As opposed to giving these powers to a corporation? There are plenty of corporations that are bigger than nation states, both in man-power and in revenue.
Nice. In one sentence, you managed to point out the two massive problems with the argumentation. There is little to no competition in the vast majority of American markets, and the main providers all behave the same when it comes to customer service and packet handling. Network Neutrality will not happen in a world of rent-seeking monopolies/duopolies. The other part that I don't understand in the article is the obsession with letting corporations control how society operates. What exactly is bad about the FCC handling network policy? It can't be more fucked than letting it come under control of a profit-oriented corporation.
But it is energy that was stored in a either a chemical bond, or an electron state. Matter does not disappear, it is just electrons rearranging their orbits. If you count all the protons, neutrons and electrons before and after the chemical reaction, they're all still there.
Like Healthcare, you mean? Gitmo? Tarp? Also, remember that he isn't a dictator. The fact that he has accomplished anything is quite remarkable, considering that republicans and Fox News are willing to crucify him at every turn. I mean, they first complained that he didn't go to Europe for a photo op, then they complained a few months later when he did go for a different photo op.
If you could track every atom of the lighter fluid, you'd see that there are as many atoms from the lighter fluid around after the combustion as before. In a nuclear explosion, there are fewer atoms around.
Also, they're not talking about a single laser, they're talking about colliding two laser beams.
They're aiming an electron beam at a laser - not quite the same thing as aiming two lasers at each other. Furthermore, the key part is not the e-beam, but the gamma-rays that come from the electron-photon collision, which then interact with the laser. The issue is that once you create one electron-positron pair from photons, you can get a cascade reaction where there are so many electrons/positrons floating around that you don't have a coherent laser field anymore.
I admit that I considered Obama to be potentially another JFK, Jefferson, or heck, even FDR. Instead, it turns out that my sentiment was just based on the atrocity that was Bush Jr, where a monkey in a suit would have gotten my vote over him (and I was willing to give a pass on the suit).
Seems to me that Obama has very specific goals, and is a very shrewd politician. As a result, he picks his battles, and knows how to create allies. Damn.
No, what armies lack is the will to kill every living person and salt the earth behind them. Thank god. If the military is willing to kill indiscriminately, you're only going to win if the indiscriminate killing pisses off other people with conventional armies of sufficient size to scare the one you're trying to overthrow.
Or, alternatively, missing people do not have a powerful lobby. Well, MIAs in Vietnam had one, but that's about it. It's a bit disturbing though to see how far corporate support goes in shaping priorities. Or the priorities of the American President. Obama's and Biden's hard-on for IP isn't helping.
Liquidity implies high frequency. Whether it requires 10000 trades per second for a stock is up in the air - we don't live in that time frame. But unless you're ok with your trade going through in days if not weeks, you will need many, many trades in a day for your particular stock - at least one per trader for that stock. That goes beyond automated systems, that implies high frequency trading systems that take place without there being a person wanting to buy or sell a stock.
High Frequency trading is also the reason you can set a price online for a buy or a sell, and be reasonably confident to get it. It also is the reason that you can sell a stock NOW, rather than in about a week when a meatbag gets around to handing your order to a buyer/seller.
The stock market became biased towards the traders the day it stopped being about owning a part of a company. Introducing little rules like that won't change a thing.
The difference between a master and an amateur is not the technical skill, but the emotional content of the works. People can study Vermeer's brushstrokes or Ansel Adams' exposure techniques all they want, but it won't make them into their role models.
Same here. What makes this awesome isn't the user's technical competency of an image editing software. It's the fact that the images created are a powerful reminder of how recent WW2 was, and how little separates us now from them then.
$200 billion lost because of the presence of counterfeit goods? Easy. The direct losses might only be a few million, but pushing the idea of "just as good as" in front of people pushes the originals out completely.
Really? If it wasn't for counterfeits, nobody would buy cheaper goods? Let's see... I can get an Audi A3, or a Honda Civic for about 15k less. Or heck, the VW Golf, from the same company, can be had for 5k-8k less. I can get a Sony Bravia TV, or I can get a Vizio for about 30% less. Heck, if you want to push the comparison all the way, you can look at the audio industry, where "as good as" systems and components can be had for 95%.
Face it, "just as good as" is built into the capitalist system. Counterfeiting is merely an expression of it. Your argument is utterly ridiculous.
Some interesting excerpts from the article: "However this relatively narrow focus means that Slashdot has not grown to have broader appeal, like StumbleUpon and Digg. " "In addition, Slashdot has historically favored stories submitted from traditional media, over 'new media' such as blogs. Both of these things have made Slashdot seem behind the times and a bit too closed minded." "Likewise, library student @battmutler commented that Slashdot "seems to always be 12-36 hours behind the curve."" "However the impact that this community has on the social Web is minimal, according to Woopra's statistics. "
Seriously? The issue is that Slashdot is 12 hours behind "the curve"? It's impact is minimal on the social web? It's not Digg? That's just fucking retarded.
