So, what's the deal? Do they just do this for grins, or do they expect something in return -- like retain a copy of the contents?
There's got to be someone who -- for a price -- will take the contents of those tapes and transfer them to another medium. Maybe some kind-hearted and mostly trustworthy OpenVMS Sys Admin.
Which medium will eventually become obsolete, I expect. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Less well-known is a short story in one of Harlan Ellison's "Dangerous Visions" anthologies. After an initial period of unfortunate casualties (ahem) things got considerably better.
There's an election coming up. Feel like voting for Democrats and/or Republicans, to thank them for their joint effort to bring this about? Most people do.
It's been said -- in apparent seriousness -- that the Constitution holds the same position in the U.S. that the monarch holds in the UK: officially the basis of the government, but in reality doesn't really much matter.
Given the mismatch between the government and the Constitution, I'd have to say that wag got it right.
At least 8 strains have had their genomes sequenced, and presumably those genomes are still on file, somewhere.
Unless there's something special about the rest of virus, physical samples are redundant. So destroying the (known) samples wouldn't buy much, and might eliminate something important.
For literally centuries, people have been predicting machines making people obsolete. For decades, people have been taking this guy's approach. They haven't been right yet.
Another problem is that government has shielded the two currently dominant political parties from competition. No matter how bad they are are choosing candidates or at governing, they will not go the way of the Whig Party.
If things continue to suck, one or both of them might lose their statutory duopoly status in an unpleasant manner reminiscent of the loss of statutory monopoly status of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
Or worse yet, the even more unpleasant manner that the Romanians disempowered their Communist Party. http://duckduckgo.com?q=romani...
Very possibly that would be a good decision. However, it's up to the company's owners to make that decision, not you or I.
Or rather, for their designated representatives.
Seems at times to work out about as badly for those whose (alleged) representatives run corporations as for those whose (alleged) representatives run governments.
As it happens, the rules that govern how those owners' representatives are selected and decide matters come from government.
(See the third paragraph. Proceed with caution, to avoid infinite recursion.)
I'd say, he's not the best possible spokesman for anything relating to economics. Even if he's endorsing a good thing.
Kinda like having John Wayne Gacy endorse your day-care center. Even if he's endorsing a good thing. Yes, he has been involved with kids, but not in a good way.
And I'm told that a growing body of increasingly comprehensive and consistent case law was on the verge of making the Communications Act of 1934 unnecessary.
Fortunately, our Wise Solons in the Congress stopped that, just in time.
Otherwise, there would be no fig leaf of "preventing interference" to justify the FCC's existence.
There was a time when it was possible for the people to create new political parties, when they found no party supported their interests or causes, or found existing parties incompetent or corrupt. That time ended when the Progressive Era election "reforms" lead to government-printed ballots with government-approved candidates from government-approved and -micromanaged political parties.
Voter engagement as a consequence declined, subjectively and objectively. Quantitative measures like election competitiveness and voter turnout declined to current levels within a few decades.
Had there been those election "reforms" in place in the 1840s and '50s, the Free Soil Party and the Republican Party could not have been formed. The Whigs would not have been replaced by an anti-slavery party.
Details about those "reforms" and their consequences are in Mark L Kornbluh's book, _Why America Stopped Voting_. (Also, some quaint charming examples of what engaged voters would do to support their parties. Picnics. Barbecues. Flagpole-raising competitions.) http://www.worldcat.org/search...
The "party bosses" were a problem, true. In some places. For a time. A bigger problem than having the statutory duopoly parties we have today, shielded from competition from upstarts created by the people, and the government created by those duopolists?
My very distinct impression is that the Sad Puppies are responding to successful efforts to game the system.
"Gaming the system" has been done for decades, long before the LWNJ/SJW/moonbat/whatever crowd did it, by various sorts of folks. Not a new phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
What could possibly go wrong? (See other posts for some of the answers.)
One way out: have less government.
Then people will bitch about the Wal-Mart or FedEx store or whatever.
So, what's the deal? Do they just do this for grins, or do they expect something in return -- like retain a copy of the contents?
There's got to be someone who -- for a price -- will take the contents of those tapes and transfer them to another medium. Maybe some kind-hearted and mostly trustworthy OpenVMS Sys Admin.
Which medium will eventually become obsolete, I expect. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Less well-known is a short story in one of Harlan Ellison's "Dangerous Visions" anthologies. After an initial period of unfortunate casualties (ahem) things got considerably better.
Perhaps it was tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps not.
No.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty
Drug prohibition.
High marginal tax rates.
Complex tax laws.
Executive branch employees with judicial powers.
And so on.
In short, post-constitutional America.
There's an election coming up. Feel like voting for Democrats and/or Republicans, to thank them for their joint effort to bring this about? Most people do.
It's been said -- in apparent seriousness -- that the Constitution holds the same position in the U.S. that the monarch holds in the UK: officially the basis of the government, but in reality doesn't really much matter.
