<sarcasm>I am always surprised of how easily these "neocons" forget the most basic economic concepts of the system they worship... They forget things basic concepts like ROI, entry barriers and so on, as long as forgetting them favours their dogmas.</sarcasm>
In short, in Capitalism 101 we saw that, in a pure free market, if sector A has profits better than sector B, then inversions will flow from sector B to sector A, increasing supply until price drops, and profits in both sectors are the same.
In Capitalism 102, we saw that, in real life, maybe building a new enterprise in sector A is not just as easy... it may require huge inversions, a big risk (if by entering the market they lower collective profits, maybe the ROI won't be positive), and outright collusions (for example, all enterprises in sector A join and tell you "if you enter into our sector, we will presure our suppliers so nobody does provide you with the materials you need if they want to do bussiness with us").
In Campitalism 103, we all saw what happened to Enron.
In my country, the former monopoly of telcos (Telefónica, now Movistar) still is the only supplier when you need some services in some geographical areas (not by law, but the other telcos do have wanted to get the infrastructure). Sometimes when they have lost a contract with us, they have blocked providing the service through the winner to the maximum that the law allowed them (and at least we have some law forcing them to provide the service in a limit time).
Of course, some illuminated people will only repeat Capitalism 101 lessons while covering the ears to avoid realising what they are really saying...
I liked it enough (not as much as the original, but more than Aliens). Okay, not a happy ending film, but none of the films really has one (they end being in the capsule, in the first one even drifting in the escape pod). But in the end it is a victory; Ripley wins by destroying the Alien even if that kills herself (and she was just condemned from the beginning.
To decide that a movie is good or bad based in if it ends with a happily-ever-after or not is not a good criterium, IMHO. In fact plenty of good movies have a bad ending ("Habitual Suspects" comes right into my mind).
I fail to see where is the harm in it... ok, if anyone working there want to see the documents, they can do it from home or everywhere else, it is just "formal" adherency to rules that do not make much sense, but hardly harming at all.
I don't see many problems using a well-defined, well-supported framework you are familiar with.
Of course, the part of being familiar with it means an overhead that can be important. If you are just going to use it once, maybe it is not worth the time using it (if it is optional). But once you get to know it, many of them are good at solving the issues they were created for...
If we follow the trend of "frameworks does not serve at anything", we'll be back to programming in assembly soon.
I would have that patient(*) arrested for trying to steal a complete surgery unit...
As per TFA (as I only read them once every while, when I read it I quote it), it just states 6 issues (security, user freedom) and says "don't do it too much, don't do it too little"). Useless, because the point is knowing exactly what is too much or too little.
*: I know it says "patients"... but the joke is worth it..
Any civilized country would have these soldiers in jail. The US does not. That is all you need to know about the US.
I would like to share your optimism, but I can't... I don't know how many people have laws in place protecting them, but very few of them enforce them (against their own soldiers, at least). I think there may be a wide range of reasons:
prosecutors and prosecuted form part of the same organization, the army, that is sharply different from the rest (the civilians) and makes a point of it being different.
prosecuting a case may lead to uncovering unpleasant things and get bad reputation.
some may fear that prosecuting soldiers may lead to them trying to decide what's appropiate or not by themselves (just the thing that discipline wants to avoid).
"if we prosecute low rank soldiers today, maybe tomorrown we will have to go after the top brass".
In retrospect, usually only soldiers/officers in the losing side have had to face consequences. And most of the exceptions to that rule are related to cases where the criminals were caught "red-handed" by the media, and even in those cases the usual is just a show trial with ridiculy light sentences..
Anyway, I see a positive thing in the disclosures of these videos... even if laws are not enforced, at least the public what those operations with wonderful names ("Enduring Freedom") is doing to the civilians and to the soldiers themselves (who wants to be neighbour of those guys when they return to USA?).
Well, I think you have somehow missed the point. After all, if the world worked as you propose, there would be no deficit to begin with.
The issue in the thread is that Ireland lowered taxes to get corps happy. Now Ireland needs money. One of the measures is to increase revenues (taxes). But, in the Internet, everytime you talk about the need to raise taxes, someone else raises the issue of the Laffer curve and says "but raising taxes lowers revenues". Of course, these posts usually forget to mention that:
Laffer curve is a model and can be or can not be wrong, and more importantly
what Laffer curve says is that beyond a certain point raising taxes lowers revenues. Even those who refer to the curve usually chose to "forget" about that because the Laffer curve is just a dogma that allows to propose something counterintuitive as increasing revenue by lowering with a straight face.
