"Dear kind sir, I am the three-year-old child of millionaire skgrey. My father's bank accounts are overflowing, and I would like to share some of my family's good fortune while he is distracted by slashdot. I merely need some bank account numbers of yours for good faith to proceed with this gifting.
"With great hope,
Junior"
Please don't let your kid get too curious with the laptop!
All due respect to Wallace Shawn, just because the chances of something occurring are inconceivably small, that doesn't mean it won't happen. I don't want there to be "almost no chance" that my recent tax records won't be corrupted by a block of data from a photograph of my recent trip to Bora-bora, I want there to be "no chance". Luckily, if collisions are going to be rare, the extra investment of a bit-for-bit check is probably not all that expensive for the system to do.
You have to think that in the span between Australopithecus and the advent of permanent records, an awful lot of interesting things must have happened and there's no way of knowing exactly how much of it was preserved.
Or alternately, a whole lot of nothing happened. It's quite possible that things were very, very boring for a long time.
The antidote to speech with which you do not agree is more free speech, not limits on speech. As much as I might not like that message, if we start getting into battles about what's acceptable and what's not, then it's inevitable that everyone will be unhappy with the result.
That ad was ridiculous, but it did not incite violence, did not include anything approaching hate speech. It was idiocy and should--and could--be countered by other communication presenting the other side.
It's a pity that catering to the lowest common denominator works, to some degree, but suggesting that it should have been OK to sue to present that ad altogether just because it promoted the views of the asinine would be going down a very dark path.
Now, if that quote attributed to teacher Allen were somehow fabricated or edited such that it was inaccurate, then sure, it should be blocked because it contains libel. Otherwise, it's up to clearer heads to simply counter it.
That's one of the sillier posts I've ever seen. There are lots of things that a media outlet can do that are worthy of complaints even if they are not under the umbrella of censorship.
Examples:
Promoting lies and misrepresentations as if they were facts.
Creating a fake "grassroots" movement and promoting it as if it were real.
Publishing verbatim talking points from one political party as if they were objective news.
Claiming to be a news agency while dropping any hints of objective reporting.
Now, it's normal for a media outlet to have its own slant or bias; even a corporation evolves a "culture" which colors what is reported. However, Fox is not even rationally consistent with its judgements; take, for example, back to back reports on Britney Spears' younger sister being pregnant vs. Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Bill O'Reilly went from calling Spears' parents "pinheads" to saying that "the liberal media's judgement of Palin is outrageous" without taking a breath. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Local Fox affiliates have normal news. The parent news agency, with their "Fox and Friends", Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and more, are entertainment at best, a propaganda agency at worst, even in those segments where they claim to be news.
Understood; you're right. Maybe tax incentives would be pushing it too far. But the truth is that reducing that sort of centralized overhead is good for many--not all, but many--companies, and that lost revenue for associated businesses might happily go somewhere else more sustainable.
Imagine if people could afford to live where they want to, get their kids the best education possible, and spend the time they wanted to with family and friends. Eliminate the cost of gas, vehicle maintenance and parking, and the time of commuting, and you might find yourself a whole lot closer to a lot of goals.
I used to work for a small ISP that made some missteps in the days leading up to the dot-com bust, and the boss was about to issue pink slips for everyone and jump off a bridge when I did some number crunching and found that if we shut down the office, got a good deal co-locating our servers, and move operations to employees homes, we'd be able to maintain our services and salaries for half of the staff. I went in and made that proposal, and as such was able to continue providing primary operations support for them for another five years after what was supposed to be D-day. Even today, another five years later, a handful of loyal clients are providing enough business that one of the original founders is still maintaining the service on a part-time basis from his home.
Provide tax incentives to large companies to encourage as many of their workers as possible to telecommute as often as possible. This would accomplish a number of things:
It would alter the bandwidth landscape such that a pandemic would have a less significant sudden effect on the amount of dependency on home Internet connections.
It would reduce vehicle traffic on the roads during peak commute hours.
Per the previous item, it would reduce the amount of carbon emissions going into the air due to tens of thousands of cars sitting idle in traffic jams twice a day.
Per the previous items, it would also cut down on the volume of fossil fuels burned during commute hours and may assist in reducing our dependency on foreign oil sources.
It would reduce the volume of physical interactions between employees, reducing the likelihood of a pandemic spreading throughout an entire organization, and also reducing the flow of such a virus through society at large.
I am sure there would be negative implications as well, but I think there is a lot to be said for encouraging an environment where there are more people working from home.
What evidence? Despite many claims by governments over the last century that they are based on Marxist tenets, that they are socialist, that they are the people's democracies, they have typically, in fact been dictatorships or oligarchies.
Unfortunately, as lofty as Marx's own goals might have been, the people who have walked the path that he paved--or who claim to have tried to walk that path--typically get distracted by their own greed and power, and end up no better than the robber barons who run much of industry in the capitalist world.
Looking back, I realize that you weren't claiming that Marxism wouldn't be better, but rather challenging the assertion that it is more realistic. Maybe I've just added fuel to that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
"Dear kind sir, I am the three-year-old child of millionaire skgrey. My father's bank accounts are overflowing, and I would like to share some of my family's good fortune while he is distracted by slashdot. I merely need some bank account numbers of yours for good faith to proceed with this gifting.
