Please don't call those people "right wing." Personal liberty has always been a conservative ideal. Though, I am glad to see that Democrats -- when not in power -- also support the idea to some degree. Let's see what they do when they're in power.
No, they don't. I manage a team of such developers, and I know they don't have the fundamentals. It has not caused any problems that I can point to.
By the way, I am CS trained and took all the courses you mention. Those topics influence design, not execution. I don't need programmers to understand those subjects and pay 2x for it; I need them to follow my design.
I know that's probably not the response you want to hear; you want to hear that the extra knowledge you have is valuable and needed. It is, just not in anything but a senior architect or project management role.
> As for "open source" making these cryptographic models available quickly, > I wasn't aware that text editors froze up and stopped you from writing > code if it wasn't going to be open source.
You know, you were making some nice points, and here all you do is hurt your credibility. You know exactly what he was saying, and he was right.
Thanks for the history lesson, but people took literal bible text to support crazy shit way before the big-F Fundamentalism movement came around. Not that I don't enjoy arguing semantics...
> Well, now you're just redefining religion into something more > general: the actual human condition.
Don't trivialize it. This "human condition" is believed to be given by god and be in god's image. This rhetoric is alive today in Bush's words, for example.
> In your freedom case, the message is that they are different > than us, that they don't like that we are different, and will > attack us because we're different.
No, the message is not that they are different. It is: they hate us because we are better and more closely in god's image. The subtext is critical (although, of course, ridiculously illogical).
> If you want to place the blame, then place it appropriately. > Just redefining religion to include any belief or way of > thinking is intellectually dishonest. There is no god of freedom.
No. Freedom and free will are precisely what god is said to have given his chosen people.
So you've shown that religion isn't necessary for violence. I don't think that's what anyone is saying. Would you say it's easier or harder to organize a violent effort when religion is involved?
> Basically violence has nothing to do with religion
Are you kidding me? You just gave five examples where religion was used to promote violent acts and then turn around and say violence and religion have nothing to do with each other?
Try this on for size: if there was no purpose for violence, there would be no need for religion.
Dude, I'm sorry but you do not get it. I'll try once more to break this down (I thought I had it down to a point where there was no way you could possibly object to it, but I guess not).
> If all you have is $18, then all you're going to SPEND is $18.
Obviously. I didn't say otherwise.
> If all you're doing is email and light web browsing and you don't > CARE that it's censored by the government, then you're likely to > spend as little as possible.
Obviously. I didn't say otherwise.
> If you WANT faster speed and/or WANT uncensored access and (most > importantly) you HAVE the money then you're GOING to pay to get what > you want
Here's where you screw up. If it costs $1 million more to get faster speeds, you aren't likely going to pay it EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY. Everyone has a valuation of everything they buy, and they will spend the money if the cost (price and opportunity cost) is less than or equal to their valuation and they have the available funds. This is economic fundamentals.
SO... If the difference between slow and fast speeds is $18, MORE people will pay the extra than if the difference between slow and fast speeds is $40. Again, I really don't see how you can argue with that.
> I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL and your assertion that it's "common > sense" is a bunch of hot air and speculation as much as what I AM > SAYING is speculation or what ANYONE has to say on the subject is > speculation. End of discussion.
That's ridiculous. This is microeconomics 101. You're either too busy ranting to read what I'm saying, or you think you are a lot smarter than you are. At minimum, I sure hope you aren't involved in pricing strategy at your company.
> He isn't being a hero, defender of freedom or "whistle blower" he just did > his job as he swore, in an oath, that he would...
Well, don't trivialize it. I know what you're saying, but aside from what he was theoretically doing, he was practically very much being a hero. He says he didn't think through all the ramifications, but he also admitted he was very nervous about calling the Times; he knew what it meant in general, if not yet in detail.
That's not even worth talking about anymore. Please find "Congress should bail out failing businesses" in the Constitution. Please find "the monetary supply should be controlled by a private banking system with no oversight." in the Constitution.
