How would the private sector fund, build, and run a wind farm? They'd pool capital from a group of people and pay that money out to local businesses to build the wind farm, then operate it with their own employees and charge for the electricity.
How would the government do it? They'd collect taxes from citizens (in other words, pool capital from a group of people) and pay money out to local businesses to build the wind farm. It may be operated by their own employees, and they'd likely still charge for the electricity.
The only thing that changed is that the group of investors changes from a small group of people taking a risk with their own money to a large group of people collectively (via proxy) to pool their money to get a service. Government is not some magical entity that springs forth from the nether, nor is it some evil bile-dripping monstrosity. Government is simply the people working together, either literally or by proxy, to accomplish some social goal not being satisfied elsewhere.
The way the money flows through the economy doesn't change just because you call it government instead of corporation. All those private companies and their employees are still going to be payed, and they're still going to contribute to the local economy. The only difference is that the risk and reward is socialized, rather than owned privately. The people obviously demanded it, and since no private company stepped up to the plate, they decided to handle it themselves.
Given that Germany's unemployment rate is comparable to ours the basis of your argument is moot. Furthermore, our bases are not so large that providing 40% of the services would give a 5% employment rate, assuming that the 40% figure is accurate, which it may well not be because you don't actually cite anything.
I don't have to prove anything. You are the one making the claim, which means you are the one that must provide proof. You have given none other than your speculation, which is worthless.
Well, no-one has been able to provide a single cite for the Gates quote, despite it being so famous. And this is despite Gate's other famous claims, such as his derision of "hobbyist" software. being well-recorded. Everyone says he said it, because, hey "everyone knows" he said it, and my uncle's brother's friend totally read it somewhere. It smacks of urban legend, and its safe to say that it is one unless someone manages to dig up a cite. I'm not holding my breath.
Gore did make a statement that, without context, pretty much claimed that he invented the internet. The problem with the urban legend is that in context it was clear what he meant. It was an answer to a question concerning his contributions in congress, during which he did make significant contributions to the internet. He was reducing that into a quick soundbite and flubbed the wording.
Yep, my point was that no-one is going to be convinced by throwing out a huge lists of Old Testament passages and saying "Well then you'd have to follow these too!" other than people who are already on your side. Back in my Christian days (an agnostic/athiest these days), I and other Christians would just roll my eyes at these sorts of things. Not that I particularly cared whether homosexuals got married, and was rather supportive of the idea, but it didn't stop them from throwing this stuff at me in a holier-than-thou way.
That argument isn't going to work against fundamentalists. Christians believe that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, so those laws are no longer valid. However homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament, which basically means that the rule is still in effect.
The idea that we should be pushing is that the bible in question is an intersection of the "Word of God" not a subset, because I think you'll find that's a lot more palatable to moderate Christians.
Speaking as someone coming from a fairly fundamentalist Christian family (and no, I'm not anymore, please don't flame me for beliefs I don't hold, I am an atheist), I can give a little perspective on this.
The idea is that marriage is somehow a holy and God-blessed institution, and a foundation of society, so anything that perverts or attacks this has an overall damaging effect to the moral fabric of society. Fundamentals tend to view morality and religion as a sort-of proxy war between good and evil, and, more specifically, God and Satan. Marriage and family tends to be considered a fundamental pillar of God's "plan," and so the fundamentals tend to treat anything that they perceive as an attack on it seriously. In so many words, I was specifically told that same-sex marriage (and, yes, divorce too) was a literal attack by Satan on God's sacred institution, and that the consequences was moral degeneracy in the world (souls lost to Satan).
It doesn't make sense to you, either because you don't believe in Satan or because you're framing it in a different way than they are. You are more concerned about what is going on in the world, right now. The fundamentalists involved in this tend to be more concerned about this worlds' affect on the afterlife; whether or not war is going on is an important issue, but not necessarily as important as to whether billions of souls will be subjected to eternal torment.
Of course, fundamentalists are a minority. So why are the majority turning out against this? Well, because fundamentalists are very good at controlling the subject, and framing the situation.
The way they frame this to the majority is that "they" want to promote their "choices" over yours. In effect, they are provoking an instinctual defense response. There is an in-group and an out-group, and the out-group wants to take something away from the in-group or hurt them. This is also why they don't like homosexual-related education in health and psychology classes in schools. They view them as a "recruitment" tool - propaganda to coerce children over to the other side.
Again, the reason that you do not think this is a big issue is because you have not framed the situation as an in-group and out-group. Despite not being a homosexual (I'm assuming), you likely don't consider them to be all that different from yourself, and likely feel that they don't particularly care about your marriage rights, and only want their own. Eliminate the perceived conflict, and you eliminate the defense-response.
