Yes and no. It appears that this is a contractual issue. The State of New Jersey signed licensing terms that does not allow an independent party to review the code. The state should not violate that contract.
No, I disagree. When it comes to elections and verifying voting machines, the state has every right to verify, the clause on the contract is irrelevent. Proper voting is more important than a contract between business and government.
If your going to talk about things like the Autobaun, don't bother, since that isn't geared towards the Big Gulp and Taco, Cellphone, Hair Drying, and Novel Reading American Driver. We're too busy doing other things to be fully trusted to our own means. If there are valid studies, taking into account the unique American character of road use and vehicular philosophy, I will cede your point, barring that I'm sure (guessing here) that there are other studies, equally valid in method, that say otherwise.
Well, perhaps you should do society a favor, and turn in your license. Your argument is that the average American (which you are, and we can't assume otherwise) can't handle making reasonable judgement calls. It stands to reason that you can't either, so make us all safer and stop driving.
The only studies I'm aware of which contradict the civil engineers are done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Guess who fundes them? The same people can will raise rates if you get a ticket.. so they have a vested intrerest in making sure you get a ticket. Besides, the accident rates don't lie; rates do not increase as speed limits are increased, and in many cases accident rates actually drop.
We can agree on the mob-rule thing, though I wouldn't go so far as calling democracy (en toto) mob-rule, and thus bad, there is something to be said for a group of people having the right to represent themselves.
Of course there are issues that don't matter; for example, buying alcohol on Sunday, and other blue laws. These laws may be backed by a majority, but so what? Why should they take the rights of the minorirty that disagree?
I do find benefits in the idea of Philosopher Kings or meritocracy, but generally these go wrong, since those who claim the right to rule generally look out for themselves, to the detriment of the polis. We generally forget that government is here for the sake of the governed, and not for that of the governors.
Generally? Try "always." It's not that we "forget," it's that invariably once government starts regulating things, they tend not to stop. Our Consitution was supposed to stop or slow this, but unfortunately many state and certainly the Federal governments are overstepping their legal bounds. But that's ok, because the mob says its "for our safety."
Actually the ideal form of government, IMHO, would be mob-rule (ala democracy) with an informed public, and a large body of empowered experts within advisory roles in the government. Sadly, here in the US we have an ignorant and apathetic public, and corporate interests (and scientists who are willing sell their standards to said interests) represented in government. I digress.
Again though, the mob tramples the rights of the minority, so we must allow the minority to stop the mob from doing so. The only way to really stop all the issues you bring up is to simply remove most government intervention.
But, interestingly, the g-g-parent said something along the lines of "most people don't want speed limits, but they are enforced for revenue only". This IS a statement FOR mob-rule, the term "most people" confirms it.
I disagree with that statement; it seems to me that "most people don't want speed limits for themselves, but think that they should apply to everyone else." Also, I'm not arguing that we should remove speed limits because that's what people want; my argument is that speed limits are freedoms being limited illegally, not only because there's no proof that there is an "overwhelming societal need to do so (i.e. safety)," the opposite is true: speed limits make roads MORE unsafe. My argument has nothing to do with the OPs content
I agree. We're not birds, you don't throw a towel over a person's head and they instantly doze off. People fall asleep behind the wheel because it's time for them to sleep.
Or rather, how about installing the parts that CAN be installed and skipping anything else?
The idea of a SP is to get all machines with it to the same baseline. That way as a developer I can say you need SP1 for my program to function correctly because there's a bug in the RTM version. The other alternative is trying to explain you need these seven patches, go download them yourself. Not quite a great end user experience.
Nobody was actually preventing you from having life. Wants and not the basic needs of life. Keep this in perspective.
Piss off, asshat. Do we technically NEED electricty or phone service? No, it's call "raising our standard of living."
No, you didn't state that at all. You specifically typed, "This is exactly why all communications lines must be seized as property of the public." That is very clear advocation of theft of private property and they're the words you chose to use. They are a very dangerous thought.
Ya, I did. Note the presents of the word lines. As in physical cable. And the lines were largely paid for and land already taken from private citizens. So I see nothing wrong with "taking" them, because they weren't built without the public's help. Honestly, I could care less about "theft" from a company that is no longer serving a public good.
Are you now trying to change your comments? If that's the case, fine, do so but take ownership of the words you did choose to use.
No, like a moron, you attempted to misconstrue what I had said and tried to change it to make your point.
Do you see what the words you used communicate?
Yes, and apparently you lack any level of reading comprehension.
Um, you compeletely disagree with civil engineers and all the studies that looked at the effects of speed limits?
Of course the problem is that others won't agree, because they "disagree" with solid science just as you do. Until THEY get a ticket, of course. Basically, they expect themselves to have wiggle room, but no one else should have that same privledge.
