It hasn't been researched or developed. It's been noticed that such a thing is possible with current technology, so they're taking precautionary measures.
It think anyone who would point out that there are peaceful Muslims, and Muslims who are against terrorism when others use a broad brush to smear the entire group, would, by that same thinking, acknowledge that there are peaceful people in the US Governement, and officials who are against drone strikes. Yet, it seems two opposing rationales are being employed here in this thread.
Romney is guilty of rhetorical support -- that is, for thinking the thought, but Obama/Bush (and perhaps McCain as a congressman) is guilty of involvement -- that is, for committing the act. Slashdot is fervently against anything even remotely reminiscent of thought-crimes, yet here we are doing it to someone we don't like. Until Romney has actually done the same things, we cannot place him into the same group as the others.
And before this is misconstrued as support for Romney, no, I'm not a supporter. I do like to deconstruct the rationale that go into Slashdotters' conclusions and find the inconsistencies.
It was right to criticize Bush, just as it is right to criticize Obama. That Bush should be held accountable is not a rational counterargument to the claim that Obama should be held accountable. If we were to follow such "logic" then we could, in every story of domestic misdeed by the US, bring out misdeeds by China for example as a way to deflect the criticism. We all know that would not be accepted as rational counterargument, yet here we are using that same "logic".
Do you use "US Government" rather than "Obama and associates" for fear of down-mods?* Because there are a number of US government officials who are against drone strikes, and it is just as unfair to them when you use such phrasing as when someone blames Islam. A majority of government workers are in no way connected to the planning or execution of drone strikes.
*notice how drone articles have a fraction of Obama criticism as waterboarding articles had of Bush criticism.
Purely looking at the law, I'd likely agree with you, but reimportation is more complicated than it appears on the surface. Let's establish some givens: 1. Publishers are out to maximize profits, and 2. Regional pricing gives greater access to consumers in poorer countries.
If reimportation were to be fully legal, these US companies, whose greatest profit comes from domestic sales, would be far more likely to raise export prices to match domestic prices and cope with decreased export sales than to depress what is their most lucrative stream of revenue by lowering domestic prices to compete with reimported goods. The consequence then is that the poorest consumers would find themselves priced out of the market, and because this case deals with books it has the secondary effect of limiting the availability of education and empowerment which the poorest people most need.
Unless the government is prepared to intervene dramatically in how companies operate and implement price ceilings to equalize all prices across regions, the most likely result we'll see from this is that prices of export US goods will increase, making them less competitive globally, resulting in less choice for international consumers and less export revenue for the US, and all this in a time when the US can least afford a decrease in economic influence or an expansion of trade deficit.
It won't be an easy decision for the Supreme Court to make, there will be a great fight between moralists and pragmatists, and rest assured the White House and Congress will be on the side of maintaining illegality.
Always interesting to see highly rated posts whose views go against typical Slashdot moral standards, they tend to make people think. Your last paragraph will be good quote fodder when every non-American Slashdotter complains about the US and QE4 next year (or some other unpopular act of economic self-interest). I wonder if I'll get a +5 as well?
My understanding (which I admit is without context) is that it describes the dynamic between two forces: The effort needed to keep something secret will always be greater than the effort needed to expose that same thing, resulting always in a pressure towards exposure. Now, couple that with our propensity for anthropomorphic explanations, and we get "Information wants to be free".
That mentality wins you small battles, but loses you the war. If Slashdotters can stop being petty and embrace open sharing wherever it occurs, then we will have the high ground when it makes that argument again in stories about piracy crackdowns. Right now we're using kid's logic.
I'd like to agree with you too, but one can never be certain when false flags are everywhere and conspiracies abound. Or is it rationality here, but paranoia everywhere else...
If those were 2 million engineers, that would make sense. But I'd assume less than a quarter are engineers, and most are construction, sales, facilities maintenance, and of course, management. I can tell you sales makes 3000 RMB, 4000 max, which is about $600/month. Construction and facilities maintenance make even less. Which means for your numbers to add up, management needs to be averaging millions RMB a month.
Additionally, I find your excuses and high moderation confusing, because I know for a certainty that were a post like yours be made in a thread about inefficiencies in US domestic investment, it would never get above 0 Overrated/Flamebait, and would be drowned by indignant replies. Does this say something about the double standard we have when discussing US/China -- that there are certain things that China can do, and be applauded for on Slashdot, which the US can not? Re-read OP's post from a different perspective and think about it.
