Having lived in both DC and Va, I'd say that living in DC yields a much higher quality of life. I didn't actually work in DC, but the commute from DC to the pentagon (and then Rosslyn) was very easy compared to any commute in Va, to any place near DC.
Your basic biology is from the 1950s. These days we know better . . . the female sex drive is just as varied as the male sex drive. Biologically the female organism is set up so that having multiple male sexual partners will result in the most genetically favorable offspring, this is as true for human females as for other species. The drive you seem to be confusing the sex drive with is seeking security . . . finding a male to raise the kids is perhaps a different process than finding one to father them. Also, most of the people I know (male and female) don't view sex as something degrading.
BP's negligence (if so) is entirely relevant to the discussion. And while Exxon skated on the punitive damages from the Valdez spill, that does not mean that we should allow the same for BP. If it turns out that transocean or some other company or individual was negligent than the punitive portion of this mess should fall to them. Right now it appears (to me at least) that BP was negligent. The attitude is firstly anger that these oil companies, making record profits, have little regard to the ecosystem, and secondly frustration that their mistakes could potentially cause irreparable damage. No one has suggested that BP did want an oil spill, merely that they arrogantly assumed that if one did happen it is less costly to clean it up than it is to take reasonable steps to prevent it (much like Exxon not fixing the sonar that would have alterted the first mate to the impending collision with the reef).
I do. But the sound from the google pac man doesn't play . . . my email notifications do, as do the "you pressed a stupid button" sound, pandora, etc. I wish I could hear the pac man music . . .
It seems like you're overstating the case. As an app developer I can code something for Windows, but will have to separate the API calls if I want to easily port for KDE (for instance). Assuming I write in C/C++ I can do this, with extra effort. I could also write my app in Flash so that it is portable, but I then have to accept the limitations of Flash. In this case, for the iPhone it seems to be the same situation, with the limitations for Flash being that it does not work. So I can still develop an app that I want to market for the iPhone as well as other mobile (or even desktop) environments, and the situation is no different than it has been at any time in the world of computers. That is if I want to easily port my app to different platforms I will have to abstract the platform dependant portions so that I can re-use the rest of the code directly, and have separate bits of code for the various APIs and such. While I don't necessarily agree with Apple's iPhone policies, I don't see anything anticompetitive with regards to this particular policy (you must develop only in C, C++, or objC).
Of course not, just making a fairly pedantic point that most apple products are open, in that osx is very open. It's only the gadgets that are restricted. I believe the post I responded to said that all ithings were closed. That is clearly not the case.
I suppose that your acceptance of the analogy is indicative of where we differ. Had he been the fire marshal in the building, and had keys to the elevators, and rather than set the fire, discovered it and took appropriate action by alerting the fire department, locking the elevators, etc. Now the analogy would continue that the building super demands that he provide the keys to the elevators, and he refuses as they should only be given to the fire department once they get there. He is then fired, but still gives the keys to the fire department. He is then thrown in jail and convicted of setting a bomb in the elevators.
Point taken. We'd have to have access to the policies, but I would venture a guess that the law stating it is forbidden for him to give the password to his boss was in fact written by the state government. The federal government makes plenty of statutes regarding the IT laws for federal computer resources. The same is true for state governments and I'd guess local governments as well.
They didn't have to spend the money. He did not take the computers, nor did he tamper with them. They (the city) could have simply reset the passwords and moved on. Any decision to do something else was not Child's responsibility.
This guy was in the employ of the city government, which necessarily acts differently than a corp, which makes your analogy false. His direct bosses don't make the rules, the elected officials do. The difference is crucial. Furthermore, his following the rules was not to the detriment of the city.
Logic fail. As you point out the unregulated nature of existing on-line gambling leads to stupid people giving their money away to cheaters. What legalization and regulation do is help to provide a level playing field, where on line poker (for instance) has a much better chance of being fair (ie, not run by cheaters). What you are actually proposing to do is keep it illegal so that stupid people will continue to give their money away to the cheaters. All of that is beside the point though, as the role of government is not to protect stupid people in the first place. Nor is it to establish a moral code.
Gambling doesn't affect the families of the gamblers. Lying and stealing do. What you are trying to show is that gambling leads to lying and stealing. This could be true for a subset of people, but I would contend that people like that are predisposed to lying and stealing and will end up doing so regardless (similar to any addictive personality). It is beyond the scope of government at any level to regulate down to that level, as it then will necessarily impede the rights of all.
