Do we really want to allow the government to move into regulating the internet just so that a few companies can't throttle torrents? Really!? Because when I think of the government regulating the internet, it reminds me of things like the FCC trying to fine CBS over Janet Jackson's boob. Or the fact that you can't say a swearword over the radio without risking a fine.
What does net neutrality really accomplish? What are the people pushing net neutrality trying to accomplish? People like to talk about nobel goals like allowing a "free" internet, but what they really mean is that they want to use a lot of bandwidth and not have to worry about paying for it. That's why ISPs want to throttle, or disallow services. But to my thinking, it's unfair to let some people hog the internet at the expense of the rest of us.
I also don't like the idea that bandwidth providers and content providers should not be associated. That's the reason we have to pay for cable, and watch advertisements right now. Is it really so unreasonable to ask people to pay for content directly?
People need to stop trying to write laws just to make their lives cheaper and easier. Laws are for prosecuting criminals, not making your internet cheaper.
"If they took the publics' money then they are obligated to put the interests of those taxpayers (their customers) at the top of their objectives."
You see, this is why you should never take government money. You will go in with a certain set of requirements and restrictions, which you agreed to, and over time people will say "well we gave you money, so it's okay for us to change the terms of the agreement". No it is not fucking okay. Hello! What makes that okay? This is the same reason I will never ask for anything from my mother.
But if these companies comply with the requirements placed upon them at the time, and hey built the infrastructure with the understanding that they would not change, is it really fair to add new requirements?
I should add that the primary threat such an asteroid would pose are environmental, and not directly related to the amount of energy released by the blast. The threat is that dust from the impact would block light from the sun, cooling the earth and killing off plat and animal life. Alternatively, the danger is that it would produce tsunami stile waves that could wipe out costal life. Obviously, it is best if the asteroid is never able to touch the ground. I might also point that a very large blast is not much of a threat if it is too far above the surface of the earth.
A nuclear warhead intended to deflect an asteroid could be designed to penetrate the asteroid prior to detonation. Blasting away debris from the surface of the asteroid would allow you to "push" it effictively.
And blasting it into little pieces would most certainly have an effect, since smaller pieces have more drag, they would be more likely to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere (same total energy, much wider dispersion). Also none of the resulting pieces are likely to have exactly the same trajectory as the original asteroid. Depending on the angle of impact, they will be moving at a different speed or in a different direction than the original.
And yet, other democracies end up placing the same ridiculous restrictions on personal freedom. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to vote for third parties, but the problem is our enduring faith in the fairness democracy, when it clearly isn't fair.
Some customers will get upset with you if you wait to fix the problem, others will get mad if you don't wait and ask them first. It is a no-win situation.
How do you find out if something is safe? You use it over and over again and once you've used it enough times, and nothing bad has happened, you assume it's safe.
These days we can and do use animal models to test the safety of new technologies, but that's been done in this case and hasn't shown it to be dangerous. But of course, animal models won't tell you everything, hence these new studies. It's ridiculous, if they have proof that these things are dangerous they should put it out there, not tell us that their advice is based on forthcoming evidence. I'd like the see it for myself.
I think it's safe to say that since my post has been modded to +5, most people don't see it as a nonsensical, BS argument. It is simply the truth, there is no way to know for sure something is safe unless you use it. Arguing that we must not use anything unless we know it is safe would then result in us never developing any new technologies to use.
"If we just started assuming every little thing was safe and just started using it, we'd all be dead in no time."
Apparently not, since this is how it's been done since the beginning of recorded history. Unless you mean to imply that we should assume things are safe when we know them to be dangerous, which makes no sense.
I think it's safe to say that if conventional wire-tapping catches criminals, this will too. I I don't have a problem with this program, so long as they add appropriate safeguards, restrict the scope of investigations to serious crimes like terrorism, murder or rape, and have a policy of retroactive full disclosure (fully disclose any spying that took place upon the completion of an investigation or after some set amount of time like 5 years or so).
It is hard to make the case that this program will end. But it may be the only way to catch the Joker, so to speak. In the movie, it's easy to destroy the machine and do the right thing. What will happen when the Joker escapes, though? Will we be seeing the machine again? I don't know what to tell you.
The movie's point is valid, we will never know where the terrorists are without this system. The government can not wait for them to strike and then pick up the pieces (the public won't stand for it). The writer is just saying that we need to use it responsibly.
1. Batman stops Harvey Dent, but then tries to extract information from the Joker by force.
2. Bush has claimed that warrant-less wiretapping was authorized by congress as part of the war effort, therefore such an authorization would end with the war.
3. If Batman doesn't duck punishment, then why doesn't he turn himself in?
4. Batman used the police force in his trap that ultimately caught the Joker, so he is not above using government money to achieve his goals. He also depends on commissioner Gordan to get leads and prosecute criminals.
5. Batman did, in fact, kill Two-Face, so he does kill villains. The Joker predicted this in the interrogation room (you'll have to break your one rule), and it is a key part of the movie.
