Renewable doesn't mean it's infinite. Clearly there is a finite amount of water, electricity and even bandwidth available for use. Even if the entire universe was a big blob of water outside of our solar system, that wouldn't do us any good.
How does adding government regulated rsitrictions not give government any more influence? Would the regulations not have any penalty?
It is up to a news agency to verify facts of a story it runs. If it can't verify them, they have the choice to not publish the story, to publish the story with a caveat (As of presstime calls to XYZ were not returned, Allegedly, Unconfirmed, etc...), or to publish it as is. NYTimes debacle with that one reporter who completely fabricated stories was a big deal because they didn't even attempt to verify them. A news agency doesn't benefit long term from purposely reporting lies as if they are true. People will figure it out and stop getting their news from that source. The other news agencies in the free market of news agencies will pick up new subscribers, and the liar agencies will lose advertising and thereby eventually be eliminated from the free market.
I am not leaving any truth in news reporting up to the government, they are no more trustworthy than the news agencies, in fact they are less trustworthy because we can't affect them by not buying their services. Libel/Slander are crimes because they negatively impact the libeled party's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What are your views on the atrocities that were involved in mccain-feingold? FAIRNESS doctrine! Should all media be forced to present a somehow balanced opinion for every opinion they broadcast? How exactly would that work? It's complete bullshit. Who decides what makes something a balanced view? Only two points of view? What about the 6 billion other views on the same subject? Why should any network be forced to give lip service to a view they don't support? What right does the government have to force companies to presumably be fair and balanced in their opinion pieces? None! And it will get annihilated by anyone with a shred of intelligence any time it comes up.
Horrible conspiracy theory sites yammer on about stupid things like how GWB brought down the WTC towers, and they're allowed to spout that clearly ridiculous lie despite having no actual proof of their accusations. They would have to be held to the same standards as any news reporting agency as would any blogger. Just because an audience of a news station is bigger than that of any random blog doesn't mean it has more of a LEGAL requirement vet reporting.
To say that Fox news is the only news station that has an agenda built into their news coverage is really just saying that you agree with the agenda of the others. There are many stories that every one of the major networks reports on that are reported on just by the facts. When it comes to politicial stories, however, they all are guilty of spinning it their own way. This happens less with actual NEWS broadcasts and more with the shows that people confuse with news broadcasts like Katie Couric and Bill O'Reilly, but it does make its way into the real news broadcasts too.
That said, I stand by that the potential regulation that Fox News fought and won in court was NOT good. It would not have improved the chances that news wouldn't be spun a certain way. It would only have served to guarantee that it would always be spun the way federal regulators want. And in case you aren't aware, federal regulators do have political affiliations which would be exactly what would determine their acceptance of any particular news content. I do not want state run TV.
exactly...you know just buy offering "Unlimited" 10MBPS they're already limiting you to 260TB of transfer each month. Come on, if I have unlimited broadband, I want to download 300TB today! If this argument that the person you replied to still happens when everyone has an average of GB/s connection and it will go down to half if they meet the criteria for "hog" during a congestion time, then they will have completely lost me. I don't really like the 250GB limit idea, the 80%/70% thing seems much better. But either a total download limit OR a % throughput throttling are fine by me for the punks who think a residential service can be used to its technical full capacity without recourse. If I used my full sewer line capacity all day and night, at best I'd get a visit from the sewer company wondering wtf was going on...at worst every drain in my house would be reversed and my house would be full of everyone else's shit.
Fox News fought a fight against government oppression of freedom of the press. Just like freedom of speech, I would rather idiots have the right to say their idiotic things than leave it up to the government to decide what idiotic things can be said. I realize that the US has more freedom of speech than other similar countries like the UK. There are more rules about "proper" speech in other countries that, just as you would expect, is abused by the government at all levels to censor what would be protected speech in US.
Googling that headline gets you exactly what you'd expect. A long list of socialist news sources that think it is a good idea for government to control more of our lives "for the betterment of society as whole." I can completely understand if you do not subscribe to the idea that the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn't mean that the government must step in whenever you feel any of those things waiver. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the affects of others speech. Freedom of religion does not mean you are free from ever having to hear or see another religion. The government should not exist to keep you happy nor to keep you from being sad/mad/whatever other emotion. If you feel a news outlet is lying to you, get your news from a different source. Trusting what ANYONE without verifying is your own damn fault.
