All crimes should be legalised because then you'll do them out in the open and can be dealt with.
Only for binary dullards like yourself. Your response is seriously non-constructive. How about proposing a solution like voice recognition and readback texting when moving faster than 5 mph unless there is a bluetooth or wifi signal indicating that someone is sitting in a passenger seat in the vehicle? The idea is to use technology to fix the actual problem (the desire to communicate while driving) rather than laws to fight human nature because fighting human nature is always a losing battle - just like requiring complicated passwords just makes people write them on post-it notes stuck to their monitor. But using technology to help people accomplish what they want to do in a safe fashion is better for everyone.
It amazes me that so many people seem to believe the proximity of one's hand to one's ear is the problem when it comes to making phone calls while driving.
If anything, it is part of the solution, not the problem. With hands-full phones at least other drivers have a chance of seeing your hand by your head and realizing you are impaired. These laws that mandate hands-free phones just increase the risk, not reduce it.
Similar problem with outlawing texting while driving - it just makes dumbasses keep their phones below the line-of-sight of other cars so they won't get caught. But doing that also means that looking at the phone takes even more time away from looking at the road.
Just because your impatient ass wants to blast past everyone else doesn't mean we have to move over and make way for you.
Nope, but the real dumbshit is the one who thinks being "right" is better than being dead. My days of speeding are decades behind me. But I hope to live to a ripe old age by not riding high horses like yours.
Also, your gripes infer that people just aren't going as fast as you want to go. Are you sure they are the problem?
Dude! The Uniform Vehicle Code, which forms the basis for all state vehicle codes says:
"Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic..."
Only a handful of states of specifically removed that requirement in their implementations, everywhere else it is the law of the land. Sometimes it is even stricter like in Mass and Kansas where the left lane is specificlly passing only.
So get off your high horse and move over to the right lane, OK?
They pay sales tax on everything they buy. They pay property tax on any land they own or rent and most pay some form of property tax on any vehicle they own too. They also pay income tax in the form of employer-side SSI.
I find it more likely that it isn't secret knowledge so much as hidden influences that acted on both Presidents. When you're new to that incredible level of responsibility, having several people that have been in the game for decades come to you and explain why THIS course of action is best and THAT course of action could very well be catastrophic makes it difficult to ignore their advice.
That is basically the same conclusion I've come to as well. Not only regarding the continuing terror-based policies but even things like the wall-street bailout which started under Bush and continued under Obama.
I've heard it said that Obama has figured out that the wall-street people were bullshiting him and that's why they aren't donating to his campaign anywhere near as much as they did last time around. But then that robo-signing "settlement" came out last week where the banks got even more bailout money via tax write-offs and effective immunity for criminal liability in what is probably the largest case of systemic fraud the country has ever seen and I think he hasn't really escaped their influence after all.
Not too odd. BoA only became massively culpable through their after-the-meltdown purchase of Countrywide. Countrywide was pretty much rotten to the core and BoA was probably criminally negligent in purchasing them, but otherwise they were a much smaller player in the mortgage fraud.
No, it's not randian, but instead, it's the most practical way to live one's own life in the world we are living in.
Really? Because I am having a hard time coming up with something more impractical than expecting average users to check MX records and hunt down privacy policies every single time they send someone an email.
For example - I recently sent a URL to a friend with gmail address. I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to someone at a gmail address I also need to know what every other email host will do with email sent to their systems. That's not practical - especially when google does things like offer free email services for personal domains, then I have to do something like dig through MX records to find out who the real host is for every single person I ever send an email too and then figure out what their policies are and if they have changed since the last time I sent an email. That is beyond "not practical" and is now firmly in the territory of ridiculous.
The only alternative then is to live in a bubble of isolation, refusing to interact with anyone using modern means for fear of disclosing information to the wrong people.
It wasn't "lost" nor was it "taken".. you traded it for better prizes (free search, free storage, whatever).
Since by far most people don't even realize that a trade is being made, or if they do, they have only a cursory understanding of the exchange, I'd say "swindled" is the appropriate term here.
I suspect that many people will stop being so high and mighty about their privacy when they discover that it is only worth 47 cents.
If only that were the case. I would GLADLY pay 47 cents a week to opt out of all the tracking databases. Not the "we still collect your data but just won't show you targetted ads" opt-out, but "log everything to/dev/null" opt-out.
