you know that you can usually get a larger version of a myspace cdn image by changing m to l (or s to l as the situation requires), instead of stalking the private myspace of your "ex" to get thumbnail profile pictures.
I wish Obama would just come out and say we're leaving Iraq. We lost. Iran won. End of story.
umm... I wish Obama would come out and say* that there was never anything to win in Iraq. what the hell are they trying to win, exactly? no one ever asks that, and that's strange, because I don't think anyone has ever told me. anyway, of course he won't do that, because he's just like the rest of them. he doesn't want to leave Iraq; in fact, he most likely wants to extend our warring efforts to Pakistan and Iran. he wants to do whatever the Israel lobby tells him. boy, those guys sure do have a lot of money.
* as if saying is doing, anyway. political elections are a popularity contest, and there's really nothing to go on but voting record, which for most politicians is completely contradictory and inconsistent, and doesn't actually say anything about what will happen in the future either (our political process is dependent upon character judgement -- hilarious).
indeed. I feel quite the same way as yourself, and I barely even watch television. I had never even HEARD of an ACORN or the whole "obama is a terrorist" thing or almost ANYTHING going on in the McCain/Palin popularity celebrity whatever contest until a few days ago on YouTube.
I wouldn't vote for either major party candidate for nearly the same reasons. but I guess I have a "liberal propaganda" bias to go along with my "conservative propaganda" bias.
you're correct. it should obviously be "his (or her)." or it should be "his (and I'm pandering to stupid fucking politically correct dipshit faggots)."
I use both noscript and flashblock. flashblock handles youtube videos and such much better than noscript ever could, because the DOM still loads and doesn't require a page reload. I just have to click on the icon. not only that, but flashblock works on a per-object basis, so that I can load up as many youtube tabs as I want without having 25 videos trying to play at once. I much prefer that than to have youtube videos load as soon as I open them, and that seems like that would be quite useful for this guy as well.
Several people did. I registered several.god domains under ORSC a long time ago, which is pretty much meaningless. (I knew that, of course, but was just bored)
Would you find this joke equally funny if you switched to an anatomical reference about black people? How about Jewish or Chinese?
I would. (to be sure we're clear: it wasn't funny. but if it were funny, I'd still find it equally funny if he had made some reference to niggers or jews [and what the hell is so special about either of them anyway?]).
I once heard someone in advertising say that some of the easiest people to manipulate are the ones who are convinced that they're too smart (or whatever) to be manipulated.
Smaller companies with better products can be crushed through anti-competitive practices that only a bigger, well-established company could pull off. We're on Slashdot so I shouldn't have to point out any examples.
actually, you should. but assuming you do, here is what my response will be (this might save you the trouble): so?
Does the ISP changing a few settings on their switches to throttle inter-ISP traffic out of their own free will (with no regulation to prevent it) count as regulation? I thought libertarians are against regulation. Therefore this regulation must be stopped - ISPs must not be allowed to change the settings on their equipment to cause their service to act in an anti-competitive manner. BUT WAIT, that's regulation!
So if both of those actions are regulation, your ideology has been thrown into a paradox, have a nice day:)
zomg you're clever. zing!! an ISP doing anything doesn't count as anything except an ISP doing something. is that how you think barriers to entry are created? by changing "switching settings?" not only is it now evident that you have no clue about networking technology or infrastracture, but also no clue about what I'm saying.
ISPs are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with their own equipment, which is hilariously the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. network neutrality isn't regulation of what an ISP is allowed to do with its lines, but what it ISN'T allowed to do. if, somehow, upgrading equipment or changing settings results in smaller ISPs being destroyed, then how is that not just? that isn't a barrier to entry; that's competition.
Only tap your brakes light enough to trigger the lights, let friction slow you down. They'll catch on.
or not, because they're bad drivers. what makes you think I don't do that already? it never works, because no one cares; they're horrible drivers, likely as you are.
Now if they are also tailgating you, then you have 2 choices: A) Speed up
yes, because my speed should be dictated by others who are impatient. and where would I go, geekoid?
When every one around you seems to be a fucking retard, it's YOU who is the fucking retard.
that's sound logic, chief. or maybe not.
most people actually are stupid. but let's assume they aren't. does it make sense to proclaim that N is true because X is true? no. the two things have no relationship, except in the mind of "geekoid on slashdot." congratulations.
Uh... brake, slowly? So that the guy behind you will have time to back off and you'll get a gap between you and the guy in front.
