Well, a lot of people work for the state at lower pay because of the stability and laid back environment. (Especially older folks and people trying to get citizenship.) Many of these people have probably got a lot of years invested in the state at a lower than industry standard salary with the expectation that they would have a job from which they could retire. Obviously these people aren't going to take it lying down.
A scheme where I am legally required to pay someone else to insure my and other driver's driving errors hardly seems like a good example of personal responsibility, and so unless that last line is tongue in cheek I don't know what you mean. I agree with the rest of your post though.
All things being equal I would not pay. However, the service is important to me and it is something I would be willing to pay for. I'd much prefer the role of consumer as opposed to product as well.
I don't know if it's a fair comparison to put worshiping a sci-fi author to a controversial view on medicine in the same crackpottery. I'm sure just about all of us are crackpots in some respect given that point of reference.
Funny, I was using p2p to get music up until I discovered allofmp3, and when they started going under I stayed out of the game until amazon. I don't purchase nearly as much music now as I did on allofmp3 because of the price, but I will download a track here and there that I like. I spent probably 20x what I do now on music when I could buy it for cheaper, because I wouldn't mind downloading extra songs that might suck a little bit because it was cheap. Because the price is higher, I am much more discriminating in my purchases.
To sum up your comments:
1: Race is an issue because even though it has no bearing on actual leadership ability it represents something that will inspire people.
2:Obama doesn't have to uphold his campaign promises because it is all part of the political game.
You are doing a disservice to your cause if you promote someone to represent a group that is not absolutely qualified apart from his/her group affiliation. Making race a serious consideration is a very short-sighted view.
You seem to support Obama's actions regarding the FISA bill. Pray tell, what would Obama have to do to disenfranchise you?
Also, you are conversing with some/.'ers who had every intention to vote for Obama (myself included) before the FISA bill. You might apply that ability to spot political brilliance to your own comments and tone down the elitist race rhetoric. Just because someone doesn't think an attibute should be part of a job interview doesn't mean he can't appreciate the significance.
ad hominem -everyone who doesn't see this astonishing departure is blind
straw man -noone said that it would take a "35-year old gay atheist inuit liberatarian" to impress them
bandwagon -5 billion brown people can't be wrong
Racial, cultural, and class issues don't really bring much to the table. Obama has already gone back on a campaign promise before even being elected (voting for FISA, not supporting a filibuster). His voting record is far from a giant divergence from the status quo. I think slashdotters are being realistic.
doesn't change anything other than preventing a bunch of lawyers from getting rich, since the telecoms would have won any lawsuits anyway
Yes, the congress (made of up of lawyers) passed an unpopular bill for the sake of saving taxpayer money. That must have been the reason they included the immunity, to prevent "wasteful" litigation. LOLZ
If it is a misquote TFA misquoted it, that exact text is in there. I really want to know the logic behind the closed vehicles argument, is it to protect us from terrorists?
something like 80% of blacks are voting for Obama last I heard, so even if this anecdotal racism is much of a problem as you think it is, the gross discrepancy on the black vote should help to offset it.
I saw that mentioned further down in an email. You are correct.
I am learning much about how things are handled in China and citizen's perspective thanks to the information posted here. It appeared at first that when the president issued the mourning period that entertainment businesses were legally required to shut down. Thank you (and others) for clearing that up.
The cultural difference is not as you say. We (speaking for Americans here), know that many Chinese have died, and we know what it is to mourn.
I think the cultural difference is where you speak of the president "issuing", where as in the US the president would be "declaring", and pretty much the only mandated thing would be flags flown at half mast at government buildings.
1. You say if I am doing nothing wrong I have nothing to worry about (with respect to CCTV)
2. I present an example of something that I worry about.
3. You shrug off the example saying anything can be abused, but then slippery slide off into book banning and the end of humanity
It is correct that most anything can be abused, and I won't argue that. However, history tells us repeatedly that the nature of power is that it will be abused, and as such must be given sparingly and checked vigorously. In this case, I believe it is quite powerful to be able to track the movement of people, especially when there is not(or I am not aware of )any way to watch the watchers. I can think of quite a few examples out of hand of ways I could abuse this technology: blackmail, reputation smearing, theft, rape, murder would be much easier if I could surreptitiously stalk from the comfort of an office building.
The fact also remains that if you're not doing anything illegal, you shouldn't have anything to worry about with reference to CCTV. Your "fact" is wrong. I do have something to worry about, and that is the CCTV being abused by those who operate them, be it the low payed laborers who watch them or their superiors.
There has actually been an entire article (posted by NYCL), devoted to those types of arguments. I would look it up but slashdot search is down and I don't know a good way to find it on google.
From the first few lines:
PROF. HANSEN: Just a show of hands. How many think under U.S. law, to the extent you understand it, that the acts of peer-to-peer network, of making something in a folder for further pickup, would be a violation of U.S. law?
[Show of hands]
PROF. GINSBURG: Absent the applicable exceptions. At least prima facie.
PROF. HANSEN: Prima facie. A good point. Thank you.
How many would say no?
[Show of hands]
Significantly fewer. "Making something available in a folder" is basically the internet, in a nutshell. The exceptions they speak of should rather be the rule. Staggering.
That's why Open-Source fails on the desktop Based on what metric is this failure evident?
You need to unite your efforts, not work against each others. Which all sounds well and good, but is nothing like the real world works, nor is is specific to open source. See office politics 101.
This fork is just another proof of what?
