I'll grant everything you just said for the sake of this debate. I'll even assume censorship in the military is necessary for the mission. In that case, you've missed the 2nd question.
1) Why is censorship going on in the military? 2) Why are only anti-war/liberal sites being blocked but not pro-war/conservative sites?
Sir, you are aware the "the union" has nearly zero power these days outside of the UAW. Perhaps in the 60s and 70s when unions were very nearly the mafia, you may have had a valid problem with them.
Wal-mart is famous for not allowing their employees to join unions. Wether or not you agree with how unionization affects the consumer, I'd think you could get along with the idea of people forming organizations to collectively bargain with their employer.
Your best bet is to go with Speakeasy if that is what you're looking for. They are pricey, but they don't block any ports, only work with static IPs, and you'll get the speed you're paying for. I enjoy their One-link package @ 1500/384 with their VOIP offering for just under $90/mo after all taxes/fees. I'd stay with them if I could afford it. My plan is to go with Earthlink cable and use Skype or the Gizmo Project for voice.
From the site, the fastest synchronous connection you can get is T1 speed for $300/mo. Unfortunately, we aren't S. Korea or Japan with broadband value just yet.
I'm on the cable advisory board in my city. TW currently runs its cable over the city's lines. There is nothing stopping anyone else from doing so, but because any company willing to do so likely wouldn't make any money on the deal, no one does.
Every so often we have to review the charter agreement with TW and make sure they're holding up their end of the deal. Our options are thus (we reccomend to council and council makes the final decision):
1) Renew the charter, trying to get the best deal we can 2) Not renew the charter and get a new company to do our cable service
TW banks on the fact that we're going to do #1, so they have quite a bit of bargaining power. The reason being that they own the cable lines. They know that Comcast et al. doesn't want to spend the money to run new lines (or buy TWs old lines). Added to the fact that council would likely be voted out if they ever picked option 2 w/o having someone ready to take over (no cable service), there is a de facto monopoly over TV service in many cities. You could cite satellite dishes as a possible competitor, but the start-up costs are prohibitively high for many.
You may believe there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, but that doesn't make it so.
I think what you might have wanted to say is "I love to eat stuff packed with sugar and fat and I can't seem to find the time to search for comparably priced healthy foods that I want to eat."
Well, you've got me on the "I don't have time" part. I'm a very busy college student with an irregular schedule, so I can't always find time to come home and make a good meal. I'm also broke, which goes with the territory. Really, I don't have the time, nor the money, to eat as well as I'd like.
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I pretty much agree with our mutual friend, CyricZ. I do generally think a vote for a Democrat is generally a vote for the status quo. There are obvious exceptions to the rule; there always will be when you have a single party with such diverse members as Dennis Kucinich and Gene Taylor.
I live in Ohio and plan to vote for Sherrod Brown for US Senate. Even if there was a minor party challenger, which there may be, I'm still voting for Sherrod Brown. I won't be voting for Ted Strickland in the governor's race because he's too moderate for my liking. I think voting for him is a vote for the status quo.
I always laugh at the people who mention that the poor have it great here. "Your poor people are fat", they say.
There is a good reason our poor people are fat. Next time you go to the grocery store, notice which foods are cheap and which are expensive. That will give you your answer. I'd love to eat more healthy foods, but the fact is that I can only afford the stuff packed with sugar and fat.
At the same time, the vast majority of Americans are benefiting from a higher standard of living due to lover priced consumer goods.
Really? Are you sure about that? I'm not trying to troll, but you can't be sure about that. If you consulted an economic text, the theory says that you are correct, but we miss the bigger question:
I don't think anyone here of a liberal stripe would argue that things wouldn't be better under Gore/Kerry/etc. What CyricZ and like minded/.ers are saying is that on many key issues there is no substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Notice we are not saying the Republicans and Democrats are the same. We are saying that they are close enough to warrant voting for someone other than them.
Jeffords was elected as a Republican and then changed his party affiliation to Independent, which enabled the Democrats to be in the majority at that time. Before then he was a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and usually voted with the Democrats on most issues.
Vermont, the state he is from, also has an independent represenative in Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the favorite to win Jeffords's seat when he retires at the end of the year.
However, incumbent local exchange carriers (ILEC) were not enthusiastic about DSL, since it was not as profitable as installing a second phone line for consumers who preferred simultaneous dial-up internet and voice connections, and the broadband data connection would cannibalize existing ISDN customers. This changed in the late 1990s when cable television companies began marketing broadband Internet access.
The only legal risks are patent issues, which, I don't think they have in New Zealand. Otherwise, most FOSS software licenses don't kick in unless you redistribute the software. So long as the NZ authorities aren't modifying the code, they'll be fine.
Well, I think it'd be hard for judges to know wether or not someone has the capacity to consent to a sexual act just by talking to them for a few minutes. Even more so for the guy who's looking for a quick fix.
