If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not.
So, decriminalization would lead to improvements, but it's not perfect, so the status quo is better? Doesn't make much sense.
That said, I'm no expert here, since everything I know about prostitution I learned by watching that show where Billy Piper takes her kit off a lot. On mute.
In our culture procreation is regarded as the only worthwhile life goal - if you are not spawning, you have no worth as an individual, as far as society is concerned. The basis for this is biological; it's stupid, but whining about it is a waste of time.
It's thus not very applicable to the real world, just a tool for teaching some very basic parts of probability math.
Oh sure, you understand that, I understand that, but it's the people who think of it as a clever theological argument that are annoying.
It's just one of those things that seems to have entered public awareness without any actual understanding of it's original intent. Kind of like how so many people believe that Schrödinger meant to argue that the cat in the box actually is in a superimposed state (that one gets on my tits quite a bit, too).
God do I hate that thing being trudged out for every idiotic theism "debate". It's basically a combination of a tautology (requires a non-zero probability of God's existence) and a few preposterous assumptions (voluntarism, the notion that "wagering for God" does not affect your life, the "other gods" complaint, which can result in infinite "misery" for a "for" wager, etc).
It's cute enough as a philosophical experiment, but the typical layman interpretation of it is just plain idiotic.
Cogent could have, at any time during this depeering, allowed the sprint bound traffic to route through one of their other peering points.
Wouldn't that necessitate them purchasing transit on one of the other networks, first? Not that it's not the reasonable thing to do, but it seems like it's more involved than just "allowing" the traffic to route somewhere else.
Plus, I'm sure that from a PR perspective they place a lot of stock in being transit-free (ie one of the Big Boys).
Admittedly my understanding of the whole Tier 1/2 thing is fairly sketchy.
Think of how often Telco's, ISP, and major hubs go down.
Very rarely? I worked for three companies over the last 7 years, I can remember losing internet connectivity exactly once: we were down for 3-4 hours after a construction crew damaged our T1 line.
Hell, I lose my home connection only once or twice a year.
You want to use the absolute stagnation of the browser market during the IE5/6 era as an example of Microsoft driving innovation? Nothing, absolutely nothing happened with web browsers for nigh on 8 years because Microsoft muscled all competition out of that particular market. Only once Mozilla/Firefox managed to make a small dent in browser market share, and we started seeing actual competition again, did we get back to innovation in that area. Compare the advancements in the state of web browsers over the last year to that of the 6-7 year before that - which part of that was Microsoft responsible for?
Of course competition is good for software, it's Microsoft's well documented practice of throwing vast resources at stifling competition that I was referring to. I know it's considered cliche to point this out nowadays, but the software industry would probably be in much better shape now, had there been real competition the last 20 years.
(I don't know, maybe you were being extremely sarcastic and my reading comprehension is just off today?)
Anytime MS does something good, the story gets tagged itsatrap.
Well, how long is it supposed to take to work through the bad faith accumulated over several decades of them raping the industry? That's even assuming they are actually at the point where things are improving, rather than still contributing to the problem.
So yeah, if you behave like a jackass, people won't trust you, even if you didn't behave like a jackass today.
Yeah, when did this fad of calling random things an "OS" start? Is the term really so recognizable to users that they get the warm fuzzies just seeing something labeled as such?
Most businesses can only claim to know #3 with any amount of certainty (I'm kinda curious to know what #2 is, though). Well, most can also claim #4, but not if you add "and restorable".
Theoretically, yes, you are right, but practically this sort of thing can work out better for small businesses than the IT-department-in-a-broom-closet run by the CFO's nephew.
we should be eager to find out, and competent enough to take the simple step necessary to do so
Oh get off it. It's not about being "spoonfed", it's about writing a decent summary. When mentioning a relatively obscure topic (yes, yes, all real geeks know what a Golomb ruler is, etc) it's pretty much common sense to throw in a one-sentence description (so we at least know the general context), instead of, say, a useless list of numbers. I don't need you to tell me what I'm supposed to be eager to do, thank you very much.
As far as complaining goes, given that:
- that was a bad summary
- it is the job of an editor to improve on bad summaries
- Slashdot does have editors
It is at least theoretically possible that complaining can accomplish something. Theoretically.
If you mouse over it (and have JavaScript enabled), you'll be informed that it's the "type tag."
Actually, when I mouse over tags I get an incomprehensible mess of overlapping elements. It's probably my fault for using something as obscure as Firefox, though; I'm sure it works perfectly on IE6.
Sure, but since there's a Wikipedia link right in the summary that does a wonderful job explaining it, this is just a simple case of RTFA.
So, to understand the summary, and therefore decide whether or not I want to RTFA, I need to RTFA? You see where that defeats the purpose of the summary?
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us.
Also, I'm not all that confident that if they started taxing "vice" I would end up in the "rest of us" category.
If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not.
So, decriminalization would lead to improvements, but it's not perfect, so the status quo is better? Doesn't make much sense.
That said, I'm no expert here, since everything I know about prostitution I learned by watching that show where Billy Piper takes her kit off a lot. On mute.
Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it.
I'm not sure where you are, but here in the US that's not always as certain as we'd like it to be.
In our culture procreation is regarded as the only worthwhile life goal - if you are not spawning, you have no worth as an individual, as far as society is concerned. The basis for this is biological; it's stupid, but whining about it is a waste of time.
