Andrew Carnegie established free lending libraries, when the government was doing nothing to address the availability of educational materials to people who were unable to pay "library subscription fees".
Engaging in a bit of revisionist history there, aren't you? The first tax-funded public library was established 50 years before Carnegie opened his first library. In addition, there were other libraries that were open to the public at that time. Yes, he did accelerate the establishment of free public libraries, but this type of institution was created in other countries without the influence of a single large benefactor.
Or to put it another way, those important benefactors would not be necessary in the absence of such huge disparities in wealth and the actions of the wealthy to starve government of the funds required to operate.
The only thing I'm seeing is not-quite-poor people in India posting online in a way that the actually-poor in India can not possibly post online, as to why all the actually-poor people in India shouldn't have *some* access to the Internet.
Because apparently none-is-preferrable-to-some-which-is-not-all.
Because Facebook's intent was to distort the market in ways that may take away that $1/month option and force many more people to rely on only those sites that Facebook approves.
Be realistic: do you really think that Zuckerberg really does anything from a purely altruistic motivation?
Aside from all the jokes about not using vi, etc. I seriously marvel at the idea of a "really stripped-down server" including an X system.
Actually, after writing that, I realized that, yes, really a stripped-down server does not include X. I have some servers configured this way.
The point that I was trying to make is that a server should not need a desktop window manager. Earlier, in the arguments over Wayland, the response was "just use VNC". But for VNC, you need a window manager.
I have found that managing KVM guests without virt-manager (and hence X) is a pain (although not impossible), so on my fairly stripped-down servers that act as KVM hosts, I include virt-manager and X. I run virt-manager as a network-transparent application, with the X-server on my desktop. On the servers that don't host VM guests, I can eliminate X.
Re:shifted to corrupt union bosses, yes
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Yes, because the several other Unions that did agree to the needed terms, the company said it needed to remain afloat also blamed the one Union that refused to cooperate and thus forced the company out of existence
And that union probably did not believe the threats to close the company because the management awarded themselves huge increases while demanding cuts from the union workers, who had already given large concessions in pay and retirement benefits.
Re:shifted to corrupt union bosses, yes
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
The whole company is gone, poof, history. The union pushed and pushed and pushed... and lost...
If, by "pushed", you mean accepted concessions that reduced pay, stopped contributions to pension schemes while the executives got massive pay rises, then yes.
Re:shifted to corrupt union bosses, yes
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
And employers don't generally just go out of business just because there's a union.
Generally no, but ask how the former employees of Hostess are doing...
And you actually believe the owners when they blamed the union? How touching.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Yes... without a doubt, it is...
...
Remind me where in the bill of rights it mentions health care.
Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights does not make healthcare any less important. When you are in hospital with a life-threatening illness or injury, is your right to own a gun really more important?
Remind me how you'll keep that healthcare as soon as you elect the "wrong person" in 20 or 40 years?
Remind me how you will buy a gun when the 0.1%-ers have tilted the economic field so far in their direction that you don't have spare money to buy a gun.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
It isn't that black and white... Republicans are at least *more likely* than Democrats to be willing to protect my gun rights.
People don't have gun rights if they cannot afford guns. The biggest issue in the USA right now is income inequality. It's getting worse and a vote for the Republicans is a vote to make it worse. Furthermore, historical data suggests that increasing income inequality is associated with lower overall growth, so it's not just a rich vs. poor issue. Another thing that the Republicans would like to do is to starve the agencies that should protect the citizens and the environment, so that the laws granting protections to citizens and the laws protecting the environment don't matter. Do you want to live in a polluted country? Or a country where you cannot enforce your rights? Because that's what a vote for the Republicans means.
Finally, do you really think that your right to own a gun is more important than providing universal heathcare?
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
Unless you are in the top 0.1%, any vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against your own interest. Even if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, you can still write in Bernie Sanders' name. It's not a wasted vote: its a statement of support that may affect future politics.
On Trump: do you really think that waterboarding is a good idea? Do you think that torture actually gets real information? Do you think that torturing people (many of whom were innocent) helps to advance the USA's interests? The reason that I focus on that is that it is one of the few statements that Trump actually made that is a prediction of specific action, not a general goal ("make America great again").
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
it causes unemployment increases
No, actually it doesn't.
