This is beyond the scope of the state
Why? Just because you say so? I personally think that helping to ensure the continued existence of life in the universe should be part of the state's scope, so support spending on space exploration. Does that make it so? Of course not. Governments have to do what the people who they purport to rule desire in the aggregate, if not they are replaced. Even kings lost their heads to commoners. Just because your personal religion proclaims that anything beyond ensuring that you get to satisfy your greed at the expense of the rest of society is "beyond the scope of the state" in no way makes your desire into reality.
Even if you exclude the pure research there is a lot of R&D that most people would expect a state to do. Things like epidemiology (tracking diseases etc), defense research, surveying, demographic studies, evaluating allocation of resources - from radio bands to water extraction, pedagogy and other educational studies, traffc flow analysis.
Make it simple, do you agree with the chain smoker who is happy to spend more than he has with the plan to die before the bill is due? You cannot justify that.
Though dishonest, if you have no descendants or dependents I can see this argument has some logic. You would have to be very sure that you will die before the bill is due though! In the case of governments there certainly are future generations who will have to pay, so this does not apply. I suspect that some leaders do see their time in office like the chain smoker though!
Challenge how? Think of it this way, I say that you should pay me to use your index finger while typing and you agree, would an onlooker do more than say you are being silly? You might think that they should invalidate the patent, but say I have a separate patent for every possible finger on every key on the keyboard, plus one for looking at each pixel on the screen - and each would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to challenge then you can see why they aim at the general anti-competitive behaviour and changing the system.
You want to keep providing substance-free responses I can keep bouncing them back.
Are you actually trying to argue that debt is good like the chain smoker above?
Gwan, we're all waiting.
Fool.
Debt for ongoing regular expenditure is always bad (maybe excepting developing countries in times of crisis). Debt for things like infrastructure projects, research, etc. can be good if the expected payoff is greater than the cost. I think most people would agree that ideally we should not be where we are now. However, whether fixing the problem in the time of recession with unemployment, lower tax incomes, etc is good is another matter. The study was used to justify a reasonably fast pay-back with austerity during recession because it seemed to show that large deficits equal low growth.
The opposing view is that trying to reduce spending too much during recession will itself slow growth more than the deficit. A rather over-the-top analogy is of someone who is short on money deciding to save on the travel money by not going into work every day. This argument says that the defect will be easier to pay off when the recession ends, there will be lower unemployment, and higher tax revenue. Personally I think that there is a balance, the government should aim to make some savings but not hurry to pay too much off in recession.
The thing is, if the report is used to justify the severe austerity approach, and the report is wrong, then the approach may be doing more harm that good. The reduced expenditure could mean less growth, postponing the time there will be greater revenue - and the paying off debt by itself may do little or nothing to promote growth.
Attempting to justify more theft of the public and increased government spending.
It's simple to answer this question, do you want to incur debt or spend money that you have? Anyone who prefers debt is a fucking idiot and shouldn't be trusted.
Wow this brings stupidity to new levels. A report is widely used to justify government cut backs. The report proves to have mistakes in it that would have given a different result - so pointing out the error is "Statist Bullshit"? There would be some justification in arguing that the report does not matter, though for people who previously used it to argue their case this would be hypocritical. But to argue that we should continue to use the incorrect report because correcting it is statist is just dumb.
Please hand in your license. If you run into people crawling across a road because you didn't see them, or somehow think this is a reasonable problem case, you are incompetent. Such a person should be seen so far away you'd have have no issues stopping in time. It shouldn't even be an issue.
I have l quite literally have someone fall out of their front door into the road infront of me (ice on the step), on this busy A-road, then crawl/slide out of the road..
Artificial intelligence will never reach human intelligence, for the simple reason that the brain contains 200 billion neurons in a vastly parallel network.
To quote J. M. Barrie: . “Never is an awfully long time.”
it should be capable of deciding that it's safer to simply run the dog over if that's the situation.