It's thus not very applicable to the real world, just a tool for teaching some very basic parts of probability math.
Oh sure, you understand that, I understand that, but it's the people who think of it as a clever theological argument that are annoying.
It's just one of those things that seems to have entered public awareness without any actual understanding of it's original intent. Kind of like how so many people believe that Schrödinger meant to argue that the cat in the box actually is in a superimposed state (that one gets on my tits quite a bit, too).
God do I hate that thing being trudged out for every idiotic theism "debate". It's basically a combination of a tautology (requires a non-zero probability of God's existence) and a few preposterous assumptions (voluntarism, the notion that "wagering for God" does not affect your life, the "other gods" complaint, which can result in infinite "misery" for a "for" wager, etc).
It's cute enough as a philosophical experiment, but the typical layman interpretation of it is just plain idiotic.
So it's not producing diesel, but some fuel called "Flabbergas"
If that is what it sounds like, the US can become a net energy exporter in no time at all!
Cogent could have, at any time during this depeering, allowed the sprint bound traffic to route through one of their other peering points.
Wouldn't that necessitate them purchasing transit on one of the other networks, first? Not that it's not the reasonable thing to do, but it seems like it's more involved than just "allowing" the traffic to route somewhere else.
Plus, I'm sure that from a PR perspective they place a lot of stock in being transit-free (ie one of the Big Boys).
Admittedly my understanding of the whole Tier 1/2 thing is fairly sketchy.
I thought it was a really annoying buzzword for compute capacity as a service?
Think of how often Telco's, ISP, and major hubs go down.
Very rarely? I worked for three companies over the last 7 years, I can remember losing internet connectivity exactly once: we were down for 3-4 hours after a construction crew damaged our T1 line.
Hell, I lose my home connection only once or twice a year.
What sage advice! And here I was about to flip my shit and put all my money into myosin Vb factories, or something.
Ok, next question: have you ever heard of "sarcasm"?
Why do you hate America?
Life is analog, if I'm unemployed and Bill Gates' house in unlocked, then I'll be glad to help myself.
There are a lot of grey areas, but taking other people's shit from their homes isn't really one of them - that one's not very "analog" at all.
I actually tried a couple of different browsers in different OSes - I think they are supposed to look that way.
You can't be serious.
You want to use the absolute stagnation of the browser market during the IE5/6 era as an example of Microsoft driving innovation? Nothing, absolutely nothing happened with web browsers for nigh on 8 years because Microsoft muscled all competition out of that particular market. Only once Mozilla/Firefox managed to make a small dent in browser market share, and we started seeing actual competition again, did we get back to innovation in that area. Compare the advancements in the state of web browsers over the last year to that of the 6-7 year before that - which part of that was Microsoft responsible for?
Of course competition is good for software, it's Microsoft's well documented practice of throwing vast resources at stifling competition that I was referring to. I know it's considered cliche to point this out nowadays, but the software industry would probably be in much better shape now, had there been real competition the last 20 years.
(I don't know, maybe you were being extremely sarcastic and my reading comprehension is just off today?)
Anytime MS does something good, the story gets tagged itsatrap.
Well, how long is it supposed to take to work through the bad faith accumulated over several decades of them raping the industry? That's even assuming they are actually at the point where things are improving, rather than still contributing to the problem.
So yeah, if you behave like a jackass, people won't trust you, even if you didn't behave like a jackass today.
But when Google offers this, it's brilliant!
I never understood why "using past experience to form an opinion about a company" is such a terrible, terrible idea.
Yeah, when did this fad of calling random things an "OS" start? Is the term really so recognizable to users that they get the warm fuzzies just seeing something labeled as such?
Most businesses can only claim to know #3 with any amount of certainty (I'm kinda curious to know what #2 is, though). Well, most can also claim #4, but not if you add "and restorable".
Theoretically, yes, you are right, but practically this sort of thing can work out better for small businesses than the IT-department-in-a-broom-closet run by the CFO's nephew.
Yeah, and if you are running PHP on a Windows server, do you really need any more trouble?
Yeah, PHP does a lot of things "with a twist".
we should be eager to find out, and competent enough to take the simple step necessary to do so
Oh get off it. It's not about being "spoonfed", it's about writing a decent summary. When mentioning a relatively obscure topic (yes, yes, all real geeks know what a Golomb ruler is, etc) it's pretty much common sense to throw in a one-sentence description (so we at least know the general context), instead of, say, a useless list of numbers. I don't need you to tell me what I'm supposed to be eager to do, thank you very much.
As far as complaining goes, given that:
- that was a bad summary
- it is the job of an editor to improve on bad summaries
- Slashdot does have editors
It is at least theoretically possible that complaining can accomplish something. Theoretically.
If you mouse over it (and have JavaScript enabled), you'll be informed that it's the "type tag."
Actually, when I mouse over tags I get an incomprehensible mess of overlapping elements. It's probably my fault for using something as obscure as Firefox, though; I'm sure it works perfectly on IE6.
Sure, but since there's a Wikipedia link right in the summary that does a wonderful job explaining it, this is just a simple case of RTFA.
So, to understand the summary, and therefore decide whether or not I want to RTFA, I need to RTFA? You see where that defeats the purpose of the summary?