So, back to your post, the Laffer curve just predicts the maximum available income. If you thing the curve is a good model then, ideally, the government would chose which services it must provide (that depends of your political opinion), sees the cost of providing them and sets the taxes in the point of the curve that brings that revenue (no more, no less). Of course, IRL things are not that easy.
A raise in tax rates can result in lower tax revenue
You are refering to the Laffer Curve. What most people who do refer to it often ignore, is that the curve is described as a parabole, so you can lose taxation either by overtaxing or by undertaxing.
Giving that Ireland is going bankrupt and the rates are low... are you suggesting that they lower them yet more?
Note also that some of the examples of maximum revenue are in the 30% bracket...
Now, if you have data (any kind of data) showing that the trouble with Ireland is that they are taxing too much, please tell me. It will be more interesting than repeating the mantra of "if the government does not tax then it will suddenly have a lot of money".
The sad thing is that is the way it works... I work at an hospital and what the doctors understand more is how cool is the new gadget/pc (and how nobody that is not a doctor cannot have a cooler gadget, no matter its function). The fact that there must be an IS behind in order to these gadgets to be useful is secondary, at best.
If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.
While I generally agree with this, I would like to reflect about how difficult is to find the middle ground... From the Wi-Fi article (emphasis mine):
These systems would mean that passengers would no longer need to illicitly use their cellphones when they come into range of ground masts at low altitudes near airports – a potentially dangerous activity that could interfere with the aircraft's avionics
I mean, WTF? WHO IN THE HELL NEEDS TO USE A CELL PHONE IN A PLANE? Anyone who breaches air security rules because he can't stand a few hours without phone or internet is sick or a moron, or both. Ok, if you can have it, you may enjoy it more than reading, watching a film, sleeping or just thinking. If it is safely available and you don't disturb me, enjoy it. But let's get real, there is neither "need" nor "right" to it, so if you can't have it follow the rules instead of being a danger (*).
So, while I am not clear that banning the WiFi will provide any security measure, the most disturbing thing that I found in the article was the assumption that the flier can do as s/he pleases while in a plane because s/he "needs" to do something... looks like that, together with those that criticise the restrictions of the nanny-state, there's also some group that things that all the restrictions are just theater and they can be "smart" and break them at will... surprise, some of them aren't, and surprise, when things go wrong that same people will be the first to ask for an explanation about what went wrong.
Finally, I want to insist that this post is not so much about one specific measure but I wanted to reflect about the feeling that some people looks only interested in complaining (really... how many of us usually fly ink cartridges/toners?) about everything, and not interested at all in a reasoned argument.
(*) I was in a plane that couldn't take off because someone had left his cell phone on without realising (he was not talking, it was stored) and was interfering with the plane systems. The steward came near his place and began asking passengers to check their phones, once it was found and shut down all worked ok.
The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.
Don't they teach Economy where you live? In a capitalist system, airlines (and all companies) will cut costs always; let it be to avoid losses or to get yet more profits. The only limit they have is that they can't cut costs so much that they can no longer offer a commercial product (they have to buy fuel for the aircrafts if they want me to buy their tickets). If increasing costs (due to security concerns, or whatever) make it impossible to offer the product at rates that the public can afford, then they simply stop producing that (and do something else or disolve or go bankrupt).
As a reductio ad absurdo exercise, let me ask you: do you think that if tomorrow one company has some of their costs go down (for example, fuel gets a 99% discount) they would stop cutting costs? Giving raises to employees? Lowering their tickets rates to "compensate" the customers for this change? Not a chance in hell.
The lesson is finished, just let me one opinion more: before posting a sign like yours, maybe you should know a little more how the world works so you know what are you talking about...
LOL... sorry to everyone for the inconvenience, I was posting but it looked like it had done nothing and I thougt there could be an issue with the latest Firefox update.
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
That sounds either as:
McGyver
The classical technospeak "hey I just found that if we demodulate the gaussian wave in synch with the oscillation rate of Molybdenum-198, then we can use this golf club as a nuclear missile" that just is a Deus ex machina
The also classical "hey lets push random buttons in this alien artifact we just found so we can understand how it works and use it to save us in just a couple minutes". Another I-do-not-know-how-to-write-an-end-to-this-story artifact
You get a series about a bunch of middle aged males who spend months in a proper laboratory, doing experiments and testing theories before getting into conclussions. Realistic, but sounds boring....
