I host about 100 websites on my web server and pretty much one of them are harmed by blocking china in my firewall. All I want now is a service to provide an update of their ip ranges once a month or so.
Here here. I am so sick and tired of the business elite sounding off about how the government should stay out of their business and let "free markets" and "consumer choice" rule the day. Then in the next breath they instruct their underlings to implement some new rent seeking impediment to free markets.
To this generations MBA's I suggest their grow a pair and compete on value and operational efficiencies alone.
I am probably giving away a nice patentable invention here, but why not an office sized paper recycler.
Documents get shredded, wetted, blended and then screened out as new paper.
C'mon xerox sic them engineery types on this problem.
I talked to a lot of people who assume that a carbon tax is like the "Sin" tax they put on cigarettes and booze. I think this is the wrong way of thinking about it.
A better way of thinking about it is that fossil fuel use (or GHG emissions) CURRENTLY have a far greater cost then our economies account for. Basically we have an accounting problem. The venture we call civilization is going bankrupt because of a fundamental accounting error that is hiding real expenses in our income statements.
A carbon tax is an attempt to actualize those costs so that we pay the TRUE price of carbon fuels. Does that mean we won't have as much money for vacations and XBOX games? Yup. But that is not an unnecessary distortion of our economies, it is making it more real by paying today's bills today instead of continuing to defer them into the future.
I think a strong carbon tax with a built in annual increase laid out for the next 20 years (like starting at 4% and growing to 20% or more) is just good policy.
Carbon credits could work as well as long as climate change denying politicians would fuck off with the whole "intensity" targets.
For those that don't know "intensity quota" provides a quota "per unit of production". So if you halve the emissions per unit but double your number of units you haven't done anything. What idiot politician things our atmosphere cares about relative pollution!
There were also political reasons. For example, could you imagine an US presidential candidate publicly professing their atheism? No, they have to wear a cross and a flag on their sleeves or the neurotic electorate will roast them.
I watched the video and read the posts and I disagree with you.
This was presented to me as a debate so for Coyne to Haughts own words as examples seems like a very acceptable thing to do. If he had used quotes from other theologians the response would have been "Coyne rebutes other peoples claims but not the ones I was presenting. He should have debated me"
If it is a debate then for one participant to say that the other participant is wrong, is not irrational or rude, its kind of the whole point of a debate isn't it? I have been going over it in my mind and I can not figure out what people thought were personal attacks...? If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it.
I think Coyne is right that science and religion are not compatible. They are not even in the same game.
There is a funny moment in Haughts comments where he agrees 100% with Coyne but probably didn't know it:
"Instead, I argued in a purely academic way that scientism is simply unreasonable."
I am sure that Coyne would agree that "scientism" is unreasonable for ALL the same reasons that he stats about religion. Which have nothing to do with science, or the scientific method.
So there are good things about organized religion. Mostly to do with building a community that provides mutual civil support. (food hampers for the hunger, shelter for homeless, etc). Getting together and singing songs, getting together to share happy events, etc.
Bad things about (some) organized religion. Intolerance, discrimination, and the most dangerous thing in the world, utopian-ism. (as Coyne stated if you have believe you have your hand on the Truth and and a vision of a perfect tomorrow, that can be used to justify any action today no matter how atrocious)
But here is the thing, religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for either those good or bad things. Lots of people help their neighbors or neighborhoods without believing in god. And atheist are also capable of being bigots or utopians.
I think most religious people could join a community organization (Lions, Rotary, Elks, KinsMen, etc) and get all the good community benefits without having to adopt a whole supernatural universe view at the same time. Can't people decide it's nice to be nice without needing god to tell them? Then they can lose all the negative baggage.
The presidency has been described as "the worlds largest bully pulpit" because other then the much used (or overused) writs, the power of the presidency is supposed to be the voice of the people. He/She is supposed to be able to walk into congress and say "Hey! You clowns, I speak for all Americans (not just the ones in your district) so clean up your act and get to work on what they care about"
Seen in that light, these petitions seem very appropriate.
Of course, the loose collection of under-educated rabble currently stalking the halls of congress show no respect for their commander-in-chief which seems to undermine the entire apparatus of the US government.
