It appears a comment from "Mr. Pedantic" filed to story "Web is growing at exponential rate" was somehow posted to the front page instead of being attached to the article.
Charge a market rate per GB and charge me for what I use. Gas, power, and water utilities manage to deliver and upkeep what's arguably a more complicated infrastructure with the same model, why should data be any different? Data at this point should just be a public utility. Let the upstream providers sell you what they offer on their terms, but keep the last mile locally controlled and regulated.
Lets go back and look at your original post. You never said anything about "equality under the law". You were talking about rights. The quote is:
"I am not sure it is is true to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights."
You say they have the same "right to marry any woman they choose" which is self-evident. Your logic goes awry because you're not arguing about the same thing. No one is talking about "right to marry a woman", they're saying "right to marry whom you choose". In this case, a man chooses to marry a man, and his right is denied. Laws are about restrictions of "rights" for the betterment of other individuals or society as a whole. In this case, the law is denying a right - to marry whom you choose - to a specific set of individuals - those who choose to marry someone of the same sex. Just as drug laws deny those who wish to use a specific narcotic and murder laws deny folks the right to kill whom they please, this is all about why someone is restricted and why society wishes it to be that way.
(And by the way "You" in your quote above was not you personally, it was "you as in society").
So does the law grant equal access for men to marry women, straight and gay alike, yes, of course.
Does the law grant equal access for all people to marry all people? Obviously not.
And now I don't think we've accomplished anything but argue about semantics:)
Yeah, I see what you're trying to say, but all you're doing is just redefining what "equality" means from what everyone else is saying. You're being pedantic and saying "its equal in that it forces everyone to do the same thing" but everyone else is saying "its not equal in that I cannot make the choice I want to make because you're saying I can't". Its the same logic with segregation "You get to marry someone of the same race, I get to marry someone of the same race, its equal!", but in the context of "here's what I want to do" its not.
Of course, society has to balance that kind of "equal" with the good of the whole. If someone satisfy my desires by sleeping with children and chopping their heads off, then the laws against child molestation and murder are oppressive. You're specifically denying someone the opportunity to do something they want because it would detrimentally affect another person and society as a whole. Is that correct? I think most people would argue that yes, it is.
Is it correct to prevent two consenting adults from doing what they want? That's what the oppositions to these laws are all about. Are others being detrimentally affected by these two doing what they want? I would argue no, and the religious right would say "yes, because it sets a bad example, pulls kids onto homosexuality, etc".
The outcome is easy to understand when you think of the juxtaposition of "People who rabidly vote in online polls" and "People who think EA is the devil because Dungeon Keeper 3 didn't come out."
Messing up the economy? Monopolist practices? Fuck that shit, they killed Westwood!!@#!@!!
"I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus." "And of course that same section of the book says you are going to hell for eating shell fish"
That already happens with a marriage license. And technically, anyone licensed to perform a marriage is an officer of the government (for the specific purpose of signing marriage licenses), and they are permitted to do their duties anywhere. Saying it has to happen at a specific place is like saying "All notaries must never allow anything to be signed in a church" or "lawyers can't meet their clients in coffee shops". Its nonsensical.
Bending over backwards and changing the name of shit just to suit some people is idiotic. They need to get with the program and understand that the word is duel use and saying "we're married in the eyes of the state" does not mean "the FSM has blessed this holy union and our souls will be forever entwined on the great fork of destiny" or whatever else might offend you.
What you're saying is that its perfectly ok for adult persons A and B can choose to enter into a union where person A can visit B in the hospital, get mutual health benefits, handle finances together, not be compelled to testify against one and other, etc. whereas adult persons C & D say "Hey, we want to do that too", the government says "No way!".
Re:I'm already too plugged in with my iPhone and i
on
Google Glasses Announced
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Did you ever look at your parents when you were young and wondered when you'd get to that point where your thought patterns would switch from "cool" to "what we've got is good enough, dagnabbit" and you'd be officially old? Congrats, you're there. Its not a set age, its a state of mind.
Are there going to be problems with these? Sure. Will they be clunky and not good to start with? Of course. Is it the start of "something new", possibly something awesome? Most definitely. Sorry you won't be along for the ride.
Agreed, but there is still the problem of the exit door needing to be at a sufficiently high altitude to avoid tearing the thing apart when it leaves the vacuum. But a circular acceleration track with an exit ramp that goes on for 10 miles at a 45 degree angle certainly seems more doable than a 1000 mile long train kept at vacuum. We can't even build a 500 mile long train in CA without spending $40bln, and that's just tracks, no enclosing vacuum tunnel to speak of.
