Opponents might be sent to jail, but they're not tortured. Women's right are respected. Religious rights are respected. No child labor. Education is good. There doesn't seem to be massive corruption, at least compared to similar countries.
No offense, but where do you get your info? There are thousands of people in Miami who actually used to live in Cuba, who would disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote. You won't find many Cuban expats who are fans of Castro. Quite the opposite, usually.
We pay $60/mo for three phones (about $25/mo per line), and although we only get 500 peak minutes, we make more than 6000 minutes of calls in a typical month.
For the same call volume, you would pay $1200 per month. Compared to $60/month for the GP. That sounds like being screwed to me.
Please top hyperventilating. Lilly got it wrong and so are you.
Is bundling Safari with every iTunes and QuickTime installation - and those range in hundreds of millions - also a playful joke, and they have no intention of doing so?
Of course they're going to do this. Now: ask yourself whose marketshare this will hurt more, Firefox or IE? Remember: those who have Firefox, have it because they purposefully went out and got it. Whereas almost everyone who uses IE just uses it because it's whatever the computer came with. The second population is much more likely to switch to Safari than the first. And, that's a much bigger population.
Not all knowledge is created equal, and that's one point that many "hard" exams and certifications miss.
That might be less of a problem than you think. See thesecomments.
If a lawyer doesn't know the intricacies of Melchett vs The Vatican, who cares? In the unlikely situation that they need it, they can google it. If they don't understand Habeas Corpus, on the other hand, they're just unfit to be a lawyer at all.
This is a common misperception about law. It's actually more important to know the laws and cases than abstract concepts, because the concepts are defined solely by specific laws and cases. In applying a concept you must always provide a citation. The best lawyers are those with a giant capacity for remembering specific laws and cases, and applying them to current situations. A general grasp of concepts is useful in writing about law for the general public, but actually not that useful for practicing law.
First, evolution would weed that sort of thing out in a hurry. Two organisms with genes that achieve the exact same thing, but one has a more efficient encoding? No contest!
Why, exactly? This is a huge, simplified assumption. Without physical proof that this is true, you're just asserting--and potentially displaying the same ignorance of subject matter you decry.
Second, ever tried compressing a DNA sequence? They don't compress very well! Meaning, they don't have much redundancy.
Ever try compressing a random sequence of numbers? Clearly there's little redundancy. But, that does not prove that there is information or structure in there.
Going about that task by trying to find the magic gene for something like that is like a person who never learned to read trying to figure out the plot of a book by trying to recognize patterns of letters.
Let's just put it this way--how would such a person figure out the plot without first learning to recognize the patterns of letters (aka the words and sentences)? To make a bad evolutionary pun, we need to crawl before we can fly. That's why research to this point has focused on the low hanging fruit simple traits.
To add insult to injury, watch the video of Steve and Bill on stage at the D conference. At one point they're talking about thin vs. thick client, and Jobs waxes lyrical about how Apple built the best client for Google Maps ever for the iPhone--because they had a full OS to develop on. He goes on to say that natively running software will always beat software that has to run in a browser--even when the purpose is just to provide a front end to a cloud data service.
Now he turns around and tells a bunch of developers that the only apps they can make for the iPhone have to run in a browser!
I would not want a graphic designer who does not know code designing in Dreamweaver. There are just too many "gotchas" that they will have to work around--usually producing horrible code.
If they don't know HTML and CSS well, graphic designers should design Web sites in Photoshop or other visual design software. Then you have someone else who knows what they're doing in HTML and CSS slice it up and code it. Ideally the two collaborate so that the design is both visually appealling AND easy to implement well.
I'm willing to bet that the issue is that Fark was starting to get filtered by corporate vendors like Scan Safe. Most people surf Fark from work, so if it starts getting filtered, the eyeball numbers drop dramatically and goodbye ad revenue.
I don't blame the sponsors. If you look at who's advertising, it's a good fit--they understand who's on Fark. Fark probably just can't risk being blocked at work, so Drew's trying to stay inside the lines as defined by the filtering groups.
With the development of almost every national infrastructure, this same argument has occurred. And every time, the concept of common carrier has needed to be applied by the government to ensure fair service. It's true on telephone lines, on railroads, on roads, in shipping services, etc.
The technical details of network traffic management will be worked out over time--yes. But the fair treatment of all must be enforced through government oversight. That has literally always been true when it comes to national networks.
Without such protection, the ISPs would have the power to block your Web site or e-mails simply because you complain about their service, or maybe they don't like your shirt. They wouldn't even have to give a reason--after all it's "their pipes."
