A kick-ass Italian place with over-the-top paintings and statues. They actually walk you through the kitchen on your way to be seated, to convince you that it's clean.
Well it's not the receiving that you'd be sued for anyway. It's the redistribution that they would get six figure statutory damages for, so unless you could argue that Lars gave you a transitive power to give to others, I can't see the theoretical benefit.
5 Mbit is decent. I think I was overzealous in my claim because I was thinking of the FCC's craptacular broadband definition stating that speeds under 1 Mbit/s are good enough.
On Long Island we have it pretty good. Cablevision and Verizon compete to offer us tens of megabits at affordable prices. Admittedly the speeds are measured in marketing terms, but my "15 Mbit" basic OptOnline (Cablevision) service still gets 6-10 Mbits.
But I hate the notion that I wouldn't have that kind of service available (or the ability to upgrade to 30 Mbits) if I lived in many other parts of the country.
Well I don't send all my probes to the same patch anyway. In the case of drones, it's especially important to send the four initial workers to separate patches so they don't queue up. But it would be nice if the author bothered to explain his statement instead of leaving us to speculate based only on what we already know.
Dude, when even Alan Greenspan says he was wrong about the free market, you know your position's compromised.
Banks weren't forced to make bad loans in order to get homeless people off the streets. I don't know where you heard that idea. Banks *wanted* to make horrible loans to idiots who couldn't afford them, because they knew they would have to foreclose. The bank then gets both the payments thus far and the house, which of course is now worth even more because, you know, home values can only go up.
The problem was that each individual company was allowed to act in a destructive manner (both for idiotic home buyers and the economy as a whole) in order to obtain short term gain at incredible levels of risk.
For instance, I once worked out using the binomial theorem that it is slightly more beneficial to send new workers to the *edge* of a mining line rather than the center. Over the course of maybe 3 minutes, this kind of movement will let you mine about 300-500 more minerals than you normally would.
Huh? Will somebody explain to me why it is more efficient to increase the length of a mining circuit, all other things held equal? Or what additional assumptions are required to make the binomial theorem applicable to this problem?
I think the notion of relative velocities is enough to eliminate that prospect entirely. If you don't match velocities with the object your piggybacking onto, you're crashing into it. If you do match speeds, then what was the point of the piggybacking in the first place?
IVF is different from abortion, at least in its emotional nature. Terminating a pregnancy versus not implanting an embryo may or may not be ethically equivalent, but for me there's more of an instinctual hesitance in the case of the fetus.
The only defect I'm worried about in audio CDs is a drastically reduced dynamic range, as a casualty of the industry's war against quality (Loudness War).
Er, no, your description is wrong. Pro-Abortion implies that I want people to have abortions over the alternative of not having abortions. I made no claim one way or the other on that. Pro-Choice on the other hand means that I am for the ability of individuals to choose to abort a pregnancy (without getting into the details about viability, etc., for the purposes of this discussion).
The difference is analogous to calling someone "pro-flagburning" when they (and I) are in fact in favor of the right to burn flags, even though some of us may not necessarily ever wish to engage in the practice ourselves.
Out of curiosity, does the pairing of smart and stupid people to produce a race of average intelligence human beings (see Harrison Bergeron; great movie) constitute Eugenics? If so, it seems like a rather benign implementation compared with the horrors of Germany in the '30s.
Re:This too was foreseen
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Society as a whole doesn't have to put up with embryos being aborted over hair/eye color if it deems it to be immoral.
I'm heavily pro-choice, but that made even me cringe.
It's very interesting that you brought all those points up. Those are matters that I used to feel strongly about one way, but I grew to reach more of an ambiguous position in recent times, partly because I sensed the kind of hypocrisy that you just outlined.
I'm not the GP that you called out, but I'd like to go down that political checklist anyway:
- I'm not prepared for any compromised on Evolution; if we can require mandatory schooling then we can require that it's done right. - I love Obama but I'm wary of the justification for teaching sex education in schools in any way that goes against the parents' values. In particular, if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to do that, I think the effort would be better spent convincing the parents to talk to their kids about contraception, etc. - I'm not enough of a Libertarian to abandon efforts at requiring a better life for some. There's still a Liberal in me. - I sure as hell am against the Fairness Doctrine. Instead of requiring a diversity of viewpoints from a single source, we should be requiring a diversity of sources from which to get those views. The Internet for the win. - Gun control is the battlefield where the biggest conflict between my inner Liberal and Libertarian takes place. My gut is in favor of it, but I'm uncertain of my foundational justification for this position, and at the same time sympathize with anti-authoritarians enough to make me wary. - Hate Speech must be protected. I truly realized this the day I read about that guy in the UK who as arrested for protesting Scientology.
