Oh, I wasn't saying that I agreed with a utility argument. I'm just saying that it is a common one made, but it's one that doesn't even hold ground here as there is no evidence that it HAS prevented an attack. So there isn't even the utility ground to stand on. Destroying the arguments that your opponent presents is the most effective way to win a debate. If our options are to have a world with more freedom or a world with less freedom with no additional benefit to it, what do you think wins in that situation in the minds of most people?
This is how power creeps. No one thinks they're evil. Each trust themselves to not abuse power. But even if this is going to a third party, it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. There are rules in place for a reason. This is asking to be abused.
Even worse, they still haven't proven or show any evidence that this is necessary. It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument, but they aren't even doing that. It's disgusting.
I don't know if I'm convinced Sony isn't doing this either. Sony said they won't "block" used games. Technically Microsoft isn't either. Both companies were holding secret meetings about a year ago. I doubt both companies having similar architecture and other features is a coincidence. Sony has also said that you would install games to the drive like Microsoft claims. I'm betting they're just playing quiet.
I might be able to take their word seriously if they didn't paint the blackberry playbook in a positive light at all. After running one of the worst launches in history, no wonder that thing fell flat on it's face. My favorite review said something along the lines of "It's like paying $200 to see Bruce Springsteen and having to settle for a homeless guy in the subway air guitaring it"
We're absolutely in a bubble right now. I'm not going to argue against that, but a high need for development is in no way going away anytime soon. The enrollment level in CS is pathetic, and aside from some technological breakthrough that renders developers useless or a massive wipe out of our level of technology, the jobs will remain in demand. As high as they are now? No, but still plenty high enough to not warrant the need for unionization. Look at the rest of the engineering fields. Extremely low unionization rate comparative to other fields and the ones that are unionized are mostly due to the unionization of lower manual labor jobs in connected work. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the general trajectory of need for developers being diverted anytime in the next decade. There will be waxes and wanes, but it would take something pretty monstrous to knock developers down that far. There are too many needs that the human race has to solve, and so many of them have software solutions.
Why would I want to belong to a union when the most of the power is on the developer's side? There's not enough developers to go around and thus plenty of job availability. Unions are meant to solidify workers rights in a situation where labor is plentiful, but that's nowhere near the case. Companies fight over us. I just made a decision between 3 offers this week to accept a new job. The power was in my hand.
Exactly. The biggest reason that the Nexus 7 is able to undercut the iPad in price is because it's a smaller screen and because Google isn't making a profit on hardware, not because of significantly less features. It's still as every bit capable and more internally, but the smaller screen on a device being sold at near cost is what makes it $200.
Because developers like me who are already making android games can easily make a few adjustments and sell our games on this console instead of having to work a lot harder to make a port.
What really has me excited about Windows 8 is Kinect. I think we're going to see a big transformation in the landscape of user interface in the next several years pushing us towards device-less interfaces.
Granted, this stuff isn't a replacement, it's a supplement. So don't think I'm preaching the death of touch or mouse and keyboard. The more options of well developed and useful interfaces we have the better.
This is such an obvious LOTR ripoff, please tell me this is a joke. It even looks like the same actor that palys the wizard...has Hollywood honestly come to this?
Getting the government out of loans does not mean there will be no student loans. What it means is that private loans will be issued which will look much more at if the student has the ability to pay the loan back.
Right now we give students loans regardless of what their gpa is and what field they're in, which is a huge factor on whether or not they'll be able to pay the loan back. We've created this massive demand for college, but without students being restricted to what they can afford with their savings, the universities aren't concerned with price control. So, they focus on providing the biggest features to the school like 24 hour fitness centers and deluxe dorm accommodations. Things that have nothing to do with the cost of education. The cost of education is rising very appropriately with the rate of inflation. The rate of tuition is not. That means the schools are spending the money on other things.
The massive increase in the cost of education is nothing but the result of government making loans super easy and accessible. It's the exact same thing that happened in the housing market. Government should get out of loans, allow private businesses to offer much stricter loans based on field of study and student performance, AND stop telling everyone to go to 4 year schools. I believe everyone should get an education, but we're ending up with generations of bachelor's in psychology and english who can't find jobs, when if they had just gone to a 2-year technical school, they could be earning more money and be less in debt.
WITHOUT government subsidization, you'd see schools focusing on how to provide cheaper education. Which means more online services, more telecommuting, better IT infrastructure, and more high tech jobs. But schools aren't focused on cutting costs. They're focused on getting big amenities to attract more students.
It is often decades before something is ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. The executive and legislative branches have often done things that it knew were unconstitutional with the knowledge that the checks against them were purely reactionary and delayed. This mentality of "act now and let the lawyers sort it out later" plagues washington.
Just because congress authorizes something doesn't mean it's legal. That's the thing about being a constitutional republic. You don't get to do whatever the fuck you want. The power is not unlimited.