A little shorter than that. At the acceleration they're talking about you're in space in 5 minutes. You'd probably need a shower/bath after shitting yourself on the ride up considering you hit some atmosphere head on after exiting a tube going 25,000 mph.
Not that much money. If I paid 10 programmers 100k for a year to do the PS3 port (so much wrong with that statement, but whatever), and you get $20 (again, so much wrong) when all is said and done per unit, I only need to sell 50k units to support the costs of another platform. Everything after that is green. On a AAA title, your marketing alone will push 50k units to unsuspecting customers, and you're generally not marketing to specific platforms (unless that platform is helping out w/ the cost).
Look at it this way - you're either with me or with Q in the beard department. I "misspelled" a few names (which I already explained: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2698135&cid=39193079), but I did not put humanity on trial.
I recently went back to them on netflix. There's a ton of them when you look at all 7 seasons together, so you have to be selective. Just make sure:
a) Riker has a beard b) Zipper is in the back c) Polaski, anyone named Crusher, and maybe Jordy isn't the major focus of the episode. (Its ok if its Crusher & Picard, Jordy & Data, etc). d) Watch anything with Lor e) Watch anything with Borgs f) Watch anything with time travel/time loops/etc g) Holodeck episodes are trouble. Is it the old west? Skip. 1800s you can probably keep. Riker playing in a jazz club? Fast forward just a bit. h) Q episodes generally can't miss. i) Picards are a must, but not if it involves him trying to awkwardly woo someone. Stay away: Kirk for the ladies, Picard for solving issues without a double fisted hammer blow to the back. (Exception: The episode Q takes him to his past, see rule h. There he does wooing and double fisted hammer blows, but you also get to see one of the most ridiculously obvious stunt double scenes ever)
In general season 1-2 25% watchable, 3 50%, 4-7 90%.
Tell that to the phone in my pocket which would smoke 20 of your 1995 computers in both CPU and RAM and has always on connectivity with download speeds 100x what you could get through your wired phone line. Also weighs maybe 1% of your computer, fits in my pocket, and has 10x the resolution. With it I'm always connected, can watch pretty much any piece of content anywhere, find any fact in 10s or less, video chat dick tracy style with anyone in the world, talk to it to have it search for things for me, navigate my way across america using signals from fucking space, and film HD video that no one had a playback device for in their house for in 1995.
Michelle Rhee tried to give teachers six figure salaries in DC if they would give up tenure. The union wouldn't even let it get to a vote. With the unions the crappy teachers get more invested in the union (it helps them be lazy, do nothing awful teachers) because they really enjoy working the system. They then reinforce the policies that keep the bad teachers in place. (You know, the kind that show up drunk on the job, etc). Good teachers are good teachers, and measurable systems will demonstrate that. Bad teachers and union leaders have it in their best interest to not rock the boat,, so any kind of incentive program or more pay in exchange for any kind of ability to rid the system of bad teachers will never happen.
Well, it would be pretty ballsy to cheat in the middle of a test with other students around where you're going to blow the curve for everyone else. More often than not the accuser in these situations was a fellow student. I'm guessing there was probably a good amount of plagiarism on problem sets and such, but outright cheating in an exam I gotta figure was pretty rare.
My school wouldn't even proctor the exam, they'd just expel you if you were ever caught cheating (no ifs ands or buts) , so getting an A instead of a gentleman's C by cheating didn't seem worth it. It did happen of course, and roughly 0.1% to 0.2% of the student base would get booted every year.
Yeah, you don't need anything new for that. Remember when all those ships mysteriously kept running over cables with their anchors? Yeah, there's probably extra mysterious boxes sitting along those routes now.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that the government has primarily been targeting the homeless and those 'diagnosed' with mental disorders. Its amazing though most people will go ahead and step over some lunatic ranting about crazy junk on the street and not even see them, he's certain that the government is scanning his all important brain waves and tracking his every movement. Just makes perfect sense when you think about it!
Slashdot Mirror
Bug report for SLASH-13942
It appears a comment from "Mr. Pedantic" filed to story "Web is growing at exponential rate" was somehow posted to the front page instead of being attached to the article.
