Back in 1965 home phone service was $7.56/month. Bell was completely regulated, and a loaf of bread was $0.18, a gallon of gas was $0.14, etc.
The networks were opened up in the '80s, first with Bell not being allowed to keep their monopoly on customer-used/connected equipment, and second, with customers allowed to install their own wiring after the demarcation point. A phone was $20/month, a loaf of bread was $0.89, and a gallon of gas was $0.53.
In other words, the customer in 1965 was being charged twice what the phone would have cost in an open market. These are the customers who paid for all Bell's infrastructure. As the market became more open, Bell had to decrease their per-customer rates to prevent the phone business from becoming profitable enough for competitors.
If you paid for someone to install extra jacks, you deserved to get hosed. Anyone who can poke a screwdriver through drywall and work a staple gun can run a line. Also, the "insurance' is bogus. It's easy to find the problems in a residential line setup - it's the office lines that are hard to figure out.
If overall costs have tripled or quadrupled since the early '90s, but phone costs have only doubled because of increasing competitive pressure, that's just more proof that Bell was overcharging when there was less competition.
What does the bible have going against it? Let's see..
It's mysogenic.
It told "god's people" to commit genocide.
It encouraged "god's followers" to enslave those around them, kill the men and rape the women.
It keeps people from taking personal responsibilty for their past actions ("that was BEFORE I was a xian"... yeah, yeah, cry me a river...)
It promotes intolerance towards gays, lesbians, transgendered, and transexuals.
It encourages physical abuse of children ("beat children with a rod" - this is SO fucked up!!!)
Even I have a better sense of justice, of what is morally right and wrong, than "god". AND I've conducted myself a lot better than people who god supposedly approved of - like King David, who arranged for a man to be murdered so he could have the guy's wife, or King Solomon, who made Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" look positively modest.
There is no god, and if there were, I would still refuse to have anything to do with such an evil, perverted being.
The only self-centeredness here is the people who claim, without a single shred of proof, and despite much proof to the contrary, that the bible is "righteous." It's full of shit. Not just figuratively, but literally, since I've wiped my ass with it; contrary to predictions, god didn't strike me dead or inflict a plague on me or anything else.
Nature is not an entity, but a concept. As suck it is not capable of sentience. While I might be a part of nature, I am also an entity, and a sentient one. My having sentience doesn't translate to nature having sentience, since nature is just a concept, not a "being". It's not even a "thing", though it is composed of "things".
I am composed of atoms. Those atoms are not sentient, and never will be. They do not "acquire" sentience by becoming a part of me.
Yes, this is certainly true. And, once again, I don't disagree with the idea that using the death penalty will eventually lead to an innocent person being executed. What's in question is how often this will occur under a given legal system, and whether it's worth it.
Judges have already admitted that it happens. It's been happening since the days of Judge Roy Bean...
Now if you could better explain what you meant by "whether it's worth it"...
Executive Vice President Ronald Greene is in his thirtieth year of providing litigation support services
...
Mr. Greene has sub-specialities in the food, wine and music industries.
Except that MediaDefender, with the knowledge and consent of the **AA, loaded trackers onto the R3 servers that allowed people to do the downloading. Since the trackers were, in effect, sanctioned by the copyright holders, who were making the material available for download via MediaDefender poisoning R3s servers, the downloads are legal.
Actually they can't get away with the "fake torrent" stuff either - the torrents they put up were for copyright material, which they then tracked to see who was downloading the stuff. In other words, they enabled copyright infringement, then went after the downloaders with "we know you've been infringing - contact the settlement center."
Since they were working with the blessing of the **AA, what that means is that anyone downloading from one of those torrents isn't guilty of copyright infringement, since the download was made available with the knowledge and consent of the **AA.
Discovery is going to be really nasty in this case.
... but of course they can file a civil suit at any time.
Ankle-biters sometimes have a purpose...
Still, if you look at the SCO case, "don't hold your breath" is good advice. MediaDefender will just go bankrupt. Mind you, R3 could use this as an excuse for LOTS of discovery, and post the results as video news. "Today we got the perl scripts that are the heart of MediaDefender..."
Upload speed makes a huge difference... so cutting your torrent upload to half your upload bandwidth solves the problem:
1. the fewer packets your torrent app sends, the fewer replies it receives, so more bandwidth available for other data such as web pages, gaming data, etc.
2. the fewer packets your torrent app sends, the more upstream bandwidth your other apps have to request data such as web pages, gaming data, etc.
Corner cases are still valid in showing an argument is flawed. If you say "All X are Y", and I can show an exception, your generalization is just
plain wrong.
I'm not the one who brought up the "throw the switch on the electric chair" - you did. Here's the comment:
Re your other examples, enacting a punishment which God commands clearly is not murder, any more than the person throwing the switch on the electric chair should themselves be in it.