Just as long as it can distinguish between a dog and someone who tripped over crossing the road and is in the process of standing up, or crawling out of the road with a broken ankle
Ah but see here, the driverless cars have full 360 degree vision, and they already stop for trolleys and erroneous pedestrians crossing the road illegally.
Why on earth did they waste time and money obfusticating something that is licensed on the creative commons. All someone has to do is either buy the DVD or reverse engineer the site once and they can put it up on their own website
Its interesting that it is allowed in chromebook (a locked down system) but not in chrome in general. will be suspicious that DRM in open source has a future until it is available in Chromium and major content providers support and use it.
EME has been in Chromium since m25 (behind a command-line flag initially) and is currently in Chrome stable and enabled-by-default.
Hence the "... and major content providers support and use it". Its all very well having it in open platforms if nobody will allow you to use it in the open platforms. That could well be the case if providers worry about hacked versions of the browser saving content.
etflix is already using HTML5 for Chromebook. [...] How come they can't roll this out to web browsers more generically? Getting the DRM binary blob installed in the client's web browser is an issue or something?
Chrome, unlike "web browsers more generically", already supports the Encrypted Media Extensions discussed in TFS. So, yes, the mechanism they use to support Chromebooks doesn't work more generically.
Its interesting that it is allowed in chromebook (a locked down system) but not in chrome in general. I will be suspicious that DRM in open source has a future until it is available in Chromium and major content providers support and use it.
So... what alternative do you suggest? Should we revert to every application having its own, proprietary, arbitrary, undocumented, inscrutable, binary data format?
If you only know Apache thats all you see acctually according to some websites IIS is the fastest growing.
http://trends.builtwith.com/Web%20Server/growth#!sixMonths
With nearly 10x more users than 6 months before, you are also hard pressed to find a graph which shows less than 40% IIS usage.
Step outside your bubble before you make huge sweeping statements like this.
Unfortunately the stats you refer to are for IIS8, and are linked to a corresponding decline in IIS6 as people upgrade. If you look at the stats for all versions of IIS on the site you link you will see that far from being the fastest growing, IIS usage as a whole is slowly declining.
Managers know this and avoid competing on price whenever they can. In a market with only a handful of competitors, they can and do avoid it. Reducing the costs drives profits up, not prices down.
Surely this would be illegal under the Cartels and the
Competition Act 1998, so they couldn't possibly be avoiding true competition. Could they?
Let us assume that the act is due to a jihadi. The solution is clear, strike at the *ideology* of jihadis. At the moment the US is fighting a war on jihadi terrorism but completely ignoring (or, under the Obama Administration, suppressing) the *facts* about Islamic ideology that grows these jihadis. Just wait for the media to start using the words "extremist" which is a complete lie - jihad is a mainstream and central tenet of Islam. Until the US is honest about the problem it is facing it will never win. At the moment the Us is on a course to becoming progressively Islamicised under the guidance of Leftist "political correctness". Until the US tells the truth about Islamic teachings it cannot win the important war - the *ideological* one. Once the US properly understands the teachings of Islam as Muslims believe them (not as Western apologists do) then the Free World has a chance of surviving the coming Caliphate.
You are completely correct. It is inevitable that the Muslims in the West will rise and try to end free society. Hell they even say that they will do it! In future we will face a battle like Spain did, eliminate the Muslims or die.
Slashdot Mirror
Its possible that competitors will create tens of thousands of queries just to ensure that Google cannot meat the deadlines. A bit like when Microsoft was the top submitter of takedown notices to google but didn't remove the same content from bing.
Fertilizer plants are dangerous places. I am surprised that in such a sparsely populated part of Texas the plant wasn't further away from houses.
unkucky
ulucky
You can do it! Go on, try again, third time's a charm.
