This would apply to "all citizens", which includes folks like Congresscritters and Presidents. I would think the mere thought of having to strip-search, say, John Cornyn or Patrick Leahy would leave even the more perverted security personnel running in the opposite directions.
The first time a large ISP tries to charge Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or some other large site money to allow their customers access to it and that same site says "No" and gets blocked/slowed down, their competitors (the ISP's, that is) are going to add that to their ad campaigns and you'll see their customers desert them in droves.
A couple issues with that solution: 1. In many areas, a reasonable question to ask is "what competitors?"
2. It's not just what my ISP does, it's what every ISP anywhere between me and Google does.
Starting a war (even a war with collateral damage) is not a war crime
It is unless there's a clear self-defense justification (and not a BS one like "Saddam Hussein will give his mortal enemy Osama bin Laden non-existent weapons of mass destruction"). It was defined as the war crime of "aggression" at Nuremberg as a crime against peace, again in the UN Charter (Principle VI), and is also within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Now, in practice, hardly anyone gets charged with it, but in theory most of the Bush administration could be.
Let's say we're protecting oil wells owned by Shell capable of producing oil that will give Shell a profit of $5 billion. Now, the US government may spend $50 billion per year to protect those wells, but that costs Shell only $500,000 in bribes^H campaign contributions, so this arrangement is quite agreeable to Shell because they collect $4.5 billion in this arrangement.
Now you might think that the various fiscal responsibility types in Congress would raise a stink about this sort of waste, but they generally don't.
ISPs are not common carriers. They have more-or-less the benefits of being common carriers without any of the restrictions of common carriers. This was very intentional, and of course has absolutely nothing to do with the huge sums of cash AT&T, Time Warner, etc have funneled to various political campaigns.
For example:
- If Herbert the Pervert downloads kiddie porn over a connection owned by Time Warner, and the cops catch him, Time Warner is not in any way liable for giving Herbert access to kiddie porn. Normally, under non-common-carrier rules, they would be.
- If Time Warner ensures that all news sites not owned by Time Warner download at 10 b/s, Time Warner is not in any way liable for restricting users' rights to look at different news sources. Normally, under common carrier rules, they would be. Notice the only thing in common is that Time Warner is not in any way legally responsible for anything.
And your argument is far from frivolous, as federal courts have just ruled that people who were kept in Gitmo for the better part of a decade were not denied their right to a speedy trial.
As a composer, I can assure you that there are folks of 2 minds on this issue: 1. On the upside, electronic performance allows a composer to have absolute 100% full control of what the music will be. 2. On the downside, electronic performance allows a composer to have absolute 100% full control of what the music will be.
Some people like this - their exact artistic vision carried out to perfection, with no mucking around with rehearsals and soloist egos and begging that clarinetist to join your project, is nothing to sneeze at. But others (including me) would much rather have a live performer's different humanizing touch and feedback. Otherwise, you could easily end up with music by and for Vulcans.
Leader of Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote? Entire Senate: FUCK THE POOR! Leader: Good.
If you're already at the point where you'd be fine with quitting, consider organizing a union instead. Worst that can happen is that they can look for some excuse to fire you (in violation of a bunch of federal and state labor laws), and you were planning on leaving anyways. Now, I know that this goes against a lot of folk's libertarian ideals, but unions can dramatically improve the working environment for their members.
The other factor here is that when programmers complain a lot about salaries, that usually means they're being treated poorly in other ways. If I'm getting $100K and working 40 hours a week in a comfortable office with free lunches and snacks and smart colleagues and reasonable project requirements, I'm not likely to start agitating for more pay (In part that's because that pay scale is well above the median for a programmer in my area). If, on the other hand, I'm required to work 60-80 hours a week in a cellar with no bonuses or overtime or perks, I'm not so happy about the $100K.
The reality that only government holds the special right to employ coercion against you, while the rest of us (including corporations) do not.
Sure they do, it's just a different form of coercion, namely economic coercion.
For instance, let's say you're living in a mining town. You can just about make ends meet by working in the mines, but haven't been able to squirrel away significant savings (your job gives you enough to keep a roof over your head, food on your plate, clothes on your back, and not much else). There aren't any other companies in the area hiring because it's an economic recession. Now, your boss tells you that you need to work an extra 10 hours a week without reporting it in order to keep your job. Your options are: (a) work the extra 10 hours effectively as slave labor, (b) move out of town, (c) unemployment, or (d) report the crime to somebody. Option b is more than you can afford. Option c leaves you homeless and starving. Option d means that your employer will retaliate by firing you (along with anyone else they think was involved) so it's equivalent to option d. So that leaves you with no choice but option a.
