It's the costs involved in shipping bits to Australia on container ships. These ships are often attacked by pirates, who make off with the cargo. If they make it to port safely, they still have to be unloaded at port, then trucked by road train to local Australian servers. Bits may not weigh much individually, but a full shipping container can be quite heavy. Adobe has to recover these costs.
What else did he know? What else was there to know? Who was doing this? Why? What did other people already know? Was there anything about me they didn’t know, or couldn’t misconstrue to their advantage?
Have you ever heard of encryption?
It should be standard on every e-mail app, just like it's standard on every router. I would love to encrypt all of my e-mail, but my friends are either too lazy, or too technically illiterate, to install and use it. If it was part of setting up your e-mail, well, the world would be a better place.
Tell ya what, though: If I were doing business in a place China, (or Russia, or Cuba, etc.), I would insist upon it. But, who knows what servers your e-mail gets bounced around on as it is?
The difference is the drug war. While drugs have been illegal since the early 20th century, police focused on actual crime up until the seventies. When that focus changed to drugs, that's when black incarceration rates shot up so dramatically. Not that it's as simple as cops making more drug arrests. But that, coupled with the effects these increased arrests had on the black market, and the neighborhoods it operated in, and the way it operates in those neighborhoods, all resulted in excessive incarceration rates. And yeah, racism.
Switch to T-Mobile is exactly what I did. It's my phone, I paid for it, and it's certainly not worth $650. Nor have I ever called up a carrier for permission to unlock my own phone, nor will I. I unlock, (and jailbreak), every phone I get, even if I'm not planning to change carriers, just on principle. And if I'm not happy with my carrier, I can move along. If these carriers were actually competitive, they wouldn't need contracts to keep subscribers. Unlocked phones serve the economy as a whole, and the individual, much better.
I couldn't agree more. In the early days of the internet, reading on an amber terminal, I found such incredible stuff to read, hyperlinks taking me place to place. Solid scholarly articles, written by, and for, intelligent people. I learned so much! Now, it seems like the internet is cluttered with junk.
I'm already blocking ads, and have been ever since it was possible. Having the ISP do the blocking would speed up my connection. If these commercial web sites all disappeared tomorrow, I doubt I'd miss them. I wouldn't mind seeing the web go back to simple HTML.
Yup, they really do. The heavier the vehicle, the harder it is on asphalt. But I'm sure you understand the difference in efficiencies between what a car does, (hauling one person around), and what a truck does, (hauling freight for many hundreds of people).
First off, trucks pay about $18,000 per year in taxes, so believe me, we are doing our share. And where are you getting that, "as much wear and tear as 7,000 passenger cars", figure? Sure, we tear up the road. A loaded truck weighs 80,000 lbs. compared to a 4,000 lb, or less, car. But, truck routes are engineered with truck traffic in mind. And we're not just hauling around one person's skinny butt. One loaded truck carries goods for hundreds or thousands of people in it. And before you start asking us to pay more, (our wages have stagnated since the 1970s - we're already subsidizing your lifestyle), you might consider that every single thing you own, from your skid-marked underpants, to the materials of the house around you, was delivered by truck.
No. He was a horrible person who did all that giving for selfish reasons. I've watched multiple candid documentaries about him. He was a fucking terrible, evil piece of shit.
Prohibition creates the situation where the only way to enforce business transactions, or deal with unfair competition, is through violence. This is just how capitalism operates when placed outside the law. Escobar was likely no less ethical than any other CEO. Think Andrew Carnegie. It's just that most businesses operate with the benefits, and restraints, of regulation. We see this everytime a black market is created, or whenever capitalism is allowed to run amok. Why do you think business hates regulation? They'd all love to be operating in the US the way they do in China, for instance.
I would guess that the vast majority of charity from very wealthy businessmen is given for entirely selfish reasons.
Setting application preferences is hardly a "skill." All anyone really has to know is that: web sites use cookies, and what are the simplest, most basic ways that they are used by web sites. Then you use the cookie managing settings in your browser, or add an extension that does that. Do you really have to be a geek to get that far?
Even so, do we really want all of our legislation aimed at the lowest common denominator? I think we've gone too far in dumbing-down things as it is. Rather than passing a law that, in saving the most ignorant from themselves, inconveniences everyone else, why not try to educate people a little, instead?