Don't ... that's the first two lines of a summoning spell
This is beyond the scope of the state Why? Just because you say so? I personally think that helping to ensure the continued existence of life in the universe should be part of the state's scope, so support spending on space exploration. Does that make it so? Of course not. Governments have to do what the people who they purport to rule desire in the aggregate, if not they are replaced. Even kings lost their heads to commoners. Just because your personal religion proclaims that anything beyond ensuring that you get to satisfy your greed at the expense of the rest of society is "beyond the scope of the state" in no way makes your desire into reality.
Even if you exclude the pure research there is a lot of R&D that most people would expect a state to do. Things like epidemiology (tracking diseases etc), defense research, surveying, demographic studies, evaluating allocation of resources - from radio bands to water extraction, pedagogy and other educational studies, traffc flow analysis.
Make it simple, do you agree with the chain smoker who is happy to spend more than he has with the plan to die before the bill is due? You cannot justify that.
Though dishonest, if you have no descendants or dependents I can see this argument has some logic. You would have to be very sure that you will die before the bill is due though! In the case of governments there certainly are future generations who will have to pay, so this does not apply. I suspect that some leaders do see their time in office like the chain smoker though!
Challenge how? Think of it this way, I say that you should pay me to use your index finger while typing and you agree, would an onlooker do more than say you are being silly? You might think that they should invalidate the patent, but say I have a separate patent for every possible finger on every key on the keyboard, plus one for looking at each pixel on the screen - and each would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to challenge then you can see why they aim at the general anti-competitive behaviour and changing the system.
You want to keep providing substance-free responses I can keep bouncing them back.
Are you actually trying to argue that debt is good like the chain smoker above?
Gwan, we're all waiting.
Fool.
Debt for ongoing regular expenditure is always bad (maybe excepting developing countries in times of crisis). Debt for things like infrastructure projects, research, etc. can be good if the expected payoff is greater than the cost. I think most people would agree that ideally we should not be where we are now. However, whether fixing the problem in the time of recession with unemployment, lower tax incomes, etc is good is another matter. The study was used to justify a reasonably fast pay-back with austerity during recession because it seemed to show that large deficits equal low growth.
The opposing view is that trying to reduce spending too much during recession will itself slow growth more than the deficit. A rather over-the-top analogy is of someone who is short on money deciding to save on the travel money by not going into work every day. This argument says that the defect will be easier to pay off when the recession ends, there will be lower unemployment, and higher tax revenue. Personally I think that there is a balance, the government should aim to make some savings but not hurry to pay too much off in recession.
The thing is, if the report is used to justify the severe austerity approach, and the report is wrong, then the approach may be doing more harm that good. The reduced expenditure could mean less growth, postponing the time there will be greater revenue - and the paying off debt by itself may do little or nothing to promote growth.
Stupid? Really? I see you cleverly avoided answering the question.
My point was that no report is necessary to make the correct conclusion, errors in Excell are not relevant, nor is the report.
Deficit spending is bad, debt is bad, big government statism is bad, unless you are one of the thieves of course.
And you present no argument otherwise, except for calling me stupid. Nice.
Fuck off.
OK so you can know what's good and bad without regard to any facts. I'll let others decide whether that is stupid or clever.
Yes, all interest-bearing debt is BAD.
Muzzie, are you?
Attempting to justify more theft of the public and increased government spending.
It's simple to answer this question, do you want to incur debt or spend money that you have? Anyone who prefers debt is a fucking idiot and shouldn't be trusted.
Wow this brings stupidity to new levels. A report is widely used to justify government cut backs. The report proves to have mistakes in it that would have given a different result - so pointing out the error is "Statist Bullshit"? There would be some justification in arguing that the report does not matter, though for people who previously used it to argue their case this would be hypocritical. But to argue that we should continue to use the incorrect report because correcting it is statist is just dumb.
Please hand in your license. If you run into people crawling across a road because you didn't see them, or somehow think this is a reasonable problem case, you are incompetent. Such a person should be seen so far away you'd have have no issues stopping in time. It shouldn't even be an issue.