The government would not "move in and enforce neutrality", the government has BEEN enforcing neutrality since the dawn of the Internet under the common carrier laws as set forth in the 1996 Telecomm Act. Recent court decisions have reduced that capability for oversight--which is why the fight is happening now.
Do not for one second believe that the Internet has been free of regulation. It was created by the U.S. government and in the U.S., it has operated under government oversight its entire life. "Regulated" is the default state. What the big ISPs want is to CHANGE that to unregulated. They're halfway there thanks to the courts.
The FCC has fairly little independent power; it serves primarily to implement laws passed by Congress. In this case unbundling was part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. The FCC implemented it and was promptly sued for it. In the U.S., the federal courts have ultimate jurisdiction to interpret legislation, so the FCC was bound by whatever the court ordered. Over the next 10 years it was ordered by the courts to reimplement and reimplement, as suit after suit was filed by the telcos. In 2006 it finally won court approval for its implementation of the unbundling rules, based on a law that was now 10 years old. So if you don't like the way it's done now, look to the courts (and the original, poorly-worded law).
Also: the distinction between a "telecommunications service" and a "data service" is most definitely NOT pedantic. In fact it is the crucial heart of the entire fight over "net neutrality." The two terms are given different definitions and treatments in the 1996 Act--in particular, telecom services are held to common carrier status, while data services are not. Thus when the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cable modem is a "data service", it exempted it from common carrier status--essentially granting permission to violate net neutrality.
Now the telcos want DSL classified the same way (it's currently considered a telecom service since it is delivered over phone lines), and they are lobbying extremely hard to get it. Plus, they are rolling out things like FiOS, which as a fiber optic line is considered a data service not a telecom service.
In the U.S., the "net neutrality" we took for granted for years was a direct result of the fact that we accessed the Internet over phone lines, and thus it was a common carrier service according to federal law. Now, with cable and fiber access, this protection is largely gone, and a fight for net neutrality protection must be waged.
But fuck it, it's a Friday afternoon and I don't feel like digging up all the necessary smackdown data. Looks like I'm going with the goatse link anyway.
It's all there for a great satire: The vaguarity. The complete lack of citation. The telling reference to a controversial and widely decried TV movie. The potent mixture of credulity and cynicism. The reference to the sun.
On the other hand it might a real person who's just new to the subject and not very knowledgable yet.
If it's a joke then Internet Honor demands that I stay away and not get hooked. But if it's an honest post, Internet Honor demands that I respond with well-reasoned rational counters to everything that's wrong.
What is the strategic weakness exposed by satellite imagery, that is not exposed by the other myriad sources of information that are available? So you can see the top of the White House on Google Maps. So what, anyone can see it from the Washington Monument or the Hay Adams.
Important strategic installations are already satellite-proofed because of the Russians. The rest doesn't matter because there are so many other ways to find out the same information.
This is just like the time a National Geographic photographer was denied permission to photograph a bridge becuase of security concerns. He pointed out that if someone wants to know where the bridge is, they can read a map. If they want to see it they can drive over it as many time as they want. It didn't sway them and in fact he was told if he went up in the helicopter he would be shot down. Morons.
The IPv4 address limitation is partially driven by an address shortage, but it's also a way to limit bandwidth usage. Many ISPs still have written prohibitions against sharing the WAN connection among more than 1 or 2 computers. For a while there some big ISPs (cough, Verizon) even prohibited wireless access points or routers that were not rented from/provided by them.
NAT routers hide this multi-computer usage from the ISP, which is one reason they became so popular with consumers. They let people share the connection without paying a multi-computer fee. Today the no-sharing clauses are typically only exercised when an ISP see a ton of bandwidth usage it wants to cut off.
IPv6 or no, I think ISPs will continue to limit the address space available to their subscribers. It's a way to manage bandwidth, and it can be a money-maker--if someone wants a block of addresses, that's a value-add and it costs extra. It doesn't matter that there are a billion free addresses in the space. Because the end users still have to get them from an ISP, from the end user perspective the degree of scarcity will not necessarily change.
To conduct a war against a country who controls vital information systems like GPS would be stupidest folly.
Yes! Clearly GPS is the one remaining tactical and strategic advantage held by the United States. Nevermind the other vast disparities in spending, weapons, training, technology, and population. Not to the mention the disparity in military bases in-country...how many bases do the Europeans have in the U.S. again? And of course these are all even more dramatic when compared on a nation-to-nation basis. After all the EU is only a loose economic federation.
[sarcasm off] All caustic humor aside, this what people mean when they say it's motivated by spite. By any measure, war with the United States would be a badly losing affair for European nations. Not to mention that in the competition for resources the developing nations of China and India are far bigger threats. The best strategy for both the U.S. and for Europe for the foreseeable future is alliance. Thus GPS is a non-issue, strategically.
