>Now, all of the people that have to work during >their favorite shows will not only not be able to >record those shows to watch them later, but they >won't be able to watch them at all. How does that >improve viewership of the shows that these >companies claim are so important to their >livelihood?
The companies are not selling shows to you. They are selling you to advertisers. They don't care if you watch the shows. They only care if you watch the advertising (ppv is different of course).
Time-shifters don't watch the ads. Well, at least I don't. So what do they care if we can't do it any more?
Well, if by leaving your house open, you effectively make it easy for a crook to get into my house without a key, then your analogy would make sense. And you can be sure people would be running up and down the street checking locks to make sure they work.
If people don't fight spam, it will get worse. If Coca-Cola, the Gap, and McDonald's figured that everyone had finally accepted spam, we'd get buried under thousands of messages a day and E-mail would be useless.
Spam costs basically nothing to send. There is no cure for it other than to fight every single message and make sure the marketing weenies keep thinking it's sleezy and unacceptable (and believe me, that's a hard sell for most of them).
>On a cable modem or ADSL setup they make no
>sense at all.
Well, they sort of do, from an admin perspective. You don't have to track who was assigned which IP address, release them back into the pool when the customer goes away, etc. It also makes it harder for the customer to run a server, which most broadband companies don't want you doing anyway.
I would think the benefits of assigning an address would be greater than the admin gains from dynamic, though.
Yep, and by 2003 you will have to be buying emission-free cars (what is it, 10% of all new cars?), which at this point means electric (since some dork regulator decided that even water coming from fuel cells didn't mean emission-free).
They started using funky names for CPU's because a court decided they couldn't trademark the number 486. So the next chip was called the Pentium, which could be trademarked. At least that's how I remember it happening.
50% taxes will get you down after a while. My wife and I are seriously looking at leaving once she finishes school.
Young healthy people just have nothing to gain by staying in Canada. We just get screwed over to pay for everyone else's pet social programs.
Seriously, though, how much better is the tax situation down there? For someone making, say, $100,000 cdn (I'd say that's about $65 US, but it's not really, food and rent's pretty cheap here, though not real estate, so compare it to maybe $75,000 US), we'd pay close to $40,000 in combined federal and provincial income tax. Plus another $5,000 or so in unemployment insurance and government pension deductions. We pay 14% sales taxes on pretty much everything, except gas and booze which is closer to 60%. So figure well over 50% in total tax burden. What would be a comparable figure from down south? And how much does health insurance cost for 2 people, no kids, no health problems?
We also can't write off the interest payments on a residence, which I've heard Americans can, which would make a home much more affordable.
Only time I've heard anything like that is from people working at unionized shops. The lifers can't stand to see someone working hard, might make them look bad.
>Take a look at Canada and Sweden... as socialist
>as they come.
Hardly. The Canadian governments (at all levels) soak up 40-50% of the GDP. Fortunately private industry produces enough out of the rest that we haven't quite managed to bankrupt ourselves just yet.
>Were not evil 3 eyed commies
>are we?
The more Socialist among us are. Thankfully the socialist parties running in next week's elections won't get even a small fraction of the vote.
Err, there was no referendum. Austria was bullied by Germany for months along with internal disruption by the Austrian Nazi party. Finally they were bullied into not resisting a German invasion.
There was referendum planned, but that just hastened the German invasion plans. The referendum was cancelled and Austria ceased to exist.
Must have been fake engineers working on those failed Mars missions, then. Or on the bridge here that collapsed during construction in the 50's. Or the mall parking lot that collapsed into a bunch of stores a few years ago.
Real engineers fuck up too. When they do, often people die, so they're a lot more careful than someone working on a web application. Their projects also involve a lot more people doing a lot more planning than most software projects have budgets for.
Most people need to believe there's more to existence than a brief spell of consciousness followed by... nothing.
In fact, although I have no religious beliefs myself, I find it very difficult to accept that I will someday die and no longer exist. My brain just doesn't want to go there. I think in many ways it would be easier to believe in something, anything. I almost wish my parents had been religious and had dragged me off to church and properly brainwashed me at an early age.
