You mean paid again on top of the payment received when the dentist went out and paid for the CD itself?
Yes, obviously. Otherwise, you open the door to saying it's OK for me to buy a CD, then charge people admission to come down into my basement and listen to it. Then charge them another fee to watch some of my DVDs on my TV. This is known as an "unauthorized exhibition." Or heck, I could open my own movie theatre, and instead of paying the outrageous costs associated with legally showing a big-screen movie, I could just rent the DVD at Blockbuster for $3.99 and play it to a theatre full of patrons who all paid $9 per seat.
We're expected to take the word of a fellow who doesn't even know the right term for it? FYI, it's called "sight-reading," not "cold-reading". A real professional would know that.
The way things are going, it will be impossible for artists to record their own work and distribute it over the internet, because the only legal distribution channels will be through the current media companies. Sure, the artist can provide their own MP3s, but what good will that be when MP3s are illegal? When the only recordings that are legal are those that are signed by some big business that can afford the signature block?
I've never heard anyone seriously portray such delusional, blatant FUD as a a legitimate concern. Let me tell you this: The future you describe will NEVER happen. MP3's themselves will NEVER be illegal. Artists will ALWAYS have the option of publishing their own work.
I mean Geez, are you for real? ISPs can't even control spam - you think they're going to stop the flow of "unsigned MP3 files?" Do you honestly believe that such fears are warranted? Do you honestly believe that even in the worst, most corrupt and misdirected case, such a future could actually come to pass?
If you do, then please don't take this as a flame, but I think there are very few who are as wildly paranoid as yourself.
Right now, most recording artists see 3%-6% of the profits of their works. Most book-length authors see about 10%-15% of the profit from their work.
So? What's the problem?
How much does it "cost" the artist to create that art? What, a few days of their time? What about the people who actually created the music, mixed the tracks, created the album art, produced the album, coordinated the distribution, marketed the release, and the hundreds of other people involved in the creation of a work? Why is there time less valuable than Mr. Timberlake's?
If it takes 150 people to produce an album, and only one of them is the "artist", and that album makes $30 million in sales, why shouldn't the artist be happy about getting 5% of the profits (which works out to $1.5 million?) You can be damn sure that that's more than anybody ELSE directly involved with that album! Granted, it may not be as much as the owner of the record label, but so what? He/she is the person that took a chance on them in creating the company in the first place - it's called capitalism.
Why does Mr. Timberlake deserve to be paid AS MUCH as 3% of the profits, for a few days work? Why, when so many other, better educated, harder working, and more talented people see far less than that? Especially in this day and age when we already know that the voice talent themselves are easily replaceable and commoditized.
So boo-freakin'-hoo that the "artist" only gets 5% of the profits. No one seems to realize that they only contributed about 0.5% of the time in creating the work in the first place. Just because it's Britney's voice on the CD doesn't mean she created the whole thing herself, and the big, mean record-guy is taking all her money. Give me a freakin' break.
If they won't provide replacements, they've proven themselves liars in court. If they charge for replacements, they've undone their argument that there's no reason to have a backup.
That's a flawed argument, because it assumes that a company is obligated to provide you with a free replacement every time your product becomes damaged through negligence or abuse. I think it's pretty obvious that it is unreasonable to expect a company to repeatedly replace merchandise that you damage through your own stupidity. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes. If you're a moron, and you scratch your CD, too fsckin bad. Buy a new CD, and try to be a little more careful this time.
The difference I see between you and me is that I believe the government will do a worse job taking care of the sick/old than the people will themselves.
I think you're right: That is where we disagree.:) I think that human nature causes people to make bad decisions, procrastinate, and fail to plan. Even a poorly run government system would be better than people who forget to renew their car registration, misplace their voter registration card and need a replacement, or can't remember to pay their water bill on time.
People manage their own finances far better than the government.
