Yeah, lets disenfranchise all the idiots so poor that neither their parents nor their state provided school in the middle of a ghetto owns any computers.
If YOU were smart enough to know your history you would know about the multiple intelligence tests that certain southern gentleman used to keep blacks from voting.
Whats more, intelligence is not helpful in democracy. There is no way you can make the right decision by voting on it. Democracy is about FRANCHISING people - giving them power, not about making the right decisions. The side effects of spreading the power - decreasing the odds of a civil and increasing the factors considered by the powers that be - are far more important than the rather unimportant benefit of a smarter electorate.
Communism did not work in meat-reality for several basic reasons.
1. "...To each according to his needs." ignores luxury items, which no one needs, but people want. The existence of them makes people happy, and encourages work.
2. It discourages individuals from working hard, as you gain nothing by doing so. Only those with a huge altruistic streak, or similar need for approval have incentive to work.
3. "From each according to his capability". One of the major problems people have always had is to determine who is actually capable, as opposed to simply satisfactory. Capitalism, by offering HUGE incentives, tends to accurately discover who has capacity beyond minimal, while communism does not, resuolting in mediocre people being thought capable, thereby giving them authority.
When you look at the web as opposed to meat-world, certain realities appear.
First, everything on the web is at heart a luxury item. So what is going on is not "to each according to his needs", but instead "To each according to his desires."
Second, The work at heart is realtively easier and ENJOYABLE to some. Anyone that has spent an hour digging a hole and an hour writing code will tell you that. So you don't need to actually encourage people to work hard.
Third, capability on the web is easier to detect. More of it is one-person projects, and those are often signed. Software can be measured for speed, GUI can be easily be examined for ease of use.
Fourthly, most of what is offered on the web is relatively low value, not high value. Honestly, we use socialism a lot in the Meat world - for low value things. People don't pay money for a better subway seat. We use socialism to assign movie theater seats - people in wheel chairs get the wheel chair seats for free, they are not forced to pay more for them - even if they are in prime spots.
The web is not the meat-world. What works in one place will not work in the other.
That said, I find that capitalism still tends to triump over socialism even in the web for most areas where money, the requirement for capitalism, exists. No socialist effort is going to make a web site that beats Google, Apple's itune Store, or Amazon.
The majority of so called 'identicy theft' involves Social Security Numbers cases are the US government prosecuting illegal aliens who had ZERO desire to copy someone else's socal security number. They just wanted a job. The ability to validate social security numbers is EXTREMELY vital to both the illegal aliens and the government.
The numbers in your social security number mean things. By State originally. I am sure, IBM is at least including double-checking that information, to make sure that you can't type in 741-99-0000 and have the machine mistakenly think it is a valid social security number.
How do I know this? Because the numbers mean things, you can tell that certain things are obviously bad social security numbers. For example, no field can have all 0. 111-00-1111 has never been assigned. Similarly, no number above 740-##-#### has ever been assigned.
Wrong. The plot was not that at all.
It was the evolution of an independent, good skynet not affiliated with John Conner and whether it would join forces with John Conner or not.
You just missed all the side clues about Weaver and what was really going on.
What does a reasonable cop/prosecutor do when they come across an area labelled "Erotic Services"
Set up cameras
Set up stings
Thank the kind gentleman that segregated the illegal services, making it easier to do their job.
What do lazy fools that cares more about appearances than actually reducing illegal activies
Yell at them to take down that label in the moronic belief that removing a label will stop the illegal services.
When the coperate, yet for some reason the illegal services continue (but now harder to find - making the cops' work harder.), blame the property owners.
Demand they do the cop's jobs job instead of doing it themselves.
It doesn't matter whether the area is in the meat packing district of a city or online, the response is the same.
Frankly, the prosecutors/cops are acting look a lot like Chief Wiggum, not Elliot Ness. If I were their boss I would fire them for a combination of lazyness, stupidity, and waste.
There is a difference between a 10 year old kid threatening to beat up you and your mom and a professional soldier doing the same thing, while holding a loaded rifle.
It is legal and ethical for a non-monoplistic company to offer volume discounts.
It is NOT legal and NOT legal for the single biggest chip maker to insist you don't buy their competitor's product except in minimalistic amounts.
The differences are
1. Volume discounts are not affected by your purchases from a competitor. They are simple standardized discounts.
2.When you are so big and powerful that your clients literally fill threatened and has no choice but to acccept the terms of your contract, then yes the government DOES get to affect the terms of the contract.
Sometimes people lie and claim things like "To protect the children". But you don't see people outlawing drinking in America, which kills more children than video games. Nor do we put speed regulators on cars, preventing speeds above 40 mph.
