The thing is, culture (especially Western culture) is full of paranoid anxieties about science. From Frankenstein to Terminator, there's always some cynical writer somewhere creating dystopias because pain sells. The longer these ideas remain embedded in culture, the more chance they have to affect public opinion.
Well, to be fair some dystopia novels do serve as a good hard warning. As a non-scientific political/ideological example, I present 1984, written precisely at a time when all the intelligentsia were eager to create a global socialistic (albeit not quite communist) utopia.
Same with science, really. I'll set it up to explain why:
75 years ago, scientists were handling radioactive elements like they were as harmless as lumps of play-doh, and every 'good' mother was out there bathing their kids' feet in X-rays for shoe-fitting, at dosages/levels that today would get your kids snatched away by Protective Services if they found out. Eventually, we learned about things like radiation poisoning (though TBH it took a freakin' atomic bomb or two going off before anyone outside of a few select physicists even knew what that was). In other news, during that same time period Eugenics was once considered a solid (and even respected) science... and we all know where that went. The sad part is, that's nothing compared to the almost countless examples of treating science as panacea, without an eye towards ethics or morals, or even caution.
While no, you're not going to spawn a black hole at LHC (the laws of nature are rather resilient against that, and the entire Earth hasn't enough mass to make one), there are some good, hard uses for dystopian fantasy-type warnings. Human genetics stands out as a pretty good one - while I certainly wouldn't expect a 60-foot-tall man-slaying homonculus to come out of it (hell, it wouldn't survive gestation), I can see how genetic mucking-around can open whole populations up to pathogen immunity problems** and eventual congenital defects, among other things - and I haven't even touched on the ethics of the situation.
Besides, some damned good sci-fi has come out of dystopian views of hard science, and yet somehow hasn't retarded scientific progress in spite of it.
Overall, I guess the only reason I'm defending the dystopian genre isn't because I like the topic matter (let's face it, there's a lot of crap novels out there that try to use it), but because it does serve an important watchdog function. Sure, we think we've evolved beyond superstition, but honestly? It doesn't matter how frickin' much we've evolved, because we have yet to evolve beyond human failings: greed, avarice, lust, hatred, etc. So unless your name is Mother Teresa, you suffer from these as much as I do (and she likely suffered from it too, just that she was really good at controlling them).
** note that such problems would likely require many, many generations to surface.
That won't work for name-based hosting, which pretty much every cheap-ass hostedwebsite uses these days.
FTFY.
Most of your serious trackers and distie sites aren't going to be using virt domains - given the hellish amount of traffic involved, it'll either use multiple dedicated IPs handed off to caching servers, or one hell of a load-balancer.
She likely used "possibly" because stating it as intimidation opens the door for a whole lot of criminal proceedings (I assume most of them would lie within RICO).
Anyways, you don't need a lawyer to represent you, you can represent yourself if you so choose.
With enough time and research, sure you can. With enough understanding of the laws involved, you could possibly even do a great job of it.
Meanwhile, the bills need paid, your job is still going to demand that you show up and do work for them, and since we're not talking a criminal case, you're not going to get any real competent help from the court.
So... unless you're an IP lawyer who happens to be unemployed or independently wealthy, representing yourself is sheer lunacy.
He understands, but both of you missed one important distinction here:
With most torts, there's no question raised as to whether or not the defendant was involved. Instead, the big disagreement in most lawsuits is over whether or not the defendant's actions caused damages, and/or if their subsequent results are damaging enough to warrant a monetary (or other) redress.
With the trolls at Voltage, there's no way to tell (or even reliably prove) that the defendant and/or his products/property/whatever had any involvement at all.
We'll see. Windows 8 has already lost the WinTel empire at least one customer that I know of (my missus tried+hated Windows 8, and she opted for an iPad instead.)
Me, I'll wait to see what happens. I can't see Ballmer's ego marching things back to a full-on Windows 7 (and TBH, before)-style interface (in spite of enterprise pretty much demanding it), so I suspect that whatever comes of it will (at risk of trolling, but just IMHO) reek of a duct-tape job, with a start button lashed in somewhere but with Metro still all over the thing.
Simple - if the person trying to make the world a better place is despicable, they do not deserve any credit for doing so. It would have been better if they didn't, as their charitable actions taint the outcome due to who they are.
