The big difference between cheating and open relationships is that the cheater cheats without their partner knowing, whereas the open relationship partner knows what's going on.
There are more options than that as well. When we were discussing parameters for our marriage, one of my wife's early proposals included the following: I was allowed other sexual partners, only if there was no substantial risk of emotional attachment and I avoided letting her know.
These aren't the terms we've operated under, but I can appreciate how for some people they might work.
Marriage is about being with one person romantically to the exclusion of all others.
Romantically? The belief that marriage is a romance-based commitment is probably the reason most of them fail. Why should one expect a marriage to survive only as long as a particular brand of hormone-based euphoria?
If you can't live with a person after the blinders are off, you shouldn't have gotten married to them in the first place -- so making that commitment with blinders on (and being "in love" is unquestionably blinding) is the first mistake.
And yes, people that cheat are always in the wrong here.
Inasmuch as "cheating" involves breaking a promise, absolutely, every time. I never asked my wife for exclusivity -- and so while she's never broken it, neither would such be a dealbreaker.
Right, but whether this is worthwhile depends on by how much.
That's why one must, as the parent said, calculate the price elasticity of demand to determine whether a tax will in practice increase or reduce revenue.
The argument is in favor of a more inclusive definition of "speech", meaning that the BOR effects a wider range of actions, thus restricting the states' actions (as those of the federal government as well) more aggressively.
Of course, that someone is trying to get their actions classified as "speech" for the purpose of reducing the number of third parties who know what they're saying something I also find a slight touch amusing... but again, there are two sides to this argument; anonymous political pamphleteering is protected speech beyond question, after all, and the parallels (like the distinctions) between pamphleteering and petitioning are many and clear.
There's a distinction when one speaks of only of control and not ownership, to be sure, but it's a fuzzy line -- a large-scale, modern economy run without some level of government-mandated regulation into businesses' affairs is unheard of.
I do agree that one cannot have a pure free market in combination with a government espousing all the tenants of fascism (including national corporatism) -- but would argue that it's possible to have a generally fascist society (nationalism, expansionist imperialism, authoritarianism, social Darwinism, etc) while still having a generally capitalist economy.
Just because State's Rights is a priority, doesn't mean that a state can make a decision/law that is unconstitutional.
True, of course -- but the question is whether you want a broad reading of the Constitution or a narrow one. Arguing that the Constitution restricts states' actions in an area in which they previously had the ability to set policy as they see fit is unquestionably leaning towards a broader reading -- which states' rights advocates tend to (usually) be against.
My understanding is that caucusing is only done in the primaries. If it's left up to state commissions, why is SCOTUS ruling on this?
Because the anti-gay-marriage people wanted to argue that their state's policy decision was unconstitutional? Which, for a group which is historically aligned with mouthpieces who claim states' rights as a priority, is friggin' hilarious.
(Not that I mean to trivialize the argument here -- distinguishing between priorities involved in the private vote and public actions such as caucusing and petitioning is an interesting and worthwhile thing to do, but I find making a literal Supreme Court case out of it rather than fighting it within the state to be a bit disingenuous).
Android applications have flags indicating what they are and aren't allowed to do, and are cryptographically signed with those flags. What this study (presumably) did is just check which apps have which flags set.
Thing is, when you-the-user install an app, you're told exactly which flags it has set, and given the opportunity to confirm or deny. In short -- if you're installing a lighter-flame gadget which says it's allowed to read your address book and connect to the Internet, and you click "OK", you deserve exactly what you get.
(Also -- misbehaving developers can, and sometimes do, have their signing keys revoked).
If we're going to do car analogies, let's try something a bit closer...
You own an experimental nuclear-powered kit car. It explodes, killing ten people and spreading radiation across most of the state. The government says that no nuclear-powered kit cars are allowed, no matter how well maintained, until the root cause of the problem is understood and addressed.
Should the cab fares of the people who own nuclear-powered kit cars be paid until the ban is relaxed?
You completely failed to grok the parent's point -- which was that this law is completely in-line with the kind of behavior Ayn Rand was against, and for essentially the same reasons.
You might want to get you mouth off Heinlein's cock and think a bit.
If you hadn't been around here for a while, I wouldn't be responding at all. Since you have, though...