Also, since IP isn't an accurate identifier, there is no certainty that Stuxnet was made by the US, even if "unnamed officials" like to take credit for it. If we were to follow the logic of some popular voices on Slashdot, we should assume firstly the possibility that it was a false flag operation.
*because it seems like "false flag" is a popular/. utterance for every hacking accusation the US throws out, but never for accusations thrown at the US. Just do a Ctrl+F for the evidence.
This is going to be a layman's attempt at grasping "half-life" as applied to large molecule strands, but if we assume that no two strands decay in the same way, would it not be possible to increase the sample size so that what's missing from one could be found in another?
What if advanced extraterrestrials have already done this to us, and there's a "Jurrasic Earth" somewhere with cloned humans running around for them to study? *gasp* What if Earth is their "P4 spacesuit lab" equivalent, and we began as laboratory clones of an organism from another system?
Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.
You can say that Romney's plan is vague, but I don't think you can claim that's it's the "dead-on-arrival" plan that Democrats would like people to believe. Consider another reading that takes into account other factors: http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf
In any case, a calculated vagueness is the part of the essence of challengers, and were you to scrutinize past candidates with the same lens with which you scrutinize Romney you'd find that same frustrating vagueness.
Internet Gambling is probably one where I agree with you somewhat, but it was a business decision (preventing money laundering for other crimes), not a ideological decision. See the many cities and states where various forms of gambling is legal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States
Under 18 porn may be offensive to some, but it's mainly banned out of a sense of humanity and empathy for its victims, there is no commonality between it and banning cartoons (cartoons are not abducted or abused)
Why do you tell lies and half-truths? Is it because you think telling lies will help get your point across? Well it doesn't. Whoever modded you up needs his privilege reexamined
Slashdot Mirror
It hasn't been researched or developed. It's been noticed that such a thing is possible with current technology, so they're taking precautionary measures.
* I think..
It think anyone who would point out that there are peaceful Muslims, and Muslims who are against terrorism when others use a broad brush to smear the entire group, would, by that same thinking, acknowledge that there are peaceful people in the US Governement, and officials who are against drone strikes. Yet, it seems two opposing rationales are being employed here in this thread.
You're exactly right. Yet, we seem to be less willing to speak up now because Obama is "our guy"
Romney is guilty of rhetorical support -- that is, for thinking the thought, but Obama/Bush (and perhaps McCain as a congressman) is guilty of involvement -- that is, for committing the act. Slashdot is fervently against anything even remotely reminiscent of thought-crimes, yet here we are doing it to someone we don't like. Until Romney has actually done the same things, we cannot place him into the same group as the others.
And before this is misconstrued as support for Romney, no, I'm not a supporter. I do like to deconstruct the rationale that go into Slashdotters' conclusions and find the inconsistencies.
It was right to criticize Bush, just as it is right to criticize Obama. That Bush should be held accountable is not a rational counterargument to the claim that Obama should be held accountable. If we were to follow such "logic" then we could, in every story of domestic misdeed by the US, bring out misdeeds by China for example as a way to deflect the criticism. We all know that would not be accepted as rational counterargument, yet here we are using that same "logic".
What makes you think I'm conservative? Because I don't fear criticizing what you hold sacred, I must be of "the other guys"?
That there are Republicans who would do the same is no excuse for those Democrats to shirk blame, or for their supporters to make excuses.
Do you use "US Government" rather than "Obama and associates" for fear of down-mods?* Because there are a number of US government officials who are against drone strikes, and it is just as unfair to them when you use such phrasing as when someone blames Islam. A majority of government workers are in no way connected to the planning or execution of drone strikes.
*notice how drone articles have a fraction of Obama criticism as waterboarding articles had of Bush criticism.
Purely looking at the law, I'd likely agree with you, but reimportation is more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Let's establish some givens:
1. Publishers are out to maximize profits, and
2. Regional pricing gives greater access to consumers in poorer countries.
If reimportation were to be fully legal, these US companies, whose greatest profit comes from domestic sales, would be far more likely to raise export prices to match domestic prices and cope with decreased export sales than to depress what is their most lucrative stream of revenue by lowering domestic prices to compete with reimported goods. The consequence then is that the poorest consumers would find themselves priced out of the market, and because this case deals with books it has the secondary effect of limiting the availability of education and empowerment which the poorest people most need.
