Funny thing, I don't think I really fall into the camp of "you people" as you mean it. Gore made a statement to try and generate political clout for himself. He was in the middle of a presidential compaign, politicians do it all the time. Some times the way they go about doing it is dishonest (usually by stretching the truth), and that's what happened here.
Rupublicans took advantage of that of course, and tried to make it seem like Gore took credit for creating the internet in a technical sense. Obviously that was just another ploy for them to discredit to an opponent, even if it meant (again) stretching the truth. In that respect, both sides were dishonest.
The fact remains however, Gore made the statement "took the initiative in creating the internet". What does that mean? It's unreasonable to think he was trying to convince people that he created it in a technical sense, and I'll cut him some slack on that point. Anyone who says otherwise is one of the above mentioned political opponents or a comedian (David Letterman and group).
I still think a good analogy, when considering the meaning of that statement, is construction. This year, I plan on building a house. After the house is complete, I might say to someone "I built this house in 2005". Now, no reasonable person would give me grief for making such a statement, because it's pretty much understood that most likely I didn't actually build the house with my own two hands. We all understand that I hired out the work, made all relavent choices, perhaps even did a little of the work myself. However, it is still wholly appropriate for me to singularly take credit for the house being built. I took the initiative to do all the things to see that the house was started (financing, scheduling of tasks, etc.). The problem with Gore's statement, is that he tried to take the same kind of credit. Sure, he helped out a little. He provided a little bit of political support, and frankly, should get credit for what he did do. On the other hand, he should also be criticized for taking too much (WAY too much) credit. He lied about his role, and was properly brought down a peg for doing so.
Personally, I'm neither a Republican or Democrat. Most people are, and the division is usually pretty clear. You are obviously a liberal/Democrat. Other's who attach Gore are obviously Republicans. The truth lies in between the two extreme points of view ("he did nothing wrong" vs. "he claims to have created the internet in a technical sense")
I don't think that Cerf is necessarily giving too much credit, but he's not either giving Gore as much credit as Gore gave himself. I suspect that Vint's intent may have been partially political, that is, a supporter of the Democratic party. You'll notice his statement came out in the midst of the campaign...but to be fair, that's just speculation on my part.
So, does that really qualify as, in his words, "...creating the Internet"? I think not. He basically claims to be responsible for the existance of the internet. Not in a technical sense, but in the sense that Donal Trump would take responsibility for a building that "he built". That doesn't mean Trump thinks he actually physically built the building, but no one would argue that he is responsible for it in the "taking the initiative to get it started/funded/completed" sense. Gore certainly played a role in helping out a little, but also tried to take far more credit than he deserved.
I think you will have a hard time finding any information supporting your claims. I've looked. He supported a bill or two and gave a couple speeches about how good technology is, but that's about it. The internet was being created, and it was in the works for years of course. Gore jumped on the bandwagon a couple times. That's it.
In this case, other than the shot at the Clinton administration, he's pretty dead on. Anti-democrats like to make fun of Gore for claiming to be responsible for the creation of the internet. Pro-democrats like to defend him, that he never claimed to have "invented" the internet, but that he did legislatively have a lot to do with the formation of it. However, both are exaggerations. Of course, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet per se, but he certainly tried to take a hell of a lot more credit than he deserved. The internet was forming. He made a couple speeches about how good technology is while he was in the senate, and based on that, he claims to have taken the "initiative in creating the Internet", obviously a HUGE overstatement.
I entirely agree with you on every point, I gave credit to the grand parent, only as a premise for his own argument, that is, assuming the statement was true, what does it mean?
Personally, I have nothing against someone who chooses to be gay. On one hand, as a christian, I do see it as a sin. Also as a christian, I see that I'm expected to show as much love and compassion to a gay person as anyone else (or rather, show love and compassion regardless of such things).
On the other hand, as a fairly strict libertarian, I would not support such a bill. I think if you, as an employer/company, want to discriminate with regard to who you hire or otherwise have affairs (social, business or otherwise) with, you have that right. It kind of makes you an asshole for doing such, but whatever. The flip side to that coin is that, by arbitrarily eliminating a portion of the population you would hire, you are doing harm to your own business (since some of that portion would be beneficial for you to hire), so there is a cost to such behavior. I can't say what the Free State Project, as an organization, would support off hand. I would assume that since they associate themselves with libertarian principles, they would take a similar stance.
