Slashdot told me every second person would be unemployed because of robots in the future. So labor costs should fall. And if they don't, we can just have robots do the work.
What did electricity compete with? Darkness and ice deliveries. What does fiber compete with? Services that are already roughly comparable to fiber.
Who needs electricity? Everyone who doesn't have it. Who needs fiber? A small percentage (10% ?) of people who want to do something a regular cable/DSL 25Mbps connection isn't good enough for -- and who can't already get better service.
Fiber is an incremental benefit for a smallish subset of people.
Lots of things can be punishments without impacting rights. It's not the same kind of punishment as imprisoning them, for example, but they probably think of it as a punishment.
Treating innocent people badly because someone else is guilty of something is wrong, regardless of it technically being called "punishment" or whatever.
You can argue that it's justified based on some particular need if you want. But you can't argue that Trump's comments are evil hate speech and Obama's aren't -- they're essentially the same.
Banning Muslims is wrong because we shouldn't punish innocent people because just because someone else is guilty.
The occasion was after one of the Muslim mass shootings last year.
Let's not forget that, at the same time Trump wanted to act against innocent Muslims, President Obama wanted to take action against innocent gun owners. If it's wrong to target innocents for enforcement, when can we expect President Obama to be criticized for exactly the same thing?
It's less the election and more that Facebook employs (and empowers) totalitarian-minded censors. A less censor-happy organization (like Slashdot) wouldn't feel the need to change anything.
Yes, if if was the top 3% of users, it wouldn't continually move lower, it would reach an equilibrium. It it was the top 3% of volume, it would also reach an equilibrium.
Me too. They always said they would throttle it after some amount. They have lots of different plans though, maybe they forgot to put that language on some of them. Or maybe this is just government indulging whiny trolls looking for freebies. It could be either one.
... he has gone from someone fighting for open and honest government to someone that is using information he has access too in a manner to influence an election. timing the releases of information to the political happenings in order to influence people makes him no better than those he is supposedly against...
So the "right thing" to do is to keep the information secret until it's too late to be useful to voters? That's an interesting value system you have.
When you learn information about Hillary that she doesn't want you to know, it's called election interference. You people out there need to know your place and learn to just do what your designated leaders tell you. When they want you to know something, they'll tell you.
People who are inconvenient to the Clintons keep having all these unfortunate problems and mishaps. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that things keep working out this way for the Clintons and their enemies.
Are you a robot? It's ok if you are. We welcome newcomers like you. It will take time and effort for you to gain an understanding of the popular culture.
Conventional wisdom says that everything about Europeans is always better than everything about Americans. You get socially rewarded by high-social-status people for saying so. So not working is better than working in this case, regardless of whether that makes sense or not.
You should try it. I said free speech protections are for unpopular speech, and that haters like you should give up your obsessions and do good things for people instead of trying to tear people down. Which part of that is "false"?
If you're not an angry, obsessed hater, then why are you name-calling random internet people in a discussion a week later? Why do you want to "smack down" and "shut up" people who aren't like you?
Who benefits from the perception that government is "there for you"? Government insiders and politicians. If this idea is believed, it helps them continue controlling money someone else earned and power that rightfully belongs to individual citizens in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot told me every second person would be unemployed because of robots in the future. So labor costs should fall. And if they don't, we can just have robots do the work.
Upgrading when you need to upgrade is stupid? Because communications technology gets more expensive over time?
What did electricity compete with? Darkness and ice deliveries. What does fiber compete with? Services that are already roughly comparable to fiber.
Who needs electricity? Everyone who doesn't have it. Who needs fiber? A small percentage (10% ?) of people who want to do something a regular cable/DSL 25Mbps connection isn't good enough for -- and who can't already get better service.
Fiber is an incremental benefit for a smallish subset of people.
You don't need the totalitarian bullshit.
But the totalitarian bullshit is the principal goal.
Lots of things can be punishments without impacting rights. It's not the same kind of punishment as imprisoning them, for example, but they probably think of it as a punishment.
Treating innocent people badly because someone else is guilty of something is wrong, regardless of it technically being called "punishment" or whatever.
You can argue that it's justified based on some particular need if you want. But you can't argue that Trump's comments are evil hate speech and Obama's aren't -- they're essentially the same.
What are the good, secure alternatives to gmail and yahoo mail? And no, I'm not going to setup my own server.
Save yourself from hunger and indictment by not being a jerk. Not being a jerk to people has many benefits.
Banning Muslims is wrong because we shouldn't punish innocent people because just because someone else is guilty.
The occasion was after one of the Muslim mass shootings last year.
Let's not forget that, at the same time Trump wanted to act against innocent Muslims, President Obama wanted to take action against innocent gun owners. If it's wrong to target innocents for enforcement, when can we expect President Obama to be criticized for exactly the same thing?
It's less the election and more that Facebook employs (and empowers) totalitarian-minded censors. A less censor-happy organization (like Slashdot) wouldn't feel the need to change anything.
Yes, if if was the top 3% of users, it wouldn't continually move lower, it would reach an equilibrium. It it was the top 3% of volume, it would also reach an equilibrium.
No. Why would it?
Me too. They always said they would throttle it after some amount. They have lots of different plans though, maybe they forgot to put that language on some of them. Or maybe this is just government indulging whiny trolls looking for freebies. It could be either one.
... he has gone from someone fighting for open and honest government to someone that is using information he has access too in a manner to influence an election. timing the releases of information to the political happenings in order to influence people makes him no better than those he is supposedly against...
So the "right thing" to do is to keep the information secret until it's too late to be useful to voters? That's an interesting value system you have.
If you test positive for DNA, you're not eligible.
Something that isn't happening may someday happen.
Telling people what Hillary is actually doing is bad manners.
When you learn information about Hillary that she doesn't want you to know, it's called election interference. You people out there need to know your place and learn to just do what your designated leaders tell you. When they want you to know something, they'll tell you.
People who are inconvenient to the Clintons keep having all these unfortunate problems and mishaps. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that things keep working out this way for the Clintons and their enemies.
Thanks?
Are you a robot? It's ok if you are. We welcome newcomers like you. It will take time and effort for you to gain an understanding of the popular culture.
No, it's not a reference.
Yeah, that's why I said "...regardless of whether this makes sense" up above.
If it was Americans who had more free time and Europeans who had less. Then less free time would be considered better.
Conventional wisdom says that everything about Europeans is always better than everything about Americans. You get socially rewarded by high-social-status people for saying so. So not working is better than working in this case, regardless of whether that makes sense or not.
You should try it. I said free speech protections are for unpopular speech, and that haters like you should give up your obsessions and do good things for people instead of trying to tear people down. Which part of that is "false"?
If you're not an angry, obsessed hater, then why are you name-calling random internet people in a discussion a week later? Why do you want to "smack down" and "shut up" people who aren't like you?
Who benefits from the perception that government is "there for you"? Government insiders and politicians. If this idea is believed, it helps them continue controlling money someone else earned and power that rightfully belongs to individual citizens in the country.