I strongly disagree with that statement. If that were true, then why is it that the government takes income tax, pension premiums, and unemployment premiums off our paychecks automatically (disclaimer: I'm in Canada), rather than letting us take our whole paycheck home and worry about setting aside money for those taxes ourselves? It's because the government knows that people are lazy, stupid, and forgetful, and if they didn't automatically take those premiums off of our paychecks, then they'd have millions of people every April who just plain don't have the money they owe, sitting in their accounts, waiting to be paid to the government.
People are just bad at planning. Human nature is forgetful. Government computers (generally) aren't.
(like myself), we spend a LOT on insurance.
Not everyone can afford a few hundred dollars a month for the luxury of insurance. As you can imagine, those also happen to be the very same people who can least afford a catastrophic illness or injury. What's a single mother without a college education supposed to do if she develops an expensive illness through no fault of her own? How is she supposed to explain to her child that Mommy's going to die soon, because they're not rich?
Now to your point that some people will not make enough and then take that money and spend it on food/shelter etc. Well I say, it their CHOICE.
What??? You think people "choose" to be poor? Are you insane? Why would anybody "choose" to be poor? Do you not see that your capitalistic system is built on a foundation of perpetuation of class distinction? People have the luxury of a good job because they were able to afford a good education, and they were able to afford a good education because their parents had the luxury of a good job, because they had the luxury of getting a good education, etc. Conversely, that poor, single mother in my first example, who can't even afford health insurance, she obviously won't be sending her child to Harvard, so her child will also likely be doomed to scraping out an existence in the lower economic class. Don't you see that? You're system is designed to keep people where they are, because the people who designed that system are wealthy!
[Canada] do[es] let your poor and sick die.
No, it doesn't. Health care is publically funded in Canada. If someone needs urgent medical attention, it is paid for. In Canada, no one is denied critical care due to an inability to pay.
How many new drugs have been developed by a firm in Canada?
I'm not going to deny that the US has a more active and better funded drug R&D industry, but I will point out that Canada also has a vibrant pharmaceudical industry. Canada is also working on advanced medicines for gene therapy, new organ transplant techniques and materials, and cancer research. We also have world-class pediatrics care.
Canada has developed 0 new drugs in the last 20 years.
That's simply incorrect. Were I to list every drug ever invented in Canada, this post would go on far longer than anyone would have the patience to read, so I'll simply stick to the most recent example. Just one week ago, a new cancer drug was developed in Canada:
Does that mean that you outlaw knifes because they not only cut meat, but they can kill? Just because you use mod chips to make illegal copies do not mean that everyone does.
While that is true, 99.9% of all knives sold are used for legitimate, legal purposes, while only 0.1% of all knives sold are used illegally.
In contrast, 99% of all mod chips sold are used to play pirated games, while only 1% are used for the legitimate purpose of playing imported games.
When the vast, vast majority use of an object is legal, it is not hypocritical to keep that object legal, while another seemingly innocuous object that is overwhelmingly used for illegal activities may be banned.
Yes, I made up all of my numbers, but the proportions are generally right. The vast majority of knives are used for legal activities, and the vast majority of mod chips are used for illegal activities.
Mods: I shoulda used Preview. My bad, mod my other post down if you want. Here's an eaiser-to-read version of my comment:
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you.
How about if someone develops Alzheimers at age 60? That's not really their fault, but should they have been saving like crazy in their younger years, just in case they developed a disease which would eventually require round-the-clock personal homecare?
What about someone who develops diabetes at age 50 because of their genes? What if someone develops it at age 45 because of their poor diet? What if someone gets hit by a bus at age 40, and needs prescription painkillers for the rest of their life?
What about people who develop mental illnesses such as manic depression or anxiety? What about erectile dysfunction? Birth control? Where do we draw the line? To me, clearly the people near the beginning of this rant deserve help through public funding, particularly when they suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that is not their fault. However, it is equally clear to me that I as a taxpayer should not be paying for Grampy's Viagra. You, moreover, appear to believe that no tax dollars should go towards any of these examples, and in that case, all I have to say about that is "Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge." That's not a country I'd want to live in.