Democracy is a fancy term for mob rule, and I don't buy into mob rule. And governments don't have a right to regulate you because something you do MIGHT injure someone else. Especially in this case, WHERE SPEED LIMITS DIRECTLY LEAD TO ACCIDENT RATE INCREASES.
Your entire suggestion is nonsense, because you're advocating mob rule, by a mob which is largely uninformed, and saying there's no problem with that situtation.
Oh, and studies have shown people DO self regulate. Or do you believe the reason people aren't murdering each other in the street constantly simply because there's a law?
So...your city created their own santioned monopoly and that means you advocate the theft of private property by "the people."
Huh? My city still allows Verizon and Comcast to offer service as well. Oh, and that "private property" was largely paid for by the taxpayers, and private land was TAKEN from private citizens so that poles could be put on it (eminate domain). Spare me your theft. And yes, in case you're wondering, if a king hordes all the food in the land, and the people are starving (those same people that provide said food) they have every right to "steal" from the king. They actually have a right to chop off his head.
Are you SURE the prices and service are better or do you only see part of the cost?
The network is a city department but was not funded by one cent of taxpayer money. And yes, it is cheaper than the garbage Comcast offers, and dealing with satan himself is perferable to Comcast customer service.
Price and service improve for the customer when there is competition in a free market, not when a government creates a monopoly.
I said government should own the lines, not necessarly run the services over those lines. And yes, my city does offer other companies the chance to offer services of the city's lines.
Most likely your city is hiding some of the cost in taxation or they aren't including investment for the future.
Nope.
Advocating theft of private property by "the people" is almost always the worst option.
I already explained how this is horseshit.
Innovation comes from incentive to acquire through achievement. That requires private property rights.
Ya, that's why until the city rolled their own fiber service, "broadboand" from Comcast was 1.5 MB down and less than 1 upload. Oddly, after the city service started, they bumped that up considerably. Terrible, terrible tradegety for me I know. Of course Comcast still insists asyncronous is best, yet I find using the internet faster when I have 6mbps up and down.
The problem isn't government, the problem with roads is the Federal government. They steal tax money from states, and dole it out in some corrupt fashion. The result is that states don't have adequate budgets to fix their roads, because the feds also raid the gas tax funds for things like, say, the Iraq war.
So you can say whatever you want, but my CITY is providing me far better service than Comcast or Verizon can. Verizon can't even get DSL to the most popoulous part of the city!
This is exactly why all communications lines must be seized as property of the public. We have public roads, public water, public electricity, and it's time we have public ownership of data lines.
I'm glad my city decided it wouldn't wait for Comcast or Verizon, and instead went and laid their own fiber network. Guess who has the best internet, phone and cable TV prices and service now?
Well, when you build applications or OSes that a huge majority of the world uses, let us know what your development cycle is like, and we'll judge whether or not it's better than MS'.
If there's nothing wrong with keeping people in ignorance, then no, copyright isn't evil.
How exactly is copyright keeping people ignorant? Seems to me we have libraries full of books on a huge array of topics. Anyone is free to read them.
If there's nothing wrong with estranging people from their common culture to the point that they can't sing happy birthday without having thugs show up demanding so much money it shuts your business down, and , then no, copyright isn't evil.
Funny, my family has had a lot of birthday parties, yet this has never happened to us.
If there's nothing wrong with telling a brilliant inventor that they can't share what they've created with their fellow man, because some group owns that idea, and they've decided not to develop it because it would reduce their power if it existed, then no, copyright isn't evil.
Oh, I see. You're one of the ignorant people. Apparently you don't know the difference between copyright and patents.
But really, when you get right down to it...
There is something wrong with these things.
Copyright is evil.
Those who defend it are evil too.
Huh. I guess that means our founders were evil. Freedom is slavery I guess.
Until you can figure out the difference between copyrights and patents, shut your mouth, get a job, and move out of your parents basement.
What crack are you on? There are dozens of governments around the world which do not rule with the consent of the people, including ones the U.S. supports. Egypt come to mind? How about Saudi Arabia? Hell, we sent people to Syria to be tortured yet we criticize that governments rule of law. I don't see you or the U.S. government going after them because the people don't give their consent to be ruled by those in power.
I personally believe that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of others. That said, it's up to the local population to remove governments which violate their rights. Should they ask for help in doing so, the US should provide it, provided the government which follows rules given the consent of the people.
Sure it can, just as it has said it is illegal for U.S. citizens to gamble over the internet, visit Cuba or do business with Iran. There are numerous times when the government has told the people what they can and cannot see and has enforced it. Doesn't make it right or mean there is any logic, but yes, it can and has (and continues to do so).
Yes, I also didn't say that the revolution should be the first step taken.