I could try and play devil's advocate by saying the courts would be backlogged with such cases, or better yet, that there'd be trouble knowing wether "I thought she was mature enough!" would hold up in court. Of course, you hit it on the head by saying that is already a problem with fake IDs and the like. You could literally ask to see ID before you bonk someone and be reasonably sure that you wouldn't be with a minor and still go to jail. A reasonable presumption clause should probably be added, IMO.
The problem is the definition of "work". Does socialism in Cuba "work"? I don't believe so since there aren't any free/fair elections.
I believe communism can work, but only if done democratically and in relatively small, homogeneous groups. American Indians implemented it quite well. The USSR didn't. When anything is forced upon people, they tend to get angry even if they agree with its aims.
China is CINO (communist in name only). From Wikipedia:
In a dinner with Henry Kissinger, Deng joked with him that the pig being served (Kissinger is Jewish) was not really pig at all, but "Chinese Duck", so it was O.K. for him to eat it. So, too, Deng called his new system Socialism with Chinese characteristics so it wouldn't really be capitalism and would be O.K. for the PRC to adopt.
It was never meant to be anything but state capitalism.
Yeah, I know why he's doing it. I just think he should be a bit more diplomatic about it. Something along the lines of "I don't like X, which I like to call Y, because what it really is about is..." would be fine.
Well, first RMS was never associated with "Open Source", but "Free Software" (which, as I'm sure you know, have different aims, but similar outcomes).
As far as GPL v3 being too socially liberal, if people do not like the license they will not use it. Furthermore, most people can still use GPL v2. Its not like RMS will somehow revoke the GPL v2 license. There is nothing to stop you from releasing the Jellomizer Public License and creating terms exactly as you'd want them. Many people might not like your terms, many might, but simply releasing a new license won't do anything to the adoption of free/open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant everything you just said for the sake of this debate. I'll even assume censorship in the military is necessary for the mission. In that case, you've missed the 2nd question.
1) Why is censorship going on in the military?
2) Why are only anti-war/liberal sites being blocked but not pro-war/conservative sites?
"Its like I'm really playing Virtual Skee-Ball!"
-- Amy (IIRC)
Sir, you are aware the "the union" has nearly zero power these days outside of the UAW. Perhaps in the 60s and 70s when unions were very nearly the mafia, you may have had a valid problem with them.
Wal-mart is famous for not allowing their employees to join unions. Wether or not you agree with how unionization affects the consumer, I'd think you could get along with the idea of people forming organizations to collectively bargain with their employer.
Hey I grew up in Trotwood.
;-)
I'm sorry
I'm not "from" here (but there), but I am likely to stay in the area after I'm finished with school at WSU.
Your best bet is to go with Speakeasy if that is what you're looking for. They are pricey, but they don't block any ports, only work with static IPs, and you'll get the speed you're paying for. I enjoy their One-link package @ 1500/384 with their VOIP offering for just under $90/mo after all taxes/fees. I'd stay with them if I could afford it. My plan is to go with Earthlink cable and use Skype or the Gizmo Project for voice.
From the site, the fastest synchronous connection you can get is T1 speed for $300/mo. Unfortunately, we aren't S. Korea or Japan with broadband value just yet.
I live in Ohio (Fairborn), and haven't heard of any places with last-mile fiber. Could you elaborate?
There is no such thing as a "natural" monopoly.
Yes, there is.
I'm on the cable advisory board in my city. TW currently runs its cable over the city's lines. There is nothing stopping anyone else from doing so, but because any company willing to do so likely wouldn't make any money on the deal, no one does.
Every so often we have to review the charter agreement with TW and make sure they're holding up their end of the deal. Our options are thus (we reccomend to council and council makes the final decision):
1) Renew the charter, trying to get the best deal we can
2) Not renew the charter and get a new company to do our cable service
TW banks on the fact that we're going to do #1, so they have quite a bit of bargaining power. The reason being that they own the cable lines. They know that Comcast et al. doesn't want to spend the money to run new lines (or buy TWs old lines). Added to the fact that council would likely be voted out if they ever picked option 2 w/o having someone ready to take over (no cable service), there is a de facto monopoly over TV service in many cities. You could cite satellite dishes as a possible competitor, but the start-up costs are prohibitively high for many.
You may believe there is no such thing as a natural monopoly, but that doesn't make it so.
I think what you might have wanted to say is "I love to eat stuff packed with sugar and fat and I can't seem to find the time to search for comparably priced healthy foods that I want to eat."
Well, you've got me on the "I don't have time" part. I'm a very busy college student with an irregular schedule, so I can't always find time to come home and make a good meal. I'm also broke, which goes with the territory. Really, I don't have the time, nor the money, to eat as well as I'd like.
