'Assualt Weapons" are probably the most cynical bit of bi-partisan political theory I have seen in decades.... on the gun control side they are likely fully aware that such weapons make up such a tiny percentage of gun deaths per year that restrictions on them are unlikely to have any significant impact.. and on the gun freedom side they are likely fully aware that the way the ban (in the past) was written it was so easy to circumvent that manufacturers barely skipped a beat.
So on the one side you have politicians supporting a bill that does nothing, and on the other side you have politicians supporting a bill that,.,. ahm.. does nothing. Yet it is a good way to energize their bases and score political points.
No, but they can remove it from the database they control and host. I do not get the impression they are trying to wipe the concept out, they have just decided that they will not allow such devices on their privately run service.
One is the implementation of the other. The homesteading grants were an attempt to put the theory into practice by adding the necessary government backing to make such 'appropriations' stick.
If private entities get out there then that is probably what will determine who owns what. However, if they still have terrestrial assets like bank accounts or buy supplies then they will still be subject to what the nations they get those from say.
'natural rights' are meaningless. Rights only exist in so far as something strong enough can stop people from violating them. Take away that state force and it just comes down to people having the resources to stop others.. in other words, become states.
'Homesteading' has nothing natural to it.. it was a piece of paper from the government saying that they would let you go settle in someone else's territory, and if those people got uppity you had the backing of the military.
Maybe, maybe not. Unless there is some breakthrough, moving stuff into orbit will continue to be very expensive, probably more expensive then increasingly advanced recycling techniques.
The question would be how to resolve governmental control, which government can grant which chunks of land to who, and what laws people on those plots need to follow.
Arguments about regulation aside... I think most of us can agree that private space countries that do not even have the pretense of a judicial system are a scary concept.... and not one that has historically gone very well.
Combine that with such things are near nessesities at this point if one wishes to participate in modern society,.. you end up with a significant captive audience.
Well, for phone companies (and in the past, DSL) there was a rule saying they have to make their lines available to other companies.. which is why, say, in the days of dial up you could buy your phone service from one company and then dial in to any ISP you liked. DSL used to work the same way, you bought your line and then could use any ISP you wanted. Cable modems never had this, and when DSL providers complained it was unfair, rather then extending the policy to cable they dropped it for DSL, resulting in pretty much the eradication of competition over night.
Putting that bit of regulation back in place would probably spawn all sorts of consumer choice without having to deal with the barrier to entry that is laying physical lines.
I would wager no. Just like the justice system is different depending on who you are, it is different depending on who your victim was. If this person was hacking the phones of a bunch of nobodies (even 14 year old ones) the FBI probably would have just filed the complaint and gone back to other cases.
Upset someone important though and all of a sudden resources materialize and harsh sentences are 'appropriate'.
Hrm.... political figures who have a religious interest in bringing about the end of the world... vs what is probably a few people in NASA doing a bit of entertaining outreach regarding the misuse of science. Not really the same, much less 'worse'.
Paypal probably will not get in trouble since technically they do not behave like a bank and move around other people's money, but instead take the money and promise to give it to someone else... but in that intermediate state they own it, which is why they keep getting away with confiscating it.
Some people collect guns for the fun of it. It has been reported that she enjoyed showing them to friends and neighbors, so it is quite possible that such weapons were simply a hobby of her's.
The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.
Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...
Typically the reason people want.doc files is because they have legacy systems that can read the format and import it into their HR/tracking system, and upgrading such a custom application at great expense requires a larger justification then 'people will not think we are cool'.
So typically in such situations, it is not that they want to use Word, it is that they are using some library that can parse.docs and dump the output into some other application.
If it can not be read or has formatting issues then you are a company that is not important.
A company's importance is based off how likely they are to result in more money for your own company, not how up to date their tools are. I am extremely skeptical that any company (working with its own money.. the excess of the dot-com VC time-frame might make an exception) would say 'we need XYZ from you and are about to pay ABC.. but oh no, you saved your Word doc in an older format! We can not do business with you'. In fact the only place I see such idiotic behavior is from large glacially upgrading institutions that still run old versions and require all their customers/contractors/etc to submit paperwork in some older common format.
Oversimplified and incorrect, but it does point to something.. specifically 'ordinary users' tend to have fewer needs and use cases out of their OS... so what this indicates is that the UI is doing fine for the most common use-cases.. but designing a UI that can do a few things well is pretty simple... designing one that can handle the pre-defined cases and still be flexible enough for the unexpected is harder. That will be the test.. otherwise it is just Bob again.
True, but it also means that the people who have their computers set up for them by 'tech savvy' individuals will also have it shut off... which on the consumer level will still be pretty small, but I suspect on the IT scale it means corporate users are not being tracked. I also wonder, is this option given to people who's OS is pre-installed like on new Dells?
Being forced to upgrade by end of lifing support does not make Win7 any less 'good enough for me', it just means taking the option away.
Not sure what you are going on about with being 'left behind'. I am skeptical many businesses out there refuse to interoperate with other businesses because they are not running the latest and greatest software. I still see, for instance, a great deal of standardization on.DOC rather then.docx, and I do not recall seeing any companies saying 'sorry, your file format is out of date, no business for you'.
Bitcoin just moves the problem, it doesn't solve it. At some point the recipient organization needs to convert Bitcoin back into currency in order to make use of it. It looks like this project keeps things in currency but scrambles the source and destination... not sure that solves the problem either but it is not quite the same approach.
Slashdot Mirror
'Assualt Weapons" are probably the most cynical bit of bi-partisan political theory I have seen in decades.... on the gun control side they are likely fully aware that such weapons make up such a tiny percentage of gun deaths per year that restrictions on them are unlikely to have any significant impact.. and on the gun freedom side they are likely fully aware that the way the ban (in the past) was written it was so easy to circumvent that manufacturers barely skipped a beat.
