Yes I do know that there are many. No, I don't think there is any way in which they could all be invited to participate in debates. I wasn't addressing this problem in my previous reply. I was addressing the problem that there are no "government changers" that are parts of the major debates. Is there a solution? Probably. Do I necessarily know what it is? Somewhat less likely. The best I could say now would be to decrease the percentage somewhat. While it doesn't seem the 5%(?) is all that high, it is apparently high enough to keep everyone out. Would there be any problems with lowering it enough so that one or two of the non R/D candidates could get into the debates without letting everyone in? Most of the candiates don't even get close to 1% so it seems to me that there should be a slightly happier area somewhere inbetween 2 guys and everyone that wants to show up. I might be wrong though. Any opinions?
Yes the people do vote... that doesn't mean that this problem is caused by then. The argument could be say that if you don't like the current form of government then vote for someone that would change it. The problem is that this would be a blind vote. The national debates invite canditates only from parties that have recieved a certain percentage of the votes.(5%?) It is hard to vote for someone when they aren't able to even discuss the issues with the "big boys."
First, I agree with the analogy not being the greatest. I disagree with the not sharing security information. When a hole is discovered, unless it is put up in reputable places, then the only people than learn about are those "shady" types the admins are afraid of. If posted where the admins would easily/automatically get it, then it would at least become their choice as to whether they wanted to protect their systems.
Wouldn't spending our time angry, unhappy, and mourning show that the terrorist did win? At some point one needs to move on with their life. If spending your days "watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies" is how someone wants to spend their time, then there is no problem. Should we run around mad and unhappy forever? No one here is forgetting about what happened, but many of us refuse to let the attacks control us forever. You're right, games, legos, and a lack of nerf wars at work aren't incredibly important on a world-wide scheme, but time keeps moving and the "little" things in our lives do pop up. This is news for nerds, if you want to see more news for the masses go to a different news site. We visit them, so can you.
And he ran, ran until he could run no more. He thought he'd gotten away, but as he turned a corner he discovered that there was nowhere to go, the blue screen of death was everywhere and there was nothing he could do about it....
"The RIAA and MPAA want to strangle any revolutions in the distribution of their product. What kind of market model is that!?!"
For them, the current P2P filesharing isn't a usefull/helpful market model at all. If it became completely successful they would go out of business.
As for them "holding back resources they control to keep profits rising," that's their job, to keep profits rising. if they don't, their fired.
Not that I'm against file sharing, i've done my fair share of music downloading, but free P2P service isn't something we can resonable expect them to accept. The biggest problem i have seen with them is what you brought up earlier in your statement: "As resources become abundant, price should drop". As they got a bigger and bigger hold on the market they never dropped their prices. Now they are seeing the problems that caused. If a cd is well priced, i like the music, and want to support the band, i'll buy it. If its going to cost me more than i'm willing to support, then i go dl it. i know alot of people with this attitude, if they would lower the prices then they would see increases in their number of sales.
The biggest problem with photographers using digital media seems to be that they are more likely to delete a photo that will later become important. I know this must happen on occasion, and the instance of Clinton hugging Monica has been brought up.(still not considered of to much importance in my book, but thats another topic) Do people have more examples of this happening? I'd like to see just how often this occurs, and how much could be lost from these pictures being deleted.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I do know that there are many. No, I don't think there is any way in which they could all be invited to participate in debates. I wasn't addressing this problem in my previous reply. I was addressing the problem that there are no "government changers" that are parts of the major debates. Is there a solution? Probably. Do I necessarily know what it is? Somewhat less likely. The best I could say now would be to decrease the percentage somewhat. While it doesn't seem the 5%(?) is all that high, it is apparently high enough to keep everyone out. Would there be any problems with lowering it enough so that one or two of the non R/D candidates could get into the debates without letting everyone in? Most of the candiates don't even get close to 1% so it seems to me that there should be a slightly happier area somewhere inbetween 2 guys and everyone that wants to show up. I might be wrong though. Any opinions?
Yes the people do vote... that doesn't mean that this problem is caused by then. The argument could be say that if you don't like the current form of government then vote for someone that would change it. The problem is that this would be a blind vote. The national debates invite canditates only from parties that have recieved a certain percentage of the votes.(5%?) It is hard to vote for someone when they aren't able to even discuss the issues with the "big boys."
First, I agree with the analogy not being the greatest. I disagree with the not sharing security information. When a hole is discovered, unless it is put up in reputable places, then the only people than learn about are those "shady" types the admins are afraid of. If posted where the admins would easily/automatically get it, then it would at least become their choice as to whether they wanted to protect their systems.
Wouldn't spending our time angry, unhappy, and mourning show that the terrorist did win? At some point one needs to move on with their life. If spending your days "watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating a bowl of Shreddies" is how someone wants to spend their time, then there is no problem. Should we run around mad and unhappy forever? No one here is forgetting about what happened, but many of us refuse to let the attacks control us forever. You're right, games, legos, and a lack of nerf wars at work aren't incredibly important on a world-wide scheme, but time keeps moving and the "little" things in our lives do pop up. This is news for nerds, if you want to see more news for the masses go to a different news site. We visit them, so can you.
Ornithopter... the bird contraption was an ornithopter
And he ran, ran until he could run no more. He thought he'd gotten away, but as he turned a corner he discovered that there was nowhere to go, the blue screen of death was everywhere and there was nothing he could do about it....
"The RIAA and MPAA want to strangle any revolutions in the distribution of their product. What kind of market model is that!?!"
For them, the current P2P filesharing isn't a usefull/helpful market model at all. If it became completely successful they would go out of business.
As for them "holding back resources they control to keep profits rising," that's their job, to keep profits rising. if they don't, their fired.
Not that I'm against file sharing, i've done my fair share of music downloading, but free P2P service isn't something we can resonable expect them to accept. The biggest problem i have seen with them is what you brought up earlier in your statement: "As resources become abundant, price should drop". As they got a bigger and bigger hold on the market they never dropped their prices. Now they are seeing the problems that caused. If a cd is well priced, i like the music, and want to support the band, i'll buy it. If its going to cost me more than i'm willing to support, then i go dl it. i know alot of people with this attitude, if they would lower the prices then they would see increases in their number of sales.
The biggest problem with photographers using digital media seems to be that they are more likely to delete a photo that will later become important. I know this must happen on occasion, and the instance of Clinton hugging Monica has been brought up.(still not considered of to much importance in my book, but thats another topic) Do people have more examples of this happening? I'd like to see just how often this occurs, and how much could be lost from these pictures being deleted.