They get the authority to do so from their ability to do so. That's what the concept of property is all about (after all, you can hardly call something property if you have no authority over it). Either these companies own their Internet infrastructure or they don't. The net neutrality people are essentially saying that they don't.
Of course free software is fine from a libertarian perspective. Net nutrality, on the other hand, is a set of government rules imposed on ISPs. Libertarians believe that the government should only protect your property, and net nutrality does not do that.
"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work."
You spend 40 hours a week at work, and the money you make a work provides for all your material needs at home. I don't see how the two could possibly be divorced. I'm not sure why that would be a desirable situation in any case. You shouldn't invest a lot of time in a company like AT&T if you feel that their economic and political goals are in disagreement with what you think is right.
Of course, your employer can't fire you either, since they have no way of knowing whether or not you voted along their advice, or wrote a letter to the FCC.
A lot of people commute daily from San Diego or the the other cities to the south into LA, so you'll get a lot more use out of it by adding that stretch to it. Actually, it doesn't make a lot of sense to connect San Fran to LA, I don't know anyone who makes that commute (I hope no one makes that commute!).
In all fairness, there isn't really a lot else you see in the movies or on television. So it's not like we'd have any way of knowing if there were other places (and I'm not saying there are. ..)
I'm sorry too. Would you really spend most of your waking hours doing pointless or sub-par work? Have you ever been to the DMV? That lifestyle sucks the life out of people.
I know Steve's an ass, but it has to feel good to see normal customers shamelessly peddling the things you've made because they think they're so great everyone else should use them too. Apple products are superior, you can tell because their users LOVE them! It's rare to see that in other computer or software products.
"Nobody has ever refuted that Microsoft was a better employer than Apple."
I suppose it depends whether you'd rather produce a quality product you can stand behind, or make loads of money by ripping off the public at large. The quality of the work has something to do with being a better employer after all. I know I'd rather work for Apple.
I don't think so. In my own experience such individuals are typically detached from reality. The avoid considering the pain they are causing others, either by busying themselves with other things or simply by not looking or talking about the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they rationalize it by claiming that other people are different (that they don't think or feel the same way so their feelings are unimportant, racism or violence toward women are good examples of this). In every case they make a deliberate choice to be unaware of the fallout of their actions. This is the difference between a sociopath and a "normal" individual.
And in my experience sociopaths are much more common than "normal" people. Your claim that "They have no morals to trouble them at all; no conscience, no guilt. They're happy as if they had ethics and compassion." is a monument to that. Everyone is troubled by such things, but many are never able to make it past their own problems to see the problems of others.
In no way am I endorsing the compassionate treatment of sociopaths (it is usually even more detrimental to them than harsh treatment). However, if we are ever going to work things out we need to be aware of of the needs of others and treat them with respect.
I am saying this because I am about to go talk to my pastor about a woman in our church who has been slandering me, and I need to be in the right frame of mind to discuss it.
No, the article is making a claim about space, which is real. It would be like me saying "Unicorns are eating my lawn," which is obviously not true. What I should say is "Unicorns might eat my lawn, if they exist."
As a fellow non-driver, it has occurred to me more than once that I am probably much more likely to be killed by a car while waiting for the bus than while driving a car through a bus-stop. Something to think about.
That's kind of like the statistic that you are as likely to be bitten by a shark as to be struck by lightning. That makes sense, until you realize that you might be struck by lightning anywhere, where as you can only be bit by a shark for the brief time you are swimming in the ocean.
Are you proposing that you are going to spend the rest of your life avoiding cars? That's impossible. So you're not choosing one over the other, you're choosing to add one on top of the other.
Once a problem has occurred once, it is much less likely to occur a second time. The problem that brought down the Challanger was fixed, so of course the odds of that kind of catastrophic failure are now much lower. Likewise, the engineers are now aware of the falling-foam problem so again the problem is somewhat mitigated. Other factors that may lead to catastrophic failure are likely still an issue, but their odds of occurring are completely unknown.
The odds of catostraphic failure may now be 1/10,000 missions, they may be 1/1,000,000 missions or they could be, like you say 1 in 210 days. It all depends on how prevalent these kinds of engineering oversight are.
Up till two weeks ago, I had never dropped mine. My friend was asking me if he could use it for the internet, and he dropped it as soon as I handed it to him. It's corner is dented and the glass is pushed up so that there's this little gap between the stainless steel and the aluminum. I was a little disappointed/impressed that it still works fine.
I am probably going to need to replace my iPhone sooner or later. I have the original 4GB version, a 3GS has faster internet, video recording, GPS, a built in compass and more space. Of course, I'm not actually going to replace it until it fails (which sure is taking a while, maybe I need to drop it more often?), but I can see why someone would upgrade.
Relationships between people are important. They are much more important than distant galaxies, both personally and communally we would not be able to survive without them. Watching other people tells us something about ourselves.
If you you think that an enlightened discussion of cinema and pop-culture should revolve around the technical aspects of producing such media, then you've missed the point entirely. People discuss movies and pop-culture because it says something about our lives. It reaches out to us personally and tells us something about who we are.
