"Help me with this.. is the general thought process at (any) Big Corp Inc. to determine whether or not it will be less expensive to pay a host of lawyers $900/hour to defeat (insert P2P company here) in court or less expensive to pay off the P2P company to shut down and stop file sharing?
"
That would be the thinking, except that the total cost of each option is not so simple. It has to be looked at in terms of the policy applied to all P2P companies, not just one -- after all, someone is sure to fill the gap if one P2P co. stops hosting P2P.
So, if you pay off one company, you'll have to pay them all off. If you get a huge settlement in your favor, that's a disincentive for any P2P network to all distribution of your material.
OTOH, if you settle cheaply with the P2P co, so that they can stay in business -- you've got a situation where you can get your fingers in the pie. We'll settle cheaply if you agree to play by our rules... otherwise, look out.
Extortion? Maybe in theory. Carrot-and-stick? You betcha.
"Algorithms is math. No ifs, ands or buts about it."
I'll agree, there are no 'buts' in math, but IFs and ANDs? Logical arguments are an integral part of math (even if not an integral part of/.).
Seriously, though, there is more than one aspect to programming, and varying definitions. There are most assuredly people who "program" by assembling discrete instruction sets (read: code librabries) to produce an outcome. This type programmer is no less valuable in the workforce than those who create library content.
However, even the simplest program, whether written from the ground up or patched from libraries, requires math. As you pointed out, algorithms are math. Math is algorithms.
FTA:"If you're over 18 and not a felon, then odds are you have the right to vote, and that's more powerful than a thousand 'I think Congress sucks, who's with me?' threads on the message board of your choice.'"
Not exactly true. Elected representatives have staff members who monitor public opinion in many, many media venues. Sure, the newspaper editorial section is more important to them than message boards, but they are still looking at the boards.
Plus, if you vote based upon prior decisions, you're still stuck with those decisions.
Your vote is not the only way to impact votes on the Congressional, state, and local levels. Politicians do listen to their constituency. Furthermore, what do you do about an elected official with whom you agree on only some issues? So, besides voting with the issues, you have to let your elected officials know how you want them to vote.
Write a letter (hand-written counts for more). Place a phone call. Send a fax. Send an email. In that order -- not all communications are created equal.
You believe non-interference is so impossible that it's not worth it to bother trying. Therefore, we need to accept the impacts we make, but still try to 'save' some of nature.
I believe that a sea change in opinion on the value of nature vs. man is still possible; and even if it is not, we still must try. Nature is not something you 'save'; we are not stewards. Nature should be something you 'leave alone'. We should try to correct past errors, but beyond that... let nature run its course.
"But my point is that we've already taken those steps"
Have we? Do we allow people to drive vehicles that are not fuel efficient? Do we really encourage mass transit? Do we require all power plants to have up-to-date pollution controls? Do we strongly encourage people to live in centralized population centers, reducing the energy demand for transportation? Do we factor in environmental costs when doing CBAs for private industry?
"Actually, oil has the smallest environmental footprint. "
Of fuels that are consumed, you mean. What about hydro, tidal, wind, and solar? Especially wind.
"But we're going to spend billions of federal dollars to rebuild it. Why? Because people are compassionate."
No, the reason we are rebuilding is to save face (with ourselves, with $DEITY, with whomever... it would require too much humility to relocate.
"As I said, we'll reform the world to suit us, not the other way around.:-)
"
I stated that we could build levees to indicate the contrast with less harmful (to natural state) ways to rebuild/recover.
I don't believe we should reform the world to suit us -- egocentrism has no place in my philosophy of humanity.
Sure, employees benefit if they are considering a career change to teaching. And yes, it has been spun to seem like an altruistic move on the part of IBM, although it might indeed have a beneficial effect on education.
One thing this does for IBM, however, is to reduce the average cost of an employee. Hiring fresh grads, or the barely experienced, is much cheaper than retaining the high-paid dinosaurs.
If IBM can slowly trim the high-paid of its workforce with good feelings on both sides, wonderful.
