Actually, all of the conservative justices + O'Conner dissented. IIRC, Souter and Kennedy are also consider swing justices, but Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are definitely in the camp usually considered conservative.
And yet socialism has at it's base a belief in the right to restrict the financial contracts of others. It may be limited by a responsible government, but it asserts that right and uses it. If allowed to grow unchecked, it will eventually become totalitarian in nature. The government eventually finds that it must monitor it's people in order to produce what it considers an ideal economy. Asserting that there is no link is as absurd as asserting that socialism always and inevitably leads to a police state, but not quite as abusurd as claiming that they are fundamentally incompatible.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law
Given that the companies in question own the lines, I can't approve of legislation that would tell them what they could or couldn't do with it in principle. They should be held to their contracts, and little else. Unfortunately, principle is compromised because they've already been helped out by the government in all sorts of ways. (Right of Way, eminent domain, etc.) Amazing how government action creates more issues, which the goverment must then take further action on...
However, the simplest solution may be revoke the common carrier protections of any telecom that chooses to discriminate. IIRC, they can't be prosecuted for illegal materials present on their network because of the common carrier status.
I think it's likely that a telecom which started giving preferential treatment to some services would start losing customers, depending on how preferences were handled.
It's at an offshore military base, because some us judicial oversight doesn't come into play unless it involves US Citizens OR takes place on US soil. The prisoners of that base are subject to the Third Geneva Convention, which require a "competent tribunal" to review cases that are in doubt. This is slowly happening.
It's really not accurate that all freedoms are being taken away. Note that citizen protests usually don't end up with the protestors being arrested, barring some violation of the law. The same organizers keep doing marches, although that may just be because they are largely innefectual.
As far as the media goes, doing the research doesn't automatically make one liberal. There are right wing investigative journalists, although they often get lambasted by their peers. The media as a whole tilts slightly left, although they try to incompetently act impartial. (Evidence of journalistic laziness and incompetence abound. Asserting that a group holds some opinion which they don't and failing to actually talk to a member being one example.) They also tilt against whatever party is currently in power. These 2 biases magnify each other in some cases, and minimize each other in others.
As for the Mussolini quote, please read up on it. It appears to have never actually been stated, and may be based upon a different definition of corporatism.
The way I understood it when I took my networking class in the old days, token ring had advantages on heavily loaded networks, because collisions simply don't happen. The bandwidth efficiency curve would rise and flatten as you added demand, whereas ethernet would rise, then fall again as collisions started degrading performance. Effictively, most data on an overloaded ethernet got discarded. Ethernet switches were just starting to be available, which drastically improved the situation. The theory still holds, but for practical purposes it's moot.
On a completely offtopic note: Anyone else miss coax ethernet cabling sometimes? It would be so much more efficient to add a small segment of cable when adding a computer to a lab that's already full. One cable is so much cleaner than a bundle of them. Too bad the speed of coax ethernet never got past 10Mb.
Hmm... I'd swear I looked for actual vote information in the article. Sorry. Point still stands that it wasn't pure R vs. D vote. It's close to unanimous on the R side, but the D side was split.
However, the numbers don't add up unless I'm mistaken about which particular subcommittee was involved. There appear to be 2 members who did not vote, but to reduce magnitude of the error, assume they are both D.
Let Df=Dem for, Da=dem against, Rf and Ra similar, m=missing votes.
18 = R = Rf + Ra
15 = D = Df + Da + m
Da + Ra =23
Df + Rf = 8
Assume Rf = 1, then Df = 7. Assuming both missing members were Dem, Da must equal 6 not 4.
Assume Da = 4, then Ra = 19. Which is more than the total value of R.
No, it didn't. The subcommitte in question has 18 republicans and 15 democrats accroding to the committe information page. The vote failed, 23-8, so at the very most a little over half of the democrats present voted for it. It's more likely split, but the article doesn't give any information about how the vote was actually distributed. It implies that there was a party line split, but there is no evidence that I can find. The house site doesn't seem to have yesterday's committee actions available yet.