So when the people that are say in their 30's now get to be 65, (me) they will have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to put money away.
No matter how "responsible" a person is, they can't possibly save up enough to live out 25-or-so "twilight" years while paying $1200/day for personal homecare due to a catastrophic illness. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States is unexpected catastrophic illness.
Let me ask you this. If you are under the age of 40 and the government offered to lower your taxes by say 15-20%, but you would not be eligable for any social programs later in life, would you take it?
Now that is an extremely dangerous option to give people. The vast majority of people would say "yes," and they'd take it, then they'd not change a damn thing about their lives. They'd take that extra money and spend it. And when the time came that they needed social assistances and medical care, and they didn't have the money, they'd hold their dying hands out, and coldblooded beancounters like you would slap them away and say "tough cookies!" You'd probably smugly pat yourself on the back while you were at it, for being such a good planner and putting away a few thousand bucks yourself, when in reality, all you've done is simply been fortunate enough not (yet) to suffer the same expensive illnesses as those who you snub your noses at.
Given the choice, those people would take the extra cash, and they'd still need help when they got old. If people like you were in charge, and turned them away, or told them, "well, Sicky, I guess you should've saved that money instead of blowing it on rent and groceries, Hmmmmmmmm????" While your smug dismissal may in fact have a grain of truth to it, it doesn't change the fact that at that moment, it would be too late for that person to go back in time and make different decisions, and they still need help now. What do you propose be done? Let them die on the streets because they didn't plan as well as you?
Again, I repeat: That's not a country I want to live in.
Thankfully, I'm in Canada. Most people up here are far, far too civilized to even consider such a barbaric
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you.
How about if someone develops Alzheimers at age 60? That's not really their fault, but should they have been saving like crazy in their younger years, just in case they developed a disease which would eventually require round-the-clock personal homecare?
What about someone who develops diabetes at age 50 because of their genes? What if someone develops it at age 45 because of their poor diet? What if someone gets hit by a bus at age 40, and needs prescription painkillers for the rest of their life?
What about people who develop mental illnesses such as manic depression or anxiety? What about erectile dysfunction? Birth control? Where do we draw the line? To me, clearly the people near the beginning of this rant deserve help through public funding, particularly when they suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that is not their fault. However, it is equally clear to me that I as a taxpayer should not be paying for Grampy's Viagra. You, moreover, appear to believe that no tax dollars should go towards any of these examples, and in that case, all I have to say about that is "Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge." That's not a country I'd want to live in.
Re:Mod the Parent Down Re:Mod the Parent Down (Score:1) by FatherOfONe (515801) on 01:49 PM July 21st, 2004 (#9761562) this has nothing to do with NASA getting more or less funding, but I will respond to your post.
Yes medicare/medicade and social security should be removed from the U.S. government. Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you. Or better yet all the extra money that you would have earned in that lifetime without the additional taxes on you, you could have invested and been far better off than what is currently provided.
Now having said all this, we (America) have an obligation to those people that are currently on medicare/medicade and SS, and to those about to get on it, BUT for those that are under 40, we do NOT, AND if you asked those people if they would rather have their money now, to invest (or waist) almost all of them would want it now.
So when the people that are say in their 30's now get to be 65, (me) they will have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to put money away.
No matter how "responsible" a person is, they can't possibly save up enough to live out 25-or-so "twilight" years while paying $1200/day for personal homecare due to a catastrophic illness. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States is unexpected catastrophic illness.
Let me ask you this. If you are under the age of 40 and the government offered to lower your taxes by say 15-20%, but you would not be eligable for any social programs later in life, would you take it?