I don't think you get it. an overwhelming majority of drivers are just clueless idiots who aren't paying attention and/or DON'T care. they don't back off if you slow down, because they don't care. they wouldn't be that close in the first place, if they did. it's already dangerous, wreckless driving to be so close to another car, especially at highway speeds, so what makes you think that they're suddenly going to behave differently based on some arbitrary sequence of actions taken by myself? not only that, but it's not just ONE occurence. it happens over and over again, because there are so many people who do this. and even if your solution works, there's a good chance of eventual failure due to the sheer number of people who tailgate like that -- people who are endangering themselves, myself, and others.
Most people that drive 5 feet up another car's ass is because they want to pass it
perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but wouldn't it make more sense to stay much further behind a car you want to pass, in order to provide yourself more room for performing such a maneuver? something tells me you might not be such a great driver yourself (not that I am, either, but I am careful).
so because a guy is riding 5 feet up a truck's ass you're going to pass it AND the truck (since there's no space in betwee), probably on the same clearing as the other guy will want to pass the same truck? With the same guy still behind you? Let me try to explain to you what that looks like from his angle.
I didn't say I'm going to do anything, but merely that most people are very bad drivers, and that it's scary. why do you feel the need to inject things into my post? my solution is actually to refrain from driving as much as possible, because it's an inherently dangerous thing to do (that doesn't mean I go out of my way to avoid potentialities; I am not a crazy person [or maybe I am, but not for that reason]).
"Well, I was getting ready to pass that truck, I was up close and ready waiting for a gap in traffic, when this crazy fucker comes from behind at a huge speed and whizzes past.
actually, since I'm a rather cautious driver, when I've gotten into that situation and DID enter the fast lane, here is the procedure I took:
turn on my signal light. patiently merge into the left hand lane, slowly, ensuring that there is no traffic nearby in that lane. give some time to determine whether or not the person in the lane to my right is going to merge over or not, and to allow them to recognize my presence now in the opposite lane. if they do not pass, slowly move to pass, myself.
how difficult is that for you to understand? you sound like a really horrible driver who is causing me so much agony, and I wish you would stay off the road. please do.
P.S. A few pointers: A heavily loaded truck brakes slower than a regular car. Truck drivers usually have many road miles and rarely do brainfart maneuvers. They have high taillights so not only the closest car but probably you and a few behind you all realize it's breaking and slow down. A breaking car will almost certainly stop before a car in front that's lost control and isn't breaking - it's conservation of momentum. Personally, I'd worry a lot more if I just passed a truck and had to break hard - that is actually the most dangerous place to be.
that might be the prevailing wisdom of a crowd exiting a Smokey and the Bandit matinee, but it isn't reality. truck drivers are some of the worst offenders I have ever seen. they have no courtesy whatsoever, and why should they have to? it is very typical to see trucks riding side by side, taking up the entire freeway, at rather slow speeds. some trucks even cruise in the fast lane without regard to logic. that might have something to do with the fact that truck drivers are probably very tired and spaced out or heavily drugged to keep them awake. but you're begging the question. I don't accept your premise at all.
Sometimes you need government intervention to correct previous government intervention. In fact, that's the whole problem with government intervention in the market.
I disagree. when does that end? better to end it while you can. "we said we'd fix something but fucked up and caused something else that needs fixing so we want to fix it give us another chance" isn't exactly logically sound, if you ask me.
To me, the free market doesn't necessarily mean that I have any particular number of competitors to choose from (though admittedly, it's hard to call it a "free market" when there's only one business in the market). Instead, I would say that it has to do with how free I am to choose between those competitors, and just as importantly, how possible it is for a new competitor to enter the market.
To my mind, you could have 5 or 50 businesses competing in the market, but if it's difficult or impossible for a startup company to enter into the market and compete based on their competency rather than connections/influence, then it's not really a free market.
right.
In the case of the Internet, however, the market is already not-free. Often there is government control (at some level of government) over who can dig ditches to lay cable. There's government control over who can use which radio frequencies to transmit data over the air. These government controls help reenforce the current big competitors and increase the barrier to enter the market, making it less free to begin with.
exactly right.