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles,
As we think that all of the worlds/planets obeys the same rules of physics, I'll assume you mean a different planet configuration à la Pandora from Avatar. While it may be interesting and pretty and whatever, the trouble is that it by itself usually just means to the "rabbit from the hat" tricks (how did Avatar end?). Also, lots of SF does not need that (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, just to pick two examples from movies).
IMO, SF is useful in that, by allowing the author to create the entire universe, he can put the actors in a completely unexplored situation (or in a classic situation, but from a different point of view). If we talk about BSG, I think of the struggle between military dictatorship / civilian dictatorship / democracy in a dire situacion, the black market, the suicide bombers against the occupying cylons, the bacteriological war against cylons...
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
That sounds either as:
McGyver
The classical technospeak "hey I just found that if we demodulate the gaussian wave in synch with the oscillation rate of Molybdenum-198, then we can use this golf club as a nuclear missile" that just is a Deus ex machina
The also classical "hey lets push random buttons in this alien artifact we just found so we can understand how it works and use it to save us in just a couple minutes". Another I-do-not-know-how-to-write-an-end-to-this-story artifact
You get a series about a bunch of middle aged males who spend months in a proper laboratory, doing experiments and testing theories before getting into conclussions. Realistic, but sounds boring....
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles,
As we think that all of the worlds/planets obeys the same rules of physics, I'll assume you mean a different planet configuration à la Pandora from Avatar. While it may be interesting and pretty and whatever, the trouble is that it by itself usually just means to the "rabbit from the hat" tricks (how did Avatar end?). Also, lots of SF does not need that (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, just to pick two examples from movies).
IMO, SF is useful in that, by allowing the author to create the entire universe, he can put the actors in a completely unexplored situation (or in a classic situation, but from a different point of view). If we talk about BSG, I think of the struggle between military dictatorship / civilian dictatorship / democracy in a dire situacion, the black market, the suicide bombers against the occupying cylons, the bacteriological war against cylons...
Another examples that I like are Gulliver's Travels (he offers the secret of powder to the king of giants but it is refused because the king does not want to be a tyrant, Gulliver is left wondering about those strange morals that "no european prince would know about"). And Stanislaw Lem's Ijon Tichy needs someone help to repair his ship and meets some time-copies of himself, but he cannot agree a plan with himself and ends fighting himself.
--
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replic
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
That sounds either as:
McGyver
The classical technospeak "hey I just found that if we demodulate the gaussian wave in synch with the oscillation rate of Molybdenum-198, then we can use this golf club as a nuclear missile" that just is a Deus ex machina
The also classical "hey lets push random buttons in this alien artifact we just found so we can understand how it works and use it to save us in just a couple minutes". Another I-do-not-know-how-to-write-an-end-to-this-story artifact.
You get a series about a bunch of middle aged males who spend months in a proper laboratory, doing experiments and testing theories before getting into conclussions. Realistic, but sounds boring....
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles,
As we think that all of the worlds/planets obeys the same rules of physics, I'll assume you mean a different planet configuration à la Pandora from Avatar. While it may be interesting and pretty and whatever, the trouble is that it by itself usually just means to the "rabbit from the hat" tricks (how did Avatar end?). Also, lots of SF does not need that (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, just to pcik two examples from movies).
IMO, SF is useful in that, by allowing the author to create the entire universe, he can put the actors in a completely unexplored situation (or in a classic situation, but from a different point of view). If we talk about BSG, I think of the struggle between military dictatorship / civilian dictatorship / democracy in a dire situacion, the black market, the suicide bombers against the occupying cylons, the bacteriological war against cylons...
Another examples that I like are Gulliver's Travels (he offers the secret of powder to the king of giants but it is refused because the king does not want to be a tyrant, Gulliver is left wondering about those strange morals that "no european prince would know about"). And Stanislaw Lem's Ijon Tichy needs someone help to repair his ship and meets some time-copies of himself, but he cannot agree a plan with himself and ends fighting himself.
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
Then you get McGyver, or something like someone looking at an artifact and saying something like "hey, if we transmodulate the hertz wave in order to modulate with the planck length, we can use this waffle oven as a nuclear missile." Or "we just found this incredible complex alien technology. Let's push bottom almost at randow in order to understand how it works and save ourselves in just a couple of minutes". A technospeak Deus ex machina.
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles
Every world follows the laws of physics. If you mean a different kind of world à la Pandora, you'll probably end with more Deus ex machina (how did Avatar end?). Also, a lot of the SF does not involve that kind of world (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, and so on).