You may think that an interest in science is the result of an analytical mind, but in reality the opposite is true. We associate with tales of adventure in space or conquests in manufacturing titanium because they stir us emotionally in the same way. We play out what if scenarios in our heads and fantasize about that the world could be like. This common desire for a better or more adventurous future is what brings us together here. In the same way a desire for stronger or more exciting relationships is what causes people to be obsessed with media stars.
I would say that the average actor has as much influence on us as the average politician. Perhaps more so. Both are only capable of saying words, which then may or may not cause listeners to take action. People are more willing to listen to words spoken by actors than politicians, and the people who write the words for the actors generally do a better job of making their point. On the other hand, millions of people across the world have sworn to give their lives and take the lives of others to defend and carry out the words spoken by politicians. I think it's a wash.
How is this any different than articles about rockets and space travel (after all, most of us will never travel into space, or work for NASA)? Or any other in a myriad of technical subjects that most of us are not, and will not be directly involved in or use directly.
People are curious. They are curious about everything. It's an exercise in futility to pick and chose useful information over non-useful information since none of us knows what tomorrow holds. If someone want's to read celebratory gossip more power to them. In truth, the gossip is more likely to be both true and useful than news about an new process that may produce titanium at half the cost or an article about NASA's next big toy. We on slashdot find the technical news more interesting, normal people who are interested in interpersonal relationships find the gossip more interesting. It's two sides of the same coin.
"If you're pessimistic about this you probably had the bad parents, optimistic you probably had the good ones."
People usually do as their parents did, so it's sounding to me like maybe the people who are pessimistic about this should not do it, and the ones who are optimistic should. The principle of self-selection can work here.
People who arrogantly believe they should make decisions for others (and the spineless people who go along with it) cause pretty much all of the world's problems today. The school system (or any designed "system" that is made of people) is a product of this kind of thinking.
With luck, they won't. That's no way to live. Cubicles are the factory farms of the working world. I'm surprised PETA hasn't shot some video or made ads about the atrocious, inhumane, and unnatural practice of cubicle farming in our nations workplaces. Please don't mod this funny, I am not joking.
Slashdot Mirror
What is a public resource?
They get the authority to do so from their ability to do so. That's what the concept of property is all about (after all, you can hardly call something property if you have no authority over it). Either these companies own their Internet infrastructure or they don't. The net neutrality people are essentially saying that they don't.
Of course free software is fine from a libertarian perspective. Net nutrality, on the other hand, is a set of government rules imposed on ISPs. Libertarians believe that the government should only protect your property, and net nutrality does not do that.
"What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work."
You spend 40 hours a week at work, and the money you make a work provides for all your material needs at home. I don't see how the two could possibly be divorced. I'm not sure why that would be a desirable situation in any case. You shouldn't invest a lot of time in a company like AT&T if you feel that their economic and political goals are in disagreement with what you think is right.
Of course, your employer can't fire you either, since they have no way of knowing whether or not you voted along their advice, or wrote a letter to the FCC.
A lot of people commute daily from San Diego or the the other cities to the south into LA, so you'll get a lot more use out of it by adding that stretch to it. Actually, it doesn't make a lot of sense to connect San Fran to LA, I don't know anyone who makes that commute (I hope no one makes that commute!).
They spent it on other stuff.
In all fairness, there isn't really a lot else you see in the movies or on television. So it's not like we'd have any way of knowing if there were other places (and I'm not saying there are. . .)
"I'm sorry, but I work for money and benefits."
I'm sorry too. Would you really spend most of your waking hours doing pointless or sub-par work? Have you ever been to the DMV? That lifestyle sucks the life out of people.
I know Steve's an ass, but it has to feel good to see normal customers shamelessly peddling the things you've made because they think they're so great everyone else should use them too. Apple products are superior, you can tell because their users LOVE them! It's rare to see that in other computer or software products.
I would also like to point out that retroactively taxing MS is an incredibly asinine thing to do. What is wrong with politicians?!
"Nobody has ever refuted that Microsoft was a better employer than Apple."
I suppose it depends whether you'd rather produce a quality product you can stand behind, or make loads of money by ripping off the public at large. The quality of the work has something to do with being a better employer after all. I know I'd rather work for Apple.
I don't think so. In my own experience such individuals are typically detached from reality. The avoid considering the pain they are causing others, either by busying themselves with other things or simply by not looking or talking about the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they rationalize it by claiming that other people are different (that they don't think or feel the same way so their feelings are unimportant, racism or violence toward women are good examples of this). In every case they make a deliberate choice to be unaware of the fallout of their actions. This is the difference between a sociopath and a "normal" individual.
And in my experience sociopaths are much more common than "normal" people. Your claim that "They have no morals to trouble them at all; no conscience, no guilt. They're happy as if they had ethics and compassion." is a monument to that. Everyone is troubled by such things, but many are never able to make it past their own problems to see the problems of others.