Yes, he is advocating exactly that. Note that he leaves CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC out of it because he presumes they wouldn't be negatively affected by regulation. That is because he is an idiot who doesn't understand that giving the government control of anything is counter to the foundations of this country and will only serve to further abuse and erode our freedoms.
Definitely a very shrewd business decision on Craigslist's part. If you don't take risk (i.e. build new things, hire more people) you can keeping making money as long as your goods/services are deemed worthwhile. The great thing is with just 30 employees, they can adapt pretty quickly to changing market conditions that affect there very focused product, whereas Microsoft, while not just an Operating System maker, has a much tougher time moving from one direction to another. It's just a fact of having that big a company, you end up having to cut thousands of jobs because you can't wait for the behemoth to adapt and keep the stockholders happy.
However, it does come down to the motivating factors for those at the helm and in control of the money. If craigslist had investors that were demanding billions in growth, chances are they'd have to expand into the hundreds and eventually thousands of employees to succeed. It sounds like, though, that they don't have that pressure, and if an average of 4.6million per employee per year in revenue makes everyone enough money along with keeping the company running well, that is a pretty sweet deal.
Their biggest risk is the lack of diversity in offerings. Basically all of that revenue comes from a single source. While no one is currently predicting the demand for this type of service dropping significantly, competition in that space could creep in quickly and cause them some major trouble.
That's okay, I just signed up for all the stuff using fake info, got the godfather points and laughed at how somehow that was a good business model. Stayed away from the cell phone ones though because I actually did read the fine print and saw the part where if you respond to the text message you're signing up for $14.95/month "service".
I also stayed away from the toolbar download because I won't even installed a decent company's toolbar (google) let alone one that I know is out to f*** me.
Actually yeah, you could use that to get your sentence/penalty reduced or commuted, though it would likely be at the inverse change to amount of court mandated therapy.
Sometimes people confuse it not having enough gravitational pull to help us achieve escape velocity as we jump off the top of the jungle gym or at the apex of the highest swing that could ever have possibly been done on a swing with not having gravitational pull at all.
I mean, the first time I threw a rock at the moon (1985?), I assumed it just went all the way there. I never saw it come down, nor did the broken car window next door have anything to do with this story.
Because the clearly unbiased review by the linked website provides the answer! Dell is super duper! Comments from such users as Michael_D, md311, and mike_dellissocoolbutidontworkthere prove it!
Okay, correction to what I said. They have to gather evidence, but they don't have to present anything if you have nothing other than your word to present as evidence to the contrary.
Yeah imagine the first time you run out of charge 10 miles from the nearest town. Walking into that convenience store hoping they have a HUGE sale on extension cords because carrying 15 gallons of electricity 10 miles is a dangerous task.
Judges ignoring facts is definitely a violation of due process. And if your brother had money to throw away on fighting it, he'd probably win in a higher court and shake out some of that crud. But alas, most people can't afford to do that and it's very rare for a group like ACLU to take up that kind of case on behalf of a person.
Fixed penalty only if you just pay it. Now, I'm talking strictly U.S. experience here, but you have the right to your day in court for ANY ticket. 99% of the people wave the right to a hearing to prove innocence and either just pay the ticket or pay a ticket lawyer to plea it down to a non-moving violation. Both of those options are very much due process. Even if you are absolutely guilty of breaking the law that the ticket claims you did, you DO have the chance to get out of it. The police DO have to gather evidence and present their case if you choose to fight the ticket.
Now if your points were made based on some other traffic law/judicial system outside of the U.S. (which is fine because the story is about Canada), then I can't claim to know if the system is similar.
Just because an engine CAN make the trip 39 (or is it 89) days, doesn't mean it will take that short a time. Given all the different things that they would likely have to account for, 245 days to get from Earth to Mars ain't that bad. And if the engines can get you there faster? Great! Then you're actually doing a simulated trip to somewhere many times farther away! Deep space exploration may eventually require people to spend years in space. Nothing wrong with building in tolerance levels far beyond what is actually necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Renewable doesn't mean it's infinite. Clearly there is a finite amount of water, electricity and even bandwidth available for use. Even if the entire universe was a big blob of water outside of our solar system, that wouldn't do us any good.
