Or perhaps... it's to work out how to handle Internet piracy.
Without additional information, there's no reason to think of it any different.
Nonsense. The federal government is supposed to represent the people, not special interest groups. The fact that they are working to prevent the people gaining any additional information is the only additional information we have at this stage.
So, do you think they are excluding the public from taking part in this discussion because (1) they have something really nice planned for us and want it to be a surprise, (2) they want to pass something they know is unlikely to survive public scrutiny as it is not in our interests or (3) some other reason, which you should specify if you choose this option?
Possible reasons:
1) Not boring enough. We generally like our politicians boring.
2) Too catholic. Catholicism is weird. Any religion followed diligently enough is a bit weird, but catholic priests have the whole pedophile thing going on, and if not that, vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, of which all are weird. None of those are exactly Australian values.
3) Wears budgie smugglers.
4) Too catholic. This bears repeating because Conroy is catholic and wants to censor the internet. Abbot probably will want to do the same.
As for Howard, he campaigned as a small government conservative for 30 years yet government became no smaller during his time as PM, exactly the opposite. Howard did not favour individual liberty, he was a statist through and through. May as well have had a socialist for the liberties we gave up during his stint as PM.
Well, I do. Rather than wrestle with learning where and how each site's search works, I just Google for what I want, plus, say "wiki" if I want the Wikipedia page, "amazon" for the Amazon page
Do Wikipedia and Amazon really have that steep a learning curve?
Since legitimate basically means lawful, obviously that doesn't include Anonymous. No movement to overthrow or obstruct government by extra-legal means is legitimate. They can become legitimate by winning, in which case the previous government is then considered illegitimate.
Anonymous is sand in the cogs of the machine. It doesn't blow the machine up, it makes it a little less efficient, require a little more maintenance. What many people seem to forget is that we want inefficient government, that's why we have separation of powers.
I agree with the physical skills subject. Having done martial arts for 8 years, I can say that if you want to really learn, at first you need to learn the very basic moves, and repeat them till your mind explodes from boredom. In the meanwhile your also learn from the instructor the philosophy, the logic why it makes sense, some story behind each move, and so on.
So you are saying interleave the basic skills with philosophy and stories. With those basic skills, would you recommend spending entire training sessions on practicing one blow, or various punches and kicks etc each training session? I'm guessing when you say to learn the basics first, you don't mean master one basic at a time before moving on to the next one.
Of the small percentage of Slashdotters that are women, there is a high percentage that actively hide their gender when posting, in order to avoid getting those kinds of comments.
Fine. I'm here to discuss ideas. Don't specify your gender if that's what makes you most comfortable. I'm pretty sure some of the people that identify as female are really male anyway.
This isn't a dating service, we don't need to know your gender. My wife laughed at this thread, by the way. She certainly wouldn't take a suggestion to do porn seriously, it's a slashdot post, get some perspective.
The ability to replace the OS is the ability to run software that does what you choose. You can't possibly be unable to understand that, I think you're just continuing to argue because you like it or can't stand conceding a point.
People jailbreak phones for exactly this reason, to regain capability that has been removed, not always with OSS.
I'm not going to reply in this thread again, I don't think you're serious about discussion. I don't need to "win". Go ahead, post last.
Well you'd still have laws against murder. In any case, assuming you're right and libertarianism would result in pollution amounting to mass murder, I think their is a vast difference between being terribly wrong about the results of policy decisions and actually desiring mass murder.
You know something about public health care (I'm in a country with it)? It doesn't automatically generate enough funding to save every life. Decisions on what services to provide have to be made with budgets in mind and that inevitably means that some people will die having been ineffectively treated or untreated. That doesn't make it either helpful or valid to call the people who make budget decisions regarding health "death panels".
How does that sort of negative framing of people's intentions contribute to debate in a civilized society? It doesn't matter who is doing it, it isn't an appeal to reason, it is a provocation to emotional opposition. To engage in that tactic as a political strategy is to endorse the current systems of propaganda and population control and repudiates the ideals of democracy, which depends on reason. The "winners" of such a contest will always be the people who control the media, religions and education system. The same type of corporations you think want to poison you for profit.