I've never gotten how pro-immigration implies a desire for cheap labor. The labor is only cheap when it's illegal; once you allow all the immigrants to be legal, you no longer have anything to hold over their heads to keep their salaries down. Legal workers can unionize; illegals can't because you can just deport them. Legal immigrants are covered by things like OSHA, Labor Relations Board, and discrimination statutes.
If I wanted cheap labor I would fight to keep immigration quotas low, but also fight enforcement funding. I definitely would NOT support a path to citizenship, or anything that legalized immigrant workers. Instead what you see is that the business community is strongly in favor of a path to citizenship, bigger guest worker program, bigger visa programs, etc. That is because they need labor AT ANY COST. Unemployment is low. The Boomers are retiring. We need workers.
A strong anti-immigrant stance today cannot be broken down easily by logic. It is an emotional, cultural issue like abortion or gay marriage. It comes from people being pissed off that the signs at McDonalds are in Spanish, instead of English like when they were a kid. It comes from discomfort and fear.
You're making a couple of mistakes. First of all you're conflating conservatives with the Republican Party. But Republicans in Congress range over fairly wide ideological grounds from moderate to deeply conservative. So it's a false equivalence.
Second, you're dramatically over-estimating the amount of power the conservatives in the Republican Party wielded in Congress. The major sweeping changes they passed all had significant moderate and Democratic support. The sweeping changes that faced strong Democratic opposition all failed, because the conservatives did not have enough votes to break a filibuster. This includes tax reform and privatizing Social Security, both of which were much higher priorities than immigration.
If you followed the bills in Congress, the most conservative members were introducing bills with dramatic enforcement provisions against employers, walls to be built along our southern border, increased funding for border patrol, even deploying the military to arm the southern border. These were opposed by more moderate, business-friendly Republicans, and most Democrats. And they failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Opponents might be sent to jail, but they're not tortured. Women's right are respected. Religious rights are respected. No child labor. Education is good. There doesn't seem to be massive corruption, at least compared to similar countries.
No offense, but where do you get your info? There are thousands of people in Miami who actually used to live in Cuba, who would disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote. You won't find many Cuban expats who are fans of Castro. Quite the opposite, usually.
You: I pay $0.20/min for the calls I make.
From the GP post:
We pay $60/mo for three phones (about $25/mo per line), and although we only get 500 peak minutes, we make more than 6000 minutes of calls in a typical month.
For the same call volume, you would pay $1200 per month. Compared to $60/month for the GP. That sounds like being screwed to me.
Please top hyperventilating. Lilly got it wrong and so are you.
Is bundling Safari with every iTunes and QuickTime installation - and those range in hundreds of millions - also a playful joke, and they have no intention of doing so?
Of course they're going to do this. Now: ask yourself whose marketshare this will hurt more, Firefox or IE? Remember: those who have Firefox, have it because they purposefully went out and got it. Whereas almost everyone who uses IE just uses it because it's whatever the computer came with. The second population is much more likely to switch to Safari than the first. And, that's a much bigger population.
Not all knowledge is created equal, and that's one point that many "hard" exams and certifications miss.
That might be less of a problem than you think. See these comments.
If a lawyer doesn't know the intricacies of Melchett vs The Vatican, who cares? In the unlikely situation that they need it, they can google it. If they don't understand Habeas Corpus, on the other hand, they're just unfit to be a lawyer at all.
This is a common misperception about law. It's actually more important to know the laws and cases than abstract concepts, because the concepts are defined solely by specific laws and cases. In applying a concept you must always provide a citation. The best lawyers are those with a giant capacity for remembering specific laws and cases, and applying them to current situations. A general grasp of concepts is useful in writing about law for the general public, but actually not that useful for practicing law.
First, evolution would weed that sort of thing out in a hurry. Two organisms with genes that achieve the exact same thing, but one has a more efficient encoding? No contest!
Why, exactly? This is a huge, simplified assumption. Without physical proof that this is true, you're just asserting--and potentially displaying the same ignorance of subject matter you decry.
Second, ever tried compressing a DNA sequence? They don't compress very well! Meaning, they don't have much redundancy.
Ever try compressing a random sequence of numbers? Clearly there's little redundancy. But, that does not prove that there is information or structure in there.
Going about that task by trying to find the magic gene for something like that is like a person who never learned to read trying to figure out the plot of a book by trying to recognize patterns of letters.