IMO the best of SF is that it can put the actors in an imagined world that has different rules that ours so the actors are put in new situations, or in old situations from a diffent point of view. As we are talking about BSG, it comes to mind the struggle between the civilian and the military, the black market, the use of suicide bombers against invading forces, the posiblity of use of bacteriological weapons against the cylons. From other venues, I recall fondly how Gulliver could not understand why the king of the giants did not want to use powder against his subjects ("no european prince would have such a trouble") and when Ijon Tichy (Stanislaw Lem) meet several versions of himself by time traveling, but could not agree with himself a plan to repair his ship.
Due to this, the killer is more dangerous to the general population than a normal killer.
Yes, in the sense that a serial killer is more dangerous than a one time killer. The motivation does not make that person more dangerous to society as a whole. In fact, such a killer is theoretically no more dangerous than a serial killer since serial killers usually target only 1 type of victim repeatedly.
Obviously not a good long term solution for this, but it was a necessary short term one.
Until someone invents a punishment worse than life imprisonment or execution, there is no better motivation than just throwing the book at them.
Hate crime laws were chickenshit from the git go on that one. Just throw the damn book at the bigot and give him a hanging instead of a lethal injection.
Two objections to your reasoning:
first, you seem to take as hate crime only murders (punished by life or execution). There are lots more of possible crimes: from an infamatory painting about you next to your house, to beating you, passing from vandalism in your goods, trespassing into your home, etc.. Unless you are suggesting life/execution for all of them, there is chance in most of them to take them into account.
second, it is true that serial killers are "in a sense" the same as hate criminals. The issue is that serial killers are usually isolated and so are very limited. When was the last time a mob of serial killers lynched someone? Opposite to this, crimes against people based in race, religion or sexuality have usually had very little trouble getting participants.
Both of these points make relatively easy that a minority of people can make life a hell for someone else who, for example, does not want to have to be always in the back of the bus. Hate crime laws allows a certain measure of defense.
While I am with you in that the efforts spent look like overkill in relation to the real threat, I would like to point a main difference because an attack against a Wal-Mart and against a plane.
In the attack to the Wal-Mart, you will most likely cause injuries only to people in the blast radius, in a place with a high roof (the shock wave is dispersed) and with shelves in the way of the blast. To do more damage, you need a far more big bomb and/or a complex plan (blocking emergency exits, blocking roads so emergency services cannot reach). With a plane, you do not need your bomb to kill anyone... you just need that it gets the plane to stop working, the falling is what kills.
Also, what a terror attack wants primarily is to terrorize the public, so they want publicity. An airplane is a far more enticing target than a Wal-Mart, even if the Wal-Mart is an easier one. Maybe a series of attack at Wal-Marts would do the same, but that would mean multiple attacks (and after the last ones, with the public aware), getting lots more of explosives... so it would become harder and harder.
Not everyone thinks like that, though. A lot of people seem to think more along the lines of "Damn, I could go for some sheep tonight... and seriously, there are a million sheep! What are the odds that I'LL be the one taken?"
It is not that there are some sheeps that think that way... IMHO, they are sheeps precisely because they think that way...
IMHO, the law gives the judge / jurors some discretion when they assess the issue. It is not "crime A" --> "punishment A", but "crime A" --> "punishment A" +/- delta.
In this case, Coss accepted the charges but clearly refused to express regret by his actions. To the judge, that may have been sound like "Ok, do what you can, because as soon I get out of here I will do it again" and decided him to impose a harsher sentence. Probably, if you break a glass bottle in someone's head and do the same while being judged (no regrets, no "it was my mistake 'cause I was drunk", etc.), you'll get it a lot worse than two years probation.
Anyway, I also think that is not the right sentence. I would point some mental illness (Depression?) causing him to ask for attention. Dismissed that I would favor a sentence of "stay away from computer for two years", but that's difficult because the judge cannot impose a punishment that is not provided for in the law.
The outcome of this case affects not just Amazon, but also its sellers.
"No taxation without representation" is the principle. Why should I be subject to taxation by a foreign government (Carolina) when I have no voice in their legislature? It makes as little sense as saying a Frenchman should have to pay income tax to the Polish government. My allegiance is to MD and US..... any other governments have zero authority over me.
Nonsense.
The taxes are paid by the customers, not by the sellers. As the customers reside (and purchase) in the state, they must pay.
Notice also that TFS does not say anything like that... it just says that the state has no right to know if someone bought "Alice in Wonderland" or "How to make home bombs" or "Meth cooking for dummies". I think it is a good point to defend, but the issue of taxation itself has not been reviewed, as it is emphasized in the summary.