The US isn't libertarian yet by this non-libertarianism has only managed to outsource your killing to places like Iraq. How many people are being killed in the war on drugs? Are the people you vote for aiming to stop that? How about actually doing it? As I understand it that war disproportionately harms black people in the US, should I call people who support strong drug laws genocidal? NO! They're just wrong about how do deal with drug problems IMO.
As someone who probably disagrees with you strongly on many issues, I appeal to you to conduct yourself in such a way that whatever the outcome of an argument, reason wins. I'm not perfect at that myself, but if enough people attempt it consistently enough, for long enough it ought to be a force as unstoppable as science.
There is a false dichotomy assumed by most people that power can only go to corporations or the government. While both institutions perform useful functions for us, both can also be detrimental. However, corporations are empowered by legislation. The free market exists because of legislation. I'm personally against perpetual existence and person-hood for corporations. Take that away and you don't need nearly so much government intervention to control them. To take power from both the government and corporations in favor of the people requires the widespread use of reason, to have resistance to manipulation. There's a lot of work to do to achieve that. We need everyone possible on board with that agenda, regardless of their political persuasion.
If we abandon a commitment to reasoned debate because we are divided into groups based on ideology and our groups success becomes more important than a good political process, we all lose. There is no political system or idea good enough to operate independently of reason and ethics. That's what we need to promote, more so that "my side winning".
Can you provide a link to a link to any prominent libertarian arguing for the right to deny health care (or anything else) to people based on race? Or is it just your misinterpretation of what they advocate?
I'm genuinely curious. I'm an Australian and libertarianism flies pretty much below the radar here. American politics seems to be filled with invective and misrepresenting the oppositions positions. If you can't link to a libertarian opinion I'll regard your statement as roughly equivalent to the republicans saying that democrats wanted to set up "death panels" by introducing government provided health care.
I've never seen an argument that business shouldn't have to obey ANY laws. Show me.
The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
You appear to be mistaking libertarianism with anarchy. They are not the same thing. Your statements on libertarian positions are incorrect. The argument I have heard is that strong protection of property rights (or in the example you give, laws against murder) is sufficient protection against pollution. You might reasonably argue how effectively those laws could be applied to environmental protection but to say that libertarians want the right to "kill thousands of people" is flat out wrong and I'm pretty sure you would have to know that.
Perhaps you're using hyperbole? Otherwise, you might consider that if you can't promote your ideology without sticking to the truth then perhaps your ideology isn't worth promoting.
Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. If liberty is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-liberty. If communism is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-communism etc, etc.
The US at it's founding was radically pro-liberty, despite not extending that liberty to everyone. So a conservative can be pro-"the liberties we already have" and anti-"the liberties you want that we don't agree with".
It's not really to the detriment of the majority of customers, most customers don't care about dual booting and those who do will buy a device capable of it instead.
No, back in the day I've seen phones which had crippled bluetooth so you couldn't send things like pictures you had taken with the camera. They wanted to charge for data over their network. A non-tech savvy customer mightn't know enough to complain about stuff like that but they are definitely still affected. A good example is the original iphones not allowing tethering.
Consider that you printer may be spying on you https://www.eff.org/issues/printers and how many people have used their phones to do things like record police misbehaviour. I think there is a real need for people to really own their devices whether the majority of customers are aware of it or not.
This accusation never had any legal backing other than the lawsuit brought about by Microsoft, so it is not as if the company was preempting an official investigation.
You're underestimating their power. Nobody has ever been released from a Microsoft prison camp!
No what I'm saying is that your response isn't consistent with the topic, which is that they all impose restrictions on manufacturers, those who don't adhere to Google's requirements don't get Google's branding, just as those who don't adhere to MS' requirements don't get MS' branding.
As far as I know Google's requirements aren't designed to lock out competition. It's not the fact that they have specs, it is what they are attempting to do to the market with those specs.
As i demonstrated above, MS is not doing anything new or different with the tablet market...
Well fair enough, but I never said they were the only ones to attempt it nor that it is new.
just as with every other tablet on the market if you want to run other OSes then that is wholly dependent on the choices made by the manufacturer, and most choose not to allow it.
Indeed, and if the manufacturers don't lock it down, the telcos try. There have been plenty of devices locked down to the detriment of the customer in an attempt to gain revenue streams for companies. I do not regard it as acceptable practice, unless those devices would be offered for rent, not sale. Devices for sale should not lock the purchaser out.
