Moderators: with your help, we can wipe out "virii" in our lifetime!
Nope, you can't wipe out the word "virii".
It just keeps spreading. As soon as one guy uses it around his two friends, it spreads to them. Then they each use the word around two other friends, who catch it. At this point it stops for a while, since those seven geeks don't have any other friends. But then one of them posts it online, and it spreads to hundreds of others.
Despite your efforts to stop it, the word "virii" will continue to spread to more and more people, like some sort of computer "worm".
Sure, asteroid plowing into the earth has a MUCH bigger effect, but the chance of it happening is pretty small. The chance of there being trees in Iowa after we spent money planting them is awfully close to 100%.
It's not that "humanity continuing to exist" is a low priority, it's just that we don't really see it as being in danger.
Innocent until proven guilty is nice, but how long are we going to wait to finally punish them for the things we KNOW they did wrong?
Actually, "innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal trials, not civil suits. It's referred to as the "burden of proof", and it's different for different things. For some stuff, you simply must prove that it is "more likely than not" that the defendent did something wrong. For others, you have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt".
As for punishing them for things you "know" they did wrong, the difference is between the things that a judge knows they did wrong, and the things that you "know" they did wrong. I personally consider this a good thing, but if you have a problem with it, you should run for judge. See if enough of your voting peers agree with your fitness to render verdicts.
Having read only the link that you sent me, I personally believe there's a decent chance (say, 40-50%) that Microsoft broke the CSS intentionally. And you only made it up to 40-50% because I was including other experiences, like their having blocked Mozilla. If you treat the evidence on only its own merits, (which a judge should do) then maybe 20-30% chance that Microsoft intentionally broke it. I can definitely envision someone at MSN deciding that Opera is big enough to warrant their own file, then just doing a crappy job with it.
Or put another way, never attribute to malice what is easily explainable by incompetence.
There's some problems with your legal reasoning. Opera and Microsoft sat down together and agreed on the settlement. If it was some sort of foregone conclusion that Microsoft was going to lose big, then Opera wouldn't have agreed.
You can't just assume that any kind of court proceeding will find the ultimate truth of the matter. If you've followed many of the major IP law cases in the last couple years, you'd see that the outcomes are seldom easily predictable. Some judges don't understand the technology, sometimes the laws involved are outdated and difficult to map onto the situation at hand, and sometimes the laws seem to outright conflict with each other (DMCA vs. Fair Use). As a big company going into one of these cases, you won't get a certain victory or certain loss; you're lucky if you can get a fairly accurate guess at the odds.
That's where the settlement starts. If you're talking about a judgement of 20 million, and both sides think they've got a 50-50 shot, then they can settle on 10 million. If the plantiff thinks they've only got a 10 percent shot (which would be the case even if the defendent was pretty clearly in the right) then they'll happily settle for 3 million.
So maybe Microsoft was guilty here, maybe they weren't. All the settlement tells you is that the chance of them being found guilty and the size of the settlement were large enough that they were willing to spend 12 million to avoid it, and small enough that Opera was willing to accept only 12 million to give it up.
As to "paying their way out", it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. "Paying their way out" was what would have happened if they HAD been found at fault. It's a company, its purpose is to make money. Paying a fine IS defeat. It's not like this is a murderer who's getting out of the death penalty by paying his way out.
Key phrase "prior to the 60s". Give me a real example, from present day.
But to address your example, it wasn't just the south, it was the entire country. Yes, it was greater in the south, but don't buy into this mindset that the US divides neatly into "the South" - made up of bigoted slaver hicks, and "the North" - educated, compassionate humanitarians with no racist attitudes. It's a whole big mess of people, and lots of them don't like each other. There are different trends in different places, but no big clear borders.
However, the disparity between treatment of blacks in the north and south gave an incentive for blacks to move north, where they would be treated better. "The market" (in this case, the country) wasn't devoid of options, and those who treated blacks better were rewarded with better performing companies, except when individual whites shunned them for black-friendly policies.
That's not a problem with corporations, that's a problem with humans. As soon as you build a list of things nobody is allowed to discriminate against, two things will happen: 1. People will be more clandestine with their discrimination, not eliminate it. 2. They'll find new things to discriminate against, which aren't on your list.