Unfortunately, the default reaction is to insult or belittle the anti-homosexual-marriage side, which only makes them feel like they are under attack, and as a side consequence, strengthens their resolve, because Christianity in particular explicitly says that if you are being attacked, insulted or persecuted then you are blessed and doing the Right Thing. A far more effective method of combating this is to come off as conclusive and eliminate their basic assumptions: you have to re-frame the situation. So many people are simply terrible at this, however, while for the religious leaders it comes naturally.
A lot of the community here acts like House: it doesn't matter whether you're nice, only that you're right. It works well in a TV show, but unfortunately not so much for the real world.
And to add to that, all the courses that the GP listed are 1 credit courses. Look at a "real" university's 1 credit courses and you'll probably find that a lot are equally as brain-dead. They're typically either lab/discussion sessions to augment an actual class or remedial classes (which is the category that these fall into).
I am obviously misinformed on this topic, as I was drawing on my memory of past discussion of this topic. This might be because I find it absurd that anyone would want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Good thing I didn't vote for any of these clowns, and its doubly good that Obama opposes it.
Assuming that what the guy wrote is accurate, and that the remote process does in-fact take any code handed to it and run it in a thread (and assuming it does so in the context of the remote process), then the coder/s that wrote that "feature" need to have their computers confiscated and melted down, then buried in cement. Of course, that's a lot of assumptions, and it could be that this feature is "safe."
According to the article, deleting the registry entries mean that the program would re-install itself, while leaving them in-place would cause the software to avoid that computer (registry entries were used as an opt-out marker).
According to the story, there is a Windows API call that can basically hand another process a bit of code and have it execute it. That's what he meant by a series of thread: distributing the code to other processes and having it run in a distributed manner.
Well, consensus is not science. What I find to be more telling is that the 95% tends to be moderately good to very good science (supported by evidence, peer-reviewed, predictive) while the 5% tends to be moderate-at-best to bad science. At least that's what I have gathered from discussions of said papers.
Good point. He does have senior level experience in the FCC. He was on the Board of Directors for a lot of companies, and Chief of Business Operations at another. I would assume that the only way to determine if he is a good leader or not is how he participated in these positions, but I don't have access to that information.
Without Kirk, Scotty wouldn't have a ship either. It worked because Kirk was a good leader and listened to his team, not because Kirk was intimately familiar with the technology his ship used.
Well, apparently he's involved with Common Sense Media which seems to provide ratings, tools, and advice for parents with concerns to the media. It seems to be fairly parental-responsibility oriented. However, their "Common Sense Belief" sections contains a couple of statements you might be interested in:
# We believe in media sanity, not censorship.
We believe that the price for free and open media is a bit of extra homework for families. Parents need to know about media content and need to manage media use.
# We believe appropriate regulations about right time, right place, and right manner exist. They need to be upheld by our elected and appointed leaders.
# We believe ratings systems should be independent and transparent for all media.
Seems like they'd support some government toe-stepping in the form of mandatory ratings and enforcement of time-slots, but stop short of outright censorship.
Management is a different skill set than technology. Whats important in a leader is being able to listen to people who are experts, learn from them, and then make a reasoned decision. Its not so concerning if he's not a techy if he has a track record of listening to informed techies and making good decisions based on that information. A track record of leading companies that effectively utilize the internet is such a track record.
Graduated from Columbia College and Harvard magna cum laude, was a senior official in the FCC, was on the board of directors for various companies, some utilizing the internet heavily (expedia.com), and was part of the working group that created Obama's technology and innovation plan. That's hardly what you portrayed, that he's a purely political pick without any credentials.
On a perusal of Common Sense Media's site, it seems that they offer ratings and tools for parents to help parents control what their kids watch. Oh the horrors! I can see how that's super-left-wing *eye roll*. A private org focusing on parental responsibility is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'd like to see from an FCC official.
In summary, I see nothing here that would suggest that he was a bad pick, and on the contrary, by your own link, he seems to be a good pick. I get it: you don't like Obama. But the amount of spin you're throwing into this is intellectually dishonest at best.
To be fair, in the little interview snippet, he keeps his "Don't stress it too much, live life and have fun," tone. He specifically says that he wants to help people with an area of their lives that they find crippling. So, not necessarily hypocritical.
At the same time, I think people who read his material tend to put far too much importance on sex. Despite how enjoyable it is, sex is not going to make your life better in any objective way. Well, unless you count children as better.
I actually usually see that the other way. If an app fails on Windows, its because "Windows is a PoS." If an app fails on Linux, well, it's totally not Linux's fault; blame the app writer.
How many people blamed UAC for shitty apps that try to write to admin-level areas of the OS?
Slashdot Mirror
How would the private sector fund, build, and run a wind farm? They'd pool capital from a group of people and pay that money out to local businesses to build the wind farm, then operate it with their own employees and charge for the electricity.
