That's what I'm afraid of. There simply isn't enough resources for everyone in the world to live like a middle class family in the US, and production isn't increasing as fast as population growth or standard of living.
There are plenty of resources available. Most of them are just either expensive to get at with current technology or prevented from being touched by environmental laws. Take oil for example. The US is sitting on huge reserves that we won't touch for various political reasons.
As for water, there's plenty of that too. Again it's a problem of technology, and technology always seems to rise to the occasion. Every generation has had doomsayers like yourself. They were wrong and I'm betting you will be as well.
If everyone raised their standard of living to about what the US and most of Europe enjoys then population growth would slow dramtically. Most developed nations are either losing population slowly (barring immigration) or just maintaining steady levels.
The better the standard of living, the fewer babies people have. Google around and you'll see plenty of studies to that effect and plenty of theories why that is.
That's why I said everything that has a bearing on national defense. I think we basically agree.
In general I'm all for free trade. I could care less if call centers move to India, or if we buy toys made in China (lead free please!). When it comes to cricital components though, they should be a bit closer to home. That goes for any network hardware used by the Government, too.
People have been saying that Google is the new Microsoft for some time. Most everyone else pooh-pooh's them because Google has been the darling of the tech community for years now. I'm old enough to remember when the tech community loved Microsoft too.
Google will do what any publically held company does. They will grow and grow and take over as much as they can until something or someone stops them. That's not as alarmist as it might sound, it's just how things work.
One company owning all of our data scares me a LOT more than one company providing all of our software.
Seriously? Everything. We're buying fuel tankers from Airbus, routers made in China, weapons systems made in Britain. This makes me sound like a protectionist and I'm not but I think that everything we use with regards to national defense should be made right here in the US. Not only would it help keep some manufacturing jobs here but it would just make me feel a lot safer.
As for my experiences, those were mostly with providing people, consulting and services to the Government, not gear. I seriously can't and won't go into details here on this forum though. No huge secrets but I have signed NDA's in the past WRT to this and I'm not sure if they are still in effect or not. I was just acknowledging that I know how onerous it can be to deal with selling anything to the Government.
I am sorry to have to aruge with you, but you are not quite right here. The original Pentium was more of a 'hybrid' architecture. Under the hood it took advantage of a lot of RISCy architectural features, and it's microcode was very RISC like as well. The Pentium Pro took it a step further and aside from the outward exposed instruction set the internals looked much like any other RISC processor, albeit with fewer registers.
There is really no such thing as RISC and CISC anymore. Again, I was just using that as an example.
Yes, I know exactly how the Government does procurement, having had to deal with it often enough in a previous job. That has nothing to do with what I suggested, which would be a radical departure from the free reign allowed to companies WRT to outsourcing the manufacture of devices that are critical to national defense and infrastructure.
I am generally for free trade and against protectionism, but I am leaning more and more towards the need for a law that makes it mandatory that all gear (guns, routers, computers, coffee makers, etc.) purchased by the Government for any use that is even remotely sensitive be made in the US by US owned companies. That won't necessarily solve this kind of problem, but it would certainly make it far easier to prosecute entities who do things that threaten our national security.
I've been called a 'sand nigger' because I am half Lebanese and look it aside from gray eyes. I know what prejudice is and what it feels like. No, that's not it. My anecdotal sample size is no better than anyone else's though. I was not discounting what you said. I was just expressing a somewhat different experience.
I do know some middle class blacks who see everything through the prism of race, but they are a minority (seriously no pun intended, I caught the possible pun during Preview) compared to the ones I know who do not.
That makes a little more sense than what I got from your original post. I was careful not to call you a racist because I wasn't sure what your angle was.
I do have to say that I have many black friends (I refuse to use terms PC like African Amercian, Italian American, etc...we're all Americians)who do NOT reflect what you're saying. They are all middle class living in suburbia and seem to be as color blind as I am.
I used the RISC vs CISC example because starting with the original Pentium x86 processors use a very RISC like internal architecture and microops. What you say is very true though.
