Never something so absurdly complex that I would try to contact a spouse that I was afraid would hurt me AND not want them to know who I was. Seriously, I am sympathetic to the difficulty in leaving an abusive relationship, but my sympathy only goes so far.
The device's USB descriptors that are sent to the computer when a device is attached should tell the computer how much current it can be allocated. If your USB hub is externally powered, then current allocation shouldn't be an issue. If your hub is port powered, then your devices are automatically limited.
I've had the argument several times and finally realized that it's futile, but the argument that Ayn Rand built more of a religion than a philosophy, whether it was intended or not, lies in her definition of what it means to be an Objectivist. To be an Objectivist, according to her, you could not disagree with any single tenant of her beliefs. She aggressively made this point, and her followers continue to aggressively make this point today. This is akin to saying that to call yourself a Christian, you can not disagree or interpret differently any single thing within the Bible (ok, some Christians do believe this, and they scare the crap out of a lot of people). Because of this exceedingly strict definition of what Objectivism is, I hold that she was not developing a philosophy, which can be debated, discussed, and developed, so much as she was creating a religion, which to count yourself a part of, you had to oh so ironically have complete faith in, whether or not you could present good reasoning to say otherwise. Objectivism was supposedly the philosophy of determining morality through pure objective reasoning. But if any objective reasoning didn't jive with hers, surely it was in contradiction of this philosophy. Whether or not this was her intention, it was certainly the result. One of her former lovers, who's Objectivist status she had terminated after she found out he was sleeping with someone else, had accused her of being unreasonable. Generally, from what I have read of her, I believe that she was a fairly unreasonable person. Despite that however, I think she made a lot of really good points about life and the blind faith people place on everything from government to religion to science. She made it quite clear just how little people actually think for themselves.
A company I used to work for was really into Kaizan. They did profit sharing, and a metric in deciding how much was received in profit sharing was Kaizan participation. It resulted in a lot of dull ideas, but the shear mass of input resulted in a number of good ideas on a pretty regular basis.
I have not read Atlas Shrugged. I've only read a few of her philosophical collections. She's definitely worth reading, just realize that you should be critical of it, and if you try to talk to proclaimed Objectivists, you might find them unwaveringly unreasonable in some of their attempts to use pure reason.
Whether you agree or disagree with her on this, there is merit to it. Ayn Rand's concept of selfishness is that it's healthy and that it shouldn't make you feel guilty. Let's be honest, you enjoy being in a relationship because it makes you feel good. Not because it makes the other person feel good. You are in it for your own self interest. That is selfish. The fact that your partner also feels good being with you is also selfish, and those two selfish desires to be together is what makes a healthy and loving relationship. You would each risk your lives to save the other because of the intense pain that it would cause you to lose the other. Ayn Rand's point is that true selflessness can only occur when you have absolutely nothing to gain. So to perform a selfless act you must suffer in some way no matter how small. Such behavior is self destructive and benefits no one except those who guilt you into being selfless. On the other hand, selfishness has been demonized as a bad thing to feel guilty about. In fact many things commonly labeled as selfless are actually quite selfish. We want to be in an intimate relationship because it makes us feel good. We do nice things for other people because it makes us feel good and promotes a world where others feel good doing nice things for us. However, only a fool gives a sandwich to some homeless guy who's being a complete jerk unless they're only doing it to make them go away. A selfless person would give someone their lunch whether they really needed it or not or whether they were kind or an asshole, because selfless behavior requires that no consideration to yourself is taken.
Ayn Rand was a nut ball. She made a lot of good points, but for her to consider you to be rational and objective she demanded such irrational strict adherence to her words that she was building a religion rather than a philosophical concept.
Also, just fyi, Ayn Rand was never opposed to sharing your life with someone else. She held that if being with someone else whom you respect brings you joy, then it would be foolish to deny yourself that selfish desire. Just because you are selfish does not mean that you can't selfishly love someone. In fact, she would have held that most happy relationships generally identified as selfless are actually quite selfish.
