Hmm...I'd almost agree, though IMO one should never give up the opportunity to throw a perfectly good CRT off of the side of a building. They make awesome noises when they hit the ground.
Haven't you ever had to throw a big piece of glass away, and you ask yourself: Why am I just going to "throw" this away without breaking it first? Honestly I rarely if ever throw away big pieces of glass without breaking it first, and I think everybody here agrees. CRT's are equally fun to destroy.
Could the police offer bounties for citizens to spy with drones? Basically just get around the fourth amendment by letting the citizens do your police work for you.
IMO that is every bit as bad as in England when they paid people to take notes and report crimes that they saw. Often times you'd have people falsifying these notes so that they could claim their bounties.
Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted from 9/11. Basically, if somebody within your border commits an act of terror in another country and then takes harbor in yours, it's your responsibility to hunt them down. If you don't, then you need to allow whoever is after them to do so, and do whatever is in your power to assist them. If you aren't with them, then you're against them, and they are allowed to come after you if you are assisting the terrorists.
I agree with this policy, because somebody shouldn't be allowed to commit mass murder and then just hide somewhere with no extradition treaty. This is what is known as the Bush Doctrine, by the way.
The target US citizen in that famous drone strike was actually involved in a few different terror attacks, including the Ft. Hood shootings. He just figured he'd hide in Yemen and then he'd be safe.
Ah...no...the Bush doctrine is like Batman: It has no jurisdiction. It is a bit scary that US citizens can be hit like that, but then he committed the same kinds of crimes that Osama Bin Laden did (although not quite on the same scale.)
Now in the case of Kim Dotcom, this is clearly not an act of terror except possibly on some Hollywood actor's wallet. (And this is of course debatable, but there are plenty of other posts on that topic.) Nobody is dieing and nobody is being sent a "convert or die" message, and therefore this isn't something the Bush doctrine should cover.
For this reason, I think the Bush Doctrine should be codified somewhere. That would go a long ways towards clarifying what is an act of terror and what isn't, as well as when it becomes acceptable to target citizens (it inevitably has to - imagine if OBL was a US citizen, would we have had the same qualms?)
And no, I'm not an Obama supporter, I just think that drone strike was probably the right thing to do given the circumstances.
Well to be fair, so far he's pushed for almost everything Hollywood has asked for. He signed the ACTA treaty without even allowing the senate to look at it, let alone vote on it. Big constitutional no-no, but he did it anyways at their behest.
Well many have been giving back, though those who do are usually private entities. IBM gave a few/12 blocks back to IANA a few years ago, with Microsoft doing about the same.
Wow...they should really divvy that up, especially with the UK government complaining to ISP's who are choosing NAT only solutions as opposed to dual stack. I mean think about that, 16.7 million IP addresses...I think even if you added up all of their servers, capital equipment (e.g. tanks, HMMWV's, fighter jets) and personell you'd get nowhere near 16.7 million.
On the subject of tunnels, I'd say just go with a 6 to 4 broker on your remote end. There are a bunch of free ones such as hurricane electric. If you do that, then you've effectively got "end to end" (I'm doing air quotes) ipv6 access to your home server, even if your client side doesn't support ipv6. It's really very seamless if you set up a dynamic DNS.
Virtually all modern operating systems support 6to4 tunnels, you can even do it from the command prompt in windows vista and up (usally three to four lines of code.)
There are various android apps that do this as well, but I have no experience with iOS or windows phone (I'm a bit dubious of those two since a six to four tunnel actually requires being able to move v6 traffic over the v4 stack, and as far as I'm aware you can't do that sort of thing with those platforms due to anti-hacking restrictions - but I'm quite possibly wrong.)
Prohibition was referred to as progressive by the way (so were eugenecists and the Nazi party.) Just a little tidbit I want to throw out there in response to somebody who labels themselves as "progressive" when they think their ideals move mankind forward (essentially a label that self-righteous people give themselves.)
Anyways, it was a problem created by the government, and vicariously the gangs that rose up from it were a creation of the government. When that mafia came into power, it then exerted a small but measurable amount of influence over the larger governments (in some cases outright owning smaller city/county governments, including police departments.)
Unions are basically what remains of the mafia. You don't work for the one who pays you, you work for the union. You answer to the union before you answer to your "employer." If you don't pay tribute to the union, they'll force your employer to fire you. Your job is their leverage. If you don't like their stance on political issues, you can very well find yourself up shit creek without a paddle.