In no way am I endorsing the compassionate treatment of sociopaths (it is usually even more detrimental to them than harsh treatment). However, if we are ever going to work things out we need to be aware of of the needs of others and treat them with respect.
I am saying this because I am about to go talk to my pastor about a woman in our church who has been slandering me, and I need to be in the right frame of mind to discuss it.
No, the article is making a claim about space, which is real. It would be like me saying "Unicorns are eating my lawn," which is obviously not true. What I should say is "Unicorns might eat my lawn, if they exist."
"Gravitational waves squash and stretch space as they travel through the universe."
Does anyone else find these words to be a little presumptuous. It's not like they've ever detected any. Might I suggest the following wording instead:
"Gravitational waves would squash and stretch space as they travel through space, if they exist"
As a fellow non-driver, it has occurred to me more than once that I am probably much more likely to be killed by a car while waiting for the bus than while driving a car through a bus-stop. Something to think about.
That's kind of like the statistic that you are as likely to be bitten by a shark as to be struck by lightning. That makes sense, until you realize that you might be struck by lightning anywhere, where as you can only be bit by a shark for the brief time you are swimming in the ocean.
Are you proposing that you are going to spend the rest of your life avoiding cars? That's impossible. So you're not choosing one over the other, you're choosing to add one on top of the other.
Once a problem has occurred once, it is much less likely to occur a second time. The problem that brought down the Challanger was fixed, so of course the odds of that kind of catastrophic failure are now much lower. Likewise, the engineers are now aware of the falling-foam problem so again the problem is somewhat mitigated. Other factors that may lead to catastrophic failure are likely still an issue, but their odds of occurring are completely unknown.
The odds of catostraphic failure may now be 1/10,000 missions, they may be 1/1,000,000 missions or they could be, like you say 1 in 210 days. It all depends on how prevalent these kinds of engineering oversight are.
Up till two weeks ago, I had never dropped mine. My friend was asking me if he could use it for the internet, and he dropped it as soon as I handed it to him. It's corner is dented and the glass is pushed up so that there's this little gap between the stainless steel and the aluminum. I was a little disappointed/impressed that it still works fine.
I am probably going to need to replace my iPhone sooner or later. I have the original 4GB version, a 3GS has faster internet, video recording, GPS, a built in compass and more space. Of course, I'm not actually going to replace it until it fails (which sure is taking a while, maybe I need to drop it more often?), but I can see why someone would upgrade.
Relationships between people are important. They are much more important than distant galaxies, both personally and communally we would not be able to survive without them. Watching other people tells us something about ourselves.
If you you think that an enlightened discussion of cinema and pop-culture should revolve around the technical aspects of producing such media, then you've missed the point entirely. People discuss movies and pop-culture because it says something about our lives. It reaches out to us personally and tells us something about who we are.
You may think that an interest in science is the result of an analytical mind, but in reality the opposite is true. We associate with tales of adventure in space or conquests in manufacturing titanium because they stir us emotionally in the same way. We play out what if scenarios in our heads and fantasize about that the world could be like. This common desire for a better or more adventurous future is what brings us together here. In the same way a desire for stronger or more exciting relationships is what causes people to be obsessed with media stars.
I would say that the average actor has as much influence on us as the average politician. Perhaps more so. Both are only capable of saying words, which then may or may not cause listeners to take action. People are more willing to listen to words spoken by actors than politicians, and the people who write the words for the actors generally do a better job of making their point. On the other hand, millions of people across the world have sworn to give their lives and take the lives of others to defend and carry out the words spoken by politicians. I think it's a wash.
How is this any different than articles about rockets and space travel (after all, most of us will never travel into space, or work for NASA)? Or any other in a myriad of technical subjects that most of us are not, and will not be directly involved in or use directly.
People are curious. They are curious about everything. It's an exercise in futility to pick and chose useful information over non-useful information since none of us knows what tomorrow holds. If someone want's to read celebratory gossip more power to them. In truth, the gossip is more likely to be both true and useful than news about an new process that may produce titanium at half the cost or an article about NASA's next big toy. We on slashdot find the technical news more interesting, normal people who are interested in interpersonal relationships find the gossip more interesting. It's two sides of the same coin.
I suppose it depends whether you consider pointless busywork useful. I don't and I never did.
"who gets to decide?"
"If you're pessimistic about this you probably had the bad parents, optimistic you probably had the good ones."
People usually do as their parents did, so it's sounding to me like maybe the people who are pessimistic about this should not do it, and the ones who are optimistic should. The principle of self-selection can work here.
People who arrogantly believe they should make decisions for others (and the spineless people who go along with it) cause pretty much all of the world's problems today. The school system (or any designed "system" that is made of people) is a product of this kind of thinking.
With luck, they won't. That's no way to live. Cubicles are the factory farms of the working world. I'm surprised PETA hasn't shot some video or made ads about the atrocious, inhumane, and unnatural practice of cubicle farming in our nations workplaces. Please don't mod this funny, I am not joking.