What happened to the rest of the students in the case? What was different about the three "Doe"s the University decided it couldn't identify?
If this is just a case of Media Bigspender making up 3 IPs that the IT department couldn't identify while they roll over and give up the rest of the students' names I don't see how this is special.
Um poor people can afford CDs but not the internet? A broadband connection where I live costs $15/mo (if you already have a phone line) and probably 50 for cable if you don't want a phone line. That's not very many CDs.
Too bad every job application now asks if you've ever been "arrested." They don't even care if you were charged or convicted; they want to know about it. I'm pretty they can tell if you lie using a background check too. They certainly can if you were ever charged as that's a matter of public record.
Interesting you bring up manslaughter. Murder in this country can get you life or probation depending on how the prosecutor chooses to view your situation. The response to some of this has been to legislate minimum sentences, which, probably contributed to the 40 year possible sentence in this debacle.
The zip code you buy in is a predictor of likelihood to default, and banks were prevented by law from considering that factor. Car insurers legally do the exact same thing.
And I'm not going to argue that the CRA was primarily responsible for the housing bubble, but it is a dumb law that resulted in defaults that are hurting not only the banks but the borrowers as well. Next time we're trying to help out minorities (not that I'm acknowledging that racism is a legitimate aim of government) maybe we should think through our methods first.
This doesn't require a monopoly. They could either grant easements to different companies or allow them all to use the same pathways. It's not like space is limiting the deployment of fiber.
The CRA prevented banks from doing a form of risk analysis they otherwise would have done. Therefore it played a part in the issuing of risky loans. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's not wrong to point out that the government was forcing lenders to make bad loans. Of course most of us realize they were also making these loans to MAKE MONEY (go figure) which Fannie and Freddy were guaranteeing that they could do by buying them.
So when the whole house of cards came down it should be hard for us to point the finger at one institution, but apparently it's fairly easy for some of us.
Good regulation? So you're the guy that's going to argue that it's better not to block kiddie porn when they go to shutdown the pirate bay because some pervert uploaded a torrent?
I thought we were talking about governance, not the merits of various economic models. You don't need to pick any particular economic school to come to the conclusion that government intervention is bad for the economy as a whole. They all tell the same story.
Corporations should have rights. There would be no point in forming one if they didn't. People should have rights. It wouldn't be a civilized society if we didn't.
Where's your proof that the infrastructure doesn't get built without a guaranteed monopoly? For instance, I see that satellite TV still exists, despite the fact that most places have cable. I see fiber being rolled out (albeit slowly) by the phone companies even though exist copper more or less gets the job done.
Local governments simply can't be trusted to manage telco monopolies. Think about the people that sit on your city council. Not only do they lack the technical knowledge to make effective decisions, but they effectively become owned by the monopoly after the deal is first done. The company can demand any price increase and the town has little choice but to agree to it or lose cable. And the people don't notice that much when the cable bill goes up, but they will sure as hell notice when the service goes out.
A black day for AIX on the desktop. I really wonder what's the problem there, warehouse costs?
The first sentence is incomplete, and the second one is a run on. I didn't even notice it until you asked because the construction is not unusual at all, even though it is technically wrong. There's a couple of these in your summary, but I wouldn't have immediately pegged you for a non-native English writer since most of us write like that anyways in informal postings.
1) Pretty sure everyone knows that. 2) Nobody understands that but physicists but everyone knows who Einstein is. 3) The popularity of instant hand sanitizer and stuff like Air Born would lead me to believe that most people understand what germs are.
And I bet you most people (not selected for a Jaywalking segment) could give you the basics of the scientific method. The number and names of the steps change so often you could probably use that information to date a persons science education.
Other than "African American" (and Native American as you pointed out) those terms are seldom used in common speech. Normally I would just be American. If I needed to expound on my ancestry for whatever reason I'd just say I'm Irish and German (most of us are mutts). Even African American is fairly rare outside of official documents. Most people would refer to themselves in common speech as black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. Since these are racial qualifiers rather than specific places of origin they are understood to be different.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened to the rest of the students in the case? What was different about the three "Doe"s the University decided it couldn't identify?
If this is just a case of Media Bigspender making up 3 IPs that the IT department couldn't identify while they roll over and give up the rest of the students' names I don't see how this is special.
Um poor people can afford CDs but not the internet? A broadband connection where I live costs $15/mo (if you already have a phone line) and probably 50 for cable if you don't want a phone line. That's not very many CDs.