These are statistical studies measuring the incidence of brain tumors in people using cell-phones. There is only one hypothesis being tested here, that the rate of tumors will be higher in the population using cell-phones than in the population not using them.
There are a lot of things the FDA isn't concerned with, are you seriously suggesting that they are all dangerous? Think about that for a second.
The advice is contrary to the studies (the studies disprove the hypothesis that there is a link). They aren't publishing a new study, just issuing advice based on un-published work.
" But that FDA is so hopelessly corrupt that its public lack of worry is actually evidence implying that we should be worried."
So everything that the FDA isn't concerned with is dangerous now? You, sir, are an idiot.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
What this really proves is that we need to make sure that crazy people like this woman are not involved in making public policy decisions. You should at least have some indication that something is unsafe, or may be unsafe before you start issuing alarmist advice like this. If we waited until we knew for sure that every god damned little thing was safe before we started using it, we'd still be living in caves!
This is hardly the first movie that has terrorism in it. The movie is more of a discussion of these issues than a case for any particular viewpoint. I thought the Joker made a pretty good case for anarchy. Do you remember the part where the talked about the "Plan"?
I watched the first 6 minutes of this film on my friends 52" HD television (it's a special feature on the BB blue-ray disk) and it was definitely higher resolution than the version I saw in theaters (you can see the individual pieces of glass when the mob-guy shoots out the window in the bank). I would love to see this film in IMAX, but I haven't been able to get a ticket.
Re:Thanks for sharing your plans with us, CmdrTaco
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I've never seen that name on here before. Maybe he's a troll.
Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not seeing this movie would be a supreme mistake. Also, it lacks product placement as far as I can remember. . . Go and watch it, you will see. Don't bring your kid.
Democracy is the best of all systems of government, but it still sucks balls. We have got to place restrictions on government activity if we want this idiocy to end. The government should not be involved in economic regulation, or wealth redistribution, or healthcare, or education, or even emergency services. All they do is fuck everything up. We need to restrict the role of government to enforcing basic laws and providing national security in the most basic way possible. Anything that we can do for ourselves, we should do for ourselves. Keep the government out of it.
I think the intent is to keep us from going there and spending money. Hence the term embargo. You're reading too much into it if you think they don't want us going there for any other reason.
I do agree that the embargo is retarded. It should have ended with the Soviet Union.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we really want to allow the government to move into regulating the internet just so that a few companies can't throttle torrents? Really!? Because when I think of the government regulating the internet, it reminds me of things like the FCC trying to fine CBS over Janet Jackson's boob. Or the fact that you can't say a swearword over the radio without risking a fine.
What does net neutrality really accomplish? What are the people pushing net neutrality trying to accomplish? People like to talk about nobel goals like allowing a "free" internet, but what they really mean is that they want to use a lot of bandwidth and not have to worry about paying for it. That's why ISPs want to throttle, or disallow services. But to my thinking, it's unfair to let some people hog the internet at the expense of the rest of us.
I also don't like the idea that bandwidth providers and content providers should not be associated. That's the reason we have to pay for cable, and watch advertisements right now. Is it really so unreasonable to ask people to pay for content directly?
People need to stop trying to write laws just to make their lives cheaper and easier. Laws are for prosecuting criminals, not making your internet cheaper.
"If they took the publics' money then they are obligated to put the interests of those taxpayers (their customers) at the top of their objectives."
You see, this is why you should never take government money. You will go in with a certain set of requirements and restrictions, which you agreed to, and over time people will say "well we gave you money, so it's okay for us to change the terms of the agreement". No it is not fucking okay. Hello! What makes that okay? This is the same reason I will never ask for anything from my mother.
But if these companies comply with the requirements placed upon them at the time, and hey built the infrastructure with the understanding that they would not change, is it really fair to add new requirements?
I should add that the primary threat such an asteroid would pose are environmental, and not directly related to the amount of energy released by the blast. The threat is that dust from the impact would block light from the sun, cooling the earth and killing off plat and animal life. Alternatively, the danger is that it would produce tsunami stile waves that could wipe out costal life. Obviously, it is best if the asteroid is never able to touch the ground. I might also point that a very large blast is not much of a threat if it is too far above the surface of the earth.
A nuclear warhead intended to deflect an asteroid could be designed to penetrate the asteroid prior to detonation. Blasting away debris from the surface of the asteroid would allow you to "push" it effictively.
And blasting it into little pieces would most certainly have an effect, since smaller pieces have more drag, they would be more likely to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere (same total energy, much wider dispersion). Also none of the resulting pieces are likely to have exactly the same trajectory as the original asteroid. Depending on the angle of impact, they will be moving at a different speed or in a different direction than the original.
It's doped with thallium, that means that the thallium is imbedded in the metal alloy. I don't think it's going anywhere.
And yet, other democracies end up placing the same ridiculous restrictions on personal freedom. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to vote for third parties, but the problem is our enduring faith in the fairness democracy, when it clearly isn't fair.
