You're entirely free to teach your kids creationism. The UK government won't send it anyone to prevent you from doing it. However, as a society, some stuff needs to be taught to all citizens like math and language skills. Why would the parents have anything to say about that? You can teach your kid at home if you want to, as long as they pass the same tests other kids pass to certify they have a certain level of basic knowledge.
As for drugs, well. Take drugs if you want, but then you should have to pay 100% of the externalities it causes.
If you're asking me? No, obviously. Do I think the website in question (that sells copied, fake products) should be taken off? Yes. You used burkas in your example, but what if in a country child porn is legal and Google starts linking to those easily on their global index, would you want to get that removed? If no, you're a sick bastard, and if yes, then how is this different? Keep in mind the case is about a website violating copyright laws and selling fake product, which would get them taken down internationally (and there is a court order for that, except they're not in Canada).
The question is, should the Internet (or at least Google) be policed in some way? If yes, who does it, and where do those powers stop? If it's one country, what about all the countries that this impacts that have no say? If it's all countries, how manageable is it? If it's Google, who keeps Google in check? You have to admit the judge raised a valid question.
I think it's follow the laws of every land they operate in, for operations that impact that land. Example, google.com can be reached in Canada, therefore is impacted.
In your female staff clothing analogy, it would be "all Google employees within Saudi Arabia must be covered", including traveling staff members from California. It doesn't mean staff in CA need to follow Saudi law. Now yes, if Saudi Arabia said "no link to anything with a picture of the Prophet", then using this judgement as precedent (if Google decides to obey it) everyone worldwide would no longer be able to search for pictures of Muhammad. That's kind of problematic, given the crazy governments out there, but I think the jurisdiction question is a valid one in the Internet world.
The case involves a company that claims that another company used its trade secrets to create a competing product along with "bait and switch" tactics to trick users into purchasing their product. The defendant company had been the target of several court orders demanding that it stop selling the copied product on their website.
Seems to be about illegal copying of a product and generally a scammy website, nothing to do with freedom of speech/rights to be forgotten or anything like that. Chances are the website/company would be pulled down by any US court as well.
That's the method (handbrake) commonly taught to new drivers. A lot of people do it, and frankly, it's way safer than the other method (quickly shift from brake to clutch+accel and hope you get it right... which you do if you know your car, but y'know, split-second of "oh shit, maybe I'll slide").
Man, apart from the general Bill Gates hate, can we just know what he actually told the students?
Where's the "go work for a charity" part that everyone implies? All I know is he said not to focus _only_ on profits. I agree with that message, anything wrong with it? If you're motivated solely by profits, whatever, but I'm not, and I would agree that new graduates coming in all likelihood from rich backgrounds should think about their impact on the world as a whole and not just make money. It would avoid problems like, I dunno, the subprime mortgage crisis or whatever.
He does some of that "investing in money-making companies" thing you're talking about, via contributing to Acumen and other philanthropic funds: http://acumen.org/story/fundin....
Making an impact is hard. The Gates foundation invests in a few things that no one else does, or areas in which there isn't enough funding because it's not profitable enough. Things like basic medical research, for example, and not only direct "here have a toilet" type of stuff.
I know the entire Slashdot hates Bill Gates for Microsoft and profiting from other people's technologies/coding and anti-competitive behaviour, but your perspective does change when you age. You can become more, or less, idealistic. And you do realize you made mistakes, and you might want to change things. Ever heard an old banker tell their young alma mater to go for a profession that makes them happy, and not chase the money in investment banking?... Well maybe you haven't, but I have. There's nothing wrong with realizing that money isn't the _only_ thing, and that there are other things that need to be focused on.
Ahem. Have you been to McDonald's and then tried to compare the cheapest offerings at McD's with fruits and vegetables, calories/$-wise?
So I've been shopping at Wal-mart for a bit. Tomatoes run you 0.99-1.49/lb. Cucumbers are roughly a buck. Gala apples, 1.49/lb. Do you know how many apples is a pound of apples? About 2.5 of the "normal" sized gala. Let's say 3. Do you know how many calories is 3 apples? About 300.
How long does it take to make beans and rice? What's the cost of electricity/gas? And salt? I don't know, I'm asking. I think it's negligible, but not everyone thinks so.
I have a McD right next to the Walmart. Do you know how much is a McChicken? $1. A McDouble? $1. How many calories is in a McDouble? 390. 360 in a McChicken. For 66% of the price of my 3 apples, I can have a higher calorie intake, at a taste that's _made_ to cater to human taste buds. I also do not need to cook anything, or spend any time on thinking about my food. It's delivered warm into my hands. For a dollar.
It's far cheaper and easier eating at McDonald's, if all I care about is having a full stomach. It's not healthy, but then again being healthy probably comes second to not feeling hungry, if we're talking about the poorest segment of the population. And that, that's the problem. It's healthier eating from raw vegetables and other ingredients, but it's not cheaper and not simpler, so it's hard to incentivize a poor, uneducated population to do so.
You know. Pack their lunch with only fruits and vegetables, and a sandwich with whole bread and vegetables, and then don't give them money. Let's see if that strategy works better.
So excuse my ignorance, but can 17 million$ worth of BTC be liquidated easily? What's the volume of BTC transactions, and wouldn't selling those crash the prices?