On a related note, just to further clarify my position, I am against legalized marraige for homosexuals. I am also against legalized marraige for heterosexuals. Marraige is between you, your spouse, your family, friends and God (if you so choose). I don't think any government official or institution, in his capacity as such, should be involved in any manner.
What theory says they should "advance the public good", $this_way ?
Certainly, any action that helps people, doesn't help all people the same amount. And increasing value for shareholders and employees is helpful to those people. Nothing says they have to help people in some particular manner that you get to choose dynamically.
I thought the third level was essentially handled at the web server, is that not true? So, if you had foo.pro, you could set a link that went to bar.foo.pro, or make your webserver serve bar.foo.pro or whatever, but routers would always send requests to *.foo.pro to your IP address and let you work it out from there. Is that not the case?
Funny, I just finished reading the same on my own. You are right...which I suppose confuses the issue even more. In any case, I think it could be said that the constitution was intended to really (in many cases) *limit* the rights of federal government, while enumerating some rights of states and individuals.
Well, many state constitutions adopted much of the same ideas expressed in the US constitution, so from that level, you do still inherit those rights. Really, the main thing most people don't understand about the constitution/bill of rights is that it was mainly focused on limiting federal powers and giving more power to each state. This kind of makes a general sort of sense, in that ideals/beliefs/ethics/morals vary regionally in such a large country, and that it seems appropriate for local regions to have more say over their own direction rather than having California (huge state/representation) being able to legislate (or at least heavily influence legislation) what goes on in the entire rest of the coutry.
Not exactly. The Constitution explicitly provides some rights. It also explicitly provides some powers to federal government. It then goes on to say, that any power not expressely given to the federal government is reserved for the states, not for individuals. So, as an example, a state could legally (well, legal until the Supreme Court got into the legislation business...but that's another conversation) institute an official state religion. The federal governemnt can't do that (expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment), and the federal government shouldn't (according to the original founding legal documents of the country) be able to stop a state from doing such a thing.
Where do you get your information about the 2M dollars? From what I've read, Micheal/Terry received a malpractice judgement of 1 million in jan '93. She received physical therapy for a while. In '98 is when Micheal intiated the action for a court to determine what Terri's wishes would be. The court decided to remove the feeding tube. The husband testified, but didn't really make that decision on his own. That comes from what seems to be a reasonably unbiased source (as far as I can tell anyway).
Contractors generally get a higher salary than full-time counter parts. There is a reason for that. It's not spelled out, but I think it's a fair assumption that is the case here.
Something I would like to see, is if they win this lawsuit, they should have to pay back the money the would otherwise have NOT received in salary, because that portion of their total compensation would have come from benefits.
Can you define "being exploited"? Would you feel better if the people had been hired directly, with salaries lowered (compared to what they were making) to account for the extra compensation they would receive in benefits? Is that the difference between exploited and not?
When employment opportunities get scarce, that generally means there are too many employees, right? So, you would expect pay to generally be forced downward.
The thing is, in regard to that pay, does it matter how it's paid? I can either pay you 50k a year plus benefits, for arguments sake lets say those benefits total 10k; or I can pay you 60k a year straight, which generally is why contract employees get paid more. In either case, in a "BAD" market, total compensation will generally decrese.
As for HP abusing the situation, I suppose you are referring to them generally decreasing pay because of the "BAD" employment market. I wonder though, when there is a "GOOD" employment market (which is really "BAD" for employers, while your "BAD" employment market is "GOOD" for employers) do you consider yourself to have "abused the situation" by taking higher wages? Not a personal attack, but most people only look at this thing one way. When the market is in favor of employers, they are "abusing the situation", when the market is in favor of employees, suddenly everyone becomes a libertarian/capitalist.
It seems to me, this is more a matter of integrity. If you and I come to an agreement, you shouldn't expect more than what we agreed to. If you do happen to find a legal loophole to retroactively force me to agree to something I wouldn't have agreed to, then you have zero integrity.
Seriously, at what point do these types of experiments become "playing with fire"? Sure, even if they created a blackhole, it may just decay instead of grow, but what if they are wrong about that? That would suck.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing, I don't think I really fall into the camp of "you people" as you mean it. Gore made a statement to try and generate political clout for himself. He was in the middle of a presidential compaign, politicians do it all the time. Some times the way they go about doing it is dishonest (usually by stretching the truth), and that's what happened here.
