It is a tax for polluting our only, shared, planet.
No, it's a tax for emitting carbon dioxide. That's right, a tax on breathing!
You know, I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property.
Me too.
I think the model of polluters-pay-non-polluters fulfills this moral principle in a sound way.
The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.
Sure, the more developped nations pollute more now, but that doesn't change anything. That's a lame excuse.
No, calling carbon dioxide pollution is a lame excuse for taxing progress.
Aren't most IT workers exempt from mandatory overtime? I'd say if anything the recent trend is away from mandatory overtime, as paying people one and a half times their base rate is rather expensive.
If everyone works the equivalent of 1.5 people then employment doesn't need to go up.
That's really a huge oversimplification there, as you're assuming nothing else changes. In reality, if everyone works the equivalent of 1.5 people, then demand for goods and services are likely to go up causing a demand for even more workers.
You're acting as though there is a static demand for workers, but in reality that is completely untrue. As long as there are no barriers to a free market, such as minimum wage laws, employment will tend to rise to give everyone who wants a job, a job.
If it works, will resistance to the Kyoto Treaty finally go away?
Unless this means Kyoto will no longer be a scheme to transfer wealth from the corporations of the most productive nations to the governments of least productive ones, I doubt it. A tax for not living in the stone ages sounds like a bad thing to a lot of people.
Define to slow, if you mean the speed limit then by definition they are not going to slow, but rather as fast as permited and if you want to got faster you have no right to insist they get a ticket for you.
What is too slow really depends on the situation. If you're heading toward a merge in heavy traffic going the speed limit would be much too fast.
Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
I'm sure there's an exception for when there's a car right in front of you. Basically, if you're in the left lane you should either be passing someone or unable to pass due to a car in front of you.
Really now, what controls are in place to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an agenda-driven complex just like old media?
There's the GFDL, which allows people to fork the project if it gets too agenda-driven. And there are also federal laws which restrict charities from benefitting private individuals or engaging in politics.
It could still happen, to some extent, but there are some controls in place to make it less likely and less severe.
Well, both of the elected board members are from Europe, and there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia, even from many of the Americans.
Really it all depends. If you're on an open highway with relatively little traffic, then a couple cars in the wrong lanes going to slow can have a bad impact. But on the other hand, if traffic is merging, say from two lanes to one, then moving faster than you can safely merge is going to actually slow things down.
Of course, I am sure there will be ways to crack it, but what if insurance companies start using GPS data to calculate your risk factor based on where you park your car (in front of a pub, at Wal-Mart).
Then the rates for people who don't park their car in high risk places will go down, and the rates for people who do will go up.
And if you want to insist that no one be there unless passing because it is against the law, then I insist that you also obey the law and not exceed the speed limit for the very same reason. Can't just pick what rules you want to obey.
I'd draw the line at how easily the device is to disconnect. If the interface talks to my brain using E-M waves, and it's been well tested and well designed to be fail-safe, then I'd probably go for it (if the benefits were good enough). But if you're talking about an implant, that's major surgery to install, and even more major/impossible to uninstall. I'm hesitant enough that I haven't gotten laser eye surgery yet, and that's something that has a long track record and a lot of benefits.
Yeah, I was thinking get them Monday, copy them Monday, send them back Monday. Netflix receives them Tuesday, sends out three more Tuesday. Get them Wednesday, copy them Wednesday, send them back Wednesday.
Of course, that'd require going to the post office to mail back every shipment, and you'd probably get your account suspended or something.
24 a month, on the other hand, I've probably come close to that in my second month with Blockbuster. Basically I'd watch one DVD every day and the other two would be in the mail (one on the way out one on the way in). Of course on Sunday the pipeline would get disturbed. Since I don't have cable, it was pretty good for a few months, I got to rent all the TV shows I was missing. But now the selection of DVDs that interest me is thinning and I usually let them sit around a couple days before I convince myself to watch them. There have even been a few I've returned without watching, was in the mood for it when I added it to the queue but by the time it arrived I didn't much care, or something I added to the queue thinking my girlfriend would watch with me that she wasn't interested in.
I guess I'm just spoiled by Blockbuster. I get a turnaround of 2 business days about 90% of the time. I used to have Netflix, and 3-5 days was about the turnaround then, but I figured that was because they didn't have a nearby distribution center.
Netflix doesn't use cases, so it probably costs them $0.60 a DVD. I guess that's over the 50 cents that Raven mentioned as the limit, but Netflix *isn't* going broke. Maybe they're getting a special deal.
Someone *could* theoretically get 24 dvd's/month from Netflix http://www.netflix.com/ for $19.99 USD and copy them for free
You could probably get at least 40 or 50 a month if you returned them the same day you got them. And if you signed up for Blockbuster's in-store service, which I believe is $15 for the first month, you could get every DVD in the store for one month's fee.
