if AOL dropped Mozilla because it was 'too insecure and expensive to keep patching and releasing'
That argument is fallacious due to the fact that AOL could simply code an extention to Firefox and not worry about checking patches, etc. Of course, they'll probably make it anyway.
My ISP, Speakeasy, does exactly this. I would assume AOL lusers would probably need a bit more functionality than the Speakeasy extention, but all the same it could be done.
Great News for Standards Compliance
on
Opera Free as in Beer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm certainly glad that they are doing this even though I don't plan to use Opera in the near future. More alternatives will push web developers to use standards instead of just coding for IE.
The expected losses due to increased fraud are outweighed by their predictions of increased consumer credit spending, once it becomes easier to use the cards.
That doesn't follow, IMO. Who is this person that says "Why, that seems like a nice sweater. If only I didn't have to take 2 seconds to get my card out of my wallet, I'd buy it. Damn this inconvenience!"
why is the US the only industrialized nation without universal health care? The corporations own the government.
Its fun to think so, but not quite. Lee Iacoca has been on the record for universal health care because the insurance costs for assembly line workers are outrageous. He'd end up saving money if everyone shared the cost. In fact, Honda (or was it Toyota?) decided to build a factory in Canada for the health care and public works. The proposed US site was in Alabama, which lacked such things. Now, I think your charge if levied against the Waltons, would be correct (as they would lose more in increased taxes than they'd gain not having to pay benefits -- since they don't pay benefits).
So why was Nader talked up so much by the media, while the Libertarians were never mentioned? Could it be that the news outlets are all owned by the same people as the rest of the corporations?
No again. It was mostly because the media has had some sort of fetish about Nader being a spoiler* in the 2000 election, wanting to see if he was going to do it again. The Libertarians have a great infrastructure as far as minor parties go (hence the ballot access), its just that the candidates they run are by no means palatable** to John and Jane Doe. Also check your facts, Badnarik was on the ballot in 48 states and DC. He was a write-in in New Hampshire and did not meet Oklahoma's arduous signature requirements.
I, personally am not voting for any more Republicans or any more Democrats. I'm going to "waste" every single vote, from now on. Because the way I see it, wasting your vote is the only way to not waste it.
The way I see it, the only vote wasted is for one whom you do not support.
*I do not subsribe to the notion that Nader spoiled anything. Gore ran a horrid campaign, which isn't Nader's fault. **I voted for Badnarik in 2004.
I participated in the Ohio recount in Greene, Shelby, and Clark counties. During the Greene county recount the chairman of the board of elections and I had a chat. He basically told me that the board dropped the ball as far as getting extra machines in the precincts. I paraphrase:
"We saw the increases in voter registration, but didn't make the connection that we'd need more voting booths."
This, to me, is simply incompetence.
He also told me that if cities need extra equipment, they tend to borrow off of neighboring counties. If they can't find anything, they have to put in a formal request to the secretary of state in order to get more machines. So as much as I'd like to blame Blackwell (the Ohio SoS), the locals had their far share of blame as well.
Getting back to your lines, I've heard anecdotal evidence that people were still in line at 3AM waiting to vote in at least one precinct (the one that encompasses Oberlin college, IIRC) since Ohio law stipulates that anyone in line to vote when the polls close will not be turned away. But you are certainly correct that rural and suburban areas tended to have many more booths/machines per capita than urban areas.
Exactly. Some of the worst health care there is. I've been to both, have had friends in both with medical problems, and they're terrible.
Is the average care in Canada/Europe worse than the average care in the US? Possibly. But that isn't the point. The point is that ANY care is better than the care level that millions of Americans without insurance get, namely no care at all.
My girlfriend has needed to get her wisdom teeth pulled for at least 3 years. Since she cannot afford any health insurance except the University's plan (which won't cover her condition), she has had increasingly severe headaches for those 3 years. Attempting to pay out of pocket for the surgery would certainly bankrupt her.
Add in the fact that "free" health care costs consumers more than free market health care, and you've got a sinking ship.