I'm a software engineer, not an aerospace engineer -- as is almost everyone else in this community. Speaking of community, the "shared cultural heritage" here includes more than a little hard science fiction. The whole point of my last line was to make it clear I was playing off that shared cultural heritage, as opposed to being serious. To "think a bit", as you put it, I'd have to acquire a whole new specialty -- not just a shallow understanding, lest I know just enough to nay-say ideas, but not enough to figure out which of those problems could be approached as engineering difficulties and resolved.
In short -- start figuring out when people are being playful, and consider playing along. The least you could do, though, is to stop making an ass out of yourself.
You clearly haven't read enough Heinlein -- that last line was a reference an already-proposed set of solutions to the challenges you mention (including shipping down lighter, higher-value finished goods rather than heavier raw materials... though the specific choice may be a stretch). Quite a lot of folks in this thread picked it up correctly.
Sure, the solutions in question are speculative -- but so is everything else about this discussion.
Transporting anything from the moon to the earth is so expensive that it likely isn't worth mining.
Earth to the moon is really flippin' expensive, to be sure.
Moon to the earth? It's called a GRAVITY WELL. Give things a kick, they come down on their own; all you need is enough casing to survive reentry. I'm not saying it's a solved problem, but it's a much, much easier one.
Apple is deciding what it wants in the app store, which is fair. I don't see people up in arms about the censored material in Walmart.
This isn't like the Wal-Mart case at all, inasmuch as Wal-Mart doesn't have any means of preventing you from purchasing things they choose not to carry. Apple, by contrast, uses technical measures to make the iTunes Store the only available source of iPhone applications.
If they make themselves the only available source, it's entirely legitimate that they be a target for criticism based on what they decide they will and will not carry, as there's a substantial barrier (be it jailbreaking of purchasing a competitor's device) to consumers who might be interested in applications outside the boundaries they proscribe.
I tend to agree with your decision, having been burned badly by Oracle agreeing to a mutually reasonable licensing arrangement up-front and then deciding to force a change of terms down the road.
My current employer is a Fortune 50, and might have enough clout to avoid that -- but the little startups I used to work for in the past most certainly couldn't.
Anyhow, where I was going -- one of those startups had a fairly positive experience with EnterpriseDB (a commercial product built on top of PostgreSQL -- the initial feature they offered which got our attention was an Oracle compatibility layer); their support staff is top-notch, and though we had a much more ambivalent (if not negative) experience with the folks whey were partnered with at the time for replication, they solicited our feedback at the time and were heavily involved in the new built-in replication in PostgreSQL 9.0. As such, I'd like to think our feedback helped to result in a net win for everyone.
Yeah, we know that all of our encryption algorithms are NEVER flawed...EVER!
Not that seriously flawed, anyhow.
Publicly available cryptographic algorithms get mountains of peer review before they're used by any responsible source. Any private ones (if they're not doing the smart thing and using the public algorithms) would come out of the NSA, which has had some of the best minds in the business there for decades... and also knows better than to release anything without trying their damnedest to crack it internally.
"Terrorists" being able to do something the NSA can't? Nope, not buying it.
Leaking information on the key generation or distribution methods would be genuinely damaging. Plaintext / cyphertext pairs, not so much.
I'm not saying that libel or slander shouldn't be punishable when done by students, to the same extent that it's punishable when done by adults and with all of the same defenses available.
However, that should be done through the court system, where there's an opportunity for an equitable defense, rather than through the "private court" of the school's disciplinary system.
If it's not, then why do all of the major schemes exempt the "developing world"?
Because the "developing world" will never buy in. From their perspective, we got where we got by burning our resources; if we don't let them do the same, it's Da Man keeping them down.
Now, could you explain what motivation the "socialist plotters" have to exclude the developing world? I don't see how the evidence you present supports your conclusion.
Of course, if we really wanted to be green, we'd all just ditch the cars and live within biking distance to work
Electric assist is great for extending "biking distance". Effort per unit time can remain constant (if one so desires) while the effort per unit distance decreases.
[...] and employers would have bike racks, showers, and lockers.
That's a matter of choosing one's employers wisely. My current one self-insures their medical coverage; as a result, they find it in their financial best interests to provide all of those things (even shampoo and conditioner are company-provided) -- but the ones prior did allow bicycles to be stored inside, and either had showers or helped to pay for membership at a nearby gym.
You added text that does not exist in what I wrote.
Text, however, which corresponded directly with what a 3rd-party reader would or could clearly read as the viewpoint of the parent post, ie. "that".
If you were actually responding to a strawman, rather than the post to which you hit "Reply" in the context in which it was written... pot, meet kettle.