Let's just put it this way--how would such a person figure out the plot without first learning to recognize the patterns of letters (aka the words and sentences)? To make a bad evolutionary pun, we need to crawl before we can fly. That's why research to this point has focused on the low hanging fruit simple traits.
http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-little-po ny-tribute-video.html
To add insult to injury, watch the video of Steve and Bill on stage at the D conference. At one point they're talking about thin vs. thick client, and Jobs waxes lyrical about how Apple built the best client for Google Maps ever for the iPhone--because they had a full OS to develop on. He goes on to say that natively running software will always beat software that has to run in a browser--even when the purpose is just to provide a front end to a cloud data service.
Now he turns around and tells a bunch of developers that the only apps they can make for the iPhone have to run in a browser!
I would not want a graphic designer who does not know code designing in Dreamweaver. There are just too many "gotchas" that they will have to work around--usually producing horrible code.
If they don't know HTML and CSS well, graphic designers should design Web sites in Photoshop or other visual design software. Then you have someone else who knows what they're doing in HTML and CSS slice it up and code it. Ideally the two collaborate so that the design is both visually appealling AND easy to implement well.
"$640K ought to be enough for anybody."
And cue the mustard guy
I'm willing to bet that the issue is that Fark was starting to get filtered by corporate vendors like Scan Safe. Most people surf Fark from work, so if it starts getting filtered, the eyeball numbers drop dramatically and goodbye ad revenue.
I don't blame the sponsors. If you look at who's advertising, it's a good fit--they understand who's on Fark. Fark probably just can't risk being blocked at work, so Drew's trying to stay inside the lines as defined by the filtering groups.
That doesn't mean I have to like it though.
With the development of almost every national infrastructure, this same argument has occurred. And every time, the concept of common carrier has needed to be applied by the government to ensure fair service. It's true on telephone lines, on railroads, on roads, in shipping services, etc.
The technical details of network traffic management will be worked out over time--yes. But the fair treatment of all must be enforced through government oversight. That has literally always been true when it comes to national networks.
Without such protection, the ISPs would have the power to block your Web site or e-mails simply because you complain about their service, or maybe they don't like your shirt. They wouldn't even have to give a reason--after all it's "their pipes."
The government would not "move in and enforce neutrality", the government has BEEN enforcing neutrality since the dawn of the Internet under the common carrier laws as set forth in the 1996 Telecomm Act. Recent court decisions have reduced that capability for oversight--which is why the fight is happening now.
Do not for one second believe that the Internet has been free of regulation. It was created by the U.S. government and in the U.S., it has operated under government oversight its entire life. "Regulated" is the default state. What the big ISPs want is to CHANGE that to unregulated. They're halfway there thanks to the courts.
Its people like you stopping me from thinking Macs are worthwhile personal computers.
So your opinion of computer platforms is driven primarily by anonymous comments on Slashdot? As opposed to any merits of the systems themselves?
The FCC has fairly little independent power; it serves primarily to implement laws passed by Congress. In this case unbundling was part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress. The FCC implemented it and was promptly sued for it. In the U.S., the federal courts have ultimate jurisdiction to interpret legislation, so the FCC was bound by whatever the court ordered. Over the next 10 years it was ordered by the courts to reimplement and reimplement, as suit after suit was filed by the telcos. In 2006 it finally won court approval for its implementation of the unbundling rules, based on a law that was now 10 years old. So if you don't like the way it's done now, look to the courts (and the original, poorly-worded law).
Also: the distinction between a "telecommunications service" and a "data service" is most definitely NOT pedantic. In fact it is the crucial heart of the entire fight over "net neutrality." The two terms are given different definitions and treatments in the 1996 Act--in particular, telecom services are held to common carrier status, while data services are not. Thus when the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that cable modem is a "data service", it exempted it from common carrier status--essentially granting permission to violate net neutrality.
Now the telcos want DSL classified the same way (it's currently considered a telecom service since it is delivered over phone lines), and they are lobbying extremely hard to get it. Plus, they are rolling out things like FiOS, which as a fiber optic line is considered a data service not a telecom service.
In the U.S., the "net neutrality" we took for granted for years was a direct result of the fact that we accessed the Internet over phone lines, and thus it was a common carrier service according to federal law. Now, with cable and fiber access, this protection is largely gone, and a fight for net neutrality protection must be waged.
But fuck it, it's a Friday afternoon and I don't feel like digging up all the necessary smackdown data. Looks like I'm going with the goatse link anyway.
Goatse.cx
Or, at least, its functional equivalents to someone like stonecypher.
It's all there for a great satire: The vaguarity. The complete lack of citation. The telling reference to a controversial and widely decried TV movie. The potent mixture of credulity and cynicism. The reference to the sun.
