The library isn't restricted in what books it carries. Not having all of them is primarily a physical space and economic limitation -- if they could carry all of them they would.
And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.
This! Zuckerberg's comparison is at best, naive. More likely, it is deliberately disingenuous, attempting to obscure the glaring truth that Facebook aims to make money off of the thing. If you want to make a buck, that's fine. Just don't try to sell it with transparent bullshit like this, Mark.
yes but you are forgetting the current rhetoric of muslims can't be reasoned with. though it is interesting to gloss over pakistan.
Christ on a crutch! Stereotype much? Might as well throw "Christians" under that broad brush, because the "evidence" of their inability to reason is all around us.
Did you actually read the multiple replies that told you that it's pointless to have alerts on simple port scans? Shit that hits the ramparts and bounces off is, by definition, noise. Noise should not be raised to the level of an alert because it is not actionable. Turn it off.
Free markets are all about competition, and the very definition of compete is "to strive to outdo another". Aligning the interests of competitors (such as providers and consumers) is anti-competitive.
To bad that utilities (water, power, telecom) have never, in the history of the world, seen a "free market". All that Randian bullshit might have made sense then.
...means the terrorists win. Again. We should never consider giving power to bat-shit crazy fundamentalist types (of every stripe) by suggesting that their doctrine is "dangerous". What we should be doing is something like the equivalent of a giant marquee with flashing neon arrows, announcing "Look at this bat-shit crazy ranting". Ideas deserve the light of day. Bad ideas deserve derision in that light.
If we allow the government to socialize internet access, we'll wind up with a system that is constantly in need of repair, upgrades, and endless red tape to get even the slightest thing done,
[citation needed]
I come from a part of the country where the electrical utilities are publicly owned and operated, meaning that the entity is beholden to the voters/ratepayers. I now live in a part of the country where the electrical utilities are operated by for-profit companies, which are beholden first and foremost to their shareholders. The difference is like night and day. While I won't argue that there is not inefficiency in "the government", making a blanket statement that it is always so is patently absurd.
I don't understand why people believe a single word from the (US) government. Every time, on nearly every topic but especially security / military, what they say turns out to be not true.
Mind you, there is plenty of reason to distrust the U.S. government, but your hyperbole is not contributing to the reasoned discussion that we should be having.
At great risk to my Karma I'll point out that Science has become a Religion. As a several decades long student of Philosophy, I find that many people claiming to be scientific and atheists trust certain scientific theories just like a holy book. You have your evangelists attempting to convert believers in other faiths to their ways of thinking, and even have the zealots trying to make other Religions illegal.
You are describing atheists, not scientists. That so many people misunderstand science does not make science anything like religion. Science demands skepticism. Religion abhors it.
I will agree, however, that we'd all be better off if religion were illegal, or treated for the delusion that it is (atheism included). Be as spiritual as you want, or not. Just don't try to claim that the collection of dogma you've chosen is actually the word of gawd, and is thus imbued with some kind of divine authority.
I hereby award "Science" the Awesome Trophy for being the most awesomest awesome that ever awesomed. Are you satisfied?
But is the scientific method a tool to discover what is true? Is truth the same as "ever more accurate and predictive models"? It's not a scientific question.
Unless you are prepared to define "truth", your argument is horseshit. The concepts of true and false have rather specific meanings within scientific context. "Truth", especially within the context of philosophy, is (usually) something quite different. The "method", or more precisely, methods (plural) of philosophy are ad hoc. Scientific method is anything but that.
He pointed out taking the dollars with the child to pay for an alternative school, something many places do ready.
This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege...! >:-(
Yes, and they'd be absolutely correct. Charter schools are nothing but a way to rig the system to favor those with the juice to tilt things in their kids favor. Mind you, I'm not defending the teachers' union. Their intractability when it comes to methods to ensure that the public gets what they're paying for has been... misguided, to say the least. Nevertheless, public education is so important that everyone involved needs to just make it fucking work. Charter schools don't do this, not by half. We could start though, by borrowing a page out of the charter schools' playbook, expelling the "problem child". Too many schools have been the dumping ground for the problems created by poor parenting. Make sure mom and dad know what's at stake.