Now that is an extremely dangerous option to give people. The vast majority of people would say "yes," and they'd take it, then they'd not change a damn thing about their lives. They'd take that extra money and spend it. And when the time came that they needed social assistances and medical care, and they didn't have the money, they'd hold their dying hands out, and coldblooded beancounters like you would slap them away and say "tough cookies!" You'd probably smugly pat yourself on the back while you were at it, for being such a good planner and putting away a few thousand bucks yourself, when in reality, all you've done is simply been fortunate enough not (yet) to suffer the same expensive illne
Java is (so far) a programming language, this JDS nonsense not withstanding. It only has stuff that makes it work better on the Internet if the developers design and code that stuff
Uh, that's the point. It already does. Developers have already "designed and coded" that stuff into the core API. Java's core framework is astutely network-aware. It is trivially easy to write a Java app that uses the network, unlike C, which requires a great deal more knowledge of low-level network functionality and threading models.
Let's see. A 0.0001% chance that these cameras can be used to catch a criminal,
Can you cite a source for that number? Experience has shown that in other countries where such cameras are in widespread use (such as the UK), they are actually quite useful in securing convictions, and even deterring crime. Vandalism and thefts have notably dropped in areas where the cameras have been installed, and British police regularly rely on their footage as part of their cases against individuals suspected of property crimes or even violent crimes.
What if instead of these 75 new cameras, the city hired 75 new police officers, and stationed them at the same locations as these cameras, where they were to simply sit all day and watch what goes on. Would you still complain about an invasion of privacy?
Guys, anyone who knows anything about security knows that any network can be hacked. All you have to do is attack the weakest link. In this case, the weak links were components of the network itself. This is a common scenario. Why? Well, partially because security is generally hard. There simply aren't highly-trained, certified teams of security gurus babysitting every corporate and university LAN out there. And all it takes is one hole for a hacker to get in through.
Even in those cases where you do have the budget for an experienced network admin, all you've done is made it so that the weak link is no longer the network. Now, it's the users.
*ring *ring*
User: "Hello?" Hacker: "Hi, is this Jane Doe?" User: "Yes, who's this?" Hacker: "Hi Jane, my name is Dirk Diggler, I'm with the university's computer department. We're presently migrating all of the user data for the arts department, and we need to copy your data over to the new server. Don't tell me your password; as you should know, you should never give away your password. However, we do need to access your account to make sure all of your data is successfully backed up, so what I need you to do is to log into your account, and change your password to 'test' for now. Once we've finished moving your data, I'll call you back and get you to change it back to whatever is is right now." User: "Uh, OK, how do I change my password?"
I don't really have much to say, other than "Congratulations." They've been a poster-boy for OSS, and proven that network collaboration really can result in a stable, useful, well-developed product. I wonder what new innovations we'll be praising for the 2nd, or even 5th anniversary.
For a scientist of his stature to admint he was wrong is a credit to the man and the profession.
Uhm, this isn't the first time he's been wrong. Indeed, the whole field of science is built upon scientists making educated and well-reasoned theories, then trying to prove it wrong. Pretty much all of our presently widely-accepted rules have come about this way. Many of them are even still called "theories." For example, "The Theory of Flight" has not been conclusively proven as a "Law" yet. Ditto for the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Atoms. We accept most of these ideas as facts nowadays, but the truth is, they're actually still just theories that haven't been proven wrong yet.
Not if you never invest more than you are prepared to lose.
That's a gambling axiom, not an investment axiom. When gambling, you're just out for entertaiment, and you have to assume that you won't bring back any of the $100 or whatever that you took into the casino.
When investing, however, you can have a reasonable expectation of not only staying even (that is, you're not prepared to lose any of what you invested), but also of reasonable growth.
If you never invest more than you're prepared to lose, how would you ever retire? Where would you put your life savings, if not investments, while you saved up for retirement?
And in making those investments, isn't it reasonable to expect the companies you're investing in to be honest in stating earnings numbers, to enable you to make an informed decision about where to put your money?
If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations.
I'm going to get modded into oblivion for this, but it has to be said.
The double-standards here on Slashdot are mind-boggling. When SCO infringes on the GPL, everyone jumps up, guns blazing, and spews venom all over their litigating asses, and we scream about protecting the legitimacy of the GPL and Linux's copyrights. But when the RIAA goes after P2P networks to protect their copyrights, they're evil. We scream how they should leave the networks alone, and instead go after those who are actually causing the problems. So they did. And we screamed at them still!