Sure, in a perfect world that would be great but guess what, the world ain't perfect. Governments, within the confines of their own boundaries, can do as they please until their people decide to take matters into their own hands. Obviously the majority of people in China don't feel the need to change things.
Which is up to the people in china to decide.
The rest of yoru post talks about the Geneva convention or whatever. My view is the same as those of our founders, classic liberism. This philosophy is about letting people as much freedom as possible while still functioning as a society. I would argue the people in China don't seem to mind because there's a pretty strong propaganda machine chugging along there. The same was done in Nazi Germany and Italy. That doesn't make it right.
As far as "giving guidelines" about what speech is or isn't allowed; it's censhorship and control, no matter how much you try to spin it. To say the government is allowed to pretend that protests aren't going on in Tibet is simply retarted; people that really believe that will forever be slaves to their rulers.
I suggest you dig more into the philosophy this country was founded on. If you don't like it, please follow my advice, and relocate your residence to China. Then tell me how it's ok for the government to control you.
Either you believe human beings have rights upon creation, or you don't.
If the Chinese government chooses to block YouTube, or any site which publishes articles critical of the government, that is their right. Every government, whether you like it or not, has the right to dictate the rules within its boundaries.
Wrong. Governments are only valid if they rule with the consent of the people. Otherwise, they can and must be destroyed.
To use a very bad example, what if the U.S. blocked access to sites which promote Al Qaeda's agenda? Would that be ok? Shouldn't we be allowed to see that propaganda? Is that on par with what China is doing?
The US cannot do that, because it has no right to tell people what they can or cannot see. Should the US government do this, it becomes invalid and no longer has the right to govern, and must be overthrown.
There is no human right to the internet. Billions of people survive every day without being addicted to staring at a glass screen from which images produced by radiation appear.
There are rights to be able to read and gather information unhindered by government intervention.
Yes, it would be nice if every government around the world produced a utopian society where everyone could rollick and play as they pleased, where the people could read whatever they wanted, but that's not going to happen anytime in the next thousand years. The best one can do is not support those countries who do have real human rights abuses (China being one in particular) by not buying their products or supporting those who want such abuses to continue.
And here I thought freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press were already human rights. I guess in your mind people don't have those, or that the government "grants" them to us.
What is funny, is that I know as a matter of fact that German mechanics can get green cards to go to work in the US because exactly those German dealerships lack the mechanics with the required expertise. Doesn't say good things about locals mechanics, eh?
Yet I can buy a Japanese car that doesn't require special mechanics and STILL have a more reliable car that those German POSes. What does that say about German cars?
Free maintenance? WTF? That's indeed the first I hear about such a thing.
That's how unreliable BMWs are here; you get at most three years out of them before they start exhibiting major problems. For some reason, they can't seem to make a window motor that doesn't fry itself. A friend of mine has gone through six now; oh, don't worry, he was told it's a "known problem."
However, this conversation is over. We clearly aren't going to end up on a common agreement, you started to be rude and I think you arguments suck. You think the same of mine, fine.... I couldn't care less....
I suggest you trace back to see who started to be rude. It wasn't me.
Stay in your retarded little US...
I intend to; I'd like our army to as well, but it seems Europe can't defend itself on its own.
Well, they won't care, until down the line it prevents them from getting a job. Or perhaps the government uses that information to disparage a future MLK before they even get a chance to get going. But of course the government never watched people like MLK, never probed into his life, and never, ever tried to undermine what he was doing. Because our government is good.
Funny, how you rule out reliability for German cars...
I just go off of the research I do. I don't blindly think that Germans build everything so efficently.
I also heard that in the US they lack competent mechanics for those kind of cars.
Kinda sad, given that both BMW and Mercades dealers can't fix their own cars. Oh, you didn't know both companies include scheduled maintenance for free? Ouch.
But maybe you're right, Germans are great about building stuff, especially ovens.
You your mechanic is a lazy customer-unfriendly slob? I'm so surprised....
It's nice to see Americans aren't the only ones that jump the gun to really really stupid conclusions. I personally couldn't give a fuck if the book is filled out. It's meaningless, I coudl fill it out if I wanted. What does it prove? Nothing.
If that means my car breaks down, less or not at all.... Then it's a good thing
No it's not; you're creating waste!!11!11!!! Wasn't your whole point that you should buy an older can so its parts AREN'T wasted?
You're using double standards: one point you don't want old cars because they break down "a lot" (meaning in the 8 years of ownership of my TT, exactly once and it was a sensor that gave a wrong signal.... false positive thus), but you aren't willing to replace pieces that a mechanic might rate "suspicious".
