(You mean assault weapons, because I know you're not talking about hunting rifles and hand guns. HOWEVER, I'll give this to you ANYWAY because I support ALL of the constitutional amendments.)
2. Let us buy trucks without airbags. (I give you that. No arguments here.)
3. Stop destroying our jobs because you want cheaper vacations. I'm thinking of Slick Willie and his war on mining, logging and ranching.
(WHICH is done on FEDERAL LAND. Are you saying Slick Willie was interfering with your right to FEDERAL HANDOUTS??? BTW, We both know the "cheaper vacation" reason is BS.)
4. Stop patronizing us.
(Sure, when you stop painting Californians and New Yorkers what you paint them... )
5. And above all, don't call us a bunch of uneducated bible-thumpers
(Sort of redundant with the last one, eh?)
MY POINT
For a guy who's as well educated and successful as yourself, you make a pretty shitty list as to how Urban Democrats have infiltrated into your lives. Would you like to take some time to rethink your position on the subject, or will you be working on a revised list with a lot more substance?
PS, I'm not a Democrat so don't bother attacking my political affiliation, but I am urbanite/suburbanite so feel free to attack where I live (Northern NJ)....but serious, I hope you reply with an enchanced list or you conceed that no one is "invading in your lives". Most of all, don't give me any bullshit.
I actually read your links, and I was honestly expecting a lot more from you than a few discrepancies that weren't even seriously examined.
It also angers me how TV and any dogmatic source of information can set a lot of preconceived notions into people's heads, but if you're serious about fighting dogma than you have to do a lot better than this.
I want you to start with this and use it as a mantra: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." With that in mind, I think you should get your BEST arguments and BEST evidence that would back up your theory. Summarize them, and then ask yourself, "Is my summary of my BEST arguments and BEST evidence enough to even get people to listen to my supporting arguments?"
If the answer is no, then you better keep looking for better evidence. More importantly, don't rely on your own judgment to answer this question, talk to people and get their feedback, especially those who are most critical because they will teach you the most.
Lastly, try to get them to criticize the logic or the data supporting your argument rather than audacity of your argument. Let them know that audacity and an indignant attitude proves nothing.
Please, don't send me any more links regarding this subject. If you want to change my opinion, I want to hear it from you. I believe it's necessary to give an opportunity to be heard, but it's also the speaker's duty to summarize their most compelling arguments.
There are two problems with your Holocaust analogy:
I wasn't making an analogy. I was emphasizing the point that you wouldn't tell a Jew, "Quit griping about the holocaust, when it could have been a lot worse. It could have been complete genocide."
While I ENTIRELY agree with your opinion on being compensated for past offenses committed by dead people, I have to point out that it had nothing to do with the US or Canada's policies with Native American people or their sovereignty.
Lastly, it also has very little to do with many Native Americans complaints with the US or Canadian governments. However, I'm sure you can cite exceptions.
...would have a point. Unfortunately for your argument it isn't.
It's true that the US and Canada did conquer many tribes and take away a lot of land, but most of the remaining tribes weren't conquered, rather they tended to settle with the US and agreed to a series of treaties. Eventually the US government decided to settle with the tribes uniformly so they could co-exist with the states, while being bound by federal law.
Now, if I can address you last comment.
Personally, I think the Indians should feel lucky that we gave them anything at all instead of just assimilating them into our society as just one more ethnic group in the already-growing melting pot.
If you were an Indian, that statement would probably sound a lot like: Personally, I think the Jews should feel lucky we didn't gas and incinerate them all.
While saying circumstances could always be worse is technically a valid point, it's appalling and bad form to use it to play down culpability for any atrocity.
Not necessarily. Make people pay per kilowatt for electricity, and then that will kill peoples' incentive to run factories in their living rooms... right?
If you think you can equate the economics behind metered electricity with metered bandwidth then you clearly haven't given this idea enough thought.
For one, the economics behind metering electricity is directly linked to the consumption of natural resources where the economics behind telecommunications network is directly linked to capital and operation costs of the network, NOT the available bandwidth.