If that was anywhere close to true, America's healthcare costs would be much lower per capita than any country's costs. Of course, everyone gets care there, while we have ~40,000,000 who have to choose between seeing the doctor or eating. Furthermore, those without insurance often use emergency rooms as primary care providers since they may not turn anyone away. These hospitals often never get paid by uninsured patients, so everyone else ends up paying more to subsidize the uninsured anyway.
Now I respect your opinion on the matter (as it seems you have different priorities regarding health care), but free-market health care can be summed up in this sentence:
"If you can't afford to pay, you deserve to die."
If that is your position, then more power to you. Otherwise, the only possible way to ensure everyone gets the care they need is via socialized health care (insurance, medicine, etc.).
I think the GP was trying to say that it is too small for him to buy, not saying that the designed-to-be-small nano is too small.
I, for one, agree with the GP. The iPod nano is too small, which is a reason why I would not buy it. I am prone to losing things any smaller than a CD, so I fear I would lose such a device.
That means stop voting for Democrats AND Republicans AND Greens
Seeing as you included the Greens in the list of "big government" politicians, it reasons that you have no clue as to what the general platform of the Greens calls for.
There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model.
The basic idea is to let the chair (Cheney) rule that filibustering judicial appointments is out of order when no such rule exists (talk about activism!) and then to table the appeal. Under this type of rule, the majority party can basically do whatever it feels like so long as they have 51 votes to effectively rewrite the rules of the Senate.
Its funny to see today's so-called conservatives rail against the recent emminent domain case (and rightly so, I might add) as a case of blatant judicial activism where the SCOTUS simply added the words "or private" to the text of the 4th Amendment, but foam at the mouth at the prospect of blatantly rewriting the rules of the Senate to say what they want them to say.
Economists don't take into account the huge national security risks that globalism presents.
Bingo. Economists still haven't figured out a good way to put externalities into the equation. If the goal of the country is to increase next year's GDP at all costs, then listen to the economists. The externalized expenses of increased unemployment numbers (the real unemployment numbers, not the crap the Labor Dept. puts out), stagnant wages, and increased costs of living have been largely absorbed by increased reliance on credit (thanks in part to the housing bubble). None of these figures puts any red ink to a balance sheet, so why should the economists care? Their job is to serve the holy God of The Market.
As of late, the GDP for the US has been growing rather well, but, for some reason, the rising tide hasn't lifted all boats (or if you prefer, the pie is getting bigger, but only the top 1% are getting a bigger share of the pie). According to supply-side "trickle-down" economics, this isn't possible. Apparently self-interest isn't quite working out the way it has been theorized to work. I have a feeling that when China decides to stop subsidizing us, we'll find out that our economy (and country) has been bankrupt for years.
Point one: a toilet cam would be dumb, but should be perfectly legal in one's own home.
I'd agree so long as everyone using your toilet knows it's there. If a friend came over to use the john, and you decided to post the feed (as people have been known to do), I'd be willing to bet you'd be (and ought to be) sued.
As far as point two, I think there is an implicit agreement that when you open your property to the public at large, you lose some of your property rights. I think you'd have to because there will likely be a confict between your property rights and someone else's personal rights. When property rights come in confict with personal and/or social rights (think privacy, free speech), I think property rights have to lose. It seems to me that there should be a differences with respect to privacy law between your local 7-11 (assuming 7-11 is privately held) and your house.
Some founders believed that having a bill of rights would make it seem that only the rights listed therein are the only rights one has. Many believed the Bill of Rights would be redundant since the government was one of enumerated powers and had no power to regulate religion, the press, etc.
Rule of thumb: government powers are enumerated, while rights are not. Basically, you have the right to do anything not expressly forbidden.
The right to privacy is not forbidden and is alluded to in the 4th and 9th amendments. Ergo, you have that right. QED
If you're in MY home, I have a total right to spy on you all I want, because that's an issue with MY security and MY personal property. There is no "right to privacy" in someone's personal space. You can, and certainly should if you want any friends, ALLOW a degree of privacy, but there is no "right" invokable here. The only thing you should expect in someone's personal space is freedom from physical coercion.