I respectfully disagree. An x86 processor is any processor that can execute x86 instructions. The underlying architecture (RISC vs CISC, etc.) is irrelevant.
If Slashdot is a social networking site then so is icanhascheezburger:-)
Seriously though, I know definitons of such things are moving targets, but I don't know any serious people who consider a site like this a social networking site. I can agree to disagree with people who think it is, but it just lacks so many of the features of said sites (like being able to send messages privately to people or store images/other files on a personal page).
What does his race have to do with his position as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?
From the TFA, which you apparantly didn't read: 'Conyers and Lofgren were cosponsors of a similar bill introduced in 2006, when Republicans held a majority in the House. With significant Republican opposition, the 2006 bill died, but Democrats were elected to the majority late that year.
"Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone," Conyers said in a statement. "The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."'
While Conyers has at times made efforts in Congress that reflect his consituency, he appears to be acting as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee should be acting. I am actually not a fan of his (I tend to be far more conservative than he), but your vaguely racist comment made me scratch my head and say 'Huh?'.
I'll reserve further judgement until I've had a chance to read the text of the bill.
Slashdot is not a social networking site, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If you don't know the difference then you may have just made OP's arguement even stronger. OP was talking about places like Myspace, etc., where lots of personal information is freely available and kids such as yourself are often too naive and inexperienced to know better.
That being said, I prefer letting parents have control. My daughter isn't allowed to use myspace/facebook etc. She'll be 18 soon then she can use anything she wants online. In the meantime I have done my best to educate her in safe practices online.
You have an awful lot of anger in you. Hopefully in time you'll learn that resorting to personal attacks and name calling will not get people to respect your opinion; usually it's quite the opposite.
"So you don't mind if your ISP blocks your access to websites they don't like, or drop emails they disagree with? Freenet users choose to give up the right to control your speech on Freenet. In doing so, they protect themselves from responsibility for what you say."
Talk about a strawman arguement! ISP's do not have the same rights as individuals.
"Yes, but what measures are tolerable to prevent it? Do you mind if all your mail is read by the government just in-case it contains child porn?"
No, I just don't want to serve bits of child porn JPG's from my computer, in the context of this discussion.
"Common misconception, this is perfectly legal in the US ever since the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969."
Fair enough, but you still understood the intent of the example.
"That is a Strawman argument. Just because I believe that governments shouldn't be permitted to monitor and control communication doesn't mean you believe we shouldn't have governments at all."
I never said that you didn't. I was pointing out that rights can be moderated by goverment, by design. That was at the heart of the debate leading up to the US Constitution. Just how much can Government control rights, and what rights does Government have? Your claim that I was making a strawman arguement was in fact a strawman arguement itself.
Thanks for the civil debate though. It's often lacking these days. I have to go to dinner now so if I don't reply again you'll know why. Be well.
Actually, you missed his entire point. You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech. Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech. The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.
The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or moderates certain natural rights. In a total anarchy you would be absolutely correct, but we do not live in one.
I would mod you as insightful if I had points. While Freenet has legitimate uses, everyone knows that it's also used to trade things like child porn. I won't pontificate about the latter other than to say that I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused. Nor would I want to transmit any pieces of a bunch of other illegal or immoral or dangerous things.
Freenet is a non-starter for me for that very reason. Thank you for elucidating it so nicely.
They'd almost be better off making a console than pushing for games on the iPhone/touch platform. Just my opinion. I predict that their push to gaming will be about as successful as AppleTV.
Slashdot Mirror
They'll start to *gasp* elect more conservative politicians who aren't as intent at taxing and surveiling the country to death?
That's what I'm afraid of. There simply isn't enough resources for everyone in the world to live like a middle class family in the US, and production isn't increasing as fast as population growth or standard of living.
There are plenty of resources available. Most of them are just either expensive to get at with current technology or prevented from being touched by environmental laws. Take oil for example. The US is sitting on huge reserves that we won't touch for various political reasons.