If we posed a generic question regarding MS actions in any market it enters into: "Is MS attempting to force out competition by unethical and/or illegal means?", my answer is yes until they prove otherwise by at least a decade of demonstrating honorable business practices. I'm not a court of law, I don't have to give them the presumption of innocence. I think to do so is naive.
The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance
So?
That's a typical response given in primary school, just before resorting to repetitions of "is!" or "is not!". If you don't understand the difference it is most likely because you have decided not to (I make this assumption because you don't seem to be retarded) and further discussion is therefore unproductive. The terms of the contract specs is precisely the point, which you obviously must know since we have been discussing that very topic.
They aren't controlling them any more than Google does with their certification, if you want their branding you have to adhere to their contract specs.
The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance
To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.
No, and the proof is WP7. WP devices cannot run other OSes and are made by manufacturers that also build Android devices, these companies continue to make just as many Android devices today, it has not reduced the number of pre-existing devices.
I said "to the extent they succeed". WP7 does not meet the criteria of having notable success.
No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.
They did the same thing with Windows Phone, and we've seen no change in the market at all.
Trying to be evil and failing is not the same as not being evil. They are trying to restrict the ability of people to run other OS's than theirs. You can argue in circles as long as you like but it is in the spec.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps... it's to work out how to handle Internet piracy.
Without additional information, there's no reason to think of it any different.
Nonsense. The federal government is supposed to represent the people, not special interest groups. The fact that they are working to prevent the people gaining any additional information is the only additional information we have at this stage.
So, do you think they are excluding the public from taking part in this discussion because (1) they have something really nice planned for us and want it to be a surprise, (2) they want to pass something they know is unlikely to survive public scrutiny as it is not in our interests or (3) some other reason, which you should specify if you choose this option?
I think reason (2) is the most likely.
Possible reasons:
1) Not boring enough. We generally like our politicians boring.
2) Too catholic. Catholicism is weird. Any religion followed diligently enough is a bit weird, but catholic priests have the whole pedophile thing going on, and if not that, vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, of which all are weird. None of those are exactly Australian values.
3) Wears budgie smugglers.
4) Too catholic. This bears repeating because Conroy is catholic and wants to censor the internet. Abbot probably will want to do the same.
As for Howard, he campaigned as a small government conservative for 30 years yet government became no smaller during his time as PM, exactly the opposite. Howard did not favour individual liberty, he was a statist through and through. May as well have had a socialist for the liberties we gave up during his stint as PM.
D. Cut their benefits and increase their working hours, since the TSA is run by Sith.
Well, I do. Rather than wrestle with learning where and how each site's search works, I just Google for what I want, plus, say "wiki" if I want the Wikipedia page, "amazon" for the Amazon page
Do Wikipedia and Amazon really have that steep a learning curve?
What part of copyright law do you currently NOT have to hire a lawyer in order to get 'justice?'
They want claims of copyright infringement handled by the police. That's why they continually call it theft.
Since legitimate basically means lawful, obviously that doesn't include Anonymous. No movement to overthrow or obstruct government by extra-legal means is legitimate. They can become legitimate by winning, in which case the previous government is then considered illegitimate.
Anonymous is sand in the cogs of the machine. It doesn't blow the machine up, it makes it a little less efficient, require a little more maintenance. What many people seem to forget is that we want inefficient government, that's why we have separation of powers.
There could be million free pages under any super-free Internet. What's the point of it if nothing could be found?
Presumably someone would build a search engine.
I agree with the physical skills subject. Having done martial arts for 8 years, I can say that if you want to really learn, at first you need to learn the very basic moves, and repeat them till your mind explodes from boredom. In the meanwhile your also learn from the instructor the philosophy, the logic why it makes sense, some story behind each move, and so on.
So you are saying interleave the basic skills with philosophy and stories. With those basic skills, would you recommend spending entire training sessions on practicing one blow, or various punches and kicks etc each training session? I'm guessing when you say to learn the basics first, you don't mean master one basic at a time before moving on to the next one.
And society shows how much it values it, by paying stay-at-home moms accordingly, right?
I think the problem is not that stay at home moms don't get paid but that too many people only attribute value to things that have a price attached.
...any MLM where you can be a profit maker for someone else. Oops, you wanted that money for yourself, didn't you.
How is this different to any other job? At my job, the boss makes the profit and I don't do anything related to direct selling.
