Or does the accused not get a chance to speak for themselves in your little crazy world?
Sure, they get to speak for themselves. But the accusation in question means that we have reason to distrust their veracity. I'd rather there was something more to go on than "he said, she said" particularly we have a reason to distrust what both sides say (although, I will say, I have a harder time trusting what these right-wing bloggers write... it's a fact that some of them get paid to write it).
You'll believe their denial because you want to, and we won't believe it, because we don't want to.
The rest is just semantics and rehashing of the same tired arguments.
Now begone you leftist troll.
Yes, circletimessquare does like to ruffle the feathers of you righties. He writes in a caustic manner a lot. That doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes have valid points. Namely, in this case, how do we trust the words of someone who is a member of the class that is accused of taking money to support a partisan agenda?
And btw, trying to banish a troll with a reply to their post is just pointless. If indeed he was just trolling, you've fed the troll, you moron. Now he's going to bud off little mini-trolls that if fed, will grow up into full-grown asshat trolls.
You do know that China has a very extensive rail system, and they still got this mess?
Yes. But this thread was discussing a single component of the traffic solution, which is long-haul trucking wear-and-tear on the roads. Reducing the wear-and-tear would decrease the amount of time spent repairing the road system (which is what is causing this jam). It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would help.
At any one time, there's a million people in transit in Beijing train stations alone.
Those million people in transit in Beijing are using local rail. That is a substitute for vehicular passenger traffic, not freight.
But in 20 years, people will be choosing between a reliable Camry and a reliable Camry Hybrid.
Not sure if you've seen Toyota's reliability ratings over the past couple years... even prior to the unintended acceleration fiasco.
The "reliable Camry" is becoming a myth AFAIK, for any Camry produced after 2006, especially the V6 ones. Consumer Reports even stopped giving Toyota models the automatic five-star rating for reliability.
Not sure if they've made real improvements over the last two model years.
No, given what we know about the two men in question, I would invite the guy from Crawford over to dinner,
And after all, that's what our national leaders should be -- people we'd like to have dinner or a beer with, people we'd like to go to a ball game with.
WTF? Who cares if Gore is more of a self-righteous prick than Bush -- it's the issues that matter.
Fucking "conservative" charismatics -- they're why this nation is going to hell in a handbasket. They get the masses to vote for them on bogus wedge issues, then proceed to destroy our economy, our land, and our people via overspending on their buddies' contracting companies, allowing regulatory capture in every industry, cutting their buddies' taxes, and passing the buck to future administrations and generations.
While you were at it, you should have asked him how a decrease in demand would increase supply. Typically a decrease in demand leads to a decrease in supply.
No. This is wrong. If you FOLD something, you double it.
Thousandfold means "a factor of a thousand". End of story.
So in five years, with ten folds, that makes an increase by a factor of 512
What? Let n = number of months elapsed; let x = the factor in increase of the capacity; the formula is: x = 2^(n/6).
Go ahead and solve for x = 1000; you can even use a calculator if you like.
While it may sound good for the marketers, please don't use descriptors that are factually wrong on Slashdot.
While it may appease your mis-directed self-righteousness, please don't post comments that are factually wrong on Slashdot. You might consider consulting a dictionary before claiming that someone else has misused a word. You might also consider consulting an algebra textbook before claiming someone else has miscalculated. Hell, you could even resort to listing out the stepwise progression of exponential factors (as another responder did) before claiming someone else is wrong -- you wouldn't even need to dust off your algebra textbook.
While I'm all for avoiding bears (as you noted, you're begging for trouble otherwise), having a rifle or large caliber pistol handy tends to change the "you can't fight them" part of the equation.
I wouldn't depend on either of those. Are you really going to hike around in the bush with a loaded rifle in your hands? Or trust that you'll be able to get a money shot off with the rifle or pistol at a bear charging at you? Bears can move really fast.
When a bear is coming at you, a gun is simply a large noisemaker. Maybe the noise will scare off the bear, or make it veer away from you. If you're lucky.
Far better to avoid bear whenever possible. If you do it right, you'll not likely see a bear up close (that's what telephoto lenses are for!).
FWIW, that's not completely accurate. There is more to what constitutes wear on a highway than the vehicles that drive on it. You've got wear-and-tear from use, but you've also got to factor in the natural deprecation caused by weather, plants, etc.