Nah. But it is hard. I can certainly understand why most people take the easy way out and just avoid thinking about it. I think TV and other distractions of modern life have contributed as much to the decline of religion as so-called liberalism. It's just too easy to find something else to do. You don't have all that pesky time to yourself to sit around and think.
>Government regulation saving a million
>lives: good thing, or bad thing?
The government could lock everyone in a cage, feed them nutritious food, ensure they receive adequate exercise, and treat them when they get sick. It would increase the average life expectancy by 20 years. Everyone would be perfectly safe. Good idea or bad?
Government imposed safety is the antithesis of freedom. Ie. you can be safe, or you can be free, you probably can't be both.
Besides - define "saved lives". The last time I checked, everyone still has to die sometime, from something.
>In other words, would you support a system where
>the rich could buy replacement organs and the >poor could make big bucks by selling
>their kidneys?
Why not? As long as no force or coercion is used to make someone give up their organs, who even cares? It's called freedom.
As for roads, that's the only tough one one the list. There are some things government does much better than individuals can. Space-limited infrastructure is one such thing.
>Communism is not inherently evil. Communism as a
>theory is a wonderful concept, the applicaiton of
>that theory is flawed simply because human nature
>of greed and self-importance take over.
What fucking good is a political theory that doesn't work when combined with human nature?
Every single application of Communism has turned out to be catastrophically bad for the nations involved and resulted in thousands or millions of deaths at the hands of the state enforcing this wonderful system. If that isn't evil, then what is?
Harry Browne doesn't want to dismantle government. He wants it to fullfill it's constitutional responsibilities. Only.
Re:There is another alternative....
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Libertarians would decriminalize all drug use. In fact, Harry Browne has stated he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders the very day he took office.
Slashdot Mirror
>Now, all of the people that have to work during >their favorite shows will not only not be able to >record those shows to watch them later, but they >won't be able to watch them at all. How does that >improve viewership of the shows that these >companies claim are so important to their >livelihood?
The companies are not selling shows to you. They are selling you to advertisers. They don't care if you watch the shows. They only care if you watch the advertising (ppv is different of course).
Time-shifters don't watch the ads. Well, at least I don't. So what do they care if we can't do it any more?
It's worse. IBM won't send guys with guns to collect your "donations" at tax time.
Well, if by leaving your house open, you effectively make it easy for a crook to get into my house without a key, then your analogy would make sense. And you can be sure people would be running up and down the street checking locks to make sure they work.
If people don't fight spam, it will get worse. If Coca-Cola, the Gap, and McDonald's figured that everyone had finally accepted spam, we'd get buried under thousands of messages a day and E-mail would be useless.
Spam costs basically nothing to send. There is no cure for it other than to fight every single message and make sure the marketing weenies keep thinking it's sleezy and unacceptable (and believe me, that's a hard sell for most of them).
>On a cable modem or ADSL setup they make no
>sense at all.
Well, they sort of do, from an admin perspective. You don't have to track who was assigned which IP address, release them back into the pool when the customer goes away, etc. It also makes it harder for the customer to run a server, which most broadband companies don't want you doing anyway.
I would think the benefits of assigning an address would be greater than the admin gains from dynamic, though.
Actually, the point is that Nace is a spammer, and since spammers lie, he claims to not be a spammer. All spammers do this.
UUNet Canada has always been a much more clueful organization than the US version.
Yep, and by 2003 you will have to be buying emission-free cars (what is it, 10% of all new cars?), which at this point means electric (since some dork regulator decided that even water coming from fuel cells didn't mean emission-free).
;)
Hope the grid doesn't actually melt
Have fun.
They started using funky names for CPU's because a court decided they couldn't trademark the number 486. So the next chip was called the Pentium, which could be trademarked. At least that's how I remember it happening.
The State can't even teach most people to read and write. And you want them to teach tech skills? That's pretty funny.
50% taxes will get you down after a while. My wife and I are seriously looking at leaving once she finishes school.
Young healthy people just have nothing to gain by staying in Canada. We just get screwed over to pay for everyone else's pet social programs.