On slashdot and elsewhere, you frequently hear discussion about how we should overturn citizens united to kill superpacs. Yet not one of them mentions how many of these superpacs are dwarfed by the political influence that labor unions have. At least people give their money willingly to superpacs, but union members are forced to fund their lobbying. If we kill superpacs, can we also kill union influence on elections as well? Chances are that's a negative. Obamacare gave special exemptions to the unions due to their lobbying, and if they have that much influence I figure they'll keep themselves out of harms way of any constitutional amendments.
Something you'll notice about me is that I'm neither right nor left; in fact I despise labels like those. The self identified "right" won't even talk about the dirty tactics labor unions employ whereas I will. I'm going to echo something I alluded to earlier: I don't think citizens united is the problem. Lobbyists aren't the problem either. People casting their vote blindly is the problem.
This may sound a bit hypocritical in light of what I said above, but in my opinion, if members of labor unions disagree with the political lobbying efforts of the union, they should have the right to refuse to pay dues without any concern for retaliation. The labor union can then make a choice: either they back off of their lobbying efforts if they need to keep their revenue stream, or they can go all out (which wouldn't hurt them if most of their members supported their lobbying effort.) That would balance things further in favor of union members having the right to dictate who the fruits of their labor (aka their money) supports, which they currently do not have.
Yeah I remember that. Two hits and you were dead, and it wasn't like mario where you could recover that last hit with mushrooms everywhere, rather your "mushrooms" were very hard to find. Plus you had to make it through the WHOLE level without taking those two hits, and they were long.
Still though I couldn't stop playing that game. There was this big hole in the first level where you had to avoid this demon with wings while you made your way over it, and it was such a bitch that I rarely made it passed it without glitching him. Basically you had to just barely nudge your screen to where you could see a tiny part of him and then spear him to death because he wouldn't move until your screen went over a bit more.
Now I don't know if you're pro union, but one thing that disturbs me about unions is that you are all too often required to fund their political causes (in the form of dues,) even if you object to them, or else they'll see to it that you get fired. They're supposedly on your side, but your union boss who often makes more than your real boss will call a strike a win even if you lose your job in the process. Meanwhile he keeps his, and he's seen as a heroic champion of the people. Unions have their roots in the mafia, and it shows.
I absolutely do not want these to be public utilities. Two immediate reasons I can think of would be my local power company, who recently decided that they need to raise the rates, meanwhile there are zero alternatives. That, and public utilities can provide shit service and there's nothing you can do about it.
Personally I'm comfortable paying $32 a month for 50/10. You get these Europeans who talk up how great their internet access is, yet when they see what I have they eat their words. And I'm a not so special town called Mesa Arizona.
If this was something that truly disturbed him, there are many legal avenues that he could have taken to expose this without releasing classified documents, which he has a duty to protect.
For example, congressmen and senators are allowed (in most cases) to see the goings on of the military. He could have contacted one of them, who usually do listen to even lower ranking military members, and said something to the effect of I've noticed unlawful military activity that you should look at.
Even if you're an E-1 buck private, you're not only allowed but expected to disobey unlawful orders of even a five star general if you have to, and report what they're doing to somebody who is authorized to do something about it. That can often include the local Adjutant General Corps members, which can include e.g. an E-6 who can in the case of unlawful activity can stick it in the face of a full bird colonel and there's nothing he can do about it. They routinely piss off the local chain of command because they're supposed to advocate for those within the ranks of the military who are being mistreated. If you've ever watched star trek, think about how the lowly doctor has authority over the captain when it comes to medical fitness. The AG can do exactly that when it comes to criminal matters.
I know this because I've been through the process when I was a soldier. In my opinion, Bradley Manning really asked for what he is receiving. There are so many other ways he could have dealt with this, and he chose the sensationalist method, which is unlawful from nearly every perspective you can examine it from.
And by the way, if you obey an unlawful order, you're held every bit as responsible as if you acted alone, but so is the officer who gave you that order.
Well ask yourself honestly, what president hasn't shat on the constitution at some point? They all have.
Even the ones people tend to look up to the most. Take Lincoln, who suspended habeus corpus, or FDR, who did oh so many things that in any other time would never fly. Come to think of it, the worst offenders were all wartime presidents. Ironically those ones are often the ones that are the most hated until long after the fact.