Anyway, thanks for letting me hijack your interjection with my own self-satisfied moral justifications.
Reading that brings me back to the outrage I felt when reading a book by Bill McKibben called "Enough". His view was that there's a distinct line between technologies that it is appropriate for mankind to pursue, and technologies that we should collective brand a permanent taboo. I call bullshit on this claim to objective morality, on a philosophical level.*
On the other hand, I agree that there are certain scientific possibilities - no, probabilities - that we are not currently prepared for, and I can definitely see a role for government in banning or regulating practices similar to this one. The most compelling of these reasons for me are expressed perfectly in Gattaca.
* (I also get pissed off by the occasional attempt at using precise terminology imprecisely, to convey a greater sense of threat. At one point he refers to our technology as growing at an exponential rate, and then adds, "not only that, but the rate of growth is itself increasing exponentially." But then again, that Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race (namely our inability to understand the exponential function) has always been my pet peeve.)
Really? I absolutely loved Bender's Big Score more than I have the words to express. I felt that it was in every way the perfect futurama movie. But Beasts with a Billion Backs was clearly an unfinished piece, with tons of promising gag ideas mutilated by terrible execution, timing, and unconvincing plot. I figured this was likely due to the writer's strike, but I've been afraid to view Bender's Game lest I suffer the same disappoint.
But if Bender's Game and the fourth dvd are half as good as Big Score, I'd love to see a return to episodes.
Ah, but who controls the hypothetical and absurdly generic TLD name "furniture"? How on Earth is it fair to allow some middleman to usurp a piece of the TLD space, so that they have influence or even monopoly control over who in the industry is allowed to play?
Wireless telecommunications companies have created the disgustingly artificial space of commercial texting numbers so that they could grow and culture an industry of crap on your cellphone, and reap a sizable share of the profits. It's a closed network in stark opposition to the Internet's openness. Why would we want to emulate that? Why would we want to give private entities control over what has basically been community property? It's a betrayal of the purpose of the Internet and the credibility that the network has earned.
These TLDs should be in the control of neutral or governing parties, not private third parties.
Allowing anyone to register TLDs in a fairly non-restricted manner is rubbish because it undermines hierarchy and permits exactly that kind of pointless redundancy. If on the other hand no one but sovereign nations had control of a TLD, there might be a bit more order in the namespace. I'm not suggesting there wouldn't still be significant hurdles, I'm just saying it would be less of an embarrassment. I'm sick of gimicks in place of sound structure.
Yes, I agree that.com's meaning has been changed and diluted by the 90s, to the point that it no longer represents what it originally was supposed to, contributing to end user confusion and unnecessary defensive name grabbing. But I don't see how giving everyone their own TLD is a step up.
The closer to the root a name is, the more compelling the taxonomical justification for its existence should be. At the closest level is the root itself, then the "top" level of country jurisdictions, then categories specifying a purpose such as commerce or public forum, etc.
Keeping with our organism taxonomy analogy, I'd rather see sponges.animals.org.us and grasses.plants.org.us.
I realize this is entirely unrealistic at this point, but I'm trying to be idealistic about what an ideal naming system would look like. There might also have to be some kind of local automatic suffix system to shorten lengthy names, so that a user in the United States might be able to omit the trailing.us for brevity. Those kinds of details I feel are secondary to the more important goals of clarity and authority that are conveyed by a domain name.
Ug! That's exactly what we DON'T want in DNS! I thought DNS was supposed to convey some notion of authority about its records.
Much more importantly, why the hell would we willingly step into a situation where we're promoting the metaphor of tagging as a means to organize names, when we don't actually have the freedom (libre) to apply tags in a free (gratis) and easy manner? I'm referring to the fact that registrants would be hemorrhaging money to registrars on a per-tag basis, and for the top level, that would be quite a steep and ludicrous fee.
It'd be like GMail or your web2.0 application of choice charging you micropayments based on the number of labels you use or even the number of messages you apply them to. You're mixing metaphors in a way that conveys a false sense of liquidity.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sir - sensors have detected a statement of reason that challenges our prevailing biases!"
"Take evasive action!"