Let me summarize why I read Slashdot and not Digg or random blogs: I don't care if I'm behind 12 hours. I don't care about reading stories found at digg and StumbleUpon. I don't care to have an impact on the social web.
I read Slashdot for two reasons: it gives me a broad overview of what's going in topics I find interesting, and the commentary is just about as good as ever - or as bad, depending on your take.
The process gets something of value when citizens can band together to take part in it.
Citizens can already band together to take part in it. It's called a PAC.
The pre-Citizens law prohibited organizations like the NRA or Sierra Club from using their funds to publish fliers prior to an election. Please explain to me how such a prohibition is compatible with the concept of free speech.
Because money ain't speech. If you disagree, you just expanded the concept of speech to any action indicating intent. May I beat you over the head to indicate my displeasure with your position?
Please also explain why the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) should be allowed to explicitly endorse candidates for office while the Sierra Club (a not-for-profit corporation) is denied the same right?
Good point. However, journalists have always occupied a position apart because people as far back as the founding fathers realized that a democracy without independent information dispersers was no democracy at all.
Yes, you can argue that information dispersal is done under various guises and with various political bents, and that newspapers are not much better at dispersing information than the NRA or the Sierra club.
But the real problem is what we have now: CNOOC being able to directly influence American elections by buying a couple 100 million dollars worth of ads.
It did not say that they can donate money to political campaigns. They can print fliers, buy TV/radio advertisements, take out newspaper ads, etc.
You do realize that the largest chunk of campaign money goes to publicity? I.e., printing fliers, buying TV/radio advertisements, taking out newspapers ads, etc.
In other words, contributing to a campaign and buying publicity for a campaign is damn near identical. The only difference is who approves the ad. And even that's debatable.
The first car was unprofitable. The first version of the Internet was unprofitable. The first everything is generally unprofitable. Reduce fuel costs by about 50%, reduce sonic boom to match federal guidelines for land crossing, and you have a profitable supersonic airplane.
That's because most people have no idea how cool the now technology is. The Internet is absolutely amazing on pretty much every technological level, and yet to 95% of the world, its technology is indistinguishable from the magic of a radio.
Really? You think American troops were playing cops in Europe for the past 60 years? There was exactly one reason for the American troops in Germany, and that was to play speed bump to a Soviet invasion until either the rest of the European and American troops could mobilize, or so that tactical nukes could actually be targeted at Soviet troops.
There wasn't a cushier military assignment than being deployed to Germany. Most Germans got along well with you, there was no shooting of any kind outside of target practice, and the only issue was the Russkies across the border. I can't even begin to comprehend how you think Iraq and Germany are alike.
More people have died in either Spain, England, Ireland or France due to terrorist bombings than in the US. No, there hasn't been anything as spectacular as 9/11. But in terms of actual body count, Europe has far more experience with terrorism than the US. Maybe that's why there wasn't this massive overreaction.
Wait - maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but wasn't your parent poster arguing that universities are some form of commie/liberal/NWO indoctrination program? Since Objectivism and Austrian Economics are favorites of libertarian-bordering-on-anarchy individualists, does that mean that a place like Europe offers indoctrination in those areas, while the US doesn't? Does that mean that Europe is the home of John Galt, and the US is a hotbed of collectivist/commie/pinko social and political mores?
Either Objectivism just ate itself, or someone screwed up somewhere.
Riddle me this: if "considering the source" is the only valid criterion on which a person's authority on a subject rests, then how the hell does said person achieve enough authority to ever pass the "consider the source" test?
Considering the source is a shortcut for where to look for interesting papers. It does not, however, have anything to do with the validity of the data itself.
Is it an extraordinary claim? Sure is. Is it valid to wait for someone with some authority to make similar claims before judging that paper? Sure is. Is it possible to dismiss the claims immediately? Complete,utter, bullshit. Your entire argument rests on semantic and personal judgments. There is not a single iota of science in your post. It beats the hell out of me how you got modded up.
I find that inmates are also a product sold by politicians to an electorate that is afraid of their own shadow. What better way to be tough on crime than to up the prison population? I'm sure there are enough people out there who think that arresting lots of other people means that their little Jimmy is safe while playing in the street.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to giving these powers to a corporation? There are plenty of corporations that are bigger than nation states, both in man-power and in revenue.