Yeah, I hate these assholes who clearly don't have a clue how science works. Science is done by scientists coming to a majority decision on a given issue, then that issue being closed and no longer open to debate. It's basic scientific method
1) Formulate conclusion
2) Obtain mass consensus on the conclusion
3) Adjust any subsequent data until it agrees with the conclusion
Jeez, this is basic science! It's only been around since Aristotle, you ignorant fuckers!
You and I must have learned quite different definitions of "science" Yours sounds like, well... bullshit. So unless you can actually show that climate science as followed your silly methodology, how about you STFU? Take your time. We'll wait.
Hey dumbass. There's an "engage" button on your brain. Learn to use it. I know, I know it hurts like hell, but your really need to take the time to understand the things you read. The medical community, in what I must say is a rather surprising move, is telling us that the over-the-top marketing of expensive prescription drugs is a bad thing for their patients. They should know, better than Big Pharma, better than government "regulators" who've allowed this mess to happen, and certainly better than you.
Too late. The terrorists have already won because instead of being principled leaders and extending their middle finger at a bunch of ignorant savages, the Republican assholes are selling fear by the truckload, and the sheep are buying it "like it's going out of style".
The problem is that you, me and everyone else ARE the suspects. We have been judged guilty as a society without any trial or due process. The government breaks the law, yet treats law-abiding citizens like criminals.
And we let them...
Yep. Game over. The terrorists have won.
So STFU, you whiny liberal bitches. This is the "free market at work" and it's a glorious thing. Why, every country should create a regulatory morass (and when that fails, legal system) that leads to entrenched monopolies who can then ram it to their customers.
Would that it were so. The cable (and dish) companies' hold won't be broken until a la carte programming is a requirement. There are, maybe, I dozen channels that would pay to see and which are not available on Netflix or the other current alternatives.
The technical reason is that infrastructure is expensive. Don't like it? Start your own ISP.
Thank you for illustrating my point, albeit quite unwittingly.
Yes, infrastructure is expensive, something the incumbent telecommunications company rely upon heavily. They hate competition and where it threatens to rear it's head, the will spare no expense to beat it back. If you haven't noticed that happening, you have not been paying attention, at all. It's not a free market. Not even close. It is a market stacked every way it can be, including the buying of favorable regulations, to favor the entrenched incumbents. That you seem to think that's such a groovy state of affairs just adds to their profit - their profit, not yours.
Why then, do we in the U.S. pay more and get less? Is there some technical reason that bandwidth is such a "finite resources" in the U.S.?
Answer: No. Of course not. It's a business reason, so STFU and take what our corporate overlords deign to give us, on their terms. Right? Do you have any idea how idiotic your argument sounds?
Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
[citation needed]
FWIW, I see far more conservatives who wish to silence those with "offensive" messages than liberals trying to do the same, the disappointing example in TFA notwithstanding.
Tolerance and acceptance only apply to those they tolerate and accept. Everyone else gets branded a bigot hate monger, racist, misogynist, etc. the instant they exercise their own right to speak their mind or utter any un-PC truths.
Excuse me? What part of the whole concept of "freedom of speech" do you not get? You are free to voice your bigotry, hatred, racism, misogyny, etc. as you like. I am just as free to call you a fucking bigot, hate monger, racist, or misogynist, not to mention an ignorant tool who clearly failed his high school civics classes.
Your point are all valid, but only one requires an Internet connection, and even then, it could and should be kept from accessing anything but the host/IP required to do it's simple job. Jeezus H Christ, have we fallen so far that "application" now means something you get from the cloud and run on your phone?
Right. It must something nefarious like a "government shakedown". It would be totally unacceptable for "the government" to look out for the interests of it's citizens.
So... because it is something you don't want to hear, it's "insane". Got anything else, you know, like an even half-assed reasoned argument? No? Didn't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
The library isn't restricted in what books it carries. Not having all of them is primarily a physical space and economic limitation -- if they could carry all of them they would.
And the books they choose to carry is determined by criteria that is not simply a short list made by their corporate sponsors.