A kick-ass Italian place with over-the-top paintings and statues. They actually walk you through the kitchen on your way to be seated, to convince you that it's clean.
Well it's not the receiving that you'd be sued for anyway. It's the redistribution that they would get six figure statutory damages for, so unless you could argue that Lars gave you a transitive power to give to others, I can't see the theoretical benefit.
> will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo.
A stark contrast indeed, as anyone who's tried to organize any kind of group event at both places knows.
5 Mbit is decent. I think I was overzealous in my claim because I was thinking of the FCC's craptacular broadband definition stating that speeds under 1 Mbit/s are good enough.
On Long Island we have it pretty good. Cablevision and Verizon compete to offer us tens of megabits at affordable prices. Admittedly the speeds are measured in marketing terms, but my "15 Mbit" basic OptOnline (Cablevision) service still gets 6-10 Mbits.
But I hate the notion that I wouldn't have that kind of service available (or the ability to upgrade to 30 Mbits) if I lived in many other parts of the country.
Well I don't send all my probes to the same patch anyway. In the case of drones, it's especially important to send the four initial workers to separate patches so they don't queue up. But it would be nice if the author bothered to explain his statement instead of leaving us to speculate based only on what we already know.
Dude, when even Alan Greenspan says he was wrong about the free market, you know your position's compromised.
Banks weren't forced to make bad loans in order to get homeless people off the streets. I don't know where you heard that idea. Banks *wanted* to make horrible loans to idiots who couldn't afford them, because they knew they would have to foreclose. The bank then gets both the payments thus far and the house, which of course is now worth even more because, you know, home values can only go up.
The problem was that each individual company was allowed to act in a destructive manner (both for idiotic home buyers and the economy as a whole) in order to obtain short term gain at incredible levels of risk.
Ug. The real tragedy is that you still consider DSL to be adequate as a basic service for the nation.
Heh, it's like he just woke up from the 1790s.
Huh? Will somebody explain to me why it is more efficient to increase the length of a mining circuit, all other things held equal? Or what additional assumptions are required to make the binomial theorem applicable to this problem?
I think the notion of relative velocities is enough to eliminate that prospect entirely. If you don't match velocities with the object your piggybacking onto, you're crashing into it. If you do match speeds, then what was the point of the piggybacking in the first place?
Wow. I feel... changed. As if I've discovered a new and incredible superpower. "Workaphobia was just an average slashdot user until one day..."
Should I use my abilities for good or evil?
IVF is different from abortion, at least in its emotional nature. Terminating a pregnancy versus not implanting an embryo may or may not be ethically equivalent, but for me there's more of an instinctual hesitance in the case of the fetus.
The only defect I'm worried about in audio CDs is a drastically reduced dynamic range, as a casualty of the industry's war against quality (Loudness War).
Schrodinger's baby?
It made me cringe because it was the first time I've heard or thought about the notion of an abortion based on cosmetic characteristics.
Er, no, your description is wrong. Pro-Abortion implies that I want people to have abortions over the alternative of not having abortions. I made no claim one way or the other on that. Pro-Choice on the other hand means that I am for the ability of individuals to choose to abort a pregnancy (without getting into the details about viability, etc., for the purposes of this discussion).
The difference is analogous to calling someone "pro-flagburning" when they (and I) are in fact in favor of the right to burn flags, even though some of us may not necessarily ever wish to engage in the practice ourselves.
Out of curiosity, does the pairing of smart and stupid people to produce a race of average intelligence human beings (see Harrison Bergeron; great movie) constitute Eugenics? If so, it seems like a rather benign implementation compared with the horrors of Germany in the '30s.
I'm heavily pro-choice, but that made even me cringe.
It's very interesting that you brought all those points up. Those are matters that I used to feel strongly about one way, but I grew to reach more of an ambiguous position in recent times, partly because I sensed the kind of hypocrisy that you just outlined.
I'm not the GP that you called out, but I'd like to go down that political checklist anyway:
- I'm not prepared for any compromised on Evolution; if we can require mandatory schooling then we can require that it's done right.
- I love Obama but I'm wary of the justification for teaching sex education in schools in any way that goes against the parents' values. In particular, if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to do that, I think the effort would be better spent convincing the parents to talk to their kids about contraception, etc.
- I'm not enough of a Libertarian to abandon efforts at requiring a better life for some. There's still a Liberal in me.
- I sure as hell am against the Fairness Doctrine. Instead of requiring a diversity of viewpoints from a single source, we should be requiring a diversity of sources from which to get those views. The Internet for the win.