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I pretty much agree with our mutual friend, CyricZ. I do generally think a vote for a Democrat is generally a vote for the status quo. There are obvious exceptions to the rule; there always will be when you have a single party with such diverse members as Dennis Kucinich and Gene Taylor.
I live in Ohio and plan to vote for Sherrod Brown for US Senate. Even if there was a minor party challenger, which there may be, I'm still voting for Sherrod Brown. I won't be voting for Ted Strickland in the governor's race because he's too moderate for my liking. I think voting for him is a vote for the status quo.
I always laugh at the people who mention that the poor have it great here. "Your poor people are fat", they say.
There is a good reason our poor people are fat. Next time you go to the grocery store, notice which foods are cheap and which are expensive. That will give you your answer. I'd love to eat more healthy foods, but the fact is that I can only afford the stuff packed with sugar and fat.
At the same time, the vast majority of Americans are benefiting from a higher standard of living due to lover priced consumer goods.
Really? Are you sure about that? I'm not trying to troll, but you can't be sure about that. If you consulted an economic text, the theory says that you are correct, but we miss the bigger question:
Is the theory correct?
I don't think anyone here of a liberal stripe would argue that things wouldn't be better under Gore/Kerry/etc. What CyricZ and like minded /.ers are saying is that on many key issues there is no substantive difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Examples:
USA PATRIOT Act renewal
Bankruptcy "reform"
Highway Pork Bill
I can come up with more examples if you like.
Notice we are not saying the Republicans and Democrats are the same. We are saying that they are close enough to warrant voting for someone other than them.
Sometimes people do try to get around them; sometimes those people go to jail.
Hopefully.
Jeffords was elected as a Republican and then changed his party affiliation to Independent, which enabled the Democrats to be in the majority at that time. Before then he was a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and usually voted with the Democrats on most issues.
Vermont, the state he is from, also has an independent represenative in Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the favorite to win Jeffords's seat when he retires at the end of the year.
It felt to me like they were dragged kicking and screaming into doing DSL.
They were. From wikipedia:
However, incumbent local exchange carriers (ILEC) were not enthusiastic about DSL, since it was not as profitable as installing a second phone line for consumers who preferred simultaneous dial-up internet and voice connections, and the broadband data connection would cannibalize existing ISDN customers. This changed in the late 1990s when cable television companies began marketing broadband Internet access.
Notice the "D" next to his name.
The bill will never pass.
IIRC, the phone company has to give you a line that will only dial out to 911 for free.
You should call your ISP and tell them to put port 80 higher in their QoS settings.
The only legal risks are patent issues, which, I don't think they have in New Zealand. Otherwise, most FOSS software licenses don't kick in unless you redistribute the software. So long as the NZ authorities aren't modifying the code, they'll be fine.
God forbid judges have to judge.
Well, I think it'd be hard for judges to know wether or not someone has the capacity to consent to a sexual act just by talking to them for a few minutes. Even more so for the guy who's looking for a quick fix.
I could try and play devil's advocate by saying the courts would be backlogged with such cases, or better yet, that there'd be trouble knowing wether "I thought she was mature enough!" would hold up in court. Of course, you hit it on the head by saying that is already a problem with fake IDs and the like. You could literally ask to see ID before you bonk someone and be reasonably sure that you wouldn't be with a minor and still go to jail. A reasonable presumption clause should probably be added, IMO.
The problem is the definition of "work". Does socialism in Cuba "work"? I don't believe so since there aren't any free/fair elections.
I believe communism can work, but only if done democratically and in relatively small, homogeneous groups. American Indians implemented it quite well. The USSR didn't. When anything is forced upon people, they tend to get angry even if they agree with its aims.
Communism works only with an iron fist
When did communism ever "work"?
Communism works in China
China is CINO (communist in name only). From Wikipedia:
In a dinner with Henry Kissinger, Deng joked with him that the pig being served (Kissinger is Jewish) was not really pig at all, but "Chinese Duck", so it was O.K. for him to eat it. So, too, Deng called his new system Socialism with Chinese characteristics so it wouldn't really be capitalism and would be O.K. for the PRC to adopt.
It was never meant to be anything but state capitalism.
We'll get to know after the suit has been resolved in about 3-4 years.
Yeah, I know why he's doing it. I just think he should be a bit more diplomatic about it. Something along the lines of "I don't like X, which I like to call Y, because what it really is about is ..." would be fine.
Well, first RMS was never associated with "Open Source", but "Free Software" (which, as I'm sure you know, have different aims, but similar outcomes).
As far as GPL v3 being too socially liberal, if people do not like the license they will not use it. Furthermore, most people can still use GPL v2. Its not like RMS will somehow revoke the GPL v2 license. There is nothing to stop you from releasing the Jellomizer Public License and creating terms exactly as you'd want them. Many people might not like your terms, many might, but simply releasing a new license won't do anything to the adoption of free/open source software.