Using the word partner is annoying. He doesn't have a partner. He very explicitly mentioned having a girlfriend, so stop trying to change the language in order to progress some kind of homo-political agenda.
Out of the 3000 jobs I have applied for in the last 4 years, maybe 4, I wasn't considred for for lack of degree. It doesn't help get a job or get more money if you have the skills.
Yeah, like McDonald's had been sited numerous times for serving coffee 40 degrees too hot. And also that the person receieved 3rd degree burns and was in the hospital for months.
I like hot coffee, but no coffee ever should be capable of giving me a third degree burn. Yes, a person is responsible for there own actions. In this case, McDonalds was handing out loaded guns. (Giving out coffee that is capable of giving 3rd degree burns to people driving cars is just asking to be sued.)
This would be changing constantly. First of all, joining a P2P is pretty easy assuming it is open to the public. And, as I am out searching for enimem (they throw out a lot of poison), I download a poision file, and now, I am a) blocked from the network or b) passing out poison myself.
Satalite service pretty much sucks for most purposes. High ping times make it annoying for most things I do. (You are looking at a 1 to 2 second ping time under most conditions.)
Under a lot of circumstances, the gain in increased bandwidth is lost in slow ping times.
ie, a web page that is 20k takes 1 second to download over modem, but 1-2 seconds over satalite. Gaming, telnet, ssh, chat, voice over ip chat, bi-directional video streaming, etc. become unusable due to the 2 second lag.
It probably says that in the FAQ, but it's been slashdotted already.
Use the legal liability argument as this ISP is. If the RIAA attacks your clients computers and destroys something of value, your company is liable for it. That should be argument enough.
I'll get back to you then, since it appears you are genuinely interested in an intelligent conversation. I'll ask my former-vegaterian India friend who is doing doctorate's work at Ohio State on world poverty. If there is in expert on the subject, then she should be able to point me to the right direction.
Right on! It's obvious the weakest point in any security scheme is the human. Make the human financially responsible for the laptop, and you strengthen the weakest link.
Person looses laptop; he looses 3k and company looses 3Billion. For Microsoft, both would loose 3% of anual income.
The consitution contains a subset of the rights that man is entitled. It is up to us a population to discover the superset of rights, and record them in the consitution.
Therefore, don't allow the constitution to be the be-all end-all list of rights a person has. It is not he definative list. We as a population determine what that definative list is.
One clear example, as technology has advanced, and people have learned to trust the technology, it has become easy to steal someones identity. I would argue that a person has a right to their identity, and the laws have caught up to the offense to protect people from identity theft.
(Before technology, your banker knew you personally, and it was very hard for someone to pose as you to steal your money. Now days, everyone trusts the drivers licens or a database, and it has become very easy to pose as someone else).
In the olden days, if you wanted privacy you built a fense, and someone had to go to great lengths to see you in your backward. (ie, get a latter and climb over, and odds are, you would be aware of this.) With technology, the fense is useless. Government and other privacy invaders can peer on you from space and you WOULD NEVER EVER KNOW. A person still has the right to privacy in their backyard; however, the law has not caught up to technology in order to enforce this privacy. This applies to data mining as well.
Also, in your theory, there would be an immediate burst in cheap food. However, only now farmers, who are only working on a 5-10% profit margin are getting 66% less for their food, go out of business. They stop growing Corn. What happens to supply? It goes down. What happens to demand? It went up because those people in Sudan ate alot and they all had 12 kid families, and all the kids lived to become adults who had kids. What happens to cost? It goes up. What happens to Sudan's ability to buy corn as the price goes up 600%? They can't buy it. In fact, half their population dies of starvation.
In short, you aren't really going to change the price of corn from what it is now. However, you are going to create a lot of suffering.
Conclusion, let capitalism work, and don't create false temporary unsustainalbe prices by changing eating habits or subsadizing food production.
Okay, but you left out one piece of the formula. The excrament goes back in the fields which goes back into the food which goes back into the cow.
Let's break this down into an algebra problem.
WATER + SUNLIGHT + POOP + URINE + SEED = COW MEAT + POOP + URINE
Therefore WATER + SUNLIGHT + SEED = COW which means no loss of energy to POOP or URINE, which means your argument is BOGUS. If you took the cow out of the equasion in producing food, you would get less crop.
I think it would be cruel for the United States to export all its extra food per year to help grow a population that can't support itself. The first year there is less American food produced; and there is no extra; an enlarged, artificially fed population will starve.
Allow economics to keep the populations at substainable levels; else, in the end lots of people will suffer.
No one complained when they were de-forresting the North Americas to build the prosperity of the United States.
What makes American's special? We started first? I'm not buying it.
Allow the South Americans determine what is best for the South Americans. It is hiprocritical to speak badly of the de-forrestation of South America while enjoying the propserity of North America.
If you don't think North America's prosperity is directly related to food production, do me a favor, and go beat yourself with a clue stick
The Ammendment against illegal search and seizure was put in place because the founding fathers wanted to protect the people against its government.