- Gun control is the battlefield where the biggest conflict between my inner Liberal and Libertarian takes place. My gut is in favor of it, but I'm uncertain of my foundational justification for this position, and at the same time sympathize with anti-authoritarians enough to make me wary.
- Hate Speech must be protected. I truly realized this the day I read about that guy in the UK who as arrested for protesting Scientology.
Anyway, thanks for letting me hijack your interjection with my own self-satisfied moral justifications.
Reading that brings me back to the outrage I felt when reading a book by Bill McKibben called "Enough". His view was that there's a distinct line between technologies that it is appropriate for mankind to pursue, and technologies that we should collective brand a permanent taboo. I call bullshit on this claim to objective morality, on a philosophical level.*
On the other hand, I agree that there are certain scientific possibilities - no, probabilities - that we are not currently prepared for, and I can definitely see a role for government in banning or regulating practices similar to this one. The most compelling of these reasons for me are expressed perfectly in Gattaca.
* (I also get pissed off by the occasional attempt at using precise terminology imprecisely, to convey a greater sense of threat. At one point he refers to our technology as growing at an exponential rate, and then adds, "not only that, but the rate of growth is itself increasing exponentially." But then again, that Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race (namely our inability to understand the exponential function) has always been my pet peeve.)
Really? I absolutely loved Bender's Big Score more than I have the words to express. I felt that it was in every way the perfect futurama movie. But Beasts with a Billion Backs was clearly an unfinished piece, with tons of promising gag ideas mutilated by terrible execution, timing, and unconvincing plot. I figured this was likely due to the writer's strike, but I've been afraid to view Bender's Game lest I suffer the same disappoint.
But if Bender's Game and the fourth dvd are half as good as Big Score, I'd love to see a return to episodes.
Ah, but who controls the hypothetical and absurdly generic TLD name "furniture"? How on Earth is it fair to allow some middleman to usurp a piece of the TLD space, so that they have influence or even monopoly control over who in the industry is allowed to play?
Wireless telecommunications companies have created the disgustingly artificial space of commercial texting numbers so that they could grow and culture an industry of crap on your cellphone, and reap a sizable share of the profits. It's a closed network in stark opposition to the Internet's openness. Why would we want to emulate that? Why would we want to give private entities control over what has basically been community property? It's a betrayal of the purpose of the Internet and the credibility that the network has earned.
These TLDs should be in the control of neutral or governing parties, not private third parties.
Allowing anyone to register TLDs in a fairly non-restricted manner is rubbish because it undermines hierarchy and permits exactly that kind of pointless redundancy. If on the other hand no one but sovereign nations had control of a TLD, there might be a bit more order in the namespace. I'm not suggesting there wouldn't still be significant hurdles, I'm just saying it would be less of an embarrassment. I'm sick of gimicks in place of sound structure.
Yes, I agree that .com's meaning has been changed and diluted by the 90s, to the point that it no longer represents what it originally was supposed to, contributing to end user confusion and unnecessary defensive name grabbing. But I don't see how giving everyone their own TLD is a step up.
The closer to the root a name is, the more compelling the taxonomical justification for its existence should be. At the closest level is the root itself, then the "top" level of country jurisdictions, then categories specifying a purpose such as commerce or public forum, etc.
Keeping with our organism taxonomy analogy, I'd rather see sponges.animals.org.us and grasses.plants.org.us.
I realize this is entirely unrealistic at this point, but I'm trying to be idealistic about what an ideal naming system would look like. There might also have to be some kind of local automatic suffix system to shorten lengthy names, so that a user in the United States might be able to omit the trailing .us for brevity. Those kinds of details I feel are secondary to the more important goals of clarity and authority that are conveyed by a domain name.
Ug! That's exactly what we DON'T want in DNS! I thought DNS was supposed to convey some notion of authority about its records.
Much more importantly, why the hell would we willingly step into a situation where we're promoting the metaphor of tagging as a means to organize names, when we don't actually have the freedom (libre) to apply tags in a free (gratis) and easy manner? I'm referring to the fact that registrants would be hemorrhaging money to registrars on a per-tag basis, and for the top level, that would be quite a steep and ludicrous fee.
It'd be like GMail or your web2.0 application of choice charging you micropayments based on the number of labels you use or even the number of messages you apply them to. You're mixing metaphors in a way that conveys a false sense of liquidity.