Don't bother charging your neighbors, they're small fry. Get a backhoe and a webcam, and then charge the cable company say 4$/Min (more if it's an important cable). Granted it's not the most responsive tool for altering bandwidth, but it is effective.
I would consider something like this to be proof. In terms a car tracking system, I would think it would be easy to adapt too. Acriminal could either create some sort of GPS jammer (I'm assuming that the tracking device uses GPS, but the pricicpal stands for any car-mounted tracking device) or simply steal someone elses car. Even if the suspect had used their own car, all they have to do if they had used their own car would be to report it as stolen, giving them some plausible deniability.
As I understand it hit and runs tend to be more panic-induced than anyting else, and a car tracking system wouldn't stop them, it would just make them easier to catch. This is of course assmuning that the system is accurate enough to determine if you collided. If a hit and run occurs on a busy street, with say 40 cars per minute each way, and whoever gets isn't able to pin it down to within 1 min, you dealing with more than 80 cars that might have been in the accident. So unless this tracking system is accurate to within a meter, the hassle of tracking down 40+ vehicles per hit and run will counteract whatever gains are made from the tracking system in terms of effiecint use of police time.
the way it's written it sounds like someone has already made chip implants mandatory and Wisconsin is fighting it... They aren't, they are just being a bit proactive (for once).
please reference this slashdot story regarding mandatory chip access for datacenters.
Partly basing someone's intelligence off of their 'ethical intelligence' isn't a good idea. Take Leonardo da Vinci for example. He was a homosexual. If I was inclined to believe that homosexuality was ethically wrong, I would then believe that Leonardo da Vinci wasn't smart.
I know I'm going OT, splitting hairs, and am in fact technically incorrect (at least according to dictionary.com), but I'm still going to point out that in common usage ethical and moral have different meanings. Morality functions in regards to your personal behavior. Ethics relates your behavior towardsothers, particularly in regards to a proffesional setting.
One can be an immoral person, to use your example say they are a homosexual, but still behave ethically (i.e operating a buisness honestly, informing people of conflicts of interest). I would argue that Rove is ethically stupid because his behavior is damaging his industry, politics, by damaging the ability of the parties to work together in the government. The whole point of a democracy is to create a system in which everyone has a voice, not just the 51% of the population which supports the leading party right now. Rove is creating a tyranny of the majority.
I think Rove plays his game very well, but it's not the same game everyone else is playing, and thats the stupid part.
The last time I checked Al-Qaeda uses a rather primitive approach to terrorism. They use incendiary devices in shoes, which often fail, second hand weapons, and other non-technical approaches.
The website for Al-Qaeda should be near the bottom of the list for the defense department.
Al-Qaeda does however use the internet as an apparently effective recruiting and communication tool. While there isn't much of a threat of a cyber-terrorist strike, being able to cripple recruitment and diseminate counter propaganda would be very useful.
A ladder in the freeway isn't an emergency, a car sweving to avoid the ladder and hitting a school bus is. Just because the emergency hasn't happened yet doesn;t meen you shouldn't call.
It's interstate commerce? I mean HBO is HBO in california, Texas and Maine; it's hard to argue that seeling the same content in multiple states from a single organization, thats pretty much the definitation of interstate commerce.
I think it runs along the lines of the avoiding "corruption or the appearance of corruption" which is written into the campaign finance reform laws. The judge is saying that the knowledge that the gorvernment is reciaving all of the google search from a given period, say a month (what the DOJ requested), would having a chilling effect on free speech whether or not the gorvenment actually does or can do anything with that data.
Roughly the same right we have not to get pulled over by the cops, pulled out are cars and beaten. The reason we consider that a bad thing is that this society decided to limit the abilities of the police to do this becuase it interferes with this societies values. Laws are (ideally) designed as a method of enforcing the will of society upon itself.
To use your example of homeownership, our society considers homeonwership to be important becuase keeps some local (property ownership), creates feelings of independence (a man's home is his castle) and forces people to buy into the idea of capitalism (by linking their living conditions with the amount of money they are willing to spend). In order to reinforce this ideal the government (an ideal respresentation of the will of the people) reawrds people who conform to this idea of homeownership and punishes those who don't.
