So the guy that won 60% of the vote will work for 6 days, then the other guy will come in for 4 days, then the first guy will come back for 6, yeah, I like that idea, especially during a week long summit meeting.
What's your point? You copied my text, then modified it to be your own stupid creation, and then responded to your own stupid remarks. Must be a troll.
Must have been a very small school. He killed 16 kids and one adult. Not that 16 isn't a lot of kids, it's just that the victims of gun crimes in the UK is much smaller than the total victims of all violent crimes, so IMHO, they overreacted a bit by banning all guns.
It doesn't take many guns in the population to deter burglars. Burglars seem to know which neighborhoods the gun owners live in which means that all homes are safer, not just the gun owners.
The problem is that corporations and government agencies have different objectives. Corporations attempt to maximize Return on Investment whereas governments want to grow. Therefore, they do a different math problem. Governments care about economic development, they want broadband to encourage businesses and other potential taxpayers to move into their community and generate more taxable activity by existing taxpayers. All the cable guy gets is the monthy fee for service, whereas the government also gets the increased tax revenue due to economic development.
Actually, cities, landlords, and home owners association aren't permited to ban satellite dishes by federal law. They used to do it, but this changed a few years ago in 1986. You need to keep up with the FCC. Read this: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/Satellite-TV/TVRO/part7/ In short, you can have a dish, the standards for proving that it physically harms a person and not just his property values are too high for the city/landlord to win in most situations.
Some people will complain about latency, but the real problem with satellite dish for internet is that it is so damned expensive!
How to know whether they are providing the best service for the price they charge? That doesn't really matter. The name of the game is maximizing return on investment. If a slightly lower service letter allows them to reduce costs without losing customers, that is what they will do. But, if the customers feel sufficiently abused to demand an alternative, then this tactic backfires.
By lazy, I'm referring specifically to their effort at monitoring the public mood and governments' likelihood of jumping in and providing the service itself. When the whining reached a certain level, they should have realized that the demand was sufficient that if they didn't respond to it, someone else would. In the case of a regulated monopoly, that someone would be the government itself.
This is most likely to happen in areas where the provider decides not to do business because they don't anticipate enough customers to justify laying the fiber or whatever big expensive fixed cost thing they must do to enter that market. Some people forsaw that broadband would make their communities more desirable to businesses and people making relocation decisions and decided to do what the private corporation did not because it did not project far enough into the future when making its business decision. This proceeds to the ongoing discussions elsewhere of shortsighted corporate accounting methods and how they affect management and shareholder decisions.
Private corporations shouldn't be so lazy that government might think it can provide a higher level of service. Private corporations that let their customers become so unsatisfied that they resort to government takeover have squandered their monopoly privilige. I don't see how cable companies, etc, can be so shortsighted, when service is bad enough, the government will get involved for better or worse.
As broadband becomes seen as a basic utility that enhances the competitive ability of a community, governments will make satisfactory service a higher priority. Customers sometimes do vote with their feet, just look at public schools where parents frequently put school quality ahead of everything else when choosing a place to live. Corporations tend to locate where communication and transport services are superior. Smart communities care about communications, transportation, and schools.
Have you never heard the phrase "To vote with your feet"? Moving from one, Please pay attention, parent and article are talking about regulated monopolies, the choice isn't about walking from one ISP to another, it is choosing between having a service or not having it at all. With a regulated monopoly, the feedback loop is complicated by the inclusion of the regulatory agency, which tends to be very slow at taking actions that affect the financial well being of the corporation.
Stories about Walmart and its effects on communities and the overall economy come up frequently on all types of media I pay attention to. that would be mainstream TV, Radio, and Newspapers as well as news magazines. Most are negative, as you mention, but opposing points of view are usually mentioned. Besides, no matter how evil they might be, as long as so many people continue to shop there of their own free will, the coverage isn't dangerously biased.
The problem is the user never gets any feedback on the gui. You have to dmesg and look what scsi-id the device got and then you have to mount it.
thanks, I just bought a JumpDrive which works just fine on my Mac, but I coudn't mount it on my RedHat box. I thought I needed a driver or something. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. I'll take your advice and see.
If anyone has specific and detailed information on how to install a Lexar Jump Drive on Red Hat 9, please post it here. I'm trying not to wear out my brain. Thanks for being so understanding.