Clearly untrue; there were some pretty good answers (well-formed, consistent, and establishing a position one could argue persuasively -- regardless of whether I happen to agree).
Slashdot Mirror
There are more options than that as well. When we were discussing parameters for our marriage, one of my wife's early proposals included the following: I was allowed other sexual partners, only if there was no substantial risk of emotional attachment and I avoided letting her know.
These aren't the terms we've operated under, but I can appreciate how for some people they might work.
Romantically? The belief that marriage is a romance-based commitment is probably the reason most of them fail. Why should one expect a marriage to survive only as long as a particular brand of hormone-based euphoria?
If you can't live with a person after the blinders are off, you shouldn't have gotten married to them in the first place -- so making that commitment with blinders on (and being "in love" is unquestionably blinding) is the first mistake.
Inasmuch as "cheating" involves breaking a promise, absolutely, every time. I never asked my wife for exclusivity -- and so while she's never broken it, neither would such be a dealbreaker.
Right, but whether this is worthwhile depends on by how much.
That's why one must, as the parent said, calculate the price elasticity of demand to determine whether a tax will in practice increase or reduce revenue.
The argument is in favor of a more inclusive definition of "speech", meaning that the BOR effects a wider range of actions, thus restricting the states' actions (as those of the federal government as well) more aggressively.
Of course, that someone is trying to get their actions classified as "speech" for the purpose of reducing the number of third parties who know what they're saying something I also find a slight touch amusing... but again, there are two sides to this argument; anonymous political pamphleteering is protected speech beyond question, after all, and the parallels (like the distinctions) between pamphleteering and petitioning are many and clear.
There's a distinction when one speaks of only of control and not ownership, to be sure, but it's a fuzzy line -- a large-scale, modern economy run without some level of government-mandated regulation into businesses' affairs is unheard of.
I do agree that one cannot have a pure free market in combination with a government espousing all the tenants of fascism (including national corporatism) -- but would argue that it's possible to have a generally fascist society (nationalism, expansionist imperialism, authoritarianism, social Darwinism, etc) while still having a generally capitalist economy.
True, of course -- but the question is whether you want a broad reading of the Constitution or a narrow one. Arguing that the Constitution restricts states' actions in an area in which they previously had the ability to set policy as they see fit is unquestionably leaning towards a broader reading -- which states' rights advocates tend to (usually) be against.
Untrue.
"Capitalist" is an economic system. "Fascist" is a political system. They can be combined.
"Capitalist" and "communist", by contrast, are both economic systems. They cannot be combined without losing their identity, even in theory.
I thought modern-day China had finally put down the fallacy that free-market economies would inevitably result in political freedoms.
Because the anti-gay-marriage people wanted to argue that their state's policy decision was unconstitutional? Which, for a group which is historically aligned with mouthpieces who claim states' rights as a priority, is friggin' hilarious.
(Not that I mean to trivialize the argument here -- distinguishing between priorities involved in the private vote and public actions such as caucusing and petitioning is an interesting and worthwhile thing to do, but I find making a literal Supreme Court case out of it rather than fighting it within the state to be a bit disingenuous).
I don't believe anything I said implied that the permissions in the signed APK weren't enforced through technical means.
Err --
Android applications have flags indicating what they are and aren't allowed to do, and are cryptographically signed with those flags. What this study (presumably) did is just check which apps have which flags set.
Thing is, when you-the-user install an app, you're told exactly which flags it has set, and given the opportunity to confirm or deny. In short -- if you're installing a lighter-flame gadget which says it's allowed to read your address book and connect to the Internet, and you click "OK", you deserve exactly what you get.
(Also -- misbehaving developers can, and sometimes do, have their signing keys revoked).
If we're going to do car analogies, let's try something a bit closer...
You own an experimental nuclear-powered kit car. It explodes, killing ten people and spreading radiation across most of the state. The government says that no nuclear-powered kit cars are allowed, no matter how well maintained, until the root cause of the problem is understood and addressed.
Should the cab fares of the people who own nuclear-powered kit cars be paid until the ban is relaxed?
You completely failed to grok the parent's point -- which was that this law is completely in-line with the kind of behavior Ayn Rand was against, and for essentially the same reasons.
Sheesh.
If you hadn't been around here for a while, I wouldn't be responding at all. Since you have, though...