So if you wanted to assign true cost, you'd have a fixed fee (for all vehicles) assigned to cover the fixed costs, and a proportional fee levied to cover the variable use-dependent costs.
Aside from that, your point stands.
And I'd like to add that if we subsidize rail like we subsidize highways, it's be MUCH cheaper than currently, with much higher usage rates, and so we'd likely be able to afford a much better rail system.
But for some reason we expect rail systems to be self-sufficient, while we sink billions upon billions into roads, highways, and waterways.
He never explained the compelling American interest in Iraq.
And yet he was still able to gain a crapload of public support for it among the rank-and-file American public. It's a mystery to me how he was able to accomplish that, aside from the general level of hysteria post-9/11.
If there was any good reason for the prescrition drug benefit plan, I never heard it.
You make a lot of assumptions about my position, and then go on and make a judgment about it ("fundamentally flawed") based on YOUR faulty assumptions. That's called a straw man. You insult me ("ignorant"), without even bothering to understand my position.
You're a waste of my time, posting in ignorance and without critical thinking ability. But I'll go ahead and clarify for you.
First, your leading questions:
How are we supposed to know when to kick them out?
By reviewing the information available to us
Or are you simply suggesting that we are not supposed to know how our elected leaders are doing until the war is over?
And there's your strawman. That was not what I was suggesting. Never did I attach a timescale to verification. I believe verification needs to be ongoing so that we can influence our elected representatives to do the right thing.
If the abuses are heinous, do you think it is moral to just say "oh, well, we aren't supposed to know until it's over"?
No, I never said that, I never implied that -- YOU are the one who attached that to what I wrote.
What if the abuses of power are to remove any repercussions for the abusive behavior, or remove rules like FOIA, due process, etc.? What do you do if the war never really ends (Korea, terrorism)?
More of the same from you. You're taking your presupposition of what I mean, and then applying it to other things. Take a step back, realize that you completely missed the boat here, and understand that you're arguing against your own straw man.
No, in the end, your philosophy is fundamentally flawed, and inherently dangerous at its core. Not only am I awed and afraid of your ignorance, I can't imagine how you managed to get +4 insightful from the Slashdot crowd.
You're "awed and afraid" of your own ignorance of my position. Stop tilting at windmills.
I don't see a practical difference between Hillary and Obama... I voted Obama in the primaries because I felt he was more likely to be able to beat whoever the Repubs would put up (none of their candidates seemed like good options to me).
Now you have liberals defending Obama for the same reason Conservatives defended Bush: they do not want to admit how badly they were fooled.
Sure. But for some Conservatives, Bush gave them exactly what they wanted. One thing I'll give Bush credit for... he (and his administration) was very good at convincing people to want what they were selling.
That's not a new stance, it's pretty much how operational security in a theatre of war has happened for a couple thousand years.
Just because it's they way it's always been in the past doesn't mean that's the way it should be. For example, for most of the past two thousand years we didn't have antibiotics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them now.
Of course, I've always seen Obama as a corporatist centrist, just like Clinton... I don't know why so many vocal liberals were under the delusion that Obama was exactly what they wanted him to be, instead of what he really is.
Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.
It was getting better until recently... the history of the limitation of free speech in the US has showed, over two centuries, a gradual trend of easing of restrictions during times of conflict/war.
This trend is in danger of changing, with inroads against it made under GWB and not being reversed as yet under BHO.
They're not suing "no one in particular". They are suing individuals who are not yet identified for an action that has not yet occurred, to enable law enforcement to prevent that action from occurring.
I personally think that's fine, as long as they pay the bill for that law enforcement.
Or they could do what other private event festivals do -- pay for security staff that toss out anyone selling infringing goods, and accept the fact that people are going to sell stuff outside the venue (in which case, they often call the cops to enforce street sales licenses, area zoning, whatever can be used to get those people away from the venue).
This is not about bootleg recordings. This is about bootleg merchandise (e.g., "Mile High Music Festival" t-shirts sold by someone other than the owner of the "Mile High Music Festival" trademark owner, with no royalties to the trademark owner.
You can sue people for things they haven't done yet?
Yes, it happens all the time in IP-related cases, in the form of an injunction.