I agree to the extent that the surveillance is for bona fide security purposes. For instance, having a "toilet cam" to sell pictures / videos wouldn't hold water where I'm standing.
If I PERSONALLY own a store, I believe that same situation maintains.
I disagree here. I think that once you have opened up a store or any other place for the purporse of commerce, you have opened up your property to the public. At this point, the commerce clause allows for regulation of your privately owned store (although this should be, IMO, regulated by the state, not the feds). If the store is reserved exclusively for members that pay dues or private such a way that a random person is not welcome (think private clubs) then my postion is that of the former situation.
In all honesty- every time I use someone else's box, I search for images. Doesn't everyone? I won't lie, I am hoping that they have some homemade porn on there of their wifey.
Note to self:
Do not, under any circumstances, let "Alex P. Keaton" use the computer.
I would expect that their theft prevention team would be staffed by the appropriate sex
Sir, with all due respect, you expect too much. I think you might find that expecting every last business you frequent to try to screw you out of as much money as possible while selling you the most sub-standard merchandise they can get their hands on without you complaining about it is a better strategy. At the very least, you can be suprised when a rare business does offer good service and quality at a fair price.
I would suspect that one guy watches all the cameras. I would also suspect that if someone made a stink about that, the business in question wouldn't do jack unless they thought it would hurt their bottom line. They don't care about you or your rights or what you think of them. They care about money and nothing else.
The Bill of Rights lists rights not granted by the government, but lists rights that are inherent and unalienable. Among these is the right to privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
if AOL dropped Mozilla because it was 'too insecure and expensive to keep patching and releasing'
That argument is fallacious due to the fact that AOL could simply code an extention to Firefox and not worry about checking patches, etc. Of course, they'll probably make it anyway.
My ISP, Speakeasy, does exactly this. I would assume AOL lusers would probably need a bit more functionality than the Speakeasy extention, but all the same it could be done.
I'm certainly glad that they are doing this even though I don't plan to use Opera in the near future. More alternatives will push web developers to use standards instead of just coding for IE.
The expected losses due to increased fraud are outweighed by their predictions of increased consumer credit spending, once it becomes easier to use the cards.
That doesn't follow, IMO. Who is this person that says "Why, that seems like a nice sweater. If only I didn't have to take 2 seconds to get my card out of my wallet, I'd buy it. Damn this inconvenience!"
why is the US the only industrialized nation without universal health care? The corporations own the government.
Its fun to think so, but not quite. Lee Iacoca has been on the record for universal health care because the insurance costs for assembly line workers are outrageous. He'd end up saving money if everyone shared the cost. In fact, Honda (or was it Toyota?) decided to build a factory in Canada for the health care and public works. The proposed US site was in Alabama, which lacked such things. Now, I think your charge if levied against the Waltons, would be correct (as they would lose more in increased taxes than they'd gain not having to pay benefits -- since they don't pay benefits).
So why was Nader talked up so much by the media, while the Libertarians were never mentioned? Could it be that the news outlets are all owned by the same people as the rest of the corporations?
No again. It was mostly because the media has had some sort of fetish about Nader being a spoiler* in the 2000 election, wanting to see if he was going to do it again. The Libertarians have a great infrastructure as far as minor parties go (hence the ballot access), its just that the candidates they run are by no means palatable** to John and Jane Doe. Also check your facts, Badnarik was on the ballot in 48 states and DC. He was a write-in in New Hampshire and did not meet Oklahoma's arduous signature requirements.
I, personally am not voting for any more Republicans or any more Democrats. I'm going to "waste" every single vote, from now on. Because the way I see it, wasting your vote is the only way to not waste it.
The way I see it, the only vote wasted is for one whom you do not support.
*I do not subsribe to the notion that Nader spoiled anything. Gore ran a horrid campaign, which isn't Nader's fault.
**I voted for Badnarik in 2004.
I participated in the Ohio recount in Greene, Shelby, and Clark counties. During the Greene county recount the chairman of the board of elections and I had a chat. He basically told me that the board dropped the ball as far as getting extra machines in the precincts. I paraphrase:
"We saw the increases in voter registration, but didn't make the connection that we'd need more voting booths."