How does adding government regulated rsitrictions not give government any more influence? Would the regulations not have any penalty? It is up to a news agency to verify facts of a story it runs. If it can't verify them, they have the choice to not publish the story, to publish the story with a caveat (As of presstime calls to XYZ were not returned, Allegedly, Unconfirmed, etc...), or to publish it as is. NYTimes debacle with that one reporter who completely fabricated stories was a big deal because they didn't even attempt to verify them. A news agency doesn't benefit long term from purposely reporting lies as if they are true. People will figure it out and stop getting their news from that source. The other news agencies in the free market of news agencies will pick up new subscribers, and the liar agencies will lose advertising and thereby eventually be eliminated from the free market.
I am not leaving any truth in news reporting up to the government, they are no more trustworthy than the news agencies, in fact they are less trustworthy because we can't affect them by not buying their services. Libel/Slander are crimes because they negatively impact the libeled party's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What are your views on the atrocities that were involved in mccain-feingold? FAIRNESS doctrine! Should all media be forced to present a somehow balanced opinion for every opinion they broadcast? How exactly would that work? It's complete bullshit. Who decides what makes something a balanced view? Only two points of view? What about the 6 billion other views on the same subject? Why should any network be forced to give lip service to a view they don't support? What right does the government have to force companies to presumably be fair and balanced in their opinion pieces? None! And it will get annihilated by anyone with a shred of intelligence any time it comes up.
Horrible conspiracy theory sites yammer on about stupid things like how GWB brought down the WTC towers, and they're allowed to spout that clearly ridiculous lie despite having no actual proof of their accusations. They would have to be held to the same standards as any news reporting agency as would any blogger. Just because an audience of a news station is bigger than that of any random blog doesn't mean it has more of a LEGAL requirement vet reporting.
To say that Fox news is the only news station that has an agenda built into their news coverage is really just saying that you agree with the agenda of the others. There are many stories that every one of the major networks reports on that are reported on just by the facts. When it comes to politicial stories, however, they all are guilty of spinning it their own way. This happens less with actual NEWS broadcasts and more with the shows that people confuse with news broadcasts like Katie Couric and Bill O'Reilly, but it does make its way into the real news broadcasts too.
That said, I stand by that the potential regulation that Fox News fought and won in court was NOT good. It would not have improved the chances that news wouldn't be spun a certain way. It would only have served to guarantee that it would always be spun the way federal regulators want. And in case you aren't aware, federal regulators do have political affiliations which would be exactly what would determine their acceptance of any particular news content. I do not want state run TV.
exactly...you know just buy offering "Unlimited" 10MBPS they're already limiting you to 260TB of transfer each month. Come on, if I have unlimited broadband, I want to download 300TB today! If this argument that the person you replied to still happens when everyone has an average of GB/s connection and it will go down to half if they meet the criteria for "hog" during a congestion time, then they will have completely lost me. I don't really like the 250GB limit idea, the 80%/70% thing seems much better. But either a total download limit OR a % throughput throttling are fine by me for the punks who think a residential service can be used to its technical full capacity without recourse. If I used my full sewer line capacity all day and night, at best I'd get a visit from the sewer company wondering wtf was going on...at worst every drain in my house would be reversed and my house would be full of everyone else's shit.
Fox News fought a fight against government oppression of freedom of the press. Just like freedom of speech, I would rather idiots have the right to say their idiotic things than leave it up to the government to decide what idiotic things can be said. I realize that the US has more freedom of speech than other similar countries like the UK. There are more rules about "proper" speech in other countries that, just as you would expect, is abused by the government at all levels to censor what would be protected speech in US.
Googling that headline gets you exactly what you'd expect. A long list of socialist news sources that think it is a good idea for government to control more of our lives "for the betterment of society as whole." I can completely understand if you do not subscribe to the idea that the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn't mean that the government must step in whenever you feel any of those things waiver. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from the affects of others speech. Freedom of religion does not mean you are free from ever having to hear or see another religion. The government should not exist to keep you happy nor to keep you from being sad/mad/whatever other emotion. If you feel a news outlet is lying to you, get your news from a different source. Trusting what ANYONE without verifying is your own damn fault.
Yes, he is advocating exactly that. Note that he leaves CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC out of it because he presumes they wouldn't be negatively affected by regulation. That is because he is an idiot who doesn't understand that giving the government control of anything is counter to the foundations of this country and will only serve to further abuse and erode our freedoms.
