Pray tell, who is elected in a primary? They only serve to reduce choice. Why should an independent/third party member (i.e. taxpayer) pay to increase the odds that a major party candidate wins the actual election?
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Why should the public pay for party primaries? If the parties don't want 5 (or 10...) people running, they should control and pay for their own internal selection process. There's no good reason to ask the public to pay for their internal politics. That would also eliminate the issue brought up here, which can work both ways.
Don't be ridiculous. Amazon isn't a bookstore, they're a general merchant (though they may have started out as a book seller). They're not censoring, since they're not attempting to restrict anyone's free speech, nor to limit anyone's access to that speech. They're making a business decision on what products they wish to sell and to be associated with.
So, Amazon has some kind of "official" status? Where and when did that come about? And, a decision by a retailer to not carry a product is "actively engaged suppression," according to you, even if they make no attempt to control or influence others in any way?
Help, I'm being supressed/censored, because Walmart doesn't stock the short story I wrote in 5th grade.
a client (or even many) crashing shouldn't cause the server to, too. That's just bad design/software.
Skype seems clueless. They're thinking of using "processes for providing ‘automatic’ updates to our users so that we can help keep everyone on the latest Skype software. We believe these measures will reduce the possibility of this type of failure occurring again." Contrariwise - this would only make the matter worse. What if the _current_ version were the one with the problem, and an automated update system had forced everyone onto it? Then, instead of 50% of the clients contributing to the problem, they'd have 100%.
So, according to your definition, if Sonoma Williams doesn't carry, and won't order, the latest Steven King novel because the content doesn't include food recipes (that is, it has content they're not interested in promoting), they're censoring.
So, is it only censorship if they carried a title, then dropped it? Or is it also censorship if they never carried the title at all? Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition? How about your local library? Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?
Amazon is a business, and has made a business decision to not sell certain items. They're doing nothing to prevent you from buying those items elsewhere. That's not censorship.
First, Kemeny created BASIC, so you claim that Dartmouth BASIC wasn't "standard" is ludicrous. I suppose Kernigan's C or Wirth's Pascal weren't standard until ANSI got a hold of them, either.
So you're complaining that some language extensions for graphics, which appeared prior to "official" support for that capability were non-standard. Nice tautology, there.
BASIC didn't support any graphics (unless you count ASCII "character graphics"), so there were no "LINE..." commands. What you're complaining about were non-standard extensions to the language, not much different that what MS did more recently with Java (where do you think they learned the commercial lock-in value of proprietary language extensions?).
in exactly what ways the final rules differ from your vision of net neutrality, and how those differences might be upsetting to Rush. To simply claim as fact that the FCC's "'fake net neutrality'" isn't "Net Neutrality" (as if your concept is the one and only correct one) is disingenuous.
The overwhelming majority of consumers wouldn't even think buying a separate graphics card, let alone paying $300 for one. The overwhelming majority of consumers will just go out to Big Box Store and buy whatever prepackaged PC appeals to their wallet.
"Most of the work do is maintenance. Finding bugs in 20 year old code. If I change two characters in one line on one day and close one bug, then thats a good day."
So, you're saying it would have taken you half a day to add an "I" between "work" and "do" in the first sentence of your reply? That's slower than any hunt-and-peck typist I've ever met.
since it doesn't explain how this works, or what's it's really all about.
It doesn't permanently disable the processor, you can revive it if you know the password. To do a kill over 3G, you send an encrypted SMS, and the laptop obviously needs 3G capability and the OS needs to be running.
"You have to run vendor supplied drivers for ATI/Nvidia/Intel video"
No, they work without, so you don't "have to." You only need vendor drivers if you want to take advantage of enhanced capabilities, such as GPU acceleration. It's a choice.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press
The military is, of course, under control of the Executive branch, which is bound to enforcing the law, not creating or ignoring it (even the little bit of autonomy, such as treaties and appointments, is subject to Congressional approval).
Slashdot Mirror
BS. If it were done on their behalf, they'd be paying for it.
You're guilty of begging the question. Your argument makes the completely unsupported assumption that reducing large candidate fields is desirable.
"The public pays to run elections."
Pray tell, who is elected in a primary? They only serve to reduce choice. Why should an independent/third party member (i.e. taxpayer) pay to increase the odds that a major party candidate wins the actual election?
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Why should the public pay for party primaries? If the parties don't want 5 (or 10...) people running, they should control and pay for their own internal selection process. There's no good reason to ask the public to pay for their internal politics. That would also eliminate the issue brought up here, which can work both ways.
