I can see this doing really great things for video gaming, but beyond that I'm at a loss for where the practical application for this technology is.
Maybe I'm just behind the times, but is there really that much of a demand to be able to pretend to shake hands with somebody over the internet? Is it really useful?
I suppose this could be used to some degree in remote robotics, but even there it's a stretch.
How about citing an actual example of windows code bugs causing big problems? I'll go first. The USS Yorktown had to be towed back to harbor when the NT system that was automating most of the ship crashed.
Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you? Why aren't you spending every waking moment obsessing over a terrorist act purpetrated over a year ago by a small group of religious fanatics?
10 Years ago a Tablet PC would either be the size of todays Lunchbox PCs, the power of a Texas Instruments calculator, or absurdly expensive.
The technology just wasn't there to support a useful tablet PC back then. Not to mention computers hadn't become to ubiquitous and essential in our daily lives.
Being the first into a market doesn't do you any good if the market hasn't developed yet.
Were you seriously asking about how you would patronize another road? How do you patronize another road company now?
Roads in a community would have to be viewed as school districts are now. An aspect of the community to be considered when you move into an area.
I would guess however that at the community level things would be very similar to how they are now, with the community at large paying for roads.
Privatization of roads is more of an issue for larger roads.
Well, we can thank the new FCC chairman/media bitch for what we're about to go through. Instead of enforcing the precedent of forcing communications lines to be "rentable" he's decided that internet access is an information service instead of a communication service (or some semantic game like that) which basically allows the major ISPs to have as close to a monopoly as possible.
Without the core layer routers, root domain system, and communications backbone that the major corporations own and control the internet doesn't operate.
People often forget that the internet is more than just a bunch of computers connected together. It depends on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment that SOMEBODY has to buy and maintain.
They're coming out with a new wireless enabled Tablet PC that would be more or less perfect for this.
It's got a touchscreen making the keyboard and mouse completely uneccesary, and has an extremely complementary form factor.
See, in this context privatization simply means that when you need a road built in an area, whoever is commissioning the road hires a company to build it. Currently statewide DOT's handle road construction.
Interestingly, the roads would be privately owned. This would mean that there would be a definitive push to keep expenses down and quality up, or commuters will just use a different road.
I'll give you all the info on Standard Oils "monopoly" that you need.
At the time of it's breakup SO (standard oil) had over 200 competitors and the price of kerosene (a product that was perfected in SO laboratories) was the lowest that it ever has been in history.
Actually, the Branch Dividians were federally licensed firearms dealers if I recall correctly (I may not). Their "stockpile" is what most buisinessmen generally refer to as "inventory".
What if the majority thinks that freedom of thought should be legislated?
See, the entire point of this is to establish a system where the ground rules are set regardless of the feelings of the majority or minority.
Under your system racist lynch mobs would be perfectly fine as long as the majority supports them.
On the other hand, the free state/libertarian system is that as long as you aren't initiating force against somebody else, you're fine. If the majority don't like what you're doing, they can piss up a rope. As long as you aren't initiating force or fraud against somebody you're safe.
No. Once people start backing up their beliefs with the use of force thats when asses get kicked.
As soon as they get to the point of imprisoning people based on race that's when they've violated laws and the government steps in. That's what we believe the government to be there for.
And that is different from our current system how exactly??? Ever called the police in a poor area? Ever seen a fire in a poor area?
They don't respond too quickly.
Ever visited a public school in a poor area?
Not much education going on in there...
The biggest difference is that when services are privatized you don't see the waste that you do with socialized services.
You can bet that most things won't be handled on a strictly door to door basis either. It makes more sense for the fire company to put out your house fire for free (or what you can afford) than to let the fire spread to the neighbors who have paid for the service, just as it makes more sense to investigate your burgulary than it does to skip your house and only investigate the break-ins at "client houses" (do you see where this is leading?). In fact, it makes more sense for a *community* to hire a police and/or fire company.
Privatized doesn't neccesarily mean on an individual basis.
Things like fire and police are already staffed and organized on a community level. The only major difference would be that instead of supplying a police force from the academy a community could hire whatever security or fire service it wanted.
The idea being that the competitive market would bring down waste and thus cost.
No, Joe murders frank. Whatever company the community has contracted with to provide police/investigative services handles the investigation.
It's really not that far off from what we have today. In case you didn't know, there's no *requirement* for a municipality to have a police force (there's one right near where I live that doesn't have one). If a community *does* have a police force it's handled on the municipal level. The only real difference would be how the service was paid for.
It occurs to me... In point of fact it would be hypocritical for them to NOT adopt this stance.
