I tried using Craigslist. It's not for me. There are several complaints. They're still doing the old "by city" nonsense that leave a lot of people out. By zip code and radius would be much better for us suburbanites and rural dwellers.
Also, when you charge nothing, you invite a lot of spam posts. They should charge something. Doesn't have to be a lot. 50 cents or a dollar an ad. It's by far the easiest way to remove nonsense. If they still want free ads, if I were them, I'd make the site with a filter that the browser can manipulate for all ads and then "filtered for spam". Let the people who don't care to pay, still put their ads in the pile, albeit with all the noise.
I imagine patrol cops go where they expect some action may occur (or to stops that offer cheap food/drink for the uniformed). This sounds like a higher tech version of that, basically taking the instincts out of the equation and substituting it with statistics. Perhaps adds more coordination at the central office level too although I'm sure that also already occurs.
Yes, because during WW2, our leaders didn't give it to us straight and ask for personal sacrifice and only framed the war in ways how it would benefit the average person (advertising how soldiers first to foreign soil can pillage and loot to their hearts content, that men staying behind working at factories will have higher wages and can take claim the girlfriends of those leaving, etcetera).
Nope, we didn't collect scrap, or pantyhose, ration gas for the war effort, grow victory gardens, or buy into bond drives since that would have been an inconvenience. Government didn't actually govern but just took a consensus on everything because personal sacrifice was never asked for and could never be pushed through.
Since your parent was talking about sports beyond those in school, I really have to wonder about the veracity about your claim. Will less professional stadiums really lead to less fitness in the overall population?
Looking to Europe, they don't have have more stadiums, they have things on the local level, more (free) clubs and to add to that, more consistent sidewalks/bicycle_paths/mass_transit and less of a car culture.
So I have to call bullshit on this claim. Sports for kids are good. But the real money going towards ego-stroking pro-sports so the fans can sit in their chairs and gawk at other people doing things isn't helping anything.
blockquote>Often stuff purchased legally on vacation.
Yeah, my parents have been hit with this, and with vacation tour DVDs of all things. You know, the kind of stuff no one wants to pirate and you expect to sell to tourists of all stripes so why even put a region code beside ALL on there?
But I digress, my parents learned their lesson, they stopped buying the stupid shit.
Craigslist has crap for functionality though. I understand wanting to keep things local although I completely disagree with it, but how hard can it be to do away with the assumption that everyone lives in one of their predetermined zones (or even close to it) and implement a radius search by zip code?
As it is, it's completely useless to me as I straddle two areas and most listings are too far away. I've tried to buy on there with limited success and little convenience, selling is a excercise in frustration and dealing with a lot of idiots who'll waste your time and are never serious to begin with. About the only use I've had for it was finding a few free items, and I guess other people use it to find fuck buddies or what not.
The problem is not how these laws are being pushed. The problem is the content of these copyright laws.
How these laws are pushed leads to their content. There is a reason Lamar is treating them like his constituents.
Campaign Contributions should not only be public, but limited as being from citizen/residents of the level of office that is representing that district. Would-be representatives should only be allowed to accept funds coming from citizens from within that district and Senator from within the state. This will, in theory, make them more likely to honestly represent the area in question. I doubt Lamar Smith's own district in TX is clamoring for this shit.
Superpacs should not be allowed. I don't think anyone but citizens should be allowed in the campaign contribution process. No groups like megacorps, superpacs, NRA, no unions, nothing. At best, special interest groups should be allowed to notify members in the specific area to give to candidate X or Y. That keeps freedom of association.
The way it works now, with the structure of the Congress, special interest groups like the MPAA/RIAA entertainment cartel just have to target a few special senators/representatives that head pertinent the committees and have seniority, like the Bidens/Lamars of the world for bribes campaign donations, and they can usually railroad what they want through unless the apathetic public makes a special effort to counter it.
The problem is that the general public has a life besides watching Congress like a hawk and protesting. These groups can just keep advancing their agendas patiently, like a person playing chess, despite any one-time setbacks.
Campaign Contributions should not only be public, but limited as being from citizen/residents of the level of office that is representing that district. Would-be representatives should only be allowed to accept funds coming from citizens from within that district and Senator from within the state. This will, in theory, make them more likely to honestly represent the area in question. I doubt Lamar Smith's own district in TX is clamoring for this shit.
Superpacs should not be allowed. I don't think anyone but citizens should be allowed in the campaign contribution. No groups like megacorps, superpacs, NRA, no unions, nothing. At best, special interest groups should be allowed to notify members in the specific area to give to candidate X or Y. That keeps freedom of association.