How would the government do it? They'd collect taxes from citizens (in other words, pool capital from a group of people) and pay money out to local businesses to build the wind farm. It may be operated by their own employees, and they'd likely still charge for the electricity.
The only thing that changed is that the group of investors changes from a small group of people taking a risk with their own money to a large group of people collectively (via proxy) to pool their money to get a service. Government is not some magical entity that springs forth from the nether, nor is it some evil bile-dripping monstrosity. Government is simply the people working together, either literally or by proxy, to accomplish some social goal not being satisfied elsewhere.
The way the money flows through the economy doesn't change just because you call it government instead of corporation.
All those private companies and their employees are still going to be payed, and they're still going to contribute to the local economy. The only difference is that the risk and reward is socialized, rather than owned privately. The people obviously demanded it, and since no private company stepped up to the plate, they decided to handle it themselves.
Given that Germany's unemployment rate is comparable to ours the basis of your argument is moot. Furthermore, our bases are not so large that providing 40% of the services would give a 5% employment rate, assuming that the 40% figure is accurate, which it may well not be because you don't actually cite anything.
I don't have to prove anything. You are the one making the claim, which means you are the one that must provide proof. You have given none other than your speculation, which is worthless.
I lived on a military base in Germany for 2 years. What you say is not true. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Well, no-one has been able to provide a single cite for the Gates quote, despite it being so famous. And this is despite Gate's other famous claims, such as his derision of "hobbyist" software. being well-recorded. Everyone says he said it, because, hey "everyone knows" he said it, and my uncle's brother's friend totally read it somewhere. It smacks of urban legend, and its safe to say that it is one unless someone manages to dig up a cite. I'm not holding my breath.
Gore did make a statement that, without context, pretty much claimed that he invented the internet. The problem with the urban legend is that in context it was clear what he meant. It was an answer to a question concerning his contributions in congress, during which he did make significant contributions to the internet. He was reducing that into a quick soundbite and flubbed the wording.
No, it needed the approval of congress, and they got that approval. People tend to forget that congress was complicit in the huge Iraq CF.
Citations were provided in those other threads.
Yep, my point was that no-one is going to be convinced by throwing out a huge lists of Old Testament passages and saying "Well then you'd have to follow these too!" other than people who are already on your side. Back in my Christian days (an agnostic/athiest these days), I and other Christians would just roll my eyes at these sorts of things. Not that I particularly cared whether homosexuals got married, and was rather supportive of the idea, but it didn't stop them from throwing this stuff at me in a holier-than-thou way.
That argument isn't going to work against fundamentalists. Christians believe that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, so those laws are no longer valid. However homosexuality is also condemned in the New Testament, which basically means that the rule is still in effect.
The idea that we should be pushing is that the bible in question is an intersection of the "Word of God" not a subset, because I think you'll find that's a lot more palatable to moderate Christians.
Speaking as someone coming from a fairly fundamentalist Christian family (and no, I'm not anymore, please don't flame me for beliefs I don't hold, I am an atheist), I can give a little perspective on this.
The idea is that marriage is somehow a holy and God-blessed institution, and a foundation of society, so anything that perverts or attacks this has an overall damaging effect to the moral fabric of society. Fundamentals tend to view morality and religion as a sort-of proxy war between good and evil, and, more specifically, God and Satan. Marriage and family tends to be considered a fundamental pillar of God's "plan," and so the fundamentals tend to treat anything that they perceive as an attack on it seriously. In so many words, I was specifically told that same-sex marriage (and, yes, divorce too) was a literal attack by Satan on God's sacred institution, and that the consequences was moral degeneracy in the world (souls lost to Satan).
It doesn't make sense to you, either because you don't believe in Satan or because you're framing it in a different way than they are. You are more concerned about what is going on in the world, right now. The fundamentalists involved in this tend to be more concerned about this worlds' affect on the afterlife; whether or not war is going on is an important issue, but not necessarily as important as to whether billions of souls will be subjected to eternal torment.
Of course, fundamentalists are a minority. So why are the majority turning out against this? Well, because fundamentalists are very good at controlling the subject, and framing the situation.
The way they frame this to the majority is that "they" want to promote their "choices" over yours. In effect, they are provoking an instinctual defense response. There is an in-group and an out-group, and the out-group wants to take something away from the in-group or hurt them. This is also why they don't like homosexual-related education in health and psychology classes in schools. They view them as a "recruitment" tool - propaganda to coerce children over to the other side.
Again, the reason that you do not think this is a big issue is because you have not framed the situation as an in-group and out-group. Despite not being a homosexual (I'm assuming), you likely don't consider them to be all that different from yourself, and likely feel that they don't particularly care about your marriage rights, and only want their own. Eliminate the perceived conflict, and you eliminate the defense-response.