As for the first point regarding air-space, perhaps you should put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You are part of a sovereign nation, and some dudes come in over sea and take over, relegating you to a small patch of land. Eventually these conquerors (after killing most of your kind) grant you sovereign rights once again. It is up to Germany to determine what happens over German airspace, right? It is up to the FAA to determine what happens over USA airspace, still right? Now, the tribes have mineral rights over their lands, what is so absurd about them claiming the airspace above as well? Just because the FAA tells them? Who are the FAA to dictate rules to a sovereign entity? The arrogance is astounding. All people bend the laws to their own will, or at least anyone with the power to do so does. Sounds to me like you are a bit jaded with regards to the Havasupai . . .
The terms in the DNA case were set by the scope of the study which was presented by the researchers and was the foundation of the agreement. Likewise, when you buy the product you know what the limitations are. Neither is a problem. When the company changes the limitations on the product (PS3, made more restrictive for instance) or the scope is expanded after the fact, without obtaining authorization then both are a problem. You see?
I wish that the Apple TV had been something of actual use. If it had a built in HD Tuner and some PVR software on top of whatever it already has then maybe it starts to have a point (especially with a DVD player). I remember being at the Apple store looking for a TV Tuner that my G4 laptop could use and the salesman trying to sell me the Apple TV (?). I asked what it did and he told me that it was basically like an iPod, but for video (uhh, the iPod plays video) yeah, but this is for the TV. Very strange.
Maybe saying that I wish is a little far fetched, so let me just say that I was disappointed by the pointlessness of the product. I do have a friend who bought one, and it made getting you tube onto his TV very easy . . . which is to say I don't really think it did anything at all.
Slashdot Mirror
That's disposal cost rather than replacement cost.
Having lived in both DC and Va, I'd say that living in DC yields a much higher quality of life. I didn't actually work in DC, but the commute from DC to the pentagon (and then Rosslyn) was very easy compared to any commute in Va, to any place near DC.
Your basic biology is from the 1950s. These days we know better . . . the female sex drive is just as varied as the male sex drive. Biologically the female organism is set up so that having multiple male sexual partners will result in the most genetically favorable offspring, this is as true for human females as for other species. The drive you seem to be confusing the sex drive with is seeking security . . . finding a male to raise the kids is perhaps a different process than finding one to father them. Also, most of the people I know (male and female) don't view sex as something degrading.
Not a priest. Actually a cleric, a step below the priest in the hierarchy of the church. But still had to take a vow of celibacy.
BP's negligence (if so) is entirely relevant to the discussion. And while Exxon skated on the punitive damages from the Valdez spill, that does not mean that we should allow the same for BP. If it turns out that transocean or some other company or individual was negligent than the punitive portion of this mess should fall to them. Right now it appears (to me at least) that BP was negligent. The attitude is firstly anger that these oil companies, making record profits, have little regard to the ecosystem, and secondly frustration that their mistakes could potentially cause irreparable damage. No one has suggested that BP did want an oil spill, merely that they arrogantly assumed that if one did happen it is less costly to clean it up than it is to take reasonable steps to prevent it (much like Exxon not fixing the sonar that would have alterted the first mate to the impending collision with the reef).
I do. But the sound from the google pac man doesn't play . . . my email notifications do, as do the "you pressed a stupid button" sound, pandora, etc. I wish I could hear the pac man music . . .
As ineffective as:
war on drugs
war on terrorism
walls on the borders
war for peace
sex for chastity
It seems like you're overstating the case. As an app developer I can code something for Windows, but will have to separate the API calls if I want to easily port for KDE (for instance). Assuming I write in C/C++ I can do this, with extra effort. I could also write my app in Flash so that it is portable, but I then have to accept the limitations of Flash. In this case, for the iPhone it seems to be the same situation, with the limitations for Flash being that it does not work. So I can still develop an app that I want to market for the iPhone as well as other mobile (or even desktop) environments, and the situation is no different than it has been at any time in the world of computers. That is if I want to easily port my app to different platforms I will have to abstract the platform dependant portions so that I can re-use the rest of the code directly, and have separate bits of code for the various APIs and such. While I don't necessarily agree with Apple's iPhone policies, I don't see anything anticompetitive with regards to this particular policy (you must develop only in C, C++, or objC).