The real reason we censor is to MIND CONTROL. Not the silly tin foil hat kind, but the real kind. The ability to affect attitudes. I am talking PR, not scientific rays.
PR works. You show pictures of the Vietnam war and the war ends.
The attempt to censor nudity is an attempt to make sex shameful. It is an outright attempt to twist the minds of a population against sex. It's a beg help when it comes to population control as well as STD control. Far better than silly "Abstience only" programs.
Similarly, the censorship of violence is an attempt to reduce aggression. Not physical aggression, because we are not trying to prevent physical aggression. Censorship of violent media is an attempt to reduce mental aggression. To put it in crass terms - an attempt to wussify people.
But these are complex social issues that have NOT been well thought out. The censorship resulted from old, conservative movements that are no longer as relevant. The anti-sex taboo was very helpfull back before we had effective birth control, just as the anti-violence taboo was very helpful back before we had an effective police force. It is particularly funny that he same people that are against condoms are in favor of the sex censorship. When you think about it, a condom is really censorship of the actual sex act. You can't even touch your partner with the part you most want to touch. As for aggression, a reduction of aggression would not only reduce violence but it also in police work, in the military, and in busienss.
The US government was founded on freedom of expression. It has NO business attempting to do any kind of censorship, particular ones that are as ill thought out as the sex based and the violence based.
1. ZERO graphic ads. You want ads? OK use text only, one color (not the same as the news articles), font SMALLER than the news articles. NO sound. No movement. Think Google search.
2. Totally customizable as to sections. We select what we see where. If we want the comics on the front page, we get that. This also means real categorizing, including the ability to eliminate 'soft' news crap like "the president bought a burger with the VP. If I want to waste my time reading junk I can go to FARK.
3. Also, any real political story should be done three times - once conservative, once liberal, once approved by both writers. No, Alan Colmes is NOT a liberal. If the liberal is consistently losing, get a better liberal. Once yo do that, WE select which of the three writeups we want to see.
4. The price to read? $1 to buy a week, or $30 to buy a year. Yeah, the fact that you aren't paying for printing, middleman, or delivery DOES mean we get it cheaper. Yes the fact that you get our money for the entire year DOES mean we get a discount.
5. Include video links, but only of news and all videos have a transcript that we can read instead of watch.
But the USA is not a pure democracy. It is a Democratic REPUBLIC. That is, we don't vote directly, we do it indirectly. We elect representatives - congressman to vote on the real issues. We don't even vote directly on who is president - we elect Electors to vote on that.
This means your entire concept falls apart. We vote for people NOT the issues. Unlike issues, you don't need an education to understand people. Some very uneducated people are very good at telling the difference between scum and an honorable man.
We also don't vote for people who sound intelligent. No. Instead we vote for people that appear to follow our basic moral ideals.
The intelligence part comes from winning the election. It doesn't matter how perfectly your moral ideals follow the general population - you need to convine smart people to help you plan your election and rich people to pay for it. Then you have to make your own decisions. Usually this means that you NEED to be intelligent to WIN the election. Not genius level, but above average.
End result we get a bunch of people that roughly follow our moral principals and are above average intelligence. THEY then vote on the issues.
But most importantly, you have STILL MISSED THE POINT
The point is NOT to get the best decision. NOT to get the best guy/right law. etc.
The point is to convince people not to start a civil war
because frankly, it is more imporant to avoid starting a civil war than it is to pass the right law
You have made a rather innane error. You think the purpose of Democracy is to make the correct choice - to pick the best person or the best policyu. WRONG!
The purpose of Democracy is two fold.
1. To reduce civil wars.
2. To force the government to at least TRY an pay attention to the nees of people besides those directly in power.
First, if you have enough men to fairly win a civil, then you should have enough men to win an election - with much less casualties. In other forms of government, you might have 90% of the population hating the leader, but without democracy the only way to remove them is to fight and die.
Second, a democracy requires the government to consider what everyone else thinks. In most other forms of government, who )(*&@ cares what the peasants thinks.
P.S. There is a third benefit that happens often, but not all the times. Democracies usually have voting fairly often, so it speeds up the process of removing the incompetent, as compared to many other forms. But this is not always the case.
Step 1. Remove all wireless capability.
Step 2. Use wax to seal all input devices except for the keyboard and the mouse.
Step 3. Put a GPS unit transponder inside the device, constantly broadcasting it's location.
The tool claims to be able to detect patterns that indicate files. So if you give them your first password, they can look for said patterns within the first encrypted file, thereby displaying that a second level of encryption exists.