"How could they sue a bunch of kids?" we cried. Well, perhaps because that's who's downloading all the music?
A bug is found in Mozilla. "See, the system works", they say. A bug is found in IE. "Proof positive that Microsoft is crap!" they scream.
Enron, Worldcom, Nortel, and RedHat all admit that they were lying to investors, and restate their earnings downwards. "Greedy, heartless, bloodsucking corporate bastards!", we scream.
"... except RedHat. I'll donate money to them, even though they lied to try and manipulate earnings numbers. Because we like RedHat."
Bacteria. Some scientist at UCLA did some calculations, and determined that a decent sized canyon in the Mojave desert covered 2 feet of water and a sheet to collect the hydrogen produced by the bacteria would be enough for all of Southern California.
A canyon? Are you serious? You want to flood and cover up an entire canyon? Do you have any idea how irate environmentalists would be? Actually, I think they'd likely be confused - not sure if they should be furious or happy.:) Probably not very practical though, either way.
Geothermal
Won't produce enough power to run a country.
Photovoltaics
Not efficient enough. It takes just as much energy to create the cells as they'd return over their entire lifetime. Plus, they require large amounts of real estate and don't generate enough power.
Tidal
Limited to particular geographic regions, costly to maintain due to the beating the facitilities take during bad weather.
Convection
?
Isn't this the same as Geothermal?
Fission
The one clean, safe, efficient, renewable option presently at our disposal. We're already using it in limited amounts, though I agree we should be rapidly expanding the use of this energy source. Presently, the bad PR surrounding the word "nuclear" is holding it back, but hopefully, education will eventually catch up with the masses and we will overcome this particular limitation.
Fusion
This would be great, if we could manage to contain the reaction for more than a few milliseconds, and actually get more energy out of the reaction than it took to initiate and contain it.
Biomass Fuels
Probably practical for consumer use and travel, but not likely to be mass-produced in the quantities needed to power a country. Plus, if you grow millions of square miles of veggies, just to distill them down and run an SUV, while people in other parts of the world are starving, I hope you have a good marketing department, because the negative PR will bite you.
Solar Thermal
Not practical for much more than keeping yuppies' swimming pools warm enough for their soft, middle-aged butts.
Wind
Many of the same limitations of solar power, plus a couple borrowed from tidal. Namely, it won't generate enough to run a country, it is limited geographically to areas with high wind, requires a lot of real estate, and is not without its negative environmental impacts (read: multiple bird strikes per day, interference with migration/nesting patterns).
Hydroelectric
My second-favorite power source, after nuclear. It is unfortunately limited a little by goegraphical characteristics (need significant variations in altitude, natural water features, and reasonable rainfall), but takes less of a beating than tidal and actually generates large amounts of power, with little pollution and relatively localized environmental impact.
Anyway, to make a long story short, only two of your "solutions" are seriously viable and practical, and they are already in fairly widespread use. There's a reason corporations and governments are rushing to get behind options like "geothermal" and "solar" power - they mostly suck, and are inadequate to meet the power needs of a nation.
What happens when J. Random Paedophile hacks the system and can use it to choose a victim?
And risk being caught by leaving all those computer logs??? Why wouldn't he just camp out in a van in front of the hall where they hold the local Girl Scouts weekly troop meetings?
Or in front of a school?
Or a carnival? Amusement park? Playground? Following the ice cream truck?
Hacking's way too much work when all those far simpler options are available. Stop making up boogiemen.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean paid again on top of the payment received when the dentist went out and paid for the CD itself?
Yes, obviously. Otherwise, you open the door to saying it's OK for me to buy a CD, then charge people admission to come down into my basement and listen to it. Then charge them another fee to watch some of my DVDs on my TV. This is known as an "unauthorized exhibition." Or heck, I could open my own movie theatre, and instead of paying the outrageous costs associated with legally showing a big-screen movie, I could just rent the DVD at Blockbuster for $3.99 and play it to a theatre full of patrons who all paid $9 per seat.