That exact scenario is a reality for millions of Americans (as well as workers in other countries) - read up on wage theft. And think about the fact that the only recourse someone in that situation potentially has is government regulation.
If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.
That's an excellent solution if you're someone with a few hours to spend on a weekday in traffic court. However, most of "everyone" would have to give up badly needed wages to fight the ticket in traffic court. Thankfully, traffic courts expect pro se defendants, so there isn't a legal cost, but there is most definitely an opportunity cost.
Interestingly, at least in my city they put the traffic cameras near the projects and far from the suburbs. They're targetting people who are less able to fight back.
You know you've been playing too much Nethack when your first response to this is: Why should we use wands of fire, cold, or death when we've got a bunch of wands of striking and sleep handy?
Why, then, does the US government want to keep the American public in the dark about civilian deaths in the wars that we are fighting?
That's easy. The lessons that the military learned from Vietnam: 1. Never show anything on TV that would indicate that US soldiers are suffering and dying. That includes flag-draped coffins, military funerals, wounded vets, etc. 2. Never show anything on TV that would indicate that US soldiers are killing civilians. This is best done by carefully controlling the situations that reporters can see (see "embedded" reporters). 3. Never institute a draft, so that wealthy college kids aren't affected, only poor and powerless kids. 4. Never let on to the public how expensive the war is.
This is an exact outgrowth of the "stab-in-the-back" theory of why we lost Vietnam - that the war was winnable except that those darn commie peacenik hippies convinced the politicians to end it. Notice how the entire process is to avoid letting the public know what it is that their money and blood is going towards.
This is sounding an awful lot like "Pakistan is to Afghanistan as Laos is to Vietnam."
Or alternately, a second Domino Theory, stating that "If one ignores the advice of top generals and starts a war in one south Asian country, like a domino you'll fall into a war in a neighboring south Asian country."
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're referring to Brian May, one of the best guitar hackers of all time.
This would apply to "all citizens", which includes folks like Congresscritters and Presidents. I would think the mere thought of having to strip-search, say, John Cornyn or Patrick Leahy would leave even the more perverted security personnel running in the opposite directions.
Drat, and here I was thinking that I could add this perfectly legitimate scenario to my BOFH excuse list.
He's an Egyptian!
vid link for those who've lived deprived lives.
The first time a large ISP tries to charge Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or some other large site money to allow their customers access to it and that same site says "No" and gets blocked/slowed down, their competitors (the ISP's, that is) are going to add that to their ad campaigns and you'll see their customers desert them in droves.
A couple issues with that solution:
1. In many areas, a reasonable question to ask is "what competitors?"
2. It's not just what my ISP does, it's what every ISP anywhere between me and Google does.
Starting a war (even a war with collateral damage) is not a war crime
It is unless there's a clear self-defense justification (and not a BS one like "Saddam Hussein will give his mortal enemy Osama bin Laden non-existent weapons of mass destruction"). It was defined as the war crime of "aggression" at Nuremberg as a crime against peace, again in the UN Charter (Principle VI), and is also within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Now, in practice, hardly anyone gets charged with it, but in theory most of the Bush administration could be.
It's all about the oil.
Let's say we're protecting oil wells owned by Shell capable of producing oil that will give Shell a profit of $5 billion. Now, the US government may spend $50 billion per year to protect those wells, but that costs Shell only $500,000 in bribes^H campaign contributions, so this arrangement is quite agreeable to Shell because they collect $4.5 billion in this arrangement.
Now you might think that the various fiscal responsibility types in Congress would raise a stink about this sort of waste, but they generally don't.
No, he's just doing his math in octal.
Heck, we still have significant numbers of troops in West Germany who do an excellent job of preventing Nazi insurgencies and invasions by the USSR.
ISPs are not common carriers. They have more-or-less the benefits of being common carriers without any of the restrictions of common carriers. This was very intentional, and of course has absolutely nothing to do with the huge sums of cash AT&T, Time Warner, etc have funneled to various political campaigns.
For example:
- If Herbert the Pervert downloads kiddie porn over a connection owned by Time Warner, and the cops catch him, Time Warner is not in any way liable for giving Herbert access to kiddie porn. Normally, under non-common-carrier rules, they would be.
- If Time Warner ensures that all news sites not owned by Time Warner download at 10 b/s, Time Warner is not in any way liable for restricting users' rights to look at different news sources. Normally, under common carrier rules, they would be.
Notice the only thing in common is that Time Warner is not in any way legally responsible for anything.
And your argument is far from frivolous, as federal courts have just ruled that people who were kept in Gitmo for the better part of a decade were not denied their right to a speedy trial.