Definitely a very shrewd business decision on Craigslist's part. If you don't take risk (i.e. build new things, hire more people) you can keeping making money as long as your goods/services are deemed worthwhile. The great thing is with just 30 employees, they can adapt pretty quickly to changing market conditions that affect there very focused product, whereas Microsoft, while not just an Operating System maker, has a much tougher time moving from one direction to another. It's just a fact of having that big a company, you end up having to cut thousands of jobs because you can't wait for the behemoth to adapt and keep the stockholders happy. However, it does come down to the motivating factors for those at the helm and in control of the money. If craigslist had investors that were demanding billions in growth, chances are they'd have to expand into the hundreds and eventually thousands of employees to succeed. It sounds like, though, that they don't have that pressure, and if an average of 4.6million per employee per year in revenue makes everyone enough money along with keeping the company running well, that is a pretty sweet deal. Their biggest risk is the lack of diversity in offerings. Basically all of that revenue comes from a single source. While no one is currently predicting the demand for this type of service dropping significantly, competition in that space could creep in quickly and cause them some major trouble.
Maybe they thought it was a documentary!
It's called RealityServer 3.0 That has the "buzzwords" of a version number, Server in the name and the ultimate buzzword "Reality"
That's okay, I just signed up for all the stuff using fake info, got the godfather points and laughed at how somehow that was a good business model. Stayed away from the cell phone ones though because I actually did read the fine print and saw the part where if you respond to the text message you're signing up for $14.95/month "service". I also stayed away from the toolbar download because I won't even installed a decent company's toolbar (google) let alone one that I know is out to f*** me.
So why didn't you record it?
Actually yeah, you could use that to get your sentence/penalty reduced or commuted, though it would likely be at the inverse change to amount of court mandated therapy.
my aging cat, may he rest in peace, urinated on the keyboard
That is how that line should have read.
Sometimes people confuse it not having enough gravitational pull to help us achieve escape velocity as we jump off the top of the jungle gym or at the apex of the highest swing that could ever have possibly been done on a swing with not having gravitational pull at all. I mean, the first time I threw a rock at the moon (1985?), I assumed it just went all the way there. I never saw it come down, nor did the broken car window next door have anything to do with this story.
so we just need two of them!
Your mistake was trying to add reasoning and thought into your frist psot.
By continuing to provide a free service??
Because the clearly unbiased review by the linked website provides the answer! Dell is super duper! Comments from such users as Michael_D, md311, and mike_dellissocoolbutidontworkthere prove it!
Okay, correction to what I said. They have to gather evidence, but they don't have to present anything if you have nothing other than your word to present as evidence to the contrary.
Yeah imagine the first time you run out of charge 10 miles from the nearest town. Walking into that convenience store hoping they have a HUGE sale on extension cords because carrying 15 gallons of electricity 10 miles is a dangerous task.
Judges ignoring facts is definitely a violation of due process. And if your brother had money to throw away on fighting it, he'd probably win in a higher court and shake out some of that crud. But alas, most people can't afford to do that and it's very rare for a group like ACLU to take up that kind of case on behalf of a person.
Fixed penalty only if you just pay it. Now, I'm talking strictly U.S. experience here, but you have the right to your day in court for ANY ticket. 99% of the people wave the right to a hearing to prove innocence and either just pay the ticket or pay a ticket lawyer to plea it down to a non-moving violation. Both of those options are very much due process. Even if you are absolutely guilty of breaking the law that the ticket claims you did, you DO have the chance to get out of it. The police DO have to gather evidence and present their case if you choose to fight the ticket.
Now if your points were made based on some other traffic law/judicial system outside of the U.S. (which is fine because the story is about Canada), then I can't claim to know if the system is similar.
Yeah, after the segment on WW2 in history, my child asked why the Allies didn't just type in IDDQD before D-day.
That is filed next to the definition of excessive bandwidth usage on unlimited bandwidth plans.
Just because an engine CAN make the trip 39 (or is it 89) days, doesn't mean it will take that short a time. Given all the different things that they would likely have to account for, 245 days to get from Earth to Mars ain't that bad. And if the engines can get you there faster? Great! Then you're actually doing a simulated trip to somewhere many times farther away! Deep space exploration may eventually require people to spend years in space. Nothing wrong with building in tolerance levels far beyond what is actually necessary.