[ASCAP] will sue your bar even if you only have artists playing their [own] (non-ASCAP) original material.
I call bullshit. Cite an example.
Coming in and cold-reading a part is commonplace.
We're expected to take the word of a fellow who doesn't even know the right term for it? FYI, it's called "sight-reading," not "cold-reading". A real professional would know that.
The way things are going, it will be impossible for artists to record their own work and distribute it over the internet, because the only legal distribution channels will be through the current media companies. Sure, the artist can provide their own MP3s, but what good will that be when MP3s are illegal? When the only recordings that are legal are those that are signed by some big business that can afford the signature block?
I've never heard anyone seriously portray such delusional, blatant FUD as a a legitimate concern. Let me tell you this: The future you describe will NEVER happen. MP3's themselves will NEVER be illegal. Artists will ALWAYS have the option of publishing their own work.
I mean Geez, are you for real? ISPs can't even control spam - you think they're going to stop the flow of "unsigned MP3 files?" Do you honestly believe that such fears are warranted? Do you honestly believe that even in the worst, most corrupt and misdirected case, such a future could actually come to pass?
If you do, then please don't take this as a flame, but I think there are very few who are as wildly paranoid as yourself.
+1, Right On The Money
Agreed, 100% with everything you said.
Right now, most recording artists see 3%-6% of the profits of their works. Most book-length authors see about 10%-15% of the profit from their work.
So? What's the problem?
How much does it "cost" the artist to create that art? What, a few days of their time? What about the people who actually created the music, mixed the tracks, created the album art, produced the album, coordinated the distribution, marketed the release, and the hundreds of other people involved in the creation of a work? Why is there time less valuable than Mr. Timberlake's?
If it takes 150 people to produce an album, and only one of them is the "artist", and that album makes $30 million in sales, why shouldn't the artist be happy about getting 5% of the profits (which works out to $1.5 million?) You can be damn sure that that's more than anybody ELSE directly involved with that album! Granted, it may not be as much as the owner of the record label, but so what? He/she is the person that took a chance on them in creating the company in the first place - it's called capitalism.
Why does Mr. Timberlake deserve to be paid AS MUCH as 3% of the profits, for a few days work? Why, when so many other, better educated, harder working, and more talented people see far less than that? Especially in this day and age when we already know that the voice talent themselves are easily replaceable and commoditized.
So boo-freakin'-hoo that the "artist" only gets 5% of the profits. No one seems to realize that they only contributed about 0.5% of the time in creating the work in the first place. Just because it's Britney's voice on the CD doesn't mean she created the whole thing herself, and the big, mean record-guy is taking all her money. Give me a freakin' break.
If they won't provide replacements, they've proven themselves liars in court. If they charge for replacements, they've undone their argument that there's no reason to have a backup.
That's a flawed argument, because it assumes that a company is obligated to provide you with a free replacement every time your product becomes damaged through negligence or abuse. I think it's pretty obvious that it is unreasonable to expect a company to repeatedly replace merchandise that you damage through your own stupidity. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own mistakes. If you're a moron, and you scratch your CD, too fsckin bad. Buy a new CD, and try to be a little more careful this time.
The difference I see between you and me is that I believe the government will do a worse job taking care of the sick/old than the people will themselves.
:) I think that human nature causes people to make bad decisions, procrastinate, and fail to plan. Even a poorly run government system would be better than people who forget to renew their car registration, misplace their voter registration card and need a replacement, or can't remember to pay their water bill on time.
I think you're right: That is where we disagree.
People manage their own finances far better than the government.