I have no problems replacing questionable parts; my statement was directed at replacing parts with plenty of good life left in them. Oh, I'm sure you're so naive to believe that German mechanics would never, EVER do such a thing.
He's the expert, remember.... But we already know you have a lazy mechanic....
Again, you're stupidity is showing. No where did I say my mecahnic was lazy; I said he didn't replace things unnecessarly to make a profit for himself. I call that honest, not lazy.
As a matter of fact, I know that if the engine supports it (most modern ones do), a computer is attached an everything recorded gets evaluated. But, hey, I already know that the US customer services sucks, and the AAA is probably no exception.
Right... because a computer can't possibly fail either, right? Oh, and the computer knows the condition of the metal in the cylinders, and that it will hold up. What are you, 12? I don't how an adult would even suggest that the computer knows that metal may be fatiguing.
And of course they also create "your data" by placing a website with content you are interested in and allowing you to view it. As much as it's your data, it's their data.
No, because just because there may be something of interest on a site doesn't mean I'll actually check it out.
As much as you get together with your friends and discuss what you see online, they get together with their friends and discuss who sees them online.
Well, my friends and I don't profit when we talk about something online. Your whole arguement seems rather one sided to me; they can make money by "discussing" me, but I can't do the same?
You can't interact with anyone or their website without them having at least as much an ownership of the data as you have.
Not true; they own the actual content; I own what I found interesting about it and why.
I think that pretty much summarizes the position of people who believe in copyright (RIAA, MPAA, etc.)
So what? Last I checked, copyright isn't evil, and it is something that exists. Why is it wrong that I should be able to make money off of my data, but they have been able to make money on theirs for years?
Because the legal infrastructure needs to be setup to make everyone play by the same rules, just like with property rights. And I do own the data; I generate it uniquely to me, and it's that uniqueness that matters to companies trying to sell me things. I create the data by living, making conscience choices about what I read, just like an author does by making conscience choices about what he writes and how he words something. Besides, they want information about me, so it must be valuable... why should I not profit from restricting who can see or use it?
No idea where you get that vi example. As I said in my original post, I install unauthorized stuff.
Ack, for some reason I you were comparing whatever you were using to Notepad, so I got it in my head you were using something like VI, and that was wrongly re-enforced when you said you weren't authorized to use Eclipse, which I took to mean that you weren't using something like that. Sorry, I'll shut up now, and hope you won't hold a gudge. Again, I really am sorry.
It's your last statement that makes complaining a problem; people that don't like the milder form for whatever reason don't complain; they move on to something else. That's why satellite radio is becoming so popular, besides the commercial free aspect. At some point though, people start bitching about the new media, and people that actually enjoy things others find offense are left without any outlet. Look at Cable TV for an example..
As I said in my original post, cost is not the issue. Getting an authorization to use Eclipse would be impossible. The support desk refuses to authorize installation of anything that they don't know inside out, because if something goes wrong they are supposed to help the user. That just the way it is.
"Would be impossible" sounds like you haven't made the attempt. I'm sure the logic of them knowing programs "inside and out" is unreasonable because they'd have to be developers in addition to support desk, which means they'd need to be paid more. I'm sure there's somebody that sees the logic in that, but you've not presented your case to the right person or in the right manner. Seems odd to me anyone would accept a job knowing they wouldn't be able to have the tools they need to do it.
Of course, I could guarantee them that I won't ask for support, and that if something goes wrong I take full responsibility. Guess what... that's exactly the description of unauthorized software.
No, it's not the same. Unauthorized software will get you fired, authorized but without support will not. Authorized means you're ALLOWED to install the software, it has nothing to do with who's supporting it.
You implied that I could be with whatever tools were given to me as long as I bothered to learn them. And no, it's not possible. It's like giving an accountant a programmable calculator and asking him to be as productive as he would be with Excel. So what do you think accountants do when Excel is not authorized? They just bring one from home. (Actually, my company does have a corporate office license, but I know of many companies that don't bother).
My grandfather was an accountant; and in a time before programmable calculators as well as computers, imagine that! Anyway, I don't know why an accountant would use Excel over accounting software, which many would not have at home.
If you _ever_ succeed in finding, getting access to and convincing the right person -in a company with more than 20,000 workers- to authorize and buy a specific piece of software you need, _please_ send me your CV. My teammates and I would be very interested in having you on board. I will have someone give my boss a blowjob if that's what it takes to hire you.
So now we have a team of programmers using VI to do Java? Interesting. Somehow, I don't buy it. Besides, if you've already installed VI without authorization, why would you not just install Eclipse? Like I said, not very believable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no. It appears that this is a contractual issue. The State of New Jersey signed licensing terms that does not allow an independent party to review the code. The state should not violate that contract.
No, I disagree. When it comes to elections and verifying voting machines, the state has every right to verify, the clause on the contract is irrelevent. Proper voting is more important than a contract between business and government.