And what proof is there of any of that? His father was actually trying to work with the ACLU to get his name cleared when this administration shut down their request. When asked for proof of the governments claims in a recent press briefing, the white house officials said they're not going to give any proof. The only evidence we have is that the white house said it's so. They say he's linked to attacks but provide no evidence, no judicial oversight, nothing. Just take their word for it.
As far as not declaring war since 1942, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we haven't and we need to return to the more proper channels.
I really don't doubt this person was guilty, but when you let the people carrying out this decide who is and who isn't guilty and worthy of death then you lose any chance for oversight and restraint. It is especially important in situations like this where we have very large and ambiguous groups that we enter with great caution and have checks and balances on the those in the armed forces. If I was confident that this person and only this person or only the ones that we could be 100% sure of guilt were being attacked, then I would be much less willing to oppose, but we can't be and I don't trust the same people that told us that Iraq was producing chemical and nuclear weapons to be making decisions about guilt and innocence. When you're looking for terrorists and criminals, you are more likely to assume guilt than innocence. This is why we have trials and juries.
A formal declaration of war is important for the authorization of extended use of armed forces and it is very and extremely important that we not enter into combat without going through the proper channels. The founders saw very accurately that it is often in the executive branch's best interest to engage in war and expand the military power, and it is for that very reason that the power to declare war was given to congress. We of course can defend ourselves, but anytime there is to be extended or non-emergency combat, it is important that congress debate the merits of the war and authorize the use of force.
Things Ron Paul could get done that Obama promised: End the wars Stop DEA overriding state drug laws Increased transparency Shutting down of Guantanimo bay. Changing the heads of Government organizations to reflect policy that does not overstep the authority of the executive branch Downsizing the military
Things Ron Paul could not accomplish in office: Ending the EPA, Dept of Ed, FDA, etc. Putting us back on the gold standard
The things that Paul could accomplish in office are way more important to me than being afraid of the things that he could never accomplish in office.
During a declared war? No, but that's not what we have here. When it comes to government, semantics and procedures matter, because without binding government to go through the proper channels, then there are no checks on it's power. If we were at declared war with Yemen and this was an attack on US individuals helping Yemen, then this would be legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I wasn't saying that I agreed with a utility argument. I'm just saying that it is a common one made, but it's one that doesn't even hold ground here as there is no evidence that it HAS prevented an attack. So there isn't even the utility ground to stand on. Destroying the arguments that your opponent presents is the most effective way to win a debate. If our options are to have a world with more freedom or a world with less freedom with no additional benefit to it, what do you think wins in that situation in the minds of most people?
"If you like your privacy, you can keep it"
This is how power creeps. No one thinks they're evil. Each trust themselves to not abuse power. But even if this is going to a third party, it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. There are rules in place for a reason. This is asking to be abused.
Even worse, they still haven't proven or show any evidence that this is necessary. It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument, but they aren't even doing that. It's disgusting.
I don't know if I'm convinced Sony isn't doing this either. Sony said they won't "block" used games. Technically Microsoft isn't either. Both companies were holding secret meetings about a year ago. I doubt both companies having similar architecture and other features is a coincidence. Sony has also said that you would install games to the drive like Microsoft claims. I'm betting they're just playing quiet.
I might be able to take their word seriously if they didn't paint the blackberry playbook in a positive light at all. After running one of the worst launches in history, no wonder that thing fell flat on it's face. My favorite review said something along the lines of "It's like paying $200 to see Bruce Springsteen and having to settle for a homeless guy in the subway air guitaring it"
We're absolutely in a bubble right now. I'm not going to argue against that, but a high need for development is in no way going away anytime soon. The enrollment level in CS is pathetic, and aside from some technological breakthrough that renders developers useless or a massive wipe out of our level of technology, the jobs will remain in demand. As high as they are now? No, but still plenty high enough to not warrant the need for unionization. Look at the rest of the engineering fields. Extremely low unionization rate comparative to other fields and the ones that are unionized are mostly due to the unionization of lower manual labor jobs in connected work. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the general trajectory of need for developers being diverted anytime in the next decade. There will be waxes and wanes, but it would take something pretty monstrous to knock developers down that far. There are too many needs that the human race has to solve, and so many of them have software solutions.
Why would I want to belong to a union when the most of the power is on the developer's side? There's not enough developers to go around and thus plenty of job availability. Unions are meant to solidify workers rights in a situation where labor is plentiful, but that's nowhere near the case. Companies fight over us. I just made a decision between 3 offers this week to accept a new job. The power was in my hand.
Exactly. The biggest reason that the Nexus 7 is able to undercut the iPad in price is because it's a smaller screen and because Google isn't making a profit on hardware, not because of significantly less features. It's still as every bit capable and more internally, but the smaller screen on a device being sold at near cost is what makes it $200.
Because developers like me who are already making android games can easily make a few adjustments and sell our games on this console instead of having to work a lot harder to make a port.