Unless the government is prepared to intervene dramatically in how companies operate and implement price ceilings to equalize all prices across regions, the most likely result we'll see from this is that prices of export US goods will increase, making them less competitive globally, resulting in less choice for international consumers and less export revenue for the US, and all this in a time when the US can least afford a decrease in economic influence or an expansion of trade deficit.
It won't be an easy decision for the Supreme Court to make, there will be a great fight between moralists and pragmatists, and rest assured the White House and Congress will be on the side of maintaining illegality.
It's a hive of cynics. Are the negative stories about China really all that different from negative stories about the US?
Always interesting to see highly rated posts whose views go against typical Slashdot moral standards, they tend to make people think. Your last paragraph will be good quote fodder when every non-American Slashdotter complains about the US and QE4 next year (or some other unpopular act of economic self-interest). I wonder if I'll get a +5 as well?
My understanding (which I admit is without context) is that it describes the dynamic between two forces: The effort needed to keep something secret will always be greater than the effort needed to expose that same thing, resulting always in a pressure towards exposure. Now, couple that with our propensity for anthropomorphic explanations, and we get "Information wants to be free".
- copy-paste republican troll getting desperate,
- copy-paste democratic troll perpetuating stereotypes,
- editors pre-emptively seeding flame wars to increase hits.
Pick one.
That mentality wins you small battles, but loses you the war. If Slashdotters can stop being petty and embrace open sharing wherever it occurs, then we will have the high ground when it makes that argument again in stories about piracy crackdowns. Right now we're using kid's logic.
are you saying my shit fuck is worse than Prometheus?
I'd like to agree with you too, but one can never be certain when false flags are everywhere and conspiracies abound. Or is it rationality here, but paranoia everywhere else...
If those were 2 million engineers, that would make sense. But I'd assume less than a quarter are engineers, and most are construction, sales, facilities maintenance, and of course, management. I can tell you sales makes 3000 RMB, 4000 max, which is about $600/month. Construction and facilities maintenance make even less. Which means for your numbers to add up, management needs to be averaging millions RMB a month.
Additionally, I find your excuses and high moderation confusing, because I know for a certainty that were a post like yours be made in a thread about inefficiencies in US domestic investment, it would never get above 0 Overrated/Flamebait, and would be drowned by indignant replies. Does this say something about the double standard we have when discussing US/China -- that there are certain things that China can do, and be applauded for on Slashdot, which the US can not? Re-read OP's post from a different perspective and think about it.
"if someone criticizes what I hold dear, he/she must be a conservative"
this why Slashdot is such a hostile environment for the non-partisan people
Also, since IP isn't an accurate identifier, there is no certainty that Stuxnet was made by the US, even if "unnamed officials" like to take credit for it. If we were to follow the logic of some popular voices on Slashdot, we should assume firstly the possibility that it was a false flag operation.
*because it seems like "false flag" is a popular /. utterance for every hacking accusation the US throws out, but never for accusations thrown at the US. Just do a Ctrl+F for the evidence.
This is going to be a layman's attempt at grasping "half-life" as applied to large molecule strands, but if we assume that no two strands decay in the same way, would it not be possible to increase the sample size so that what's missing from one could be found in another?
What if advanced extraterrestrials have already done this to us, and there's a "Jurrasic Earth" somewhere with cloned humans running around for them to study? *gasp* What if Earth is their "P4 spacesuit lab" equivalent, and we began as laboratory clones of an organism from another system?
Exactly, only people who already support them will watch or read. They need to debate on national TV, and it's tragic that both major parties have worked to exclude them.
You can say that Romney's plan is vague, but I don't think you can claim that's it's the "dead-on-arrival" plan that Democrats would like people to believe. Consider another reading that takes into account other factors: http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf
In any case, a calculated vagueness is the part of the essence of challengers, and were you to scrutinize past candidates with the same lens with which you scrutinize Romney you'd find that same frustrating vagueness.
Wikileaks isn't censored. Try its many mirrors here: http://wikileaks.info/
Internet Gambling is probably one where I agree with you somewhat, but it was a business decision (preventing money laundering for other crimes), not a ideological decision. See the many cities and states where various forms of gambling is legal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_the_United_States
DeCSS isn't censored (although COMPANIES, not the US government, have tried to censor it) http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/DeCSS
Under 18 porn may be offensive to some, but it's mainly banned out of a sense of humanity and empathy for its victims, there is no commonality between it and banning cartoons (cartoons are not abducted or abused)
Why do you tell lies and half-truths? Is it because you think telling lies will help get your point across? Well it doesn't.
Whoever modded you up needs his privilege reexamined