Some customers will get upset with you if you wait to fix the problem, others will get mad if you don't wait and ask them first. It is a no-win situation.
How do you find out if something is safe? You use it over and over again and once you've used it enough times, and nothing bad has happened, you assume it's safe.
These days we can and do use animal models to test the safety of new technologies, but that's been done in this case and hasn't shown it to be dangerous. But of course, animal models won't tell you everything, hence these new studies. It's ridiculous, if they have proof that these things are dangerous they should put it out there, not tell us that their advice is based on forthcoming evidence. I'd like the see it for myself.
I think it's safe to say that since my post has been modded to +5, most people don't see it as a nonsensical, BS argument. It is simply the truth, there is no way to know for sure something is safe unless you use it. Arguing that we must not use anything unless we know it is safe would then result in us never developing any new technologies to use.
"If we just started assuming every little thing was safe and just started using it, we'd all be dead in no time."
Apparently not, since this is how it's been done since the beginning of recorded history. Unless you mean to imply that we should assume things are safe when we know them to be dangerous, which makes no sense.
I think it's safe to say that if conventional wire-tapping catches criminals, this will too. I I don't have a problem with this program, so long as they add appropriate safeguards, restrict the scope of investigations to serious crimes like terrorism, murder or rape, and have a policy of retroactive full disclosure (fully disclose any spying that took place upon the completion of an investigation or after some set amount of time like 5 years or so).
It is hard to make the case that this program will end. But it may be the only way to catch the Joker, so to speak. In the movie, it's easy to destroy the machine and do the right thing. What will happen when the Joker escapes, though? Will we be seeing the machine again? I don't know what to tell you.
The movie's point is valid, we will never know where the terrorists are without this system. The government can not wait for them to strike and then pick up the pieces (the public won't stand for it). The writer is just saying that we need to use it responsibly.
Some problems. . .
1. Batman stops Harvey Dent, but then tries to extract information from the Joker by force.
2. Bush has claimed that warrant-less wiretapping was authorized by congress as part of the war effort, therefore such an authorization would end with the war.
3. If Batman doesn't duck punishment, then why doesn't he turn himself in?
4. Batman used the police force in his trap that ultimately caught the Joker, so he is not above using government money to achieve his goals. He also depends on commissioner Gordan to get leads and prosecute criminals.
5. Batman did, in fact, kill Two-Face, so he does kill villains. The Joker predicted this in the interrogation room (you'll have to break your one rule), and it is a key part of the movie.
These are statistical studies measuring the incidence of brain tumors in people using cell-phones. There is only one hypothesis being tested here, that the rate of tumors will be higher in the population using cell-phones than in the population not using them.
There are a lot of things the FDA isn't concerned with, are you seriously suggesting that they are all dangerous? Think about that for a second.
The advice is contrary to the studies (the studies disprove the hypothesis that there is a link). They aren't publishing a new study, just issuing advice based on un-published work.
" But that FDA is so hopelessly corrupt that its public lack of worry is actually evidence implying that we should be worried."
So everything that the FDA isn't concerned with is dangerous now? You, sir, are an idiot.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
What this really proves is that we need to make sure that crazy people like this woman are not involved in making public policy decisions. You should at least have some indication that something is unsafe, or may be unsafe before you start issuing alarmist advice like this. If we waited until we knew for sure that every god damned little thing was safe before we started using it, we'd still be living in caves!
This is hardly the first movie that has terrorism in it. The movie is more of a discussion of these issues than a case for any particular viewpoint. I thought the Joker made a pretty good case for anarchy. Do you remember the part where the talked about the "Plan"?
I watched the first 6 minutes of this film on my friends 52" HD television (it's a special feature on the BB blue-ray disk) and it was definitely higher resolution than the version I saw in theaters (you can see the individual pieces of glass when the mob-guy shoots out the window in the bank). I would love to see this film in IMAX, but I haven't been able to get a ticket.
Yeah, I've never seen that name on here before. Maybe he's a troll.
"'The Dark Knight' was a mess of loose ends."
Are you kidding? They killed almost anyone who could have been a loose end. What loose ends are you talking about?
They could explain how he got those scars. . .
Not seeing this movie would be a supreme mistake. Also, it lacks product placement as far as I can remember. . . Go and watch it, you will see. Don't bring your kid.
That's because there was no body left to show. . .
I seriously doubt they will be bring her back. It would be really bad for the series.
You don't need to cite your own opinion.
Democracy is the best of all systems of government, but it still sucks balls. We have got to place restrictions on government activity if we want this idiocy to end. The government should not be involved in economic regulation, or wealth redistribution, or healthcare, or education, or even emergency services. All they do is fuck everything up. We need to restrict the role of government to enforcing basic laws and providing national security in the most basic way possible. Anything that we can do for ourselves, we should do for ourselves. Keep the government out of it.
I think the intent is to keep us from going there and spending money. Hence the term embargo. You're reading too much into it if you think they don't want us going there for any other reason.
I do agree that the embargo is retarded. It should have ended with the Soviet Union.