On the plus side, I agree with shooting it down. I'd rather the government not regulate the internet in any way. Much as I dislike carriers blocking some sites, unless they have a contract somewhere stating otherwise, they can do whatever they want with their equipment. I'm not sure if it would alter their common carrier status, but IANAL.
2 things:
1. There is no right to equal representation anywhere in the constitution. Please see the senate and electoral college for clear counter examples.
2. Approval voting is a much better solution than IRV. It sucessfully guarantees minimizing voter disapproval and is just as easy to explain. It also fails Arrow's theorem presumably, although I'm not certain which criteria in particular doesn't hold.
All of malthus's predictions were wrong though. So were Paul Erlich's. You can claim that their basic ideas hold and that they were just wrong on the time frame, but their consistent failure indicates an error somewhere. I think Julain Simon may have correctly identified the issue. I may have misread what little I've seen about his theories, but I believe the idea is that the doomsday models treat people as pure consumers without considering their benefits as a resource as well.
Heh... there was an online comic a while back that had something very similar to this. I wish there was an archive from badtech.com somewhere I could download.
On a different note, since that spiel was only added for the movie, is Frank Herbert really responsible for it?
I am also a free market supporter. My answer made sense to me, because you were advocating futher government intervention in a system that's screwed up by government action, rather than removal of the intervention that caused the problem. Removing existing intervention is not itself a form of intervention. We have only a partially free market currently as is, and I doubt any government will be able to resiste the temptation to meddle.
Money is a form of speech, although I would be fine with a restriction that only individuals who are capable of voting are eligible to contribute to a campaign. Since unions, Corps, PACs, etc. can't vote, they shouldn't be able to directly contribute, only their members should. It's not so much contributions which lead to market intervention, it's the whole existing political structure. Voters can and do intervene when it gets totally out of hand sometimes, but not reliably. It's just a bit easier to fix than a monarchy for instance.
I don't have time at the moment to go on, but does my answer and position make a little more sense now?
No, under the current laws you aren't supposed to do that. The analogy appealed to me as a description of where the burden of proof lay, and does lend itself to the current system where polluters aren't badly restricted as long as no directly provable harm occurs. It's not a good approximation of the current system of environmental laws without heavy modification.
If I understand the law correctly, although IANAL, industrial waste is heavily restricted, including heavy testing requirements to prove due diligence since industrial waste is generally toxic in fairly low doses. But a substance such as CO2, which causes no direct harm and is extremely common naturally, is barely regulated at all. A chemical which "...Wasn't there in the first place" isn't really an accurate description of the issue at hand, but could be applied to a random waste substance. Since we have good evidence that harm is common with most forms of waste, heavier restrictions are appropriate.
Not sure if that clarified or just muddled the water more.
I think Pascal would be a better choice. If you discount self taught programming on my calculator, I started with Pascal in college. I thought it worked fairly well as a beginner's language, and was significantly more ituitive than C. The switch from Pascal to C in the second semester was pretty straightfoward. I remember thinking there were a couple of things that were easier in C, but can't remember precisely what I didn't like in Pascal. It was too damn long ago.
I'd argue that what killed it was the high price tag, and general poor interface design and programming on sony's part. It does not have the amount of content of a full MMORPG, so I at least was unwilling to pay that much for it. It wasn't an issue when I was still playing other SOE games, but by itself it was a bit much.
As far as programming goes, it just feels cumbersome. It's a huge memory hog. It's 15x faster (literally, 20s instead of 5 min on my system) to alt tab out and kill it when you want to quit. No program should pop up a message 10s after you tell it to quit whose only purpose is to tell you that you have quit, and which you must wait around to click on or it won't actually start closing the program. There should be an option to quit to the desktop instead of forcing you to the server select screen. I shouldn't have to wait 40s to alt tab back into the game with 1GB of ram. Lots of little things like that which have been around since the game released.