Personally I don't see how facebook alone can be valued at $100B if an individuals' privacy is only worth 47 cents. Even at 47cents/week with a billion users that still works out to revenue of $25B/yr - that's before any costs and the comeptition from the other 100+ or so "lesser" trackers like Google, BlueKai, Axxiom, etc.
Anyone else find it ironic that an anonymous reader submitted an article about losing privacy?
Seems like the opposite of ironic to me. If you think leaving a permanent record of your actions on the internet is bad for you, then it stands to reason you would do as much as possible to remain anonymous in those actions.
Have you considered that they aren't necessarily "mathematically challenged" but instead need to approach it from a different angle? For example, I've worked with a handful of physical trainers (as a client) and universally all of them thought they were bad at math - not even able to understand compound interest bad.
But all of them that were good at their job also had a natural intuition for things like geometry and even calculus because those maths were all part of their jobs. For example, the body is a bunch of interconnected levers with ranges of motion described by arcs and different rates of change in motion can be safe or dangerous. They work with math all day long but they don't recognize it as math - they even had a hard time understanding that it was math when I tried to explain it to them - their schooling had so completely failed them that they couldn't recognize the math right in front of them.
Car insurance mainly covers the damage you could inflict upon others if you make a mistake while driving.
In theory yes. In practice car insurance protects your personal wealth from being taken by the people you inflict damage on in an accident. If you have a net worth of zero, they aren't going to even bother suing you. But if you have a couple of million you are now a juicy target. So rich people carry a lot more car insurance than poor people do because it is all just CYA.
(what timewarner does to unresolvable domains, injecting their advertising makes me want to puke).
They aren't the only ones. Verizon does the same thing, and probably others. But its easy to turn off. For TW its an account setting, just google for the info. Verizon has alternate DNS server addresses that don't futz with the results.
For those who suggested using google for DNS - that's just too much for me, no way I want to give them a list of every hostname I am ever interested in.
I have seen people from South America getting annoyed by this, as they consider themselves Americans (as in people from the Americas) too; I am not sure which country they are really from.
Again, fauxrage. They aren't "Americans" they are "South Americans" (or more likely sudamericanos or sulamericanos) - if dropping the "United States" is too much of an abbreviation then dropping the "South" is too much of an abberviation too. They can't have it both ways.
AT&T aren't granted a license, they are sold a license for hundreds of millions to billions of dollars at a time, which substantially changes the argument and can hardly be claimed to be "in the public interest" in the first place.
The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, one could argue that AT&T gets a substantial cash discount in exchange for being required to steward the spectrum in the public interest. That such stewardship is worth a cash discount of many billions of dollars. After all, where else is AT&T going to get spectrum from? They are buying it from a monopoly source so the price is whatever we say it is. And still they buy it from us, damn that free market.
Or you can add "&tbs=li:1" to the search URL. I also add "&safe=off" to turn safe-search off by default. I do this in the firefox search plugin definition for google search that way I don't have to let google set a cookie in order to always have it do the right thing.
There is nothing in our constitution that creates- or gives special rights to political parties. There is nothing about our brand of democracy that benefits from having parties.
It is more than that. I say political parties are unconstitutional because they are an attempt to circumvent the seperation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The problem is that the president is able to influence members of his party in the legislature for no other reason than "party solidarity." I'm not saying the president has 100% control of party members, but influence for no other reason than party membership is still highly corrosive to the process.
This "mastered for itunes" stuff is pointless crap as long as we are still fighting the Loudness War.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers are a particularly bad test case because all of their albums have massive loudness-compression. And the same guy responsible for that travesty has started to do the mastering on recent Metallica albums so their stuff is going to be all suck too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware of the absurdum version.
It just didn't seem at all his intent given the context.
Perhaps high irony is lost on me.
Well, this one's ripe for reductio.
All crimes should be legalised because then you'll do them out in the open and can be dealt with.
Only for binary dullards like yourself. Your response is seriously non-constructive. How about proposing a solution like voice recognition and readback texting when moving faster than 5 mph unless there is a bluetooth or wifi signal indicating that someone is sitting in a passenger seat in the vehicle? The idea is to use technology to fix the actual problem (the desire to communicate while driving) rather than laws to fight human nature because fighting human nature is always a losing battle - just like requiring complicated passwords just makes people write them on post-it notes stuck to their monitor. But using technology to help people accomplish what they want to do in a safe fashion is better for everyone.