I'm guessing here that you voted for Obama? Actions that speak louder than words...Where should I begin with him. Drone strikes on US citizens? Shitting on the second amendment? I have no love lost for the former (I think he had it coming,) but am rather displeased with the later. However I think many on slashdot, given its stance on overzealous protection of IP, should be rather upset that Obama ratified the ACTA treaty without even letting the senate so much as have a glance at it - that is a very blatant violation of the constitution which not only requires that they see it, but that they actually vote on it as well, and it pushes heavily in favor of the Hollywood unions that supported him. Also most overlooked are that he gave government loan guarantees to various firms that lobbied heavily (including funding) for his election, and nearly all of them defaulted on those loans shortly after they received them - a very shady thing if you ask me, even if these companies didn't default. The later two are both akin to taking a bribe, only in campaign contributions rather than money.
I'm trying to see how that is any less of a crime than anything his predecessor did, which if you keep tabs on these "news" sites that commonly repeat this lie, they to this date are rather silent on what their guy does. That isn't to say that anything that any previous presidents have done is acceptable, but one thing I hate about American politics is that too often people will be a cheerleader for their guy and overlook his transgressions, while pointing fingers at everybody else.
I've said it on slashdot before that lobbyists aren't the problem - they can't vote after all. The problem is people voting for somebody without even bothering to examine their character - rather they just look at the letter next to their name, or vote for whoever their friends told them to vote for. It's really no different from the rivalry you see between sports fans of opposing teams. Much in the same, it's rather disturbing the way politicians kick the ball around like a hot potato (e.g. the debt ceiling) and while the news makes sensational articles about it, most people aren't really interested in electing anybody who has a real plan to do anything about it - again they just want to support their team.
I'm not making any assertions as to the character of any past politicians, rather trying to correct one of those lies that keeps being repeated and believed to be true when in fact it is not. Slashdot itself has not formally corrected itself on that matter either, and still many slashdotters to this day echo that original article on a relatively frequent basis. (Capital Blue, by the way, still hosts that article, with no retraction or update of any kind, which unfortunately, many political blogs link to and even have written big editorials showing outrage over the comment, which in all likelihood was never made.)
The preamble to the bill isn't the bill itself. My guess is that there is or will be wording within the fine print that will spell out exactly what that is.
I think what time warner looks at is their higher tier internet packages are priced much higher than they're actually worth, so fewer people subscribe to them, so they assume there's no demand.
I think what there would be limited demand for would be anything over 1gbit, mainly because consumer grade equipment doesn't go above that. A 10GBe nic will run you about $200ish, and a 10GBe layer 3 switch (which is basically what a "home" router is - albeit with fewer features than your traditional layer 3 switch) will land you somewhere over a grand.
What country is that? Where I live, which happens to be the USA, there is no cap. Last month I used up a terabyte, same with the month before that and the month before that, and my ISP didn't seem to care.
I also pay $32 per month for a 50 down 10 up pipe, first hop 23ms latency with almost no jitter.
Also, where Google fiber resides, which happens to be in the USA, you get symmetric gigabit fiber for $70 a month. In fact, I'm not sure where else in the world that is available. The only one I'm aware of that comes close is ViewQwest, which is 1gbit, down 200mbit up.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, but FOIA will get shot down in this case. It's been pretty well established that FOIA doesn't apply to national security issues, which is what this easily falls under. Again, not a conspiracy theory, because it's already been done.
I think I agree with SCOTUS on this one. They're basically saying "we think we've been wronged, so we're going to take our monies now, even though we can't even prove that we've actually been wronged."
You may as well just say you heard a pop in your last phone conversation, so you think your neighbor is tapping your line. Doesn't matter whether or not he actually did so; just because you heard the pop is sufficient proof that he owes you money.
Yeah I don't like the idea that they can spy willy nilly either, but you still can't just have the justice system assume guilt just because the other party is somebody you don't like.
Depends on your state and county, but the government often does worse than that. Where I live, if you get a speeding ticket you have the option of either fighting your ticket or going to traffic school. Traffic school is cheaper and doesn't put any points on your license, and at the same time it avoids letting your insurance company know so your rates don't go up.