If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts, then the IP network providers - the ISP - turns into a utility company. People will still do things the same as they do now, they might just download a little less music from kazaa. High bandwith will then just cost a little more and people will have to take that into account.
BUT what's the benefit for legislating a metered business model of the telecommunications industry? More tax revenue? There are a million other ways to get more tax revenue. Secondly, why should we be taxing the Internet anyway?
I just can't imagine the benefits of imposing this idea on everybody.
You do that and you're going to kill people's incentive to use high-bandwidth applications, which will in-turn kill the incentive for network operators to build bigger and faster networks.
Taxing the Internet is like erecting tolls across the Interstate highway system. You're going to kill all the incentive the use it. If anything, the trend over the past 50 years has been to REMOVE tolls, not add new ones.
Income taxes and sales taxes are enough. Why do some people feel compelled to tax every new income stream?
Enough of these sort of headlines, and they begin to grab the attention of people that can have the biggest political impact on patent reform: INVESTORS.
Stories like these send investors a clear message about investing money in the software industry:
RUNAWAY PATENT SYSTEM = LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THEIR INVESTMENTS = BIG RISK
Whether that could translate into patent reform that aims to protect the little guy as much as it protects the big guy is another story. I would hope investors would recognize that it was the lack of software patents and regulation that helped incubate an industry that created some of the best investment opportunities in history. I also hope they will eventually realize that while software patents have helped a number of companies dominate market share, it's impeded much of the industry from adding value to the industry and the economy as a whole.
If I wanted to send Wall St. a message it would be this:
A patent is not a deed to the monopoly of idea; it's a license to subject your competitors to huge financial risk, but if you get too creative and ambitious it's a great way to subject yourself to that same looming financial risk.
I can't imagine why anybody would volunteer to subject their investments to a volatile atmosphere of severe legal liability.
* Jokes (N. Korea not having electricity, Team America, etc.) * Suggestions to cut N. Korea from the Internet * More Jokes * Skepticism (This hype) * Yet More Jokes
Personally, I think you come off as overly sensitive and you seem like one who exagerates.
Would someone at Slashdot like to address the relationship between Roland and this site?
He consistantly submits interesting articles about interesting technology, and the slashdot editors think his submissions are more front-page worthy than most other submissions.
This is just spam to get to his little site.
So what? His articles are interesting.
Maybe the editors are just incompetent and getting trolled, or this is some synergy (paid referrals) going on. So whats the deal?
Maybe Roland isn't your cup of tea, but is it really that inconceivable that a good many of us enjoy reading and discussing his submissions?
I've seen this turbine driving in and out of Toronto on the QEW, and it's HUGE. I visited the website and I noticed how the website avoid showing pictures that give you a real understanding the size of a 30-story turbine.
I especially found this page misleading where they show a diagram at the bottom right of the page comparing a 2 story house with a 30 story turbine and the CN tower.
They actually distort the scale to make the turbine appear to be 8-10 stories and then cleverly place it against the base of an enourmous CN tower where your imagination is left to consider how far up it goes.
Then they have the gall to poo-poo you for being suspicious if it's really that high. I've seen it, and yes it is.
CLAIM 1. Libertarians are a big more extreme when it comes to free trade philosophy since Republicans have noticed that some regulation is required, Libertarians have yet to admit this which despite any Libertarian arguing is fact.
CLAIM 2. History has demonstrated time and time again that completely free trade creates bigger rifts between higher and lower classes while being horrible for consumers all around.
Before you weasel out of your claims by massaging definitions and pleading ("That's not what I meant), I would like to give you the opportunity to elaborate.
1. Clearly rephrase and state the "fact" in claim 1 that you are asserting, I don't want to be thrown off by any grammitical mistakes.
2. Please define "completely free trade" in Claim 2. Do you define "completely free trade" as commercial anarachy, or do you assume the law applies to everybody and basic property rights are respected?
Just another example of how the libertarian idea that privatizing removes corruption is just foolish and wrong.
You mean Republican idea, because you're talking about Republican "privatizing" and "deregulation" where the privately held company is granted an government regulated monopoly while their responsibilities are "deregulated".