For many people, "The News" is simply a reality show that has little value other than entertainment. There a are probably quite a few people who don't understand the editorial biases of their favorite news sources. But, it probably doesn't matter since these are the sort of people who mostly listen to people they already agree with. So Fox and its ilk are more likely to provide debate ammunition to people who already know what they want to think rather than fuel for serious discussion between open minded people.
The most prestigous magazines reject virtually all unsolicated artices. I just reviewed the list and most of them were written with the intent of being published in American media, not foreign media. In fact, many were published in magazines that aren't at all obscure, but apparently not as prestigous as the author would have liked. I picture the writers of these so-called "censored" articles, submitting their not quite Major League articles to one of the biggies, then turning around and claiming that they must have been "censored".
These were not hard news stories, they were in fact, opinion pieces. Opinion pieces tend to be written by a small group of people whose backgrounds are very well known. It is hard for a new writer to break into that group. These people have established their reputations before they got published by the biggies, not afterwards. They probably got their reputations by writing in those not quite so prestigous journals that do publish less established writers. Just because you haven't heard of a writer before they made it to the big time doesn't mean they don't have a reputation within the profession. It simply means that you don't read as many of those less widely circulated as the editors whose job it is to decide what to publish and what to reject (not censor).
One last fact, opinion writers must be both interesting and factually correct. The interesting part is even more important in the televised media, but even those people can't grossly misrepresent the facts and be expected to be taken seriously.
If a p2p backup system did catch on, it would provide another bit of evidence that p2p is a legitimate tool that should be available. The more "good" uses, the more it legitimizes p2p.
Yes, unchecked power in the wrong hands is extremely dangerous. And, sometimes, power corrupts.
The electorate can do that every 4-5 years,
That isn't often enough. A lot can happen in 4 or 5 years. President Bush did not run as a foreign policy president and he did not run on his ability to wage war. The electorate can't anticipate everything.
and it was the electorate that elected the party in the first place.
But the electorate cannot evaluate how the elected is going to act in every situation. At best, it can only elect good leaders based on information known at the time of the election. Some other system is needed to ensure that they remain good leaders in the event the situation changes. It is very difficult to remove elected leaders in the middle of their terms and sometimes, 4 or 5 years is too long to wait.
I started there in the 70'. I've only succeeded in getting it so that the Libertarian Party doesn't need to waste energy getting itself on the ballot in my state. If they get enough votes, they get on without a petition in the next election.
But, I might not vote for them this year since the margin in the presidential is so close. That's why I'm still undecided, it's not that I'll suddenly like Bush or Kerry at the last minute, it's that I don't want the Libertarians to fall off the ballot for the next election.
So, I started voting third party 30 years ago and it hasn't mattered much. That's why I studied electorial systems and discovered why our system is biased against more than 2 parties (see the link in my sig). If the 50% of registered voters that don't vote could be persuaded to vote for election reform, we might actually have a system that responds to our values. One that actually derives its power from the governed rather than being controlled by 2 parties that preserve their power by staying away from meaningful debate on the truly hot issues like Social Security and Tax Reform.
This is exactly why we need to use a system that encourages more than 2 electable parties. The only thing worse than 2 parties is having only one, like Iraq with the Baath or Mexico with the PRI. Two parties tend to polarize the debate and encourage negative "mudslinging" arguments about relatively unimportant issues (Swift votes and draft dodging) rather than positive debate on the issues that really matter (Healthcare, Terrorism, Iraq). Sure, they get debated, but we here mostly about what's wrong with the other guy's plan, not what's right with this guy's plan. And we never here anything about Election Reform since the current system works just fine for the folks in power.
I find it rather frightening that the majority party gets to choose the Prime Minister and everyone else in the executive branch. I'd hate to see that happening in the US. I'm one of the apparently large group of voters that does what I can do ensure that one party doesn't win the presidency, the Senate and the House.
Agreed, making new laws should be very difficult What's the point in making laws faster than anyone can read them? An efficient government is a powerful government, but the government should never be allowed to become more powerful than the nation it governs.
This is a good thing only if you want the third party candidate to threaten to spoil the election for the others. It's not good if you want the system to offer a true alternative to the two big guys fighting over the middle.
Besides, if you aren't one of the undecided voters in a swing state, a very small group of people, about 11% of all voters, none of this matters. Your wishes will be ignored.