What does it mean to swear to uphold the Constitution when no one wants to hear Constitutional arguments against legislation?
What part don't you agree with? It's common sense.
Right now you pay $40/mo for broadband internet. You could pay $18/month for wifi. To you, it is worth another $22 for the extra speed.
Now the government steps in and pays for wifi with your tax dollars. It does not cost you anything to use this beyond what you are paying in taxes (which you pay whether you use the service or not, so it's not even worth talking about from a motivation perspective.) Now you have to value the extra speed at $40, because you could get the wifi speed at $0.
You are less likely to want that extra speed at $40 than at $22.
Unfortunately the level of service does not matter. If there are individuals who would consume these government services, then there is a market for it. As long as the government exists in that market segment offering free services, then it will hold a monopoly and private industry will not be able to compete. It will also have an effect on the margin of people who are on the fence about paying for faster service and will decide to "downgrade" to the free service.
The problem with "free" public wifi is that it isn't free and it discourages private companies to enter the market. Private industry cannot compete with taxpayer funded agencies; hence government monopoly. I did not mean monopoly by legislation.
This already happens in the private system with terms of use. What value add would a government licensing bureaucracy provide, except money lost to administrative overhead?
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't call those people "right wing." Personal liberty has always been a conservative ideal. Though, I am glad to see that Democrats -- when not in power -- also support the idea to some degree. Let's see what they do when they're in power.
What if it was funded by loans from China?
> When a dominant minority group (Firefox) is fractured or segmented... it
> doesn't hurt Internet Explorer. In fact, it helps it.
This sounds familiar. Do you happen to work for the Republican party?
> From a more left-wing perspective, Airport Security satirizes the
> post-9/11 airport security measures
How is that left-wing?
Your use of logic in a public forum has been reported and you should expect a call from our lawyers.
No, they don't. I manage a team of such developers, and I know they don't have the fundamentals. It has not caused any problems that I can point to.
By the way, I am CS trained and took all the courses you mention. Those topics influence design, not execution. I don't need programmers to understand those subjects and pay 2x for it; I need them to follow my design.
I know that's probably not the response you want to hear; you want to hear that the extra knowledge you have is valuable and needed. It is, just not in anything but a senior architect or project management role.
> As for "open source" making these cryptographic models available quickly,
> I wasn't aware that text editors froze up and stopped you from writing
> code if it wasn't going to be open source.
You know, you were making some nice points, and here all you do is hurt your credibility. You know exactly what he was saying, and he was right.
> Some of the most educated people I know are complete idiots.
Ok, but most are not.
> Some of the most undereducated people I know are freaking geniuses.
Ok, but most are not.
Education, like anything else, is not a panacea. But at the same time it's wrong to dismiss it, because there is definitely a strong correlation.
Thanks for the history lesson, but people took literal bible text to support crazy shit way before the big-F Fundamentalism movement came around. Not that I don't enjoy arguing semantics...
Actually, you missed the point. I didn't say the teachings caused these atrocities.
> Well, now you're just redefining religion into something more
> general: the actual human condition.
Don't trivialize it. This "human condition" is believed to be given by god and be in god's image. This rhetoric is alive today in Bush's words, for example.
> In your freedom case, the message is that they are different
> than us, that they don't like that we are different, and will
> attack us because we're different.
No, the message is not that they are different. It is: they hate us because we are better and more closely in god's image. The subtext is critical (although, of course, ridiculously illogical).
> If you want to place the blame, then place it appropriately.
> Just redefining religion to include any belief or way of
> thinking is intellectually dishonest. There is no god of freedom.
No. Freedom and free will are precisely what god is said to have given his chosen people.
The word may be new but it isn't.
The Iraq thing... the message was that they hated our way of life. 'Freedom' is modern day religion.
The atheist thing... atheism is just another religion.