Posted as AC because of Linux and OSS zealots. Don't be a pussy.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, a lot of people work for the state at lower pay because of the stability and laid back environment. (Especially older folks and people trying to get citizenship.) Many of these people have probably got a lot of years invested in the state at a lower than industry standard salary with the expectation that they would have a job from which they could retire. Obviously these people aren't going to take it lying down.
A scheme where I am legally required to pay someone else to insure my and other driver's driving errors hardly seems like a good example of personal responsibility, and so unless that last line is tongue in cheek I don't know what you mean. I agree with the rest of your post though.
They had this link in the comments section on the page, but it was down when I tried it:
http://www.lhcountdown.com/
All things being equal I would not pay. However, the service is important to me and it is something I would be willing to pay for. I'd much prefer the role of consumer as opposed to product as well.
I would pay for it. Not a second thought.
I don't know if it's a fair comparison to put worshiping a sci-fi author to a controversial view on medicine in the same crackpottery. I'm sure just about all of us are crackpots in some respect given that point of reference.
Funny, I was using p2p to get music up until I discovered allofmp3, and when they started going under I stayed out of the game until amazon. I don't purchase nearly as much music now as I did on allofmp3 because of the price, but I will download a track here and there that I like. I spent probably 20x what I do now on music when I could buy it for cheaper, because I wouldn't mind downloading extra songs that might suck a little bit because it was cheap. Because the price is higher, I am much more discriminating in my purchases.
To sum up your comments:
/.'ers who had every intention to vote for Obama (myself included) before the FISA bill. You might apply that ability to spot political brilliance to your own comments and tone down the elitist race rhetoric. Just because someone doesn't think an attibute should be part of a job interview doesn't mean he can't appreciate the significance.
1: Race is an issue because even though it has no bearing on actual leadership ability it represents something that will inspire people.
2:Obama doesn't have to uphold his campaign promises because it is all part of the political game.
You are doing a disservice to your cause if you promote someone to represent a group that is not absolutely qualified apart from his/her group affiliation. Making race a serious consideration is a very short-sighted view.
You seem to support Obama's actions regarding the FISA bill. Pray tell, what would Obama have to do to disenfranchise you?
Also, you are conversing with some
You present at least 3 argumentative fallacies:
ad hominem -everyone who doesn't see this astonishing departure is blind
straw man -noone said that it would take a "35-year old gay atheist inuit liberatarian" to impress them
bandwagon -5 billion brown people can't be wrong
Racial, cultural, and class issues don't really bring much to the table. Obama has already gone back on a campaign promise before even being elected (voting for FISA, not supporting a filibuster). His voting record is far from a giant divergence from the status quo. I think slashdotters are being realistic.
That still doesn't make sense to me, how can an application legally mandate the environment in which it is run? Can you explain it as a car analogy?
doesn't change anything other than preventing a bunch of lawyers from getting rich, since the telecoms would have won any lawsuits anyway
Yes, the congress (made of up of lawyers) passed an unpopular bill for the sake of saving taxpayer money. That must have been the reason they included the immunity, to prevent "wasteful" litigation. LOLZ
There is a novel idea, affect the votes of politicians by campaign contributions. Change indeed.
As does listening to music, talking to your passengers, thinking about something else...where the hell do we draw the line?
I'm sure a trucker that sweeps you off the road with his wind draft hauling a load of bicycles will get a kick out of it too.
What if I leverage the potential of your kitchen area to synergize the multi-modal ipod-eque privy capacity?
If it is a misquote TFA misquoted it, that exact text is in there. I really want to know the logic behind the closed vehicles argument, is it to protect us from terrorists?
something like 80% of blacks are voting for Obama last I heard, so even if this anecdotal racism is much of a problem as you think it is, the gross discrepancy on the black vote should help to offset it.
I saw that mentioned further down in an email. You are correct.
I am learning much about how things are handled in China and citizen's perspective thanks to the information posted here. It appeared at first that when the president issued the mourning period that entertainment businesses were legally required to shut down. Thank you (and others) for clearing that up.
The cultural difference is not as you say. We (speaking for Americans here), know that many Chinese have died, and we know what it is to mourn.
I think the cultural difference is where you speak of the president "issuing", where as in the US the president would be "declaring", and pretty much the only mandated thing would be flags flown at half mast at government buildings.
here is the link (if anyone is still paying attention)
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/28/0141221
You are mischaracterizing my argument
1. You say if I am doing nothing wrong I have nothing to worry about (with respect to CCTV)
2. I present an example of something that I worry about.
3. You shrug off the example saying anything can be abused, but then slippery slide off into book banning and the end of humanity
It is correct that most anything can be abused, and I won't argue that. However, history tells us repeatedly that the nature of power is that it will be abused, and as such must be given sparingly and checked vigorously. In this case, I believe it is quite powerful to be able to track the movement of people, especially when there is not(or I am not aware of )any way to watch the watchers. I can think of quite a few examples out of hand of ways I could abuse this technology: blackmail, reputation smearing, theft, rape, murder would be much easier if I could surreptitiously stalk from the comfort of an office building.
There has actually been an entire article (posted by NYCL), devoted to those types of arguments. I would look it up but slashdot search is down and I don't know a good way to find it on google.
[Show of hands]
PROF. GINSBURG: Absent the applicable exceptions. At least prima facie.
PROF. HANSEN: Prima facie. A good point. Thank you.
How many would say no?
[Show of hands]
Significantly fewer.
"Making something available in a folder" is basically the internet, in a nutshell. The exceptions they speak of should rather be the rule. Staggering.