The second is happening now. If you check the Constitution, you'll notice it explicitly prevents discrimination against ethnicity and sex, but not sexual preference. Giving more power to individuals and less to corporations doesn't fix that problem. Especially since you then start running up against people's Constitutionally guaranteed rights to choose who they associate with (think Boy Scouts ruling).
I'm not such a fool as to claim there are no problems in the US, but you can't blame corporations for racism.
Wow, this is the first one of these "renewable energy will save us all!" stories that I've read and thought "Hey, this thing actually does have the potential to be important and good!"
Okay first things first, it costs money to build these plants. It's all well and good to say it produces oil at a commercially viable price, but if I'm paying X/barrel now, with an opportunity to spend 10 million building a plant which will produce oil for X/barrel, I'm gonna stick with my current source. This isn't an insurmountable obstacle, since there's an obvious national interest in achieving it, so the government could be counted on to help out some. (I say some, not all. Attempts to compare prices with the cost of the Iraq war are fallacious, since they assume the only purpose was oil dependence, which is not an assumption that either the government or the majority of the population grants.)
Okay, so the government might help out a bit, but we've still got to make these things more economically viable than conventional oil sources, or else there's no way to find the startup costs. I think this can be done, although not necessarily this year, or even this decade.
As I understand it, most agriculture in the US is run by huge corporates, like ConAgra. This is actually a really good thing here, because while Joe Random Farmer is just trying to make ends meet right now, an ubercorp will have funds which it can sink into million dollar projects which won't be profitable for ten years. They can afford to build plants like this at many of their farms. They just need to be convinced that it will make them money.
Again, the government helps a little, somehow. I'm not crazy about "tax incentives", because far down the road, when this industry is profitable, you aren't gonna be able to take the tax incentives away from the ubercorp with all its influence. I'd suggest something like loans or grants, but this isn't my area of expertise, so I leave that implementation up to someone better. Let's just call it "a bit of government help."
Conventional oil prices are rising, and will continue to rise almost indefinitely. This is obvious to all the economists out there, so I leave it to them to explain it to the environmentalists and the SUV-owners anxiously awaiting the return of gas prices to "normal". As the price of conventional oil rises, the new synthetic oil becomes more competitive. If we can get significant synthetic oil market presense, that's half the battle already. Rather than the 30 year off catastrophic halt in energy supply predicted by environmentalists, we just get a gradual transition from natural to synthetic oil.
The only issue I would still worry about is scale. Is there really enough waste being produced to fuel the entire nation? It seems contradictory to me, since I don't imagine there being that much energy coming in via sunlight, which is really the only energy source, until we work the kinks out of that pesky fusion. But assuming my intuitive estimate on sunlight is wrong, and we really do have enough organic waste, does my analysis seem valid? I don't think this is too pie-in-the-sky, but if I missed something important, speak up.
I still can't believe that a cow releases 100-200 liters of methane every day in the form of flatulance. Methane has 31x the "global warming" effect of CO2 on atmosphere, so think of that as 3000-6000 liters of CO2 every day.
Hey! Does this mean vegetarians, by saving the lives of cows, are really at fault for global warming?! Quick, somebody, blame a corporation! Uh, it's a conspiracy, yeah... by... uh... Big Soy!
I work network support for the Deptartment of Education in a major metropolitan area, and we got a trouble-ticket sent over to our group with the following Problem Description: "how do I set up a teacher's iBook so that teacher can access DOE email at home without the need for an internet service provider"
Responses we came up with: 1. A REALLY long ethernet cable. 2. Terrestrial microwave. 3. Print the emails as they arrive, pay couriers to deliver the printouts. 4. Our datacenter is moving to a new building at the end of next year, suggest moving it into her apartment.
I have a similar experience: We pulled out onto the tarmac and sat there for ten minutes. Then the Captain tells us that they found a piece of the plane is broken, but nobody knows what it does, so they're calling the manufacturer to find out if it's important. Half an hour later, they get the answer that it's not. We took off and landed fine.
That would be awesome. You should post an email address for someone senior at Unisys. I'd love to see a flood of emails from slashdot users telling them their byte size is wrong.
Friggin' slashdot.
Let's look at the quote again: Worse yet, unless you opt-out at the beginning of your contract, some carriers such as T-Mobile CAN gladly hand over your info
No, it does not sound like they are selling personal info. It sounds like the boiler-plate contract that their lawyers created to be as all-encompassing as possible grants them the right to do that (along with probably the right to eat your children and harvest your organs). That is not at all the same thing as actually acting upon those rights. This particular clause in the contract just came under scrutiny, and the first thing they did was say "don't worry, we'll fix it."