This, to me, is simply incompetence.
He also told me that if cities need extra equipment, they tend to borrow off of neighboring counties. If they can't find anything, they have to put in a formal request to the secretary of state in order to get more machines. So as much as I'd like to blame Blackwell (the Ohio SoS), the locals had their far share of blame as well.
Getting back to your lines, I've heard anecdotal evidence that people were still in line at 3AM waiting to vote in at least one precinct (the one that encompasses Oberlin college, IIRC) since Ohio law stipulates that anyone in line to vote when the polls close will not be turned away. But you are certainly correct that rural and suburban areas tended to have many more booths/machines per capita than urban areas.
If I'm not mistaken that may be against FCC regulations if it interferes with the operation of other people's home equipment.
I'd be happy if someone could provide more info.
It would be something around $5,000.
To put that inperspective, since we are college students, together, we make about $10,000/yr.
Canada. Europe.
Exactly. Some of the worst health care there is. I've been to both, have had friends in both with medical problems, and they're terrible.
Is the average care in Canada/Europe worse than the average care in the US? Possibly. But that isn't the point. The point is that ANY care is better than the care level that millions of Americans without insurance get, namely no care at all.
My girlfriend has needed to get her wisdom teeth pulled for at least 3 years. Since she cannot afford any health insurance except the University's plan (which won't cover her condition), she has had increasingly severe headaches for those 3 years. Attempting to pay out of pocket for the surgery would certainly bankrupt her.
Add in the fact that "free" health care costs consumers more than free market health care, and you've got a sinking ship.
If that was anywhere close to true, America's healthcare costs would be much lower per capita than any country's costs. Of course, everyone gets care there, while we have ~40,000,000 who have to choose between seeing the doctor or eating. Furthermore, those without insurance often use emergency rooms as primary care providers since they may not turn anyone away. These hospitals often never get paid by uninsured patients, so everyone else ends up paying more to subsidize the uninsured anyway.
Now I respect your opinion on the matter (as it seems you have different priorities regarding health care), but free-market health care can be summed up in this sentence:
"If you can't afford to pay, you deserve to die."
If that is your position, then more power to you. Otherwise, the only possible way to ensure everyone gets the care they need is via socialized health care (insurance, medicine, etc.).
Imagine that, someone named "TrailerTrash" bought a Hummer.
Are you insinuating that coconuts are migratory?
It is actually a typo on my part, not caught by Taco. The paper in question is from the CS Dept of UC Berkeley.
Our login passwords at school will let you try as many times as you want so long as you give it some time (an hour or so) in between attempts.
Also notice that these are random character passwords. Most people use stuff like "scruffy123", not "ywxhfq"
I think the GP was trying to say that it is too small for him to buy, not saying that the designed-to-be-small nano is too small.
I, for one, agree with the GP. The iPod nano is too small, which is a reason why I would not buy it. I am prone to losing things any smaller than a CD, so I fear I would lose such a device.
That means stop voting for Democrats AND Republicans AND Greens
Seeing as you included the Greens in the list of "big government" politicians, it reasons that you have no clue as to what the general platform of the Greens calls for.
There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model.
Spot on. You, sir, are now a friend.
More or less ...
The basic idea is to let the chair (Cheney) rule that filibustering judicial appointments is out of order when no such rule exists (talk about activism!) and then to table the appeal. Under this type of rule, the majority party can basically do whatever it feels like so long as they have 51 votes to effectively rewrite the rules of the Senate.
Its funny to see today's so-called conservatives rail against the recent emminent domain case (and rightly so, I might add) as a case of blatant judicial activism where the SCOTUS simply added the words "or private" to the text of the 4th Amendment, but foam at the mouth at the prospect of blatantly rewriting the rules of the Senate to say what they want them to say.
Economists don't take into account the huge national security risks that globalism presents.