A libertarian would advocate the government completely remove itself from regulating this industry.
SOMEONE should be allowed to compete for local telecom services because the ILECs (Incumbent Local Carriers) ALSO had an unfair advantage in the ability to acquire capital. They received MASSIVE government subsidies to help build the infrastructure. (They just tax you!) If you don't think the ILECs are played a shell game with their funding, then you're only fooling yourself.
They way you talk about the incumbent companies, you would think they were a legitimate competitive companies that were being bullied by the big bad government.
Local telecoms are regulated; they have to provide service to anyone who wants it.
Phone service. We're not talking about phone service, we're talking about data services which the local telecoms are NOT providing.
These are small, mostly rural towns who want to offer SOME service. If THEY want to fund their own fiber-to-the-home services with THEIR TAX DOLLARS, then isn't it THEIR CHOISE? If you want to petition local governments from competing with the local telecom, then do it in YOUR town. What right do you have to make that decision for other towns?
What the happened to the idea of state and municipal rights?
Well, before that starts to happen, I would like to point out that even if you take that into consideration the population density of Canada is much less than that of the United States.
Well, considering Canada is 77% urban, you should note that Canada's URBAN population density is 3,191 people/sq mile compared to the US's URBAN population of 2,400 people/sq mile.
My point: The US has a lot more rural/sub-urban population to deal with, which really isn't the case in Canada. Also, Canadian rural communities also tend to be more consolidated and closer knit, which I think is a good thing.
In other words, the US doesn't have the long stretches of roads where there is NOBODY/NO TOWN/NOTHING for the next 300 kilometers, which is VERY MUCH true in Canada. Even on the Trans-Canada highway in Ontario!
The only way you can improve technology is by getting the public sector involved in a defining leadership role. If you leave it to the corps, they'll keep you at the horse-and-buggy stage forever, just to keep robbing you blind.
In my personal experience, anytime you give ANY organization an exclusive monopoly on this type of utility, there is little incentive to improve the infrastructure.
In a way you're right, but because Godwin's law says the probability of a comparison involving Hitler/Nazi's approaches one, he fulfilling Godwin's law rather than violating it.
My suggestion for next time would to phrase it as so:
Wow - only three levels in the thread and Godwin's law has already been fulfilled!
As long as we're on the subject, beware of those using Freiler's Maxim:
"Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat."
Obligitory Onion Reference
MONK GLOATS OVER YOGA CHAMPIONSHIP
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~chande/humor/yoga.html
Too bad you have to pay to access the Onion's archives.
Companies do NOT care if you have talk to a guy speaking Spanglish, Engrish, or Hinduish - They only care about saving money and doing things for LESS.
Don't you think you're being a little simplistic?
In my experience, while I agree that companies care about keeping costs low, many of them are not willing to risk quality to save money. You also have to keep in mind that low quality usually suggests it is going to cost more money to use and maintain over time.
If you don't think language is important in the software development process, then I'd like you to take notice of advertised positions emphasising communication skills. Not being able to communicate with the people designing your software is like not being able to communicate with the architect or foreman building your factory.
Not everything can be boiled down to saving a buck, including predicting people's motives.
Slashdot Mirror
You barely listed anything. Is this all you have?
...but serious, I hope you reply with an enchanced list or you conceed that no one is "invading in your lives". Most of all, don't give me any bullshit.
1. Leave our guns alone.
(You mean assault weapons, because I know you're not talking about hunting rifles and hand guns. HOWEVER, I'll give this to you ANYWAY because I support ALL of the constitutional amendments.)
2. Let us buy trucks without airbags.
(I give you that. No arguments here.)
3. Stop destroying our jobs because you want cheaper vacations. I'm thinking of Slick Willie and his war on mining, logging and ranching.
(WHICH is done on FEDERAL LAND. Are you saying Slick Willie was interfering with your right to FEDERAL HANDOUTS??? BTW, We both know the "cheaper vacation" reason is BS.)