I'm not in favor of excessive regulation, but I think it's a horrible idea for government to interfere with a market without regulating the results. They should not give subsidies and special consideration to certain specific companies, giving those companies undo advantages, and then not regulate the effect it has on those companies respective markets.
the bolded part is right, but I don't see how you draw your conclusion. it makes sense on the surface, but why not eliminate the root of the problem to begin with? it's like giving people more and more medicines to dull the pain of a broken bone instead of repairing the bone outright (if we could do that, and maybe you're suggesting that we can't get rid of government regulations? nevertheless, it doesn't make it any more sensible or right to keep piling them on -- let's remove them where we can [and start protecting our constitution {assuming you're from the same country I'm from}]).
When the population density is really low (like in some rural areas), an ISP doesn't make profit.
does it really matter? what you people are suggesting is that, because an ISP can't make a profit in a big area and you think everyone should have free, unrestricted internet access, that you should somehow be able to force private entities into providing that service for you. please explain that to me.
if you're in a rural area and you expect something that's infeasible to be feasible just because you want it, then maybe you should kill yourself. if it really matters that much to you, then move. yes, that is incredibly impractical, but so is living in a rural area and expecting something that isn't possible. the right thing to do in that scenario isn't to tell other people to give you what you want or they go to jail.
If free market reigned unrestrained, only highly profitable areas would have internet connection and/or rural areas would have to pay outrageous rates for it.
which sounds incredibly fair to me. it doesn't to you?
The problem is that when you turn the market into a free-for-all, the bigger and better-established companies rapidly outcompete the smaller ones, monopolies or cartels form
that's right. bigger, established companies outcompete small companies. good logic there, chief!! now explain to me the problem with that, because I don't see one. SHOULDN'T a more established company outcompete a less established one? isn't that why they're established? if you want to compete with these businesses, you need to provide an interesting, original service to give people a REASON for using it. quite clearly, if small businesses are being outcompeted, then most people really don't seem to care about what they're providin (unrestricted internet access, in this case). that is how the market works. would I prefer if the market went a different way? well, yes, but that's not up to me, and neither is it up to you. one person isn't able to dictate how our society is run based solely on what we perceive as ideal, and boy are we fortunate for that. imagine if someone thought the exact OPPOSITE to an open internet were ideal? then where would we be?
the only way to allow for ALL ideas to coexist with the least possible friction is to support all ideas, not to enforce the ones that we (whoever that is) think best.
and they use their newly found free reign on everything to create new barriers to entry (say, heavily throttling inter-ISP traffic) which can't be broken down because there are no laws or regulations...and you're worse off than ever before.
that is so horribly naive that it isn't even funny. they create new barriers to entry, INDEED. and how do they achieve that? THROUGH REGULATION. what did you expect?
if the government is the one enforcing those barriers to begin with, then that hardly makes sense (unless by "barriers to entry" you simply mean the upfront costs necessary to begin any business, and the ones in the case are much different -- they are regulatory nightmares). further, that line of "reasoning" may appeal to some with a really skewed comprehension of logic, but how, exactly, is something free when government is making decisions for you? it's only metaphorically free, and in a very limited capacity.
Free market, to me, gives me the impression that I have a choice among many competitors. Unfortunately where I live this isn't true. DSL doesn't work and I have only one cable provider to choose from. If this happens to be one of the ones that decides net neutrality is evil then I'm screwed. So the government needs to force a standard.
..no. you don't have a choice of competitors; you're right. why is that? it's because we DON'T exist in a free market. the government has propped up the telecoms and provides huge barriers to entry by subsidizing them. that's what government regulation affords you, and your solution is more government regulation? oh, that makes perfect sense to me.
even though we don't exist in a free market, it is still possible to game the system and "scratch the itch" of no good alternate ISPs. what you have to do is find a new medium for your service, and one that isn't controlled or regulated by any government. oh, wait. that's what google is doing!! competition can exist, even in this flawed system. like one poster said, start your own ISP. no, it's not easy, but you have to be innovative, which is the whole point, anyway.
the real solution to this problem, though, is obvious: get rid of ALL government intervention. if you can dig your own lines without having to call up 500 government entities for permission every for every 2 meters of cable, then you can compete with the bells and the cable companies. you currently don't have that ability, because the government enforces that on the former's behalf. the solution to that is even more obviously NOT to have the government enforce more things (and why would they, when they're in the employ of the bells?).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd guess he meant everything INCLUDING Earth, since Earth is in the universe. it may have problems observing itself, though.
you know that you can usually get a larger version of a myspace cdn image by changing m to l (or s to l as the situation requires), instead of stalking the private myspace of your "ex" to get thumbnail profile pictures.
umm... I wish Obama would come out and say* that there was never anything to win in Iraq. what the hell are they trying to win, exactly? no one ever asks that, and that's strange, because I don't think anyone has ever told me. anyway, of course he won't do that, because he's just like the rest of them. he doesn't want to leave Iraq; in fact, he most likely wants to extend our warring efforts to Pakistan and Iran. he wants to do whatever the Israel lobby tells him. boy, those guys sure do have a lot of money.