So you've shown that religion isn't necessary for violence. I don't think that's what anyone is saying. Would you say it's easier or harder to organize a violent effort when religion is involved?
> Basically violence has nothing to do with religion
Are you kidding me? You just gave five examples where religion was used to promote violent acts and then turn around and say violence and religion have nothing to do with each other?
Try this on for size: if there was no purpose for violence, there would be no need for religion.
Yes, that factual part of history offends me greatly, too.
> I'm a Christian ... and am used to getting a bit of a slapping from
> ignorami spouting bigoted claptrap only lightly based on truth
Hey now, the clergy are only doing their jobs.
Dude, I'm sorry but you do not get it. I'll try once more to break this down (I thought I had it down to a point where there was no way you could possibly object to it, but I guess not).
> If all you have is $18, then all you're going to SPEND is $18.
Obviously. I didn't say otherwise.
> If all you're doing is email and light web browsing and you don't
> CARE that it's censored by the government, then you're likely to
> spend as little as possible.
Obviously. I didn't say otherwise.
> If you WANT faster speed and/or WANT uncensored access and (most
> importantly) you HAVE the money then you're GOING to pay to get what
> you want
Here's where you screw up. If it costs $1 million more to get faster speeds, you aren't likely going to pay it EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY. Everyone has a valuation of everything they buy, and they will spend the money if the cost (price and opportunity cost) is less than or equal to their valuation and they have the available funds. This is economic fundamentals.
SO...
If the difference between slow and fast speeds is $18, MORE people will pay the extra than if the difference between slow and fast speeds is $40. Again, I really don't see how you can argue with that.
> I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL and your assertion that it's "common
> sense" is a bunch of hot air and speculation as much as what I AM
> SAYING is speculation or what ANYONE has to say on the subject is
> speculation. End of discussion.
That's ridiculous. This is microeconomics 101. You're either too busy ranting to read what I'm saying, or you think you are a lot smarter than you are. At minimum, I sure hope you aren't involved in pricing strategy at your company.
> He isn't being a hero, defender of freedom or "whistle blower" he just did
> his job as he swore, in an oath, that he would...
Well, don't trivialize it. I know what you're saying, but aside from what he was theoretically doing, he was practically very much being a hero. He says he didn't think through all the ramifications, but he also admitted he was very nervous about calling the Times; he knew what it meant in general, if not yet in detail.
That's not even worth talking about anymore. Please find "Congress should bail out failing businesses" in the Constitution. Please find "the monetary supply should be controlled by a private banking system with no oversight." in the Constitution.
What does it mean to swear to uphold the Constitution when no one wants to hear Constitutional arguments against legislation?
What part don't you agree with? It's common sense.
Right now you pay $40/mo for broadband internet. You could pay $18/month for wifi. To you, it is worth another $22 for the extra speed.
Now the government steps in and pays for wifi with your tax dollars. It does not cost you anything to use this beyond what you are paying in taxes (which you pay whether you use the service or not, so it's not even worth talking about from a motivation perspective.) Now you have to value the extra speed at $40, because you could get the wifi speed at $0.
You are less likely to want that extra speed at $40 than at $22.
Unfortunately the level of service does not matter. If there are individuals who would consume these government services, then there is a market for it. As long as the government exists in that market segment offering free services, then it will hold a monopoly and private industry will not be able to compete. It will also have an effect on the margin of people who are on the fence about paying for faster service and will decide to "downgrade" to the free service.
I innnstalled annnnd played Diabbbblo II onnnn Vista last nnnnighhhhht. Sorryyyy, myyy innndex finnnger hhhuurts.
The problem with "free" public wifi is that it isn't free and it discourages private companies to enter the market. Private industry cannot compete with taxpayer funded agencies; hence government monopoly. I did not mean monopoly by legislation.
This already happens in the private system with terms of use. What value add would a government licensing bureaucracy provide, except money lost to administrative overhead?