Of course, you'd probably spend $1/dvd or so on media.
The USPS has a special media rate that includes DVDs and is dirt cheap.
Media mail starts at $1.42. Most DVDs in their case can be sent for $1.06 or $1.29. The main purpose of media mail is to send books - heavy items which would otherwise cost a lot to send.
It's against my usual instincts to say this, but seriously.... that's a pretty fucking damaging typo.
The damage is done, though, so that's pretty irrelevant.
People get fired over mistakes that result in orders of magnitude less damage than this - it'd just be surreal if they didn't fire her.
I just don't see the relevance of the amount of damage that was done. All that should matter is the future: will this person earn her worth? can someone better be hired? what is the cost to fire the person?
Now, granted, I'm looking at this from a US perspective, where the unemployment costs alone would make firing the person far too costly. But even besides that, you can't expect there to be no costs to fire one person and hire someone new. You seem to be looking at things from a perspective of justice, I think the company should just focus on the bottom line. Is it likely this person is going to make the same or a similar mistake in the future? Is there a less high profile job in the company where this person might be able to shine? Turnover is expensive, both in terms of direct costs and in terms of indirect goodwill costs. Unless someone is immoral, unethical, or really incredibly incompetent, there's usually a better solution.
Yes, beta produced higher quality recordings and images. But it was more expensive, and the quality difference was not visible on consumer televesions of the time. Repeat, consumer TVs were not high enough quality to see the difference between Beta and VHS.
And four billion IPs were plenty when IPv4 came out.
Maybe Beta's advantages weren't very useful in the short term, but that doesn't mean the analogy was without merit.
Beta lost fair and square because it didn't deliver a benefit commensurate to its' price.
And IPv6 will never become a widely used technology for exactly the same reason.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a tax for polluting our only, shared, planet.
No, it's a tax for emitting carbon dioxide. That's right, a tax on breathing!
You know, I think it's sensible to make people pay for the damage they do to other people's property.
Me too.
I think the model of polluters-pay-non-polluters fulfills this moral principle in a sound way.
The Kyoto Protocol exempts the second biggest producer of carbon dioxide from making any payments at all, so even if you equate carbon dioxide with pollution Kyoto does not accomplish that goal you suggest.
Sure, the more developped nations pollute more now, but that doesn't change anything. That's a lame excuse.
No, calling carbon dioxide pollution is a lame excuse for taxing progress.
Aren't most IT workers exempt from mandatory overtime? I'd say if anything the recent trend is away from mandatory overtime, as paying people one and a half times their base rate is rather expensive.
If everyone works the equivalent of 1.5 people then employment doesn't need to go up.
That's really a huge oversimplification there, as you're assuming nothing else changes. In reality, if everyone works the equivalent of 1.5 people, then demand for goods and services are likely to go up causing a demand for even more workers.
You're acting as though there is a static demand for workers, but in reality that is completely untrue. As long as there are no barriers to a free market, such as minimum wage laws, employment will tend to rise to give everyone who wants a job, a job.
Who said anything about pollution? We're talking about carbon dioxide here.
So it's like fertilizer for the seas.
And CO2 in the air is like fertilizer for the skys?
If it works, will resistance to the Kyoto Treaty finally go away?
Unless this means Kyoto will no longer be a scheme to transfer wealth from the corporations of the most productive nations to the governments of least productive ones, I doubt it. A tax for not living in the stone ages sounds like a bad thing to a lot of people.
Define to slow, if you mean the speed limit then by definition they are not going to slow, but rather as fast as permited and if you want to got faster you have no right to insist they get a ticket for you.
What is too slow really depends on the situation. If you're heading toward a merge in heavy traffic going the speed limit would be much too fast.
Smart driving will save more time than speeding anyway.
No, it most certainly won't.
I guess we also missed the part where he said "disable the pauli exclusion principle".
I'm sure there's an exception for when there's a car right in front of you. Basically, if you're in the left lane you should either be passing someone or unable to pass due to a car in front of you.
Really now, what controls are in place to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an agenda-driven complex just like old media?
There's the GFDL, which allows people to fork the project if it gets too agenda-driven. And there are also federal laws which restrict charities from benefitting private individuals or engaging in politics.
It could still happen, to some extent, but there are some controls in place to make it less likely and less severe.
Well, both of the elected board members are from Europe, and there is somewhat of an anti-American culture within Wikipedia, even from many of the Americans.
Really it all depends. If you're on an open highway with relatively little traffic, then a couple cars in the wrong lanes going to slow can have a bad impact. But on the other hand, if traffic is merging, say from two lanes to one, then moving faster than you can safely merge is going to actually slow things down.