I have l quite literally have someone fall out of their front door into the road infront of me (ice on the step), on this busy A-road, then crawl/slide out of the road..
Artificial intelligence will never reach human intelligence, for the simple reason that the brain contains 200 billion neurons in a vastly parallel network.
To quote J. M. Barrie: . “Never is an awfully long time.”
it should be capable of deciding that it's safer to simply run the dog over if that's the situation.
Just as long as it can distinguish between a dog and someone who tripped over crossing the road and is in the process of standing up, or crawling out of the road with a broken ankle
Ah but see here, the driverless cars have full 360 degree vision, and they already stop for trolleys and erroneous pedestrians crossing the road illegally.
One reason why fully automatic cars have to be better to be even better in the UK than the USA. In most roads pedestrians have right of way and there are many country roads without pavements (sidewalks) so pedestrians have to walk on the same carriageway as cars.
Why on earth did they waste time and money obfusticating something that is licensed on the creative commons. All someone has to do is either buy the DVD or reverse engineer the site once and they can put it up on their own website
EME has been in Chromium since m25 (behind a command-line flag initially) and is currently in Chrome stable and enabled-by-default.
Hence the " ... and major content providers support and use it". Its all very well having it in open platforms if nobody will allow you to use it in the open platforms. That could well be the case if providers worry about hacked versions of the browser saving content.
Chrome, unlike "web browsers more generically", already supports the Encrypted Media Extensions discussed in TFS. So, yes, the mechanism they use to support Chromebooks doesn't work more generically.
Its interesting that it is allowed in chromebook (a locked down system) but not in chrome in general. I will be suspicious that DRM in open source has a future until it is available in Chromium and major content providers support and use it.
Protip: Your eyeballs are just fancy radiation detectors. Worried? Keep them closed.
And covered with tinfoil
SOOO GOOD that microsoft had to create ASP.NET MVC in order to be competitive :)
Cough ... Silverlight ... cough
So... what alternative do you suggest? Should we revert to every application having its own, proprietary, arbitrary, undocumented, inscrutable, binary data format?
Microsoft is very good at this!
What we need is a bigger penis.
There, fixed that for you.
You don't need scientists to insert your penis into a rat
If you only know Apache thats all you see acctually according to some websites IIS is the fastest growing. http://trends.builtwith.com/Web%20Server/growth#!sixMonths With nearly 10x more users than 6 months before, you are also hard pressed to find a graph which shows less than 40% IIS usage.
Step outside your bubble before you make huge sweeping statements like this.
Unfortunately the stats you refer to are for IIS8, and are linked to a corresponding decline in IIS6 as people upgrade. If you look at the stats for all versions of IIS on the site you link you will see that far from being the fastest growing, IIS usage as a whole is slowly declining.
Managers know this and avoid competing on price whenever they can. In a market with only a handful of competitors, they can and do avoid it. Reducing the costs drives profits up, not prices down.
Surely this would be illegal under the Cartels and the Competition Act 1998, so they couldn't possibly be avoiding true competition. Could they?
Let us assume that the act is due to a jihadi. The solution is clear, strike at the *ideology* of jihadis. At the moment the US is fighting a war on jihadi terrorism but completely ignoring (or, under the Obama Administration, suppressing) the *facts* about Islamic ideology that grows these jihadis. Just wait for the media to start using the words "extremist" which is a complete lie - jihad is a mainstream and central tenet of Islam. Until the US is honest about the problem it is facing it will never win. At the moment the Us is on a course to becoming progressively Islamicised under the guidance of Leftist "political correctness". Until the US tells the truth about Islamic teachings it cannot win the important war - the *ideological* one. Once the US properly understands the teachings of Islam as Muslims believe them (not as Western apologists do) then the Free World has a chance of surviving the coming Caliphate.
You are completely correct. It is inevitable that the Muslims in the West will rise and try to end free society. Hell they even say that they will do it! In future we will face a battle like Spain did, eliminate the Muslims or die.