So on the one side you have politicians supporting a bill that does nothing, and on the other side you have politicians supporting a bill that,.,. ahm.. does nothing. Yet it is a good way to energize their bases and score political points.
No, but they can remove it from the database they control and host. I do not get the impression they are trying to wipe the concept out, they have just decided that they will not allow such devices on their privately run service.
One is the implementation of the other. The homesteading grants were an attempt to put the theory into practice by adding the necessary government backing to make such 'appropriations' stick.
If private entities get out there then that is probably what will determine who owns what. However, if they still have terrestrial assets like bank accounts or buy supplies then they will still be subject to what the nations they get those from say.
In other words, form a government and get recognized by other governments.
'natural rights' are meaningless. Rights only exist in so far as something strong enough can stop people from violating them. Take away that state force and it just comes down to people having the resources to stop others.. in other words, become states.
'Homesteading' has nothing natural to it.. it was a piece of paper from the government saying that they would let you go settle in someone else's territory, and if those people got uppity you had the backing of the military.
Maybe, maybe not. Unless there is some breakthrough, moving stuff into orbit will continue to be very expensive, probably more expensive then increasingly advanced recycling techniques.
The question would be how to resolve governmental control, which government can grant which chunks of land to who, and what laws people on those plots need to follow.
Arguments about regulation aside... I think most of us can agree that private space countries that do not even have the pretense of a judicial system are a scary concept.... and not one that has historically gone very well.
I think you have a typo.. you wrote 'in' instead of 'for'. Easy mistake to make.
My thoughts exactly. "I could not afford to defend myself" is never the right outcome.
Having a day in court?
Combine that with such things are near nessesities at this point if one wishes to participate in modern society,.. you end up with a significant captive audience.
Well, for phone companies (and in the past, DSL) there was a rule saying they have to make their lines available to other companies.. which is why, say, in the days of dial up you could buy your phone service from one company and then dial in to any ISP you liked. DSL used to work the same way, you bought your line and then could use any ISP you wanted. Cable modems never had this, and when DSL providers complained it was unfair, rather then extending the policy to cable they dropped it for DSL, resulting in pretty much the eradication of competition over night.
Putting that bit of regulation back in place would probably spawn all sorts of consumer choice without having to deal with the barrier to entry that is laying physical lines.
I would wager no. Just like the justice system is different depending on who you are, it is different depending on who your victim was. If this person was hacking the phones of a bunch of nobodies (even 14 year old ones) the FBI probably would have just filed the complaint and gone back to other cases.
Upset someone important though and all of a sudden resources materialize and harsh sentences are 'appropriate'.
Hrm.... political figures who have a religious interest in bringing about the end of the world... vs what is probably a few people in NASA doing a bit of entertaining outreach regarding the misuse of science. Not really the same, much less 'worse'.
Paypal probably will not get in trouble since technically they do not behave like a bank and move around other people's money, but instead take the money and promise to give it to someone else... but in that intermediate state they own it, which is why they keep getting away with confiscating it.
What is frightening is how many apocalyptics hold public office....
Some people collect guns for the fun of it. It has been reported that she enjoyed showing them to friends and neighbors, so it is quite possible that such weapons were simply a hobby of her's.
The trouble with 'warning signs' when it comes to events like this is we are talking about a FP/TP ratio of possibility millions to one... meaning that as indicators of mass shootings, they are completely useless.
Now, they might have utility in getting people help that would increase their quality of life or of that around them.. but more likely they would just be used to crack down on people who are already having trouble...
Typically the reason people want .doc files is because they have legacy systems that can read the format and import it into their HR/tracking system, and upgrading such a custom application at great expense requires a larger justification then 'people will not think we are cool'.
.docs and dump the output into some other application.
So typically in such situations, it is not that they want to use Word, it is that they are using some library that can parse
If it can not be read or has formatting issues then you are a company that is not important.
A company's importance is based off how likely they are to result in more money for your own company, not how up to date their tools are. I am extremely skeptical that any company (working with its own money.. the excess of the dot-com VC time-frame might make an exception) would say 'we need XYZ from you and are about to pay ABC.. but oh no, you saved your Word doc in an older format! We can not do business with you'. In fact the only place I see such idiotic behavior is from large glacially upgrading institutions that still run old versions and require all their customers/contractors/etc to submit paperwork in some older common format.
Oversimplified and incorrect, but it does point to something.. specifically 'ordinary users' tend to have fewer needs and use cases out of their OS... so what this indicates is that the UI is doing fine for the most common use-cases.. but designing a UI that can do a few things well is pretty simple... designing one that can handle the pre-defined cases and still be flexible enough for the unexpected is harder. That will be the test.. otherwise it is just Bob again.
True, but it also means that the people who have their computers set up for them by 'tech savvy' individuals will also have it shut off... which on the consumer level will still be pretty small, but I suspect on the IT scale it means corporate users are not being tracked. I also wonder, is this option given to people who's OS is pre-installed like on new Dells?
Being forced to upgrade by end of lifing support does not make Win7 any less 'good enough for me', it just means taking the option away.
.DOC rather then .docx, and I do not recall seeing any companies saying 'sorry, your file format is out of date, no business for you'.
Not sure what you are going on about with being 'left behind'. I am skeptical many businesses out there refuse to interoperate with other businesses because they are not running the latest and greatest software. I still see, for instance, a great deal of standardization on
Bitcoin just moves the problem, it doesn't solve it. At some point the recipient organization needs to convert Bitcoin back into currency in order to make use of it. It looks like this project keeps things in currency but scrambles the source and destination... not sure that solves the problem either but it is not quite the same approach.