It is one thing to blindly expect things to work out, but this person did their due diligence and made their decision based off the promise that the expected service was available. It is fair to want things that are promised to you after handing over massive amounts of money.
Not sure that really changes the thrust of the idea since, unless you land is completely contained within protected parcels, they can run a line via another route. It is no different than them saying 'well, your next door neighbor does not want us digging up their lawn, so it is their fault you do not have service'
Esp since the executives making the decisions usually have significantly larger personal warchests to sit on during such a dispute than average workers. Such a move barely hurts them.
While people on slashdot might agree with this proposal, politically it is no different than all those other 'stunt' bills that have no chance of passing. The people proposing it get to stand up and say 'look what I did!', while being safe from any negative publicity from effects of their actions if it did pass. This IS pretending to lead.
I suspect that for most people it is not even a matter of 'I don't care as long a I am safe', but of 'if I do not vote to keep my representative in place, one from the OTHER side might get the seat!', so most just get reelected over and over no matter what they do.
Well, the only two possible outcomes are there is either systemic sexism, or women really are inferior otherwise they would meet the same standards and the meritocracy would see similar advancement and careers.
The inverse is often used as a test too, and is not considered offensive.
It should also be noted that in media, the number of projects that fail the reverse is negligible, while the former is extremely common, even in content that passes the first.. Thus the inverse is useful in demonstrating just how minimal the requirement should be and how unidirectionally it tends to fail.
Well, long term, it is a problem to be solved. Each leap forward has generally resulted in more medium income jobs being replaced by low income ones than high income ones. Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. This might not initially sound like a problem if one pictures himself being on the winning side of the shift, but the bottom can only get knocked so far out before you run into problems with insufficient consumer demand or outright civil unrest.
'Quantum Computing' is the current buzz technology that will finally 'do it', thus it is being being held up as the big hope in a number of fields that have gotten bogged down in just how difficult their respective problems are.
Like everything else, regulation requires maintenance and tuning.... not to mention iteration since this is all new stuff as far as civilization is concerned.
Well, yes, I would feel very different about a powerpoint presentation talking about raping and eating babies vs people actually doing so. I imagine the babies in question would also feel very differently about the two types of events.
Am I missing something? As far as I can tell the document just outlines what they can do, not what they have done. Having been through countless meetings with powerpoint presentations outlining what a department 'can' do, I can appreciate just how far apart these two things could potentially be.
There is often a trade off, but it is not inherent. Security and Liberty are not diametrically opposed, but that false dilemma has proven an effective way to package power grabs.
The problem with 'equalizers' is they become a vector for both the good and the bad. The point the OP seems to be trying to make is that they are not only speeding up access to information and good things like that, but they are also focusing and concentrating the type of stress and bullying that happens among school aged children.
One thing we tend to forget as 'geeks' is that new technologies have to be examined across the ENTIRE population, not just 'people like us'. Like it or not, there are potential problems that can not simply be written off by accusing anyone who brings them up as a 'dinosaur'. Technological shifts have consequences, and sticking your head in the sand never helps, it just makes you look blind and weakens your argument.
I keep seeing people say things like this, yet when I look around (even working at a school), I rarely actually see what you are describing. I wonder is it region, demographic, or selective vision?
It is also one of the sad parts of our legal system that on the one end people tend to lack the resources to fight, and on the other, wealthy people (and groups) can swamp the government and essentially have too much money for the state to fight them. That so much in our legal system depends on how much cash you have and how much justice you can afford is one of its great failings. Or great successes if you ask the libertarians.
Prosecuting something like this involves hiring more people and paying 3rd parties for various services related to the action. Basicly, they lack the manpower to fight something like this. They are already doing their jobs, which means they can not easily do extra jobs in addition to it.
You are thinking like a consumer, not a business owner. For consumers, sure they get worse results and can go elsewhere, but for business owners, the majority of their potential customers are going to use Google since it is the go-to for most people, thus it decreases your visibility and income. So it is a pretty big issue for people trying to reach an audience, which includes people who work for any company that has customers. Thus unless you're independently wealthy or work for a Google affiliated company, this probably affects you.
Depends on the region. Cities with large poor populations this is true, but in rural or affluent areas it can be disturbingly easy to keep someone like that, some places will even stick to the 'better safe then sorry' route and make the process really easy, esp when the subject is a minor.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, getting caught at it, even if everyone else is doing it too, is still news worthy.
It is one thing to blindly expect things to work out, but this person did their due diligence and made their decision based off the promise that the expected service was available. It is fair to want things that are promised to you after handing over massive amounts of money.