That is correct. Even without the media, third party candidates have little chance unless the first two parties screw up majorly. Even without the electorial college, the third party candidates have a huge obstacle to overcome. A simple winner-take-all popular election is still biased towards the more established parties. This phenomena has been studied and even has a name Duverger's_law. This is simply an academic explanation that boils down to the fact that voters serve themselves better by voting for the lessor of two evils than by "throwing away" their vote on a third party which tends to help the "wrong" candidate. Even if a significant percentage vote for the third party, the winner can safely ignore whatever message it was trying to send.
What we need is some sort of instant runoff or proportional voting system. Instant runoff is easy to understand. You cast your first vote for who you really want and your second vote for whom you would settle for. A true proportional system would be even better. The sad reality is that the US is one of the few nations that uses the simple plurality system that doesn't even require a majority. Canada happens to be another.
You have just placed this lovely thought into the public domain. It is fully within your rights to do so. But you haven't provided anything of value as this particular thought isn't worth much.
Acrynyms can be very useful when space or time is a limited resource. Sinking ships standardized on SOS to alert the rest of us to their predicament decades ago. Hams have been finding each other with CQ almost as long as their have been hams. And then there are those vanity license plates, where an entire personality can be described with a combination of 8 letters and numerals.
Slashdot Mirror
So the guy that won 60% of the vote will work for 6 days, then the other guy will come in for 4 days, then the first guy will come back for 6, yeah, I like that idea, especially during a week long summit meeting.
I'm sure that she can get pain relief counseling from the same counselor who can't perform an abortion.
What's your point? You copied my text, then modified it to be your own stupid creation, and then responded to your own stupid remarks. Must be a troll.
It doesn't take many guns in the population to deter burglars. Burglars seem to know which neighborhoods the gun owners live in which means that all homes are safer, not just the gun owners.
The problem is that corporations and government agencies have different objectives. Corporations attempt to maximize Return on Investment whereas governments want to grow. Therefore, they do a different math problem. Governments care about economic development, they want broadband to encourage businesses and other potential taxpayers to move into their community and generate more taxable activity by existing taxpayers. All the cable guy gets is the monthy fee for service, whereas the government also gets the increased tax revenue due to economic development.
Some people will complain about latency, but the real problem with satellite dish for internet is that it is so damned expensive!
By lazy, I'm referring specifically to their effort at monitoring the public mood and governments' likelihood of jumping in and providing the service itself. When the whining reached a certain level, they should have realized that the demand was sufficient that if they didn't respond to it, someone else would. In the case of a regulated monopoly, that someone would be the government itself.
This is most likely to happen in areas where the provider decides not to do business because they don't anticipate enough customers to justify laying the fiber or whatever big expensive fixed cost thing they must do to enter that market. Some people forsaw that broadband would make their communities more desirable to businesses and people making relocation decisions and decided to do what the private corporation did not because it did not project far enough into the future when making its business decision. This proceeds to the ongoing discussions elsewhere of shortsighted corporate accounting methods and how they affect management and shareholder decisions.
As broadband becomes seen as a basic utility that enhances the competitive ability of a community, governments will make satisfactory service a higher priority. Customers sometimes do vote with their feet, just look at public schools where parents frequently put school quality ahead of everything else when choosing a place to live. Corporations tend to locate where communication and transport services are superior. Smart communities care about communications, transportation, and schools.
Have you never heard the phrase "To vote with your feet"? Moving from one, Please pay attention, parent and article are talking about regulated monopolies, the choice isn't about walking from one ISP to another, it is choosing between having a service or not having it at all. With a regulated monopoly, the feedback loop is complicated by the inclusion of the regulatory agency, which tends to be very slow at taking actions that affect the financial well being of the corporation.
Stories about Walmart and its effects on communities and the overall economy come up frequently on all types of media I pay attention to. that would be mainstream TV, Radio, and Newspapers as well as news magazines. Most are negative, as you mention, but opposing points of view are usually mentioned. Besides, no matter how evil they might be, as long as so many people continue to shop there of their own free will, the coverage isn't dangerously biased.
thanks, I just bought a JumpDrive which works just fine on my Mac, but I coudn't mount it on my RedHat box. I thought I needed a driver or something. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. I'll take your advice and see.
If anyone has specific and detailed information on how to install a Lexar Jump Drive on Red Hat 9, please post it here. I'm trying not to wear out my brain. Thanks for being so understanding.