To say that while you personally dislike racists, you won't encourage any legislation that restricts the freedom of rascists is not hypocricy. To say that you support freedom, but only for those who you agree with (what you advocate) IS hypocrisy.
See, that's just not correct. Democractic rule does not equal democratic tyrrany.
If racism isn't tolerated by the majority of society then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Any businesses that employ racist hiring practices won't get any business (P.S. boycotting is just abstaining from patronizing a certain establishment) because people won't patronize an establishment that they don't tolerate. So why pass a law about it?
As for hypocrisy, you just don't get it do you...? You very idea here is that the government should NOT be legislating things like that. That everybody should have the maximum amount of freedom possible.
This is exactly the type of thing that the country does far too much of already. Whatever people dislike they feel the need to legislate against. If you don't like racism, don't support it. Don't tell *other* people how they have to run their business or their life based on your personal feelings though. You wouldn't like it if the *majority* all of a sudden took issue with your musical preference and outlawed that would you?
And an employer shouldn't be free to hire whomever they want? A coffeeshop should't be free to serve whatever type of clientele they choose?
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Freedom isn't just freedom for those who you agree with.
As much as I hate to say it (as I really do despise racism and all of the bullshit it causes) a business owner should have as much freedom over who enters their establishment as you should have over who enters your house. If a business practices racist hiring policies, don't patronize them. Otherwise, as long as someone doesn't translate their personal feelings into violence or victimization they should be free to do whatever they want with their personal property.
Just like MLK Jr. did with the bus line, if you don't like their policies boycott them. If enough people agree with you then the company will either be forced to change their policies or go out of business.
It's not hypocritical at all. In fact, it's the entire point of the freedom movement. Private parties and organisations should be free to allow or disallow whomever they like, whereas the government should allow everyone to be as free as possible. Simply put, just because you may consider racism to be abhorent (as most sensible people do) does not mean that the government should legislate against it. Freedom does not just mean freedom for those who you agree with, it means (most importantly) freedom for those who you *don't* agree with.
ever hear this phrase?
I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The very fact that you don't understand this says alot.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see this doing really great things for video gaming, but beyond that I'm at a loss for where the practical application for this technology is.
Maybe I'm just behind the times, but is there really that much of a demand to be able to pretend to shake hands with somebody over the internet? Is it really useful?
I suppose this could be used to some degree in remote robotics, but even there it's a stretch.
Your thoughts?
Come on now, that's the lazy way!
How about citing an actual example of windows code bugs causing big problems? I'll go first. The USS Yorktown had to be towed back to harbor when the NT system that was automating most of the ship crashed.
Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you? Why aren't you spending every waking moment obsessing over a terrorist act purpetrated over a year ago by a small group of religious fanatics?
10 Years ago a Tablet PC would either be the size of todays Lunchbox PCs, the power of a Texas Instruments calculator, or absurdly expensive.
The technology just wasn't there to support a useful tablet PC back then. Not to mention computers hadn't become to ubiquitous and essential in our daily lives.
Being the first into a market doesn't do you any good if the market hasn't developed yet.
Unfortunately you can't take all of NASA's plans at face value. They also have a plan filed to start populating mars in 2018.
Were you seriously asking about how you would patronize another road? How do you patronize another road company now?
Roads in a community would have to be viewed as school districts are now. An aspect of the community to be considered when you move into an area.
I would guess however that at the community level things would be very similar to how they are now, with the community at large paying for roads.
Privatization of roads is more of an issue for larger roads.
"If UUNet suddenly died, ahem.. uh, let's try another example" Good one.
Well, we can thank the new FCC chairman/media bitch for what we're about to go through. Instead of enforcing the precedent of forcing communications lines to be "rentable" he's decided that internet access is an information service instead of a communication service (or some semantic game like that) which basically allows the major ISPs to have as close to a monopoly as possible.
Actually, ISPs DO control the internet...
Without the core layer routers, root domain system, and communications backbone that the major corporations own and control the internet doesn't operate.
People often forget that the internet is more than just a bunch of computers connected together. It depends on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment that SOMEBODY has to buy and maintain.
The funny thing is that I own a Phillips DVD player and IT can't play VCD either.
They're coming out with a new wireless enabled Tablet PC that would be more or less perfect for this.
It's got a touchscreen making the keyboard and mouse completely uneccesary, and has an extremely complementary form factor.
build a road out of your backyard.
See, in this context privatization simply means that when you need a road built in an area, whoever is commissioning the road hires a company to build it. Currently statewide DOT's handle road construction.
Interestingly, the roads would be privately owned. This would mean that there would be a definitive push to keep expenses down and quality up, or commuters will just use a different road.