You make a a presumption here that I'm not comfortable with.
"Even if we we knew how to reverse the change and "save" (at least for the moment) all of these species (including ours), your principle would disallow this. Note that this principle doesn't co-exist well with any argument that the reason not to cause climate change is to protect current species - since, by definition, this principle places a lower value on the survival of the current species than on "thou shalt not change the climate".
I don't believe the goal is to protect current species. The ideal is to not interfere.
Yes, you are right about the ideal not being attainable -- but this does not invalidate the principle. We should still strive to do the best we reasonably can. br.
My view is that the cost for humankind acceptable to those who set policy should be far, far higher than it is...
Another thing people need to remember is that the Firefox developer community got to learn from IE vulnerabilities, and were not already locked into an insecure system by backwards compatability issues.
I'm not an MS apologist at all -- but a lot of the Firefox advantages are due directly to exposure of shortcomings and vulnerabilities in IE.
MS choosing not to address their own issues... that's another story.
"The problem with mediating the impact is that it's an "us or them" situation. Your choices for mediation are:
1. Stop using technology. Since humans are ill-suited as anything but tool users, the animal kingdom will "choose its own destiny" and wipe us out. If they don't get us, disease and sudden climate changes will.
2. Continue to use technology, but mitigate the effects through defensive planning. We won't catch everything (as with Katrina), but the survivability of the human race (as well as whatever plants and animals we bring under our protection) will be statistically far higher.
"
Sorry I didn't elucidate better -- by 'minimize impact' I meant within reason, considering the factors necessary for our survival and reasonable quality of life; the trick is finding the optimal mix. Minimize != eliminate.
Also, re: defensive planning for mitigation, you're talking about mitigating the effect of nature on humans; I'm talking about our responsibility to mitigate human effects on nature.
"Since the energy for powering our infrastructure *must* come from somewhere, we're on a losing path to think that we can develop miracle solutions that will somehow make the problems go away."
Well, one way to minimize the impact of our infrastructure is to lessen the demand for energy. Another is to choose energy sources that have a smaller footprint. Another is to continue to develop technology that decreases the footprint of the energy sources we already use -- whether it's more efficient motors, better emission controls for power plants, or anything else.
"Thus the only pragmatic thing to do is learn from the tragedy and build new levees where weaknesses were found in the infrastructure.
"
There are parts of NO that are historic (these can be moved). There are people who won't want to move (this is *exactly* why we have eminent domain) from an untenable location. We could condemn the buildings, or purchase them. We could offer them better property nearby (which we'd have to purchase, of course). We could be heartless, and tell them we won't help them out if they stay -- this is probably the most pragmatic.
One way of preventing human catastrophe from flooding is to build levees. Another way is to allow natural flood dispersal. Practicality, in this case, depends upon public mindset, and the willpower and abilities of those supporting either method.
Well, wages here are higher too, though not proportional to cost-of-living. If it weren't for the proximity of the in-laws (and the SOs need for that), I'd be outta here too...
"All they seem to carry around here are the sets that only make one thing and have lots of specialized, only-one-way-to-use-it parts."
This is because the patents expired on the basic concept.
Lego, faced with competition from other suppliers of basic blocks, needs to differentiate itself. They are doing this by generating creative material (a plus, right?).
Another way Lego is differentiating itself is by licensing the IP of other companies/individuals -- the Star Wars IP, for example. Their competitors may not be able to offer this kind of content, due to cost or other reasons.
Yet, we can get a pretty good idea of relative climate change.
My point is not that we can or should prevent climate change; my point is that we should do our best to make sure we are not the cause of the climate change.
"Do Slashdotters ever get out of their houses and lighted up?"
Getting out of the house to get lighted up works fine for me 8)
"But the solution to the Earth's violent and chaotic changes is not to stop meddling and hope it all corrects itself (because it won't, history can prove that), the solution is to change the world around us for the purpose of securing life for ourselves, and plants and animals around us."
I disagree. The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact. We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term. I know, we've passed that point (global climate change due most likely to human action has been documented from 20,000 and more years ago).