I got the game when it came out, then picked it up again last month for a free month of play. I shelled out the cash for core combat, and it was fun to play again overall. But so many little things annoyed me about it each and every time I started playing that I still can't justify the price tag to myself.
The dissolution of the USSR and Russia's slow evolution to a more liberal system of government. Not caused by a military intervention, but it was arguably triggered by our military spending indirectly.
[joke]
No, you've got it all wrong! What we need to do is encourage global warming, to the point that it triggers a global cooling, then push global warming even further to offset the cooling, leaving us in exactly the temperature mean we have now with different ocean currents!
[/joke]
In all seriousness, are we certain global warming wouldn't be a net plus for human survival? Almost all discussion seems to involve disputes over whether it's human caused or not and the actual extent of it, with some examples of projected negative costs. A longer growing season, for instance, or improved habitability of areas previously unusable might offset some of the costs. I suspect they would only be mitigating factors.
It's similar to the way I'm innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on those who would restrict liberty, at least in the US given our general approach to such things. It may be possible to pull out an affirmative defense even if the act is proven to be harmful.
There are existing cases of the government restricting activities without proving those activities are harmful, but that doesn't mean it's right to do so.
I suspect the restriction reduce trash talk, and possibly to prevent spies and such. Having played on a PvP server in EQ, I welcome the restriction for the most part. It was bad enough when carefully formulated leet speak could bypass the language translators.
I wish they had implemented the RP PvP servers from the beginning. I'm not that interested in RP per se, but it has to have less of the pure griefing than exists on the Deathwing server.
Probably because most new players join the already existing servers that their friends who got them into the game are playing on. The bigger the server, the more this happens. Closing off new chars on existing servers is just a way to get older players to start over so they can play with their friends.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, all of the conservative justices + O'Conner dissented. IIRC, Souter and Kennedy are also consider swing justices, but Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are definitely in the camp usually considered conservative.
And yet socialism has at it's base a belief in the right to restrict the financial contracts of others. It may be limited by a responsible government, but it asserts that right and uses it. If allowed to grow unchecked, it will eventually become totalitarian in nature. The government eventually finds that it must monitor it's people in order to produce what it considers an ideal economy. Asserting that there is no link is as absurd as asserting that socialism always and inevitably leads to a police state, but not quite as abusurd as claiming that they are fundamentally incompatible.
Ammendment 14, section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law
Given that the companies in question own the lines, I can't approve of legislation that would tell them what they could or couldn't do with it in principle. They should be held to their contracts, and little else. Unfortunately, principle is compromised because they've already been helped out by the government in all sorts of ways. (Right of Way, eminent domain, etc.) Amazing how government action creates more issues, which the goverment must then take further action on... However, the simplest solution may be revoke the common carrier protections of any telecom that chooses to discriminate. IIRC, they can't be prosecuted for illegal materials present on their network because of the common carrier status. I think it's likely that a telecom which started giving preferential treatment to some services would start losing customers, depending on how preferences were handled.
It's at an offshore military base, because some us judicial oversight doesn't come into play unless it involves US Citizens OR takes place on US soil. The prisoners of that base are subject to the Third Geneva Convention, which require a "competent tribunal" to review cases that are in doubt. This is slowly happening.
It's really not accurate that all freedoms are being taken away. Note that citizen protests usually don't end up with the protestors being arrested, barring some violation of the law. The same organizers keep doing marches, although that may just be because they are largely innefectual.
As far as the media goes, doing the research doesn't automatically make one liberal. There are right wing investigative journalists, although they often get lambasted by their peers. The media as a whole tilts slightly left, although they try to incompetently act impartial. (Evidence of journalistic laziness and incompetence abound. Asserting that a group holds some opinion which they don't and failing to actually talk to a member being one example.) They also tilt against whatever party is currently in power. These 2 biases magnify each other in some cases, and minimize each other in others.