If you fight the ticket though, you lose the option of going to traffic school even if you lose in court, and the judge can even order you to go to traffic school anyways and therefore also shoulder that cost on top of your ticket.
I don't think you'll get much sympathy from the courts over this issue given their currently existing practices, which the courts themselves want. Traffic tickets are civil issues, by the way. There is no "you vs the prosecution", as in the prosecution has to make its case to the court and you defend it. Instead, it's more or less you've been accused and so you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
In the case of this six strikes law, the punishment isn't all that bad. You just click a checkbox in a browser saying you won't do it again six times, and then it stops after that even if you keep on infringing. Maybe you'll get throttled a bit, but that stops after a while.
Other than that, I don't really care. Even with jailbreaking there aren't that many "poweruser" things you can do with iOS without it feeling like a quick and dirty hack (even though just getting that far took LOTS of developer effort.) I've mostly been sticking with Android for this reason - the iOS model of "everything is an app" for example feels really dated. You can't make a single adjustment or change even a small setting without opening the settings app and then navigating menus. Getting quick information that you want isn't as simple as going to the home screen where you e.g. have a widget that displays it and then going right back, instead you have to navigate between apps. The closest thing iOS has at replicating this is the drop down passive notification system it borrowed from android, which itself is really wanting.
Every other mobile OS has addressed that particular problem in some way (including *shudder* windows phone and the mostly dead WebOS.) Android's passive notifications have improved so much over the last two releases that I don't really use widgets any more (though they have their place in some situations.)
I'm not sure why apple hasn't changed in over four years in this department, even OSX has managed to do well in this area. They finally got out of the "everybody must have a small screen phone and a large screen tablet and nothing in between, so sayeth the Jobs" paradigm, so you'd figure they'd get out of this one sooner or later, because a lot of people I know who are leaving iOS are doing so for this and other similar reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...I'd almost agree, though IMO one should never give up the opportunity to throw a perfectly good CRT off of the side of a building. They make awesome noises when they hit the ground.
Haven't you ever had to throw a big piece of glass away, and you ask yourself: Why am I just going to "throw" this away without breaking it first? Honestly I rarely if ever throw away big pieces of glass without breaking it first, and I think everybody here agrees. CRT's are equally fun to destroy.
Of course, that's what rock quarries were made for: What you can't throw in the dump goes there.
Time machine? That has potential constructive uses...so it's just not evil enough.
With all of those lasers, I'd hope somebody could come up with a schematic for building a death ray. I've always wanted to have my own death ray.
Well here's one for the books:
Could the police offer bounties for citizens to spy with drones? Basically just get around the fourth amendment by letting the citizens do your police work for you.
IMO that is every bit as bad as in England when they paid people to take notes and report crimes that they saw. Often times you'd have people falsifying these notes so that they could claim their bounties.
Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted from 9/11. Basically, if somebody within your border commits an act of terror in another country and then takes harbor in yours, it's your responsibility to hunt them down. If you don't, then you need to allow whoever is after them to do so, and do whatever is in your power to assist them. If you aren't with them, then you're against them, and they are allowed to come after you if you are assisting the terrorists.
I agree with this policy, because somebody shouldn't be allowed to commit mass murder and then just hide somewhere with no extradition treaty. This is what is known as the Bush Doctrine, by the way.
The target US citizen in that famous drone strike was actually involved in a few different terror attacks, including the Ft. Hood shootings. He just figured he'd hide in Yemen and then he'd be safe.
Ah...no...the Bush doctrine is like Batman: It has no jurisdiction. It is a bit scary that US citizens can be hit like that, but then he committed the same kinds of crimes that Osama Bin Laden did (although not quite on the same scale.)
Now in the case of Kim Dotcom, this is clearly not an act of terror except possibly on some Hollywood actor's wallet. (And this is of course debatable, but there are plenty of other posts on that topic.) Nobody is dieing and nobody is being sent a "convert or die" message, and therefore this isn't something the Bush doctrine should cover.
For this reason, I think the Bush Doctrine should be codified somewhere. That would go a long ways towards clarifying what is an act of terror and what isn't, as well as when it becomes acceptable to target citizens (it inevitably has to - imagine if OBL was a US citizen, would we have had the same qualms?)
And no, I'm not an Obama supporter, I just think that drone strike was probably the right thing to do given the circumstances.