* as if saying is doing, anyway. political elections are a popularity contest, and there's really nothing to go on but voting record, which for most politicians is completely contradictory and inconsistent, and doesn't actually say anything about what will happen in the future either (our political process is dependent upon character judgement -- hilarious).
indeed. I feel quite the same way as yourself, and I barely even watch television. I had never even HEARD of an ACORN or the whole "obama is a terrorist" thing or almost ANYTHING going on in the McCain/Palin popularity celebrity whatever contest until a few days ago on YouTube.
I wouldn't vote for either major party candidate for nearly the same reasons. but I guess I have a "liberal propaganda" bias to go along with my "conservative propaganda" bias.
you're correct. it should obviously be "his (or her)." or it should be "his (and I'm pandering to stupid fucking politically correct dipshit faggots)."
both of you have really horrible form, which is hilarious. learn how to use a fucking comma. also stop placing two newlines between each sentence.
and what about all the Obama/Biden signs?
he also said "too" instead of also.
stephen hawking can move his eyes.
(as far as I know)
I use both noscript and flashblock. flashblock handles youtube videos and such much better than noscript ever could, because the DOM still loads and doesn't require a page reload. I just have to click on the icon. not only that, but flashblock works on a per-object basis, so that I can load up as many youtube tabs as I want without having 25 videos trying to play at once. I much prefer that than to have youtube videos load as soon as I open them, and that seems like that would be quite useful for this guy as well.
Several people did. I registered several .god domains under ORSC a long time ago, which is pretty much meaningless. (I knew that, of course, but was just bored)
I would. (to be sure we're clear: it wasn't funny. but if it were funny, I'd still find it equally funny if he had made some reference to niggers or jews [and what the hell is so special about either of them anyway?]).
..as well as the "octets" (these are technically uh.. double octets? hexadecoctets??) beginning with zero.
so?
actually, you should. but assuming you do, here is what my response will be (this might save you the trouble): so?
zomg you're clever. zing!!
an ISP doing anything doesn't count as anything except an ISP doing something. is that how you think barriers to entry are created? by changing "switching settings?" not only is it now evident that you have no clue about networking technology or infrastracture, but also no clue about what I'm saying.
ISPs are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with their own equipment, which is hilariously the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. network neutrality isn't regulation of what an ISP is allowed to do with its lines, but what it ISN'T allowed to do. if, somehow, upgrading equipment or changing settings results in smaller ISPs being destroyed, then how is that not just? that isn't a barrier to entry; that's competition.
no.
it isn't. it's a literary device.
or not, because they're bad drivers. what makes you think I don't do that already? it never works, because no one cares; they're horrible drivers, likely as you are.
yes, because my speed should be dictated by others who are impatient. and where would I go, geekoid?
that's sound logic, chief. or maybe not.
most people actually are stupid. but let's assume they aren't. does it make sense to proclaim that N is true because X is true? no. the two things have no relationship, except in the mind of "geekoid on slashdot." congratulations.
I don't think you get it. an overwhelming majority of drivers are just clueless idiots who aren't paying attention and/or DON'T care. they don't back off if you slow down, because they don't care. they wouldn't be that close in the first place, if they did. it's already dangerous, wreckless driving to be so close to another car, especially at highway speeds, so what makes you think that they're suddenly going to behave differently based on some arbitrary sequence of actions taken by myself? not only that, but it's not just ONE occurence. it happens over and over again, because there are so many people who do this. and even if your solution works, there's a good chance of eventual failure due to the sheer number of people who tailgate like that -- people who are endangering themselves, myself, and others.
perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but wouldn't it make more sense to stay much further behind a car you want to pass, in order to provide yourself more room for performing such a maneuver? something tells me you might not be such a great driver yourself (not that I am, either, but I am careful).