"With great hope,
Junior"
Please don't let your kid get too curious with the laptop!
Yeah, I figured it was something like that. I love the vehemence with which people adhere to their own self-deception. Reminds me of Fox News.
Uh, the 1541 as the Commodore 64's floppy drive, Einstein.
All due respect to Wallace Shawn, just because the chances of something occurring are inconceivably small, that doesn't mean it won't happen. I don't want there to be "almost no chance" that my recent tax records won't be corrupted by a block of data from a photograph of my recent trip to Bora-bora, I want there to be "no chance". Luckily, if collisions are going to be rare, the extra investment of a bit-for-bit check is probably not all that expensive for the system to do.
whoosh?
Uh, Terminator 3 (Rise of the Machines) and Terminator 4 (Salvation). Just because they're not great movies doesn't mean that they weren't made.
Shhhh! It's for the TV show!
Not illegal, just in violation of what appears to be an enforceable license agreement.
Thank you. Data are plural, not a singular group noun.
Probably deserves a promotion.
You have to think that in the span between Australopithecus and the advent of permanent records, an awful lot of interesting things must have happened and there's no way of knowing exactly how much of it was preserved.
Or alternately, a whole lot of nothing happened. It's quite possible that things were very, very boring for a long time.
No, for President Obama, of course. He's got one; why not two?
True. Didn't you ever read Clan of the Cave Bear?
I thought we wiped them out because they were so tender and delicious if properly prepared.
I'm sure every scientist, and probably everyone else as well, has committed similar sins at some point.
What evidence do you have to support that statement?
The antidote to speech with which you do not agree is more free speech, not limits on speech. As much as I might not like that message, if we start getting into battles about what's acceptable and what's not, then it's inevitable that everyone will be unhappy with the result.
That ad was ridiculous, but it did not incite violence, did not include anything approaching hate speech. It was idiocy and should--and could--be countered by other communication presenting the other side.
It's a pity that catering to the lowest common denominator works, to some degree, but suggesting that it should have been OK to sue to present that ad altogether just because it promoted the views of the asinine would be going down a very dark path.
Now, if that quote attributed to teacher Allen were somehow fabricated or edited such that it was inaccurate, then sure, it should be blocked because it contains libel. Otherwise, it's up to clearer heads to simply counter it.
Examples:
Now, it's normal for a media outlet to have its own slant or bias; even a corporation evolves a "culture" which colors what is reported. However, Fox is not even rationally consistent with its judgements; take, for example, back to back reports on Britney Spears' younger sister being pregnant vs. Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Bill O'Reilly went from calling Spears' parents "pinheads" to saying that "the liberal media's judgement of Palin is outrageous" without taking a breath. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
Local Fox affiliates have normal news. The parent news agency, with their "Fox and Friends", Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly and more, are entertainment at best, a propaganda agency at worst, even in those segments where they claim to be news.
If I may say so, then, your employer is an idiot :) Anyone can *look* productive.
Understood; you're right. Maybe tax incentives would be pushing it too far. But the truth is that reducing that sort of centralized overhead is good for many--not all, but many--companies, and that lost revenue for associated businesses might happily go somewhere else more sustainable.
Imagine if people could afford to live where they want to, get their kids the best education possible, and spend the time they wanted to with family and friends. Eliminate the cost of gas, vehicle maintenance and parking, and the time of commuting, and you might find yourself a whole lot closer to a lot of goals.
I used to work for a small ISP that made some missteps in the days leading up to the dot-com bust, and the boss was about to issue pink slips for everyone and jump off a bridge when I did some number crunching and found that if we shut down the office, got a good deal co-locating our servers, and move operations to employees homes, we'd be able to maintain our services and salaries for half of the staff. I went in and made that proposal, and as such was able to continue providing primary operations support for them for another five years after what was supposed to be D-day. Even today, another five years later, a handful of loyal clients are providing enough business that one of the original founders is still maintaining the service on a part-time basis from his home.
I am sure there would be negative implications as well, but I think there is a lot to be said for encouraging an environment where there are more people working from home.
Dood, throw away Winsock and get Chameleon. It's waaay better and easier to configure.
It's full of strippers?
Yahoo!
A true free market is simply a thought experiment and target, it can never be achieved anymore than a marxist economy could.
Well put.
Despite evidence?
What evidence? Despite many claims by governments over the last century that they are based on Marxist tenets, that they are socialist, that they are the people's democracies, they have typically, in fact been dictatorships or oligarchies.
Unfortunately, as lofty as Marx's own goals might have been, the people who have walked the path that he paved--or who claim to have tried to walk that path--typically get distracted by their own greed and power, and end up no better than the robber barons who run much of industry in the capitalist world.
Looking back, I realize that you weren't claiming that Marxism wouldn't be better, but rather challenging the assertion that it is more realistic. Maybe I've just added fuel to that argument.
Ignore the other idiots who responded to you. Your post is right on.