Charge a market rate per GB and charge me for what I use. Gas, power, and water utilities manage to deliver and upkeep what's arguably a more complicated infrastructure with the same model, why should data be any different? Data at this point should just be a public utility. Let the upstream providers sell you what they offer on their terms, but keep the last mile locally controlled and regulated.
They explained it above in laymans terms. I suppose we could have asked for a crayon drawing or something.
Lets go back and look at your original post. You never said anything about "equality under the law". You were talking about rights. The quote is:
"I am not sure it is is true to say that homosexuals do not have the same rights."
You say they have the same "right to marry any woman they choose" which is self-evident. Your logic goes awry because you're not arguing about the same thing. No one is talking about "right to marry a woman", they're saying "right to marry whom you choose". In this case, a man chooses to marry a man, and his right is denied. Laws are about restrictions of "rights" for the betterment of other individuals or society as a whole. In this case, the law is denying a right - to marry whom you choose - to a specific set of individuals - those who choose to marry someone of the same sex. Just as drug laws deny those who wish to use a specific narcotic and murder laws deny folks the right to kill whom they please, this is all about why someone is restricted and why society wishes it to be that way.
(And by the way "You" in your quote above was not you personally, it was "you as in society").
So does the law grant equal access for men to marry women, straight and gay alike, yes, of course.
Does the law grant equal access for all people to marry all people? Obviously not.
And now I don't think we've accomplished anything but argue about semantics :)
Yeah, I see what you're trying to say, but all you're doing is just redefining what "equality" means from what everyone else is saying. You're being pedantic and saying "its equal in that it forces everyone to do the same thing" but everyone else is saying "its not equal in that I cannot make the choice I want to make because you're saying I can't". Its the same logic with segregation "You get to marry someone of the same race, I get to marry someone of the same race, its equal!", but in the context of "here's what I want to do" its not.
Of course, society has to balance that kind of "equal" with the good of the whole. If someone satisfy my desires by sleeping with children and chopping their heads off, then the laws against child molestation and murder are oppressive. You're specifically denying someone the opportunity to do something they want because it would detrimentally affect another person and society as a whole. Is that correct? I think most people would argue that yes, it is.
Is it correct to prevent two consenting adults from doing what they want? That's what the oppositions to these laws are all about. Are others being detrimentally affected by these two doing what they want? I would argue no, and the religious right would say "yes, because it sets a bad example, pulls kids onto homosexuality, etc".
The outcome is easy to understand when you think of the juxtaposition of "People who rabidly vote in online polls" and "People who think EA is the devil because Dungeon Keeper 3 didn't come out."
Messing up the economy? Monopolist practices? Fuck that shit, they killed Westwood!!@#!@!!
"I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus."
"And of course that same section of the book says you are going to hell for eating shell fish"
So your first statement is only half correct?
That already happens with a marriage license. And technically, anyone licensed to perform a marriage is an officer of the government (for the specific purpose of signing marriage licenses), and they are permitted to do their duties anywhere. Saying it has to happen at a specific place is like saying "All notaries must never allow anything to be signed in a church" or "lawyers can't meet their clients in coffee shops". Its nonsensical.
Bending over backwards and changing the name of shit just to suit some people is idiotic. They need to get with the program and understand that the word is duel use and saying "we're married in the eyes of the state" does not mean "the FSM has blessed this holy union and our souls will be forever entwined on the great fork of destiny" or whatever else might offend you.
What you're saying is that its perfectly ok for adult persons A and B can choose to enter into a union where person A can visit B in the hospital, get mutual health benefits, handle finances together, not be compelled to testify against one and other, etc. whereas adult persons C & D say "Hey, we want to do that too", the government says "No way!".
Did you ever look at your parents when you were young and wondered when you'd get to that point where your thought patterns would switch from "cool" to "what we've got is good enough, dagnabbit" and you'd be officially old? Congrats, you're there. Its not a set age, its a state of mind.
Are there going to be problems with these? Sure. Will they be clunky and not good to start with? Of course. Is it the start of "something new", possibly something awesome? Most definitely. Sorry you won't be along for the ride.
Dont need lots of prison space when you execute with vigor.
Agreed, but there is still the problem of the exit door needing to be at a sufficiently high altitude to avoid tearing the thing apart when it leaves the vacuum. But a circular acceleration track with an exit ramp that goes on for 10 miles at a 45 degree angle certainly seems more doable than a 1000 mile long train kept at vacuum. We can't even build a 500 mile long train in CA without spending $40bln, and that's just tracks, no enclosing vacuum tunnel to speak of.