This! Zuckerberg's comparison is at best, naive. More likely, it is deliberately disingenuous, attempting to obscure the glaring truth that Facebook aims to make money off of the thing. If you want to make a buck, that's fine. Just don't try to sell it with transparent bullshit like this, Mark.
yes but you are forgetting the current rhetoric of muslims can't be reasoned with. though it is interesting to gloss over pakistan.
Christ on a crutch! Stereotype much? Might as well throw "Christians" under that broad brush, because the "evidence" of their inability to reason is all around us.
Did you actually read the entire question?
Did you actually read the multiple replies that told you that it's pointless to have alerts on simple port scans? Shit that hits the ramparts and bounces off is, by definition, noise. Noise should not be raised to the level of an alert because it is not actionable. Turn it off.
I'm sure the customer service will be outstanding. :)
Compared to what, Comcast? I'll take that bet.
Free markets are all about competition, and the very definition of compete is "to strive to outdo another". Aligning the interests of competitors (such as providers and consumers) is anti-competitive.
To bad that utilities (water, power, telecom) have never, in the history of the world, seen a "free market". All that Randian bullshit might have made sense then.
...means the terrorists win. Again. We should never consider giving power to bat-shit crazy fundamentalist types (of every stripe) by suggesting that their doctrine is "dangerous". What we should be doing is something like the equivalent of a giant marquee with flashing neon arrows, announcing "Look at this bat-shit crazy ranting". Ideas deserve the light of day. Bad ideas deserve derision in that light.
If we allow the government to socialize internet access, we'll wind up with a system that is constantly in need of repair, upgrades, and endless red tape to get even the slightest thing done,
[citation needed]
I come from a part of the country where the electrical utilities are publicly owned and operated, meaning that the entity is beholden to the voters/ratepayers. I now live in a part of the country where the electrical utilities are operated by for-profit companies, which are beholden first and foremost to their shareholders. The difference is like night and day. While I won't argue that there is not inefficiency in "the government", making a blanket statement that it is always so is patently absurd.
Misdirection. Legerdemain. The "backdoors" are already there. The encryption is already broken. The network is already hacked.
Sigh... [citation needed]
Why Governments Lie About Encryption Backdoors
The sole purpose of government is to create more government...
Really? [citation needed]
I don't understand why people believe a single word from the (US) government. Every time, on nearly every topic but especially security / military, what they say turns out to be not true.
Mind you, there is plenty of reason to distrust the U.S. government, but your hyperbole is not contributing to the reasoned discussion that we should be having.
At great risk to my Karma I'll point out that Science has become a Religion. As a several decades long student of Philosophy, I find that many people claiming to be scientific and atheists trust certain scientific theories just like a holy book. You have your evangelists attempting to convert believers in other faiths to their ways of thinking, and even have the zealots trying to make other Religions illegal.
You are describing atheists, not scientists. That so many people misunderstand science does not make science anything like religion. Science demands skepticism. Religion abhors it.
I will agree, however, that we'd all be better off if religion were illegal, or treated for the delusion that it is (atheism included). Be as spiritual as you want, or not. Just don't try to claim that the collection of dogma you've chosen is actually the word of gawd, and is thus imbued with some kind of divine authority.
I hereby award "Science" the Awesome Trophy for being the most awesomest awesome that ever awesomed. Are you satisfied?
But is the scientific method a tool to discover what is true? Is truth the same as "ever more accurate and predictive models"? It's not a scientific question.
Unless you are prepared to define "truth", your argument is horseshit. The concepts of true and false have rather specific meanings within scientific context. "Truth", especially within the context of philosophy, is (usually) something quite different. The "method", or more precisely, methods (plural) of philosophy are ad hoc. Scientific method is anything but that.
He pointed out taking the dollars with the child to pay for an alternative school, something many places do ready.
This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege...! >:-(
Yes, and they'd be absolutely correct. Charter schools are nothing but a way to rig the system to favor those with the juice to tilt things in their kids favor. Mind you, I'm not defending the teachers' union. Their intractability when it comes to methods to ensure that the public gets what they're paying for has been... misguided, to say the least. Nevertheless, public education is so important that everyone involved needs to just make it fucking work. Charter schools don't do this, not by half. We could start though, by borrowing a page out of the charter schools' playbook, expelling the "problem child". Too many schools have been the dumping ground for the problems created by poor parenting. Make sure mom and dad know what's at stake.