IANAL. "I think you are an asshole!" is not actionable as it clearly states an opinion. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!" is actionable (unless you can show it to be true!) as you make a clear statement of fact. IANAL.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, and perhaps I was too hasty to say that this has nothing to do with the cost issue of no net neutrality. This to me though is far more nefarious. The language is open enough that ISPs could just outright block traffic under the guise that it's used for illegal file sharing and/or distribution of child pornography. Goodbye IRC/DCC, P2P, etc unless you want to pay extra for those services. Huh, I wonder if they'll lower my bill to reflect the lost services.
wouldn't it be easier rather than net neutrality, just get a law on the books that states that "ISPs are not able to assess fees to any party outside of their umbrella of service and ISPs are not allowed to provide hosting services or priority service to any party not included in the previous. 'Umbrella of service' includes anyone subscribed to their internet/data service."
You had better start stocking up on plasma screen TVs to send to some key people for Christmas if you want that kind of provision. Seriously though, why should we be accepting an Internet service that stifles innovation in the use of or creation of Internet protocols? This goes beyond P2P traffic and charging people on both sides of the data transfer. This creates a situation where ISPs can just decide they will only allow certain types of traffic, and a refusal to allow anything else to pass. Or for example, how would you like to be billed for IM traffic just like you are for cell phone texting? We can't just say in the US that we'll not tolerate it as consumers since for most consumers, there are 2 choices for their end of the connection if they're lucky, and much of the "network management" would be happening further up the line at a company they have no direct association with.
Re:NOTE: This is NOT the ATC network
on
FAA Network Hacked
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How is it anymore absurd and excessive than a private boat? SUVs are more excessive than a private Cessna since you drive the SUV everywhere, whereas most private pilots fly for a couple hours a week or even less often. Are you seriously trying poke at the fuel consumption of private aviation? I don't have any numbers to go on here, but from the pilots I know, and the inefficient use of cars that I see (including my own), private aviation has nothing on the excessive fuel consumption of private vehicles. As it is, the cost of fuel has grounded a lot of private pilots (as well as historical aircraft associations who can no longer afford to fly their fuel hogging aircraft for your education). If you want to make an argument that they're all part of the air pollution problem, that's fine. But there are lots of people in your own back yard who are far bigger contributors to that problem than private aviation.
Yet strangely we don't prosecute/arrest corporations, set bail on corporations, or freeze their assets when found of wrongdoing that would be a jailable offense for other citizens.
The provisions she is trying to insert has nothing to do with this issue (though it's all part of the slippery slope). She is trying to insert language to allow ISPs to "manage their network" to stop illegal file sharing and distribution of child pornography. In other words, she wants to enable all ISPs to censor the internet. It's only a matter of time after that that the government holds them liable for failing to do so effectively.
The most noise pollution I have ever witnessed from private pilots is from helicopters. The skies are safest they have been since the advent of airplanes, with even more planes in the sky. If you're having noise pollution problems, it's probably from one big headed jockey, and you should take it up with him. Those numbers on the side of the plane are equivalent to a license plate. Get a set of binoculars, write down the numbers, take a video of him being an ass hat, and submit a complaint to the FAA. Trust me, the FAA is a real pain in the ass for pilots to deal with.
USAF personnel have been noted for complaining that the current USAF uniforms just make them look like passenger airline pilots. Aside from the epaulets, there's really no difference between the USAF class A uniform and a moderately well cut civilian suit.
If quality American made products hadn't become such a niche market that they have become difficult to find and outrageously expensive, I would be more than happy to buy them more regularly. This is why free trade is fake. Tariffs are in my opinion a necessary evil and do good things when administered with care (an unpopular position for me to take as a Libertarian). We can't possibly compete in our own back yard when the US dollar can buy a whole lot more in China than it can here.
If you insist that those we are fighting are not are not part of an organized movement, then you have to hold that we are in fact not at war, the "war on terror" is a farce, and this whole fiasco is merely a policing action outside of the borders of US territory. As such, those captured (read arrested) are entitled to a speedy trial under standard civilian courts, and entitled to the same rights as any other criminal prisoner in the US. It's probably pointless to point out here that there is no uncertainty that armed, organized groups of men will commit mind-boggling atrocities if there is someone in power to be held accountable for their actions. This holds true throughout past and recent history. You can't sit here and argue about the poor ethics of the bad guys when we're abandoning ours to deal with them. You can't have it both ways. The very concept of "unlawful enemy combatant" is just a shady way to get around international conventions and the US Constitution.