The way it works now, with the structure of the Congress, special interest groups like the MPAA/RIAA entertainment cartel just have to target a few special senators/representatives that head pertinent the committees and have seniority, like the Bidens/Lamars of the world for bribes campaign donations, and they can usually railroad what they want through unless the apathetic public makes a special effort to counter it.
The problem is that the general public has a life besides watching Congress like a hawk and protesting. These groups can just keep advancing their agendas patiently, like a person playing chess, despite any one-time setbacks.
They got their ideas about IT from playing golf with other CEOs.
This is the downside to "professional" CEOs, people (MBAs) who train to be management and nothing else. Never worked in the company before, doesn't understand the business, but they sure can juggle the numbers as if the pieces of paper told the whole story.
Which ups my admiration for the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of the world who pretty much built it from the ground up and is in there real nitty gritty, or even Warren Buffett, who at least learns what he buys from the inside out and usually leaves the functioning parts the fuck alone.
Some people tend to have an all-or-nothing nature, especially when it concerns something they go partisan over - like Apple.
I've easily had dozens of arguments over the years where I argued Apple was the more secure solution for the average user, people responded with pwn to own or some such, and if I argued further, they just labeled me as a "fanboi" as if that ended the argument even if I argued the Unix underpinnings. Nevermind that I use W7 and Ubuntu myself, or that it's my own personal experience having to play tech support to an entire tech-challenged family that's both hardworking and lucky enough to afford to have a choice. Sure, I could put them on OpenBSD or HardenedLinux, but the first obstacle they run into, they say "Why can't I do yadayadayada" they'll go and find a way to install Windows on it, which is perfectly fine by itself, and start downloading mouse icons that look like toy trojan horses and what not.
The mindset of Y turns out to not be perfect, so it's on the same level of X, must originate from politics because the whole feel of the debate seems political. It's a retarded mentality to have, akin to cheering for wrestlers and their bogus storylines. It's sad that it has crept into tech so pervasively and that's what the whole last decade felt like on any issue - stupid partisan cheerleading for one side or the other, or booing against one side or another.
The truth of a walled garden is that it's the most practical solution for most consumers, who really don't or can't police what they're doing. I wouldn't want to live in one exclusively, nor would most geeks, but that's why they're geeks, they go above and beyond the artificial constraints and don't need the protection.
Actually, my point was that I wanted to use full size bikes with transit, as their electric options are vastly cheaper than an electric folding bike (which is already expensive). But with a lot of mass transit as it is today, only a folding bike (such as the brompton) is the only thing allowed on board. Add electric to that and it becomes at least a $2500 proposition. A regular shitty electric bike can be had for $500.
My nearest rail station back then was 25 minutes (+ train ride of 20 mins) so yeah, cutting that down to 15 or less minutes would have made a difference to me.
All the IBM engineers will do is decrease the issue of traffic by a couple of percent, maybe raise efficiency by 10-20% here and there, but the real issue is cultural. Cars suck for a dense urban environment, you need people on bikes, carpooling and the most important thing: good public transportation.
Good public transportation means though forcing cars out from city centers by creating bus lanes, creating tram lines on previously car-only roads, building enough parking space at the edge of the city where people could switch over to public transport, etc.
One of the big problems I had in Germany with ditching my car was that the mass transit wouldn't accept my bike onto it. I had to be in a bike compartment but those were limited and not every train. Same with buses, some had a bike rack, many didn't. If I could have been assured of taking my bike anyware, I would have ditched the car, and just rented one when I absolutely needed it.
(The reason I don't imagine a foldup bike in this scenario and is one that fits on a train costs about $1k, and I'm rather interested in electric bikes in making this all the more practical, and those are expensive enough, adding that special niche like a folding bike and you're probably talking about $2-3k. Just too much for something that can be stolen easily.)
Follow the Constitution and make an amendment for single payer system or some other Constitutional remedy and not twisting the document (which has been twisted for over a century now) to say what it doesn't and nullify the very concept of limited government?
The only reason Hospitals have to treat uninsured is because of the law, otherwise they would have to. When we decided long ago that healthcare was a positive right (which is essentially what happened there), it should have been funded as single payer off the bat.
If congress wants to tax people who don't enter into a business agreement with a third party, they can (and, did).