Slashdot Mirror
You're entirely free to teach your kids creationism. The UK government won't send it anyone to prevent you from doing it. However, as a society, some stuff needs to be taught to all citizens like math and language skills. Why would the parents have anything to say about that? You can teach your kid at home if you want to, as long as they pass the same tests other kids pass to certify they have a certain level of basic knowledge.
As for drugs, well. Take drugs if you want, but then you should have to pay 100% of the externalities it causes.
Educate me. My quick research showed a lot of internal Chinese conflict, and some with Korea, but very, very few with Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
In history, what are the big wars where China invaded other countries?
If you're asking me? No, obviously. Do I think the website in question (that sells copied, fake products) should be taken off? Yes. You used burkas in your example, but what if in a country child porn is legal and Google starts linking to those easily on their global index, would you want to get that removed? If no, you're a sick bastard, and if yes, then how is this different? Keep in mind the case is about a website violating copyright laws and selling fake product, which would get them taken down internationally (and there is a court order for that, except they're not in Canada).
The question is, should the Internet (or at least Google) be policed in some way? If yes, who does it, and where do those powers stop? If it's one country, what about all the countries that this impacts that have no say? If it's all countries, how manageable is it? If it's Google, who keeps Google in check? You have to admit the judge raised a valid question.
I think it's follow the laws of every land they operate in, for operations that impact that land. Example, google.com can be reached in Canada, therefore is impacted.
In your female staff clothing analogy, it would be "all Google employees within Saudi Arabia must be covered", including traveling staff members from California. It doesn't mean staff in CA need to follow Saudi law. Now yes, if Saudi Arabia said "no link to anything with a picture of the Prophet", then using this judgement as precedent (if Google decides to obey it) everyone worldwide would no longer be able to search for pictures of Muhammad. That's kind of problematic, given the crazy governments out there, but I think the jurisdiction question is a valid one in the Internet world.
Quote from the article:
The case involves a company that claims that another company used its trade secrets to create a competing product along with "bait and switch" tactics to trick users into purchasing their product. The defendant company had been the target of several court orders demanding that it stop selling the copied product on their website.
Seems to be about illegal copying of a product and generally a scammy website, nothing to do with freedom of speech/rights to be forgotten or anything like that. Chances are the website/company would be pulled down by any US court as well.
That's the method (handbrake) commonly taught to new drivers. A lot of people do it, and frankly, it's way safer than the other method (quickly shift from brake to clutch+accel and hope you get it right... which you do if you know your car, but y'know, split-second of "oh shit, maybe I'll slide").
Man, apart from the general Bill Gates hate, can we just know what he actually told the students?
Where's the "go work for a charity" part that everyone implies? All I know is he said not to focus _only_ on profits. I agree with that message, anything wrong with it? If you're motivated solely by profits, whatever, but I'm not, and I would agree that new graduates coming in all likelihood from rich backgrounds should think about their impact on the world as a whole and not just make money. It would avoid problems like, I dunno, the subprime mortgage crisis or whatever.
He does some of that "investing in money-making companies" thing you're talking about, via contributing to Acumen and other philanthropic funds: http://acumen.org/story/fundin....
... Well maybe you haven't, but I have. There's nothing wrong with realizing that money isn't the _only_ thing, and that there are other things that need to be focused on.
Making an impact is hard. The Gates foundation invests in a few things that no one else does, or areas in which there isn't enough funding because it's not profitable enough. Things like basic medical research, for example, and not only direct "here have a toilet" type of stuff.
I know the entire Slashdot hates Bill Gates for Microsoft and profiting from other people's technologies/coding and anti-competitive behaviour, but your perspective does change when you age. You can become more, or less, idealistic. And you do realize you made mistakes, and you might want to change things. Ever heard an old banker tell their young alma mater to go for a profession that makes them happy, and not chase the money in investment banking?
Ahem. Have you been to McDonald's and then tried to compare the cheapest offerings at McD's with fruits and vegetables, calories/$-wise?
So I've been shopping at Wal-mart for a bit. Tomatoes run you 0.99-1.49/lb. Cucumbers are roughly a buck. Gala apples, 1.49/lb. Do you know how many apples is a pound of apples? About 2.5 of the "normal" sized gala. Let's say 3. Do you know how many calories is 3 apples? About 300.
How long does it take to make beans and rice? What's the cost of electricity/gas? And salt? I don't know, I'm asking. I think it's negligible, but not everyone thinks so.
I have a McD right next to the Walmart. Do you know how much is a McChicken? $1. A McDouble? $1. How many calories is in a McDouble? 390. 360 in a McChicken. For 66% of the price of my 3 apples, I can have a higher calorie intake, at a taste that's _made_ to cater to human taste buds. I also do not need to cook anything, or spend any time on thinking about my food. It's delivered warm into my hands. For a dollar. It's far cheaper and easier eating at McDonald's, if all I care about is having a full stomach. It's not healthy, but then again being healthy probably comes second to not feeling hungry, if we're talking about the poorest segment of the population. And that, that's the problem. It's healthier eating from raw vegetables and other ingredients, but it's not cheaper and not simpler, so it's hard to incentivize a poor, uneducated population to do so.
You know. Pack their lunch with only fruits and vegetables, and a sandwich with whole bread and vegetables, and then don't give them money. Let's see if that strategy works better.
So excuse my ignorance, but can 17 million$ worth of BTC be liquidated easily? What's the volume of BTC transactions, and wouldn't selling those crash the prices?