Care to give me a couple layman-worthy cites?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_percentile_rule
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
If your going to talk about things like the Autobaun, don't bother, since that isn't geared towards the Big Gulp and Taco, Cellphone, Hair Drying, and Novel Reading American Driver. We're too busy doing other things to be fully trusted to our own means. If there are valid studies, taking into account the unique American character of road use and vehicular philosophy, I will cede your point, barring that I'm sure (guessing here) that there are other studies, equally valid in method, that say otherwise.
Well, perhaps you should do society a favor, and turn in your license. Your argument is that the average American (which you are, and we can't assume otherwise) can't handle making reasonable judgement calls. It stands to reason that you can't either, so make us all safer and stop driving.
The only studies I'm aware of which contradict the civil engineers are done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Guess who fundes them? The same people can will raise rates if you get a ticket.. so they have a vested intrerest in making sure you get a ticket. Besides, the accident rates don't lie; rates do not increase as speed limits are increased, and in many cases accident rates actually drop.
We can agree on the mob-rule thing, though I wouldn't go so far as calling democracy (en toto) mob-rule, and thus bad, there is something to be said for a group of people having the right to represent themselves.
Of course there are issues that don't matter; for example, buying alcohol on Sunday, and other blue laws. These laws may be backed by a majority, but so what? Why should they take the rights of the minorirty that disagree?
I do find benefits in the idea of Philosopher Kings or meritocracy, but generally these go wrong, since those who claim the right to rule generally look out for themselves, to the detriment of the polis. We generally forget that government is here for the sake of the governed, and not for that of the governors.
Generally? Try "always." It's not that we "forget," it's that invariably once government starts regulating things, they tend not to stop. Our Consitution was supposed to stop or slow this, but unfortunately many state and certainly the Federal governments are overstepping their legal bounds. But that's ok, because the mob says its "for our safety."
Actually the ideal form of government, IMHO, would be mob-rule (ala democracy) with an informed public, and a large body of empowered experts within advisory roles in the government. Sadly, here in the US we have an ignorant and apathetic public, and corporate interests (and scientists who are willing sell their standards to said interests) represented in government. I digress.
Again though, the mob tramples the rights of the minority, so we must allow the minority to stop the mob from doing so. The only way to really stop all the issues you bring up is to simply remove most government intervention.
But, interestingly, the g-g-parent said something along the lines of "most people don't want speed limits, but they are enforced for revenue only". This IS a statement FOR mob-rule, the term "most people" confirms it.
I disagree with that statement; it seems to me that "most people don't want speed limits for themselves, but think that they should apply to everyone else." Also, I'm not arguing that we should remove speed limits because that's what people want; my argument is that speed limits are freedoms being limited illegally, not only because there's no proof that there is an "overwhelming societal need to do so (i.e. safety)," the opposite is true: speed limits make roads MORE unsafe. My argument has nothing to do with the OPs content
I agree. We're not birds, you don't throw a towel over a person's head and they instantly doze off. People fall asleep behind the wheel because it's time for them to sleep.
Or rather, how about installing the parts that CAN be installed and skipping anything else?
The idea of a SP is to get all machines with it to the same baseline. That way as a developer I can say you need SP1 for my program to function correctly because there's a bug in the RTM version. The other alternative is trying to explain you need these seven patches, go download them yourself. Not quite a great end user experience.
Nobody was actually preventing you from having life. Wants and not the basic needs of life. Keep this in perspective.
Piss off, asshat. Do we technically NEED electricty or phone service? No, it's call "raising our standard of living."
No, you didn't state that at all. You specifically typed, "This is exactly why all communications lines must be seized as property of the public." That is very clear advocation of theft of private property and they're the words you chose to use. They are a very dangerous thought.
Ya, I did. Note the presents of the word lines. As in physical cable. And the lines were largely paid for and land already taken from private citizens. So I see nothing wrong with "taking" them, because they weren't built without the public's help. Honestly, I could care less about "theft" from a company that is no longer serving a public good.
Are you now trying to change your comments? If that's the case, fine, do so but take ownership of the words you did choose to use.
No, like a moron, you attempted to misconstrue what I had said and tried to change it to make your point.
Do you see what the words you used communicate?
Yes, and apparently you lack any level of reading comprehension.
Um, you compeletely disagree with civil engineers and all the studies that looked at the effects of speed limits?
Of course the problem is that others won't agree, because they "disagree" with solid science just as you do. Until THEY get a ticket, of course. Basically, they expect themselves to have wiggle room, but no one else should have that same privledge.