Given the mismatch between the government and the Constitution, I'd have to say that wag got it right.
640K should be enough for anybody.
The first question to answer before answering a question containing the word "we" is: Who is "we"?
Some questions go away when you get the answer. There is no "we". No questions left.
Others become trivially easy to answer, or impossibly difficult to answer. No answerable questions left unanswered.
This time around: ask the people who decided to search.
Please define "afford" and "decent".
It'll be interesting to see if the second definition makes any reference to local conditions.
Now those Asian sweatshop workers won't be "exploited" any more. They'll be unemployed.
That's quite the improvement, I'm sure they'll agree.
Thanks, defenders of the poor. Who are you going to help next?
Shall we warn the next unfortunate people who are about to become victims of your concern?
At least 8 strains have had their genomes sequenced, and presumably those genomes are still on file, somewhere.
Unless there's something special about the rest of virus, physical samples are redundant. So destroying the (known) samples wouldn't buy much, and might eliminate something important.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=smallpox+genome+sequenced&t=ffsb&ia=web
Well, that's redundant.
For literally centuries, people have been predicting machines making people obsolete. For decades, people have been taking this guy's approach. They haven't been right yet.
"This time, it's different." Of course.
Not just white hat behavior, of course. Any mutually-beneficial exchange.
Well, any _documented_ mutually-beneficial exchange. Not a problem, if you operate in the underground, er, "undocumented", economy.
Unless you get caught not forking over a piece of the action. Then it can be a big problem.
"A" problem, not "the" problem.
And not all voters.
Another problem is that government has shielded the two currently dominant political parties from competition. No matter how bad they are are choosing candidates or at governing, they will not go the way of the Whig Party.
If things continue to suck, one or both of them might lose their statutory duopoly status in an unpleasant manner reminiscent of the loss of statutory monopoly status of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
Or worse yet, the even more unpleasant manner that the Romanians disempowered their Communist Party. http://duckduckgo.com?q=romani...
At present, I remain unconvinced that voters have much influence over the government.
If you are convinced voters do, please feel free to give us all a reason to think otherwise.
But he's come around about one thing: helicopters.
WWRDOD?
Who Would R. Daneel Olivaw Drone?
Didn't want to read the article until I knew what he was an expert in: self-driving cars, or having sex in a moving vehicle.
I'm guessing the latter. It's possible to have 5 or 10 years of experience in that, but not in self-driving cars.
Very possibly that would be a good decision. However, it's up to the company's owners to make that decision, not you or I.
Or rather, for their designated representatives.
Seems at times to work out about as badly for those whose (alleged) representatives run corporations as for those whose (alleged) representatives run governments.
As it happens, the rules that govern how those owners' representatives are selected and decide matters come from government.
(See the third paragraph. Proceed with caution, to avoid infinite recursion.)
I'd say, he's not the best possible spokesman for anything relating to economics. Even if he's endorsing a good thing.
Kinda like having John Wayne Gacy endorse your day-care center. Even if he's endorsing a good thing. Yes, he has been involved with kids, but not in a good way.
What a delightful way of putting it: ' not a punitive measure, its a conducive measure"
It's not about past behavior, it's about future behavior, IOW.
From this I conclude that punishment doesn't reduce recidivism. Generally speaking.
And I'm told that a growing body of increasingly comprehensive and consistent case law was on the verge of making the Communications Act of 1934 unnecessary.
Fortunately, our Wise Solons in the Congress stopped that, just in time.
Otherwise, there would be no fig leaf of "preventing interference" to justify the FCC's existence.
There was a time when it was possible for the people to create new political parties, when they found no party supported their interests or causes, or found existing parties incompetent or corrupt. That time ended when the Progressive Era election "reforms" lead to government-printed ballots with government-approved candidates from government-approved and -micromanaged political parties.
Voter engagement as a consequence declined, subjectively and objectively. Quantitative measures like election competitiveness and voter turnout declined to current levels within a few decades.
Had there been those election "reforms" in place in the 1840s and '50s, the Free Soil Party and the Republican Party could not have been formed. The Whigs would not have been replaced by an anti-slavery party.
Details about those "reforms" and their consequences are in Mark L Kornbluh's book, _Why America Stopped Voting_. (Also, some quaint charming examples of what engaged voters would do to support their parties. Picnics. Barbecues. Flagpole-raising competitions.) http://www.worldcat.org/search...
The "party bosses" were a problem, true. In some places. For a time. A bigger problem than having the statutory duopoly parties we have today, shielded from competition from upstarts created by the people, and the government created by those duopolists?
Seems highly unlikely to me.
My very distinct impression is that the Sad Puppies are responding to successful efforts to game the system.
"Gaming the system" has been done for decades, long before the LWNJ/SJW/moonbat/whatever crowd did it, by various sorts of folks. Not a new phenomenon.