Look, I agree that it's important to review these contracts, and to reign them in to prevent abuse. But there's this absurd mentality that all big corporations are like a ship full of Borg, bearing down on you, bent on destruction. There are good companies, and there are bad companies, but pretty much every large company has lawyers, else they would have been sued back to being a small company over something ridiculous (think googol-family suing Google). Those lawyers write the contracts, and they try to write them so that there's no chance their company can ever be held liable for anything bad at all. That doesn't mean the company is evil and intends to actually do all the things that it's allowed to.
As soon as you have credible reports of T-Mobile selling personal information, then feel free to start yelling about it. But right now the only facts that we have are that their contract would have allowed them to do that, and that as soon as this was pointed out, they said they're changing it.
This reminds me of a Simpsons quote (truly hardcore fans feel free to jump in with the exact quote) to the effect of: "Yeah, they've provided us with free entertainment for ten years! The way I see it, they owe us!"
The situation is obviously complicated, and "Star Wars" has taken on a life of its own, but it's kind of absurd to read rants about how George Lucas is wrecking George Lucas' vision.
Libertarians always think that private industry can do things more cheaply, but when you factor in corruption, kickbacks, and nepotism, it gets very expensive very quickly.
Yes. Thankfully there's none of that stuff in the government agencies.
You really think that loving Starbucks is the only reason to mod your comment down?
Not only is it a pointless jab, providing no actual insight to anyone reading it, but your logic is even broken. "Breath freshener for people who eat shit" simply means that it smells better than shit. Well so does the best coffee in the world. So does ACTUAL breath freshener. So does everything that smells good. When you say stupid, pointless things, you're SUPPOSED to be modded down.
Is this just because of the sheer user base, meaning things get hacked together faster, or is it more profound, i.e., Windows is more easily hacked.
The fact that people were better able to hack an Apple program with Windows doesn't mean "Windows is more easily hacked." They weren't using iTunes to hack Windows, it was the other way around. It implies that the environment gives you more control over the programs you use with it, which is a good thing. I imagine if they had released iTunes for Linux, it would have been hacked even quicker and more effectively.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I absolutely applaud you for trying to find actual data to back up your argument, and linking it in your post. I'm just saying that slashdot polls should not at all be treated as real data. When was the last time a Gallup poll was released with a joke option, which got more than 30% of the responses?
[sarcasm]It's not like "they're screwing you" with crazy, unjustifiable taxes. If you really think that "Big Government greediness" is to blame, start a revolution.[/sarcasm]
Well, it's not greed. It's not like the government is running huge profits or anything. If they took the taxes off the gas, they'd have to put them somewhere else, or cut spending (heavens, no! anything but that!). If you think you could allocate the budget better, who am I to say you're wrong? All I was trying to say is don't roll out this ridiculous "the evil corporations of Big Oil is to blame for all our woes! If we boycott them for 24 hours, they'll be forced to cut their prices!"
And you don't have to start a revolution to see tax cuts in this country. We saw some big ones this term. If you really think cutting the taxes is the way to go, just speak up the next time Democrats are talking about how crazy the Bush tax-cuts were. Tell them the next person to raise the gas tax can stop counting on your vote. I don't personally agree with that, but if your goal is to lower gas taxes, it doesn't take a revolution.
No? What happens if the company in question doesn't like the fact that you're arab? Or doesn't like your sexual orientation, or even the perception of your sexual orientation? It's just a private business choice, so they have the right to deny you service, eh?
Yes, absolutely. If they start doing this, then you open a company that doesn't, and you've got all Arab, gay, and metrosexual customers without even having to be competitive on price. You can market your company as open-minded and non-discriminatory, and you'll outsell the bigoted corporation. Which is why corporations rarely do that. Because they don't care about you, just your money, and telling 30% of your customers to go away isn't good for business.
The only part of your post I disagree with is your use of a slashdot poll as though it were meaningful information.
Adjustment is tough
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes, we are of course running out of oil, and we of course need to find new energy supplies. People have been beating this drum for years. If it has taught you anything, it should be that scolding people and chanting predictions of disaster doesn't actually make people change their behavior. If you believe it's morally reprehensible that not everyone sold their SUVs and bought a Prius, that's fine, that's your viewpoint, but whining about it hasn't really changed much.