Title II does something similar, including having a fund in place to help cushion the cost of expensive hookups.
Not sure that really changes the thrust of the idea since, unless you land is completely contained within protected parcels, they can run a line via another route. It is no different than them saying 'well, your next door neighbor does not want us digging up their lawn, so it is their fault you do not have service'
Esp since the executives making the decisions usually have significantly larger personal warchests to sit on during such a dispute than average workers. Such a move barely hurts them.
Not really.
While people on slashdot might agree with this proposal, politically it is no different than all those other 'stunt' bills that have no chance of passing. The people proposing it get to stand up and say 'look what I did!', while being safe from any negative publicity from effects of their actions if it did pass. This IS pretending to lead.
I suspect that for most people it is not even a matter of 'I don't care as long a I am safe', but of 'if I do not vote to keep my representative in place, one from the OTHER side might get the seat!', so most just get reelected over and over no matter what they do.
Well, the only two possible outcomes are there is either systemic sexism, or women really are inferior otherwise they would meet the same standards and the meritocracy would see similar advancement and careers.
The inverse is often used as a test too, and is not considered offensive.
It should also be noted that in media, the number of projects that fail the reverse is negligible, while the former is extremely common, even in content that passes the first.. Thus the inverse is useful in demonstrating just how minimal the requirement should be and how unidirectionally it tends to fail.
Well, long term, it is a problem to be solved. Each leap forward has generally resulted in more medium income jobs being replaced by low income ones than high income ones. Each wave has resulted in a increased standard of living for a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. This might not initially sound like a problem if one pictures himself being on the winning side of the shift, but the bottom can only get knocked so far out before you run into problems with insufficient consumer demand or outright civil unrest.
'Quantum Computing' is the current buzz technology that will finally 'do it', thus it is being being held up as the big hope in a number of fields that have gotten bogged down in just how difficult their respective problems are.
You do realize that Al Gore never made such a claim?
Like everything else, regulation requires maintenance and tuning.... not to mention iteration since this is all new stuff as far as civilization is concerned.
It is also the conservative equivalent of new age, since it involves essentially looking into yourself and 'feeling out' who the bad guys are.
Well, yes, I would feel very different about a powerpoint presentation talking about raping and eating babies vs people actually doing so. I imagine the babies in question would also feel very differently about the two types of events.
Am I missing something? As far as I can tell the document just outlines what they can do, not what they have done. Having been through countless meetings with powerpoint presentations outlining what a department 'can' do, I can appreciate just how far apart these two things could potentially be.
There is often a trade off, but it is not inherent. Security and Liberty are not diametrically opposed, but that false dilemma has proven an effective way to package power grabs.
Yeah, but we can still be annoyed with their actions.
The problem with 'equalizers' is they become a vector for both the good and the bad. The point the OP seems to be trying to make is that they are not only speeding up access to information and good things like that, but they are also focusing and concentrating the type of stress and bullying that happens among school aged children.
One thing we tend to forget as 'geeks' is that new technologies have to be examined across the ENTIRE population, not just 'people like us'. Like it or not, there are potential problems that can not simply be written off by accusing anyone who brings them up as a 'dinosaur'. Technological shifts have consequences, and sticking your head in the sand never helps, it just makes you look blind and weakens your argument.
I keep seeing people say things like this, yet when I look around (even working at a school), I rarely actually see what you are describing. I wonder is it region, demographic, or selective vision?
Many people believe that there is nothing wrong with anticompetitive practices, all that 'might makes right' and 'free market' stuff.
It is also one of the sad parts of our legal system that on the one end people tend to lack the resources to fight, and on the other, wealthy people (and groups) can swamp the government and essentially have too much money for the state to fight them. That so much in our legal system depends on how much cash you have and how much justice you can afford is one of its great failings. Or great successes if you ask the libertarians.
Prosecuting something like this involves hiring more people and paying 3rd parties for various services related to the action. Basicly, they lack the manpower to fight something like this. They are already doing their jobs, which means they can not easily do extra jobs in addition to it.
You are thinking like a consumer, not a business owner. For consumers, sure they get worse results and can go elsewhere, but for business owners, the majority of their potential customers are going to use Google since it is the go-to for most people, thus it decreases your visibility and income. So it is a pretty big issue for people trying to reach an audience, which includes people who work for any company that has customers. Thus unless you're independently wealthy or work for a Google affiliated company, this probably affects you.
Depends on the region. Cities with large poor populations this is true, but in rural or affluent areas it can be disturbingly easy to keep someone like that, some places will even stick to the 'better safe then sorry' route and make the process really easy, esp when the subject is a minor.