OK, so the components cost X and the total, assembled, transported to user, advertised, with retail markup version costs twice X.
Seems totally normal to me.
It's not like clothing, where the cost after complete assembly is 1/10th the cost at retail sale.
Because as far as I can tell I am 'pathologically addicted' to:
The written word
Clothing
Housing
Electricity
Because I have lied about how much I use those things, use them to 'escape' my problems, become irritable if you take them away. (If you try to strip my clothing I will punch you.) I have also been known to avoid work to use electricity, read, etc. And trust me there are days when I use all four of those things and then do poorly at work.
Morons come up with a crappy definition then try to use it to attack things they dislike.
Google caches web sites. As such, the filter might block a web site, but you could get around it using google's cached sites.
Still, I'd think that Microsoft would at least expressly tell people WHY they are blocking their biggest competitor's web site.
The ability to see into the ultraviolet spectrum would be great. Of course, seeing all the bodily fluid stains that people had THOUGHT they cleaned up might be a bit disgusting.
In general, these things don't work that way. The Auto-immune diseases tend to be very specific, as do the transplant issues. It isn't really a single immune system, but multiple ones and that which affects the host vs graft problem does not affect most of the others.
For example, people with AIDS do NOT have an easier time accepting kidney transplants.
If what you say is in fact correct that seems to me to be a DAMNING CRITICISM of the MMPI.
If someone was STUPID enough to pull that crap with the SAT's, no college or university would use it.
Similarly, if you are correct, I find the MMPI people to be totally incompetent morons and I would further suggest that anyone that uses the test needs to have their head examined. Why? Here would be several theoretical conversations.
"Oh yes your honor, in my professional opinion, this patient is insane. No sir, I don't know why the first psychiatrist thought him sane, his score on the MMPI test I gave him indicates he is without totally unfit to stand trial. That first psychiatrist must have misread the MMPI."
(and vice versa if the crazy guy is sane enough to fake it.)
"See, the trick is simple Corporal Maxwell Klinger. If you want to get discharged, just study these answers and after you take the MMPI test, Sherman Potter will HAVE to let you go."
The problem is that the cameras COST you money if the lights are timed correctly. Study after study has shown that if an intersection is properly timed, the number of times people will run a red light is so low that it NEVER makes money. A red light camera costs MORE than $60,000. Even at $100 per ticket, that = 600 tickets.
Yes, there are cities where people routeinly run red lights. Those cities have neglected their lights. They don't coordinate them (light at 1st street turns green, then light at 2nd street, then light at 3rd, then light at 4th.) They don't install sensors to see if cars are present, they don't adjust up the yellow light time to the recommended 30 seconds. They don't put in left and/or right turn lights long enough for the traffic at the light. They simply do NOT handle their lights correctly. Then and ONLY then does the community develop a culture of running red lights.
Running a red light is a TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT problem, not a funding idea.
P.S. I don't own a car and have not driven one in over 10 years. I have never been in a car that ran a red light and had the photo taken.
Slashdot Mirror
If YOU were smart enough to know your history you would know about the multiple intelligence tests that certain southern gentleman used to keep blacks from voting.
Whats more, intelligence is not helpful in democracy. There is no way you can make the right decision by voting on it. Democracy is about FRANCHISING people - giving them power, not about making the right decisions. The side effects of spreading the power - decreasing the odds of a civil and increasing the factors considered by the powers that be - are far more important than the rather unimportant benefit of a smarter electorate.
1. "...To each according to his needs." ignores luxury items, which no one needs, but people want. The existence of them makes people happy, and encourages work.
2. It discourages individuals from working hard, as you gain nothing by doing so. Only those with a huge altruistic streak, or similar need for approval have incentive to work.
3. "From each according to his capability". One of the major problems people have always had is to determine who is actually capable, as opposed to simply satisfactory. Capitalism, by offering HUGE incentives, tends to accurately discover who has capacity beyond minimal, while communism does not, resuolting in mediocre people being thought capable, thereby giving them authority.
When you look at the web as opposed to meat-world, certain realities appear.
First, everything on the web is at heart a luxury item. So what is going on is not "to each according to his needs", but instead "To each according to his desires."
Second, The work at heart is realtively easier and ENJOYABLE to some. Anyone that has spent an hour digging a hole and an hour writing code will tell you that. So you don't need to actually encourage people to work hard.
Third, capability on the web is easier to detect. More of it is one-person projects, and those are often signed. Software can be measured for speed, GUI can be easily be examined for ease of use.