Government should be made aware of a crime, collect he evidence, and prove that a person did it. The government should not pick a person, monitor him until he commits a crime, and use the monitoring to convict him.
This is true for two reasons. To protect individuals from people who have grudges in the government. To protect the pureness of evidence and the judicial system.
The reasons many founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights in the first place is because they didn't want future generations to think only 10 things were gaurunteed as fundamental human rights.
However, we know that the founding fathers did value privacy as they barred unreasonable search and seizure of a person's home.
Data collection is not against a person's fundamental human rights; however, the searching of such data is. People do have the right to privacy, even if it wasn't expliciately stated in the Consitituion.
Had the founding fathers been familiar with the possabilities of how technology could violate a person's privacy, I am confidate they would have included protection against those invasions. However, the founding fathers only made laws about technology they were familiar with, specifically, physically going into a person's home.
I hate giving money to organizations at all, because 90% of the time I can do whatever it is I want to do myself, giving the money directly to the person I want to receive.
Even the most well run orgs run with a 10-25% administration costs, and I'd rather send directly to the cause I believe. A lot of the organizations have administrative costs of 50-80%.
In short, save your money, and hire some high school kids to pick up litter. At least you know 100% of the money is going to the cause.
PS: The notion Human Caused Global Warming is a scam!!!
The number of lines of code per year has increased drastically since 1950. Also, the temparture has increased as well. Using the brain causes a higher perecentage of the electrical by product of each human, thus ionizing the atmosphere, therefore creating a gradual warming. Therefore, PROGRAMMING causes global warming.
Throw 3 billion dollars and 20 years on that theory, and it will be just as believable as any other current global warming theory. Cars cause global warming just isn't plausable, and it's just a stab in the dark, backed by billions in an industry that feeds off of the fear of the masses. The theory that cars and industry cause greenhouse gasses and holes in the ozone is just a wild guess with no basis in science. Therefore, worthy of little more than the hypothesis in a REAL scientific study.
When it comes to global warming, your argument is, "It's a big deal, better forgoe all scientific proof, and act on it because the consequences are big."
However, with ESP, you can't believe it because you haven't done a scientific study. ESP is a big deal, so we better believe it exists just for the sake of caution.
Slashdot Mirror
GEEK!!!
Using the word partner is annoying. He doesn't have a partner. He very explicitly mentioned having a girlfriend, so stop trying to change the language in order to progress some kind of homo-political agenda.
Out of the 3000 jobs I have applied for in the last 4 years, maybe 4, I wasn't considred for for lack of degree. It doesn't help get a job or get more money if you have the skills.
Yeah, like McDonald's had been sited numerous times for serving coffee 40 degrees too hot. And also that the person receieved 3rd degree burns and was in the hospital for months.
I like hot coffee, but no coffee ever should be capable of giving me a third degree burn. Yes, a person is responsible for there own actions. In this case, McDonalds was handing out loaded guns. (Giving out coffee that is capable of giving 3rd degree burns to people driving cars is just asking to be sued.)
Picture of 3rd Degree Burns
This would be changing constantly. First of all, joining a P2P is pretty easy assuming it is open to the public. And, as I am out searching for enimem (they throw out a lot of poison), I download a poision file, and now, I am a) blocked from the network or b) passing out poison myself.
A blocking system can't work fast enough.
Damn them!
But in order for an accurate depiction, remember to set your resolution to 160X160
Meaning you have to have a station every 10 miles, and you have to run power to that station, every 10 miles. Might as well just run the copper/fiber.
Satalite service pretty much sucks for most purposes. High ping times make it annoying for most things I do. (You are looking at a 1 to 2 second ping time under most conditions.)
Under a lot of circumstances, the gain in increased bandwidth is lost in slow ping times.
ie, a web page that is 20k takes 1 second to download over modem, but 1-2 seconds over satalite. Gaming, telnet, ssh, chat, voice over ip chat, bi-directional video streaming, etc. become unusable due to the 2 second lag.
It probably says that in the FAQ, but it's been slashdotted already.
Because of malicious code on RIAA's website. Not because of content on RIAA's website. It's the same as filtering out viruses.
Use the legal liability argument as this ISP is. If the RIAA attacks your clients computers and destroys something of value, your company is liable for it. That should be argument enough.
American people, on average, have one breast.
3 out of 4 doctors prefer porche. (I asked only 4 doctors, and I picked 3 who owned porches)
I'll get back to you then, since it appears you are genuinely interested in an intelligent conversation. I'll ask my former-vegaterian India friend who is doing doctorate's work at Ohio State on world poverty. If there is in expert on the subject, then she should be able to point me to the right direction.
Right on! It's obvious the weakest point in any security scheme is the human. Make the human financially responsible for the laptop, and you strengthen the weakest link.
Person looses laptop; he looses 3k and company looses 3Billion. For Microsoft, both would loose 3% of anual income.
The consitution contains a subset of the rights that man is entitled. It is up to us a population to discover the superset of rights, and record them in the consitution.