A little shorter than that. At the acceleration they're talking about you're in space in 5 minutes. You'd probably need a shower/bath after shitting yourself on the ride up considering you hit some atmosphere head on after exiting a tube going 25,000 mph.
Not that much money. If I paid 10 programmers 100k for a year to do the PS3 port (so much wrong with that statement, but whatever), and you get $20 (again, so much wrong) when all is said and done per unit, I only need to sell 50k units to support the costs of another platform. Everything after that is green. On a AAA title, your marketing alone will push 50k units to unsuspecting customers, and you're generally not marketing to specific platforms (unless that platform is helping out w/ the cost).
Look at it this way - you're either with me or with Q in the beard department. I "misspelled" a few names (which I already explained: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2698135&cid=39193079), but I did not put humanity on trial.
I don't think you have a choice.
My strict adherence to canon only allows me to write character names as I hear them.
I recently went back to them on netflix. There's a ton of them when you look at all 7 seasons together, so you have to be selective. Just make sure:
a) Riker has a beard
b) Zipper is in the back
c) Polaski, anyone named Crusher, and maybe Jordy isn't the major focus of the episode. (Its ok if its Crusher & Picard, Jordy & Data, etc).
d) Watch anything with Lor
e) Watch anything with Borgs
f) Watch anything with time travel/time loops/etc
g) Holodeck episodes are trouble. Is it the old west? Skip. 1800s you can probably keep. Riker playing in a jazz club? Fast forward just a bit.
h) Q episodes generally can't miss.
i) Picards are a must, but not if it involves him trying to awkwardly woo someone. Stay away: Kirk for the ladies, Picard for solving issues without a double fisted hammer blow to the back. (Exception: The episode Q takes him to his past, see rule h. There he does wooing and double fisted hammer blows, but you also get to see one of the most ridiculously obvious stunt double scenes ever)
In general season 1-2 25% watchable, 3 50%, 4-7 90%.
Tell that to the phone in my pocket which would smoke 20 of your 1995 computers in both CPU and RAM and has always on connectivity with download speeds 100x what you could get through your wired phone line. Also weighs maybe 1% of your computer, fits in my pocket, and has 10x the resolution. With it I'm always connected, can watch pretty much any piece of content anywhere, find any fact in 10s or less, video chat dick tracy style with anyone in the world, talk to it to have it search for things for me, navigate my way across america using signals from fucking space, and film HD video that no one had a playback device for in their house for in 1995.
But yeah, besides that, pretty much the same.
Michelle Rhee tried to give teachers six figure salaries in DC if they would give up tenure. The union wouldn't even let it get to a vote. With the unions the crappy teachers get more invested in the union (it helps them be lazy, do nothing awful teachers) because they really enjoy working the system. They then reinforce the policies that keep the bad teachers in place. (You know, the kind that show up drunk on the job, etc). Good teachers are good teachers, and measurable systems will demonstrate that. Bad teachers and union leaders have it in their best interest to not rock the boat,, so any kind of incentive program or more pay in exchange for any kind of ability to rid the system of bad teachers will never happen.
Well, it would be pretty ballsy to cheat in the middle of a test with other students around where you're going to blow the curve for everyone else. More often than not the accuser in these situations was a fellow student. I'm guessing there was probably a good amount of plagiarism on problem sets and such, but outright cheating in an exam I gotta figure was pretty rare.
My school wouldn't even proctor the exam, they'd just expel you if you were ever caught cheating (no ifs ands or buts) , so getting an A instead of a gentleman's C by cheating didn't seem worth it. It did happen of course, and roughly 0.1% to 0.2% of the student base would get booted every year.
Yeah, you don't need anything new for that. Remember when all those ships mysteriously kept running over cables with their anchors? Yeah, there's probably extra mysterious boxes sitting along those routes now.
Right, like surgery is never an option. They needed a robot to invent it. No one has ever taken cancer cells out before. What an idiot.
Are you implying that cancer research and treatment causes more cancer?
I'm going to go ahead and guess that the government has primarily been targeting the homeless and those 'diagnosed' with mental disorders. Its amazing though most people will go ahead and step over some lunatic ranting about crazy junk on the street and not even see them, he's certain that the government is scanning his all important brain waves and tracking his every movement. Just makes perfect sense when you think about it!