Not pirating and not listening to music has always been free. The whining isn't because pirates have to chip in for the RIAA, the whining is because people who don't pirate have to chip in for the RIAA. I don't download music, so why should I have to chip in for the RIAA? If it's voluntary, sure go nuts. But don't charge me for something I don't use or even want to use. This is why I don't like cable. I don't want to have to pay for 100 channels including 20 ESPN channels so that I can get 10 of the channels I actually watch, and then have to forgo one of my favorite channels because I would need to pay for another 50 channels to get the only one of the group that I want. But this is all moot, because I can actually choose to not have cable, and the system is fairly transparent. My ISP paying an undisclosed amount to ESPN so that all users on that ISP can have access to content, and then not seeing any indication of that fee on my bill is secretive and underhanded.
It is that terrible because it's an underhanded way to force everyone on the internet to pay them. This is fundamentally no different than the fee that the RIAA wants put into place on all internet users. They want you to pay whether you want the service or now (guilty or not). And they want you to think that you're getting it for free.
I've heard this, and from a legal stand point, I get it. But you can call them whatever you want. The fact is, we are at war with terrorism. They were imprisoned as combatants in that war. All real world logic would indicate that that would make them prisoners or war. The uniform argument is crap. Not wearing a uniform is a tactic of gorilla warfare. Using civilians as camouflage is certainly unethical, but that's no different from when the German army in WWII retreated into the cities among civilians, yet we treated them (generally with some scattered exceptions) with the utmost respect. You can call them whatever you want, but logic dictates that they are POWs. Law often ignores logic and reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Never something so absurdly complex that I would try to contact a spouse that I was afraid would hurt me AND not want them to know who I was. Seriously, I am sympathetic to the difficulty in leaving an abusive relationship, but my sympathy only goes so far.
Why the hell would someone be calling their abuser?
The device's USB descriptors that are sent to the computer when a device is attached should tell the computer how much current it can be allocated. If your USB hub is externally powered, then current allocation shouldn't be an issue. If your hub is port powered, then your devices are automatically limited.
Of course it costs money. Where the hell is all that tax money I pay on gas going?!
I've had the argument several times and finally realized that it's futile, but the argument that Ayn Rand built more of a religion than a philosophy, whether it was intended or not, lies in her definition of what it means to be an Objectivist. To be an Objectivist, according to her, you could not disagree with any single tenant of her beliefs. She aggressively made this point, and her followers continue to aggressively make this point today. This is akin to saying that to call yourself a Christian, you can not disagree or interpret differently any single thing within the Bible (ok, some Christians do believe this, and they scare the crap out of a lot of people). Because of this exceedingly strict definition of what Objectivism is, I hold that she was not developing a philosophy, which can be debated, discussed, and developed, so much as she was creating a religion, which to count yourself a part of, you had to oh so ironically have complete faith in, whether or not you could present good reasoning to say otherwise. Objectivism was supposedly the philosophy of determining morality through pure objective reasoning. But if any objective reasoning didn't jive with hers, surely it was in contradiction of this philosophy. Whether or not this was her intention, it was certainly the result. One of her former lovers, who's Objectivist status she had terminated after she found out he was sleeping with someone else, had accused her of being unreasonable. Generally, from what I have read of her, I believe that she was a fairly unreasonable person. Despite that however, I think she made a lot of really good points about life and the blind faith people place on everything from government to religion to science. She made it quite clear just how little people actually think for themselves.
A company I used to work for was really into Kaizan. They did profit sharing, and a metric in deciding how much was received in profit sharing was Kaizan participation. It resulted in a lot of dull ideas, but the shear mass of input resulted in a number of good ideas on a pretty regular basis.
I have not read Atlas Shrugged. I've only read a few of her philosophical collections. She's definitely worth reading, just realize that you should be critical of it, and if you try to talk to proclaimed Objectivists, you might find them unwaveringly unreasonable in some of their attempts to use pure reason.