Seriously, though, how much better is the tax situation down there? For someone making, say, $100,000 cdn (I'd say that's about $65 US, but it's not really, food and rent's pretty cheap here, though not real estate, so compare it to maybe $75,000 US), we'd pay close to $40,000 in combined federal and provincial income tax. Plus another $5,000 or so in unemployment insurance and government pension deductions. We pay 14% sales taxes on pretty much everything, except gas and booze which is closer to 60%. So figure well over 50% in total tax burden. What would be a comparable figure from down south? And how much does health insurance cost for 2 people, no kids, no health problems?
We also can't write off the interest payments on a residence, which I've heard Americans can, which would make a home much more affordable.
Only time I've heard anything like that is from people working at unionized shops. The lifers can't stand to see someone working hard, might make them look bad.
>Take a look at Canada and Sweden... as socialist
>as they come.
Hardly. The Canadian governments (at all levels) soak up 40-50% of the GDP. Fortunately private industry produces enough out of the rest that we haven't quite managed to bankrupt ourselves just yet.
>Were not evil 3 eyed commies
>are we?
The more Socialist among us are. Thankfully the socialist parties running in next week's elections won't get even a small fraction of the vote.
Err, there was no referendum. Austria was bullied by Germany for months along with internal disruption by the Austrian Nazi party. Finally they were bullied into not resisting a German invasion.
There was referendum planned, but that just hastened the German invasion plans. The referendum was cancelled and Austria ceased to exist.
Spamming to stop spamming is ... stupid. Why is your spam better than anyone else's?
> Real engineers can do it 100% of the time.
Must have been fake engineers working on those failed Mars missions, then. Or on the bridge here that collapsed during construction in the 50's. Or the mall parking lot that collapsed into a bunch of stores a few years ago.
Real engineers fuck up too. When they do, often people die, so they're a lot more careful than someone working on a web application. Their projects also involve a lot more people doing a lot more planning than most software projects have budgets for.
>I don't know any Canadians. The gag order seems
>to be completely idiotic.
As opposed the intelligent laws passed regularly in the US?
They're politicians, they can't help themselves.
Most people need to believe there's more to existence than a brief spell of consciousness followed by ... nothing.
In fact, although I have no religious beliefs myself, I find it very difficult to accept that I will someday die and no longer exist. My brain just doesn't want to go there. I think in many ways it would be easier to believe in something, anything. I almost wish my parents had been religious and had dragged me off to church and properly brainwashed me at an early age.
Nah. But it is hard. I can certainly understand why most people take the easy way out and just avoid thinking about it. I think TV and other distractions of modern life have contributed as much to the decline of religion as so-called liberalism. It's just too easy to find something else to do. You don't have all that pesky time to yourself to sit around and think.
Most sites do put United States at the top. It pisses me off that I usually have to search down 30 countries to find Canada though (grumble).
>Government regulation saving a million
>lives: good thing, or bad thing?
The government could lock everyone in a cage, feed them nutritious food, ensure they receive adequate exercise, and treat them when they get sick. It would increase the average life expectancy by 20 years. Everyone would be perfectly safe. Good idea or bad?
Government imposed safety is the antithesis of freedom. Ie. you can be safe, or you can be free, you probably can't be both.
Besides - define "saved lives". The last time I checked, everyone still has to die sometime, from something.
>In other words, would you support a system where
>the rich could buy replacement organs and the >poor could make big bucks by selling
>their kidneys?
Why not? As long as no force or coercion is used to make someone give up their organs, who even cares? It's called freedom.
As for roads, that's the only tough one one the list. There are some things government does much better than individuals can. Space-limited infrastructure is one such thing.
Nah, it was Nixon that made the drug war a big thing. Not that Reagan or Bush did anything to stop it, but neither did Carter or Clinton.
>and the last time I checked, the moon was in
...
>space.
well, much in the same way that the Earth is in space
>Communism is not inherently evil. Communism as a
>theory is a wonderful concept, the applicaiton of
>that theory is flawed simply because human nature
>of greed and self-importance take over.
What fucking good is a political theory that doesn't work when combined with human nature?
Every single application of Communism has turned out to be catastrophically bad for the nations involved and resulted in thousands or millions of deaths at the hands of the state enforcing this wonderful system. If that isn't evil, then what is?
Harry Browne doesn't want to dismantle government. He wants it to fullfill it's constitutional responsibilities. Only.
Libertarians would decriminalize all drug use. In fact, Harry Browne has stated he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders the very day he took office.