Slightly on a tangent, but relevant -- the rebuilding of New Orleans. I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.
In addition, I'm not sure the parent to your post is aware of the impact of 6 degrees of change on agricultural suitability and yields for major crops.
Well, if there was no need to be snide, then there there was no need in the OP to be drab.
The point I'm making is that regardless of naturally occuring fluctuations in climate, we should be mindful of how we affect the climate.
Our actions do have an impact, which I believe should be minimized. Will this prevent global climate change? No. But the difference is that humankind will not be the driving factor.
"Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most?"
[snide]Yes, but we have discovered amazing technology that allows us to see into the past![/snide]. We have examined records of climate change that span hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.
"Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay?:-)
"
Sure, we'll adapt, since we don't require genetic change to make different climates livable. What about all the species that do? What about our food supply? How much suffering will be endured by less rich nations while we race to adapt our agritech?
Maybe we differ in points of view, but as I see it, it's not just about us. Don't we have the responsibility to minimize our impact on other people and other species?
/Mods, everyone knows this is offtopic, so don't waste your points.
I'm from NJ, so thanks for sticking up for us! That said...
Even the less urban areas of NJ are still speckled with unmediated Superfund sites at the highest rate in the US.
Agriculture is nice -- but it is also a heavy polluter, although bush berries and fruit trees less so than some other crops.
Also, I do want to mention that few of us are cheerfully paying the highest auto insurance premiums in the nation.
There are less obvious downsides that fall outside the "armpit" stereotype.
Highest property tax rates, lowest ratio of federal taxes paid to benefits received, among the highest cost of living, traffic, overcrowding (except for in the pine barrens). Highest state school tuition for in-state students (well, it was when I attended Rutgers).
I still really like living in NJ, but there are a ton of things that we need to work on changing, or at least work on limiting.
"Yeah, and after a dozen angry bikers have beaten you senseless, it won't seem nearly as bad when only two angry bikers beat you senseless."
Not valid. This would make sense only if everyone only got upset at being beaten senseless a dozen times -- I would be upset to be beaten up once. Getting unexpected phone calls is incremental in effect -- it's only when they get out of hand that people feel 'harassed'. See your previous statements about the additive effects.
"Well, you know, a very large part of the political activity I've been seeing in recent years can be characterized as outright, shameless lies about the opposition on things that are easily verified. Am I supposed to believe I can trust a stranger who cold calls me?"
Thanks for throwing out another straw man -- that's not the point. You have the responsibility of separating the chaff from the grain.
"But as I've said several times already, I want to be listed. I don't want to keep people who don't have my number, in general, from calling me. I just want to keep telemarketers from calling."
Want to have your cake and eat it too?
Why does government need to be responsible for your wants? "Ask not what your country..." If you don't want telemarketers to call, you have that power. There is no reason government should be controlling that, at all, other than whiny gits who are easily frustrated making it into an issue that will affect voting. We already have harassment laws, which cover the situation, IF you have told them not to call you. I am willing to bend, and say that they should also apply if you have made your number unavailable via non-governmental methods.
The fact of the matter is, you can choose to avoid their calls. Just because you don't want to be bothered doesn't mean that government should be helping you out, especially when it *could* limit political discourse.
People complain about the "nanny state" all the time, and don't realize that when you ask the government to be your nanny (in cases like this), you are making it reasonable for the government be your nanny in other instances (such as with age restrictions on entertainment media).
"Anyway, I don't think you should get to piss two people off for a chance to sell something to one person."
I'm not talking about selling here. I'm talking about political activity. There's a huge difference. And those political activism calls will not seem nearly as bad once the BS sales calls are gone.
"One is that I want to be able to list my number in the book but not let telemarketers call."
The whole point of unlisted numbers is to keep people (such as telemarketers) from calling you if you hadn't given them your number. The solution exists already, all it would take is a small act to give this concept legal crdence.
"If you were to decide to be an activist about it, you'd have to work to change something that already exists rather than work to prevent something."