Therefore, don't allow the constitution to be the be-all end-all list of rights a person has. It is not he definative list. We as a population determine what that definative list is.
One clear example, as technology has advanced, and people have learned to trust the technology, it has become easy to steal someones identity. I would argue that a person has a right to their identity, and the laws have caught up to the offense to protect people from identity theft.
(Before technology, your banker knew you personally, and it was very hard for someone to pose as you to steal your money. Now days, everyone trusts the drivers licens or a database, and it has become very easy to pose as someone else).
In the olden days, if you wanted privacy you built a fense, and someone had to go to great lengths to see you in your backward. (ie, get a latter and climb over, and odds are, you would be aware of this.) With technology, the fense is useless. Government and other privacy invaders can peer on you from space and you WOULD NEVER EVER KNOW. A person still has the right to privacy in their backyard; however, the law has not caught up to technology in order to enforce this privacy. This applies to data mining as well.
Also, in your theory, there would be an immediate burst in cheap food. However, only now farmers, who are only working on a 5-10% profit margin are getting 66% less for their food, go out of business. They stop growing Corn. What happens to supply? It goes down. What happens to demand? It went up because those people in Sudan ate alot and they all had 12 kid families, and all the kids lived to become adults who had kids. What happens to cost? It goes up. What happens to Sudan's ability to buy corn as the price goes up 600%? They can't buy it. In fact, half their population dies of starvation.
In short, you aren't really going to change the price of corn from what it is now. However, you are going to create a lot of suffering.
Conclusion, let capitalism work, and don't create false temporary unsustainalbe prices by changing eating habits or subsadizing food production.
Okay, but you left out one piece of the formula. The excrament goes back in the fields which goes back into the food which goes back into the cow.
Let's break this down into an algebra problem.
WATER + SUNLIGHT + POOP + URINE + SEED = COW MEAT + POOP + URINE
Therefore WATER + SUNLIGHT + SEED = COW which means no loss of energy to POOP or URINE, which means your argument is BOGUS. If you took the cow out of the equasion in producing food, you would get less crop.
I think it would be cruel for the United States to export all its extra food per year to help grow a population that can't support itself. The first year there is less American food produced; and there is no extra; an enlarged, artificially fed population will starve.
Allow economics to keep the populations at substainable levels; else, in the end lots of people will suffer.
No one complained when they were de-forresting the North Americas to build the prosperity of the United States.
What makes American's special? We started first? I'm not buying it.
Allow the South Americans determine what is best for the South Americans. It is hiprocritical to speak badly of the de-forrestation of South America while enjoying the propserity of North America.
If you don't think North America's prosperity is directly related to food production, do me a favor, and go beat yourself with a clue stick
The Ammendment against illegal search and seizure was put in place because the founding fathers wanted to protect the people against its government.
Government should be made aware of a crime, collect he evidence, and prove that a person did it. The government should not pick a person, monitor him until he commits a crime, and use the monitoring to convict him.
This is true for two reasons. To protect individuals from people who have grudges in the government. To protect the pureness of evidence and the judicial system.
The reasons many founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights in the first place is because they didn't want future generations to think only 10 things were gaurunteed as fundamental human rights.
However, we know that the founding fathers did value privacy as they barred unreasonable search and seizure of a person's home.
Data collection is not against a person's fundamental human rights; however, the searching of such data is. People do have the right to privacy, even if it wasn't expliciately stated in the Consitituion.
Had the founding fathers been familiar with the possabilities of how technology could violate a person's privacy, I am confidate they would have included protection against those invasions. However, the founding fathers only made laws about technology they were familiar with, specifically, physically going into a person's home.
I hate giving money to organizations at all, because 90% of the time I can do whatever it is I want to do myself, giving the money directly to the person I want to receive.
Even the most well run orgs run with a 10-25% administration costs, and I'd rather send directly to the cause I believe. A lot of the organizations have administrative costs of 50-80%.
In short, save your money, and hire some high school kids to pick up litter. At least you know 100% of the money is going to the cause.
PS: The notion Human Caused Global Warming is a scam!!!
The number of lines of code per year has increased drastically since 1950. Also, the temparture has increased as well. Using the brain causes a higher perecentage of the electrical by product of each human, thus ionizing the atmosphere, therefore creating a gradual warming. Therefore, PROGRAMMING causes global warming.
Throw 3 billion dollars and 20 years on that theory, and it will be just as believable as any other current global warming theory. Cars cause global warming just isn't plausable, and it's just a stab in the dark, backed by billions in an industry that feeds off of the fear of the masses. The theory that cars and industry cause greenhouse gasses and holes in the ozone is just a wild guess with no basis in science. Therefore, worthy of little more than the hypothesis in a REAL scientific study.
+1 funny
I love it when someone argues against themself.
When it comes to global warming, your argument is, "It's a big deal, better forgoe all scientific proof, and act on it because the consequences are big."
However, with ESP, you can't believe it because you haven't done a scientific study. ESP is a big deal, so we better believe it exists just for the sake of caution.