That's what I tell all my friends and relatives - get a Mac next time. Way easier for them to figure out and use, and everyone who's taken that advice has been grateful, and thanked me. Think of that! After that, the only thing you need to tell them is to use a non-admin account, make one good password, then setup, and show them how to use Keychain. I'd like to get them to use the email app, but ok, if you like webmail, fine. Plus, when I have to work on it for them, which is rare, it has a shell. No more "hacked" accounts, no more virus paranoia, and no more obscure problems every f^^ckin week.
OTOH, they all stop calling me after a while, and I start to feel like the Maytag repairman.
Some addiction? Opiates are physically addictive. They are the class of drugs that cause withdrawals upon cessation. The vast majority of recreational drugs are not physically addictive. They're compulsive, or rather, can be for some people. Big difference. Unless you think he was on barbiturates? Be pretty hard to function, in that case.
Can't fault people for their ignorance, though. We're all fed a line of constant bullshit about drugs.
I made a very similar analogy at least ten years ago, except I was saying, "what if you could only play a record on one authorized turntable?" The beauty of the digital world is that there is always a way around whatever restrictions they try to force you into. Anything I pay for is mine, and I do as I like with it. If I can't figure it out, there's always someone smarter than me who will.
"The find increases the chances that life may exist (or have once existed) on planets such as Mars and moons such as Jupiter's Europa."
Yeah, I wouldn't count on that. Life may be able to adapt to extreme environments, but I have serious doubts about it "spawning" in permanent sub-freezing conditions. Nevermind that we still have no idea whether or not life is unique to Earth. Let's not forget that the Antarctic once straddled the equator, giving life a chance to take hold, then adapt over its slow southward slide to the pole. And what djh2400 said.
Yeah, and as a truck driver, please allow me to mention that the middle lane is not another "slow lane" - it's the passing lane for trucks, (who are restricted from the left lane), and other slower traffic. Jeez, if you want to go slow, you are perfectly free to do so, just stay to the right. But let's face it, these people know what they're doing. Few drivers are actually that clueless, and it's probably one of the few areas in their lives where they can exercise a little power and stand their ground, even if it's only to impede other drivers.
It's true. There's little difference between Democrats and Republicans, except in terms of campaign rhetoric. I mean, just take a look at the actual policies of the current administration, compared to those of the previous one. In other words, look at what they've done, rather than what they've said. And whether the enemy du jour is Communists or Terrorists, they're both trying to outdo the other in zealotry.
But the original poster's point about it being a mostly invented crisis is a good one. There's a lot of "self-fulfilling prophesy" about this nonsense, and the danger has been seriously over-blown. When the US government proclaims to the World what it is they fear most, they're inviting discontented people to become that very thing.
What exactly would you do if after in the interest of peace you gave someone some land and then they used it as a platform to try and attack you from? I know what I would do; and it looks allot like what Israel has done to Gaza in recent years.
What exactly would you do if someone invaded your land, stole most of it, and forced you onto a small reservation in the "interests of peace?" You might take that lying down, but I suspect some of your fellow citizens would want to fight back.
Right to Privacy is Implicit in the 4th Amendment
on
The Privacy Illusion
·
· Score: 2
I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.
I don't know why people forget the Fourth Amendment when they talk about privacy and the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Surely your computer and your personal information are the modern equivalents of "papers and effects" as the founding fathers saw it? Although referring to government powers, and not explicitly about what corporations might be able to do, (since the founding fathers could never have envisioned what the world would become), the very idea of a right to privacy is implicit in the Fourth Amendment.
Yeah, I believe they have a name for that syndrome - cop syndrome, or something, please correct me if I'm wrong - where all you see are the worst cases. For instance, if you work in a hospital emergency room, the only drug users you see are the ones who have gotten in trouble with it somehow, so you see all drug users as drug abusers. Same with cops. Almost everyone they see is a criminal, so they begin to see everyone as criminals.
But to respond to the first poster, as a 53 year-old, I can tell you that when I walk into a Wal-Mart, I am still amazed that there is nobody around to help you. I think we all grew up with a different service paradigm. It used to be that you couldn't get rid of helpful sales clerks when you walked into a store. Now it's the opposite extreme, and perhaps we haven't quite gotten used to it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the costs involved in shipping bits to Australia on container ships. These ships are often attacked by pirates, who make off with the cargo. If they make it to port safely, they still have to be unloaded at port, then trucked by road train to local Australian servers. Bits may not weigh much individually, but a full shipping container can be quite heavy. Adobe has to recover these costs.