Also, I'd like to play a little with your "No taxation without representation". Are you suggesting that when a convinted felon loses his/her right to vote, s/he also loses his/her duty to pay taxes? Maybe crime pays, after all.
So... any comments other than "I do not like to pay taxes"?
If you look at this post and see it, do not worry. It is just that/. did recognize the ******* in my post and changed it back to your original password to show it just to you.
I have read opinions that what really mattered for the surrender were not the bombs themselves, but the entry of the Soviet Union in the war taking almost all of their chinese and korean territories. The bombs were terrible, yes, but japanese cities had been severely bombed before by conventional means (You can see "The fog of war" to get an idea. All that the A-bomb meant that there were needed less planes, the aspects of radiactive fallout were not fully understood).
The Soviet invassion meant that not only they had a new, powerful enemy. Also the territories they had been fighting for so long were lost without options for recovery, and the risk that in case of invasion a Soviet sector would be established (as in Germany).
Also many of the reasons were not military: one factor in deciding the targets was that they were relatively untouched by the conventional bombs so they could "test" better in them the effects.
Slashdot Mirror
<sarcasm>I am always surprised of how easily these "neocons" forget the most basic economic concepts of the system they worship... They forget things basic concepts like ROI, entry barriers and so on, as long as forgetting them favours their dogmas.</sarcasm>
In short, in Capitalism 101 we saw that, in a pure free market, if sector A has profits better than sector B, then inversions will flow from sector B to sector A, increasing supply until price drops, and profits in both sectors are the same.
In Capitalism 102, we saw that, in real life, maybe building a new enterprise in sector A is not just as easy... it may require huge inversions, a big risk (if by entering the market they lower collective profits, maybe the ROI won't be positive), and outright collusions (for example, all enterprises in sector A join and tell you "if you enter into our sector, we will presure our suppliers so nobody does provide you with the materials you need if they want to do bussiness with us").
In Campitalism 103, we all saw what happened to Enron.
In my country, the former monopoly of telcos (Telefónica, now Movistar) still is the only supplier when you need some services in some geographical areas (not by law, but the other telcos do have wanted to get the infrastructure). Sometimes when they have lost a contract with us, they have blocked providing the service through the winner to the maximum that the law allowed them (and at least we have some law forcing them to provide the service in a limit time).
Of course, some illuminated people will only repeat Capitalism 101 lessons while covering the ears to avoid realising what they are really saying...
I liked it enough (not as much as the original, but more than Aliens). Okay, not a happy ending film, but none of the films really has one (they end being in the capsule, in the first one even drifting in the escape pod). But in the end it is a victory; Ripley wins by destroying the Alien even if that kills herself (and she was just condemned from the beginning.
To decide that a movie is good or bad based in if it ends with a happily-ever-after or not is not a good criterium, IMHO. In fact plenty of good movies have a bad ending ("Habitual Suspects" comes right into my mind).
I fail to see where is the harm in it... ok, if anyone working there want to see the documents, they can do it from home or everywhere else, it is just "formal" adherency to rules that do not make much sense, but hardly harming at all.
They can make illegal selling/importing/owning/operating such devices.
I don't see many problems using a well-defined, well-supported framework you are familiar with.
Of course, the part of being familiar with it means an overhead that can be important. If you are just going to use it once, maybe it is not worth the time using it (if it is optional). But once you get to know it, many of them are good at solving the issues they were created for...
If we follow the trend of "frameworks does not serve at anything", we'll be back to programming in assembly soon.
UK doctors leave 722 objects inside patients in 1 year
I would have that patient(*) arrested for trying to steal a complete surgery unit...
As per TFA (as I only read them once every while, when I read it I quote it), it just states 6 issues (security, user freedom) and says "don't do it too much, don't do it too little"). Useless, because the point is knowing exactly what is too much or too little.
*: I know it says "patients"... but the joke is worth it..
I mean... they already have got him fired!
Any civilized country would have these soldiers in jail. The US does not. That is all you need to know about the US.
I would like to share your optimism, but I can't... I don't know how many people have laws in place protecting them, but very few of them enforce them (against their own soldiers, at least). I think there may be a wide range of reasons:
In retrospect, usually only soldiers/officers in the losing side have had to face consequences. And most of the exceptions to that rule are related to cases where the criminals were caught "red-handed" by the media, and even in those cases the usual is just a show trial with ridiculy light sentences..