Of the small percentage of Slashdotters that are women, there is a high percentage that actively hide their gender when posting, in order to avoid getting those kinds of comments.
Fine. I'm here to discuss ideas. Don't specify your gender if that's what makes you most comfortable. I'm pretty sure some of the people that identify as female are really male anyway.
This isn't a dating service, we don't need to know your gender. My wife laughed at this thread, by the way. She certainly wouldn't take a suggestion to do porn seriously, it's a slashdot post, get some perspective.
The ability to replace the OS is the ability to run software that does what you choose. You can't possibly be unable to understand that, I think you're just continuing to argue because you like it or can't stand conceding a point.
People jailbreak phones for exactly this reason, to regain capability that has been removed, not always with OSS.
I'm not going to reply in this thread again, I don't think you're serious about discussion. I don't need to "win". Go ahead, post last.
Well you'd still have laws against murder. In any case, assuming you're right and libertarianism would result in pollution amounting to mass murder, I think their is a vast difference between being terribly wrong about the results of policy decisions and actually desiring mass murder.
You know something about public health care (I'm in a country with it)? It doesn't automatically generate enough funding to save every life. Decisions on what services to provide have to be made with budgets in mind and that inevitably means that some people will die having been ineffectively treated or untreated. That doesn't make it either helpful or valid to call the people who make budget decisions regarding health "death panels".
How does that sort of negative framing of people's intentions contribute to debate in a civilized society? It doesn't matter who is doing it, it isn't an appeal to reason, it is a provocation to emotional opposition. To engage in that tactic as a political strategy is to endorse the current systems of propaganda and population control and repudiates the ideals of democracy, which depends on reason. The "winners" of such a contest will always be the people who control the media, religions and education system. The same type of corporations you think want to poison you for profit.
The US isn't libertarian yet by this non-libertarianism has only managed to outsource your killing to places like Iraq. How many people are being killed in the war on drugs? Are the people you vote for aiming to stop that? How about actually doing it? As I understand it that war disproportionately harms black people in the US, should I call people who support strong drug laws genocidal? NO! They're just wrong about how do deal with drug problems IMO.
As someone who probably disagrees with you strongly on many issues, I appeal to you to conduct yourself in such a way that whatever the outcome of an argument, reason wins. I'm not perfect at that myself, but if enough people attempt it consistently enough, for long enough it ought to be a force as unstoppable as science.
There is a false dichotomy assumed by most people that power can only go to corporations or the government. While both institutions perform useful functions for us, both can also be detrimental. However, corporations are empowered by legislation. The free market exists because of legislation. I'm personally against perpetual existence and person-hood for corporations. Take that away and you don't need nearly so much government intervention to control them. To take power from both the government and corporations in favor of the people requires the widespread use of reason, to have resistance to manipulation. There's a lot of work to do to achieve that. We need everyone possible on board with that agenda, regardless of their political persuasion.
If we abandon a commitment to reasoned debate because we are divided into groups based on ideology and our groups success becomes more important than a good political process, we all lose. There is no political system or idea good enough to operate independently of reason and ethics. That's what we need to promote, more so that "my side winning".
Can you provide a link to a link to any prominent libertarian arguing for the right to deny health care (or anything else) to people based on race? Or is it just your misinterpretation of what they advocate?
I'm genuinely curious. I'm an Australian and libertarianism flies pretty much below the radar here. American politics seems to be filled with invective and misrepresenting the oppositions positions. If you can't link to a libertarian opinion I'll regard your statement as roughly equivalent to the republicans saying that democrats wanted to set up "death panels" by introducing government provided health care.
I've never seen an argument that business shouldn't have to obey ANY laws. Show me.
The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
Ok, I just read this post after replying to your post here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2639369&cid=38829193
You appear to be mistaking libertarianism with anarchy. They are not the same thing. Your statements on libertarian positions are incorrect. The argument I have heard is that strong protection of property rights (or in the example you give, laws against murder) is sufficient protection against pollution. You might reasonably argue how effectively those laws could be applied to environmental protection but to say that libertarians want the right to "kill thousands of people" is flat out wrong and I'm pretty sure you would have to know that.
Perhaps you're using hyperbole? Otherwise, you might consider that if you can't promote your ideology without sticking to the truth then perhaps your ideology isn't worth promoting.