For many people, "The News" is simply a reality show that has little value other than entertainment. There a are probably quite a few people who don't understand the editorial biases of their favorite news sources. But, it probably doesn't matter since these are the sort of people who mostly listen to people they already agree with. So Fox and its ilk are more likely to provide debate ammunition to people who already know what they want to think rather than fuel for serious discussion between open minded people.
These were not hard news stories, they were in fact, opinion pieces. Opinion pieces tend to be written by a small group of people whose backgrounds are very well known. It is hard for a new writer to break into that group. These people have established their reputations before they got published by the biggies, not afterwards. They probably got their reputations by writing in those not quite so prestigous journals that do publish less established writers. Just because you haven't heard of a writer before they made it to the big time doesn't mean they don't have a reputation within the profession. It simply means that you don't read as many of those less widely circulated as the editors whose job it is to decide what to publish and what to reject (not censor).
One last fact, opinion writers must be both interesting and factually correct. The interesting part is even more important in the televised media, but even those people can't grossly misrepresent the facts and be expected to be taken seriously.
If a p2p backup system did catch on, it would provide another bit of evidence that p2p is a legitimate tool that should be available. The more "good" uses, the more it legitimizes p2p.
Yes, unchecked power in the wrong hands is extremely dangerous. And, sometimes, power corrupts.
The electorate can do that every 4-5 years,
That isn't often enough. A lot can happen in 4 or 5 years. President Bush did not run as a foreign policy president and he did not run on his ability to wage war. The electorate can't anticipate everything.
and it was the electorate that elected the party in the first place.
But the electorate cannot evaluate how the elected is going to act in every situation. At best, it can only elect good leaders based on information known at the time of the election. Some other system is needed to ensure that they remain good leaders in the event the situation changes. It is very difficult to remove elected leaders in the middle of their terms and sometimes, 4 or 5 years is too long to wait.
But, I might not vote for them this year since the margin in the presidential is so close. That's why I'm still undecided, it's not that I'll suddenly like Bush or Kerry at the last minute, it's that I don't want the Libertarians to fall off the ballot for the next election.
So, I started voting third party 30 years ago and it hasn't mattered much. That's why I studied electorial systems and discovered why our system is biased against more than 2 parties (see the link in my sig). If the 50% of registered voters that don't vote could be persuaded to vote for election reform, we might actually have a system that responds to our values. One that actually derives its power from the governed rather than being controlled by 2 parties that preserve their power by staying away from meaningful debate on the truly hot issues like Social Security and Tax Reform.
This is exactly why we need to use a system that encourages more than 2 electable parties. The only thing worse than 2 parties is having only one, like Iraq with the Baath or Mexico with the PRI. Two parties tend to polarize the debate and encourage negative "mudslinging" arguments about relatively unimportant issues (Swift votes and draft dodging) rather than positive debate on the issues that really matter (Healthcare, Terrorism, Iraq). Sure, they get debated, but we here mostly about what's wrong with the other guy's plan, not what's right with this guy's plan. And we never here anything about Election Reform since the current system works just fine for the folks in power.
I find it rather frightening that the majority party gets to choose the Prime Minister and everyone else in the executive branch. I'd hate to see that happening in the US. I'm one of the apparently large group of voters that does what I can do ensure that one party doesn't win the presidency, the Senate and the House.
Agreed, making new laws should be very difficult What's the point in making laws faster than anyone can read them? An efficient government is a powerful government, but the government should never be allowed to become more powerful than the nation it governs.
Besides, if you aren't one of the undecided voters in a swing state, a very small group of people, about 11% of all voters, none of this matters. Your wishes will be ignored.
What we need is some sort of instant runoff or proportional voting system. Instant runoff is easy to understand. You cast your first vote for who you really want and your second vote for whom you would settle for. A true proportional system would be even better. The sad reality is that the US is one of the few nations that uses the simple plurality system that doesn't even require a majority. Canada happens to be another.
You have just placed this lovely thought into the public domain. It is fully within your rights to do so. But you haven't provided anything of value as this particular thought isn't worth much.
Actually, I haven't. I have absolutely no use for a bunch of kids hanging out in my yard playing DOOM. It ruins the grass.
We need to find a pseudorandom collection of people we don't need on earth and install them into the ISS for a few months. Hey, I might volunteer..
Acrynyms can be very useful when space or time is a limited resource. Sinking ships standardized on SOS to alert the rest of us to their predicament decades ago. Hams have been finding each other with CQ almost as long as their have been hams. And then there are those vanity license plates, where an entire personality can be described with a combination of 8 letters and numerals.