Well, the article was about the DNC in a different country, where I don't have a say anyway. But we are talking about the theories at play behind the DNC.
"If you were to decide to be an activist about it, you'd have to work to change something that already exists rather than work to prevent something."
I am active politically, and this is one area that I have written my Senator, Congressman, and local government officials about.
Best Software, formerly Sage Software, now changing back to Sage Software (they need to make up their minds!) publishes MAS90, MAS200, Peachtree, ABRA HRMS...
Now they've spun off their web-development arm into "Buckhead Software"... like I need another reason to accidentally swear at a web development company.
But why would Joel edit a collection of essays on this specific company's products? Are they the benchmark for software solutions?
"telemarketers operating in areas with no lists know they're calling people who don't want to be called -- people who view those calls as intrusive and bothersome."
They also know that they are contacting people who do want to be contacted.
Re: point 1., you brought up that point to refute my challenge of government control of the list, so of course, in context, they were related and dependent -- or you were using a straw man argument. I don't see the need for separation -- either your number is public, or it isn't.
Re: point 2, did you even read my previous response to this? I was differentiating between proactive action and reactive enforcement.
Re: gathering information -- the point is that we are granting the authority to do so. Even the US Government needs to at least make a pretense of abiding by law. If we shift the scale of what is allowed, you can bet that the government will shift the scale of what is actually done.
Slashdot Mirror
"Help me with this.. is the general thought process at (any) Big Corp Inc. to determine whether or not it will be less expensive to pay a host of lawyers $900/hour to defeat (insert P2P company here) in court or less expensive to pay off the P2P company to shut down and stop file sharing? "
That would be the thinking, except that the total cost of each option is not so simple. It has to be looked at in terms of the policy applied to all P2P companies, not just one -- after all, someone is sure to fill the gap if one P2P co. stops hosting P2P.
So, if you pay off one company, you'll have to pay them all off. If you get a huge settlement in your favor, that's a disincentive for any P2P network to all distribution of your material.
OTOH, if you settle cheaply with the P2P co, so that they can stay in business -- you've got a situation where you can get your fingers in the pie. We'll settle cheaply if you agree to play by our rules... otherwise, look out.
Extortion? Maybe in theory. Carrot-and-stick? You betcha.
"Algorithms is math. No ifs, ands or buts about it."
/.).
I'll agree, there are no 'buts' in math, but IFs and ANDs? Logical arguments are an integral part of math (even if not an integral part of
Seriously, though, there is more than one aspect to programming, and varying definitions. There are most assuredly people who "program" by assembling discrete instruction sets (read: code librabries) to produce an outcome. This type programmer is no less valuable in the workforce than those who create library content.
However, even the simplest program, whether written from the ground up or patched from libraries, requires math. As you pointed out, algorithms are math. Math is algorithms.
FTA:"If you're over 18 and not a felon, then odds are you have the right to vote, and that's more powerful than a thousand 'I think Congress sucks, who's with me?' threads on the message board of your choice.'"
Not exactly true. Elected representatives have staff members who monitor public opinion in many, many media venues. Sure, the newspaper editorial section is more important to them than message boards, but they are still looking at the boards.
Plus, if you vote based upon prior decisions, you're still stuck with those decisions.
Your vote is not the only way to impact votes on the Congressional, state, and local levels. Politicians do listen to their constituency. Furthermore, what do you do about an elected official with whom you agree on only some issues? So, besides voting with the issues, you have to let your elected officials know how you want them to vote.
Write a letter (hand-written counts for more). Place a phone call. Send a fax. Send an email. In that order -- not all communications are created equal.
You believe non-interference is so impossible that it's not worth it to bother trying. Therefore, we need to accept the impacts we make, but still try to 'save' some of nature.
:-)
"
I believe that a sea change in opinion on the value of nature vs. man is still possible; and even if it is not, we still must try. Nature is not something you 'save'; we are not stewards. Nature should be something you 'leave alone'. We should try to correct past errors, but beyond that... let nature run its course.