Well to be fair, so far he's pushed for almost everything Hollywood has asked for. He signed the ACTA treaty without even allowing the senate to look at it, let alone vote on it. Big constitutional no-no, but he did it anyways at their behest.
Well many have been giving back, though those who do are usually private entities. IBM gave a few /12 blocks back to IANA a few years ago, with Microsoft doing about the same.
Wow...they should really divvy that up, especially with the UK government complaining to ISP's who are choosing NAT only solutions as opposed to dual stack. I mean think about that, 16.7 million IP addresses...I think even if you added up all of their servers, capital equipment (e.g. tanks, HMMWV's, fighter jets) and personell you'd get nowhere near 16.7 million.
On the subject of tunnels, I'd say just go with a 6 to 4 broker on your remote end. There are a bunch of free ones such as hurricane electric. If you do that, then you've effectively got "end to end" (I'm doing air quotes) ipv6 access to your home server, even if your client side doesn't support ipv6. It's really very seamless if you set up a dynamic DNS.
Virtually all modern operating systems support 6to4 tunnels, you can even do it from the command prompt in windows vista and up (usally three to four lines of code.)
There are various android apps that do this as well, but I have no experience with iOS or windows phone (I'm a bit dubious of those two since a six to four tunnel actually requires being able to move v6 traffic over the v4 stack, and as far as I'm aware you can't do that sort of thing with those platforms due to anti-hacking restrictions - but I'm quite possibly wrong.)
Prohibition was referred to as progressive by the way (so were eugenecists and the Nazi party.) Just a little tidbit I want to throw out there in response to somebody who labels themselves as "progressive" when they think their ideals move mankind forward (essentially a label that self-righteous people give themselves.)
Anyways, it was a problem created by the government, and vicariously the gangs that rose up from it were a creation of the government. When that mafia came into power, it then exerted a small but measurable amount of influence over the larger governments (in some cases outright owning smaller city/county governments, including police departments.)
Unions are basically what remains of the mafia. You don't work for the one who pays you, you work for the union. You answer to the union before you answer to your "employer." If you don't pay tribute to the union, they'll force your employer to fire you. Your job is their leverage. If you don't like their stance on political issues, you can very well find yourself up shit creek without a paddle.
On slashdot and elsewhere, you frequently hear discussion about how we should overturn citizens united to kill superpacs. Yet not one of them mentions how many of these superpacs are dwarfed by the political influence that labor unions have. At least people give their money willingly to superpacs, but union members are forced to fund their lobbying. If we kill superpacs, can we also kill union influence on elections as well? Chances are that's a negative. Obamacare gave special exemptions to the unions due to their lobbying, and if they have that much influence I figure they'll keep themselves out of harms way of any constitutional amendments.
Something you'll notice about me is that I'm neither right nor left; in fact I despise labels like those. The self identified "right" won't even talk about the dirty tactics labor unions employ whereas I will. I'm going to echo something I alluded to earlier: I don't think citizens united is the problem. Lobbyists aren't the problem either. People casting their vote blindly is the problem.
This may sound a bit hypocritical in light of what I said above, but in my opinion, if members of labor unions disagree with the political lobbying efforts of the union, they should have the right to refuse to pay dues without any concern for retaliation. The labor union can then make a choice: either they back off of their lobbying efforts if they need to keep their revenue stream, or they can go all out (which wouldn't hurt them if most of their members supported their lobbying effort.) That would balance things further in favor of union members having the right to dictate who the fruits of their labor (aka their money) supports, which they currently do not have.
Yeah I remember that. Two hits and you were dead, and it wasn't like mario where you could recover that last hit with mushrooms everywhere, rather your "mushrooms" were very hard to find. Plus you had to make it through the WHOLE level without taking those two hits, and they were long.
Still though I couldn't stop playing that game. There was this big hole in the first level where you had to avoid this demon with wings while you made your way over it, and it was such a bitch that I rarely made it passed it without glitching him. Basically you had to just barely nudge your screen to where you could see a tiny part of him and then spear him to death because he wouldn't move until your screen went over a bit more.
You tell me. The letters to Obama mostly came from unions.
http://www.ustr.gov/acta
Now I don't know if you're pro union, but one thing that disturbs me about unions is that you are all too often required to fund their political causes (in the form of dues,) even if you object to them, or else they'll see to it that you get fired. They're supposedly on your side, but your union boss who often makes more than your real boss will call a strike a win even if you lose your job in the process. Meanwhile he keeps his, and he's seen as a heroic champion of the people. Unions have their roots in the mafia, and it shows.