Libertarianism does not provide sufficient incentive to not infringing on others rights
In what way does libertarianism not protect your rights?
Conservatives want to conserve the status quo. If liberty is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-liberty. If communism is the status quo then the conservative position is pro-communism etc, etc.
The US at it's founding was radically pro-liberty, despite not extending that liberty to everyone. So a conservative can be pro-"the liberties we already have" and anti-"the liberties you want that we don't agree with".
It's not really to the detriment of the majority of customers, most customers don't care about dual booting and those who do will buy a device capable of it instead.
No, back in the day I've seen phones which had crippled bluetooth so you couldn't send things like pictures you had taken with the camera. They wanted to charge for data over their network. A non-tech savvy customer mightn't know enough to complain about stuff like that but they are definitely still affected. A good example is the original iphones not allowing tethering.
Consider that you printer may be spying on you https://www.eff.org/issues/printers and how many people have used their phones to do things like record police misbehaviour. I think there is a real need for people to really own their devices whether the majority of customers are aware of it or not.
This does raise an important question: do eyes in Australia roll in the opposite direction from ours in the U.S.?
No, downhill, just like anywhere else.
You can run your own tests, the victims won't be able to identify you.
You state that fucking a chick, falling asleep, and fucking her again in the morning while she is still asleep is vanilla Nordic sex at best.
Well my wife and I have woken up during sex, ie: we started while we were both asleep. Enjoyable but not particularly kinky.
This accusation never had any legal backing other than the lawsuit brought about by Microsoft, so it is not as if the company was preempting an official investigation.
You're underestimating their power. Nobody has ever been released from a Microsoft prison camp!
No what I'm saying is that your response isn't consistent with the topic, which is that they all impose restrictions on manufacturers, those who don't adhere to Google's requirements don't get Google's branding, just as those who don't adhere to MS' requirements don't get MS' branding.
As far as I know Google's requirements aren't designed to lock out competition. It's not the fact that they have specs, it is what they are attempting to do to the market with those specs.
As i demonstrated above, MS is not doing anything new or different with the tablet market ...
Well fair enough, but I never said they were the only ones to attempt it nor that it is new.
just as with every other tablet on the market if you want to run other OSes then that is wholly dependent on the choices made by the manufacturer, and most choose not to allow it.
Indeed, and if the manufacturers don't lock it down, the telcos try. There have been plenty of devices locked down to the detriment of the customer in an attempt to gain revenue streams for companies. I do not regard it as acceptable practice, unless those devices would be offered for rent, not sale. Devices for sale should not lock the purchaser out.
If we posed a generic question regarding MS actions in any market it enters into: "Is MS attempting to force out competition by unethical and/or illegal means?", my answer is yes until they prove otherwise by at least a decade of demonstrating honorable business practices. I'm not a court of law, I don't have to give them the presumption of innocence. I think to do so is naive.
However, the company later absolved Piatti of responsibility when investigators found ...
I hope that if I get accused of any crimes that Microsoft absolves me. After they complete their investigation, of course.
Holy shit.
The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance
So?
That's a typical response given in primary school, just before resorting to repetitions of "is!" or "is not!". If you don't understand the difference it is most likely because you have decided not to (I make this assumption because you don't seem to be retarded) and further discussion is therefore unproductive. The terms of the contract specs is precisely the point, which you obviously must know since we have been discussing that very topic.
They aren't controlling them any more than Google does with their certification, if you want their branding you have to adhere to their contract specs.
The contract specs for MS dictate inability to run other OS, Google is a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance
To the extent they succeed, phones that can run Android will become less available.
No, and the proof is WP7. WP devices cannot run other OSes and are made by manufacturers that also build Android devices, these companies continue to make just as many Android devices today, it has not reduced the number of pre-existing devices.
I said "to the extent they succeed". WP7 does not meet the criteria of having notable success.
No. Neither does MS or they wouldn't require devices to be unable to run Android. They are hoping to use their brand recognition and marketing power to make manufacturers drop Android. I don't think they will succeed but they may do a great deal of damage in the attempt.
They did the same thing with Windows Phone, and we've seen no change in the market at all.
Trying to be evil and failing is not the same as not being evil. They are trying to restrict the ability of people to run other OS's than theirs. You can argue in circles as long as you like but it is in the spec.