On the other hand, what will change things is the rising price of gas. This is a big news item lately, and the reactions kind of freak me out. People everywhere are outraged, and want to know when this will be "fixed". Like maybe they'll go back down next month, or if we boycott ExxonMobil for 24 hours. This is crazy. In the long run, they're gonna go up, forever. It's a resource we have in finitie quantity. It's running out. As it runs lower, it will get more expensive, until eventually nobody is using it to power their cars.
In the short term, the US has far lower gas prices than European countries. It's not like "they're screwing you" with crazy, unjustifiable markup. If you really think that "Big Oil greediness" is to blame, I suggest you start your own gas company and sell for $1.25. You'll certainly have plenty of customers, if you can sustain that profit margin.
Milk is up 0.60 cent per gallon
Butter has went from 1.99 to 3.49
Out of curiosity, since when? I'm not disputing your figures, I just haven't seen them. Is that since this time last week? Last year? 1950? I haven't personally observed this change in my trips to the supermarket.
That is a form of corporate censorship. This is also along the lines of the Moore/Disney thing. What you are seeing is corporations are starting to dictate what you can and can't do.
I think you misunderstood the Moore/Disney thing. The corporation isn't telling you what you can and can't do, it's telling you what it will and won't do. Disney wasn't saying "I forbid you to speak your mind!" They were saying "I'm not going to take your opinions and put my company name on them, then spend money distributing them with my infrastructure." They said this a year ago, and he knew it a year ago. He has since admitted this, and admitted that all his complaints in the media have been an attempt to drum up publicity.
If you want a country where companies have no right to refuse you service, I suggest you look outside the US. If Bellsouth/Verizon doesn't like what you're doing, then they should terminate your connection. It's their circuit. If they knowingly allow you to use their equipment and services in the commission of crimes, they can be held liable. If you think they've terminated your service unfairly, complain to the city, which is responsible for its utilities, or change to VoIP or get a cellphone. But the fact that companies have the right to stop providing their services to customers is hardly dystopian.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I prefer "Viriises"
Moderators: with your help, we can wipe out "virii" in our lifetime!
Nope, you can't wipe out the word "virii". It just keeps spreading. As soon as one guy uses it around his two friends, it spreads to them. Then they each use the word around two other friends, who catch it. At this point it stops for a while, since those seven geeks don't have any other friends. But then one of them posts it online, and it spreads to hundreds of others.
Despite your efforts to stop it, the word "virii" will continue to spread to more and more people, like some sort of computer "worm".
So, to summarize:
1. Global Warming
2. Ice melts
3. ???
4. Ice Age!
Significance = Impact x Probability
Sure, asteroid plowing into the earth has a MUCH bigger effect, but the chance of it happening is pretty small. The chance of there being trees in Iowa after we spent money planting them is awfully close to 100%.
It's not that "humanity continuing to exist" is a low priority, it's just that we don't really see it as being in danger.
Innocent until proven guilty is nice, but how long are we going to wait to finally punish them for the things we KNOW they did wrong?
Actually, "innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal trials, not civil suits. It's referred to as the "burden of proof", and it's different for different things. For some stuff, you simply must prove that it is "more likely than not" that the defendent did something wrong. For others, you have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt".
As for punishing them for things you "know" they did wrong, the difference is between the things that a judge knows they did wrong, and the things that you "know" they did wrong. I personally consider this a good thing, but if you have a problem with it, you should run for judge. See if enough of your voting peers agree with your fitness to render verdicts.
Having read only the link that you sent me, I personally believe there's a decent chance (say, 40-50%) that Microsoft broke the CSS intentionally. And you only made it up to 40-50% because I was including other experiences, like their having blocked Mozilla. If you treat the evidence on only its own merits, (which a judge should do) then maybe 20-30% chance that Microsoft intentionally broke it. I can definitely envision someone at MSN deciding that Opera is big enough to warrant their own file, then just doing a crappy job with it.
Or put another way, never attribute to malice what is easily explainable by incompetence.
There's some problems with your legal reasoning. Opera and Microsoft sat down together and agreed on the settlement. If it was some sort of foregone conclusion that Microsoft was going to lose big, then Opera wouldn't have agreed.