It amazes me that so many people seem to believe the proximity of one's hand to one's ear is the problem when it comes to making phone calls while driving.
If anything, it is part of the solution, not the problem. With hands-full phones at least other drivers have a chance of seeing your hand by your head and realizing you are impaired. These laws that mandate hands-free phones just increase the risk, not reduce it.
Similar problem with outlawing texting while driving - it just makes dumbasses keep their phones below the line-of-sight of other cars so they won't get caught. But doing that also means that looking at the phone takes even more time away from looking at the road.
Just because your impatient ass wants to blast past everyone else doesn't mean we have to move over and make way for you.
Nope, but the real dumbshit is the one who thinks being "right" is better than being dead. My days of speeding are decades behind me. But I hope to live to a ripe old age by not riding high horses like yours.
Also, your gripes infer that people just aren't going as fast as you want to go. Are you sure they are the problem?
Dude! The Uniform Vehicle Code, which forms the basis for all state vehicle codes says:
"Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic..."
Only a handful of states of specifically removed that requirement in their implementations, everywhere else it is the law of the land. Sometimes it is even stricter like in Mass and Kansas where the left lane is specificlly passing only.
So get off your high horse and move over to the right lane, OK?
They pay sales tax on everything they buy.
They pay property tax on any land they own or rent and most pay some form of property tax on any vehicle they own too.
They also pay income tax in the form of employer-side SSI.
I find it more likely that it isn't secret knowledge so much as hidden influences that acted on both Presidents. When you're new to that incredible level of responsibility, having several people that have been in the game for decades come to you and explain why THIS course of action is best and THAT course of action could very well be catastrophic makes it difficult to ignore their advice.
That is basically the same conclusion I've come to as well. Not only regarding the continuing terror-based policies but even things like the wall-street bailout which started under Bush and continued under Obama.
I've heard it said that Obama has figured out that the wall-street people were bullshiting him and that's why they aren't donating to his campaign anywhere near as much as they did last time around. But then that robo-signing "settlement" came out last week where the banks got even more bailout money via tax write-offs and effective immunity for criminal liability in what is probably the largest case of systemic fraud the country has ever seen and I think he hasn't really escaped their influence after all.
Even the Nuclear facilities in Iran were not connected the Internet (it did have an air gap) but the Stuxnet virus still got in.
Getting in is the 'easy' part. It is the getting back out with useful information where the air-gap is useful.
Even the US DoD's air-gap networks were infilitrated but the attack didn't get back out again
Oh, and the bank - Bank of America oddly enough.
Not too odd. BoA only became massively culpable through their after-the-meltdown purchase of Countrywide. Countrywide was pretty much rotten to the core and BoA was probably criminally negligent in purchasing them, but otherwise they were a much smaller player in the mortgage fraud.
No, it's not randian, but instead, it's the most practical way to live one's own life in the world we are living in.
Really? Because I am having a hard time coming up with something more impractical than expecting average users to check MX records and hunt down privacy policies every single time they send someone an email.
Your approach is way too randian.
For example - I recently sent a URL to a friend with gmail address.
I noticed from the logs that google spidered that website within minutes of me sending that email. Not much of a surprise that google would do it (although a bit chilling to see it in practice), but the problem with your approach is that not only do I need to know that Google will suck up everything I send to someone at a gmail address I also need to know what every other email host will do with email sent to their systems. That's not practical - especially when google does things like offer free email services for personal domains, then I have to do something like dig through MX records to find out who the real host is for every single person I ever send an email too and then figure out what their policies are and if they have changed since the last time I sent an email. That is beyond "not practical" and is now firmly in the territory of ridiculous.
The only alternative then is to live in a bubble of isolation, refusing to interact with anyone using modern means for fear of disclosing information to the wrong people.
It wasn't "lost" nor was it "taken" .. you traded it for better prizes (free search, free storage, whatever).
Since by far most people don't even realize that a trade is being made, or if they do, they have only a cursory understanding of the exchange, I'd say "swindled" is the appropriate term here.
