It's weird that you are a minority of approximately one, arguing in defense of a "populist" beauty ideal. If these 'common standards' are as common as you say, I'm not sure how you can have managed to garner so many dissents.
The fact that we're more okay with invasive TSA searches of innocent people as long as they only happen to, say, innocent brown 20-45yo adults, is a problem.
Think of this like the development practice of dogfooding. If we really think we have a screening process that's acceptable to subject innocent people to, then we shouldn't mind subjecting any innocent people to it, including ourselves and our kids and our grandmas.
C'mon, does Slashdot really need more of this post-adolescent standards-based beauty obsession shit? There aren't objective standards of beauty, and if there were, barely any of this site's userbase would personally meet them. There is no subject matter to debate here; nothing to convince anyone else of.
Microsoft is an OS manufacturer. They do not own a hardware company. If you are a phone manufacturer, you receive no direct competition from Microsoft but only from Nokia backed by Microsoft
Because some quasi-develepor exec probably sold them on the idea that their decades-old intellectual property could become sellable again on the mobile/embedded platform market but first they need to kill off the community that formed around these games?
It's weird how easily people make the jump from "success is not in principle impossible" to "you're getting a fair shake."
Not being excluded from having an online presence is nice, but not being excluded doesn't mean you necessarily get the same advantages enjoyed by people who don't have to stand in line, observe a 30 minute time limit, or mooch a friend's (assuming you have one.) Until that inequality equalizes a little, I think it's unfair to hang a kid's academic opportunities on their internet presence.
Well, the queues should indicate that demand exceeds supply - meaning the 'expecting kids to procure their own internet access' objection stands. If some of your students have to stand 45 minutes in line to find out what their homework is and others can just read it off of their smartphone on the way home, I hope it's clear how this may influence their respective grades.
Well, I support both of those things because they are speeding the proprietary, license-driven "ask permission to do math" model into obscurity. What sucks is that the business world is still kinda locked-into that way of doing things - but they have to get off of it sooner or later.
Anything which replaces officer "hunches" with something more probabilistically sound* is fine by me.
*given the very low predictive value of their hunches and the high potential for 'hunches' to obfuscate prejudice or patterns of harassment in their investigations("my gut told me hassling this poor neighbourhood for the eighth time this month might turn up some crimes"), a dice roll would be sound enough for my purposes. Can you come up with an even more accurate model than pure randomness? bonus!
From RTFA, the real stat was that 13% of adults admitted to doing this ever. I think we can be generous and assume that that 13% aren't doing this 100% of the time.
The bandwidth situation in, say, Scandinavia is actually shockingly good. But if I recall correctly, British Telecom was still charging by the minute for local phone calls a good 10 or 15 years after doing so became unfashionable in the rest of the developed world.
There are things called "pos parties". Like ekgringo says, it's a pretty bad plan to just stop caring as soon as you've contracted one strain of HIV. But people do it.
That is a radically different claim from the one you made before. First your position was that deregulation is good whether it creates the desired result or not, and now you've switched to the position that deregulation just won't lead to a deficit of diversity, because of - i'm assuming - some sort of analogy to other industries where deregulation hasn't killed diversity.
The problem is, the comment you were responding to in the first place was a pretty cogent explanation of exactly why telecommunications is not like other industries in that respect. So pick a tack and stick with it: If it's a good idea to deregulate just because more liberty is intrinsically good, then defend a laissez-faire approach to crimes like murder. If it's a good idea to deregulate because that will actually lead to better deals for consumers, then show why dkleinsc's analysis of the telecom game's unique barriers-to-entry was flawed, because you haven't actually touched that argument yet.
Characterizing murder as a criminal act is one of those "idealistic assumptions" you referred to up there. I happen to think it's a pretty good assumption, but I also happen to think there's good cause to "idealistically assume" that a telecom industry which doesn't admit new providers is bad for consumers.
If you disagree, cool. Explain why. But you have to do better than "it's good because that's what'll happen if we back off and let it happen." Because lots of things will happen if we back off and let them - including crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's weird that you are a minority of approximately one, arguing in defense of a "populist" beauty ideal. If these 'common standards' are as common as you say, I'm not sure how you can have managed to garner so many dissents.
The fact that we're more okay with invasive TSA searches of innocent people as long as they only happen to, say, innocent brown 20-45yo adults, is a problem.