You can't just assume that any kind of court proceeding will find the ultimate truth of the matter. If you've followed many of the major IP law cases in the last couple years, you'd see that the outcomes are seldom easily predictable. Some judges don't understand the technology, sometimes the laws involved are outdated and difficult to map onto the situation at hand, and sometimes the laws seem to outright conflict with each other (DMCA vs. Fair Use). As a big company going into one of these cases, you won't get a certain victory or certain loss; you're lucky if you can get a fairly accurate guess at the odds.
That's where the settlement starts. If you're talking about a judgement of 20 million, and both sides think they've got a 50-50 shot, then they can settle on 10 million. If the plantiff thinks they've only got a 10 percent shot (which would be the case even if the defendent was pretty clearly in the right) then they'll happily settle for 3 million.
So maybe Microsoft was guilty here, maybe they weren't. All the settlement tells you is that the chance of them being found guilty and the size of the settlement were large enough that they were willing to spend 12 million to avoid it, and small enough that Opera was willing to accept only 12 million to give it up.
As to "paying their way out", it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. "Paying their way out" was what would have happened if they HAD been found at fault. It's a company, its purpose is to make money. Paying a fine IS defeat. It's not like this is a murderer who's getting out of the death penalty by paying his way out.
Key phrase "prior to the 60s". Give me a real example, from present day.
But to address your example, it wasn't just the south, it was the entire country. Yes, it was greater in the south, but don't buy into this mindset that the US divides neatly into "the South" - made up of bigoted slaver hicks, and "the North" - educated, compassionate humanitarians with no racist attitudes. It's a whole big mess of people, and lots of them don't like each other. There are different trends in different places, but no big clear borders.
However, the disparity between treatment of blacks in the north and south gave an incentive for blacks to move north, where they would be treated better. "The market" (in this case, the country) wasn't devoid of options, and those who treated blacks better were rewarded with better performing companies, except when individual whites shunned them for black-friendly policies.
That's not a problem with corporations, that's a problem with humans. As soon as you build a list of things nobody is allowed to discriminate against, two things will happen:
1. People will be more clandestine with their discrimination, not eliminate it.
2. They'll find new things to discriminate against, which aren't on your list.
The second is happening now. If you check the Constitution, you'll notice it explicitly prevents discrimination against ethnicity and sex, but not sexual preference. Giving more power to individuals and less to corporations doesn't fix that problem. Especially since you then start running up against people's Constitutionally guaranteed rights to choose who they associate with (think Boy Scouts ruling).
I'm not such a fool as to claim there are no problems in the US, but you can't blame corporations for racism.
Wow, this is the first one of these "renewable energy will save us all!" stories that I've read and thought "Hey, this thing actually does have the potential to be important and good!"
Okay first things first, it costs money to build these plants. It's all well and good to say it produces oil at a commercially viable price, but if I'm paying X/barrel now, with an opportunity to spend 10 million building a plant which will produce oil for X/barrel, I'm gonna stick with my current source. This isn't an insurmountable obstacle, since there's an obvious national interest in achieving it, so the government could be counted on to help out some. (I say some, not all. Attempts to compare prices with the cost of the Iraq war are fallacious, since they assume the only purpose was oil dependence, which is not an assumption that either the government or the majority of the population grants.)
Okay, so the government might help out a bit, but we've still got to make these things more economically viable than conventional oil sources, or else there's no way to find the startup costs. I think this can be done, although not necessarily this year, or even this decade.
As I understand it, most agriculture in the US is run by huge corporates, like ConAgra. This is actually a really good thing here, because while Joe Random Farmer is just trying to make ends meet right now, an ubercorp will have funds which it can sink into million dollar projects which won't be profitable for ten years. They can afford to build plants like this at many of their farms. They just need to be convinced that it will make them money.
Again, the government helps a little, somehow. I'm not crazy about "tax incentives", because far down the road, when this industry is profitable, you aren't gonna be able to take the tax incentives away from the ubercorp with all its influence. I'd suggest something like loans or grants, but this isn't my area of expertise, so I leave that implementation up to someone better. Let's just call it "a bit of government help."
Conventional oil prices are rising, and will continue to rise almost indefinitely. This is obvious to all the economists out there, so I leave it to them to explain it to the environmentalists and the SUV-owners anxiously awaiting the return of gas prices to "normal". As the price of conventional oil rises, the new synthetic oil becomes more competitive. If we can get significant synthetic oil market presense, that's half the battle already. Rather than the 30 year off catastrophic halt in energy supply predicted by environmentalists, we just get a gradual transition from natural to synthetic oil.
