You're right that religion would probably want to ban certain pornography but I'm more worried about those who would start censoring things that aren't politically correct. That can really get out of hand when they start censoring certain political beliefs because the line is very vague. Soon you feel like you're living in the Soviet Union.
Word is good because when it comes time to show your book to other people and get them to submit in-document comments/changes, you'll find that no one else has Adobe Professional or other software packages, but everyone has Word. Also, Word is pretty easy to use for the average writer.
Once the text is complete it's easy to move to another program if you want a fancier layout.
No you don't. As long as market entry is open you will always have competition. And not just in the airline sector. Airplanes also compete with trains, cars, boats, etc... If they go to high, people stay home, so they also compete with "staying home". They can't just raise prices willy nilly or they will lose customers.
--"I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive."
A few things. First, the company is owned by someone else. It is their property; not the property of you or your uncle or the government. And like all property, they can operate it as they see fit and you are free to leave at any time. Second, unions make a company uncompetitive. They restrict how much you can automate things, who you can fire, what you can pay. This leads to companies being uncompetitive and going out of business - and then EVERYONE loses.
Americans just have a better understanding of freedom and how freedom actually works. Someone like Ron Paul is a stalwart example of this. I've seen very few Europeans who grasp these concepts, probably because their state-based education system was too powerful with the mind control.
--"At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals."
Yes, lord help us if the consumer actually got cheaper airline tickets. Thank God the government "helped" us by making prices more expensive than they had to be.
"The point is, WHO is to be the arbiter of "truth"? And how do we know they won't have a political agenda?"
That's a profound question and one that I wonder if Berners-Lee understands. I would not trust any single entity to tell me what is true and what is not. Even scientists have a hard time nailing down truth in anything but the absolute hard-sciences like math, physics and chemistry. If you move to a rating system then again you have the problem of cults like 9-11 Truthers dominating. I don't think "truth" is a problem that will ever be solved.
Can we just depower government somehow so we don't have to keep preventing them from doing stupid things all the time? I think Ron Paul was right. We need to constitutionally limit all government and then we won't have to watch them so closely and we can get back to doing things that matter.
I don't like that solution at all. You shouldn't encourage people to use less bandwidth because that will just kill the potential new products that use bandwidth. I'd like to see even more things using internet bandwidth, like my mailbox, my car, television, etc... Just let the free markets continue to evolve and come up with faster hardware as they always have in the past. I can't believe how fast it is compared to five years ago. Remember modems? Usually slowness has to do with the server, not the infrastructure. The article is a little misleading.
Cerf can be optimistic about future innovation with the Internet as long as we don't do something stupid like government regulated net-neutrality. That will only stifle innovation, as Bob Kahn and other Internet pioneers have pointed out. In other words, as long as Cerf ignores his own advice we will all be fine.
I see your point on that one. I think it comes down to he doesn't want to penalize his constituents for voting for him so he sticks earmarks in to get them some of their tax money back. He had difficulty explaining this on Meet the Press, but I think that's what it came down to. He's not 100% perfect, I'll grant you that, but he's the closest thing out there.
Why include Giuliani and Thompson and not Ron Paul? I would rather see Ron Paul than those other two who Ron Paul consistently beat. He was kicking butt in terms of Google searches.
Look, if you or anyone else thinks they can offer better service than the current providers and still make a profit, be my guest. They don't have some sort of magic pixie dust that allows them to operate their businesses. Start your business and offer your superior service to a small area (wireless or whatever you choose - say to a suburb in Toronto). If your customers like what you are offering, chances are others will too. There is nothing preventing someone else entering the market - unless it is some stupid government regulation (which of course should be eliminated).
BTW According to this there are 41 ISP's just in Edmonton. And not one of them does what you want?
http://www.canadianisp.com/cgi-bin/ispsearch.cgi
You don't want to get the government involved at all. It is a voluntary transaction between you and your provider. The government doesn't and shouldn't be involved in the transaction. The only reason the government should ever get involved is if your rights are being infringed. They aren't from what you described. If you don't like a product or service, don't buy it. If you think you can do better, offer your own service - provided the government doesn't have any idiot regulations to prevent it from being a truly open industry.
Don't complain to the government! Complain to your provider and tell them you will quit with them unless they do whatever it is you are complaining about (I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is as I do P2P, file sharing and have had no problems whatsoever with my provider). Any threat at losing business really motivates them.