What else did he know? What else was there to know? Who was doing this? Why? What did other people already know? Was there anything about me they didn’t know, or couldn’t misconstrue to their advantage?
Have you ever heard of encryption?
It should be standard on every e-mail app, just like it's standard on every router. I would love to encrypt all of my e-mail, but my friends are either too lazy, or too technically illiterate, to install and use it. If it was part of setting up your e-mail, well, the world would be a better place. Tell ya what, though: If I were doing business in a place China, (or Russia, or Cuba, etc.), I would insist upon it. But, who knows what servers your e-mail gets bounced around on as it is?
Now, if you will excuse me, I have some bath salts to ingest so I can get back to my ritual satanic child abuse.
The difference is the drug war. While drugs have been illegal since the early 20th century, police focused on actual crime up until the seventies. When that focus changed to drugs, that's when black incarceration rates shot up so dramatically. Not that it's as simple as cops making more drug arrests. But that, coupled with the effects these increased arrests had on the black market, and the neighborhoods it operated in, and the way it operates in those neighborhoods, all resulted in excessive incarceration rates. And yeah, racism.
Switch to T-Mobile is exactly what I did. It's my phone, I paid for it, and it's certainly not worth $650. Nor have I ever called up a carrier for permission to unlock my own phone, nor will I. I unlock, (and jailbreak), every phone I get, even if I'm not planning to change carriers, just on principle. And if I'm not happy with my carrier, I can move along. If these carriers were actually competitive, they wouldn't need contracts to keep subscribers. Unlocked phones serve the economy as a whole, and the individual, much better.
We ought to make drugs illegal, too! Let's end both problems, once and for all, with some simple legislation.
That's interesting. My roommate's Windows computer already seems to click on stuff when I'm not even touching the click bar.
"But the bigger-brained fish also tended to have smaller guts and produce fewer babies."
Well, that makes sense. As we all know, educated people have fewer children and often eat healthier.
I'm already blocking ads, and have been ever since it was possible. Having the ISP do the blocking would speed up my connection. If these commercial web sites all disappeared tomorrow, I doubt I'd miss them. I wouldn't mind seeing the web go back to simple HTML.
Now, get off of my lawn, kid.
They really cut up the asphalt though.
Yup, they really do. The heavier the vehicle, the harder it is on asphalt. But I'm sure you understand the difference in efficiencies between what a car does, (hauling one person around), and what a truck does, (hauling freight for many hundreds of people).
Great idea! Now, we just need to think of a way get stuff from the train yard to the store...
First off, trucks pay about $18,000 per year in taxes, so believe me, we are doing our share. And where are you getting that, "as much wear and tear as 7,000 passenger cars", figure? Sure, we tear up the road. A loaded truck weighs 80,000 lbs. compared to a 4,000 lb, or less, car. But, truck routes are engineered with truck traffic in mind. And we're not just hauling around one person's skinny butt. One loaded truck carries goods for hundreds or thousands of people in it. And before you start asking us to pay more, (our wages have stagnated since the 1970s - we're already subsidizing your lifestyle), you might consider that every single thing you own, from your skid-marked underpants, to the materials of the house around you, was delivered by truck.
No. He was a horrible person who did all that giving for selfish reasons. I've watched multiple candid documentaries about him. He was a fucking terrible, evil piece of shit.
Prohibition creates the situation where the only way to enforce business transactions, or deal with unfair competition, is through violence. This is just how capitalism operates when placed outside the law. Escobar was likely no less ethical than any other CEO. Think Andrew Carnegie. It's just that most businesses operate with the benefits, and restraints, of regulation. We see this everytime a black market is created, or whenever capitalism is allowed to run amok. Why do you think business hates regulation? They'd all love to be operating in the US the way they do in China, for instance.
I would guess that the vast majority of charity from very wealthy businessmen is given for entirely selfish reasons.
...because this is NEWS.
Yeah, clearly. Me and my cousin were shooting cherry bombs and M-80s with a slingshot in 1973. Somehow, I doubt we were the first to think this up.
Setting application preferences is hardly a "skill." All anyone really has to know is that: web sites use cookies, and what are the simplest, most basic ways that they are used by web sites. Then you use the cookie managing settings in your browser, or add an extension that does that. Do you really have to be a geek to get that far?
Even so, do we really want all of our legislation aimed at the lowest common denominator? I think we've gone too far in dumbing-down things as it is. Rather than passing a law that, in saving the most ignorant from themselves, inconveniences everyone else, why not try to educate people a little, instead?