Now it gets even more bizarre:
>> Even if we allow for that, "just following orders" is not an excuse.
> I never said it was.
... and yet, you say that following the bible's orders is clearly not murder, because the bible says it's commanded by god. "Just following orders."
Why is it unthinkable that, if god exists, god is a mass murderer? After all, his/her/its followers have been practicing genocide for centuries in god's name. The bible even commands it. More and more, it's already considered as hate literature written by a bunch of sick fucks with an axe to grind, then added to by others who had their own particular interests to promote, and not "divinely inspired".
So, would Abraham have been guilty of murder for killing his son because "god told him to do it?" Of course, except that nowadays he'd plead insanity.
Here's one. Wilbur Coffin was executed after supposedly murdering 3 Americans on or before June 12th. However, police had a letter written by one of the victims on June 13th. Nice way to withhold exculpatory evidence, hmmm...?
Remember, in most cases, once someone is executed, people stop digging for evidence that would reverse the decision - what's the point - the person is now dead?
Because extended stays are limited to those whose degrees are in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields, educators are speculating that the rule change will drive international students away from non-STEM majors.
Anything that reduces the number of lawyers is good, right? Except, of course, since this means that fewer will go into law, existing lawyers will have less competition, so more opportunity to a$$rape their clients. So this is bad, right?
You're the one who made the direct comparison... here, let me remind you...
Re your other examples, enacting a punishment which God commands clearly is not murder, any more than the person throwing the switch on the electric chair should themselves be in it.
First, we have zero evidence that god exists, never mind that god commands anything whatsoever, but that's an entirely different kettle of loaves and fishes.
Even if we allow for that, "just following orders" is not an excuse. As I pointed out, the Nuremburg trials made it quite clear. Ditto Tokyo. BTW, funny how Lieutenant Calley got off so lightly after being convicted of multiple murder at the May Lai massacre in Viet Nam. *cough* double standards *cough* and that one of the "usual suspects" in the whitewash was Colin Powell, but I digress.
Executioners carry out executions, some of which are later found to be wrong. Certainly, we now regard executing someone for heresy to be stupid. Ditto for stealing a loaf of bread, or a horse. Or for being gay, even though the bible commands it, and it still occurs today in parts of the world. Here's the case of a kid being executed because of allegations he had anal sex at 13. This was last December, not 100 years ago.
So, is the executioner in these cases guilty of murder? If murder is defined as the killing of someone other than as an act of self-defense or defending someone else, all state-sanctioned executions are murder; even under a lesser standard, the executioner is still guilty of murder in many cases.
The universe doesn't like it when you tell it what it thinks. In short, how would you know? That's as much a matter of faith as this "value" thing you seem to put down.
(Sigh)... It was inevitable that someone would resurrect the "faith" argument. When you have no proof, invoke faith.
The only value something has is what someone places on it. Concepts like "morally right or wrong", and "value" are not absolutes governed by physical laws, much as we'd sometimes like to believe otherwise.
It's improved in the last couple of years. You might want to look at it. Sure, there's still the drudge-work and low-level stuff, but there's also some gold among the 53,000 jobs currently being advertised. There's also info about the requirements for non-citizens, which the original poster will need.
More than 2/3 of those who answered said they believed in the death penalty. At the same time, 95% believe that, at least sometimes, an innocent person is convicted of murder. Most believe that people who are innocent have been executed within the last 5 years of the survey (2006).
Just do a search on how many people have had their convictions reversed because of DNA evidence decades later... statistically, it's a certainty that at least some of those who received the death penalty would have been similarly exonerated. Here's a list of wrongful convictions in Canada. Here's 200 people who have been wrongfully convicted in California in the last 20 years - some of them sentenced to death.
"In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood," the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial.
The judge isn't denying it happens - he's saying it probably happens more often than we think. That's pretty damning.
So, if it is murder to kill someone who is innocent, the executioner is a murderer, to use the judge's words, "more often than previously understood."
Ah, but through us nature has acquired sentience, a conscious, and self awareness. We are as much a part of nature as everything else. We are inseparable. So in that light, maybe nature does value life after all.
Nah... that would be like saying that my car has acquired sentience, consciousness, and is self-aware because when I drive it. Sentience doesn't work that way. Otherwise, we'd have to argue that rocks and managers are sentient:-)
Just because we're here doesn't mean that life has "value to nature." Nature doesn't "care" one way or the other. "Nature" is not a sentient being, and should not be anthropomorphized.
It looks like he wants to hire someone competent to run his web server. If I were running for a major political office, I'd certainly want someone competent runing my webserver.
Give it to Hans Reiser.
1. He has the free time...
2. He can kill -9 anyone who fscks with it - what are they going to do, send him to jail?
3. Like any good politician, he knows where the bodies are buried and he's not telling...
Slashdot Mirror
Back in 1965 home phone service was $7.56/month. Bell was completely regulated, and a loaf of bread was $0.18, a gallon of gas was $0.14, etc.