As a composer, I can assure you that there are folks of 2 minds on this issue:
1. On the upside, electronic performance allows a composer to have absolute 100% full control of what the music will be.
2. On the downside, electronic performance allows a composer to have absolute 100% full control of what the music will be.
Some people like this - their exact artistic vision carried out to perfection, with no mucking around with rehearsals and soloist egos and begging that clarinetist to join your project, is nothing to sneeze at. But others (including me) would much rather have a live performer's different humanizing touch and feedback. Otherwise, you could easily end up with music by and for Vulcans.
Leader of Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote?
Entire Senate: FUCK THE POOR!
Leader: Good.
... or a Vogon fleet, just before you get to a phone to explain how to save the world ...
We have a winner!
If you're already at the point where you'd be fine with quitting, consider organizing a union instead. Worst that can happen is that they can look for some excuse to fire you (in violation of a bunch of federal and state labor laws), and you were planning on leaving anyways. Now, I know that this goes against a lot of folk's libertarian ideals, but unions can dramatically improve the working environment for their members.
The other factor here is that when programmers complain a lot about salaries, that usually means they're being treated poorly in other ways. If I'm getting $100K and working 40 hours a week in a comfortable office with free lunches and snacks and smart colleagues and reasonable project requirements, I'm not likely to start agitating for more pay (In part that's because that pay scale is well above the median for a programmer in my area). If, on the other hand, I'm required to work 60-80 hours a week in a cellar with no bonuses or overtime or perks, I'm not so happy about the $100K.
It's because we want to be able to buy up prime tropical coastline on the Hudson Bay, of course!
Coal is only "cheap" because it doesn't have to pay for its externalities.
You also left out the cost of killing miners.
The reality that only government holds the special right to employ coercion against you, while the rest of us (including corporations) do not.
Sure they do, it's just a different form of coercion, namely economic coercion.
For instance, let's say you're living in a mining town. You can just about make ends meet by working in the mines, but haven't been able to squirrel away significant savings (your job gives you enough to keep a roof over your head, food on your plate, clothes on your back, and not much else). There aren't any other companies in the area hiring because it's an economic recession. Now, your boss tells you that you need to work an extra 10 hours a week without reporting it in order to keep your job. Your options are: (a) work the extra 10 hours effectively as slave labor, (b) move out of town, (c) unemployment, or (d) report the crime to somebody. Option b is more than you can afford. Option c leaves you homeless and starving. Option d means that your employer will retaliate by firing you (along with anyone else they think was involved) so it's equivalent to option d. So that leaves you with no choice but option a.
That exact scenario is a reality for millions of Americans (as well as workers in other countries) - read up on wage theft. And think about the fact that the only recourse someone in that situation potentially has is government regulation.
Can we have your liver?
"about 50 steps of fail"? Why did he miss the opportunity to describe it as "abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?
If everyone would start to fight them in court the amount of money to run them at a loss would get rid of them pretty quickly.
That's an excellent solution if you're someone with a few hours to spend on a weekday in traffic court. However, most of "everyone" would have to give up badly needed wages to fight the ticket in traffic court. Thankfully, traffic courts expect pro se defendants, so there isn't a legal cost, but there is most definitely an opportunity cost.
Interestingly, at least in my city they put the traffic cameras near the projects and far from the suburbs. They're targetting people who are less able to fight back.
or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.
Cue the Downfall parody in which Hitler finds out that Downfall parodies have been removed from Youtube.
You know you've been playing too much Nethack when your first response to this is: Why should we use wands of fire, cold, or death when we've got a bunch of wands of striking and sleep handy?
Why, then, does the US government want to keep the American public in the dark about civilian deaths in the wars that we are fighting?
That's easy. The lessons that the military learned from Vietnam:
1. Never show anything on TV that would indicate that US soldiers are suffering and dying. That includes flag-draped coffins, military funerals, wounded vets, etc.
2. Never show anything on TV that would indicate that US soldiers are killing civilians. This is best done by carefully controlling the situations that reporters can see (see "embedded" reporters).
3. Never institute a draft, so that wealthy college kids aren't affected, only poor and powerless kids.
4. Never let on to the public how expensive the war is.
This is an exact outgrowth of the "stab-in-the-back" theory of why we lost Vietnam - that the war was winnable except that those darn commie peacenik hippies convinced the politicians to end it. Notice how the entire process is to avoid letting the public know what it is that their money and blood is going towards.
This is sounding an awful lot like "Pakistan is to Afghanistan as Laos is to Vietnam."
Or alternately, a second Domino Theory, stating that "If one ignores the advice of top generals and starts a war in one south Asian country, like a domino you'll fall into a war in a neighboring south Asian country."