I'm a software engineer, not an aerospace engineer -- as is almost everyone else in this community. Speaking of community, the "shared cultural heritage" here includes more than a little hard science fiction. The whole point of my last line was to make it clear I was playing off that shared cultural heritage, as opposed to being serious. To "think a bit", as you put it, I'd have to acquire a whole new specialty -- not just a shallow understanding, lest I know just enough to nay-say ideas, but not enough to figure out which of those problems could be approached as engineering difficulties and resolved.
In short -- start figuring out when people are being playful, and consider playing along. The least you could do, though, is to stop making an ass out of yourself.
You clearly haven't read enough Heinlein -- that last line was a reference an already-proposed set of solutions to the challenges you mention (including shipping down lighter, higher-value finished goods rather than heavier raw materials... though the specific choice may be a stretch). Quite a lot of folks in this thread picked it up correctly.
Sure, the solutions in question are speculative -- but so is everything else about this discussion.
Earth to the moon is really flippin' expensive, to be sure.
Moon to the earth? It's called a GRAVITY WELL. Give things a kick, they come down on their own; all you need is enough casing to survive reentry. I'm not saying it's a solved problem, but it's a much, much easier one.
Then again, I've read too much Heinlein. *grin*
This isn't like the Wal-Mart case at all, inasmuch as Wal-Mart doesn't have any means of preventing you from purchasing things they choose not to carry. Apple, by contrast, uses technical measures to make the iTunes Store the only available source of iPhone applications.
If they make themselves the only available source, it's entirely legitimate that they be a target for criticism based on what they decide they will and will not carry, as there's a substantial barrier (be it jailbreaking of purchasing a competitor's device) to consumers who might be interested in applications outside the boundaries they proscribe.
I don't suppose you might be able to provide a response that, y'know, addresses any of the parent's (or grandparent's) points?
I tend to agree with your decision, having been burned badly by Oracle agreeing to a mutually reasonable licensing arrangement up-front and then deciding to force a change of terms down the road.
My current employer is a Fortune 50, and might have enough clout to avoid that -- but the little startups I used to work for in the past most certainly couldn't.
Anyhow, where I was going -- one of those startups had a fairly positive experience with EnterpriseDB (a commercial product built on top of PostgreSQL -- the initial feature they offered which got our attention was an Oracle compatibility layer); their support staff is top-notch, and though we had a much more ambivalent (if not negative) experience with the folks whey were partnered with at the time for replication, they solicited our feedback at the time and were heavily involved in the new built-in replication in PostgreSQL 9.0. As such, I'd like to think our feedback helped to result in a net win for everyone.
And of course by "get out of the way of business" we mean "prevent any other businesses from competing".
Not that seriously flawed, anyhow.
Publicly available cryptographic algorithms get mountains of peer review before they're used by any responsible source. Any private ones (if they're not doing the smart thing and using the public algorithms) would come out of the NSA, which has had some of the best minds in the business there for decades... and also knows better than to release anything without trying their damnedest to crack it internally.
"Terrorists" being able to do something the NSA can't? Nope, not buying it.
Leaking information on the key generation or distribution methods would be genuinely damaging. Plaintext / cyphertext pairs, not so much.
I'm not saying that libel or slander shouldn't be punishable when done by students, to the same extent that it's punishable when done by adults and with all of the same defenses available.
However, that should be done through the court system, where there's an opportunity for an equitable defense, rather than through the "private court" of the school's disciplinary system.
Because the "developing world" will never buy in. From their perspective, we got where we got by burning our resources; if we don't let them do the same, it's Da Man keeping them down.
Now, could you explain what motivation the "socialist plotters" have to exclude the developing world? I don't see how the evidence you present supports your conclusion.
Electric assist is great for extending "biking distance". Effort per unit time can remain constant (if one so desires) while the effort per unit distance decreases.
More topically, e-biking can actually be more environmentally sound than riding unassisted.
That's a matter of choosing one's employers wisely. My current one self-insures their medical coverage; as a result, they find it in their financial best interests to provide all of those things (even shampoo and conditioner are company-provided) -- but the ones prior did allow bicycles to be stored inside, and either had showers or helped to pay for membership at a nearby gym.
Text, however, which corresponded directly with what a 3rd-party reader would or could clearly read as the viewpoint of the parent post, ie. "that".
If you were actually responding to a strawman, rather than the post to which you hit "Reply" in the context in which it was written... pot, meet kettle.
Clearly untrue; there were some pretty good answers (well-formed, consistent, and establishing a position one could argue persuasively -- regardless of whether I happen to agree).