As for the Mussolini quote, please read up on it. It appears to have never actually been stated, and may be based upon a different definition of corporatism.
The way I understood it when I took my networking class in the old days, token ring had advantages on heavily loaded networks, because collisions simply don't happen. The bandwidth efficiency curve would rise and flatten as you added demand, whereas ethernet would rise, then fall again as collisions started degrading performance. Effictively, most data on an overloaded ethernet got discarded. Ethernet switches were just starting to be available, which drastically improved the situation. The theory still holds, but for practical purposes it's moot. On a completely offtopic note: Anyone else miss coax ethernet cabling sometimes? It would be so much more efficient to add a small segment of cable when adding a computer to a lab that's already full. One cable is so much cleaner than a bundle of them. Too bad the speed of coax ethernet never got past 10Mb.
Hmm... I'd swear I looked for actual vote information in the article. Sorry. Point still stands that it wasn't pure R vs. D vote. It's close to unanimous on the R side, but the D side was split.
However, the numbers don't add up unless I'm mistaken about which particular subcommittee was involved. There appear to be 2 members who did not vote, but to reduce magnitude of the error, assume they are both D.
Let Df=Dem for, Da=dem against, Rf and Ra similar, m=missing votes.
18 = R = Rf + Ra
15 = D = Df + Da + m
Da + Ra =23
Df + Rf = 8
Assume Rf = 1, then Df = 7. Assuming both missing members were Dem, Da must equal 6 not 4.
Assume Da = 4, then Ra = 19. Which is more than the total value of R.
I think you may want the division operator, not addition. Thus:
AnnoyingCoWorker/Chainsaw = LessAnnoyingCoWorker+PrisonTime
No, it didn't. The subcommitte in question has 18 republicans and 15 democrats accroding to the committe information page. The vote failed, 23-8, so at the very most a little over half of the democrats present voted for it. It's more likely split, but the article doesn't give any information about how the vote was actually distributed. It implies that there was a party line split, but there is no evidence that I can find. The house site doesn't seem to have yesterday's committee actions available yet.
On the plus side, I agree with shooting it down. I'd rather the government not regulate the internet in any way. Much as I dislike carriers blocking some sites, unless they have a contract somewhere stating otherwise, they can do whatever they want with their equipment. I'm not sure if it would alter their common carrier status, but IANAL.
Reminds me of the Billy Madison footnote.
2 things:
1. There is no right to equal representation anywhere in the constitution. Please see the senate and electoral college for clear counter examples.
2. Approval voting is a much better solution than IRV. It sucessfully guarantees minimizing voter disapproval and is just as easy to explain. It also fails Arrow's theorem presumably, although I'm not certain which criteria in particular doesn't hold.
All of malthus's predictions were wrong though. So were Paul Erlich's. You can claim that their basic ideas hold and that they were just wrong on the time frame, but their consistent failure indicates an error somewhere. I think Julain Simon may have correctly identified the issue. I may have misread what little I've seen about his theories, but I believe the idea is that the doomsday models treat people as pure consumers without considering their benefits as a resource as well.
Heh... there was an online comic a while back that had something very similar to this. I wish there was an archive from badtech.com somewhere I could download. On a different note, since that spiel was only added for the movie, is Frank Herbert really responsible for it?
I am also a free market supporter. My answer made sense to me, because you were advocating futher government intervention in a system that's screwed up by government action, rather than removal of the intervention that caused the problem. Removing existing intervention is not itself a form of intervention. We have only a partially free market currently as is, and I doubt any government will be able to resiste the temptation to meddle.
Money is a form of speech, although I would be fine with a restriction that only individuals who are capable of voting are eligible to contribute to a campaign. Since unions, Corps, PACs, etc. can't vote, they shouldn't be able to directly contribute, only their members should. It's not so much contributions which lead to market intervention, it's the whole existing political structure. Voters can and do intervene when it gets totally out of hand sometimes, but not reliably. It's just a bit easier to fix than a monarchy for instance.