Developer drops game price to $0, failing to cite that it was a really shitty game that charged for upgrades.
" even though they still use the crappy Java"
I was going to award you some points, and then I read that. Now I dislike you.
What really has me excited about Windows 8 is Kinect. I think we're going to see a big transformation in the landscape of user interface in the next several years pushing us towards device-less interfaces.
Granted, this stuff isn't a replacement, it's a supplement. So don't think I'm preaching the death of touch or mouse and keyboard. The more options of well developed and useful interfaces we have the better.
I half expect /. to go dark in like 3 days since that's how long it normally takes the news to show up here.
man, some people just can't take a joke
Which I left.
This is such an obvious LOTR ripoff, please tell me this is a joke. It even looks like the same actor that palys the wizard...has Hollywood honestly come to this?
I did the same thing and graduated in 2010. Lived on my own for 3 of the years.
Getting the government out of loans does not mean there will be no student loans. What it means is that private loans will be issued which will look much more at if the student has the ability to pay the loan back.
Right now we give students loans regardless of what their gpa is and what field they're in, which is a huge factor on whether or not they'll be able to pay the loan back. We've created this massive demand for college, but without students being restricted to what they can afford with their savings, the universities aren't concerned with price control. So, they focus on providing the biggest features to the school like 24 hour fitness centers and deluxe dorm accommodations. Things that have nothing to do with the cost of education. The cost of education is rising very appropriately with the rate of inflation. The rate of tuition is not. That means the schools are spending the money on other things.
The massive increase in the cost of education is nothing but the result of government making loans super easy and accessible. It's the exact same thing that happened in the housing market. Government should get out of loans, allow private businesses to offer much stricter loans based on field of study and student performance, AND stop telling everyone to go to 4 year schools. I believe everyone should get an education, but we're ending up with generations of bachelor's in psychology and english who can't find jobs, when if they had just gone to a 2-year technical school, they could be earning more money and be less in debt.
WITHOUT government subsidization, you'd see schools focusing on how to provide cheaper education. Which means more online services, more telecommuting, better IT infrastructure, and more high tech jobs. But schools aren't focused on cutting costs. They're focused on getting big amenities to attract more students.
You sound like Jay Carney http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo
It is often decades before something is ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. The executive and legislative branches have often done things that it knew were unconstitutional with the knowledge that the checks against them were purely reactionary and delayed. This mentality of "act now and let the lawyers sort it out later" plagues washington.
Just because congress authorizes something doesn't mean it's legal. That's the thing about being a constitutional republic. You don't get to do whatever the fuck you want. The power is not unlimited.
And what proof is there of any of that? His father was actually trying to work with the ACLU to get his name cleared when this administration shut down their request. When asked for proof of the governments claims in a recent press briefing, the white house officials said they're not going to give any proof. The only evidence we have is that the white house said it's so. They say he's linked to attacks but provide no evidence, no judicial oversight, nothing. Just take their word for it.
As far as not declaring war since 1942, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we haven't and we need to return to the more proper channels.
How is our current foreign policy not imperialistic?
I really don't doubt this person was guilty, but when you let the people carrying out this decide who is and who isn't guilty and worthy of death then you lose any chance for oversight and restraint. It is especially important in situations like this where we have very large and ambiguous groups that we enter with great caution and have checks and balances on the those in the armed forces. If I was confident that this person and only this person or only the ones that we could be 100% sure of guilt were being attacked, then I would be much less willing to oppose, but we can't be and I don't trust the same people that told us that Iraq was producing chemical and nuclear weapons to be making decisions about guilt and innocence. When you're looking for terrorists and criminals, you are more likely to assume guilt than innocence. This is why we have trials and juries.
A formal declaration of war is important for the authorization of extended use of armed forces and it is very and extremely important that we not enter into combat without going through the proper channels. The founders saw very accurately that it is often in the executive branch's best interest to engage in war and expand the military power, and it is for that very reason that the power to declare war was given to congress. We of course can defend ourselves, but anytime there is to be extended or non-emergency combat, it is important that congress debate the merits of the war and authorize the use of force.
Things Ron Paul could get done that Obama promised:
End the wars
Stop DEA overriding state drug laws
Increased transparency
Shutting down of Guantanimo bay.
Changing the heads of Government organizations to reflect policy that does not overstep the authority of the executive branch
Downsizing the military
Things Ron Paul could not accomplish in office:
Ending the EPA, Dept of Ed, FDA, etc.
Putting us back on the gold standard
The things that Paul could accomplish in office are way more important to me than being afraid of the things that he could never accomplish in office.
During a declared war? No, but that's not what we have here. When it comes to government, semantics and procedures matter, because without binding government to go through the proper channels, then there are no checks on it's power. If we were at declared war with Yemen and this was an attack on US individuals helping Yemen, then this would be legitimate.