'. You'd never shoot anything that size with buckshot at 200' and be surprised if you missed it. This is compared to using #7.5, #8, or even #9 with hundreds of pellets in a standard load.
If he was using buckshot, he'd have nine (or fewer) pellets to work with. At 200', with all of the spread in the pattern at that distance, he'd be extremely lucky to hit a tiny quadcopter. The pellets may retain the energy to break the quadcopter, but the likelihood of him actually hitting it is even less likely.
Um, whoosh? You were apparently ok with the rest of the sig, which doesn't bode well for the future of our language.
He never said anything about the military using them against civilians. The police in the US are increasingly adopting the use of military weapons for their civil duties and sometimes the weapons were obtained directly from the US military.
Many of the riot control agents and devices were originally developed for military use. Some of the active denial systems are already being deployed by law enforcement.
So it's really not an issue of "if", but "when". You don't even need to be in China.
You originally said competence, not intelligence. You're moving the goalposts.
Competence has a huge training component which is not necessarily tied to intelligence. If the culture of one demographic keeps them from pursuing higher education or attending top schools, they will ultimately be less competent as a demographic. This may translate into a correlation between race and competence and still may not be the result of any racism from outside that demographic.
AOL "died" before broadband came along. AOL, like Compuserve, was a walled garden before it was an ISP (proper). Once the internet as a whole began to provide more compelling content, forums, etc, they shifted to a primary ISP role, but prior to that access to the internet was limited and sketchy.
AOL becoming an ISP was the way that it died. Before that, it was an absolutely huge service with tons of subscribers.
Fair enough. I don't understand why didn't you say that then, rather than defending the mis-quote. Sorry for my heavy-handed response though.
I was actually being cheeky with the followup post, too, by defending my use of "known". I really do need to work on my delivery, though. Even in real life I tend to deliver my jokes a little too deadpan and just get weird looks in response. So I can't fault you for not knowing that I was joking... and history tells me that I'm just going to keep at it!
Honestly, I didn't expect this level of seriousness in response to the comment. I was drinking a bit and it made me chuckle to use her apocryphal quote to tie a comment about elites being parted from their head to the response that the elites could control them with food. It seemed less funny if I pointed out that it originated from someone whose head was not removed in revolution or if I provided an accurate interpretation of the statement instead of a flippant one.
I expected an eyeroll at worst, but I suppose tone has never been communicated well in comments. Perhaps I should have added a winky face? ;)
My comment was intended to be mildly humorous, not factually correct.
So you can read a wikipedia page and have a penchant for overdramatizing trivial things. Color me impressed.
You must be the life of any parties that you manage to get invited to.
Well, she is known for having said that, even if she never actually did.
I believe Marie Antoinette is known for having said a very similar thing...
How is it bullshit? He can't pay market prices for things because of the way that things are current structured, but he addressed this by saying that he thinks things should be structured differently: "I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me." There weren't always oil and dairy subsidies and we could do away with them again.
There are many very reasonable things that I want that aren't currently feasible due to the way that our system is structured, too. The structure of society can change, and has continuously changed throughout history. In the grand scheme of things, ending oil or dairy subsidies is a pretty minor tweak to the system.
I don't totally with his stance but it isn't clear that you're actually putting forth any clear argument at all. What is your actual argument?
Well, he's paying for the government subsidies through taxes, so why would he pay that fraction again until the subsidies are discontinued? Since the subsidies are many steps above his interaction at the retail stores, by what mechanism would he even pay the extra money if he wanted to?
In your mind, are those the only two options available to us? Have the government restrict the things that we can do for our own good or voluntarily pay extra to subsidized industries. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
However, Australia has almost no guns, or gun deaths. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
You guys seem to fixate on the lack of gun deaths like it's some sort of magnificent selling point, but it just isn't a relevant factor for the vast majority of Americans.
Most Americans never face any sort of gun-related violence at all. I don't know anybody who's ever been shot or has shot anybody in the US. Gun violence in the US is largely perpetrated by the urban poor against other urban poor. Nobody else in the US, besides professional worriers, lives their life in fear of being shot.
I notice that the poor, who are responsible for nearly all of the gun deaths in the US, are conspicuously absent from your invitation to immigrate to Australia, by the way.
The last sentence of the summary was awesomely qualified:
This new G+ community will discuss means and methods to protect our rights related to encrypted communications, unfettered by government efforts to undermine our privacy in this context.
They had to really stretch that sentence to get around the irony of hosting a privacy advocacy group on Google's servers!
The Google Apps bundles for Cyanogenmod can be used as a means to find most of the components of the apps. It's not perfect, but it's a start. There are still components of stock CM that contact Google, so it goes much deeper.
Totally...
Myopic developer knows the ins and outs of their system and assumes that everybody else must also magically know as much as they do. It's like when you walk into a store that you've never been into, ask the borderline retarded clerk where to find an item, and watch the cretinous condescending look they give you as they think about how they know where that item is and that you must be an idiot for not knowing.
It's very very much like that situation. The inability to comprehend a perspective outside of your own is a shortcoming and character flaw at best (and a common symptom of serious mental deficiency at worst).
This is like uninstalling the music player and then complain that the DLNA server is still running.
If the music player turned on the DLNA server, that would be a valid complaint. Any changes that an app makes to the system should be unmade when that app is uninstalled, especially if those changes are very specific to that app. (There may be multiple apps that require a service and so there may need to be a system in place to insure that apps don't interfere with each other, but just leaving services running after apps are uninstalled is sloppy.)
If you installed a music player that enabled a DNLA server then uninstalled it, why would you expect it to leave the DLNA server running?
It's the syndication model. There may be a price for everything, but exclusivity is enforced by the hypothetical price being outrageously high (~$2/ep would kill Netflix). The dollar model presumes that the dollar theater could pay the same price as the expensive theater and get the same access and that both of them are negotiating with a third-party rights holder.
Unless the amount of money that Hulu is getting for each ad is shockingly high (It's $25-30 CPM), the cost for Netflix to acquire similar rights would be fairly reasonable and they would have likely already done so. Since the holders of the media distribution rights actually own Hulu, it's likely that Hulu is not paying the same price for new shows that Netflix would have to pay (hypothetically, if such an offer was even realistically on the table).
If breaking exclusivity was just a matter of being a bigger company, then Hulu would show Netflix's exclusive content. The key part of my argument, which you keep skirting around, is that Hulu is owned by the media companies and that their exclusive access to those companies' content comes from that fact and not that their ads are allowing them to pay exorbitant royalties.