Fourthly, most of what is offered on the web is relatively low value, not high value. Honestly, we use socialism a lot in the Meat world - for low value things. People don't pay money for a better subway seat. We use socialism to assign movie theater seats - people in wheel chairs get the wheel chair seats for free, they are not forced to pay more for them - even if they are in prime spots.
The web is not the meat-world. What works in one place will not work in the other.
That said, I find that capitalism still tends to triump over socialism even in the web for most areas where money, the requirement for capitalism, exists. No socialist effort is going to make a web site that beats Google, Apple's itune Store, or Amazon.
Techincally, Communism it the political structure, socialism is the economic structure. As such, socialism can be anarchy.
The majority of so called 'identicy theft' involves Social Security Numbers cases are the US government prosecuting illegal aliens who had ZERO desire to copy someone else's socal security number. They just wanted a job. The ability to validate social security numbers is EXTREMELY vital to both the illegal aliens and the government.
You can read more about it here
Wrong. The plot was not that at all. It was the evolution of an independent, good skynet not affiliated with John Conner and whether it would join forces with John Conner or not. You just missed all the side clues about Weaver and what was really going on.
What do lazy fools that cares more about appearances than actually reducing illegal activies
It doesn't matter whether the area is in the meat packing district of a city or online, the response is the same.
Frankly, the prosecutors/cops are acting look a lot like Chief Wiggum, not Elliot Ness. If I were their boss I would fire them for a combination of lazyness, stupidity, and waste.
It is legal and ethical for a non-monoplistic company to offer volume discounts.
It is NOT legal and NOT legal for the single biggest chip maker to insist you don't buy their competitor's product except in minimalistic amounts.
The differences are
1. Volume discounts are not affected by your purchases from a competitor. They are simple standardized discounts.
2.When you are so big and powerful that your clients literally fill threatened and has no choice but to acccept the terms of your contract, then yes the government DOES get to affect the terms of the contract.
Sometimes people lie and claim things like "To protect the children". But you don't see people outlawing drinking in America, which kills more children than video games. Nor do we put speed regulators on cars, preventing speeds above 40 mph.
The real reason we censor is to MIND CONTROL. Not the silly tin foil hat kind, but the real kind. The ability to affect attitudes. I am talking PR, not scientific rays.
PR works. You show pictures of the Vietnam war and the war ends.
The attempt to censor nudity is an attempt to make sex shameful. It is an outright attempt to twist the minds of a population against sex. It's a beg help when it comes to population control as well as STD control. Far better than silly "Abstience only" programs.
Similarly, the censorship of violence is an attempt to reduce aggression. Not physical aggression, because we are not trying to prevent physical aggression. Censorship of violent media is an attempt to reduce mental aggression. To put it in crass terms - an attempt to wussify people.
But these are complex social issues that have NOT been well thought out. The censorship resulted from old, conservative movements that are no longer as relevant. The anti-sex taboo was very helpfull back before we had effective birth control, just as the anti-violence taboo was very helpful back before we had an effective police force. It is particularly funny that he same people that are against condoms are in favor of the sex censorship. When you think about it, a condom is really censorship of the actual sex act. You can't even touch your partner with the part you most want to touch. As for aggression, a reduction of aggression would not only reduce violence but it also in police work, in the military, and in busienss.
The US government was founded on freedom of expression. It has NO business attempting to do any kind of censorship, particular ones that are as ill thought out as the sex based and the violence based.
2. Totally customizable as to sections. We select what we see where. If we want the comics on the front page, we get that. This also means real categorizing, including the ability to eliminate 'soft' news crap like "the president bought a burger with the VP. If I want to waste my time reading junk I can go to FARK.
3. Also, any real political story should be done three times - once conservative, once liberal, once approved by both writers. No, Alan Colmes is NOT a liberal. If the liberal is consistently losing, get a better liberal. Once yo do that, WE select which of the three writeups we want to see.
4. The price to read? $1 to buy a week, or $30 to buy a year. Yeah, the fact that you aren't paying for printing, middleman, or delivery DOES mean we get it cheaper. Yes the fact that you get our money for the entire year DOES mean we get a discount.
5. Include video links, but only of news and all videos have a transcript that we can read instead of watch.
But the USA is not a pure democracy. It is a Democratic REPUBLIC. That is, we don't vote directly, we do it indirectly. We elect representatives - congressman to vote on the real issues. We don't even vote directly on who is president - we elect Electors to vote on that.
This means your entire concept falls apart. We vote for people NOT the issues. Unlike issues, you don't need an education to understand people. Some very uneducated people are very good at telling the difference between scum and an honorable man.