Of course not, just making a fairly pedantic point that most apple products are open, in that osx is very open. It's only the gadgets that are restricted. I believe the post I responded to said that all ithings were closed. That is clearly not the case.
Not all iThings are like that. iBook and iMac come to mind.
so, mostly then?
That's not Obama's philosophy as much as it is the government's philosophy.
Groovy
I suppose that your acceptance of the analogy is indicative of where we differ. Had he been the fire marshal in the building, and had keys to the elevators, and rather than set the fire, discovered it and took appropriate action by alerting the fire department, locking the elevators, etc. Now the analogy would continue that the building super demands that he provide the keys to the elevators, and he refuses as they should only be given to the fire department once they get there. He is then fired, but still gives the keys to the fire department. He is then thrown in jail and convicted of setting a bomb in the elevators.
Do you really think your analogy is apt?
Point taken. We'd have to have access to the policies, but I would venture a guess that the law stating it is forbidden for him to give the password to his boss was in fact written by the state government. The federal government makes plenty of statutes regarding the IT laws for federal computer resources. The same is true for state governments and I'd guess local governments as well.
They didn't have to spend the money. He did not take the computers, nor did he tamper with them. They (the city) could have simply reset the passwords and moved on. Any decision to do something else was not Child's responsibility.
This guy was in the employ of the city government, which necessarily acts differently than a corp, which makes your analogy false. His direct bosses don't make the rules, the elected officials do. The difference is crucial. Furthermore, his following the rules was not to the detriment of the city.
Logic fail. As you point out the unregulated nature of existing on-line gambling leads to stupid people giving their money away to cheaters. What legalization and regulation do is help to provide a level playing field, where on line poker (for instance) has a much better chance of being fair (ie, not run by cheaters). What you are actually proposing to do is keep it illegal so that stupid people will continue to give their money away to the cheaters. All of that is beside the point though, as the role of government is not to protect stupid people in the first place. Nor is it to establish a moral code.
Gambling doesn't affect the families of the gamblers. Lying and stealing do. What you are trying to show is that gambling leads to lying and stealing. This could be true for a subset of people, but I would contend that people like that are predisposed to lying and stealing and will end up doing so regardless (similar to any addictive personality). It is beyond the scope of government at any level to regulate down to that level, as it then will necessarily impede the rights of all.
If that were true I'd never have lost the point at the craps table. Unfortunately it is not and I have.
As for the first point regarding air-space, perhaps you should put yourself in their shoes for a minute. You are part of a sovereign nation, and some dudes come in over sea and take over, relegating you to a small patch of land. Eventually these conquerors (after killing most of your kind) grant you sovereign rights once again. It is up to Germany to determine what happens over German airspace, right? It is up to the FAA to determine what happens over USA airspace, still right? Now, the tribes have mineral rights over their lands, what is so absurd about them claiming the airspace above as well? Just because the FAA tells them? Who are the FAA to dictate rules to a sovereign entity? The arrogance is astounding. All people bend the laws to their own will, or at least anyone with the power to do so does. Sounds to me like you are a bit jaded with regards to the Havasupai . . .
The terms in the DNA case were set by the scope of the study which was presented by the researchers and was the foundation of the agreement. Likewise, when you buy the product you know what the limitations are. Neither is a problem. When the company changes the limitations on the product (PS3, made more restrictive for instance) or the scope is expanded after the fact, without obtaining authorization then both are a problem. You see?
It's true. I now have a 10" dick and double D moobs.
I wish that the Apple TV had been something of actual use. If it had a built in HD Tuner and some PVR software on top of whatever it already has then maybe it starts to have a point (especially with a DVD player). I remember being at the Apple store looking for a TV Tuner that my G4 laptop could use and the salesman trying to sell me the Apple TV (?). I asked what it did and he told me that it was basically like an iPod, but for video (uhh, the iPod plays video) yeah, but this is for the TV. Very strange.
Maybe saying that I wish is a little far fetched, so let me just say that I was disappointed by the pointlessness of the product. I do have a friend who bought one, and it made getting you tube onto his TV very easy . . . which is to say I don't really think it did anything at all.