That's what I tell all my friends and relatives - get a Mac next time. Way easier for them to figure out and use, and everyone who's taken that advice has been grateful, and thanked me. Think of that! After that, the only thing you need to tell them is to use a non-admin account, make one good password, then setup, and show them how to use Keychain. I'd like to get them to use the email app, but ok, if you like webmail, fine. Plus, when I have to work on it for them, which is rare, it has a shell. No more "hacked" accounts, no more virus paranoia, and no more obscure problems every f^^ckin week. OTOH, they all stop calling me after a while, and I start to feel like the Maytag repairman.
Some addiction? Opiates are physically addictive. They are the class of drugs that cause withdrawals upon cessation. The vast majority of recreational drugs are not physically addictive. They're compulsive, or rather, can be for some people. Big difference. Unless you think he was on barbiturates? Be pretty hard to function, in that case. Can't fault people for their ignorance, though. We're all fed a line of constant bullshit about drugs.
I made a very similar analogy at least ten years ago, except I was saying, "what if you could only play a record on one authorized turntable?" The beauty of the digital world is that there is always a way around whatever restrictions they try to force you into. Anything I pay for is mine, and I do as I like with it. If I can't figure it out, there's always someone smarter than me who will.
"The find increases the chances that life may exist (or have once existed) on planets such as Mars and moons such as Jupiter's Europa."
Yeah, I wouldn't count on that. Life may be able to adapt to extreme environments, but I have serious doubts about it "spawning" in permanent sub-freezing conditions. Nevermind that we still have no idea whether or not life is unique to Earth. Let's not forget that the Antarctic once straddled the equator, giving life a chance to take hold, then adapt over its slow southward slide to the pole. And what djh2400 said.
Yeah, and as a truck driver, please allow me to mention that the middle lane is not another "slow lane" - it's the passing lane for trucks, (who are restricted from the left lane), and other slower traffic. Jeez, if you want to go slow, you are perfectly free to do so, just stay to the right. But let's face it, these people know what they're doing. Few drivers are actually that clueless, and it's probably one of the few areas in their lives where they can exercise a little power and stand their ground, even if it's only to impede other drivers.
It's true. There's little difference between Democrats and Republicans, except in terms of campaign rhetoric. I mean, just take a look at the actual policies of the current administration, compared to those of the previous one. In other words, look at what they've done, rather than what they've said. And whether the enemy du jour is Communists or Terrorists, they're both trying to outdo the other in zealotry.
But the original poster's point about it being a mostly invented crisis is a good one. There's a lot of "self-fulfilling prophesy" about this nonsense, and the danger has been seriously over-blown. When the US government proclaims to the World what it is they fear most, they're inviting discontented people to become that very thing.
Not when you consider that they have an agreement with Israel to do so.
Right, and under much pressure from the US as well.
What exactly would you do if after in the interest of peace you gave someone some land and then they used it as a platform to try and attack you from? I know what I would do; and it looks allot like what Israel has done to Gaza in recent years.
What exactly would you do if someone invaded your land, stole most of it, and forced you onto a small reservation in the "interests of peace?" You might take that lying down, but I suspect some of your fellow citizens would want to fight back.
I would argue that there is a right to privacy, and that it exists regardless of whether it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. As a justification, I point to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A right does not need to be in the Constitution to be had. No rights are granted. Rather, the Constitution states that rights already existing may not be infringed.
I don't know why people forget the Fourth Amendment when they talk about privacy and the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Surely your computer and your personal information are the modern equivalents of "papers and effects" as the founding fathers saw it? Although referring to government powers, and not explicitly about what corporations might be able to do, (since the founding fathers could never have envisioned what the world would become), the very idea of a right to privacy is implicit in the Fourth Amendment.
Yeah, I believe they have a name for that syndrome - cop syndrome, or something, please correct me if I'm wrong - where all you see are the worst cases. For instance, if you work in a hospital emergency room, the only drug users you see are the ones who have gotten in trouble with it somehow, so you see all drug users as drug abusers. Same with cops. Almost everyone they see is a criminal, so they begin to see everyone as criminals. But to respond to the first poster, as a 53 year-old, I can tell you that when I walk into a Wal-Mart, I am still amazed that there is nobody around to help you. I think we all grew up with a different service paradigm. It used to be that you couldn't get rid of helpful sales clerks when you walked into a store. Now it's the opposite extreme, and perhaps we haven't quite gotten used to it.