Anyway, I see a positive thing in the disclosures of these videos... even if laws are not enforced, at least the public what those operations with wonderful names ("Enduring Freedom") is doing to the civilians and to the soldiers themselves (who wants to be neighbour of those guys when they return to USA?).
Well, I think you have somehow missed the point. After all, if the world worked as you propose, there would be no deficit to begin with.
The issue in the thread is that Ireland lowered taxes to get corps happy. Now Ireland needs money. One of the measures is to increase revenues (taxes). But, in the Internet, everytime you talk about the need to raise taxes, someone else raises the issue of the Laffer curve and says "but raising taxes lowers revenues". Of course, these posts usually forget to mention that:
So, back to your post, the Laffer curve just predicts the maximum available income. If you thing the curve is a good model then, ideally, the government would chose which services it must provide (that depends of your political opinion), sees the cost of providing them and sets the taxes in the point of the curve that brings that revenue (no more, no less). Of course, IRL things are not that easy.
A raise in tax rates can result in lower tax revenue
You are refering to the Laffer Curve. What most people who do refer to it often ignore, is that the curve is described as a parabole, so you can lose taxation either by overtaxing or by undertaxing.
Giving that Ireland is going bankrupt and the rates are low... are you suggesting that they lower them yet more?
Note also that some of the examples of maximum revenue are in the 30% bracket...
Now, if you have data (any kind of data) showing that the trouble with Ireland is that they are taxing too much, please tell me. It will be more interesting than repeating the mantra of "if the government does not tax then it will suddenly have a lot of money".
Aborigens are bouth again with shiny objects...
The sad thing is that is the way it works... I work at an hospital and what the doctors understand more is how cool is the new gadget/pc (and how nobody that is not a doctor cannot have a cooler gadget, no matter its function). The fact that there must be an IS behind in order to these gadgets to be useful is secondary, at best.
.
If it makes you feel better, you can keep playing this game. Or, alternatively, you could just man-up and accept that there will be some risks if you don't live in a shell and let yourself be terrorized.
While I generally agree with this, I would like to reflect about how difficult is to find the middle ground... From the Wi-Fi article (emphasis mine):
These systems would mean that passengers would no longer need to illicitly use their cellphones when they come into range of ground masts at low altitudes near airports – a potentially dangerous activity that could interfere with the aircraft's avionics
I mean, WTF? WHO IN THE HELL NEEDS TO USE A CELL PHONE IN A PLANE? Anyone who breaches air security rules because he can't stand a few hours without phone or internet is sick or a moron, or both. Ok, if you can have it, you may enjoy it more than reading, watching a film, sleeping or just thinking. If it is safely available and you don't disturb me, enjoy it. But let's get real, there is neither "need" nor "right" to it, so if you can't have it follow the rules instead of being a danger (*).
So, while I am not clear that banning the WiFi will provide any security measure, the most disturbing thing that I found in the article was the assumption that the flier can do as s/he pleases while in a plane because s/he "needs" to do something... looks like that, together with those that criticise the restrictions of the nanny-state, there's also some group that things that all the restrictions are just theater and they can be "smart" and break them at will... surprise, some of them aren't, and surprise, when things go wrong that same people will be the first to ask for an explanation about what went wrong.
Finally, I want to insist that this post is not so much about one specific measure but I wanted to reflect about the feeling that some people looks only interested in complaining (really... how many of us usually fly ink cartridges/toners?) about everything, and not interested at all in a reasoned argument.
(*) I was in a plane that couldn't take off because someone had left his cell phone on without realising (he was not talking, it was stored) and was interfering with the plane systems. The steward came near his place and began asking passengers to check their phones, once it was found and shut down all worked ok.
The airlines lose money with every new silly TSA regulation because it makes it more and more unpleasant to fly. Because of this, airlines have to cut costs to remain profitable which results in worse service which results in less people wanting to fly then the TSA comes up with a silly new regulation which makes it even more unpleasant to fly, and it goes on and on.
Don't they teach Economy where you live? In a capitalist system, airlines (and all companies) will cut costs always; let it be to avoid losses or to get yet more profits. The only limit they have is that they can't cut costs so much that they can no longer offer a commercial product (they have to buy fuel for the aircrafts if they want me to buy their tickets). If increasing costs (due to security concerns, or whatever) make it impossible to offer the product at rates that the public can afford, then they simply stop producing that (and do something else or disolve or go bankrupt).