On the issue of internet access, we (heavy internet users) can expect some degree of subsidization from light internet users becuase it preserves in ideal of equality. Under the current system it is relativly easy for a light user to become a heavy user and vice versa, all you have to do is increase your usage (this isn't quite true of dial-up connections), this dovetails with the ideals of social mobility and freedom which our society holds dear. A light internet user, in subsidizing us heavy users, is paying for the right to become a heavy user if they so desire without being locked into a lower catagory by contract law.
I know this an ideal representation of the current system, but I believe that it's worth defending, and hopfully, progressing towards a more ideal version.
except washington isn't forcing your children to learn anything, all curiculum is implemented on local or state levels. Stop blamng the federal Government.
just becuase it's being built by western companies means we like it. It's increasingly looking like a large segment (or at least an important one)of the US population dislikes the fact that US companies are doing it.
That's great on an individual level. Enjoy not renting to a white christian male, you'll be happy, the white christian males will be happy becuase they don't have a sucky landlord who wishes they would die in a fire. But when every landlord in a town or city decides they are not going to rent to a particular group (white cristian males in this example), the lands are still happy, but the white christian males are not, after all they now have no place to live.
The fair houseing laws are designed to stop the second case from happening, thats why it's illigal AFAIK to deny someone housing on the basis of race, gender etc... Advertising that you don't want white christian males is one method of denying them housing. And while this may cause some situations as you descirbe where the white chirstian male is going is not going to get the apartment no matter what the advertising says, it's a nessesary inconvience for preventing the defacto segregation of your towns and cities.
Look at France, one of the reasons those massive riots occured last year was because french society had effectivly segregated itself so that muslim immagrants were forced to live in particularly shitty areas with little economic opportunity. When you concentrate a group like that your asking for social unrest.
The devil is in the details. The conditions they set for the loans are often a more restrictive than "don't put the money in your swiss bank account" often these include policy-level descisions and they are always ultra-free market. Now is your goverment isn't market-oriented, say they like to keep the water supply of the capitol run by the government, these conditions can cause problems. People see the World Bank/IMF as evil because the policies they force on countries in order to recieve that money make that country more open to corporations from the countries which run the WB/IMF. Government philanthropy looks pretty bad when people in your country are making millions of dollars from the "reforms" you demanded as a condition for aid.
As far as I know China is invested in US Savings bonds, as is Japan. The problem for them is that is they attempt to liquidate those bonds the market will crash, causing them to lose money. However, if they don't sell the bonds and the market crashes they stand to lose even more.
IMO neither China nor Japan wants to sell in the immediate future because for the time being US bonds are still pretty secure.
Second life isn't "creating" wealth, it's just a new form of agragation. Second Life is gaining value because people are putting their money into it. It has nothing to do with free markets.
Opening up a new market does not create wealth, it redistributes it. For every content person making money off of second life there are probably two or three people who are spending a significant portion of their income there. Thats where the wealth is coming from, not the invisible anus of the market.
Couldn't they be sueing under breach of contract? I assume that theres something somewhere sating that they won't give/sell that information away. If the EFF wins this class action suite it's possible they will force AT&T to tell all their customers that they give their data to the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
If corporations are treated as legal persons, they should have the same responsibilities as people. Have it one way or the other.
Don't bother charging your neighbors, they're small fry. Get a backhoe and a webcam, and then charge the cable company say 4$/Min (more if it's an important cable). Granted it's not the most responsive tool for altering bandwidth, but it is effective.
Would you mind terribly if you gave me your defintion of evil?
As I understand it hit and runs tend to be more panic-induced than anyting else, and a car tracking system wouldn't stop them, it would just make them easier to catch. This is of course assmuning that the system is accurate enough to determine if you collided. If a hit and run occurs on a busy street, with say 40 cars per minute each way, and whoever gets isn't able to pin it down to within 1 min, you dealing with more than 80 cars that might have been in the accident. So unless this tracking system is accurate to within a meter, the hassle of tracking down 40+ vehicles per hit and run will counteract whatever gains are made from the tracking system in terms of effiecint use of police time.
Can you prove this is going to reduce crime?
I'd still like to see you cut through even one layer of brick with a a utility knife, as the the gp(ggp?) suggested.
please reference this slashdot story regarding mandatory chip access for datacenters.
That's because the above threads were all started without reading the article. Set your view to read newest first to avoid this problem.
I know I'm going OT, splitting hairs, and am in fact technically incorrect (at least according to dictionary.com), but I'm still going to point out that in common usage ethical and moral have different meanings. Morality functions in regards to your personal behavior. Ethics relates your behavior towardsothers, particularly in regards to a proffesional setting.