As for water, there's plenty of that too. Again it's a problem of technology, and technology always seems to rise to the occasion. Every generation has had doomsayers like yourself. They were wrong and I'm betting you will be as well.
If everyone raised their standard of living to about what the US and most of Europe enjoys then population growth would slow dramtically. Most developed nations are either losing population slowly (barring immigration) or just maintaining steady levels.
The better the standard of living, the fewer babies people have. Google around and you'll see plenty of studies to that effect and plenty of theories why that is.
That's why I said everything that has a bearing on national defense. I think we basically agree.
In general I'm all for free trade. I could care less if call centers move to India, or if we buy toys made in China (lead free please!). When it comes to cricital components though, they should be a bit closer to home. That goes for any network hardware used by the Government, too.
People have been saying that Google is the new Microsoft for some time. Most everyone else pooh-pooh's them because Google has been the darling of the tech community for years now. I'm old enough to remember when the tech community loved Microsoft too.
Google will do what any publically held company does. They will grow and grow and take over as much as they can until something or someone stops them. That's not as alarmist as it might sound, it's just how things work.
One company owning all of our data scares me a LOT more than one company providing all of our software.
Seriously? Everything. We're buying fuel tankers from Airbus, routers made in China, weapons systems made in Britain. This makes me sound like a protectionist and I'm not but I think that everything we use with regards to national defense should be made right here in the US. Not only would it help keep some manufacturing jobs here but it would just make me feel a lot safer.
As for my experiences, those were mostly with providing people, consulting and services to the Government, not gear. I seriously can't and won't go into details here on this forum though. No huge secrets but I have signed NDA's in the past WRT to this and I'm not sure if they are still in effect or not. I was just acknowledging that I know how onerous it can be to deal with selling anything to the Government.
I am sorry to have to aruge with you, but you are not quite right here. The original Pentium was more of a 'hybrid' architecture. Under the hood it took advantage of a lot of RISCy architectural features, and it's microcode was very RISC like as well. The Pentium Pro took it a step further and aside from the outward exposed instruction set the internals looked much like any other RISC processor, albeit with fewer registers.
There is really no such thing as RISC and CISC anymore. Again, I was just using that as an example.
Yes, I know exactly how the Government does procurement, having had to deal with it often enough in a previous job. That has nothing to do with what I suggested, which would be a radical departure from the free reign allowed to companies WRT to outsourcing the manufacture of devices that are critical to national defense and infrastructure.
I am generally for free trade and against protectionism, but I am leaning more and more towards the need for a law that makes it mandatory that all gear (guns, routers, computers, coffee makers, etc.) purchased by the Government for any use that is even remotely sensitive be made in the US by US owned companies. That won't necessarily solve this kind of problem, but it would certainly make it far easier to prosecute entities who do things that threaten our national security.
I've been called a 'sand nigger' because I am half Lebanese and look it aside from gray eyes. I know what prejudice is and what it feels like. No, that's not it. My anecdotal sample size is no better than anyone else's though. I was not discounting what you said. I was just expressing a somewhat different experience.
I do know some middle class blacks who see everything through the prism of race, but they are a minority (seriously no pun intended, I caught the possible pun during Preview) compared to the ones I know who do not.
No. I said *I* won't run a Freenet node. Show me where in any of my posts that I said that *nobody* should use it.
That makes a little more sense than what I got from your original post. I was careful not to call you a racist because I wasn't sure what your angle was.
I do have to say that I have many black friends (I refuse to use terms PC like African Amercian, Italian American, etc...we're all Americians)who do NOT reflect what you're saying. They are all middle class living in suburbia and seem to be as color blind as I am.
I used the RISC vs CISC example because starting with the original Pentium x86 processors use a very RISC like internal architecture and microops. What you say is very true though.
I respectfully disagree. An x86 processor is any processor that can execute x86 instructions. The underlying architecture (RISC vs CISC, etc.) is irrelevant.