LOL ROFL Yes, oh yes. I think I am going to print and frame your comment.
Small government for things other people find important, big government for the things I find important. It's the one truth from Tea Baggers to the far left.
The last of those issues could be solved by a return receipt that you keep. (I know who wants to keep a bunch more receipts right).
Not that those issues you raised are not valid, but where does trading privacy for convenience end?
Ditto, I thought it must be a joke. Not only does it seem crazy from a jurisdiction point of view, but it seems absolutely retarded from a privacy and personal liberty point of view.
I am sure the Tea Party will have something to say about this egregious act of the state.
Here here., If your town is being overrun by bullies and corrupt cops your solution is not to defund city hall and scrap your local government. Your solution is to clean up and strength your government and justice system with ethics and integrity so that the laws apply to everyone the same.
I think the protestors have very valid emotions and are looking in the right direction of somehow keeping money out of politics. If someone comes along with an actual really good idea about how to do that this grass fire could become a fully involved forest fire.
The hard part is coming up with a really good policy prescription for keeping money out of politics. Especially since the US has been going the opposite direction and full speed since the shiftboaters (PAC's SuperPac's, etc.)
I am not sure what the solution is but I have a strong feeling that the internet will be involved:)
I agree this would be hard to imagine in terms of free speech.
Much easier to understand in terms of say Ebola. Were only certain accredited collectives are allowed to posses and play with it. That would be an area that it makes sense for the government to control and license the right.
In terms of gun control I can see the sense in licensing access much like we license drivers licenses. Both are potentially very harmful devices and "we" are all safer and better off if access is restricted based on specific and fair rules.
Speech is a very singular thing and I can only understand it as an individual right.
You guys should have went the single payer system with a public operated insurance agency. Think of it as open source insurance where the books are open to all. Then you wouldn't have needed a law to force people to buy insurance, they just would have been fools not to buy it because it would be so affordable.
Did you watch Michael Moores movie "Sicko" ? Remember when he talked to all those Canadian who went on and on about how much they liked the health care system here? Well guess what, it isn't spin and those were not cherry picked people. It just works.
Except in Europe (Italy) it was primarily a heroin addict disease. Which probably means that the same effect was at play but with a different "perceived undesirable"
I was also under the impression that the scanning device performs the verification of that card/pin and then sent a simply "yup its good" to the server. Meaning that a comprised machine could just fake the verification (eg. no pin).
Failed? It loads for me just fine. What browser are you using?
Seriously WTF are you talking about? You start with the premise that it has failed but offer no clue as to your measure of success/failure.
I like my G+ account. I like the interface and the name.
If your saying that the casual dinner party that is G+ is not a loud and obnoxious frat party that Facebook is, I might agree. But that doesn't make my dinner party a failure.
Lead was used in paint for a very long time. Only when it was shown to cause problems did people want it out of their paint. Sure a regulation was assed but the market wasn't there for it anymore anyway.
And thanks to labeling laws you knew which paint had lead and which didn't. And if it said it didn't but did, there was a regulation that punished that company and forced them to recall their product.
Written Laws (regulation) have been a rather good invention. I say we keep it.
We know that there election "messaging" is professional crafted to generate their desired emotional response in the electorate, (eg. a steady hand father knows best blah blah). And we also know that the reality of their policies and action only serve the plutocracy.
So the questions are
A. How do you combat undermine their public brand with, well...with the facts.
B. When will the other parties finally do a better job of their messaging so that their brands succeed.
In this specific case, having the US put us on the "Privacy Watch List" puts us at risk of economic retaliations from the US:
From Wikipedia
In response to countries being included on the Special 301 Report Watchlists the US Government may initiate dispute settlement proceedings at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or other relevant trade agreement, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The US Government can also eliminate tariff preferences unilaterally granted, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).[10]
I wonder how many companies have policies about not hiring remote contractors from countries on the list? Anybody have first hand information of how being put on the watch list impaired their ability to work with American partners?
I think for some iPhone purchasers it comes down "status seeking". (not all obviously)
Personally I don't give a rats ass about the brand of my jeans or anyone else's. But some people, or circles of people, really do care about these things, and they think its crazy that I don't.