Nice. In one sentence, you managed to point out the two massive problems with the argumentation. There is little to no competition in the vast majority of American markets, and the main providers all behave the same when it comes to customer service and packet handling. Network Neutrality will not happen in a world of rent-seeking monopolies/duopolies. The other part that I don't understand in the article is the obsession with letting corporations control how society operates. What exactly is bad about the FCC handling network policy? It can't be more fucked than letting it come under control of a profit-oriented corporation.
But it is energy that was stored in a either a chemical bond, or an electron state. Matter does not disappear, it is just electrons rearranging their orbits. If you count all the protons, neutrons and electrons before and after the chemical reaction, they're all still there.
Like Healthcare, you mean? Gitmo? Tarp? Also, remember that he isn't a dictator. The fact that he has accomplished anything is quite remarkable, considering that republicans and Fox News are willing to crucify him at every turn. I mean, they first complained that he didn't go to Europe for a photo op, then they complained a few months later when he did go for a different photo op.
Or even running out of lighter fluid.
If you could track every atom of the lighter fluid, you'd see that there are as many atoms from the lighter fluid around after the combustion as before. In a nuclear explosion, there are fewer atoms around.
Also, they're not talking about a single laser, they're talking about colliding two laser beams.
They're aiming an electron beam at a laser - not quite the same thing as aiming two lasers at each other. Furthermore, the key part is not the e-beam, but the gamma-rays that come from the electron-photon collision, which then interact with the laser. The issue is that once you create one electron-positron pair from photons, you can get a cascade reaction where there are so many electrons/positrons floating around that you don't have a coherent laser field anymore.
It'll be a fascinating sight to see, surely.
I want huge change. Obama won't deliver it.
I admit that I considered Obama to be potentially another JFK, Jefferson, or heck, even FDR. Instead, it turns out that my sentiment was just based on the atrocity that was Bush Jr, where a monkey in a suit would have gotten my vote over him (and I was willing to give a pass on the suit).
Seems to me that Obama has very specific goals, and is a very shrewd politician. As a result, he picks his battles, and knows how to create allies. Damn.
No, what armies lack is the will to kill every living person and salt the earth behind them. Thank god. If the military is willing to kill indiscriminately, you're only going to win if the indiscriminate killing pisses off other people with conventional armies of sufficient size to scare the one you're trying to overthrow.
Or, alternatively, missing people do not have a powerful lobby. Well, MIAs in Vietnam had one, but that's about it. It's a bit disturbing though to see how far corporate support goes in shaping priorities. Or the priorities of the American President. Obama's and Biden's hard-on for IP isn't helping.
Holy crap. You have issues. Seek professional help.
Liquidity implies high frequency. Whether it requires 10000 trades per second for a stock is up in the air - we don't live in that time frame. But unless you're ok with your trade going through in days if not weeks, you will need many, many trades in a day for your particular stock - at least one per trader for that stock. That goes beyond automated systems, that implies high frequency trading systems that take place without there being a person wanting to buy or sell a stock.
High Frequency trading is also the reason you can set a price online for a buy or a sell, and be reasonably confident to get it. It also is the reason that you can sell a stock NOW, rather than in about a week when a meatbag gets around to handing your order to a buyer/seller.
The stock market became biased towards the traders the day it stopped being about owning a part of a company. Introducing little rules like that won't change a thing.
The difference between a master and an amateur is not the technical skill, but the emotional content of the works. People can study Vermeer's brushstrokes or Ansel Adams' exposure techniques all they want, but it won't make them into their role models.
Same here. What makes this awesome isn't the user's technical competency of an image editing software. It's the fact that the images created are a powerful reminder of how recent WW2 was, and how little separates us now from them then.
$200 billion lost because of the presence of counterfeit goods? Easy. The direct losses might only be a few million, but pushing the idea of "just as good as" in front of people pushes the originals out completely.
Really? If it wasn't for counterfeits, nobody would buy cheaper goods? Let's see... I can get an Audi A3, or a Honda Civic for about 15k less. Or heck, the VW Golf, from the same company, can be had for 5k-8k less. I can get a Sony Bravia TV, or I can get a Vizio for about 30% less. Heck, if you want to push the comparison all the way, you can look at the audio industry, where "as good as" systems and components can be had for 95%.
Face it, "just as good as" is built into the capitalist system. Counterfeiting is merely an expression of it. Your argument is utterly ridiculous.
Some interesting excerpts from the article:
"However this relatively narrow focus means that Slashdot has not grown to have broader appeal, like StumbleUpon and Digg. "
"In addition, Slashdot has historically favored stories submitted from traditional media, over 'new media' such as blogs. Both of these things have made Slashdot seem behind the times and a bit too closed minded."
"Likewise, library student @battmutler commented that Slashdot "seems to always be 12-36 hours behind the curve.""