I'll give you all the info on Standard Oils "monopoly" that you need.
At the time of it's breakup SO (standard oil) had over 200 competitors and the price of kerosene (a product that was perfected in SO laboratories) was the lowest that it ever has been in history.
Actually, the Branch Dividians were federally licensed firearms dealers if I recall correctly (I may not). Their "stockpile" is what most buisinessmen generally refer to as "inventory".
What if the majority thinks that freedom of thought should be legislated?
See, the entire point of this is to establish a system where the ground rules are set regardless of the feelings of the majority or minority.
Under your system racist lynch mobs would be perfectly fine as long as the majority supports them.
On the other hand, the free state/libertarian system is that as long as you aren't initiating force against somebody else, you're fine. If the majority don't like what you're doing, they can piss up a rope. As long as you aren't initiating force or fraud against somebody you're safe.
No. Once people start backing up their beliefs with the use of force thats when asses get kicked.
As soon as they get to the point of imprisoning people based on race that's when they've violated laws and the government steps in. That's what we believe the government to be there for.
And that is different from our current system how exactly??? Ever called the police in a poor area? Ever seen a fire in a poor area?
They don't respond too quickly.
Ever visited a public school in a poor area?
Not much education going on in there...
The biggest difference is that when services are privatized you don't see the waste that you do with socialized services.
You can bet that most things won't be handled on a strictly door to door basis either. It makes more sense for the fire company to put out your house fire for free (or what you can afford) than to let the fire spread to the neighbors who have paid for the service, just as it makes more sense to investigate your burgulary than it does to skip your house and only investigate the break-ins at "client houses" (do you see where this is leading?). In fact, it makes more sense for a *community* to hire a police and/or fire company.
Privatized doesn't neccesarily mean on an individual basis.
Things like fire and police are already staffed and organized on a community level. The only major difference would be that instead of supplying a police force from the academy a community could hire whatever security or fire service it wanted.
The idea being that the competitive market would bring down waste and thus cost.
No, Joe murders frank. Whatever company the community has contracted with to provide police/investigative services handles the investigation.
It's really not that far off from what we have today. In case you didn't know, there's no *requirement* for a municipality to have a police force (there's one right near where I live that doesn't have one). If a community *does* have a police force it's handled on the municipal level.
The only real difference would be how the service was paid for.
Ummmm, the central government doesn't provide your police force... that's a state/community deal.
It occurs to me... In point of fact it would be hypocritical for them to NOT adopt this stance.
To say that while you personally dislike racists, you won't encourage any legislation that restricts the freedom of rascists is not hypocricy. To say that you support freedom, but only for those who you agree with (what you advocate) IS hypocrisy.
See, that's just not correct. Democractic rule does not equal democratic tyrrany.
If racism isn't tolerated by the majority of society then it shouldn't be a problem, right? Any businesses that employ racist hiring practices won't get any business (P.S. boycotting is just abstaining from patronizing a certain establishment) because people won't patronize an establishment that they don't tolerate. So why pass a law about it?
As for hypocrisy, you just don't get it do you...? You very idea here is that the government should NOT be legislating things like that. That everybody should have the maximum amount of freedom possible.
This is exactly the type of thing that the country does far too much of already. Whatever people dislike they feel the need to legislate against. If you don't like racism, don't support it. Don't tell *other* people how they have to run their business or their life based on your personal feelings though. You wouldn't like it if the *majority* all of a sudden took issue with your musical preference and outlawed that would you?
And an employer shouldn't be free to hire whomever they want? A coffeeshop should't be free to serve whatever type of clientele they choose?
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Freedom isn't just freedom for those who you agree with.
As much as I hate to say it (as I really do despise racism and all of the bullshit it causes) a business owner should have as much freedom over who enters their establishment as you should have over who enters your house. If a business practices racist hiring policies, don't patronize them. Otherwise, as long as someone doesn't translate their personal feelings into violence or victimization they should be free to do whatever they want with their personal property.
Just like MLK Jr. did with the bus line, if you don't like their policies boycott them. If enough people agree with you then the company will either be forced to change their policies or go out of business.
It's not hypocritical at all. In fact, it's the entire point of the freedom movement. Private parties and organisations should be free to allow or disallow whomever they like, whereas the government should allow everyone to be as free as possible.
Simply put, just because you may consider racism to be abhorent (as most sensible people do) does not mean that the government should legislate against it. Freedom does not just mean freedom for those who you agree with, it means (most importantly) freedom for those who you *don't* agree with.
ever hear this phrase?
I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The very fact that you don't understand this says alot.