I absolutely do not want these to be public utilities. Two immediate reasons I can think of would be my local power company, who recently decided that they need to raise the rates, meanwhile there are zero alternatives. That, and public utilities can provide shit service and there's nothing you can do about it.
Personally I'm comfortable paying $32 a month for 50/10. You get these Europeans who talk up how great their internet access is, yet when they see what I have they eat their words. And I'm a not so special town called Mesa Arizona.
My search-fu is down at the moment, but iirc Google made an offer to buy them, why would they decline if they're in such dire straights?
If this was something that truly disturbed him, there are many legal avenues that he could have taken to expose this without releasing classified documents, which he has a duty to protect.
For example, congressmen and senators are allowed (in most cases) to see the goings on of the military. He could have contacted one of them, who usually do listen to even lower ranking military members, and said something to the effect of I've noticed unlawful military activity that you should look at.
Even if you're an E-1 buck private, you're not only allowed but expected to disobey unlawful orders of even a five star general if you have to, and report what they're doing to somebody who is authorized to do something about it. That can often include the local Adjutant General Corps members, which can include e.g. an E-6 who can in the case of unlawful activity can stick it in the face of a full bird colonel and there's nothing he can do about it. They routinely piss off the local chain of command because they're supposed to advocate for those within the ranks of the military who are being mistreated. If you've ever watched star trek, think about how the lowly doctor has authority over the captain when it comes to medical fitness. The AG can do exactly that when it comes to criminal matters.
I know this because I've been through the process when I was a soldier. In my opinion, Bradley Manning really asked for what he is receiving. There are so many other ways he could have dealt with this, and he chose the sensationalist method, which is unlawful from nearly every perspective you can examine it from.
And by the way, if you obey an unlawful order, you're held every bit as responsible as if you acted alone, but so is the officer who gave you that order.
Well ask yourself honestly, what president hasn't shat on the constitution at some point? They all have.
Even the ones people tend to look up to the most. Take Lincoln, who suspended habeus corpus, or FDR, who did oh so many things that in any other time would never fly. Come to think of it, the worst offenders were all wartime presidents. Ironically those ones are often the ones that are the most hated until long after the fact.
I'm guessing here that you voted for Obama? Actions that speak louder than words...Where should I begin with him. Drone strikes on US citizens? Shitting on the second amendment? I have no love lost for the former (I think he had it coming,) but am rather displeased with the later. However I think many on slashdot, given its stance on overzealous protection of IP, should be rather upset that Obama ratified the ACTA treaty without even letting the senate so much as have a glance at it - that is a very blatant violation of the constitution which not only requires that they see it, but that they actually vote on it as well, and it pushes heavily in favor of the Hollywood unions that supported him. Also most overlooked are that he gave government loan guarantees to various firms that lobbied heavily (including funding) for his election, and nearly all of them defaulted on those loans shortly after they received them - a very shady thing if you ask me, even if these companies didn't default. The later two are both akin to taking a bribe, only in campaign contributions rather than money.
I'm trying to see how that is any less of a crime than anything his predecessor did, which if you keep tabs on these "news" sites that commonly repeat this lie, they to this date are rather silent on what their guy does. That isn't to say that anything that any previous presidents have done is acceptable, but one thing I hate about American politics is that too often people will be a cheerleader for their guy and overlook his transgressions, while pointing fingers at everybody else.
I've said it on slashdot before that lobbyists aren't the problem - they can't vote after all. The problem is people voting for somebody without even bothering to examine their character - rather they just look at the letter next to their name, or vote for whoever their friends told them to vote for. It's really no different from the rivalry you see between sports fans of opposing teams. Much in the same, it's rather disturbing the way politicians kick the ball around like a hot potato (e.g. the debt ceiling) and while the news makes sensational articles about it, most people aren't really interested in electing anybody who has a real plan to do anything about it - again they just want to support their team.