Democracy is a fancy term for mob rule, and I don't buy into mob rule. And governments don't have a right to regulate you because something you do MIGHT injure someone else. Especially in this case, WHERE SPEED LIMITS DIRECTLY LEAD TO ACCIDENT RATE INCREASES.
Your entire suggestion is nonsense, because you're advocating mob rule, by a mob which is largely uninformed, and saying there's no problem with that situtation.
Oh, and studies have shown people DO self regulate. Or do you believe the reason people aren't murdering each other in the street constantly simply because there's a law?
So...your city created their own santioned monopoly and that means you advocate the theft of private property by "the people."
Huh? My city still allows Verizon and Comcast to offer service as well. Oh, and that "private property" was largely paid for by the taxpayers, and private land was TAKEN from private citizens so that poles could be put on it (eminate domain). Spare me your theft. And yes, in case you're wondering, if a king hordes all the food in the land, and the people are starving (those same people that provide said food) they have every right to "steal" from the king. They actually have a right to chop off his head.
Are you SURE the prices and service are better or do you only see part of the cost?
The network is a city department but was not funded by one cent of taxpayer money. And yes, it is cheaper than the garbage Comcast offers, and dealing with satan himself is perferable to Comcast customer service.
Price and service improve for the customer when there is competition in a free market, not when a government creates a monopoly.
I said government should own the lines, not necessarly run the services over those lines. And yes, my city does offer other companies the chance to offer services of the city's lines.
Most likely your city is hiding some of the cost in taxation or they aren't including investment for the future.
Nope.
Advocating theft of private property by "the people" is almost always the worst option.
I already explained how this is horseshit.
Innovation comes from incentive to acquire through achievement. That requires private property rights.
Ya, that's why until the city rolled their own fiber service, "broadboand" from Comcast was 1.5 MB down and less than 1 upload. Oddly, after the city service started, they bumped that up considerably. Terrible, terrible tradegety for me I know. Of course Comcast still insists asyncronous is best, yet I find using the internet faster when I have 6mbps up and down.
I'm not a civil engineer, but they all agree that what everyone wants to do ends up being the safest way to handle things.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
Speed limits exist to put profit into police and insurance companies, not to make anyone safer.
The problem isn't government, the problem with roads is the Federal government. They steal tax money from states, and dole it out in some corrupt fashion. The result is that states don't have adequate budgets to fix their roads, because the feds also raid the gas tax funds for things like, say, the Iraq war.
So you can say whatever you want, but my CITY is providing me far better service than Comcast or Verizon can. Verizon can't even get DSL to the most popoulous part of the city!
This is exactly why all communications lines must be seized as property of the public. We have public roads, public water, public electricity, and it's time we have public ownership of data lines.
I'm glad my city decided it wouldn't wait for Comcast or Verizon, and instead went and laid their own fiber network. Guess who has the best internet, phone and cable TV prices and service now?
Well, when you build applications or OSes that a huge majority of the world uses, let us know what your development cycle is like, and we'll judge whether or not it's better than MS'.
If there's nothing wrong with keeping people in ignorance, then no, copyright isn't evil.
How exactly is copyright keeping people ignorant? Seems to me we have libraries full of books on a huge array of topics. Anyone is free to read them.
If there's nothing wrong with estranging people from their common culture to the point that they can't sing happy birthday without having thugs show up demanding so much money it shuts your business down, and , then no, copyright isn't evil.
Funny, my family has had a lot of birthday parties, yet this has never happened to us.
If there's nothing wrong with telling a brilliant inventor that they can't share what they've created with their fellow man, because some group owns that idea, and they've decided not to develop it because it would reduce their power if it existed, then no, copyright isn't evil.
Oh, I see. You're one of the ignorant people. Apparently you don't know the difference between copyright and patents.
But really, when you get right down to it...
There is something wrong with these things.
Copyright is evil.
Those who defend it are evil too.
Huh. I guess that means our founders were evil. Freedom is slavery I guess.
Until you can figure out the difference between copyrights and patents, shut your mouth, get a job, and move out of your parents basement.
What crack are you on? There are dozens of governments around the world which do not rule with the consent of the people, including ones the U.S. supports. Egypt come to mind? How about Saudi Arabia? Hell, we sent people to Syria to be tortured yet we criticize that governments rule of law. I don't see you or the U.S. government going after them because the people don't give their consent to be ruled by those in power.
I personally believe that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of others. That said, it's up to the local population to remove governments which violate their rights. Should they ask for help in doing so, the US should provide it, provided the government which follows rules given the consent of the people.
Sure it can, just as it has said it is illegal for U.S. citizens to gamble over the internet, visit Cuba or do business with Iran. There are numerous times when the government has told the people what they can and cannot see and has enforced it. Doesn't make it right or mean there is any logic, but yes, it can and has (and continues to do so).