The only difference here is that the Festival owners don't know who is going to try to infringe their IP, so they need to get the injunction against John & Jane Does.
this process creates an 'avalanche-like electromagnetic cascade' (also known as sparking the vacuum)
Apparently they are off masturbating somewhere. Most likely they are 'sparking the vacuum' in Mom's basement while cruising the innertubes for some free amateur shark porn.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they get to speak for themselves. But the accusation in question means that we have reason to distrust their veracity. I'd rather there was something more to go on than "he said, she said" particularly we have a reason to distrust what both sides say (although, I will say, I have a harder time trusting what these right-wing bloggers write... it's a fact that some of them get paid to write it).
You'll believe their denial because you want to, and we won't believe it, because we don't want to.
The rest is just semantics and rehashing of the same tired arguments.
Yes, circletimessquare does like to ruffle the feathers of you righties. He writes in a caustic manner a lot. That doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes have valid points. Namely, in this case, how do we trust the words of someone who is a member of the class that is accused of taking money to support a partisan agenda?
And btw, trying to banish a troll with a reply to their post is just pointless. If indeed he was just trolling, you've fed the troll, you moron. Now he's going to bud off little mini-trolls that if fed, will grow up into full-grown asshat trolls.
Yes. But this thread was discussing a single component of the traffic solution, which is long-haul trucking wear-and-tear on the roads. Reducing the wear-and-tear would decrease the amount of time spent repairing the road system (which is what is causing this jam). It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would help.
Those million people in transit in Beijing are using local rail. That is a substitute for vehicular passenger traffic, not freight.
Not sure if you've seen Toyota's reliability ratings over the past couple years... even prior to the unintended acceleration fiasco.
The "reliable Camry" is becoming a myth AFAIK, for any Camry produced after 2006, especially the V6 ones. Consumer Reports even stopped giving Toyota models the automatic five-star rating for reliability.
Not sure if they've made real improvements over the last two model years.
And after all, that's what our national leaders should be -- people we'd like to have dinner or a beer with, people we'd like to go to a ball game with.
WTF? Who cares if Gore is more of a self-righteous prick than Bush -- it's the issues that matter.
Fucking "conservative" charismatics -- they're why this nation is going to hell in a handbasket. They get the masses to vote for them on bogus wedge issues, then proceed to destroy our economy, our land, and our people via overspending on their buddies' contracting companies, allowing regulatory capture in every industry, cutting their buddies' taxes, and passing the buck to future administrations and generations.
Fuck them.
Sorry for the rant. I'll go get my coffee now.
While you were at it, you should have asked him how a decrease in demand would increase supply. Typically a decrease in demand leads to a decrease in supply.
Thousandfold means "a factor of a thousand". End of story.
What? Let n = number of months elapsed; let x = the factor in increase of the capacity; the formula is: x = 2^(n/6).
Go ahead and solve for x = 1000; you can even use a calculator if you like.
While it may appease your mis-directed self-righteousness, please don't post comments that are factually wrong on Slashdot. You might consider consulting a dictionary before claiming that someone else has misused a word. You might also consider consulting an algebra textbook before claiming someone else has miscalculated. Hell, you could even resort to listing out the stepwise progression of exponential factors (as another responder did) before claiming someone else is wrong -- you wouldn't even need to dust off your algebra textbook.
I wouldn't depend on either of those. Are you really going to hike around in the bush with a loaded rifle in your hands? Or trust that you'll be able to get a money shot off with the rifle or pistol at a bear charging at you? Bears can move really fast.
When a bear is coming at you, a gun is simply a large noisemaker. Maybe the noise will scare off the bear, or make it veer away from you. If you're lucky.
Far better to avoid bear whenever possible. If you do it right, you'll not likely see a bear up close (that's what telephoto lenses are for!).
FWIW, that's not completely accurate. There is more to what constitutes wear on a highway than the vehicles that drive on it. You've got wear-and-tear from use, but you've also got to factor in the natural deprecation caused by weather, plants, etc.
So if you wanted to assign true cost, you'd have a fixed fee (for all vehicles) assigned to cover the fixed costs, and a proportional fee levied to cover the variable use-dependent costs.
Aside from that, your point stands.