"But my point is that we've already taken those steps"
Have we? Do we allow people to drive vehicles that are not fuel efficient? Do we really encourage mass transit? Do we require all power plants to have up-to-date pollution controls? Do we strongly encourage people to live in centralized population centers, reducing the energy demand for transportation? Do we factor in environmental costs when doing CBAs for private industry?
"Actually, oil has the smallest environmental footprint. "
Of fuels that are consumed, you mean. What about hydro, tidal, wind, and solar? Especially wind.
"But we're going to spend billions of federal dollars to rebuild it. Why? Because people are compassionate."
No, the reason we are rebuilding is to save face (with ourselves, with $DEITY, with whomever... it would require too much humility to relocate.
"As I said, we'll reform the world to suit us, not the other way around.
I stated that we could build levees to indicate the contrast with less harmful (to natural state) ways to rebuild/recover.
I don't believe we should reform the world to suit us -- egocentrism has no place in my philosophy of humanity.
Sure, employees benefit if they are considering a career change to teaching. And yes, it has been spun to seem like an altruistic move on the part of IBM, although it might indeed have a beneficial effect on education.
One thing this does for IBM, however, is to reduce the average cost of an employee. Hiring fresh grads, or the barely experienced, is much cheaper than retaining the high-paid dinosaurs.
If IBM can slowly trim the high-paid of its workforce with good feelings on both sides, wonderful.
You make a a presumption here that I'm not comfortable with.
"Even if we we knew how to reverse the change and "save" (at least for the moment) all of these species (including ours), your principle would disallow this. Note that this principle doesn't co-exist well with any argument that the reason not to cause climate change is to protect current species - since, by definition, this principle places a lower value on the survival of the current species than on "thou shalt not change the climate".
I don't believe the goal is to protect current species. The ideal is to not interfere.
Yes, you are right about the ideal not being attainable -- but this does not invalidate the principle. We should still strive to do the best we reasonably can.
br. My view is that the cost for humankind acceptable to those who set policy should be far, far higher than it is...
Another thing people need to remember is that the Firefox developer community got to learn from IE vulnerabilities, and were not already locked into an insecure system by backwards compatability issues.
I'm not an MS apologist at all -- but a lot of the Firefox advantages are due directly to exposure of shortcomings and vulnerabilities in IE.
MS choosing not to address their own issues... that's another story.
"The problem with mediating the impact is that it's an "us or them" situation. Your choices for mediation are:
1. Stop using technology. Since humans are ill-suited as anything but tool users, the animal kingdom will "choose its own destiny" and wipe us out. If they don't get us, disease and sudden climate changes will.
2. Continue to use technology, but mitigate the effects through defensive planning. We won't catch everything (as with Katrina), but the survivability of the human race (as well as whatever plants and animals we bring under our protection) will be statistically far higher. "
Sorry I didn't elucidate better -- by 'minimize impact' I meant within reason, considering the factors necessary for our survival and reasonable quality of life; the trick is finding the optimal mix. Minimize != eliminate.
Also, re: defensive planning for mitigation, you're talking about mitigating the effect of nature on humans; I'm talking about our responsibility to mitigate human effects on nature.
"Since the energy for powering our infrastructure *must* come from somewhere, we're on a losing path to think that we can develop miracle solutions that will somehow make the problems go away."
Well, one way to minimize the impact of our infrastructure is to lessen the demand for energy. Another is to choose energy sources that have a smaller footprint. Another is to continue to develop technology that decreases the footprint of the energy sources we already use -- whether it's more efficient motors, better emission controls for power plants, or anything else.
"Thus the only pragmatic thing to do is learn from the tragedy and build new levees where weaknesses were found in the infrastructure. "
There are parts of NO that are historic (these can be moved). There are people who won't want to move (this is *exactly* why we have eminent domain) from an untenable location. We could condemn the buildings, or purchase them. We could offer them better property nearby (which we'd have to purchase, of course). We could be heartless, and tell them we won't help them out if they stay -- this is probably the most pragmatic.