If there is general unhappiness with cable and DSL, then there is an opportunity for others to come along with different technology. I'm thinking wireless. Me, I use DSL and love it. It suits my needs fine.
If you don't like what Rogers is doing to you you have two options:
1) Registera complaint with them
2) Change providers.
I live in Canada and happen to know there are a lot to choose from.
If abolishing the central bank is crazy, why did the USA enjoy their largest rise in wealth during the years when there was no central bank? How did things work fine without it? Why did the great depression happen a short time after the central bank came along?
If the gold standard is so bad, why did the USA become so prosperous while using the gold standard?
In parallel with this, why was the US education the best in the world *before* they introduced the Federal board of education in the early 1970's? Why has it been downhill since?
Like most Americans, don't want to break out of a rut. Habits are powerful things to break. Yes, technology has increased since then which makes people think it was all good, but *growth* did not. We would be in a far better technological situation if we didn't have these drains on wealth and education.
The problem isn't that it's underfunded. The problem is that it is a government agency. All government agencies grow all out of proportion to their usefulness and they are incredibly inefficient. Solution: Get rid of it or drastically downsize like 80%.
Re:Emphasis on the light, please.
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
If this plan is so realistic, then why don't you give the vertical farm a try and see if it works? If everything you say is true, you will make more money than a real farmer. If, as I believe, this is more California Dreaming technology, then there isn't a hope in hell this thing would be profitable. I don't think the economics are there.
I have no problem with that at all because (and this is important) *it is not coming from the government*!!! There is no government decree that all news must be 50% positive. It is a private owner who can frankly do what he likes. It is his business. He owns it, he runs it, he calls the shots. If he loses subscribers because of his decision, so be it.
Sorry, but your understanding of private property is pretty weak. If I work hard, work smart, and build up my own business, I'm not "ripping off" people. I'm selling them something they can voluntarily choose to purchase. And the business is mine, not set up so someone else can skim off my profits and use it to fund their own pet projects. If you want to make something, make it self sustaining otherwise there is probably no real use for it in the world. Anything that people care about has value, and will be self sustaining one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that religion would probably want to ban certain pornography but I'm more worried about those who would start censoring things that aren't politically correct. That can really get out of hand when they start censoring certain political beliefs because the line is very vague. Soon you feel like you're living in the Soviet Union.
Word is good because when it comes time to show your book to other people and get them to submit in-document comments/changes, you'll find that no one else has Adobe Professional or other software packages, but everyone has Word. Also, Word is pretty easy to use for the average writer. Once the text is complete it's easy to move to another program if you want a fancier layout.
No you don't. As long as market entry is open you will always have competition. And not just in the airline sector. Airplanes also compete with trains, cars, boats, etc... If they go to high, people stay home, so they also compete with "staying home". They can't just raise prices willy nilly or they will lose customers.
It's because he is sick and getting worse. Publicly traded companies keep these kinds of secrets.
--"I also find it odd that so many americans find the very idea (of workers gathering together to form a stronger position for bargaining with employers) somehow offensive." A few things. First, the company is owned by someone else. It is their property; not the property of you or your uncle or the government. And like all property, they can operate it as they see fit and you are free to leave at any time. Second, unions make a company uncompetitive. They restrict how much you can automate things, who you can fire, what you can pay. This leads to companies being uncompetitive and going out of business - and then EVERYONE loses. Americans just have a better understanding of freedom and how freedom actually works. Someone like Ron Paul is a stalwart example of this. I've seen very few Europeans who grasp these concepts, probably because their state-based education system was too powerful with the mind control.
--"At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals." Yes, lord help us if the consumer actually got cheaper airline tickets. Thank God the government "helped" us by making prices more expensive than they had to be.
"The point is, WHO is to be the arbiter of "truth"? And how do we know they won't have a political agenda?" That's a profound question and one that I wonder if Berners-Lee understands. I would not trust any single entity to tell me what is true and what is not. Even scientists have a hard time nailing down truth in anything but the absolute hard-sciences like math, physics and chemistry. If you move to a rating system then again you have the problem of cults like 9-11 Truthers dominating. I don't think "truth" is a problem that will ever be solved.
Can we just depower government somehow so we don't have to keep preventing them from doing stupid things all the time? I think Ron Paul was right. We need to constitutionally limit all government and then we won't have to watch them so closely and we can get back to doing things that matter.