I strongly disagree with that statement. If that were true, then why is it that the government takes income tax, pension premiums, and unemployment premiums off our paychecks automatically (disclaimer: I'm in Canada), rather than letting us take our whole paycheck home and worry about setting aside money for those taxes ourselves? It's because the government knows that people are lazy, stupid, and forgetful, and if they didn't automatically take those premiums off of our paychecks, then they'd have millions of people every April who just plain don't have the money they owe, sitting in their accounts, waiting to be paid to the government.
People are just bad at planning. Human nature is forgetful. Government computers (generally) aren't.
(like myself), we spend a LOT on insurance.
Not everyone can afford a few hundred dollars a month for the luxury of insurance. As you can imagine, those also happen to be the very same people who can least afford a catastrophic illness or injury. What's a single mother without a college education supposed to do if she develops an expensive illness through no fault of her own? How is she supposed to explain to her child that Mommy's going to die soon, because they're not rich?
Now to your point that some people will not make enough and then take that money and spend it on food/shelter etc. Well I say, it their CHOICE.
What??? You think people "choose" to be poor? Are you insane? Why would anybody "choose" to be poor? Do you not see that your capitalistic system is built on a foundation of perpetuation of class distinction? People have the luxury of a good job because they were able to afford a good education, and they were able to afford a good education because their parents had the luxury of a good job, because they had the luxury of getting a good education, etc. Conversely, that poor, single mother in my first example, who can't even afford health insurance, she obviously won't be sending her child to Harvard, so her child will also likely be doomed to scraping out an existence in the lower economic class. Don't you see that? You're system is designed to keep people where they are, because the people who designed that system are wealthy!
[Canada] do[es] let your poor and sick die.
No, it doesn't. Health care is publically funded in Canada. If someone needs urgent medical attention, it is paid for. In Canada, no one is denied critical care due to an inability to pay.
How many new drugs have been developed by a firm in Canada?
I'm not going to deny that the US has a more active and better funded drug R&D industry, but I will point out that Canada also has a vibrant pharmaceudical industry. Canada is also working on advanced medicines for gene therapy, new organ transplant techniques and materials, and cancer research. We also have world-class pediatrics care.
Canada has developed 0 new drugs in the last 20 years.
That's simply incorrect. Were I to list every drug ever invented in Canada, this post would go on far longer than anyone would have the patience to read, so I'll simply stick to the most recent example. Just one week ago, a new cancer drug was developed in Canada:
By this logic, all devices that could possibly be used for malicious purposes should be illegal.
If the overwhelming majority of all sales of a particular item are used for an illegal purpose, is it unreasonable to halt the sale of that item?
It should be a crime to own a car, you could use it to run someone over.
I can assure you that if 95% of all cars sold were used to deliberately run people over, then cars WOULD be banned.
"the abuse of something is never a good argument against the use of something"
Then you agree that I should be able to by enriched Plutonium-235 at my local Home Depot?
Does that mean that you outlaw knifes because they not only cut meat, but they can kill?
Just because you use mod chips to make illegal copies do not mean that everyone does.
While that is true, 99.9% of all knives sold are used for legitimate, legal purposes, while only 0.1% of all knives sold are used illegally.
In contrast, 99% of all mod chips sold are used to play pirated games, while only 1% are used for the legitimate purpose of playing imported games.
When the vast, vast majority use of an object is legal, it is not hypocritical to keep that object legal, while another seemingly innocuous object that is overwhelmingly used for illegal activities may be banned.
Yes, I made up all of my numbers, but the proportions are generally right. The vast majority of knives are used for legal activities, and the vast majority of mod chips are used for illegal activities.
Mods: I shoulda used Preview. My bad, mod my other post down if you want. Here's an eaiser-to-read version of my comment:
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you.
How about if someone develops Alzheimers at age 60? That's not really their fault, but should they have been saving like crazy in their younger years, just in case they developed a disease which would eventually require round-the-clock personal homecare?
What about someone who develops diabetes at age 50 because of their genes? What if someone develops it at age 45 because of their poor diet? What if someone gets hit by a bus at age 40, and needs prescription painkillers for the rest of their life?