Think of this like the development practice of dogfooding. If we really think we have a screening process that's acceptable to subject innocent people to, then we shouldn't mind subjecting any innocent people to it, including ourselves and our kids and our grandmas.
http://xkcd.com/322/
sigh.
C'mon, does Slashdot really need more of this post-adolescent standards-based beauty obsession shit? There aren't objective standards of beauty, and if there were, barely any of this site's userbase would personally meet them. There is no subject matter to debate here; nothing to convince anyone else of.
Just say "she ain't my style" and let's move on.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be even better if they made a good movie instead?
How long was it from the beginning of Wall-E until the first actual line of dialogue?
Isn't that what amicus curiae briefs are for?
Microsoft is an OS manufacturer. They do not own a hardware company. If you are a phone manufacturer, you receive no direct competition from Microsoft but only from Nokia backed by Microsoft
Because some quasi-develepor exec probably sold them on the idea that their decades-old intellectual property could become sellable again on the mobile/embedded platform market but first they need to kill off the community that formed around these games?
I think he was listening to His Master's Voice.
It's weird how easily people make the jump from "success is not in principle impossible" to "you're getting a fair shake."
Not being excluded from having an online presence is nice, but not being excluded doesn't mean you necessarily get the same advantages enjoyed by people who don't have to stand in line, observe a 30 minute time limit, or mooch a friend's (assuming you have one.) Until that inequality equalizes a little, I think it's unfair to hang a kid's academic opportunities on their internet presence.
Well, the queues should indicate that demand exceeds supply - meaning the 'expecting kids to procure their own internet access' objection stands. If some of your students have to stand 45 minutes in line to find out what their homework is and others can just read it off of their smartphone on the way home, I hope it's clear how this may influence their respective grades.
Well, I support both of those things because they are speeding the proprietary, license-driven "ask permission to do math" model into obscurity.
What sucks is that the business world is still kinda locked-into that way of doing things - but they have to get off of it sooner or later.
related music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBZeWjGjl8
Anything which replaces officer "hunches" with something more probabilistically sound* is fine by me.
*given the very low predictive value of their hunches and the high potential for 'hunches' to obfuscate prejudice or patterns of harassment in their investigations("my gut told me hassling this poor neighbourhood for the eighth time this month might turn up some crimes"), a dice roll would be sound enough for my purposes. Can you come up with an even more accurate model than pure randomness? bonus!
I'm all out of references... could you give me a few pointers?
(Go on somebody, make the Sex Panther joke.)
"People are lying 13% of the time?" C'mon.
From RTFA, the real stat was that 13% of adults admitted to doing this ever. I think we can be generous and assume that that 13% aren't doing this 100% of the time.
Tell you what: take the pricing section of your ISP contract and amend it, promising to pay "up to" $45/month or whatever it is.
Best-effort payment for a best-effort service. Fair, right?
UK != Europe, FYI.
The bandwidth situation in, say, Scandinavia is actually shockingly good. But if I recall correctly, British Telecom was still charging by the minute for local phone calls a good 10 or 15 years after doing so became unfashionable in the rest of the developed world.
A bushel of apples.
There are things called "pos parties".
Like ekgringo says, it's a pretty bad plan to just stop caring as soon as you've contracted one strain of HIV. But people do it.
Wow, did this post ever reveal a lot about you.
That is a radically different claim from the one you made before. First your position was that deregulation is good whether it creates the desired result or not, and now you've switched to the position that deregulation just won't lead to a deficit of diversity, because of - i'm assuming - some sort of analogy to other industries where deregulation hasn't killed diversity.
The problem is, the comment you were responding to in the first place was a pretty cogent explanation of exactly why telecommunications is not like other industries in that respect. So pick a tack and stick with it: If it's a good idea to deregulate just because more liberty is intrinsically good, then defend a laissez-faire approach to crimes like murder. If it's a good idea to deregulate because that will actually lead to better deals for consumers, then show why dkleinsc's analysis of the telecom game's unique barriers-to-entry was flawed, because you haven't actually touched that argument yet.
Characterizing murder as a criminal act is one of those "idealistic assumptions" you referred to up there. I happen to think it's a pretty good assumption, but I also happen to think there's good cause to "idealistically assume" that a telecom industry which doesn't admit new providers is bad for consumers.
If you disagree, cool. Explain why. But you have to do better than "it's good because that's what'll happen if we back off and let it happen." Because lots of things will happen if we back off and let them - including crimes.