One way of preventing human catastrophe from flooding is to build levees. Another way is to allow natural flood dispersal. Practicality, in this case, depends upon public mindset, and the willpower and abilities of those supporting either method.
Well, wages here are higher too, though not proportional to cost-of-living. If it weren't for the proximity of the in-laws (and the SOs need for that), I'd be outta here too...
"All they seem to carry around here are the sets that only make one thing and have lots of specialized, only-one-way-to-use-it parts."
This is because the patents expired on the basic concept.
Lego, faced with competition from other suppliers of basic blocks, needs to differentiate itself. They are doing this by generating creative material (a plus, right?).
Another way Lego is differentiating itself is by licensing the IP of other companies/individuals -- the Star Wars IP, for example. Their competitors may not be able to offer this kind of content, due to cost or other reasons.
Yes, I agree that all toymakers should make their toys compliant with an open standard.
This way, MA government will be able to use today's toys with the toys of 2030.
Right on.
The unintended consequences are why we should try to minimize our impact.
But minimizing impact != static climate, nor should it.
Yet, we can get a pretty good idea of relative climate change.
My point is not that we can or should prevent climate change; my point is that we should do our best to make sure we are not the cause of the climate change.
"Do Slashdotters ever get out of their houses and lighted up?"
Getting out of the house to get lighted up works fine for me 8)
"But the solution to the Earth's violent and chaotic changes is not to stop meddling and hope it all corrects itself (because it won't, history can prove that), the solution is to change the world around us for the purpose of securing life for ourselves, and plants and animals around us."
I disagree. The solution is to mediate the impact we've had as best we can, and then try to minimize our current and future impact. We should not be in the business of preserving life as we know it; we should be preserving the ability of life to 'choose it's own destiny', for lack of a better term. I know, we've passed that point (global climate change due most likely to human action has been documented from 20,000 and more years ago).
Slightly on a tangent, but relevant -- the rebuilding of New Orleans. I believe we have a unique opportunity to let the Mississipi delta reclaim some if its natural state. I believe resources directed to rebuilding should instead be directed to relocating to an area with a lesser impact.
In addition, I'm not sure the parent to your post is aware of the impact of 6 degrees of change on agricultural suitability and yields for major crops.
Well, if there was no need to be snide, then there there was no need in the OP to be drab.
The point I'm making is that regardless of naturally occuring fluctuations in climate, we should be mindful of how we affect the climate.
Our actions do have an impact, which I believe should be minimized. Will this prevent global climate change? No. But the difference is that humankind will not be the driving factor.
"Seriously, we've had the technology to detect global climate changes for what, a hundred years at most?"
:-)
"
[snide]Yes, but we have discovered amazing technology that allows us to see into the past![/snide]. We have examined records of climate change that span hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.
"Life will continue on, and we'll adapt. Okay?
Sure, we'll adapt, since we don't require genetic change to make different climates livable. What about all the species that do? What about our food supply? How much suffering will be endured by less rich nations while we race to adapt our agritech?
Maybe we differ in points of view, but as I see it, it's not just about us. Don't we have the responsibility to minimize our impact on other people and other species?
/Mods, everyone knows this is offtopic, so don't waste your points.
I'm from NJ, so thanks for sticking up for us! That said...
Even the less urban areas of NJ are still speckled with unmediated Superfund sites at the highest rate in the US.
Agriculture is nice -- but it is also a heavy polluter, although bush berries and fruit trees less so than some other crops.
Also, I do want to mention that few of us are cheerfully paying the highest auto insurance premiums in the nation.
There are less obvious downsides that fall outside the "armpit" stereotype.
Highest property tax rates, lowest ratio of federal taxes paid to benefits received, among the highest cost of living, traffic, overcrowding (except for in the pine barrens). Highest state school tuition for in-state students (well, it was when I attended Rutgers).
I still really like living in NJ, but there are a ton of things that we need to work on changing, or at least work on limiting.
"Yeah, and after a dozen angry bikers have beaten you senseless, it won't seem nearly as bad when only two angry bikers beat you senseless."