I don't like that solution at all. You shouldn't encourage people to use less bandwidth because that will just kill the potential new products that use bandwidth. I'd like to see even more things using internet bandwidth, like my mailbox, my car, television, etc... Just let the free markets continue to evolve and come up with faster hardware as they always have in the past. I can't believe how fast it is compared to five years ago. Remember modems? Usually slowness has to do with the server, not the infrastructure. The article is a little misleading.
Like he's this awesome dude, man!
Isn't Ragnar a character from Atlas Shrugged?
Cerf can be optimistic about future innovation with the Internet as long as we don't do something stupid like government regulated net-neutrality. That will only stifle innovation, as Bob Kahn and other Internet pioneers have pointed out. In other words, as long as Cerf ignores his own advice we will all be fine.
I see your point on that one. I think it comes down to he doesn't want to penalize his constituents for voting for him so he sticks earmarks in to get them some of their tax money back. He had difficulty explaining this on Meet the Press, but I think that's what it came down to. He's not 100% perfect, I'll grant you that, but he's the closest thing out there.
Why include Giuliani and Thompson and not Ron Paul? I would rather see Ron Paul than those other two who Ron Paul consistently beat. He was kicking butt in terms of Google searches.
Look, if you or anyone else thinks they can offer better service than the current providers and still make a profit, be my guest. They don't have some sort of magic pixie dust that allows them to operate their businesses. Start your business and offer your superior service to a small area (wireless or whatever you choose - say to a suburb in Toronto). If your customers like what you are offering, chances are others will too. There is nothing preventing someone else entering the market - unless it is some stupid government regulation (which of course should be eliminated). BTW According to this there are 41 ISP's just in Edmonton. And not one of them does what you want? http://www.canadianisp.com/cgi-bin/ispsearch.cgi
You don't want to get the government involved at all. It is a voluntary transaction between you and your provider. The government doesn't and shouldn't be involved in the transaction. The only reason the government should ever get involved is if your rights are being infringed. They aren't from what you described. If you don't like a product or service, don't buy it. If you think you can do better, offer your own service - provided the government doesn't have any idiot regulations to prevent it from being a truly open industry.
Don't complain to the government! Complain to your provider and tell them you will quit with them unless they do whatever it is you are complaining about (I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is as I do P2P, file sharing and have had no problems whatsoever with my provider). Any threat at losing business really motivates them.
If there is general unhappiness with cable and DSL, then there is an opportunity for others to come along with different technology. I'm thinking wireless. Me, I use DSL and love it. It suits my needs fine.
If you don't like what Rogers is doing to you you have two options: 1) Registera complaint with them 2) Change providers. I live in Canada and happen to know there are a lot to choose from.
If abolishing the central bank is crazy, why did the USA enjoy their largest rise in wealth during the years when there was no central bank? How did things work fine without it? Why did the great depression happen a short time after the central bank came along? If the gold standard is so bad, why did the USA become so prosperous while using the gold standard? In parallel with this, why was the US education the best in the world *before* they introduced the Federal board of education in the early 1970's? Why has it been downhill since? Like most Americans, don't want to break out of a rut. Habits are powerful things to break. Yes, technology has increased since then which makes people think it was all good, but *growth* did not. We would be in a far better technological situation if we didn't have these drains on wealth and education.
The problem isn't that it's underfunded. The problem is that it is a government agency. All government agencies grow all out of proportion to their usefulness and they are incredibly inefficient. Solution: Get rid of it or drastically downsize like 80%.
If this plan is so realistic, then why don't you give the vertical farm a try and see if it works? If everything you say is true, you will make more money than a real farmer. If, as I believe, this is more California Dreaming technology, then there isn't a hope in hell this thing would be profitable. I don't think the economics are there.
As the article states, Bill Gates never made that comment. It's just more misinformation from people who see him as a favorite target.
I have no problem with that at all because (and this is important) *it is not coming from the government*!!! There is no government decree that all news must be 50% positive. It is a private owner who can frankly do what he likes. It is his business. He owns it, he runs it, he calls the shots. If he loses subscribers because of his decision, so be it.
Sorry, but your understanding of private property is pretty weak. If I work hard, work smart, and build up my own business, I'm not "ripping off" people. I'm selling them something they can voluntarily choose to purchase. And the business is mine, not set up so someone else can skim off my profits and use it to fund their own pet projects. If you want to make something, make it self sustaining otherwise there is probably no real use for it in the world. Anything that people care about has value, and will be self sustaining one way or another.