I don't doubt you are correct, by why don't they call their representatives to ask for a lower or zero sales tax instead?
...because the interests that benefit** from that sales tax will immediately start screaming about how the lack of sales tax will starve children, make them illiterate, let your house burn down because firefighters can't be hired, etc etc. They'll of course be joined in chorus by every politician who spends that money.
Good luck fighting that kind of hysterical response. Mind you, I live in Oregon, which has no sales tax (unless you buy gasoline, tobacco, or suchlike.)
** Note: These interests outside of government are usually teacher unions, firefighter unions, police unions, etc.
You have to give it some time before Icahn gets interested. Netflix had a transient bump in the road, while Yahoo and Dell have had year-on-year headaches for stockholder and CFO alike.
There seems to be a theme of what could best be termed the 'has-been' factor (companies that were once-great, have strong brand recognition, but are no longer serious contenders). For instance, I think that if Nokia were based in the US and not Finland, Icahn would be busily trying to rape them right now instead of Dell.
Exactly. A quick look at his little history (especially with Yahoo a few years back) shows that he's only in it to score some meat from a dying company while the victim is still breathing. Notice that he doesn't really go after healthy, growing companies - only those which show signs of being in serious trouble.
I suspect that if you work for a larger company? A perfect indicator of your corp being in deep kimchi would be the presence of Carl Icahn's active attempts at your company's financials... it's like seeing the Angel of Death, only he's going after the board of directors.
That's 4 years of income lost by taking extra time to finish college.
I disagree. During that extra time, you should be working in the same field you intend to make a career of. For instance, if you're working towards a BS in Nursing, it would make sense to work as a CNA, then LPN, then RN... (to use my ex wife's example). Same with IT - Start at a help desk, then work your way up while you're going to school.
Do it that way, and you not only get your sheepskin, but you get something in parallel that is more valuable to employers - experience.
Why can't there be a four year program from a high quality school that has the emphasis on teaching the skills you need for a career in industry?
Actually, Utah has something exactly like that. You spend the first two years hands-on in the trade at a campus of the Utah College of Applied Technology (there are 10 campuses spread across the state). Each campus is partnered with a state-level university, so if you want that 2-year degree to become a 4-year one, you take 3-4 "bridge" classes, then the 2nd two years of the 4-year degree.
The coolest part about the system? a top-grade high school student can go to UCAT as early as they can start 11th grade (assuming they clear their state HS required classes). They can complete the 2-year degree at around 6 months after graduating high school, and the state pays for all of it. This leaves paying only for the last two years plus one full-time semester's worth of bridge classes.
Community colleges are too busy trying to get kids educated to bother with indoctrination. Sniff around at a big-name or state uni, and things are a bit different.
Fun question here... how is your nephew going to school, and where?
I've known folks who paid their own way through school, who got their Bachelors' 8 years after they started, but they paid their own way along, CLEP'd out of the drudge-work classes, used the GI Bill, used employer-sponsored tuition reimbursements, got their undergrad at the local (read: cheaper) community college but their BS at the state uni, etc.
There's the traditional (and IMHO stupid) way of doing college, and then there's the smart way to do it. Do it traditional, and (sadly) prepare for the consequences.
I was surprised to discover recently that a friend of mine, a staunch Republican, had his Cadillac-plan health insurance cut by his defense-contractor employer and replaced with a bare-bones high-deductible plan.
Incidentally, I find it curious that we're in year 5 of Obama's administration (mind you, two of those years gave him full run of Congress), yet there are still progressives blaming presidents who are long gone.
Your cite has one problem.... in its very first sentence, it presents this tidbit.
My statement therefore stands, as settled science means there is no credible opposition - there are too many credible scientists in the list I cited.;)
One party has become so divorced from reality, most of the people they elect refuse to believe in basic truths like evolution [...]
Evidence, please. Your burden is to show that the majority of elected GOP officials categorically stated that evolution as proposed by Darwin is somehow false.
Good luck with that.
I challenged this because I strongly suspect that you're making assumptions based on what you may have heard or had pre-digested for you. If you truly want to make an informed opinion, you have to dig deeper and get the facts yourself, not have it spoon-fed to you.