This can't be stated too much. Actual research (unlike blowhard bloviating from the 0.1% and their lackeys in the media and politics) refutes the idea the minimum wages cause unemployment.
I'll accept that it is possible that a much higher minimum wage might cause unemployment, but we should always remember that today, it is much lower than in relatively recent history.
I seriously doubt that network transparency is at the top of anyones mind. It is 2016. If you want headless remote desktop availability you have a plethora of cross-platform options at your fingertips.
You have never administered a really stripped-down server, have you?
If you think that you have, then you don't know the meaning of "really stripped-down".
The Amazon cost estimator makes it seem mostly reasonable for compute and transit -- my actual server traffic is trivial, and even with generous CPU usage estimates it looked kind of reasonable.
Whenever I look at costs, bandwidth costs are far higher at Amazon than at most VPS providers. I use a couple of VPSs as streaming video proxies, so bandwidth is a major consideration to me.
You'll always be able to find an edge case to beat up the general principle with, but you're ignoring the bulk of the cases to try and win an argument.
You *still* haven't grasped my position. My position is that there are only two positions that can be justified on moral grounds:
1. No abortions at all.
2. Wide availability of abortions (before some point, which could be consciousness, or viability, etc.)
People may hold other positions, but they cannot be justified on religious or moral grounds.
In the cases of rape and incest, a horrid wrong has been done to the woman involved
False. In cases of rape, a horrid wrong has been done to the woman. She could be a willing partner in the incest.
having to carry and bear (and then support) the resultant child only furthers the wrong done against her.
So what happens when the woman uses contraception, but it fails? She has done nothing wrong, but must bear a huge burden. What about cases of disability? Or do you think that women should not be engaging in sex at all?
Pragmatism is always an empty position. Pragmatic means practical
And that's my point. The "No abortions except in cases of.." is a pragmatic position, because it recognizes that the majority will not accept a simple "No abortions" rule.
In other words, you want to avoid discussing the inconsistencies in your own position. Pathetic.
So, here are some more thoughts: If you allow abortions in the case of incest, this is because of the dangers of inbreeding, but what about the case of a foetus that has already been determined will be badly disabled when born? Surely, if you allow abortions in the case of incest, you should allow abortions in the case of disabilities.
Excepting cases of rape and incest, you chose to have sex, deal with it...
You not wanting to carry the child doesn't give you the right to kill it...
Why are rape and incest different? The "child" isn't responsible for the rape or incest. Why should a potential child suffer for someone else's actions? The potential child is the victim.
What I am saying here is that "no abortions, except in the case of rape or incest" is not a moral position. The only moral position is: "no abortions". It's a pragmatic position, and if you are going to be pragmatic, you should allow abortions in a much wider set of cases.
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to even vote in the 2016 presidential election. If I do, I'll have to use one hand to hold my nose while I'm voting..
If that's the case, you don't have any moral right to comment on politics, the judges of the Federal courts, or any US government policies.
You can do a write-in vote if you don't like any of the candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
Engaging in a bit of revisionist history there, aren't you? The first tax-funded public library was established 50 years before Carnegie opened his first library. In addition, there were other libraries that were open to the public at that time. Yes, he did accelerate the establishment of free public libraries, but this type of institution was created in other countries without the influence of a single large benefactor.
Or to put it another way, those important benefactors would not be necessary in the absence of such huge disparities in wealth and the actions of the wealthy to starve government of the funds required to operate.
Because Facebook's intent was to distort the market in ways that may take away that $1/month option and force many more people to rely on only those sites that Facebook approves.
Be realistic: do you really think that Zuckerberg really does anything from a purely altruistic motivation?
Any nominee has to pass approval by the Republican-controlled Senate, so anything other than a centrist is very unlikely at this point.
Actually, after writing that, I realized that, yes, really a stripped-down server does not include X. I have some servers configured this way.
The point that I was trying to make is that a server should not need a desktop window manager. Earlier, in the arguments over Wayland, the response was "just use VNC". But for VNC, you need a window manager.
I have found that managing KVM guests without virt-manager (and hence X) is a pain (although not impossible), so on my fairly stripped-down servers that act as KVM hosts, I include virt-manager and X. I run virt-manager as a network-transparent application, with the X-server on my desktop. On the servers that don't host VM guests, I can eliminate X.
You have bought the Tea Party story, hook line and sinker.
The effect of corporation taxes is mostly in reduced payouts to shareholders.