I didn't say I'm going to do anything, but merely that most people are very bad drivers, and that it's scary. why do you feel the need to inject things into my post?
my solution is actually to refrain from driving as much as possible, because it's an inherently dangerous thing to do (that doesn't mean I go out of my way to avoid potentialities; I am not a crazy person [or maybe I am, but not for that reason]).
actually, since I'm a rather cautious driver, when I've gotten into that situation and DID enter the fast lane, here is the procedure I took:
turn on my signal light. patiently merge into the left hand lane, slowly, ensuring that there is no traffic nearby in that lane. give some time to determine whether or not the person in the lane to my right is going to merge over or not, and to allow them to recognize my presence now in the opposite lane. if they do not pass, slowly move to pass, myself.
how difficult is that for you to understand? you sound like a really horrible driver who is causing me so much agony, and I wish you would stay off the road. please do.
that might be the prevailing wisdom of a crowd exiting a Smokey and the Bandit matinee, but it isn't reality. truck drivers are some of the worst offenders I have ever seen. they have no courtesy whatsoever, and why should they have to? it is very typical to see trucks riding side by side, taking up the entire freeway, at rather slow speeds. some trucks even cruise in the fast lane without regard to logic. that might have something to do with the fact that truck drivers are probably very tired and spaced out or heavily drugged to keep them awake. but you're begging the question. I don't accept your premise at all.
I disagree. when does that end? better to end it while you can. "we said we'd fix something but fucked up and caused something else that needs fixing so we want to fix it give us another chance" isn't exactly logically sound, if you ask me.
right.
exactly right.
the bolded part is right, but I don't see how you draw your conclusion. it makes sense on the surface, but why not eliminate the root of the problem to begin with? it's like giving people more and more medicines to dull the pain of a broken bone instead of repairing the bone outright (if we could do that, and maybe you're suggesting that we can't get rid of government regulations? nevertheless, it doesn't make it any more sensible or right to keep piling them on -- let's remove them where we can [and start protecting our constitution {assuming you're from the same country I'm from}]).
does it really matter? what you people are suggesting is that, because an ISP can't make a profit in a big area and you think everyone should have free, unrestricted internet access, that you should somehow be able to force private entities into providing that service for you. please explain that to me.
if you're in a rural area and you expect something that's infeasible to be feasible just because you want it, then maybe you should kill yourself. if it really matters that much to you, then move. yes, that is incredibly impractical, but so is living in a rural area and expecting something that isn't possible. the right thing to do in that scenario isn't to tell other people to give you what you want or they go to jail.
which sounds incredibly fair to me. it doesn't to you?
that's right. bigger, established companies outcompete small companies. good logic there, chief!! now explain to me the problem with that, because I don't see one. SHOULDN'T a more established company outcompete a less established one? isn't that why they're established? if you want to compete with these businesses, you need to provide an interesting, original service to give people a REASON for using it. quite clearly, if small businesses are being outcompeted, then most people really don't seem to care about what they're providin (unrestricted internet access, in this case). that is how the market works. would I prefer if the market went a different way? well, yes, but that's not up to me, and neither is it up to you. one person isn't able to dictate how our society is run based solely on what we perceive as ideal, and boy are we fortunate for that. imagine if someone thought the exact OPPOSITE to an open internet were ideal? then where would we be?
the only way to allow for ALL ideas to coexist with the least possible friction is to support all ideas, not to enforce the ones that we (whoever that is) think best.
that is so horribly naive that it isn't even funny. they create new barriers to entry, INDEED. and how do they achieve that? THROUGH REGULATION. what did you expect?
if the government is the one enforcing those barriers to begin with, then that hardly makes sense (unless by "barriers to entry" you simply mean the upfront costs necessary to begin any business, and the ones in the case are much different -- they are regulatory nightmares). further, that line of "reasoning" may appeal to some with a really skewed comprehension of logic, but how, exactly, is something free when government is making decisions for you? it's only metaphorically free, and in a very limited capacity.
even though we don't exist in a free market, it is still possible to game the system and "scratch the itch" of no good alternate ISPs. what you have to do is find a new medium for your service, and one that isn't controlled or regulated by any government. oh, wait. that's what google is doing!! competition can exist, even in this flawed system. like one poster said, start your own ISP. no, it's not easy, but you have to be innovative, which is the whole point, anyway.
the real solution to this problem, though, is obvious: get rid of ALL government intervention. if you can dig your own lines without having to call up 500 government entities for permission every for every 2 meters of cable, then you can compete with the bells and the cable companies. you currently don't have that ability, because the government enforces that on the former's behalf. the solution to that is even more obviously NOT to have the government enforce more things (and why would they, when they're in the employ of the bells?).