Of course, I am sure there will be ways to crack it, but what if insurance companies start using GPS data to calculate your risk factor based on where you park your car (in front of a pub, at Wal-Mart).
Then the rates for people who don't park their car in high risk places will go down, and the rates for people who do will go up.
And if you want to insist that no one be there unless passing because it is against the law, then I insist that you also obey the law and not exceed the speed limit for the very same reason. Can't just pick what rules you want to obey.
Isn't that precisely what you're doing, though?
Could a mere human survive in a world of superhumans as more than a slave?
That's a very scary scenario, and one that is probably inevitable unless artificial intelligence technologies outpace these technologies.
I'd draw the line at how easily the device is to disconnect. If the interface talks to my brain using E-M waves, and it's been well tested and well designed to be fail-safe, then I'd probably go for it (if the benefits were good enough). But if you're talking about an implant, that's major surgery to install, and even more major/impossible to uninstall. I'm hesitant enough that I haven't gotten laser eye surgery yet, and that's something that has a long track record and a lot of benefits.
Yeah, I was thinking get them Monday, copy them Monday, send them back Monday. Netflix receives them Tuesday, sends out three more Tuesday. Get them Wednesday, copy them Wednesday, send them back Wednesday.
Of course, that'd require going to the post office to mail back every shipment, and you'd probably get your account suspended or something.
24 a month, on the other hand, I've probably come close to that in my second month with Blockbuster. Basically I'd watch one DVD every day and the other two would be in the mail (one on the way out one on the way in). Of course on Sunday the pipeline would get disturbed. Since I don't have cable, it was pretty good for a few months, I got to rent all the TV shows I was missing. But now the selection of DVDs that interest me is thinning and I usually let them sit around a couple days before I convince myself to watch them. There have even been a few I've returned without watching, was in the mood for it when I added it to the queue but by the time it arrived I didn't much care, or something I added to the queue thinking my girlfriend would watch with me that she wasn't interested in.
That's great, but most DVDs aren't going to fit on a single single-layer DVD.
I guess I'm just spoiled by Blockbuster. I get a turnaround of 2 business days about 90% of the time. I used to have Netflix, and 3-5 days was about the turnaround then, but I figured that was because they didn't have a nearby distribution center.
Netflix doesn't use cases, so it probably costs them $0.60 a DVD. I guess that's over the 50 cents that Raven mentioned as the limit, but Netflix *isn't* going broke. Maybe they're getting a special deal.
Someone *could* theoretically get 24 dvd's/month from Netflix http://www.netflix.com/ for $19.99 USD and copy them for free
You could probably get at least 40 or 50 a month if you returned them the same day you got them. And if you signed up for Blockbuster's in-store service, which I believe is $15 for the first month, you could get every DVD in the store for one month's fee.
Of course, you'd probably spend $1/dvd or so on media.
Media mail is $1.42 up to 1 pound. If you're shipping something light, it's cheaper to go first class.
The USPS has a special media rate that includes DVDs and is dirt cheap.
Media mail starts at $1.42. Most DVDs in their case can be sent for $1.06 or $1.29. The main purpose of media mail is to send books - heavy items which would otherwise cost a lot to send.
It's against my usual instincts to say this, but seriously.... that's a pretty fucking damaging typo.
The damage is done, though, so that's pretty irrelevant.
People get fired over mistakes that result in orders of magnitude less damage than this - it'd just be surreal if they didn't fire her.
I just don't see the relevance of the amount of damage that was done. All that should matter is the future: will this person earn her worth? can someone better be hired? what is the cost to fire the person?
Now, granted, I'm looking at this from a US perspective, where the unemployment costs alone would make firing the person far too costly. But even besides that, you can't expect there to be no costs to fire one person and hire someone new. You seem to be looking at things from a perspective of justice, I think the company should just focus on the bottom line. Is it likely this person is going to make the same or a similar mistake in the future? Is there a less high profile job in the company where this person might be able to shine? Turnover is expensive, both in terms of direct costs and in terms of indirect goodwill costs. Unless someone is immoral, unethical, or really incredibly incompetent, there's usually a better solution.
Yes, beta produced higher quality recordings and images. But it was more expensive, and the quality difference was not visible on consumer televesions of the time. Repeat, consumer TVs were not high enough quality to see the difference between Beta and VHS.
And four billion IPs were plenty when IPv4 came out.
Maybe Beta's advantages weren't very useful in the short term, but that doesn't mean the analogy was without merit.
Beta lost fair and square because it didn't deliver a benefit commensurate to its' price.
And IPv6 will never become a widely used technology for exactly the same reason.