Not valid. This would make sense only if everyone only got upset at being beaten senseless a dozen times -- I would be upset to be beaten up once. Getting unexpected phone calls is incremental in effect -- it's only when they get out of hand that people feel 'harassed'. See your previous statements about the additive effects.
"Well, you know, a very large part of the political activity I've been seeing in recent years can be characterized as outright, shameless lies about the opposition on things that are easily verified. Am I supposed to believe I can trust a stranger who cold calls me?"
Thanks for throwing out another straw man -- that's not the point. You have the responsibility of separating the chaff from the grain.
"But as I've said several times already, I want to be listed. I don't want to keep people who don't have my number, in general, from calling me. I just want to keep telemarketers from calling."
Want to have your cake and eat it too?
Why does government need to be responsible for your wants? "Ask not what your country..." If you don't want telemarketers to call, you have that power. There is no reason government should be controlling that, at all, other than whiny gits who are easily frustrated making it into an issue that will affect voting. We already have harassment laws, which cover the situation, IF you have told them not to call you. I am willing to bend, and say that they should also apply if you have made your number unavailable via non-governmental methods.
The fact of the matter is, you can choose to avoid their calls. Just because you don't want to be bothered doesn't mean that government should be helping you out, especially when it *could* limit political discourse.
People complain about the "nanny state" all the time, and don't realize that when you ask the government to be your nanny (in cases like this), you are making it reasonable for the government be your nanny in other instances (such as with age restrictions on entertainment media).
"Anyway, I don't think you should get to piss two people off for a chance to sell something to one person."
I'm not talking about selling here. I'm talking about political activity. There's a huge difference. And those political activism calls will not seem nearly as bad once the BS sales calls are gone.
"One is that I want to be able to list my number in the book but not let telemarketers call."
The whole point of unlisted numbers is to keep people (such as telemarketers) from calling you if you hadn't given them your number. The solution exists already, all it would take is a small act to give this concept legal crdence.
"If you were to decide to be an activist about it, you'd have to work to change something that already exists rather than work to prevent something."
Well, the article was about the DNC in a different country, where I don't have a say anyway. But we are talking about the theories at play behind the DNC.
"If you were to decide to be an activist about it, you'd have to work to change something that already exists rather than work to prevent something."
I am active politically, and this is one area that I have written my Senator, Congressman, and local government officials about.
"T-Mobile USA and the State of Massachusetts are pleased to report that he has been sentenced to 11 months in a juvenile facility"
Personally, I think he'd be better off in a fully mature facility.
"Half-Life 2: Lost Coast is Valve's reply to a series of What If questions: ...What if the system requirements knew no bounds?
"
Because having infinity as the minimum processor speed will really help.
Best Software Writing I?
Best Software, formerly Sage Software, now changing back to Sage Software (they need to make up their minds!) publishes MAS90, MAS200, Peachtree, ABRA HRMS...
Now they've spun off their web-development arm into "Buckhead Software"... like I need another reason to accidentally swear at a web development company.
But why would Joel edit a collection of essays on this specific company's products? Are they the benchmark for software solutions?
"Boy, George Bush sure is an idiot, what with the needing to leave a meeting and the protocols of such meetings. "
He needed the bathroom break to fix the transmitter that was feeding him his statements/responses.
Duh.
"telemarketers operating in areas with no lists know they're calling people who don't want to be called -- people who view those calls as intrusive and bothersome."
They also know that they are contacting people who do want to be contacted.
Re: point 1., you brought up that point to refute my challenge of government control of the list, so of course, in context, they were related and dependent -- or you were using a straw man argument. I don't see the need for separation -- either your number is public, or it isn't.
Re: point 2, did you even read my previous response to this? I was differentiating between proactive action and reactive enforcement.
Re: gathering information -- the point is that we are granting the authority to do so. Even the US Government needs to at least make a pretense of abiding by law. If we shift the scale of what is allowed, you can bet that the government will shift the scale of what is actually done.