I hope you're not making an allusion to the previous slashdot article, because that was debunked by both snopes and factcheck:
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/
I'm not making any assertions as to the character of any past politicians, rather trying to correct one of those lies that keeps being repeated and believed to be true when in fact it is not. Slashdot itself has not formally corrected itself on that matter either, and still many slashdotters to this day echo that original article on a relatively frequent basis. (Capital Blue, by the way, still hosts that article, with no retraction or update of any kind, which unfortunately, many political blogs link to and even have written big editorials showing outrage over the comment, which in all likelihood was never made.)
The preamble to the bill isn't the bill itself. My guess is that there is or will be wording within the fine print that will spell out exactly what that is.
I think what time warner looks at is their higher tier internet packages are priced much higher than they're actually worth, so fewer people subscribe to them, so they assume there's no demand.
I think what there would be limited demand for would be anything over 1gbit, mainly because consumer grade equipment doesn't go above that. A 10GBe nic will run you about $200ish, and a 10GBe layer 3 switch (which is basically what a "home" router is - albeit with fewer features than your traditional layer 3 switch) will land you somewhere over a grand.
What country is that? Where I live, which happens to be the USA, there is no cap. Last month I used up a terabyte, same with the month before that and the month before that, and my ISP didn't seem to care.
I also pay $32 per month for a 50 down 10 up pipe, first hop 23ms latency with almost no jitter.
Also, where Google fiber resides, which happens to be in the USA, you get symmetric gigabit fiber for $70 a month. In fact, I'm not sure where else in the world that is available. The only one I'm aware of that comes close is ViewQwest, which is 1gbit, down 200mbit up.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, but FOIA will get shot down in this case. It's been pretty well established that FOIA doesn't apply to national security issues, which is what this easily falls under. Again, not a conspiracy theory, because it's already been done.
I think I agree with SCOTUS on this one. They're basically saying "we think we've been wronged, so we're going to take our monies now, even though we can't even prove that we've actually been wronged."
You may as well just say you heard a pop in your last phone conversation, so you think your neighbor is tapping your line. Doesn't matter whether or not he actually did so; just because you heard the pop is sufficient proof that he owes you money.
Yeah I don't like the idea that they can spy willy nilly either, but you still can't just have the justice system assume guilt just because the other party is somebody you don't like.
Depends on your state and county, but the government often does worse than that. Where I live, if you get a speeding ticket you have the option of either fighting your ticket or going to traffic school. Traffic school is cheaper and doesn't put any points on your license, and at the same time it avoids letting your insurance company know so your rates don't go up.
If you fight the ticket though, you lose the option of going to traffic school even if you lose in court, and the judge can even order you to go to traffic school anyways and therefore also shoulder that cost on top of your ticket.
I don't think you'll get much sympathy from the courts over this issue given their currently existing practices, which the courts themselves want. Traffic tickets are civil issues, by the way. There is no "you vs the prosecution", as in the prosecution has to make its case to the court and you defend it. Instead, it's more or less you've been accused and so you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
In the case of this six strikes law, the punishment isn't all that bad. You just click a checkbox in a browser saying you won't do it again six times, and then it stops after that even if you keep on infringing. Maybe you'll get throttled a bit, but that stops after a while.
Main reason I jailbroke my ipad 2 was for XBMC.
Other than that, I don't really care. Even with jailbreaking there aren't that many "poweruser" things you can do with iOS without it feeling like a quick and dirty hack (even though just getting that far took LOTS of developer effort.) I've mostly been sticking with Android for this reason - the iOS model of "everything is an app" for example feels really dated. You can't make a single adjustment or change even a small setting without opening the settings app and then navigating menus. Getting quick information that you want isn't as simple as going to the home screen where you e.g. have a widget that displays it and then going right back, instead you have to navigate between apps. The closest thing iOS has at replicating this is the drop down passive notification system it borrowed from android, which itself is really wanting.
Every other mobile OS has addressed that particular problem in some way (including *shudder* windows phone and the mostly dead WebOS.) Android's passive notifications have improved so much over the last two releases that I don't really use widgets any more (though they have their place in some situations.)
I'm not sure why apple hasn't changed in over four years in this department, even OSX has managed to do well in this area. They finally got out of the "everybody must have a small screen phone and a large screen tablet and nothing in between, so sayeth the Jobs" paradigm, so you'd figure they'd get out of this one sooner or later, because a lot of people I know who are leaving iOS are doing so for this and other similar reasons.
Or there's me; I love firearms, been trained with many, but I don't currently possess any