Bingo. Economists still haven't figured out a good way to put externalities into the equation. If the goal of the country is to increase next year's GDP at all costs, then listen to the economists. The externalized expenses of increased unemployment numbers (the real unemployment numbers, not the crap the Labor Dept. puts out), stagnant wages, and increased costs of living have been largely absorbed by increased reliance on credit (thanks in part to the housing bubble). None of these figures puts any red ink to a balance sheet, so why should the economists care? Their job is to serve the holy God of The Market.
As of late, the GDP for the US has been growing rather well, but, for some reason, the rising tide hasn't lifted all boats (or if you prefer, the pie is getting bigger, but only the top 1% are getting a bigger share of the pie). According to supply-side "trickle-down" economics, this isn't possible. Apparently self-interest isn't quite working out the way it has been theorized to work. I have a feeling that when China decides to stop subsidizing us, we'll find out that our economy (and country) has been bankrupt for years.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Co-sponsors
Point one: a toilet cam would be dumb, but should be perfectly legal in one's own home.
I'd agree so long as everyone using your toilet knows it's there. If a friend came over to use the john, and you decided to post the feed (as people have been known to do), I'd be willing to bet you'd be (and ought to be) sued.
As far as point two, I think there is an implicit agreement that when you open your property to the public at large, you lose some of your property rights. I think you'd have to because there will likely be a confict between your property rights and someone else's personal rights. When property rights come in confict with personal and/or social rights (think privacy, free speech), I think property rights have to lose. It seems to me that there should be a differences with respect to privacy law between your local 7-11 (assuming 7-11 is privately held) and your house.
A sibling mentioned the 9th.
Some founders believed that having a bill of rights would make it seem that only the rights listed therein are the only rights one has. Many believed the Bill of Rights would be redundant since the government was one of enumerated powers and had no power to regulate religion, the press, etc.
Rule of thumb: government powers are enumerated, while rights are not. Basically, you have the right to do anything not expressly forbidden.
The right to privacy is not forbidden and is alluded to in the 4th and 9th amendments. Ergo, you have that right. QED
If you're in MY home, I have a total right to spy on you all I want, because that's an issue with MY security and MY personal property. There is no "right to privacy" in someone's personal space. You can, and certainly should if you want any friends, ALLOW a degree of privacy, but there is no "right" invokable here. The only thing you should expect in someone's personal space is freedom from physical coercion.
I agree to the extent that the surveillance is for bona fide security purposes. For instance, having a "toilet cam" to sell pictures / videos wouldn't hold water where I'm standing.
If I PERSONALLY own a store, I believe that same situation maintains.
I disagree here. I think that once you have opened up a store or any other place for the purporse of commerce, you have opened up your property to the public. At this point, the commerce clause allows for regulation of your privately owned store (although this should be, IMO, regulated by the state, not the feds). If the store is reserved exclusively for members that pay dues or private such a way that a random person is not welcome (think private clubs) then my postion is that of the former situation.
In all honesty- every time I use someone else's box, I search for images. Doesn't everyone? I won't lie, I am hoping that they have some homemade porn on there of their wifey.
Note to self:
Do not, under any circumstances, let "Alex P. Keaton" use the computer.
It would be interesting to find out if private parties violate your 4th amendment rights, wether or not the evidence is admissible in court.
I recall an episode of Law and Order that dealt with this question. If life imitates art, then the evidence will be admissible.
I would expect that their theft prevention team would be staffed by the appropriate sex
Sir, with all due respect, you expect too much. I think you might find that expecting every last business you frequent to try to screw you out of as much money as possible while selling you the most sub-standard merchandise they can get their hands on without you complaining about it is a better strategy. At the very least, you can be suprised when a rare business does offer good service and quality at a fair price.
I would suspect that one guy watches all the cameras. I would also suspect that if someone made a stink about that, the business in question wouldn't do jack unless they thought it would hurt their bottom line. They don't care about you or your rights or what you think of them. They care about money and nothing else.
Indeed.
The Bill of Rights lists rights not granted by the government, but lists rights that are inherent and unalienable. Among these is the right to privacy.