I suspect that many people will stop being so high and mighty about their privacy when they discover that it is only worth 47 cents.
If only that were the case. I would GLADLY pay 47 cents a week to opt out of all the tracking databases. Not the "we still collect your data but just won't show you targetted ads" opt-out, but "log everything to /dev/null" opt-out.
Personally I don't see how facebook alone can be valued at $100B if an individuals' privacy is only worth 47 cents. Even at 47cents/week with a billion users that still works out to revenue of $25B/yr - that's before any costs and the comeptition from the other 100+ or so "lesser" trackers like Google, BlueKai, Axxiom, etc.
Anyone else find it ironic that an anonymous reader submitted an article about losing privacy?
Seems like the opposite of ironic to me. If you think leaving a permanent record of your actions on the internet is bad for you, then it stands to reason you would do as much as possible to remain anonymous in those actions.
Have you considered that they aren't necessarily "mathematically challenged" but instead need to approach it from a different angle? For example, I've worked with a handful of physical trainers (as a client) and universally all of them thought they were bad at math - not even able to understand compound interest bad.
But all of them that were good at their job also had a natural intuition for things like geometry and even calculus because those maths were all part of their jobs. For example, the body is a bunch of interconnected levers with ranges of motion described by arcs and different rates of change in motion can be safe or dangerous. They work with math all day long but they don't recognize it as math - they even had a hard time understanding that it was math when I tried to explain it to them - their schooling had so completely failed them that they couldn't recognize the math right in front of them.
Car insurance mainly covers the damage you could inflict upon others if you make a mistake while driving.
In theory yes. In practice car insurance protects your personal wealth from being taken by the people you inflict damage on in an accident. If you have a net worth of zero, they aren't going to even bother suing you. But if you have a couple of million you are now a juicy target. So rich people carry a lot more car insurance than poor people do because it is all just CYA.
Indeed. My iphone is a total chick magnet, and 3DTV? When they come over and watch that, their panties literally drop right off!
(what timewarner does to unresolvable domains, injecting their advertising makes me want to puke).
They aren't the only ones. Verizon does the same thing, and probably others. But its easy to turn off. For TW its an account setting, just google for the info. Verizon has alternate DNS server addresses that don't futz with the results.
For those who suggested using google for DNS - that's just too much for me, no way I want to give them a list of every hostname I am ever interested in.
Learn to read.
When an argument on colloquialisms comes down to splitting hairs, it's over.
I have seen people from South America getting annoyed by this, as they consider themselves Americans (as in people from the Americas) too; I am not sure which country they are really from.
Again, fauxrage. They aren't "Americans" they are "South Americans" (or more likely sudamericanos or sulamericanos) - if dropping the "United States" is too much of an abbreviation then dropping the "South" is too much of an abberviation too. They can't have it both ways.
AT&T aren't granted a license, they are sold a license for hundreds of millions to billions of dollars at a time, which substantially changes the argument and can hardly be claimed to be "in the public interest" in the first place.
The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, one could argue that AT&T gets a substantial cash discount in exchange for being required to steward the spectrum in the public interest. That such stewardship is worth a cash discount of many billions of dollars. After all, where else is AT&T going to get spectrum from? They are buying it from a monopoly source so the price is whatever we say it is. And still they buy it from us, damn that free market.
Or you can add "&tbs=li:1" to the search URL.
I also add "&safe=off" to turn safe-search off by default.
I do this in the firefox search plugin definition for google search that way I don't have to let google set a cookie in order to always have it do the right thing.
ReplayGain is not a reliable indictation of dynamic range, just absolute volume.
There is nothing in our constitution that creates- or gives special rights to political parties. There is nothing about our brand of democracy that benefits from having parties.
It is more than that. I say political parties are unconstitutional because they are an attempt to circumvent the seperation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. The problem is that the president is able to influence members of his party in the legislature for no other reason than "party solidarity." I'm not saying the president has 100% control of party members, but influence for no other reason than party membership is still highly corrosive to the process.
This "mastered for itunes" stuff is pointless crap as long as we are still fighting the Loudness War.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers are a particularly bad test case because all of their albums have massive loudness-compression. And the same guy responsible for that travesty has started to do the mastering on recent Metallica albums so their stuff is going to be all suck too.