On the other hand it might a real person who's just new to the subject and not very knowledgable yet.
If it's a joke then Internet Honor demands that I stay away and not get hooked. But if it's an honest post, Internet Honor demands that I respond with well-reasoned rational counters to everything that's wrong.
Maybe I should just go with a goatse link.
What is the strategic weakness exposed by satellite imagery, that is not exposed by the other myriad sources of information that are available? So you can see the top of the White House on Google Maps. So what, anyone can see it from the Washington Monument or the Hay Adams.
Important strategic installations are already satellite-proofed because of the Russians. The rest doesn't matter because there are so many other ways to find out the same information.
This is just like the time a National Geographic photographer was denied permission to photograph a bridge becuase of security concerns. He pointed out that if someone wants to know where the bridge is, they can read a map. If they want to see it they can drive over it as many time as they want. It didn't sway them and in fact he was told if he went up in the helicopter he would be shot down. Morons.
The IPv4 address limitation is partially driven by an address shortage, but it's also a way to limit bandwidth usage. Many ISPs still have written prohibitions against sharing the WAN connection among more than 1 or 2 computers. For a while there some big ISPs (cough, Verizon) even prohibited wireless access points or routers that were not rented from/provided by them.
NAT routers hide this multi-computer usage from the ISP, which is one reason they became so popular with consumers. They let people share the connection without paying a multi-computer fee. Today the no-sharing clauses are typically only exercised when an ISP see a ton of bandwidth usage it wants to cut off.
IPv6 or no, I think ISPs will continue to limit the address space available to their subscribers. It's a way to manage bandwidth, and it can be a money-maker--if someone wants a block of addresses, that's a value-add and it costs extra. It doesn't matter that there are a billion free addresses in the space. Because the end users still have to get them from an ISP, from the end user perspective the degree of scarcity will not necessarily change.
If I run this locally on all 3.4e + 38 values, does that protect me from DMCA take-down notices when I post one of the values online?
Yes! Clearly GPS is the one remaining tactical and strategic advantage held by the United States. Nevermind the other vast disparities in spending, weapons, training, technology, and population. Not to the mention the disparity in military bases in-country...how many bases do the Europeans have in the U.S. again? And of course these are all even more dramatic when compared on a nation-to-nation basis. After all the EU is only a loose economic federation.
[sarcasm off] All caustic humor aside, this what people mean when they say it's motivated by spite. By any measure, war with the United States would be a badly losing affair for European nations. Not to mention that in the competition for resources the developing nations of China and India are far bigger threats. The best strategy for both the U.S. and for Europe for the foreseeable future is alliance. Thus GPS is a non-issue, strategically.
I've never gotten how pro-immigration implies a desire for cheap labor. The labor is only cheap when it's illegal; once you allow all the immigrants to be legal, you no longer have anything to hold over their heads to keep their salaries down. Legal workers can unionize; illegals can't because you can just deport them. Legal immigrants are covered by things like OSHA, Labor Relations Board, and discrimination statutes.
If I wanted cheap labor I would fight to keep immigration quotas low, but also fight enforcement funding. I definitely would NOT support a path to citizenship, or anything that legalized immigrant workers. Instead what you see is that the business community is strongly in favor of a path to citizenship, bigger guest worker program, bigger visa programs, etc. That is because they need labor AT ANY COST. Unemployment is low. The Boomers are retiring. We need workers.
A strong anti-immigrant stance today cannot be broken down easily by logic. It is an emotional, cultural issue like abortion or gay marriage. It comes from people being pissed off that the signs at McDonalds are in Spanish, instead of English like when they were a kid. It comes from discomfort and fear.
You're making a couple of mistakes. First of all you're conflating conservatives with the Republican Party. But Republicans in Congress range over fairly wide ideological grounds from moderate to deeply conservative. So it's a false equivalence.
Second, you're dramatically over-estimating the amount of power the conservatives in the Republican Party wielded in Congress. The major sweeping changes they passed all had significant moderate and Democratic support. The sweeping changes that faced strong Democratic opposition all failed, because the conservatives did not have enough votes to break a filibuster. This includes tax reform and privatizing Social Security, both of which were much higher priorities than immigration.
If you followed the bills in Congress, the most conservative members were introducing bills with dramatic enforcement provisions against employers, walls to be built along our southern border, increased funding for border patrol, even deploying the military to arm the southern border. These were opposed by more moderate, business-friendly Republicans, and most Democrats. And they failed.
I think you meant to say "graphics professionals who use the software application Adobe Photoshop®."
sincerely,
- Adobe
Not strategic success. Actually I'd probably rank them unsuccessful, successful, TBD, respectively.