When comes to Android vs iPhone, my new Samsung Galaxy S is amazing. I spent a few days with a friends iPhone, and I much prefer my Android. The only annoyances I have is a few icons that my carrier installed. But at least I have to choice of changing that.
Android has a range of phones and price points where as iPhone only has one. So if your going to compare (ahem) Apples to Apples, then only compare the high end Androids to the iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
I host about 100 websites on my web server and pretty much one of them are harmed by blocking china in my firewall. All I want now is a service to provide an update of their ip ranges once a month or so.
Here here. I am so sick and tired of the business elite sounding off about how the government should stay out of their business and let "free markets" and "consumer choice" rule the day. Then in the next breath they instruct their underlings to implement some new rent seeking impediment to free markets.
To this generations MBA's I suggest their grow a pair and compete on value and operational efficiencies alone.
I am probably giving away a nice patentable invention here, but why not an office sized paper recycler. Documents get shredded, wetted, blended and then screened out as new paper. C'mon xerox sic them engineery types on this problem.
I talked to a lot of people who assume that a carbon tax is like the "Sin" tax they put on cigarettes and booze. I think this is the wrong way of thinking about it.
A better way of thinking about it is that fossil fuel use (or GHG emissions) CURRENTLY have a far greater cost then our economies account for. Basically we have an accounting problem. The venture we call civilization is going bankrupt because of a fundamental accounting error that is hiding real expenses in our income statements.
A carbon tax is an attempt to actualize those costs so that we pay the TRUE price of carbon fuels. Does that mean we won't have as much money for vacations and XBOX games? Yup. But that is not an unnecessary distortion of our economies, it is making it more real by paying today's bills today instead of continuing to defer them into the future.
I think a strong carbon tax with a built in annual increase laid out for the next 20 years (like starting at 4% and growing to 20% or more) is just good policy.
Carbon credits could work as well as long as climate change denying politicians would fuck off with the whole "intensity" targets.
For those that don't know "intensity quota" provides a quota "per unit of production". So if you halve the emissions per unit but double your number of units you haven't done anything. What idiot politician things our atmosphere cares about relative pollution!
There were also political reasons. For example, could you imagine an US presidential candidate publicly professing their atheism? No, they have to wear a cross and a flag on their sleeves or the neurotic electorate will roast them.
Fair enough. I guess for me the obviousness of his statement meant that it didn't even register for me as rude.
I am sure that Coyne would agree that "scientism" is unreasonable for ALL the same reasons that he stats about religion. Which have nothing to do with science, or the scientific method. So there are good things about organized religion. Mostly to do with building a community that provides mutual civil support. (food hampers for the hunger, shelter for homeless, etc). Getting together and singing songs, getting together to share happy events, etc. Bad things about (some) organized religion. Intolerance, discrimination, and the most dangerous thing in the world, utopian-ism. (as Coyne stated if you have believe you have your hand on the Truth and and a vision of a perfect tomorrow, that can be used to justify any action today no matter how atrocious) But here is the thing, religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for either those good or bad things. Lots of people help their neighbors or neighborhoods without believing in god. And atheist are also capable of being bigots or utopians. I think most religious people could join a community organization (Lions, Rotary, Elks, KinsMen, etc) and get all the good community benefits without having to adopt a whole supernatural universe view at the same time. Can't people decide it's nice to be nice without needing god to tell them? Then they can lose all the negative baggage.
Isn't helium in short supply? Or is this a different flavour of helium?
The presidency has been described as "the worlds largest bully pulpit" because other then the much used (or overused) writs, the power of the presidency is supposed to be the voice of the people. He/She is supposed to be able to walk into congress and say "Hey! You clowns, I speak for all Americans (not just the ones in your district) so clean up your act and get to work on what they care about"
Seen in that light, these petitions seem very appropriate.
Of course, the loose collection of under-educated rabble currently stalking the halls of congress show no respect for their commander-in-chief which seems to undermine the entire apparatus of the US government.
I just asked my daughter and she said that if an eruption means an extinction level event, then take a stab and lance the fucker.
LOL ROFL Yes, oh yes. I think I am going to print and frame your comment.