Yes, I also didn't say that the revolution should be the first step taken.
Sure, in a perfect world that would be great but guess what, the world ain't perfect. Governments, within the confines of their own boundaries, can do as they please until their people decide to take matters into their own hands. Obviously the majority of people in China don't feel the need to change things.
Which is up to the people in china to decide.
The rest of yoru post talks about the Geneva convention or whatever. My view is the same as those of our founders, classic liberism. This philosophy is about letting people as much freedom as possible while still functioning as a society. I would argue the people in China don't seem to mind because there's a pretty strong propaganda machine chugging along there. The same was done in Nazi Germany and Italy. That doesn't make it right.
As far as "giving guidelines" about what speech is or isn't allowed; it's censhorship and control, no matter how much you try to spin it. To say the government is allowed to pretend that protests aren't going on in Tibet is simply retarted; people that really believe that will forever be slaves to their rulers.
I suggest you dig more into the philosophy this country was founded on. If you don't like it, please follow my advice, and relocate your residence to China. Then tell me how it's ok for the government to control you.
Either you believe human beings have rights upon creation, or you don't.
nvidia does not make graphics cards, they make chipsets. You're angry at the wrong company for your crappy fan.
If the Chinese government chooses to block YouTube, or any site which publishes articles critical of the government, that is their right. Every government, whether you like it or not, has the right to dictate the rules within its boundaries.
Wrong. Governments are only valid if they rule with the consent of the people. Otherwise, they can and must be destroyed.
To use a very bad example, what if the U.S. blocked access to sites which promote Al Qaeda's agenda? Would that be ok? Shouldn't we be allowed to see that propaganda? Is that on par with what China is doing?
The US cannot do that, because it has no right to tell people what they can or cannot see. Should the US government do this, it becomes invalid and no longer has the right to govern, and must be overthrown.
There is no human right to the internet. Billions of people survive every day without being addicted to staring at a glass screen from which images produced by radiation appear.
There are rights to be able to read and gather information unhindered by government intervention.
Yes, it would be nice if every government around the world produced a utopian society where everyone could rollick and play as they pleased, where the people could read whatever they wanted, but that's not going to happen anytime in the next thousand years. The best one can do is not support those countries who do have real human rights abuses (China being one in particular) by not buying their products or supporting those who want such abuses to continue.
And here I thought freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press were already human rights. I guess in your mind people don't have those, or that the government "grants" them to us.
Please, do everyone a favor, and move to China.
What is funny, is that I know as a matter of fact that German mechanics can get green cards to go to work in the US because exactly those German dealerships lack the mechanics with the required expertise. Doesn't say good things about locals mechanics, eh?
Yet I can buy a Japanese car that doesn't require special mechanics and STILL have a more reliable car that those German POSes. What does that say about German cars?
Free maintenance? WTF? That's indeed the first I hear about such a thing.
That's how unreliable BMWs are here; you get at most three years out of them before they start exhibiting major problems. For some reason, they can't seem to make a window motor that doesn't fry itself. A friend of mine has gone through six now; oh, don't worry, he was told it's a "known problem."
However, this conversation is over. We clearly aren't going to end up on a common agreement, you started to be rude and I think you arguments suck. You think the same of mine, fine.... I couldn't care less....
I suggest you trace back to see who started to be rude. It wasn't me.
Stay in your retarded little US...
I intend to; I'd like our army to as well, but it seems Europe can't defend itself on its own.
Well, they won't care, until down the line it prevents them from getting a job. Or perhaps the government uses that information to disparage a future MLK before they even get a chance to get going. But of course the government never watched people like MLK, never probed into his life, and never, ever tried to undermine what he was doing. Because our government is good.
Funny, how you rule out reliability for German cars...
I just go off of the research I do. I don't blindly think that Germans build everything so efficently.
I also heard that in the US they lack competent mechanics for those kind of cars.
Kinda sad, given that both BMW and Mercades dealers can't fix their own cars. Oh, you didn't know both companies include scheduled maintenance for free? Ouch.
But maybe you're right, Germans are great about building stuff, especially ovens.
You your mechanic is a lazy customer-unfriendly slob? I'm so surprised....
It's nice to see Americans aren't the only ones that jump the gun to really really stupid conclusions. I personally couldn't give a fuck if the book is filled out. It's meaningless, I coudl fill it out if I wanted. What does it prove? Nothing.
If that means my car breaks down, less or not at all.... Then it's a good thing
No it's not; you're creating waste!!11!11!!! Wasn't your whole point that you should buy an older can so its parts AREN'T wasted?
You're using double standards: one point you don't want old cars because they break down "a lot" (meaning in the 8 years of ownership of my TT, exactly once and it was a sensor that gave a wrong signal.... false positive thus), but you aren't willing to replace pieces that a mechanic might rate "suspicious".