The only issue I would still worry about is scale. Is there really enough waste being produced to fuel the entire nation? It seems contradictory to me, since I don't imagine there being that much energy coming in via sunlight, which is really the only energy source, until we work the kinks out of that pesky fusion. But assuming my intuitive estimate on sunlight is wrong, and we really do have enough organic waste, does my analysis seem valid? I don't think this is too pie-in-the-sky, but if I missed something important, speak up.
I still can't believe that a cow releases 100-200 liters of methane every day in the form of flatulance. Methane has 31x the "global warming" effect of CO2 on atmosphere, so think of that as 3000-6000 liters of CO2 every day.
Hey! Does this mean vegetarians, by saving the lives of cows, are really at fault for global warming?! Quick, somebody, blame a corporation! Uh, it's a conspiracy, yeah... by... uh... Big Soy!
I work network support for the Deptartment of Education in a major metropolitan area, and we got a trouble-ticket sent over to our group with the following Problem Description:
"how do I set up a teacher's iBook so that teacher can access DOE email at home without the need for an internet service provider"
Responses we came up with:
1. A REALLY long ethernet cable.
2. Terrestrial microwave.
3. Print the emails as they arrive, pay couriers to deliver the printouts.
4. Our datacenter is moving to a new building at the end of next year, suggest moving it into her apartment.
"it sounds like there's a screw loose somewhere between keyboard and the chair".
I work network support, and refer to this as a layer 8 problem.
I have a similar experience:
We pulled out onto the tarmac and sat there for ten minutes. Then the Captain tells us that they found a piece of the plane is broken, but nobody knows what it does, so they're calling the manufacturer to find out if it's important. Half an hour later, they get the answer that it's not. We took off and landed fine.
Tell that to Unisys.
That would be awesome. You should post an email address for someone senior at Unisys. I'd love to see a flood of emails from slashdot users telling them their byte size is wrong.
Friggin' slashdot.
Let's look at the quote again:
Worse yet, unless you opt-out at the beginning of your contract, some carriers such as T-Mobile CAN gladly hand over your info
No, it does not sound like they are selling personal info. It sounds like the boiler-plate contract that their lawyers created to be as all-encompassing as possible grants them the right to do that (along with probably the right to eat your children and harvest your organs). That is not at all the same thing as actually acting upon those rights. This particular clause in the contract just came under scrutiny, and the first thing they did was say "don't worry, we'll fix it."
Look, I agree that it's important to review these contracts, and to reign them in to prevent abuse. But there's this absurd mentality that all big corporations are like a ship full of Borg, bearing down on you, bent on destruction. There are good companies, and there are bad companies, but pretty much every large company has lawyers, else they would have been sued back to being a small company over something ridiculous (think googol-family suing Google). Those lawyers write the contracts, and they try to write them so that there's no chance their company can ever be held liable for anything bad at all. That doesn't mean the company is evil and intends to actually do all the things that it's allowed to.
As soon as you have credible reports of T-Mobile selling personal information, then feel free to start yelling about it. But right now the only facts that we have are that their contract would have allowed them to do that, and that as soon as this was pointed out, they said they're changing it.
This reminds me of a Simpsons quote (truly hardcore fans feel free to jump in with the exact quote) to the effect of:
"Yeah, they've provided us with free entertainment for ten years! The way I see it, they owe us!"
The situation is obviously complicated, and "Star Wars" has taken on a life of its own, but it's kind of absurd to read rants about how George Lucas is wrecking George Lucas' vision.
Libertarians always think that private industry can do things more cheaply, but when you factor in corruption, kickbacks, and nepotism, it gets very expensive very quickly.
Yes. Thankfully there's none of that stuff in the government agencies.
You really think that loving Starbucks is the only reason to mod your comment down?
Not only is it a pointless jab, providing no actual insight to anyone reading it, but your logic is even broken. "Breath freshener for people who eat shit" simply means that it smells better than shit. Well so does the best coffee in the world. So does ACTUAL breath freshener. So does everything that smells good. When you say stupid, pointless things, you're SUPPOSED to be modded down.
Is this just because of the sheer user base, meaning things get hacked together faster, or is it more profound, i.e., Windows is more easily hacked.