The networks were opened up in the '80s, first with Bell not being allowed to keep their monopoly on customer-used/connected equipment, and second, with customers allowed to install their own wiring after the demarcation point. A phone was $20/month, a loaf of bread was $0.89, and a gallon of gas was $0.53.
In other words, the customer in 1965 was being charged twice what the phone would have cost in an open market. These are the customers who paid for all Bell's infrastructure. As the market became more open, Bell had to decrease their per-customer rates to prevent the phone business from becoming profitable enough for competitors.
If you paid for someone to install extra jacks, you deserved to get hosed. Anyone who can poke a screwdriver through drywall and work a staple gun can run a line. Also, the "insurance' is bogus. It's easy to find the problems in a residential line setup - it's the office lines that are hard to figure out.
If overall costs have tripled or quadrupled since the early '90s, but phone costs have only doubled because of increasing competitive pressure, that's just more proof that Bell was overcharging when there was less competition.
What does the bible have going against it? Let's see ..
It's mysogenic. ... yeah, yeah, cry me a river ...)
It told "god's people" to commit genocide.
It encouraged "god's followers" to enslave those around them, kill the men and rape the women.
It keeps people from taking personal responsibilty for their past actions ("that was BEFORE I was a xian"
It promotes intolerance towards gays, lesbians, transgendered, and transexuals.
It encourages physical abuse of children ("beat children with a rod" - this is SO fucked up!!!)
Even I have a better sense of justice, of what is morally right and wrong, than "god". AND I've conducted myself a lot better than people who god supposedly approved of - like King David, who arranged for a man to be murdered so he could have the guy's wife, or King Solomon, who made Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" look positively modest.
There is no god, and if there were, I would still refuse to have anything to do with such an evil, perverted being.
The only self-centeredness here is the people who claim, without a single shred of proof, and despite much proof to the contrary, that the bible is "righteous." It's full of shit. Not just figuratively, but literally, since I've wiped my ass with it; contrary to predictions, god didn't strike me dead or inflict a plague on me or anything else.
They did it as the agent of the **AA. Unless and until the **AA disowns them, the downloads are authorized.
Nature is not an entity, but a concept. As suck it is not capable of sentience. While I might be a part of nature, I am also an entity, and a sentient one. My having sentience doesn't translate to nature having sentience, since nature is just a concept, not a "being". It's not even a "thing", though it is composed of "things".
I am composed of atoms. Those atoms are not sentient, and never will be. They do not "acquire" sentience by becoming a part of me.
Watch their "Scam School" I use Miro (miro.org) to automagically fetch each episode - it's well worth it.
"The fax software isn't working! I hold the paper I want to fax up to the screen, and step on the foot pedal"
"Foot pedal???"
"Yes, the foot pedal, the one with the two buttons on it."
"That's not the way it works."
"Well, it SHOULD BE! I'm returning this software. *click*"
Judges have already admitted that it happens. It's been happening since the days of Judge Roy Bean ...
Now if you could better explain what you meant by "whether it's worth it" ...
sales@mediadefender.com
info@mediadefender.com
jobs@mediadefender.com
president: try herrera@mediadefender.com, oh@mediadefender.com,
ceo: try randy@mediadefender.com (personal), saaf@mediadefender.com or rsaaf@mediadefender.com
controller: try: rr@mediadefender.com, rousselet@mediadefender.com
parent company: artistdirect (stock ticker: ARTD)
Investor relations: ir@artistdirect.com
Chairman: diamond@artistdirect.com
CEO: try villard@artistdirect.com, dv@artistdirect.com
Auditors: Gumbiner, Savett, Finkel, Fingleson & Rose, Inc
rgreene@gscpa.com (Ronald Greene) http://marketcenter.findlaw.com/scripts/display_profile.pl?id=173844
Have fun.
Except that MediaDefender, with the knowledge and consent of the **AA, loaded trackers onto the R3 servers that allowed people to do the downloading. Since the trackers were, in effect, sanctioned by the copyright holders, who were making the material available for download via MediaDefender poisoning R3s servers, the downloads are legal.
Actually they can't get away with the "fake torrent" stuff either - the torrents they put up were for copyright material, which they then tracked to see who was downloading the stuff. In other words, they enabled copyright infringement, then went after the downloaders with "we know you've been infringing - contact the settlement center."
Since they were working with the blessing of the **AA, what that means is that anyone downloading from one of those torrents isn't guilty of copyright infringement, since the download was made available with the knowledge and consent of the **AA.
Discovery is going to be really nasty in this case.
Ankle-biters sometimes have a purpose ...