Rupublicans took advantage of that of course, and tried to make it seem like Gore took credit for creating the internet in a technical sense. Obviously that was just another ploy for them to discredit to an opponent, even if it meant (again) stretching the truth. In that respect, both sides were dishonest.
The fact remains however, Gore made the statement "took the initiative in creating the internet". What does that mean? It's unreasonable to think he was trying to convince people that he created it in a technical sense, and I'll cut him some slack on that point. Anyone who says otherwise is one of the above mentioned political opponents or a comedian (David Letterman and group).
I still think a good analogy, when considering the meaning of that statement, is construction. This year, I plan on building a house. After the house is complete, I might say to someone "I built this house in 2005". Now, no reasonable person would give me grief for making such a statement, because it's pretty much understood that most likely I didn't actually build the house with my own two hands. We all understand that I hired out the work, made all relavent choices, perhaps even did a little of the work myself. However, it is still wholly appropriate for me to singularly take credit for the house being built. I took the initiative to do all the things to see that the house was started (financing, scheduling of tasks, etc.). The problem with Gore's statement, is that he tried to take the same kind of credit. Sure, he helped out a little. He provided a little bit of political support, and frankly, should get credit for what he did do. On the other hand, he should also be criticized for taking too much (WAY too much) credit. He lied about his role, and was properly brought down a peg for doing so.
Personally, I'm neither a Republican or Democrat. Most people are, and the division is usually pretty clear. You are obviously a liberal/Democrat. Other's who attach Gore are obviously Republicans. The truth lies in between the two extreme points of view ("he did nothing wrong" vs. "he claims to have created the internet in a technical sense")
I don't think that Cerf is necessarily giving too much credit, but he's not either giving Gore as much credit as Gore gave himself. I suspect that Vint's intent may have been partially political, that is, a supporter of the Democratic party. You'll notice his statement came out in the midst of the campaign...but to be fair, that's just speculation on my part.
So, does that really qualify as, in his words, "...creating the Internet"? I think not. He basically claims to be responsible for the existance of the internet. Not in a technical sense, but in the sense that Donal Trump would take responsibility for a building that "he built". That doesn't mean Trump thinks he actually physically built the building, but no one would argue that he is responsible for it in the "taking the initiative to get it started/funded/completed" sense. Gore certainly played a role in helping out a little, but also tried to take far more credit than he deserved.
I think you will have a hard time finding any information supporting your claims. I've looked. He supported a bill or two and gave a couple speeches about how good technology is, but that's about it. The internet was being created, and it was in the works for years of course. Gore jumped on the bandwagon a couple times. That's it.
In this case, other than the shot at the Clinton administration, he's pretty dead on. Anti-democrats like to make fun of Gore for claiming to be responsible for the creation of the internet. Pro-democrats like to defend him, that he never claimed to have "invented" the internet, but that he did legislatively have a lot to do with the formation of it. However, both are exaggerations. Of course, Gore never claimed to have invented the internet per se, but he certainly tried to take a hell of a lot more credit than he deserved. The internet was forming. He made a couple speeches about how good technology is while he was in the senate, and based on that, he claims to have taken the "initiative in creating the Internet", obviously a HUGE overstatement.
for most replies on slashdot moderated "redundant" starts now.
I entirely agree with you on every point, I gave credit to the grand parent, only as a premise for his own argument, that is, assuming the statement was true, what does it mean?
Personally, I have nothing against someone who chooses to be gay. On one hand, as a christian, I do see it as a sin. Also as a christian, I see that I'm expected to show as much love and compassion to a gay person as anyone else (or rather, show love and compassion regardless of such things).
On the other hand, as a fairly strict libertarian, I would not support such a bill. I think if you, as an employer/company, want to discriminate with regard to who you hire or otherwise have affairs (social, business or otherwise) with, you have that right. It kind of makes you an asshole for doing such, but whatever. The flip side to that coin is that, by arbitrarily eliminating a portion of the population you would hire, you are doing harm to your own business (since some of that portion would be beneficial for you to hire), so there is a cost to such behavior. I can't say what the Free State Project, as an organization, would support off hand. I would assume that since they associate themselves with libertarian principles, they would take a similar stance.
On a related note, just to further clarify my position, I am against legalized marraige for homosexuals. I am also against legalized marraige for heterosexuals. Marraige is between you, your spouse, your family, friends and God (if you so choose). I don't think any government official or institution, in his capacity as such, should be involved in any manner.
Sorry, going into business doesn't mean you sell yourself into slavery, no matter how much you like to believe that.