Whether you agree or disagree with her on this, there is merit to it. Ayn Rand's concept of selfishness is that it's healthy and that it shouldn't make you feel guilty. Let's be honest, you enjoy being in a relationship because it makes you feel good. Not because it makes the other person feel good. You are in it for your own self interest. That is selfish. The fact that your partner also feels good being with you is also selfish, and those two selfish desires to be together is what makes a healthy and loving relationship. You would each risk your lives to save the other because of the intense pain that it would cause you to lose the other. Ayn Rand's point is that true selflessness can only occur when you have absolutely nothing to gain. So to perform a selfless act you must suffer in some way no matter how small. Such behavior is self destructive and benefits no one except those who guilt you into being selfless. On the other hand, selfishness has been demonized as a bad thing to feel guilty about. In fact many things commonly labeled as selfless are actually quite selfish. We want to be in an intimate relationship because it makes us feel good. We do nice things for other people because it makes us feel good and promotes a world where others feel good doing nice things for us. However, only a fool gives a sandwich to some homeless guy who's being a complete jerk unless they're only doing it to make them go away. A selfless person would give someone their lunch whether they really needed it or not or whether they were kind or an asshole, because selfless behavior requires that no consideration to yourself is taken.
Ayn Rand was a nut ball. She made a lot of good points, but for her to consider you to be rational and objective she demanded such irrational strict adherence to her words that she was building a religion rather than a philosophical concept.
Also, just fyi, Ayn Rand was never opposed to sharing your life with someone else. She held that if being with someone else whom you respect brings you joy, then it would be foolish to deny yourself that selfish desire. Just because you are selfish does not mean that you can't selfishly love someone. In fact, she would have held that most happy relationships generally identified as selfless are actually quite selfish.
Not to mention that "offensive speech" is not synonymous with libel and slander.
IANAL. "I think you are an asshole!" is not actionable as it clearly states an opinion. "Todd Knarr has sex with farm animals!" is actionable (unless you can show it to be true!) as you make a clear statement of fact. IANAL.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, and perhaps I was too hasty to say that this has nothing to do with the cost issue of no net neutrality. This to me though is far more nefarious. The language is open enough that ISPs could just outright block traffic under the guise that it's used for illegal file sharing and/or distribution of child pornography. Goodbye IRC/DCC, P2P, etc unless you want to pay extra for those services. Huh, I wonder if they'll lower my bill to reflect the lost services.
So then the FCC never came down on Comcast?
wouldn't it be easier rather than net neutrality, just get a law on the books that states that "ISPs are not able to assess fees to any party outside of their umbrella of service and ISPs are not allowed to provide hosting services or priority service to any party not included in the previous. 'Umbrella of service' includes anyone subscribed to their internet/data service."
You had better start stocking up on plasma screen TVs to send to some key people for Christmas if you want that kind of provision. Seriously though, why should we be accepting an Internet service that stifles innovation in the use of or creation of Internet protocols? This goes beyond P2P traffic and charging people on both sides of the data transfer. This creates a situation where ISPs can just decide they will only allow certain types of traffic, and a refusal to allow anything else to pass. Or for example, how would you like to be billed for IM traffic just like you are for cell phone texting? We can't just say in the US that we'll not tolerate it as consumers since for most consumers, there are 2 choices for their end of the connection if they're lucky, and much of the "network management" would be happening further up the line at a company they have no direct association with.
How is it anymore absurd and excessive than a private boat? SUVs are more excessive than a private Cessna since you drive the SUV everywhere, whereas most private pilots fly for a couple hours a week or even less often. Are you seriously trying poke at the fuel consumption of private aviation? I don't have any numbers to go on here, but from the pilots I know, and the inefficient use of cars that I see (including my own), private aviation has nothing on the excessive fuel consumption of private vehicles. As it is, the cost of fuel has grounded a lot of private pilots (as well as historical aircraft associations who can no longer afford to fly their fuel hogging aircraft for your education). If you want to make an argument that they're all part of the air pollution problem, that's fine. But there are lots of people in your own back yard who are far bigger contributors to that problem than private aviation.