...and global warming,
"global warming" as you state it is not yet settled science, nor is global anthropomorphic-caused climate change as the IPCC's political wing would have you believe it. Therefore, there is plenty of room for disagreement. Besides, the latter, allegedly based on science, is supposed to be openly challenged. That's how science works.
On the other hand, you saw some drivers who you assumed were Democrats (though you had no way of actually knowing)...
I live in Multnomah County. Go check the voting records around here sometime... odds are perfect that if some yahoo was screaming foul epithets at pro-life protesters (and their children, incidentally), odds are good that their passion comes from a left-leaning source. Quibble all you want about the presence of Green or Socialist parties, but the statistics are against you.
insulting some protesters.
...and throwing trash of various hardness, hurtling death threats, etc. But yeah, that's cool if your side does it, right? After all, they're only fighting for what you believe in (whatever that may be, since your copious use of buzzwords indicates that your opinions may not have necessarily come from your own contemplation and reasoning).
I detest both political parties. I cannot stand the toxic buzzword-laces spoon-fed propaganda that either side tries to soak minds with. I do however try to seek out and listen to reasoned opinions from all sides of the political spectrum. Want an example? Check out the Dalai Lama's current visit here in PDX, and the ongoing conversations with Jewish and Catholic (among other) participants. I learn a lot that way.
What I cannot stand anymore is the political posts that generate a shit-ton of astroturfers, and idiots who get on their digital soapbox and do nothing more than prove they're mere sheeple who angrily amplify what they've (albeit consented to be) told to think. Then you get the folks who picked up the latest-greatest (to them) arguments from their college prof, who plow in and think they're some sort of intellectual badass, looking for a duel to prove their brainhood.
Screw that - I just solicit and incite opinions to learn, and happily discard that which is obvious regurgitation of propaganda... from either side.
Your non-sequitur aside, I'd like to see some evidence of your claim. I provided evidence of mine (though to be honest George Zimmerman's sudden whiteness by the media, and the recent NM Governor's statement about Cruz not 'really a hispanic" seem to prove an exception to my statement... oh well. )
I hate to tell you, but the intolerance blows hard in both directions. See also increasingly strident anti-smoking laws, the censorship of right-leaning speakers and views on college campuses, etc.
You either tolerate viewpoints you don't agree with, or you yourself are just as intolerant as the folks you claim are such. If you do not agree with it, or you think it should go away? You can only persuade, not ban.
It's like pregnancy - you can't do it just a little bit.
NTFS was originally a means of answering corporate demands of (among other things) "Hey - UNIX has file permissions, why doesn't Windows?" (v3.x at the time). The result? Worked (eventually), but, well...
There's one major party that's locked into deranged derp because they brainwashed their base so badly with superstition and hatred of anyone...
This portion holds perfectly true of both parties. Let me complete your sentence and see for yourself:...who differs with them on a given issue.
I have seen this first-hand - I live in Portland, and have seen this on both sides. I'll explain:
Side the first: I have personally watched drivers giving the middle finger, and occasionally hurtling trash and bile-filled shouts as they drove past pro-life protesters quietly praying with signs at a parking lot next to the Planned Parenthood clinic on MLK blvd.
Side the second: My wife was nearly struck with a bottle hurled at the Occupy protest last year as she quietly marched along, and she reported having passed numerous small groups of guys in suits downtown giving the one-finger salute, calling her and the other protesters all kinds of insults along the way.
Long story short - your "side" is just as duped and hate-filled as the other side. As evidence, I present the fact that you use name-calling and buzzwords as a means to mark folks who differ from you on given issues.
It's not your fault really... the blame is tow-fold, and keys off of human nature: Television loves nothing more than to stoke petty hatreds, fears, and jealousies which in turn drives advertising sales for them; the more outrageous the better. Political parties do it because stirring up passion (even by using lowest-common-denominator means) is the best known method to get votes, thus power.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, culture (especially Western culture) is full of paranoid anxieties about science. From Frankenstein to Terminator, there's always some cynical writer somewhere creating dystopias because pain sells. The longer these ideas remain embedded in culture, the more chance they have to affect public opinion.
Well, to be fair some dystopia novels do serve as a good hard warning. As a non-scientific political/ideological example, I present 1984, written precisely at a time when all the intelligentsia were eager to create a global socialistic (albeit not quite communist) utopia.