We also don't vote for people who sound intelligent. No. Instead we vote for people that appear to follow our basic moral ideals.
The intelligence part comes from winning the election. It doesn't matter how perfectly your moral ideals follow the general population - you need to convine smart people to help you plan your election and rich people to pay for it. Then you have to make your own decisions. Usually this means that you NEED to be intelligent to WIN the election. Not genius level, but above average.
End result we get a bunch of people that roughly follow our moral principals and are above average intelligence. THEY then vote on the issues.
But most importantly, you have STILL MISSED THE POINT The point is NOT to get the best decision. NOT to get the best guy/right law. etc.
The point is to convince people not to start a civil war
because frankly, it is more imporant to avoid starting a civil war than it is to pass the right law
The purpose of Democracy is two fold.
1. To reduce civil wars.
2. To force the government to at least TRY an pay attention to the nees of people besides those directly in power.
First, if you have enough men to fairly win a civil, then you should have enough men to win an election - with much less casualties. In other forms of government, you might have 90% of the population hating the leader, but without democracy the only way to remove them is to fight and die.
Second, a democracy requires the government to consider what everyone else thinks. In most other forms of government, who )(*&@ cares what the peasants thinks.
P.S. There is a third benefit that happens often, but not all the times. Democracies usually have voting fairly often, so it speeds up the process of removing the incompetent, as compared to many other forms. But this is not always the case.
Step 1. Remove all wireless capability. Step 2. Use wax to seal all input devices except for the keyboard and the mouse. Step 3. Put a GPS unit transponder inside the device, constantly broadcasting it's location.
The article may in fact just be an advertisement, created for commercial gain.
But it was posted because I personally read it and was interested in it.
The tool claims to be able to detect patterns that indicate files. So if you give them your first password, they can look for said patterns within the first encrypted file, thereby displaying that a second level of encryption exists.
OK, so the components cost X and the total, assembled, transported to user, advertised, with retail markup version costs twice X. Seems totally normal to me. It's not like clothing, where the cost after complete assembly is 1/10th the cost at retail sale.
The written word
Clothing
Housing
Electricity
Because I have lied about how much I use those things, use them to 'escape' my problems, become irritable if you take them away. (If you try to strip my clothing I will punch you.) I have also been known to avoid work to use electricity, read, etc. And trust me there are days when I use all four of those things and then do poorly at work.
Morons come up with a crappy definition then try to use it to attack things they dislike.
Google caches web sites. As such, the filter might block a web site, but you could get around it using google's cached sites. Still, I'd think that Microsoft would at least expressly tell people WHY they are blocking their biggest competitor's web site.
The ability to see into the ultraviolet spectrum would be great. Of course, seeing all the bodily fluid stains that people had THOUGHT they cleaned up might be a bit disgusting.
how long before some idiot decides he can patent this idea.
In general, these things don't work that way. The Auto-immune diseases tend to be very specific, as do the transplant issues. It isn't really a single immune system, but multiple ones and that which affects the host vs graft problem does not affect most of the others. For example, people with AIDS do NOT have an easier time accepting kidney transplants.
It showed on on April 1. As in April Fool's day. As in you have been fooled.
I suspect that this feature will go away on April 2nd. Don't be fooled.
If someone was STUPID enough to pull that crap with the SAT's, no college or university would use it.
Similarly, if you are correct, I find the MMPI people to be totally incompetent morons and I would further suggest that anyone that uses the test needs to have their head examined. Why? Here would be several theoretical conversations.
"Oh yes your honor, in my professional opinion, this patient is insane. No sir, I don't know why the first psychiatrist thought him sane, his score on the MMPI test I gave him indicates he is without totally unfit to stand trial. That first psychiatrist must have misread the MMPI."
(and vice versa if the crazy guy is sane enough to fake it.)
"See, the trick is simple Corporal Maxwell Klinger. If you want to get discharged, just study these answers and after you take the MMPI test, Sherman Potter will HAVE to let you go."
Yes, there are cities where people routeinly run red lights. Those cities have neglected their lights. They don't coordinate them (light at 1st street turns green, then light at 2nd street, then light at 3rd, then light at 4th.) They don't install sensors to see if cars are present, they don't adjust up the yellow light time to the recommended 30 seconds. They don't put in left and/or right turn lights long enough for the traffic at the light. They simply do NOT handle their lights correctly. Then and ONLY then does the community develop a culture of running red lights.
Running a red light is a TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT problem, not a funding idea.
P.S. I don't own a car and have not driven one in over 10 years. I have never been in a car that ran a red light and had the photo taken.