Yeah, I hate these assholes who clearly don't have a clue how science works. Science is done by scientists coming to a majority decision on a given issue, then that issue being closed and no longer open to debate. It's basic scientific method
1) Formulate conclusion 2) Obtain mass consensus on the conclusion 3) Adjust any subsequent data until it agrees with the conclusion
Jeez, this is basic science! It's only been around since Aristotle, you ignorant fuckers!
You and I must have learned quite different definitions of "science" Yours sounds like, well... bullshit. So unless you can actually show that climate science as followed your silly methodology, how about you STFU? Take your time. We'll wait.
Hey dumbass. There's an "engage" button on your brain. Learn to use it. I know, I know it hurts like hell, but your really need to take the time to understand the things you read. The medical community, in what I must say is a rather surprising move, is telling us that the over-the-top marketing of expensive prescription drugs is a bad thing for their patients. They should know, better than Big Pharma, better than government "regulators" who've allowed this mess to happen, and certainly better than you.
Too late. The terrorists have already won because instead of being principled leaders and extending their middle finger at a bunch of ignorant savages, the Republican assholes are selling fear by the truckload, and the sheep are buying it "like it's going out of style".
The problem is that you, me and everyone else ARE the suspects. We have been judged guilty as a society without any trial or due process. The government breaks the law, yet treats law-abiding citizens like criminals.
And we let them...
Yep. Game over. The terrorists have won.
So STFU, you whiny liberal bitches. This is the "free market at work" and it's a glorious thing. Why, every country should create a regulatory morass (and when that fails, legal system) that leads to entrenched monopolies who can then ram it to their customers.
Would that it were so. The cable (and dish) companies' hold won't be broken until a la carte programming is a requirement. There are, maybe, I dozen channels that would pay to see and which are not available on Netflix or the other current alternatives.
The technical reason is that infrastructure is expensive. Don't like it? Start your own ISP.
Thank you for illustrating my point, albeit quite unwittingly.
Yes, infrastructure is expensive, something the incumbent telecommunications company rely upon heavily. They hate competition and where it threatens to rear it's head, the will spare no expense to beat it back. If you haven't noticed that happening, you have not been paying attention, at all. It's not a free market. Not even close. It is a market stacked every way it can be, including the buying of favorable regulations, to favor the entrenched incumbents. That you seem to think that's such a groovy state of affairs just adds to their profit - their profit, not yours.
Why then, do we in the U.S. pay more and get less? Is there some technical reason that bandwidth is such a "finite resources" in the U.S.?
Answer: No. Of course not. It's a business reason, so STFU and take what our corporate overlords deign to give us, on their terms. Right? Do you have any idea how idiotic your argument sounds?
Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
[citation needed]
FWIW, I see far more conservatives who wish to silence those with "offensive" messages than liberals trying to do the same, the disappointing example in TFA notwithstanding.
Tolerance and acceptance only apply to those they tolerate and accept. Everyone else gets branded a bigot hate monger, racist, misogynist, etc. the instant they exercise their own right to speak their mind or utter any un-PC truths.
Excuse me? What part of the whole concept of "freedom of speech" do you not get? You are free to voice your bigotry, hatred, racism, misogyny, etc. as you like. I am just as free to call you a fucking bigot, hate monger, racist, or misogynist, not to mention an ignorant tool who clearly failed his high school civics classes.
Your point are all valid, but only one requires an Internet connection, and even then, it could and should be kept from accessing anything but the host/IP required to do it's simple job. Jeezus H Christ, have we fallen so far that "application" now means something you get from the cloud and run on your phone?
Right. It must something nefarious like a "government shakedown". It would be totally unacceptable for "the government" to look out for the interests of it's citizens.
So... because it is something you don't want to hear, it's "insane". Got anything else, you know, like an even half-assed reasoned argument? No? Didn't think so.