Back in the 1930s, under FDR, they quasi illegalized marijuana. How did they do this? Under an amendment like with alcohol? No, just with requiring it be sold with a tax stamp like with tobacco, and then simply not giving out tax stamps, making it impossible to sell. This went to SC and the court simply allowed it under Congress's taxing power.
This has happened time and again since then, and now is most recently upheld in this latest Healthcare case.
Let me ask supporters of this decision something: What if you don't go to church? Well, the 1st amendment would block it, but hey, Uncle Sam should just be free to charge you a nonbeliever tax! Voila! No Constitutional infringement, right? Should and would this reasoning be allowed? It's just taxes afterall and those are under the Federal jurisdiction.
This is no different than the Government forcing states to comply with certain rules (21 y/o drinking age) or withhold interstate funds from them. Give the government the power of the carrot and the stick and you don't have a limited government anymore. You have one that simply has to loophole itself into what it wants when it wants.
What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" do you not understand?
I imagine it would become like high frequency stock trading, with the faster system winning by being able to stick to neutral to the last microsecond (or whatever) and then deciding based on the other robot's hand. With 2 identical systems, in a perfect setup, they would both see the other side as rock, switch to paper, and tie, I guess. Of course, start and other timing is probably off by enough that one side will have an edge.
To me, a wall between the two and a judge would make it more interesting, just to see it a robot can be programmed that will anticipate a human's choice based on past behavior and just how much an edge it can get. Just thinking of myself trying new passwords, I'm not terribly good at being random, hence using a generator, but that may be unique to me. The way this seems to be done is okay, but it's no news to me that computers are faster at these type of things.
All you're making a case for is that the laws are too numerous and wide-reaching, making everyone a criminal, and it's only by the grace of our "benevolent" prosecutors and judges that they only go after those who trigger their ire or win them reelection via PR. I.e. it's not about justice.
That's the trouble with capitalism. Any philosophy which promotes the principle of selfishness
Capitalism doesn't promote the principle of selfishness, it just recognized self-interest as the primary driving force. Like Churchill said about Democracy, it sucks, until you compare it to all the other systems.
Remember, this is the same legal environment that packed the DOJ with ex-RIAA attorneys.
Um, Obama and Biden did that. Not the "legal environment."
I'm not a fan of the republicans either, who pack the DoJ with guys with other agendas, but the first step is to assign responsibility to the correct parties here.
Slashdot Mirror
that human coffe/tea consumption and pee will have an effect on the world's oceans.
Other human activities, yes, definitely. But not this.
I tried using Craigslist. It's not for me. There are several complaints. They're still doing the old "by city" nonsense that leave a lot of people out. By zip code and radius would be much better for us suburbanites and rural dwellers.
Also, when you charge nothing, you invite a lot of spam posts. They should charge something. Doesn't have to be a lot. 50 cents or a dollar an ad. It's by far the easiest way to remove nonsense. If they still want free ads, if I were them, I'd make the site with a filter that the browser can manipulate for all ads and then "filtered for spam". Let the people who don't care to pay, still put their ads in the pile, albeit with all the noise.
I imagine patrol cops go where they expect some action may occur (or to stops that offer cheap food/drink for the uniformed). This sounds like a higher tech version of that, basically taking the instincts out of the equation and substituting it with statistics. Perhaps adds more coordination at the central office level too although I'm sure that also already occurs.
Yes, because during WW2, our leaders didn't give it to us straight and ask for personal sacrifice and only framed the war in ways how it would benefit the average person (advertising how soldiers first to foreign soil can pillage and loot to their hearts content, that men staying behind working at factories will have higher wages and can take claim the girlfriends of those leaving, etcetera).
Nope, we didn't collect scrap, or pantyhose, ration gas for the war effort, grow victory gardens, or buy into bond drives since that would have been an inconvenience. Government didn't actually govern but just took a consensus on everything because personal sacrifice was never asked for and could never be pushed through.
Not back then, and not today.
Since your parent was talking about sports beyond those in school, I really have to wonder about the veracity about your claim. Will less professional stadiums really lead to less fitness in the overall population?
Looking to Europe, they don't have have more stadiums, they have things on the local level, more (free) clubs and to add to that, more consistent sidewalks/bicycle_paths/mass_transit and less of a car culture.
So I have to call bullshit on this claim. Sports for kids are good. But the real money going towards ego-stroking pro-sports so the fans can sit in their chairs and gawk at other people doing things isn't helping anything.
blockquote>Often stuff purchased legally on vacation.