Same with science, really. I'll set it up to explain why:
75 years ago, scientists were handling radioactive elements like they were as harmless as lumps of play-doh, and every 'good' mother was out there bathing their kids' feet in X-rays for shoe-fitting, at dosages/levels that today would get your kids snatched away by Protective Services if they found out. Eventually, we learned about things like radiation poisoning (though TBH it took a freakin' atomic bomb or two going off before anyone outside of a few select physicists even knew what that was). In other news, during that same time period Eugenics was once considered a solid (and even respected) science... and we all know where that went. The sad part is, that's nothing compared to the almost countless examples of treating science as panacea, without an eye towards ethics or morals, or even caution.
While no, you're not going to spawn a black hole at LHC (the laws of nature are rather resilient against that, and the entire Earth hasn't enough mass to make one), there are some good, hard uses for dystopian fantasy-type warnings. Human genetics stands out as a pretty good one - while I certainly wouldn't expect a 60-foot-tall man-slaying homonculus to come out of it (hell, it wouldn't survive gestation), I can see how genetic mucking-around can open whole populations up to pathogen immunity problems** and eventual congenital defects, among other things - and I haven't even touched on the ethics of the situation.
Besides, some damned good sci-fi has come out of dystopian views of hard science, and yet somehow hasn't retarded scientific progress in spite of it.
Overall, I guess the only reason I'm defending the dystopian genre isn't because I like the topic matter (let's face it, there's a lot of crap novels out there that try to use it), but because it does serve an important watchdog function. Sure, we think we've evolved beyond superstition, but honestly? It doesn't matter how frickin' much we've evolved, because we have yet to evolve beyond human failings: greed, avarice, lust, hatred, etc. So unless your name is Mother Teresa, you suffer from these as much as I do (and she likely suffered from it too, just that she was really good at controlling them).
** note that such problems would likely require many, many generations to surface.
That won't work for name-based hosting, which pretty much every cheap-ass hostedwebsite uses these days.
FTFY.
Most of your serious trackers and distie sites aren't going to be using virt domains - given the hellish amount of traffic involved, it'll either use multiple dedicated IPs handed off to caching servers, or one hell of a load-balancer.
Mine's been doing that for years.
As a bonus, it has the beneficial effect of leaving me more money for other, more worthy goodies.
As do I - I'd tell you where I keep that list (and a backup copy of it), but I don't feel like summoning APK.
Notice the word possibly used.
She likely used "possibly" because stating it as intimidation opens the door for a whole lot of criminal proceedings (I assume most of them would lie within RICO).
Anyways, you don't need a lawyer to represent you, you can represent yourself if you so choose.
With enough time and research, sure you can. With enough understanding of the laws involved, you could possibly even do a great job of it.
Meanwhile, the bills need paid, your job is still going to demand that you show up and do work for them, and since we're not talking a criminal case, you're not going to get any real competent help from the court.
So... unless you're an IP lawyer who happens to be unemployed or independently wealthy, representing yourself is sheer lunacy.
He understands, but both of you missed one important distinction here:
With most torts, there's no question raised as to whether or not the defendant was involved. Instead, the big disagreement in most lawsuits is over whether or not the defendant's actions caused damages, and/or if their subsequent results are damaging enough to warrant a monetary (or other) redress.
With the trolls at Voltage, there's no way to tell (or even reliably prove) that the defendant and/or his products/property/whatever had any involvement at all.
We'll see. Windows 8 has already lost the WinTel empire at least one customer that I know of (my missus tried+hated Windows 8, and she opted for an iPad instead.)
Me, I'll wait to see what happens. I can't see Ballmer's ego marching things back to a full-on Windows 7 (and TBH, before)-style interface (in spite of enterprise pretty much demanding it), so I suspect that whatever comes of it will (at risk of trolling, but just IMHO) reek of a duct-tape job, with a start button lashed in somewhere but with Metro still all over the thing.
Simple - if the person trying to make the world a better place is despicable, they do not deserve any credit for doing so. It would have been better if they didn't, as their charitable actions taint the outcome due to who they are.
You mean like that union-busting guy whose hired armed thugs actually killed strikers?
I don't doubt you are correct, by why don't they call their representatives to ask for a lower or zero sales tax instead?