4. Stop patronizing us.
(Sure, when you stop painting Californians and New Yorkers what you paint them... )
5. And above all, don't call us a bunch of uneducated bible-thumpers
(Sort of redundant with the last one, eh?)
MY POINT
For a guy who's as well educated and successful as yourself, you make a pretty shitty list as to how Urban Democrats have infiltrated into your lives. Would you like to take some time to rethink your position on the subject, or will you be working on a revised list with a lot more substance?
PS, I'm not a Democrat so don't bother attacking my political affiliation, but I am urbanite/suburbanite so feel free to attack where I live (Northern NJ).
...then wouldn't college degrees be a better metric as far as finding employable people?
Here's the top 20 from the latest US census.
1. Washington, D.C. - 44.4%
2. Maryland - 37.6%
3. Colorado - 35.7%
4. Virginia - 34.6%
5. Massachusetts - 34.3%
6. Connecticut - 32.6%
7. New Jersey - 31.4%
8. Vermont - 30.8%
9. Minnesota - 30.5%
10. New Hampshire - 30.1%
11. Rhode Island - 30.1%
12. Delaware - 29.5%
13. Kansas - 29.1%
14. New York - 28.8%
15. Washington - 28.3%
16. California - 27.9%
17. Illinois - 27.3%
18. Nebraska - 27.1%
19. Oregon - 27.1%
20. Utah - 26.8%
I actually read your links, and I was honestly expecting a lot more from you than a few discrepancies that weren't even seriously examined.
It also angers me how TV and any dogmatic source of information can set a lot of preconceived notions into people's heads, but if you're serious about fighting dogma than you have to do a lot better than this.
I want you to start with this and use it as a mantra: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." With that in mind, I think you should get your BEST arguments and BEST evidence that would back up your theory. Summarize them, and then ask yourself, "Is my summary of my BEST arguments and BEST evidence enough to even get people to listen to my supporting arguments?"
If the answer is no, then you better keep looking for better evidence. More importantly, don't rely on your own judgment to answer this question, talk to people and get their feedback, especially those who are most critical because they will teach you the most.
Lastly, try to get them to criticize the logic or the data supporting your argument rather than audacity of your argument. Let them know that audacity and an indignant attitude proves nothing.
Please, don't send me any more links regarding this subject. If you want to change my opinion, I want to hear it from you. I believe it's necessary to give an opportunity to be heard, but it's also the speaker's duty to summarize their most compelling arguments.
There are two problems with your Holocaust analogy:
I wasn't making an analogy. I was emphasizing the point that you wouldn't tell a Jew, "Quit griping about the holocaust, when it could have been a lot worse. It could have been complete genocide."
While I ENTIRELY agree with your opinion on being compensated for past offenses committed by dead people, I have to point out that it had nothing to do with the US or Canada's policies with Native American people or their sovereignty.
Lastly, it also has very little to do with many Native Americans complaints with the US or Canadian governments. However, I'm sure you can cite exceptions.
...would have a point. Unfortunately for your argument it isn't.
It's true that the US and Canada did conquer many tribes and take away a lot of land, but most of the remaining tribes weren't conquered, rather they tended to settle with the US and agreed to a series of treaties. Eventually the US government decided to settle with the tribes uniformly so they could co-exist with the states, while being bound by federal law.
Now, if I can address you last comment.
Personally, I think the Indians should feel lucky that we gave them anything at all instead of just assimilating them into our society as just one more ethnic group in the already-growing melting pot.
If you were an Indian, that statement would probably sound a lot like: Personally, I think the Jews should feel lucky we didn't gas and incinerate them all.
While saying circumstances could always be worse is technically a valid point, it's appalling and bad form to use it to play down culpability for any atrocity.
no bums
You're complaining about homeless in Manhattan???
Man... You'd better not consider relocating to DC.
Carl Sagan couldn't have said it better himself.
Not necessarily. Make people pay per kilowatt for electricity, and then that will kill peoples' incentive to run factories in their living rooms... right?
If you think you can equate the economics behind metered electricity with metered bandwidth then you clearly haven't given this idea enough thought.