What theory says they should "advance the public good", $this_way ?
Certainly, any action that helps people, doesn't help all people the same amount. And increasing value for shareholders and employees is helpful to those people. Nothing says they have to help people in some particular manner that you get to choose dynamically.
Has he tried something like "Hey, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make those jokes around me"?
I thought the third level was essentially handled at the web server, is that not true? So, if you had foo.pro, you could set a link that went to bar.foo.pro, or make your webserver serve bar.foo.pro or whatever, but routers would always send requests to *.foo.pro to your IP address and let you work it out from there. Is that not the case?
Funny, I just finished reading the same on my own. You are right...which I suppose confuses the issue even more. In any case, I think it could be said that the constitution was intended to really (in many cases) *limit* the rights of federal government, while enumerating some rights of states and individuals.
Well, many state constitutions adopted much of the same ideas expressed in the US constitution, so from that level, you do still inherit those rights. Really, the main thing most people don't understand about the constitution/bill of rights is that it was mainly focused on limiting federal powers and giving more power to each state. This kind of makes a general sort of sense, in that ideals/beliefs/ethics/morals vary regionally in such a large country, and that it seems appropriate for local regions to have more say over their own direction rather than having California (huge state/representation) being able to legislate (or at least heavily influence legislation) what goes on in the entire rest of the coutry.
Not exactly. The Constitution explicitly provides some rights. It also explicitly provides some powers to federal government. It then goes on to say, that any power not expressely given to the federal government is reserved for the states, not for individuals. So, as an example, a state could legally (well, legal until the Supreme Court got into the legislation business...but that's another conversation) institute an official state religion. The federal governemnt can't do that (expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment), and the federal government shouldn't (according to the original founding legal documents of the country) be able to stop a state from doing such a thing.
Talk about seeds...it's ok for an 18 y/o to kill real people (and be taught to do it efficiently), but not play a video game?
Where do you get your information about the 2M dollars? From what I've read, Micheal/Terry received a malpractice judgement of 1 million in jan '93. She received physical therapy for a while. In '98 is when Micheal intiated the action for a court to determine what Terri's wishes would be. The court decided to remove the feeding tube. The husband testified, but didn't really make that decision on his own. That comes from what seems to be a reasonably unbiased source (as far as I can tell anyway).
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
Most of those questions aren't "still open" in THIS case, which is all the SC would have (correctly) considered.
Contractors generally get a higher salary than full-time counter parts. There is a reason for that. It's not spelled out, but I think it's a fair assumption that is the case here.
Something I would like to see, is if they win this lawsuit, they should have to pay back the money the would otherwise have NOT received in salary, because that portion of their total compensation would have come from benefits.
Seems fair.
Can you define "being exploited"? Would you feel better if the people had been hired directly, with salaries lowered (compared to what they were making) to account for the extra compensation they would receive in benefits? Is that the difference between exploited and not?
When employment opportunities get scarce, that generally means there are too many employees, right? So, you would expect pay to generally be forced downward.
The thing is, in regard to that pay, does it matter how it's paid? I can either pay you 50k a year plus benefits, for arguments sake lets say those benefits total 10k; or I can pay you 60k a year straight, which generally is why contract employees get paid more. In either case, in a "BAD" market, total compensation will generally decrese.
As for HP abusing the situation, I suppose you are referring to them generally decreasing pay because of the "BAD" employment market. I wonder though, when there is a "GOOD" employment market (which is really "BAD" for employers, while your "BAD" employment market is "GOOD" for employers) do you consider yourself to have "abused the situation" by taking higher wages? Not a personal attack, but most people only look at this thing one way. When the market is in favor of employers, they are "abusing the situation", when the market is in favor of employees, suddenly everyone becomes a libertarian/capitalist.
Why then, if it's so bad, would you agree to it?
It seems to me, this is more a matter of integrity. If you and I come to an agreement, you shouldn't expect more than what we agreed to. If you do happen to find a legal loophole to retroactively force me to agree to something I wouldn't have agreed to, then you have zero integrity.
That's the first time I've seen that. It's an awful big coincidence don't you think?
I would also like to add that tomorrow you don't sleep through your U.S. Government class. If you've already taken that class, retake it.
...since you obviously didn't digest all the force-fed crap the first time.
Seriously, at what point do these types of experiments become "playing with fire"? Sure, even if they created a blackhole, it may just decay instead of grow, but what if they are wrong about that? That would suck.