I have no problems replacing questionable parts; my statement was directed at replacing parts with plenty of good life left in them. Oh, I'm sure you're so naive to believe that German mechanics would never, EVER do such a thing.
He's the expert, remember.... But we already know you have a lazy mechanic....
Again, you're stupidity is showing. No where did I say my mecahnic was lazy; I said he didn't replace things unnecessarly to make a profit for himself. I call that honest, not lazy.
As a matter of fact, I know that if the engine supports it (most modern ones do), a computer is attached an everything recorded gets evaluated. But, hey, I already know that the US customer services sucks, and the AAA is probably no exception.
Right... because a computer can't possibly fail either, right? Oh, and the computer knows the condition of the metal in the cylinders, and that it will hold up. What are you, 12? I don't how an adult would even suggest that the computer knows that metal may be fatiguing.
And of course they also create "your data" by placing a website with content you are interested in and allowing you to view it. As much as it's your data, it's their data.
No, because just because there may be something of interest on a site doesn't mean I'll actually check it out.
As much as you get together with your friends and discuss what you see online, they get together with their friends and discuss who sees them online.
Well, my friends and I don't profit when we talk about something online. Your whole arguement seems rather one sided to me; they can make money by "discussing" me, but I can't do the same?
You can't interact with anyone or their website without them having at least as much an ownership of the data as you have.
Not true; they own the actual content; I own what I found interesting about it and why.
I think that pretty much summarizes the position of people who believe in copyright (RIAA, MPAA, etc.)
So what? Last I checked, copyright isn't evil, and it is something that exists. Why is it wrong that I should be able to make money off of my data, but they have been able to make money on theirs for years?
Perhaps you should stick to your day job and leave comedy to comedians then?
Because the legal infrastructure needs to be setup to make everyone play by the same rules, just like with property rights. And I do own the data; I generate it uniquely to me, and it's that uniqueness that matters to companies trying to sell me things. I create the data by living, making conscience choices about what I read, just like an author does by making conscience choices about what he writes and how he words something. Besides, they want information about me, so it must be valuable... why should I not profit from restricting who can see or use it?
No idea where you get that vi example. As I said in my original post, I install unauthorized stuff.
Ack, for some reason I you were comparing whatever you were using to Notepad, so I got it in my head you were using something like VI, and that was wrongly re-enforced when you said you weren't authorized to use Eclipse, which I took to mean that you weren't using something like that. Sorry, I'll shut up now, and hope you won't hold a gudge. Again, I really am sorry.
It's your last statement that makes complaining a problem; people that don't like the milder form for whatever reason don't complain; they move on to something else. That's why satellite radio is becoming so popular, besides the commercial free aspect. At some point though, people start bitching about the new media, and people that actually enjoy things others find offense are left without any outlet. Look at Cable TV for an example..
As I said in my original post, cost is not the issue. Getting an authorization to use Eclipse would be impossible. The support desk refuses to authorize installation of anything that they don't know inside out, because if something goes wrong they are supposed to help the user. That just the way it is.
"Would be impossible" sounds like you haven't made the attempt. I'm sure the logic of them knowing programs "inside and out" is unreasonable because they'd have to be developers in addition to support desk, which means they'd need to be paid more. I'm sure there's somebody that sees the logic in that, but you've not presented your case to the right person or in the right manner. Seems odd to me anyone would accept a job knowing they wouldn't be able to have the tools they need to do it.
Of course, I could guarantee them that I won't ask for support, and that if something goes wrong I take full responsibility. Guess what... that's exactly the description of unauthorized software.
No, it's not the same. Unauthorized software will get you fired, authorized but without support will not. Authorized means you're ALLOWED to install the software, it has nothing to do with who's supporting it.
You implied that I could be with whatever tools were given to me as long as I bothered to learn them. And no, it's not possible. It's like giving an accountant a programmable calculator and asking him to be as productive as he would be with Excel. So what do you think accountants do when Excel is not authorized? They just bring one from home. (Actually, my company does have a corporate office license, but I know of many companies that don't bother).
My grandfather was an accountant; and in a time before programmable calculators as well as computers, imagine that! Anyway, I don't know why an accountant would use Excel over accounting software, which many would not have at home.
If you _ever_ succeed in finding, getting access to and convincing the right person -in a company with more than 20,000 workers- to authorize and buy a specific piece of software you need, _please_ send me your CV. My teammates and I would be very interested in having you on board. I will have someone give my boss a blowjob if that's what it takes to hire you.
So now we have a team of programmers using VI to do Java? Interesting. Somehow, I don't buy it. Besides, if you've already installed VI without authorization, why would you not just install Eclipse? Like I said, not very believable.