The fact that people were better able to hack an Apple program with Windows doesn't mean "Windows is more easily hacked." They weren't using iTunes to hack Windows, it was the other way around. It implies that the environment gives you more control over the programs you use with it, which is a good thing. I imagine if they had released iTunes for Linux, it would have been hacked even quicker and more effectively.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I absolutely applaud you for trying to find actual data to back up your argument, and linking it in your post. I'm just saying that slashdot polls should not at all be treated as real data. When was the last time a Gallup poll was released with a joke option, which got more than 30% of the responses?
[sarcasm]It's not like "they're screwing you" with crazy, unjustifiable taxes. If you really think that "Big Government greediness" is to blame, start a revolution.[/sarcasm]
Well, it's not greed. It's not like the government is running huge profits or anything. If they took the taxes off the gas, they'd have to put them somewhere else, or cut spending (heavens, no! anything but that!). If you think you could allocate the budget better, who am I to say you're wrong? All I was trying to say is don't roll out this ridiculous "the evil corporations of Big Oil is to blame for all our woes! If we boycott them for 24 hours, they'll be forced to cut their prices!"
And you don't have to start a revolution to see tax cuts in this country. We saw some big ones this term. If you really think cutting the taxes is the way to go, just speak up the next time Democrats are talking about how crazy the Bush tax-cuts were. Tell them the next person to raise the gas tax can stop counting on your vote. I don't personally agree with that, but if your goal is to lower gas taxes, it doesn't take a revolution.
No? What happens if the company in question doesn't like the fact that you're arab? Or doesn't like your sexual orientation, or even the perception of your sexual orientation? It's just a private business choice, so they have the right to deny you service, eh?
Yes, absolutely. If they start doing this, then you open a company that doesn't, and you've got all Arab, gay, and metrosexual customers without even having to be competitive on price. You can market your company as open-minded and non-discriminatory, and you'll outsell the bigoted corporation. Which is why corporations rarely do that. Because they don't care about you, just your money, and telling 30% of your customers to go away isn't good for business.
The only part of your post I disagree with is your use of a slashdot poll as though it were meaningful information.
Yes, we are of course running out of oil, and we of course need to find new energy supplies. People have been beating this drum for years. If it has taught you anything, it should be that scolding people and chanting predictions of disaster doesn't actually make people change their behavior. If you believe it's morally reprehensible that not everyone sold their SUVs and bought a Prius, that's fine, that's your viewpoint, but whining about it hasn't really changed much.
On the other hand, what will change things is the rising price of gas. This is a big news item lately, and the reactions kind of freak me out. People everywhere are outraged, and want to know when this will be "fixed". Like maybe they'll go back down next month, or if we boycott ExxonMobil for 24 hours. This is crazy. In the long run, they're gonna go up, forever. It's a resource we have in finitie quantity. It's running out. As it runs lower, it will get more expensive, until eventually nobody is using it to power their cars.
In the short term, the US has far lower gas prices than European countries. It's not like "they're screwing you" with crazy, unjustifiable markup. If you really think that "Big Oil greediness" is to blame, I suggest you start your own gas company and sell for $1.25. You'll certainly have plenty of customers, if you can sustain that profit margin.
Milk is up 0.60 cent per gallon
Butter has went from 1.99 to 3.49
Out of curiosity, since when? I'm not disputing your figures, I just haven't seen them. Is that since this time last week? Last year? 1950? I haven't personally observed this change in my trips to the supermarket.
That is a form of corporate censorship. This is also along the lines of the Moore/Disney thing. What you are seeing is corporations are starting to dictate what you can and can't do.
I think you misunderstood the Moore/Disney thing. The corporation isn't telling you what you can and can't do, it's telling you what it will and won't do. Disney wasn't saying "I forbid you to speak your mind!" They were saying "I'm not going to take your opinions and put my company name on them, then spend money distributing them with my infrastructure." They said this a year ago, and he knew it a year ago. He has since admitted this, and admitted that all his complaints in the media have been an attempt to drum up publicity.
If you want a country where companies have no right to refuse you service, I suggest you look outside the US. If Bellsouth/Verizon doesn't like what you're doing, then they should terminate your connection. It's their circuit. If they knowingly allow you to use their equipment and services in the commission of crimes, they can be held liable. If you think they've terminated your service unfairly, complain to the city, which is responsible for its utilities, or change to VoIP or get a cellphone. But the fact that companies have the right to stop providing their services to customers is hardly dystopian.