As a reductio ad absurdo exercise, let me ask you: do you think that if tomorrow one company has some of their costs go down (for example, fuel gets a 99% discount) they would stop cutting costs? Giving raises to employees? Lowering their tickets rates to "compensate" the customers for this change? Not a chance in hell.
The lesson is finished, just let me one opinion more: before posting a sign like yours, maybe you should know a little more how the world works so you know what are you talking about...
LOL... sorry to everyone for the inconvenience, I was posting but it looked like it had done nothing and I thougt there could be an issue with the latest Firefox update.
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
That sounds either as:
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles,
As we think that all of the worlds/planets obeys the same rules of physics, I'll assume you mean a different planet configuration à la Pandora from Avatar. While it may be interesting and pretty and whatever, the trouble is that it by itself usually just means to the "rabbit from the hat" tricks (how did Avatar end?). Also, lots of SF does not need that (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, just to pick two examples from movies).
IMO, SF is useful in that, by allowing the author to create the entire universe, he can put the actors in a completely unexplored situation (or in a classic situation, but from a different point of view). If we talk about BSG, I think of the struggle between military dictatorship / civilian dictatorship / democracy in a dire situacion, the black market, the suicide bombers against the occupying cylons, the bacteriological war against cylons...
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
That sounds either as:
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles,
As we think that all of the worlds/planets obeys the same rules of physics, I'll assume you mean a different planet configuration à la Pandora from Avatar. While it may be interesting and pretty and whatever, the trouble is that it by itself usually just means to the "rabbit from the hat" tricks (how did Avatar end?). Also, lots of SF does not need that (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, just to pick two examples from movies).
IMO, SF is useful in that, by allowing the author to create the entire universe, he can put the actors in a completely unexplored situation (or in a classic situation, but from a different point of view). If we talk about BSG, I think of the struggle between military dictatorship / civilian dictatorship / democracy in a dire situacion, the black market, the suicide bombers against the occupying cylons, the bacteriological war against cylons...
Another examples that I like are Gulliver's Travels (he offers the secret of powder to the king of giants but it is refused because the king does not want to be a tyrant, Gulliver is left wondering about those strange morals that "no european prince would know about"). And Stanislaw Lem's Ijon Tichy needs someone help to repair his ship and meets some time-copies of himself, but he cannot agree a plan with himself and ends fighting himself. -- I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replic
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
That sounds either as:
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles,
As we think that all of the worlds/planets obeys the same rules of physics, I'll assume you mean a different planet configuration à la Pandora from Avatar. While it may be interesting and pretty and whatever, the trouble is that it by itself usually just means to the "rabbit from the hat" tricks (how did Avatar end?). Also, lots of SF does not need that (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, just to pcik two examples from movies).
IMO, SF is useful in that, by allowing the author to create the entire universe, he can put the actors in a completely unexplored situation (or in a classic situation, but from a different point of view). If we talk about BSG, I think of the struggle between military dictatorship / civilian dictatorship / democracy in a dire situacion, the black market, the suicide bombers against the occupying cylons, the bacteriological war against cylons...
Another examples that I like are Gulliver's Travels (he offers the secret of powder to the king of giants but it is refused because the king does not want to be a tyrant, Gulliver is left wondering about those strange morals that "no european prince would know about"). And Stanislaw Lem's Ijon Tichy needs someone help to repair his ship and meets some time-copies of himself, but he cannot agree a plan with himself and ends fighting himself.
Stories about people who use science to overcome difficulties
Then you get McGyver, or something like someone looking at an artifact and saying something like "hey, if we transmodulate the hertz wave in order to modulate with the planck length, we can use this waffle oven as a nuclear missile." Or "we just found this incredible complex alien technology. Let's push bottom almost at randow in order to understand how it works and save ourselves in just a couple of minutes". A technospeak Deus ex machina.
or who struggle in worlds ruled by scientific principles
Every world follows the laws of physics. If you mean a different kind of world à la Pandora, you'll probably end with more Deus ex machina (how did Avatar end?). Also, a lot of the SF does not involve that kind of world (Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds, and so on).
IMO the best of SF is that it can put the actors in an imagined world that has different rules that ours so the actors are put in new situations, or in old situations from a diffent point of view. As we are talking about BSG, it comes to mind the struggle between the civilian and the military, the black market, the use of suicide bombers against invading forces, the posiblity of use of bacteriological weapons against the cylons. From other venues, I recall fondly how Gulliver could not understand why the king of the giants did not want to use powder against his subjects ("no european prince would have such a trouble") and when Ijon Tichy (Stanislaw Lem) meet several versions of himself by time traveling, but could not agree with himself a plan to repair his ship.