The last part is wrong. If someone is dying anyone can administer the epi pen, at least in states with good samaritan laws.
Probably still has more documentation than most open source software not produced by a company.
So what mine broke the third time I played it. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
Too bad every job application now asks if you've ever been "arrested." They don't even care if you were charged or convicted; they want to know about it. I'm pretty they can tell if you lie using a background check too. They certainly can if you were ever charged as that's a matter of public record.
Interesting you bring up manslaughter. Murder in this country can get you life or probation depending on how the prosecutor chooses to view your situation. The response to some of this has been to legislate minimum sentences, which, probably contributed to the 40 year possible sentence in this debacle.
The zip code you buy in is a predictor of likelihood to default, and banks were prevented by law from considering that factor. Car insurers legally do the exact same thing.
And I'm not going to argue that the CRA was primarily responsible for the housing bubble, but it is a dumb law that resulted in defaults that are hurting not only the banks but the borrowers as well. Next time we're trying to help out minorities (not that I'm acknowledging that racism is a legitimate aim of government) maybe we should think through our methods first.
Would it be any less of a contradiction to align with the liberals and their big government philosophies?
This doesn't require a monopoly. They could either grant easements to different companies or allow them all to use the same pathways. It's not like space is limiting the deployment of fiber.
The CRA prevented banks from doing a form of risk analysis they otherwise would have done. Therefore it played a part in the issuing of risky loans. What's so hard to understand about that?
It's not wrong to point out that the government was forcing lenders to make bad loans. Of course most of us realize they were also making these loans to MAKE MONEY (go figure) which Fannie and Freddy were guaranteeing that they could do by buying them.
So when the whole house of cards came down it should be hard for us to point the finger at one institution, but apparently it's fairly easy for some of us.
Good regulation? So you're the guy that's going to argue that it's better not to block kiddie porn when they go to shutdown the pirate bay because some pervert uploaded a torrent?
Every few years I get a chance to fire people in the government.
Yeah but we don't, which is why we're in this mess in the first place and politics is still a viable career choice.
Or we could spend half as much time investigating public officials as we do investigating drug dealers.
I thought we were talking about governance, not the merits of various economic models. You don't need to pick any particular economic school to come to the conclusion that government intervention is bad for the economy as a whole. They all tell the same story.
Corporations should have rights. There would be no point in forming one if they didn't. People should have rights. It wouldn't be a civilized society if we didn't.
Where's your proof that the infrastructure doesn't get built without a guaranteed monopoly? For instance, I see that satellite TV still exists, despite the fact that most places have cable. I see fiber being rolled out (albeit slowly) by the phone companies even though exist copper more or less gets the job done.
Local governments simply can't be trusted to manage telco monopolies. Think about the people that sit on your city council. Not only do they lack the technical knowledge to make effective decisions, but they effectively become owned by the monopoly after the deal is first done. The company can demand any price increase and the town has little choice but to agree to it or lose cable. And the people don't notice that much when the cable bill goes up, but they will sure as hell notice when the service goes out.
A black day for AIX on the desktop. I really wonder what's the problem there, warehouse costs?
The first sentence is incomplete, and the second one is a run on. I didn't even notice it until you asked because the construction is not unusual at all, even though it is technically wrong. There's a couple of these in your summary, but I wouldn't have immediately pegged you for a non-native English writer since most of us write like that anyways in informal postings.
By you're standard true equality isn't possible. Either men would have to have the babies or there'd have to be no babies at all.
What would you say if a Muslim ran for President, and publicly said that he wanted to pass a law requiring all non-Muslims to pay "tribute"
I believe they call him president elect now.
How are tax cuts a form of socialism?
1) Pretty sure everyone knows that.
2) Nobody understands that but physicists but everyone knows who Einstein is.
3) The popularity of instant hand sanitizer and stuff like Air Born would lead me to believe that most people understand what germs are.
And I bet you most people (not selected for a Jaywalking segment) could give you the basics of the scientific method. The number and names of the steps change so often you could probably use that information to date a persons science education.
Other than "African American" (and Native American as you pointed out) those terms are seldom used in common speech. Normally I would just be American. If I needed to expound on my ancestry for whatever reason I'd just say I'm Irish and German (most of us are mutts). Even African American is fairly rare outside of official documents. Most people would refer to themselves in common speech as black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. Since these are racial qualifiers rather than specific places of origin they are understood to be different.
Umm what corporate license says you can do whatever you want with our source so long as you attribute it?