Yeah, my parents have been hit with this, and with vacation tour DVDs of all things. You know, the kind of stuff no one wants to pirate and you expect to sell to tourists of all stripes so why even put a region code beside ALL on there?
But I digress, my parents learned their lesson, they stopped buying the stupid shit.
Craigslist has crap for functionality though. I understand wanting to keep things local although I completely disagree with it, but how hard can it be to do away with the assumption that everyone lives in one of their predetermined zones (or even close to it) and implement a radius search by zip code?
As it is, it's completely useless to me as I straddle two areas and most listings are too far away. I've tried to buy on there with limited success and little convenience, selling is a excercise in frustration and dealing with a lot of idiots who'll waste your time and are never serious to begin with. About the only use I've had for it was finding a few free items, and I guess other people use it to find fuck buddies or what not.
How these laws are pushed leads to their content. There is a reason Lamar is treating them like his constituents.
Campaign Contributions should not only be public, but limited as being from citizen/residents of the level of office that is representing that district. Would-be representatives should only be allowed to accept funds coming from citizens from within that district and Senator from within the state. This will, in theory, make them more likely to honestly represent the area in question. I doubt Lamar Smith's own district in TX is clamoring for this shit.
Superpacs should not be allowed. I don't think anyone but citizens should be allowed in the campaign contribution process. No groups like megacorps, superpacs, NRA, no unions, nothing. At best, special interest groups should be allowed to notify members in the specific area to give to candidate X or Y. That keeps freedom of association.
The way it works now, with the structure of the Congress, special interest groups like the MPAA/RIAA entertainment cartel just have to target a few special senators/representatives that head pertinent the committees and have seniority, like the Bidens/Lamars of the world for bribes campaign donations, and they can usually railroad what they want through unless the apathetic public makes a special effort to counter it.
The problem is that the general public has a life besides watching Congress like a hawk and protesting. These groups can just keep advancing their agendas patiently, like a person playing chess, despite any one-time setbacks.
A pre-emptive strike is needed.
Campaign Contributions should not only be public, but limited as being from citizen/residents of the level of office that is representing that district. Would-be representatives should only be allowed to accept funds coming from citizens from within that district and Senator from within the state. This will, in theory, make them more likely to honestly represent the area in question. I doubt Lamar Smith's own district in TX is clamoring for this shit.
Superpacs should not be allowed. I don't think anyone but citizens should be allowed in the campaign contribution. No groups like megacorps, superpacs, NRA, no unions, nothing. At best, special interest groups should be allowed to notify members in the specific area to give to candidate X or Y. That keeps freedom of association.
The way it works now, with the structure of the Congress, special interest groups like the MPAA/RIAA entertainment cartel just have to target a few special senators/representatives that head pertinent the committees and have seniority, like the Bidens/Lamars of the world for bribes campaign donations, and they can usually railroad what they want through unless the apathetic public makes a special effort to counter it.
The problem is that the general public has a life besides watching Congress like a hawk and protesting. These groups can just keep advancing their agendas patiently, like a person playing chess, despite any one-time setbacks.
On the off-chance Mr. Ballmer is reading this thread, let's put this in language he'll understand.
"A good chair thrower aims where the person is. A great chair thrower aims where the person is going to be."
After Jobs, Ballmer is the second best person for Apple. They should be paying his salary to keep working at Microsoft.
This is the downside to "professional" CEOs, people (MBAs) who train to be management and nothing else. Never worked in the company before, doesn't understand the business, but they sure can juggle the numbers as if the pieces of paper told the whole story.
Which ups my admiration for the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of the world who pretty much built it from the ground up and is in there real nitty gritty, or even Warren Buffett, who at least learns what he buys from the inside out and usually leaves the functioning parts the fuck alone.
Actually, that's exactly what industrial spies should put on there if they were smart.
Some people tend to have an all-or-nothing nature, especially when it concerns something they go partisan over - like Apple.
I've easily had dozens of arguments over the years where I argued Apple was the more secure solution for the average user, people responded with pwn to own or some such, and if I argued further, they just labeled me as a "fanboi" as if that ended the argument even if I argued the Unix underpinnings. Nevermind that I use W7 and Ubuntu myself, or that it's my own personal experience having to play tech support to an entire tech-challenged family that's both hardworking and lucky enough to afford to have a choice. Sure, I could put them on OpenBSD or HardenedLinux, but the first obstacle they run into, they say "Why can't I do yadayadayada" they'll go and find a way to install Windows on it, which is perfectly fine by itself, and start downloading mouse icons that look like toy trojan horses and what not.