Yes, in the sense that a serial killer is more dangerous than a one time killer. The motivation does not make that person more dangerous to society as a whole. In fact, such a killer is theoretically no more dangerous than a serial killer since serial killers usually target only 1 type of victim repeatedly.
Until someone invents a punishment worse than life imprisonment or execution, there is no better motivation than just throwing the book at them.
Hate crime laws were chickenshit from the git go on that one. Just throw the damn book at the bigot and give him a hanging instead of a lethal injection.
Two objections to your reasoning:
Both of these points make relatively easy that a minority of people can make life a hell for someone else who, for example, does not want to have to be always in the back of the bus. Hate crime laws allows a certain measure of defense.
While I am with you in that the efforts spent look like overkill in relation to the real threat, I would like to point a main difference because an attack against a Wal-Mart and against a plane.
In the attack to the Wal-Mart, you will most likely cause injuries only to people in the blast radius, in a place with a high roof (the shock wave is dispersed) and with shelves in the way of the blast. To do more damage, you need a far more big bomb and/or a complex plan (blocking emergency exits, blocking roads so emergency services cannot reach). With a plane, you do not need your bomb to kill anyone... you just need that it gets the plane to stop working, the falling is what kills.
Also, what a terror attack wants primarily is to terrorize the public, so they want publicity. An airplane is a far more enticing target than a Wal-Mart, even if the Wal-Mart is an easier one. Maybe a series of attack at Wal-Marts would do the same, but that would mean multiple attacks (and after the last ones, with the public aware), getting lots more of explosives... so it would become harder and harder.
Not everyone thinks like that, though. A lot of people seem to think more along the lines of "Damn, I could go for some sheep tonight... and seriously, there are a million sheep! What are the odds that I'LL be the one taken?"
It is not that there are some sheeps that think that way... IMHO, they are sheeps precisely because they think that way...
IMHO, the law gives the judge / jurors some discretion when they assess the issue. It is not "crime A" --> "punishment A", but "crime A" --> "punishment A" +/- delta.
In this case, Coss accepted the charges but clearly refused to express regret by his actions. To the judge, that may have been sound like "Ok, do what you can, because as soon I get out of here I will do it again" and decided him to impose a harsher sentence. Probably, if you break a glass bottle in someone's head and do the same while being judged (no regrets, no "it was my mistake 'cause I was drunk", etc.), you'll get it a lot worse than two years probation.
Anyway, I also think that is not the right sentence. I would point some mental illness (Depression?) causing him to ask for attention. Dismissed that I would favor a sentence of "stay away from computer for two years", but that's difficult because the judge cannot impose a punishment that is not provided for in the law.
The outcome of this case affects not just Amazon, but also its sellers.
"No taxation without representation" is the principle. Why should I be subject to taxation by a foreign government (Carolina) when I have no voice in their legislature? It makes as little sense as saying a Frenchman should have to pay income tax to the Polish government. My allegiance is to MD and US..... any other governments have zero authority over me.
Nonsense.
The taxes are paid by the customers, not by the sellers. As the customers reside (and purchase) in the state, they must pay.
Notice also that TFS does not say anything like that... it just says that the state has no right to know if someone bought "Alice in Wonderland" or "How to make home bombs" or "Meth cooking for dummies". I think it is a good point to defend, but the issue of taxation itself has not been reviewed, as it is emphasized in the summary.
Also, I'd like to play a little with your "No taxation without representation". Are you suggesting that when a convinted felon loses his/her right to vote, s/he also loses his/her duty to pay taxes? Maybe crime pays, after all.
So... any comments other than "I do not like to pay taxes"?
Yes, nobody saw your password is hunter2.
If you look at this post and see it, do not worry. It is just that /. did recognize the ******* in my post and changed it back to your original password to show it just to you.
I have read opinions that what really mattered for the surrender were not the bombs themselves, but the entry of the Soviet Union in the war taking almost all of their chinese and korean territories. The bombs were terrible, yes, but japanese cities had been severely bombed before by conventional means (You can see "The fog of war" to get an idea. All that the A-bomb meant that there were needed less planes, the aspects of radiactive fallout were not fully understood).
The Soviet invassion meant that not only they had a new, powerful enemy. Also the territories they had been fighting for so long were lost without options for recovery, and the risk that in case of invasion a Soviet sector would be established (as in Germany).
Also many of the reasons were not military: one factor in deciding the targets was that they were relatively untouched by the conventional bombs so they could "test" better in them the effects.