And I'd like to add that if we subsidize rail like we subsidize highways, it's be MUCH cheaper than currently, with much higher usage rates, and so we'd likely be able to afford a much better rail system.
But for some reason we expect rail systems to be self-sufficient, while we sink billions upon billions into roads, highways, and waterways.
That's a hell of s moral stand for someone who torrents pirated material frequently.
Just sayin...
I know SUV sales have decreased... but my next-door neighbor just bought two matching Suburbans.
My neighbor across the street just bought an Escalade.
Plenty of people are still buying SUVs... and when the economy recovers, I think we'll see SUVs make a bigger comeback.
And yet he was still able to gain a crapload of public support for it among the rank-and-file American public. It's a mystery to me how he was able to accomplish that, aside from the general level of hysteria post-9/11.
I've got a good reason for you: vote-pandering.
You're a waste of my time, posting in ignorance and without critical thinking ability. But I'll go ahead and clarify for you.
First, your leading questions:
By reviewing the information available to us
And there's your strawman. That was not what I was suggesting. Never did I attach a timescale to verification. I believe verification needs to be ongoing so that we can influence our elected representatives to do the right thing.
No, I never said that, I never implied that -- YOU are the one who attached that to what I wrote.
More of the same from you. You're taking your presupposition of what I mean, and then applying it to other things. Take a step back, realize that you completely missed the boat here, and understand that you're arguing against your own straw man.
You're "awed and afraid" of your own ignorance of my position. Stop tilting at windmills.
Sure. But for some Conservatives, Bush gave them exactly what they wanted. One thing I'll give Bush credit for... he (and his administration) was very good at convincing people to want what they were selling.
Yes, well, that's balanced out by a "villain cult" around our liquiders.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
No. They are elected to decide for us. Knowledge, and making decisions based upon knowledge, are two very different things.
Implicit trust in your leaders is a recipe for disaster.
As Reagan (far from one of my heroes) once said: "Trust, but verify".
It is the verification that makes representative democracy (a form of delegated power) work.
Just because it's they way it's always been in the past doesn't mean that's the way it should be. For example, for most of the past two thousand years we didn't have antibiotics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use them now.
I agree fully -- and I'm a liberal :)
Of course, I've always seen Obama as a corporatist centrist, just like Clinton... I don't know why so many vocal liberals were under the delusion that Obama was exactly what they wanted him to be, instead of what he really is.
It was getting better until recently... the history of the limitation of free speech in the US has showed, over two centuries, a gradual trend of easing of restrictions during times of conflict/war.
This trend is in danger of changing, with inroads against it made under GWB and not being reversed as yet under BHO.
Geoffrey Stone's Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism is a very approachable and enlightening read on the topic.
Sure. Lots of people already do.
I've been to plenty of events where there are officers in uniform maintaining security, etc. And guess what? The event host pays for that.
It's not uncommon in NYC, for events like launch parties, etc.
IANAL.
They're not suing "no one in particular". They are suing individuals who are not yet identified for an action that has not yet occurred, to enable law enforcement to prevent that action from occurring.
I personally think that's fine, as long as they pay the bill for that law enforcement.
Or they could do what other private event festivals do -- pay for security staff that toss out anyone selling infringing goods, and accept the fact that people are going to sell stuff outside the venue (in which case, they often call the cops to enforce street sales licenses, area zoning, whatever can be used to get those people away from the venue).
Way to RTFA, bucko.
This is not about bootleg recordings. This is about bootleg merchandise (e.g., "Mile High Music Festival" t-shirts sold by someone other than the owner of the "Mile High Music Festival" trademark owner, with no royalties to the trademark owner.
Yes, it happens all the time in IP-related cases, in the form of an injunction.
The only difference here is that the Festival owners don't know who is going to try to infringe their IP, so they need to get the injunction against John & Jane Does.
It's pretty standard fare, really.
Yes, I know, I left off the third half, where the specific exceptions are listed.
Of note: If you use a bad Scottish accent, most of those exceptions disappear.
Au contraire, mon frere. Paper cuts are a bitch.
Far better to sweat printer toner or crap solid gold.
FTS:
Apparently they are off masturbating somewhere. Most likely they are 'sparking the vacuum' in Mom's basement while cruising the innertubes for some free amateur shark porn.