One can be an immoral person, to use your example say they are a homosexual, but still behave ethically (i.e operating a buisness honestly, informing people of conflicts of interest). I would argue that Rove is ethically stupid because his behavior is damaging his industry, politics, by damaging the ability of the parties to work together in the government. The whole point of a democracy is to create a system in which everyone has a voice, not just the 51% of the population which supports the leading party right now. Rove is creating a tyranny of the majority.
I think Rove plays his game very well, but it's not the same game everyone else is playing, and thats the stupid part.
If the US govt wanted to attack the internet they could just start cutting fiber.
Al-Qaeda does however use the internet as an apparently effective recruiting and communication tool. While there isn't much of a threat of a cyber-terrorist strike, being able to cripple recruitment and diseminate counter propaganda would be very useful.
Think of the College Students!
A ladder in the freeway isn't an emergency, a car sweving to avoid the ladder and hitting a school bus is. Just because the emergency hasn't happened yet doesn;t meen you shouldn't call.
It's interstate commerce? I mean HBO is HBO in california, Texas and Maine; it's hard to argue that seeling the same content in multiple states from a single organization, thats pretty much the definitation of interstate commerce.
I think it runs along the lines of the avoiding "corruption or the appearance of corruption" which is written into the campaign finance reform laws. The judge is saying that the knowledge that the gorvernment is reciaving all of the google search from a given period, say a month (what the DOJ requested), would having a chilling effect on free speech whether or not the gorvenment actually does or can do anything with that data.
To use your example of homeownership, our society considers homeonwership to be important becuase keeps some local (property ownership), creates feelings of independence (a man's home is his castle) and forces people to buy into the idea of capitalism (by linking their living conditions with the amount of money they are willing to spend). In order to reinforce this ideal the government (an ideal respresentation of the will of the people) reawrds people who conform to this idea of homeownership and punishes those who don't.
On the issue of internet access, we (heavy internet users) can expect some degree of subsidization from light internet users becuase it preserves in ideal of equality. Under the current system it is relativly easy for a light user to become a heavy user and vice versa, all you have to do is increase your usage (this isn't quite true of dial-up connections), this dovetails with the ideals of social mobility and freedom which our society holds dear. A light internet user, in subsidizing us heavy users, is paying for the right to become a heavy user if they so desire without being locked into a lower catagory by contract law. I know this an ideal representation of the current system, but I believe that it's worth defending, and hopfully, progressing towards a more ideal version.
except washington isn't forcing your children to learn anything, all curiculum is implemented on local or state levels. Stop blamng the federal Government.
which is why they'll just redact all of them.
nicely done.
just becuase it's being built by western companies means we like it. It's increasingly looking like a large segment (or at least an important one)of the US population dislikes the fact that US companies are doing it.
The fair houseing laws are designed to stop the second case from happening, thats why it's illigal AFAIK to deny someone housing on the basis of race, gender etc... Advertising that you don't want white christian males is one method of denying them housing. And while this may cause some situations as you descirbe where the white chirstian male is going is not going to get the apartment no matter what the advertising says, it's a nessesary inconvience for preventing the defacto segregation of your towns and cities.
Look at France, one of the reasons those massive riots occured last year was because french society had effectivly segregated itself so that muslim immagrants were forced to live in particularly shitty areas with little economic opportunity. When you concentrate a group like that your asking for social unrest.
The devil is in the details. The conditions they set for the loans are often a more restrictive than "don't put the money in your swiss bank account" often these include policy-level descisions and they are always ultra-free market. Now is your goverment isn't market-oriented, say they like to keep the water supply of the capitol run by the government, these conditions can cause problems. People see the World Bank/IMF as evil because the policies they force on countries in order to recieve that money make that country more open to corporations from the countries which run the WB/IMF. Government philanthropy looks pretty bad when people in your country are making millions of dollars from the "reforms" you demanded as a condition for aid.
IMO neither China nor Japan wants to sell in the immediate future because for the time being US bonds are still pretty secure.
Opening up a new market does not create wealth, it redistributes it. For every content person making money off of second life there are probably two or three people who are spending a significant portion of their income there. Thats where the wealth is coming from, not the invisible anus of the market.
Couldn't they be sueing under breach of contract? I assume that theres something somewhere sating that they won't give/sell that information away. If the EFF wins this class action suite it's possible they will force AT&T to tell all their customers that they give their data to the NSA.