...because the interests that benefit** from that sales tax will immediately start screaming about how the lack of sales tax will starve children, make them illiterate, let your house burn down because firefighters can't be hired, etc etc. They'll of course be joined in chorus by every politician who spends that money.
Good luck fighting that kind of hysterical response.
Mind you, I live in Oregon, which has no sales tax (unless you buy gasoline, tobacco, or suchlike.)
** Note: These interests outside of government are usually teacher unions, firefighter unions, police unions, etc.
This leads to a question: what happens to extra campaign money after the election? Does the guy get to keep it, or what?
Something to consider... especially if the candidate gets to keep the cash.
You have to give it some time before Icahn gets interested. Netflix had a transient bump in the road, while Yahoo and Dell have had year-on-year headaches for stockholder and CFO alike.
There seems to be a theme of what could best be termed the 'has-been' factor (companies that were once-great, have strong brand recognition, but are no longer serious contenders). For instance, I think that if Nokia were based in the US and not Finland, Icahn would be busily trying to rape them right now instead of Dell.
Exactly. A quick look at his little history (especially with Yahoo a few years back) shows that he's only in it to score some meat from a dying company while the victim is still breathing. Notice that he doesn't really go after healthy, growing companies - only those which show signs of being in serious trouble.
I suspect that if you work for a larger company? A perfect indicator of your corp being in deep kimchi would be the presence of Carl Icahn's active attempts at your company's financials... it's like seeing the Angel of Death, only he's going after the board of directors.
That's 4 years of income lost by taking extra time to finish college.
I disagree. During that extra time, you should be working in the same field you intend to make a career of. For instance, if you're working towards a BS in Nursing, it would make sense to work as a CNA, then LPN, then RN... (to use my ex wife's example). Same with IT - Start at a help desk, then work your way up while you're going to school.
Do it that way, and you not only get your sheepskin, but you get something in parallel that is more valuable to employers - experience.
Why can't there be a four year program from a high quality school that has the emphasis on teaching the skills you need for a career in industry?
Actually, Utah has something exactly like that. You spend the first two years hands-on in the trade at a campus of the Utah College of Applied Technology (there are 10 campuses spread across the state). Each campus is partnered with a state-level university, so if you want that 2-year degree to become a 4-year one, you take 3-4 "bridge" classes, then the 2nd two years of the 4-year degree.
The coolest part about the system? a top-grade high school student can go to UCAT as early as they can start 11th grade (assuming they clear their state HS required classes). They can complete the 2-year degree at around 6 months after graduating high school, and the state pays for all of it. This leaves paying only for the last two years plus one full-time semester's worth of bridge classes.
Community colleges are too busy trying to get kids educated to bother with indoctrination. Sniff around at a big-name or state uni, and things are a bit different.
Fun question here... how is your nephew going to school, and where?
I've known folks who paid their own way through school, who got their Bachelors' 8 years after they started, but they paid their own way along, CLEP'd out of the drudge-work classes, used the GI Bill, used employer-sponsored tuition reimbursements, got their undergrad at the local (read: cheaper) community college but their BS at the state uni, etc.
There's the traditional (and IMHO stupid) way of doing college, and then there's the smart way to do it. Do it traditional, and (sadly) prepare for the consequences.
I was surprised to discover recently that a friend of mine, a staunch Republican, had his Cadillac-plan health insurance cut by his defense-contractor employer and replaced with a bare-bones high-deductible plan.
...and the massive financial cost upheavals induced by Obamacare had nothing to do with that happening, right?
Incidentally, I find it curious that we're in year 5 of Obama's administration (mind you, two of those years gave him full run of Congress), yet there are still progressives blaming presidents who are long gone.
Your cite has one problem.... in its very first sentence, it presents this tidbit.
My statement therefore stands, as settled science means there is no credible opposition - there are too many credible scientists in the list I cited. ;)
One party has become so divorced from reality, most of the people they elect refuse to believe in basic truths like evolution [...]
Evidence, please. Your burden is to show that the majority of elected GOP officials categorically stated that evolution as proposed by Darwin is somehow false.
Good luck with that.
I challenged this because I strongly suspect that you're making assumptions based on what you may have heard or had pre-digested for you. If you truly want to make an informed opinion, you have to dig deeper and get the facts yourself, not have it spoon-fed to you.