The mindset of Y turns out to not be perfect, so it's on the same level of X, must originate from politics because the whole feel of the debate seems political. It's a retarded mentality to have, akin to cheering for wrestlers and their bogus storylines. It's sad that it has crept into tech so pervasively and that's what the whole last decade felt like on any issue - stupid partisan cheerleading for one side or the other, or booing against one side or another.
The truth of a walled garden is that it's the most practical solution for most consumers, who really don't or can't police what they're doing. I wouldn't want to live in one exclusively, nor would most geeks, but that's why they're geeks, they go above and beyond the artificial constraints and don't need the protection.
WITH FREE DIABEETUS INSIDE!!!
Actually, my point was that I wanted to use full size bikes with transit, as their electric options are vastly cheaper than an electric folding bike (which is already expensive). But with a lot of mass transit as it is today, only a folding bike (such as the brompton) is the only thing allowed on board. Add electric to that and it becomes at least a $2500 proposition. A regular shitty electric bike can be had for $500.
My nearest rail station back then was 25 minutes (+ train ride of 20 mins) so yeah, cutting that down to 15 or less minutes would have made a difference to me.
One of the big problems I had in Germany with ditching my car was that the mass transit wouldn't accept my bike onto it. I had to be in a bike compartment but those were limited and not every train. Same with buses, some had a bike rack, many didn't. If I could have been assured of taking my bike anyware, I would have ditched the car, and just rented one when I absolutely needed it.
(The reason I don't imagine a foldup bike in this scenario and is one that fits on a train costs about $1k, and I'm rather interested in electric bikes in making this all the more practical, and those are expensive enough, adding that special niche like a folding bike and you're probably talking about $2-3k. Just too much for something that can be stolen easily.)
Follow the Constitution and make an amendment for single payer system or some other Constitutional remedy and not twisting the document (which has been twisted for over a century now) to say what it doesn't and nullify the very concept of limited government?
The only reason Hospitals have to treat uninsured is because of the law, otherwise they would have to. When we decided long ago that healthcare was a positive right (which is essentially what happened there), it should have been funded as single payer off the bat.
Back in the 1930s, under FDR, they quasi illegalized marijuana. How did they do this? Under an amendment like with alcohol? No, just with requiring it be sold with a tax stamp like with tobacco, and then simply not giving out tax stamps, making it impossible to sell. This went to SC and the court simply allowed it under Congress's taxing power.
This has happened time and again since then, and now is most recently upheld in this latest Healthcare case.
Let me ask supporters of this decision something: What if you don't go to church? Well, the 1st amendment would block it, but hey, Uncle Sam should just be free to charge you a nonbeliever tax! Voila! No Constitutional infringement, right? Should and would this reasoning be allowed? It's just taxes afterall and those are under the Federal jurisdiction.
This is no different than the Government forcing states to comply with certain rules (21 y/o drinking age) or withhold interstate funds from them. Give the government the power of the carrot and the stick and you don't have a limited government anymore. You have one that simply has to loophole itself into what it wants when it wants.
What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" do you not understand?
It's not broad, but people mistake it to mean personal welfare when it does not.
I imagine it would become like high frequency stock trading, with the faster system winning by being able to stick to neutral to the last microsecond (or whatever) and then deciding based on the other robot's hand. With 2 identical systems, in a perfect setup, they would both see the other side as rock, switch to paper, and tie, I guess. Of course, start and other timing is probably off by enough that one side will have an edge.
To me, a wall between the two and a judge would make it more interesting, just to see it a robot can be programmed that will anticipate a human's choice based on past behavior and just how much an edge it can get. Just thinking of myself trying new passwords, I'm not terribly good at being random, hence using a generator, but that may be unique to me. The way this seems to be done is okay, but it's no news to me that computers are faster at these type of things.
All you're making a case for is that the laws are too numerous and wide-reaching, making everyone a criminal, and it's only by the grace of our "benevolent" prosecutors and judges that they only go after those who trigger their ire or win them reelection via PR. I.e. it's not about justice.
Capitalism doesn't promote the principle of selfishness, it just recognized self-interest as the primary driving force. Like Churchill said about Democracy, it sucks, until you compare it to all the other systems.
Um, Obama and Biden did that. Not the "legal environment."
I'm not a fan of the republicans either, who pack the DoJ with guys with other agendas, but the first step is to assign responsibility to the correct parties here.