Unfortunately, the default reaction is to insult or belittle the anti-homosexual-marriage side, which only makes them feel like they are under attack, and as a side consequence, strengthens their resolve, because Christianity in particular explicitly says that if you are being attacked, insulted or persecuted then you are blessed and doing the Right Thing. A far more effective method of combating this is to come off as conclusive and eliminate their basic assumptions: you have to re-frame the situation. So many people are simply terrible at this, however, while for the religious leaders it comes naturally.
A lot of the community here acts like House: it doesn't matter whether you're nice, only that you're right. It works
well in a TV show, but unfortunately not so much for the real world.
And to add to that, all the courses that the GP listed are 1 credit courses. Look at a "real" university's 1 credit courses and you'll probably find that a lot are equally as brain-dead. They're typically either lab/discussion sessions to augment an actual class or remedial classes (which is the category that these fall into).
I am obviously misinformed on this topic, as I was drawing on my memory of past discussion of this topic. This might be because I find it absurd that anyone would want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Good thing I didn't vote for any of these clowns, and its doubly good that Obama opposes it.
Assuming that what the guy wrote is accurate, and that the remote process does in-fact take any code handed to it and run it in a thread (and assuming it does so in the context of the remote process), then the coder/s that wrote that "feature" need to have their computers confiscated and melted down, then buried in cement. Of course, that's a lot of assumptions, and it could be that this feature is "safe."
According to the article, deleting the registry entries mean that the program would re-install itself, while leaving them in-place would cause the software to avoid that computer (registry entries were used as an opt-out marker).
Please tell me more about this "google.com" thing.
According to the story, there is a Windows API call that can basically hand another process a bit of code and have it execute it. That's what he meant by a series of thread: distributing the code to other processes and having it run in a distributed manner.
Well, consensus is not science. What I find to be more telling is that the 95% tends to be moderately good to very good science (supported by evidence, peer-reviewed, predictive) while the 5% tends to be moderate-at-best to bad science. At least that's what I have gathered from discussions of said papers.
Good point. He does have senior level experience in the FCC. He was on the Board of Directors for a lot of companies, and Chief of Business Operations at another. I would assume that the only way to determine if he is a good leader or not is how he participated in these positions, but I don't have access to that information.
I'm interested in this textbook in a fiery-crash-on-the-side-of-the-road way. Do you happen to remember the name of it?
Without Kirk, Scotty wouldn't have a ship either. It worked because Kirk was a good leader and listened to his team, not because Kirk was intimately familiar with the technology his ship used.
No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.
Well, apparently he's involved with Common Sense Media which seems to provide ratings, tools, and advice for parents with concerns to the media. It seems to be fairly parental-responsibility oriented. However, their "Common Sense Belief" sections contains a couple of statements you might be interested in:
# We believe in media sanity, not censorship.
We believe that the price for free and open media is a bit of extra homework for families. Parents need to know about media content and need to manage media use.
# We believe appropriate regulations about right time, right place, and right manner exist. They need to be upheld by our elected and appointed leaders.
# We believe ratings systems should be independent and transparent for all media.
Seems like they'd support some government toe-stepping in the form of mandatory ratings and enforcement of time-slots, but stop short of outright censorship.
Management is a different skill set than technology. Whats important in a leader is being able to listen to people who are experts, learn from them, and then make a reasoned decision. Its not so concerning if he's not a techy if he has a track record of listening to informed techies and making good decisions based on that information. A track record of leading companies that effectively utilize the internet is such a track record.
Graduated from Columbia College and Harvard magna cum laude, was a senior official in the FCC, was on the board of directors for various companies, some utilizing the internet heavily (expedia.com), and was part of the working group that created Obama's technology and innovation plan. That's hardly what you portrayed, that he's a purely political pick without any credentials.
On a perusal of Common Sense Media's site, it seems that they offer ratings and tools for parents to help parents control what their kids watch. Oh the horrors! I can see how that's super-left-wing *eye roll*. A private org focusing on parental responsibility is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'd like to see from an FCC official.
In summary, I see nothing here that would suggest that he was a bad pick, and on the contrary, by your own link, he seems to be a good pick. I get it: you don't like Obama. But the amount of spin you're throwing into this is intellectually dishonest at best.
To be fair, in the little interview snippet, he keeps his "Don't stress it too much, live life and have fun," tone. He specifically says that he wants to help people with an area of their lives that they find crippling. So, not necessarily hypocritical.
At the same time, I think people who read his material tend to put far too much importance on sex. Despite how enjoyable it is, sex is not going to make your life better in any objective way. Well, unless you count children as better.
I actually usually see that the other way. If an app fails on Windows, its because "Windows is a PoS." If an app fails on Linux, well, it's totally not Linux's fault; blame the app writer.
How many people blamed UAC for shitty apps that try to write to admin-level areas of the OS?