...and global warming,
"global warming" as you state it is not yet settled science, nor is global anthropomorphic-caused climate change as the IPCC's political wing would have you believe it. Therefore, there is plenty of room for disagreement. Besides, the latter, allegedly based on science, is supposed to be openly challenged. That's how science works.
On the other hand, you saw some drivers who you assumed were Democrats (though you had no way of actually knowing)...
I live in Multnomah County. Go check the voting records around here sometime... odds are perfect that if some yahoo was screaming foul epithets at pro-life protesters (and their children, incidentally), odds are good that their passion comes from a left-leaning source. Quibble all you want about the presence of Green or Socialist parties, but the statistics are against you.
insulting some protesters.
...and throwing trash of various hardness, hurtling death threats, etc. But yeah, that's cool if your side does it, right? After all, they're only fighting for what you believe in (whatever that may be, since your copious use of buzzwords indicates that your opinions may not have necessarily come from your own contemplation and reasoning).
I detest both political parties. I cannot stand the toxic buzzword-laces spoon-fed propaganda that either side tries to soak minds with. I do however try to seek out and listen to reasoned opinions from all sides of the political spectrum. Want an example? Check out the Dalai Lama's current visit here in PDX, and the ongoing conversations with Jewish and Catholic (among other) participants. I learn a lot that way.
What I cannot stand anymore is the political posts that generate a shit-ton of astroturfers, and idiots who get on their digital soapbox and do nothing more than prove they're mere sheeple who angrily amplify what they've (albeit consented to be) told to think. Then you get the folks who picked up the latest-greatest (to them) arguments from their college prof, who plow in and think they're some sort of intellectual badass, looking for a duel to prove their brainhood.
Screw that - I just solicit and incite opinions to learn, and happily discard that which is obvious regurgitation of propaganda... from either side.
That is because the racists do.
Your non-sequitur aside, I'd like to see some evidence of your claim. I provided evidence of mine (though to be honest George Zimmerman's sudden whiteness by the media, and the recent NM Governor's statement about Cruz not 'really a hispanic" seem to prove an exception to my statement... oh well. )
So I need to be tolerant of the intolerant?
I hate to tell you, but the intolerance blows hard in both directions. See also increasingly strident anti-smoking laws, the censorship of right-leaning speakers and views on college campuses, etc.
You either tolerate viewpoints you don't agree with, or you yourself are just as intolerant as the folks you claim are such. If you do not agree with it, or you think it should go away? You can only persuade, not ban.
It's like pregnancy - you can't do it just a little bit.
Best. Description. Ever.
NTFS was originally a means of answering corporate demands of (among other things) "Hey - UNIX has file permissions, why doesn't Windows?" (v3.x at the time). The result? Worked (eventually), but, well...
News flash: Obama is black? [...] His mom is white, so he is 50% white. [...]
Sadly, the media (and Mr. Obama's party) still uses the 'one drop rule' for determining ethnicity and racial characteristics.
There's one major party that's locked into deranged derp because they brainwashed their base so badly with superstition and hatred of anyone...
This portion holds perfectly true of both parties. Let me complete your sentence and see for yourself: ...who differs with them on a given issue.
I have seen this first-hand - I live in Portland, and have seen this on both sides. I'll explain:
Side the first: I have personally watched drivers giving the middle finger, and occasionally hurtling trash and bile-filled shouts as they drove past pro-life protesters quietly praying with signs at a parking lot next to the Planned Parenthood clinic on MLK blvd.
Side the second: My wife was nearly struck with a bottle hurled at the Occupy protest last year as she quietly marched along, and she reported having passed numerous small groups of guys in suits downtown giving the one-finger salute, calling her and the other protesters all kinds of insults along the way.
Long story short - your "side" is just as duped and hate-filled as the other side. As evidence, I present the fact that you use name-calling and buzzwords as a means to mark folks who differ from you on given issues.
It's not your fault really... the blame is tow-fold, and keys off of human nature: Television loves nothing more than to stoke petty hatreds, fears, and jealousies which in turn drives advertising sales for them; the more outrageous the better. Political parties do it because stirring up passion (even by using lowest-common-denominator means) is the best known method to get votes, thus power.