Yet strangely we don't prosecute/arrest corporations, set bail on corporations, or freeze their assets when found of wrongdoing that would be a jailable offense for other citizens.
The provisions she is trying to insert has nothing to do with this issue (though it's all part of the slippery slope). She is trying to insert language to allow ISPs to "manage their network" to stop illegal file sharing and distribution of child pornography. In other words, she wants to enable all ISPs to censor the internet. It's only a matter of time after that that the government holds them liable for failing to do so effectively.
The most noise pollution I have ever witnessed from private pilots is from helicopters. The skies are safest they have been since the advent of airplanes, with even more planes in the sky. If you're having noise pollution problems, it's probably from one big headed jockey, and you should take it up with him. Those numbers on the side of the plane are equivalent to a license plate. Get a set of binoculars, write down the numbers, take a video of him being an ass hat, and submit a complaint to the FAA. Trust me, the FAA is a real pain in the ass for pilots to deal with.
USAF personnel have been noted for complaining that the current USAF uniforms just make them look like passenger airline pilots. Aside from the epaulets, there's really no difference between the USAF class A uniform and a moderately well cut civilian suit.
If quality American made products hadn't become such a niche market that they have become difficult to find and outrageously expensive, I would be more than happy to buy them more regularly. This is why free trade is fake. Tariffs are in my opinion a necessary evil and do good things when administered with care (an unpopular position for me to take as a Libertarian). We can't possibly compete in our own back yard when the US dollar can buy a whole lot more in China than it can here.
If you insist that those we are fighting are not are not part of an organized movement, then you have to hold that we are in fact not at war, the "war on terror" is a farce, and this whole fiasco is merely a policing action outside of the borders of US territory. As such, those captured (read arrested) are entitled to a speedy trial under standard civilian courts, and entitled to the same rights as any other criminal prisoner in the US. It's probably pointless to point out here that there is no uncertainty that armed, organized groups of men will commit mind-boggling atrocities if there is someone in power to be held accountable for their actions. This holds true throughout past and recent history. You can't sit here and argue about the poor ethics of the bad guys when we're abandoning ours to deal with them. You can't have it both ways. The very concept of "unlawful enemy combatant" is just a shady way to get around international conventions and the US Constitution.
Not pirating and not listening to music has always been free. The whining isn't because pirates have to chip in for the RIAA, the whining is because people who don't pirate have to chip in for the RIAA. I don't download music, so why should I have to chip in for the RIAA? If it's voluntary, sure go nuts. But don't charge me for something I don't use or even want to use. This is why I don't like cable. I don't want to have to pay for 100 channels including 20 ESPN channels so that I can get 10 of the channels I actually watch, and then have to forgo one of my favorite channels because I would need to pay for another 50 channels to get the only one of the group that I want. But this is all moot, because I can actually choose to not have cable, and the system is fairly transparent. My ISP paying an undisclosed amount to ESPN so that all users on that ISP can have access to content, and then not seeing any indication of that fee on my bill is secretive and underhanded.
This actually makes an interesting point. Could this very situation finally convince ISPs that net neutrality is a good idea?
It is that terrible because it's an underhanded way to force everyone on the internet to pay them. This is fundamentally no different than the fee that the RIAA wants put into place on all internet users. They want you to pay whether you want the service or now (guilty or not). And they want you to think that you're getting it for free.
I just sent an e-mail to my ISPs customer service center thanking them for NOT being affiliated with ESPN360.
I've heard this, and from a legal stand point, I get it. But you can call them whatever you want. The fact is, we are at war with terrorism. They were imprisoned as combatants in that war. All real world logic would indicate that that would make them prisoners or war. The uniform argument is crap. Not wearing a uniform is a tactic of gorilla warfare. Using civilians as camouflage is certainly unethical, but that's no different from when the German army in WWII retreated into the cities among civilians, yet we treated them (generally with some scattered exceptions) with the utmost respect. You can call them whatever you want, but logic dictates that they are POWs. Law often ignores logic and reason.