Still, if you look at the SCO case, "don't hold your breath" is good advice. MediaDefender will just go bankrupt. Mind you, R3 could use this as an excuse for LOTS of discovery, and post the results as video news. "Today we got the perl scripts that are the heart of MediaDefender ..."
Upload speed makes a huge difference ... so cutting your torrent upload to half your upload bandwidth solves the problem:
1. the fewer packets your torrent app sends, the fewer replies it receives, so more bandwidth available for other data such as web pages, gaming data, etc.
2. the fewer packets your torrent app sends, the more upstream bandwidth your other apps have to request data such as web pages, gaming data, etc.
Corner cases are still valid in showing an argument is flawed. If you say "All X are Y", and I can show an exception, your generalization is just plain wrong.
I'm not the one who brought up the "throw the switch on the electric chair" - you did. Here's the comment:
Now it gets even more bizarre:
Why is it unthinkable that, if god exists, god is a mass murderer? After all, his/her/its followers have been practicing genocide for centuries in god's name. The bible even commands it. More and more, it's already considered as hate literature written by a bunch of sick fucks with an axe to grind, then added to by others who had their own particular interests to promote, and not "divinely inspired".
So, would Abraham have been guilty of murder for killing his son because "god told him to do it?" Of course, except that nowadays he'd plead insanity.
Here's one. Wilbur Coffin was executed after supposedly murdering 3 Americans on or before June 12th. However, police had a letter written by one of the victims on June 13th. Nice way to withhold exculpatory evidence, hmmm ...?
Remember, in most cases, once someone is executed, people stop digging for evidence that would reverse the decision - what's the point - the person is now dead?
Anything that reduces the number of lawyers is good, right? Except, of course, since this means that fewer will go into law, existing lawyers will have less competition, so more opportunity to a$$rape their clients. So this is bad, right?
You're the one who made the direct comparison ... here, let me remind you ...
First, we have zero evidence that god exists, never mind that god commands anything whatsoever, but that's an entirely different kettle of loaves and fishes.
Even if we allow for that, "just following orders" is not an excuse. As I pointed out, the Nuremburg trials made it quite clear. Ditto Tokyo. BTW, funny how Lieutenant Calley got off so lightly after being convicted of multiple murder at the May Lai massacre in Viet Nam. *cough* double standards *cough* and that one of the "usual suspects" in the whitewash was Colin Powell, but I digress.
Executioners carry out executions, some of which are later found to be wrong. Certainly, we now regard executing someone for heresy to be stupid. Ditto for stealing a loaf of bread, or a horse. Or for being gay, even though the bible commands it, and it still occurs today in parts of the world. Here's the case of a kid being executed because of allegations he had anal sex at 13. This was last December, not 100 years ago.
So, is the executioner in these cases guilty of murder? If murder is defined as the killing of someone other than as an act of self-defense or defending someone else, all state-sanctioned executions are murder; even under a lesser standard, the executioner is still guilty of murder in many cases.
(Sigh) ... It was inevitable that someone would resurrect the "faith" argument. When you have no proof, invoke faith.
The only value something has is what someone places on it. Concepts like "morally right or wrong", and "value" are not absolutes governed by physical laws, much as we'd sometimes like to believe otherwise.
It's improved in the last couple of years. You might want to look at it. Sure, there's still the drudge-work and low-level stuff, but there's also some gold among the 53,000 jobs currently being advertised. There's also info about the requirements for non-citizens, which the original poster will need.
You could send all Obama's web traffic to Clinton's web site ... oops, already been done!
People have been executed, and then it was found that others had committed the murders.
Here's a poll that has some interesting stats.
More than 2/3 of those who answered said they believed in the death penalty. At the same time, 95% believe that, at least sometimes, an innocent person is convicted of murder. Most believe that people who are innocent have been executed within the last 5 years of the survey (2006).
Just do a search on how many people have had their convictions reversed because of DNA evidence decades later ... statistically, it's a certainty that at least some of those who received the death penalty would have been similarly exonerated. Here's a list of wrongful convictions in Canada. Here's 200 people who have been wrongfully convicted in California in the last 20 years - some of them sentenced to death.
Even judges agree that innocents have been executed
The judge isn't denying it happens - he's saying it probably happens more often than we think. That's pretty damning.
So, if it is murder to kill someone who is innocent, the executioner is a murderer, to use the judge's words, "more often than previously understood."
Nah ... that would be like saying that my car has acquired sentience, consciousness, and is self-aware because when I drive it. Sentience doesn't work that way. Otherwise, we'd have to argue that rocks and managers are sentient :-)
Just because we're here doesn't mean that life has "value to nature." Nature doesn't "care" one way or the other. "Nature" is not a sentient being, and should not be anthropomorphized.
It works fine for me ... just tested it agai, but don't bother trying to ping it. It's sitting behind one of these.
Who knows - maybe they're blocking access from certain countries/IP blocks?
Give it to Hans Reiser.