"However the impact that this community has on the social Web is minimal, according to Woopra's statistics. "
Seriously? The issue is that Slashdot is 12 hours behind "the curve"? It's impact is minimal on the social web? It's not Digg? That's just fucking retarded.
Let me summarize why I read Slashdot and not Digg or random blogs: I don't care if I'm behind 12 hours. I don't care about reading stories found at digg and StumbleUpon. I don't care to have an impact on the social web.
I read Slashdot for two reasons: it gives me a broad overview of what's going in topics I find interesting, and the commentary is just about as good as ever - or as bad, depending on your take.
The process gets something of value when citizens can band together to take part in it.
Citizens can already band together to take part in it. It's called a PAC.
The pre-Citizens law prohibited organizations like the NRA or Sierra Club from using their funds to publish fliers prior to an election. Please explain to me how such a prohibition is compatible with the concept of free speech.
Because money ain't speech. If you disagree, you just expanded the concept of speech to any action indicating intent. May I beat you over the head to indicate my displeasure with your position?
Please also explain why the New York Times (a for-profit corporation) should be allowed to explicitly endorse candidates for office while the Sierra Club (a not-for-profit corporation) is denied the same right?
Good point. However, journalists have always occupied a position apart because people as far back as the founding fathers realized that a democracy without independent information dispersers was no democracy at all.
Yes, you can argue that information dispersal is done under various guises and with various political bents, and that newspapers are not much better at dispersing information than the NRA or the Sierra club.
But the real problem is what we have now: CNOOC being able to directly influence American elections by buying a couple 100 million dollars worth of ads.
It did not say that they can donate money to political campaigns. They can print fliers, buy TV/radio advertisements, take out newspaper ads, etc.
You do realize that the largest chunk of campaign money goes to publicity? I.e., printing fliers, buying TV/radio advertisements, taking out newspapers ads, etc.
In other words, contributing to a campaign and buying publicity for a campaign is damn near identical. The only difference is who approves the ad. And even that's debatable.
Seriously? You fail to understand that?
The first car was unprofitable. The first version of the Internet was unprofitable. The first everything is generally unprofitable. Reduce fuel costs by about 50%, reduce sonic boom to match federal guidelines for land crossing, and you have a profitable supersonic airplane.
That's because most people have no idea how cool the now technology is. The Internet is absolutely amazing on pretty much every technological level, and yet to 95% of the world, its technology is indistinguishable from the magic of a radio.
Really? You think American troops were playing cops in Europe for the past 60 years? There was exactly one reason for the American troops in Germany, and that was to play speed bump to a Soviet invasion until either the rest of the European and American troops could mobilize, or so that tactical nukes could actually be targeted at Soviet troops.
There wasn't a cushier military assignment than being deployed to Germany. Most Germans got along well with you, there was no shooting of any kind outside of target practice, and the only issue was the Russkies across the border. I can't even begin to comprehend how you think Iraq and Germany are alike.
More people have died in either Spain, England, Ireland or France due to terrorist bombings than in the US. No, there hasn't been anything as spectacular as 9/11. But in terms of actual body count, Europe has far more experience with terrorism than the US. Maybe that's why there wasn't this massive overreaction.
For that reason, one of the best XKCD strips ever. Not every comic is gold, but this one is pure gold on a number of levels.
Wait - maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but wasn't your parent poster arguing that universities are some form of commie/liberal/NWO indoctrination program? Since Objectivism and Austrian Economics are favorites of libertarian-bordering-on-anarchy individualists, does that mean that a place like Europe offers indoctrination in those areas, while the US doesn't? Does that mean that Europe is the home of John Galt, and the US is a hotbed of collectivist/commie/pinko social and political mores?
Either Objectivism just ate itself, or someone screwed up somewhere.
Riddle me this: if "considering the source" is the only valid criterion on which a person's authority on a subject rests, then how the hell does said person achieve enough authority to ever pass the "consider the source" test?
Considering the source is a shortcut for where to look for interesting papers. It does not, however, have anything to do with the validity of the data itself.
Is it an extraordinary claim? Sure is. Is it valid to wait for someone with some authority to make similar claims before judging that paper? Sure is. Is it possible to dismiss the claims immediately? Complete,utter, bullshit. Your entire argument rests on semantic and personal judgments. There is not a single iota of science in your post. It beats the hell out of me how you got modded up.
I find that inmates are also a product sold by politicians to an electorate that is afraid of their own shadow. What better way to be tough on crime than to up the prison population? I'm sure there are enough people out there who think that arresting lots of other people means that their little Jimmy is safe while playing in the street.
And since the cop had the gun drawn already, it's a certainty the biker would have been dead before he could have squeezed his trigger.
That's the fallacy in these pipe dreams: bad guys draw their guns first, and therefore can shoot before you can.