For one, the economics behind metering electricity is directly linked to the consumption of natural resources where the economics behind telecommunications network is directly linked to capital and operation costs of the network, NOT the available bandwidth.
If the price is negiligible, like electricity amounts, then the IP network providers - the ISP - turns into a utility company. People will still do things the same as they do now, they might just download a little less music from kazaa. High bandwith will then just cost a little more and people will have to take that into account.
BUT what's the benefit for legislating a metered business model of the telecommunications industry? More tax revenue? There are a million other ways to get more tax revenue. Secondly, why should we be taxing the Internet anyway?
I just can't imagine the benefits of imposing this idea on everybody.
You do that and you're going to kill people's incentive to use high-bandwidth applications, which will in-turn kill the incentive for network operators to build bigger and faster networks.
Taxing the Internet is like erecting tolls across the Interstate highway system. You're going to kill all the incentive the use it. If anything, the trend over the past 50 years has been to REMOVE tolls, not add new ones.
Income taxes and sales taxes are enough. Why do some people feel compelled to tax every new income stream?
I only hear "hocking loogies" around here... (Western NY State)
If you lived on an island, I would say you're suffering from Island syndrome.
No, "hocking loogies" isn't specific to Western NY State.
Enough of these sort of headlines, and they begin to grab the attention of people that can have the biggest political impact on patent reform: INVESTORS.
Stories like these send investors a clear message about investing money in the software industry:
RUNAWAY PATENT SYSTEM = LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THEIR INVESTMENTS = BIG RISK
Whether that could translate into patent reform that aims to protect the little guy as much as it protects the big guy is another story. I would hope investors would recognize that it was the lack of software patents and regulation that helped incubate an industry that created some of the best investment opportunities in history. I also hope they will eventually realize that while software patents have helped a number of companies dominate market share, it's impeded much of the industry from adding value to the industry and the economy as a whole.
If I wanted to send Wall St. a message it would be this:
A patent is not a deed to the monopoly of idea; it's a license to subject your competitors to huge financial risk, but if you get too creative and ambitious it's a great way to subject yourself to that same looming financial risk.
I can't imagine why anybody would volunteer to subject their investments to a volatile atmosphere of severe legal liability.
Most of the posts I've seen are:
* Jokes (N. Korea not having electricity, Team America, etc.)
* Suggestions to cut N. Korea from the Internet
* More Jokes
* Skepticism (This hype)
* Yet More Jokes
Personally, I think you come off as overly sensitive and you seem like one who exagerates.
Would someone at Slashdot like to address the relationship between Roland and this site?
He consistantly submits interesting articles about interesting technology, and the slashdot editors think his submissions are more front-page worthy than most other submissions.
This is just spam to get to his little site.
So what? His articles are interesting.
Maybe the editors are just incompetent and getting trolled, or this is some synergy (paid referrals) going on. So whats the deal?
Maybe Roland isn't your cup of tea, but is it really that inconceivable that a good many of us enjoy reading and discussing his submissions?
I've seen this turbine driving in and out of Toronto on the QEW, and it's HUGE. I visited the website and I noticed how the website avoid showing pictures that give you a real understanding the size of a 30-story turbine.
I especially found this page misleading where they show a diagram at the bottom right of the page comparing a 2 story house with a 30 story turbine and the CN tower.
They actually distort the scale to make the turbine appear to be 8-10 stories and then cleverly place it against the base of an enourmous CN tower where your imagination is left to consider how far up it goes.
Then they have the gall to poo-poo you for being suspicious if it's really that high. I've seen it, and yes it is.
CLAIM 1.
Libertarians are a big more extreme when it comes to free trade philosophy since Republicans have noticed that some regulation is required, Libertarians have yet to admit this which despite any Libertarian arguing is fact.
CLAIM 2.
History has demonstrated time and time again that completely free trade creates bigger rifts between higher and lower classes while being horrible for consumers all around.
Before you weasel out of your claims by massaging definitions and pleading ("That's not what I meant), I would like to give you the opportunity to elaborate.
1. Clearly rephrase and state the "fact" in claim 1 that you are asserting, I don't want to be thrown off by any grammitical mistakes.