Better yet, adopt a preferential voting system.
LOL. Worst analogy evar! The logical result of your reasoning is that a retailer should have no choice in what products they sell.
Don't be ridiculous. Amazon isn't a bookstore, they're a general merchant (though they may have started out as a book seller). They're not censoring, since they're not attempting to restrict anyone's free speech, nor to limit anyone's access to that speech. They're making a business decision on what products they wish to sell and to be associated with.
So, Amazon has some kind of "official" status? Where and when did that come about? And, a decision by a retailer to not carry a product is "actively engaged suppression," according to you, even if they make no attempt to control or influence others in any way?
Help, I'm being supressed/censored, because Walmart doesn't stock the short story I wrote in 5th grade.
a client (or even many) crashing shouldn't cause the server to, too. That's just bad design/software.
Skype seems clueless. They're thinking of using "processes for providing ‘automatic’ updates to our users so that we can help keep everyone on the latest Skype software. We believe these measures will reduce the possibility of this type of failure occurring again." Contrariwise - this would only make the matter worse. What if the _current_ version were the one with the problem, and an automated update system had forced everyone onto it? Then, instead of 50% of the clients contributing to the problem, they'd have 100%.
So, according to your definition, if Sonoma Williams doesn't carry, and won't order, the latest Steven King novel because the content doesn't include food recipes (that is, it has content they're not interested in promoting), they're censoring.
So, is it only censorship if they carried a title, then dropped it? Or is it also censorship if they never carried the title at all? Is Borders guilty of censorship because they don't carry the "Big Busted Shemales" magazine holiday edition? How about your local library? Is it censorship if your local grocery store doesn't carry the Oxford English Dictionary?
Amazon is a business, and has made a business decision to not sell certain items. They're doing nothing to prevent you from buying those items elsewhere. That's not censorship.
What makes you claim the original statement was false? The court made no such determination, and the veracity of the statement was never argued. "After the defendants failed to respond, the district court entered a default judgment.."
You don't know what a "non-standard extension to a language" is, do you?
First, Kemeny created BASIC, so you claim that Dartmouth BASIC wasn't "standard" is ludicrous. I suppose Kernigan's C or Wirth's Pascal weren't standard until ANSI got a hold of them, either.
So you're complaining that some language extensions for graphics, which appeared prior to "official" support for that capability were non-standard. Nice tautology, there.
BASIC didn't support any graphics (unless you count ASCII "character graphics"), so there were no "LINE..." commands. What you're complaining about were non-standard extensions to the language, not much different that what MS did more recently with Java (where do you think they learned the commercial lock-in value of proprietary language extensions?).
in exactly what ways the final rules differ from your vision of net neutrality, and how those differences might be upsetting to Rush. To simply claim as fact that the FCC's "'fake net neutrality'" isn't "Net Neutrality" (as if your concept is the one and only correct one) is disingenuous.
The overwhelming majority of consumers wouldn't even think buying a separate graphics card, let alone paying $300 for one. The overwhelming majority of consumers will just go out to Big Box Store and buy whatever prepackaged PC appeals to their wallet.
"You are waiting for meal as a pill? I feel bad for you."
If the alternative is Soylent Green, which do you choose?
"Most of the work do is maintenance. Finding bugs in 20 year old code. If I change two characters in one line on one day and close one bug, then thats a good day."
So, you're saying it would have taken you half a day to add an "I" between "work" and "do" in the first sentence of your reply? That's slower than any hunt-and-peck typist I've ever met.
Maybe they're just preparing themselves for some future "truth in lending" legislation.
since it doesn't explain how this works, or what's it's really all about.
It doesn't permanently disable the processor, you can revive it if you know the password. To do a kill over 3G, you send an encrypted SMS, and the laptop obviously needs 3G capability and the OS needs to be running.
It means "We think we can get something for the domain name, whoever buys it will do whatever they want with it."
"You have to run vendor supplied drivers for ATI/Nvidia/Intel video"
No, they work without, so you don't "have to." You only need vendor drivers if you want to take advantage of enhanced capabilities, such as GPU acceleration. It's a choice.
"What news media outlet exists for a frustrated rational progressive with strong constitutional tendencies completely dissatisfied with every party?"
Syfy channel.
This is America. Cubes aren't shrinking, workers are getting larger.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press
The military is, of course, under control of the Executive branch, which is bound to enforcing the law, not creating or ignoring it (even the little bit of autonomy, such as treaties and appointments, is subject to Congressional approval).