Small government for things other people find important, big government for the things I find important. It's the one truth from Tea Baggers to the far left.
The last of those issues could be solved by a return receipt that you keep. (I know who wants to keep a bunch more receipts right). Not that those issues you raised are not valid, but where does trading privacy for convenience end?
Ditto, I thought it must be a joke. Not only does it seem crazy from a jurisdiction point of view, but it seems absolutely retarded from a privacy and personal liberty point of view.
I am sure the Tea Party will have something to say about this egregious act of the state.
Here here., If your town is being overrun by bullies and corrupt cops your solution is not to defund city hall and scrap your local government. Your solution is to clean up and strength your government and justice system with ethics and integrity so that the laws apply to everyone the same.
:)
I think the protestors have very valid emotions and are looking in the right direction of somehow keeping money out of politics. If someone comes along with an actual really good idea about how to do that this grass fire could become a fully involved forest fire.
The hard part is coming up with a really good policy prescription for keeping money out of politics. Especially since the US has been going the opposite direction and full speed since the shiftboaters (PAC's SuperPac's, etc.)
I am not sure what the solution is but I have a strong feeling that the internet will be involved
Ok Right now I understand thanks.
I agree this would be hard to imagine in terms of free speech.
Much easier to understand in terms of say Ebola. Were only certain accredited collectives are allowed to posses and play with it. That would be an area that it makes sense for the government to control and license the right.
In terms of gun control I can see the sense in licensing access much like we license drivers licenses. Both are potentially very harmful devices and "we" are all safer and better off if access is restricted based on specific and fair rules.
Speech is a very singular thing and I can only understand it as an individual right.
I am not sure what you mean by this can you explain? (Not troll just truly curios)
You guys should have went the single payer system with a public operated insurance agency. Think of it as open source insurance where the books are open to all. Then you wouldn't have needed a law to force people to buy insurance, they just would have been fools not to buy it because it would be so affordable.
Did you watch Michael Moores movie "Sicko" ? Remember when he talked to all those Canadian who went on and on about how much they liked the health care system here? Well guess what, it isn't spin and those were not cherry picked people. It just works.
Except in Europe (Italy) it was primarily a heroin addict disease. Which probably means that the same effect was at play but with a different "perceived undesirable"
I was also under the impression that the scanning device performs the verification of that card/pin and then sent a simply "yup its good" to the server. Meaning that a comprised machine could just fake the verification (eg. no pin).
Is that correct?
Pretty much all of mine. Just saying...
Failed? It loads for me just fine. What browser are you using?
Seriously WTF are you talking about? You start with the premise that it has failed but offer no clue as to your measure of success/failure.
I like my G+ account. I like the interface and the name.
If your saying that the casual dinner party that is G+ is not a loud and obnoxious frat party that Facebook is, I might agree. But that doesn't make my dinner party a failure.
And thanks to labeling laws you knew which paint had lead and which didn't. And if it said it didn't but did, there was a regulation that punished that company and forced them to recall their product. Written Laws (regulation) have been a rather good invention. I say we keep it.
So the questions are
A. How do you combat undermine their public brand with, well...with the facts. B. When will the other parties finally do a better job of their messaging so that their brands succeed.
In this specific case, having the US put us on the "Privacy Watch List" puts us at risk of economic retaliations from the US: From Wikipedia
I wonder how many companies have policies about not hiring remote contractors from countries on the list? Anybody have first hand information of how being put on the watch list impaired their ability to work with American partners?
Actually I didn't catch the sarcasm (or irony) either. Was about to post links to charts and graphs showing how wrong the volcano statement is.
I think for some iPhone purchasers it comes down "status seeking". (not all obviously)
Personally I don't give a rats ass about the brand of my jeans or anyone else's. But some people, or circles of people, really do care about these things, and they think its crazy that I don't.
When comes to Android vs iPhone, my new Samsung Galaxy S is amazing. I spent a few days with a friends iPhone, and I much prefer my Android. The only annoyances I have is a few icons that my carrier installed. But at least I have to choice of changing that.
Android has a range of phones and price points where as iPhone only has one. So if your going to compare (ahem) Apples to Apples, then only compare the high end Androids to the iPhone.