2. Please define "completely free trade" in Claim 2. Do you define "completely free trade" as commercial anarachy, or do you assume the law applies to everybody and basic property rights are respected?
Just another example of how the libertarian idea that privatizing removes corruption is just foolish and wrong.
You mean Republican idea, because you're talking about Republican "privatizing" and "deregulation" where the privately held company is granted an government regulated monopoly while their responsibilities are "deregulated".
A libertarian would advocate the government completely remove itself from regulating this industry.
SOMEONE should be allowed to compete for local telecom services because the ILECs (Incumbent Local Carriers) ALSO had an unfair advantage in the ability to acquire capital. They received MASSIVE government subsidies to help build the infrastructure. (They just tax you!) If you don't think the ILECs are played a shell game with their funding, then you're only fooling yourself.
They way you talk about the incumbent companies, you would think they were a legitimate competitive companies that were being bullied by the big bad government.
Local telecoms are regulated; they have to provide service to anyone who wants it.
Phone service. We're not talking about phone service, we're talking about data services which the local telecoms are NOT providing.
These are small, mostly rural towns who want to offer SOME service. If THEY want to fund their own fiber-to-the-home services with THEIR TAX DOLLARS, then isn't it THEIR CHOISE? If you want to petition local governments from competing with the local telecom, then do it in YOUR town. What right do you have to make that decision for other towns?
What the happened to the idea of state and municipal rights?
Well, before that starts to happen, I would like to point out that even if you take that into consideration the population density of Canada is much less than that of the United States.
Well, considering Canada is 77% urban, you should note that Canada's URBAN population density is 3,191 people/sq mile compared to the US's URBAN population of 2,400 people/sq mile.
My point: The US has a lot more rural/sub-urban population to deal with, which really isn't the case in Canada. Also, Canadian rural communities also tend to be more consolidated and closer knit, which I think is a good thing.
In other words, the US doesn't have the long stretches of roads where there is NOBODY/NO TOWN/NOTHING for the next 300 kilometers, which is VERY MUCH true in Canada. Even on the Trans-Canada highway in Ontario!
Something to consider.
The only way you can improve technology is by getting the public sector involved in a defining leadership role. If you leave it to the corps, they'll keep you at the horse-and-buggy stage forever, just to keep robbing you blind.
In my personal experience, anytime you give ANY organization an exclusive monopoly on this type of utility, there is little incentive to improve the infrastructure.
In a way you're right, but because Godwin's law says the probability of a comparison involving Hitler/Nazi's approaches one, he fulfilling Godwin's law rather than violating it.
My suggestion for next time would to phrase it as so:
Wow - only three levels in the thread and Godwin's law has already been fulfilled!
As long as we're on the subject, beware of those using Freiler's Maxim:
"Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat."
See Wikipedia's Entry on Godwin's Law
Obligitory Onion Reference
MONK GLOATS OVER YOGA CHAMPIONSHIP
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~chande/humor/yoga.html
Too bad you have to pay to access the Onion's archives.
Obligitory Onion Reference MONK GLOATS OVER YOGA CHAMPIONSHIP http://www.glue.umd.edu/~chande/humor/yoga.html Too bad you have to pay to access the Onion's archives.
Companies do NOT care if you have talk to a guy speaking Spanglish, Engrish, or Hinduish - They only care about saving money and doing things for LESS.
Don't you think you're being a little simplistic?
In my experience, while I agree that companies care about keeping costs low, many of them are not willing to risk quality to save money. You also have to keep in mind that low quality usually suggests it is going to cost more money to use and maintain over time.
If you don't think language is important in the software development process, then I'd like you to take notice of advertised positions emphasising communication skills. Not being able to communicate with the people designing your software is like not being able to communicate with the architect or foreman building your factory.
Not everything can be boiled down to saving a buck, including predicting people's motives.
Hopefully that smart girl is balancing the checkbook and handling any other mathematical-type tasks that might arise ;)
Looks like I'll have to start forwarding my posts to her before I hit submit.
It's a good thing I'm cute.