We do know who owns corporations: overwhelmingly it is the top 1%. So what you are advocating is a tax cut for the 1%.
*I* know no such thing. I know that the nights are longer in Winter, but *shorter* in Summer.
OK, there is some new news there, but the headline and the first half of the summary is about old news.
Old news
And that union probably did not believe the threats to close the company because the management awarded themselves huge increases while demanding cuts from the union workers, who had already given large concessions in pay and retirement benefits.
If, by "pushed", you mean accepted concessions that reduced pay, stopped contributions to pension schemes while the executives got massive pay rises, then yes.
And you actually believe the owners when they blamed the union? How touching.
Just because it's not in the Bill of Rights does not make healthcare any less important. When you are in hospital with a life-threatening illness or injury, is your right to own a gun really more important?
Remind me how you will buy a gun when the 0.1%-ers have tilted the economic field so far in their direction that you don't have spare money to buy a gun.
People don't have gun rights if they cannot afford guns. The biggest issue in the USA right now is income inequality. It's getting worse and a vote for the Republicans is a vote to make it worse. Furthermore, historical data suggests that increasing income inequality is associated with lower overall growth, so it's not just a rich vs. poor issue. Another thing that the Republicans would like to do is to starve the agencies that should protect the citizens and the environment, so that the laws granting protections to citizens and the laws protecting the environment don't matter. Do you want to live in a polluted country? Or a country where you cannot enforce your rights? Because that's what a vote for the Republicans means.
Finally, do you really think that your right to own a gun is more important than providing universal heathcare?
Unless you are in the top 0.1%, any vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against your own interest. Even if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, you can still write in Bernie Sanders' name. It's not a wasted vote: its a statement of support that may affect future politics.
On Trump: do you really think that waterboarding is a good idea? Do you think that torture actually gets real information? Do you think that torturing people (many of whom were innocent) helps to advance the USA's interests? The reason that I focus on that is that it is one of the few statements that Trump actually made that is a prediction of specific action, not a general goal ("make America great again").
This can't be stated too much. Actual research (unlike blowhard bloviating from the 0.1% and their lackeys in the media and politics) refutes the idea the minimum wages cause unemployment.
I'll accept that it is possible that a much higher minimum wage might cause unemployment, but we should always remember that today, it is much lower than in relatively recent history.
You have never administered a really stripped-down server, have you?
If you think that you have, then you don't know the meaning of "really stripped-down".
Whenever I look at costs, bandwidth costs are far higher at Amazon than at most VPS providers. I use a couple of VPSs as streaming video proxies, so bandwidth is a major consideration to me.
You *still* haven't grasped my position. My position is that there are only two positions that can be justified on moral grounds:
1. No abortions at all.
2. Wide availability of abortions (before some point, which could be consciousness, or viability, etc.)
People may hold other positions, but they cannot be justified on religious or moral grounds.
False. In cases of rape, a horrid wrong has been done to the woman. She could be a willing partner in the incest.
So what happens when the woman uses contraception, but it fails? She has done nothing wrong, but must bear a huge burden. What about cases of disability? Or do you think that women should not be engaging in sex at all?
And that's my point. The "No abortions except in cases of .." is a pragmatic position, because it recognizes that the majority will not accept a simple "No abortions" rule.
In other words, you want to avoid discussing the inconsistencies in your own position. Pathetic.
So, here are some more thoughts: If you allow abortions in the case of incest, this is because of the dangers of inbreeding, but what about the case of a foetus that has already been determined will be badly disabled when born? Surely, if you allow abortions in the case of incest, you should allow abortions in the case of disabilities.
As long as you have insurance that will cover all possible medical costs and will never leave the taxpayer to pick up any of your bills.
Why are rape and incest different? The "child" isn't responsible for the rape or incest. Why should a potential child suffer for someone else's actions? The potential child is the victim.
What I am saying here is that "no abortions, except in the case of rape or incest" is not a moral position. The only moral position is: "no abortions". It's a pragmatic position, and if you are going to be pragmatic, you should allow abortions in a much wider set of cases.
"moral", not legal.
If that's the case, you don't have any moral right to comment on politics, the judges of the Federal courts, or any US government policies.
You can do a write-in vote if you don't like any of the candidates.
Was Yahoo p***d off about people who don't allow some cookies to be set?