I don't have time at the moment to go on, but does my answer and position make a little more sense now?
No, under the current laws you aren't supposed to do that. The analogy appealed to me as a description of where the burden of proof lay, and does lend itself to the current system where polluters aren't badly restricted as long as no directly provable harm occurs. It's not a good approximation of the current system of environmental laws without heavy modification.
If I understand the law correctly, although IANAL, industrial waste is heavily restricted, including heavy testing requirements to prove due diligence since industrial waste is generally toxic in fairly low doses. But a substance such as CO2, which causes no direct harm and is extremely common naturally, is barely regulated at all. A chemical which "...Wasn't there in the first place" isn't really an accurate description of the issue at hand, but could be applied to a random waste substance. Since we have good evidence that harm is common with most forms of waste, heavier restrictions are appropriate.
Not sure if that clarified or just muddled the water more.
I think Pascal would be a better choice. If you discount self taught programming on my calculator, I started with Pascal in college. I thought it worked fairly well as a beginner's language, and was significantly more ituitive than C. The switch from Pascal to C in the second semester was pretty straightfoward. I remember thinking there were a couple of things that were easier in C, but can't remember precisely what I didn't like in Pascal. It was too damn long ago.
I'd argue that what killed it was the high price tag, and general poor interface design and programming on sony's part. It does not have the amount of content of a full MMORPG, so I at least was unwilling to pay that much for it. It wasn't an issue when I was still playing other SOE games, but by itself it was a bit much.
As far as programming goes, it just feels cumbersome. It's a huge memory hog. It's 15x faster (literally, 20s instead of 5 min on my system) to alt tab out and kill it when you want to quit. No program should pop up a message 10s after you tell it to quit whose only purpose is to tell you that you have quit, and which you must wait around to click on or it won't actually start closing the program. There should be an option to quit to the desktop instead of forcing you to the server select screen. I shouldn't have to wait 40s to alt tab back into the game with 1GB of ram. Lots of little things like that which have been around since the game released.
I got the game when it came out, then picked it up again last month for a free month of play. I shelled out the cash for core combat, and it was fun to play again overall. But so many little things annoyed me about it each and every time I started playing that I still can't justify the price tag to myself.
So the answer to failed government intervention (IP laws) is further government intervention?
The dissolution of the USSR and Russia's slow evolution to a more liberal system of government. Not caused by a military intervention, but it was arguably triggered by our military spending indirectly.
[joke]
No, you've got it all wrong! What we need to do is encourage global warming, to the point that it triggers a global cooling, then push global warming even further to offset the cooling, leaving us in exactly the temperature mean we have now with different ocean currents!
[/joke]
In all seriousness, are we certain global warming wouldn't be a net plus for human survival? Almost all discussion seems to involve disputes over whether it's human caused or not and the actual extent of it, with some examples of projected negative costs. A longer growing season, for instance, or improved habitability of areas previously unusable might offset some of the costs. I suspect they would only be mitigating factors.
It's similar to the way I'm innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on those who would restrict liberty, at least in the US given our general approach to such things. It may be possible to pull out an affirmative defense even if the act is proven to be harmful.
There are existing cases of the government restricting activities without proving those activities are harmful, but that doesn't mean it's right to do so.
Well, we all know how useful extrapolation is for predicting events.
I suspect the restriction reduce trash talk, and possibly to prevent spies and such. Having played on a PvP server in EQ, I welcome the restriction for the most part. It was bad enough when carefully formulated leet speak could bypass the language translators. I wish they had implemented the RP PvP servers from the beginning. I'm not that interested in RP per se, but it has to have less of the pure griefing than exists on the Deathwing server.
So... if he's not good it's Heroes IV? I never thought I'd see the day a game was used as a form of punishment. :)
Probably because most new players join the already existing servers that their friends who got them into the game are playing on. The bigger the server, the more this happens. Closing off new chars on existing servers is just a way to get older players to start over so they can play with their friends.