If Slashdot is a social networking site then so is icanhascheezburger :-)
Seriously though, I know definitons of such things are moving targets, but I don't know any serious people who consider a site like this a social networking site. I can agree to disagree with people who think it is, but it just lacks so many of the features of said sites (like being able to send messages privately to people or store images/other files on a personal page).
What does his race have to do with his position as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?
From the TFA, which you apparantly didn't read:
'Conyers and Lofgren were cosponsors of a similar bill introduced in 2006, when Republicans held a majority in the House. With significant Republican opposition, the 2006 bill died, but Democrats were elected to the majority late that year.
"Americans have come to expect the Internet to be open to everyone," Conyers said in a statement. "The Internet was designed without centralized control, without gatekeepers for content and services. If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the Internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available."'
While Conyers has at times made efforts in Congress that reflect his consituency, he appears to be acting as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee should be acting. I am actually not a fan of his (I tend to be far more conservative than he), but your vaguely racist comment made me scratch my head and say 'Huh?'.
I'll reserve further judgement until I've had a chance to read the text of the bill.
Slashdot is not a social networking site, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If you don't know the difference then you may have just made OP's arguement even stronger. OP was talking about places like Myspace, etc., where lots of personal information is freely available and kids such as yourself are often too naive and inexperienced to know better.
That being said, I prefer letting parents have control. My daughter isn't allowed to use myspace/facebook etc. She'll be 18 soon then she can use anything she wants online. In the meantime I have done my best to educate her in safe practices online.
You have an awful lot of anger in you. Hopefully in time you'll learn that resorting to personal attacks and name calling will not get people to respect your opinion; usually it's quite the opposite.
I predict that on the same day they will finally determine the exact mass of the Higgs Boson.
"So you don't mind if your ISP blocks your access to websites they don't like, or drop emails they disagree with? Freenet users choose to give up the right to control your speech on Freenet. In doing so, they protect themselves from responsibility for what you say."
Talk about a strawman arguement! ISP's do not have the same rights as individuals.
"Yes, but what measures are tolerable to prevent it? Do you mind if all your mail is read by the government just in-case it contains child porn?"
No, I just don't want to serve bits of child porn JPG's from my computer, in the context of this discussion.
"Common misconception, this is perfectly legal in the US ever since the Brandenburg v Ohio case in 1969."
Fair enough, but you still understood the intent of the example.
"That is a Strawman argument. Just because I believe that governments shouldn't be permitted to monitor and control communication doesn't mean you believe we shouldn't have governments at all."
I never said that you didn't. I was pointing out that rights can be moderated by goverment, by design. That was at the heart of the debate leading up to the US Constitution. Just how much can Government control rights, and what rights does Government have? Your claim that I was making a strawman arguement was in fact a strawman arguement itself.
Thanks for the civil debate though. It's often lacking these days. I have to go to dinner now so if I don't reply again you'll know why. Be well.
No, he said you can say what you want to say, just don't make HIM repeat it if he doesn't want to.
Actually, you missed his entire point. You have freedom of speech, but not freedom to make other's repeat your free speech. Additionally, it's already been established that certain things (like the child porn example I used), are NOT protected by free speech. The same goes for certain other types of expression such as yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there is none.
The founding fathers recognized this fact and realised that government was a necessary evil that by it's very definition restricts or moderates certain natural rights. In a total anarchy you would be absolutely correct, but we do not live in one.
I would mod you as insightful if I had points. While Freenet has legitimate uses, everyone knows that it's also used to trade things like child porn. I won't pontificate about the latter other than to say that I would choose to *not* serve up any chunks of children getting abused. Nor would I want to transmit any pieces of a bunch of other illegal or immoral or dangerous things.
Freenet is a non-starter for me for that very reason. Thank you for elucidating it so nicely.
That's like saying "He's just a Dark Jedi, not a Sithlord"!
;)
It's all a matter of degree my friend
They'd almost be better off making a console than pushing for games on the iPhone/touch platform. Just my opinion. I predict that their push to gaming will be about as successful as AppleTV.
You need a pilot's license to fly it. It's an airplane that just happens to be able to fold it's wings up and drive.