What about people who develop mental illnesses such as manic depression or anxiety? What about erectile dysfunction? Birth control? Where do we draw the line? To me, clearly the people near the beginning of this rant deserve help through public funding, particularly when they suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that is not their fault. However, it is equally clear to me that I as a taxpayer should not be paying for Grampy's Viagra. You, moreover, appear to believe that no tax dollars should go towards any of these examples, and in that case, all I have to say about that is "Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge." That's not a country I'd want to live in.
So when the people that are say in their 30's now get to be 65, (me) they will have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to put money away.
No matter how "responsible" a person is, they can't possibly save up enough to live out 25-or-so "twilight" years while paying $1200/day for personal homecare due to a catastrophic illness. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States is unexpected catastrophic illness.
Let me ask you this. If you are under the age of 40 and the government offered to lower your taxes by say 15-20%, but you would not be eligable for any social programs later in life, would you take it?
Now that is an extremely dangerous option to give people. The vast majority of people would say "yes," and they'd take it, then they'd not change a damn thing about their lives. They'd take that extra money and spend it. And when the time came that they needed social assistances and medical care, and they didn't have the money, they'd hold their dying hands out, and coldblooded beancounters like you would slap them away and say "tough cookies!" You'd probably smugly pat yourself on the back while you were at it, for being such a good planner and putting away a few thousand bucks yourself, when in reality, all you've done is simply been fortunate enough not (yet) to suffer the same expensive illnesses as those who you snub your noses at.
Given the choice, those people would take the extra cash, and they'd still need help when they got old. If people like you were in charge, and turned them away, or told them, "well, Sicky, I guess you should've saved that money instead of blowing it on rent and groceries, Hmmmmmmmm????" While your smug dismissal may in fact have a grain of truth to it, it doesn't change the fact that at that moment, it would be too late for that person to go back in time and make different decisions, and they still need help now. What do you propose be done? Let them die on the streets because they didn't plan as well as you?
Again, I repeat: That's not a country I want to live in.
Thankfully, I'm in Canada. Most people up here are far, far too civilized to even consider such a barbaric
Wow, your post was loaded with all kinds of flamebait and trolling, but I actually hope you don't get modded down, because I sincerely believe that you believe what you're saying. As scary as that is, I'll respond to it anyway, just to see if I can open your eyes even just a little.
Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you.
How about if someone develops Alzheimers at age 60? That's not really their fault, but should they have been saving like crazy in their younger years, just in case they developed a disease which would eventually require round-the-clock personal homecare?
What about someone who develops diabetes at age 50 because of their genes? What if someone develops it at age 45 because of their poor diet? What if someone gets hit by a bus at age 40, and needs prescription painkillers for the rest of their life?
What about people who develop mental illnesses such as manic depression or anxiety? What about erectile dysfunction? Birth control? Where do we draw the line? To me, clearly the people near the beginning of this rant deserve help through public funding, particularly when they suffer a catastrophic illness or accident that is not their fault. However, it is equally clear to me that I as a taxpayer should not be paying for Grampy's Viagra. You, moreover, appear to believe that no tax dollars should go towards any of these examples, and in that case, all I have to say about that is "Thank the Good Lord that you're not in charge." That's not a country I'd want to live in.
Re:Mod the Parent Down
Re:Mod the Parent Down (Score:1)
by FatherOfONe (515801) on 01:49 PM July 21st, 2004 (#9761562)
this has nothing to do with NASA getting more or less funding, but I will respond to your post.
Yes medicare/medicade and social security should be removed from the U.S. government. Yes if you as a person did not save enough during your lifetime to take care of yourself, then the rest of America should not have to flip the bill for you. Or better yet all the extra money that you would have earned in that lifetime without the additional taxes on you, you could have invested and been far better off than what is currently provided.
Now having said all this, we (America) have an obligation to those people that are currently on medicare/medicade and SS, and to those about to get on it, BUT for those that are under 40, we do NOT, AND if you asked those people if they would rather have their money now, to invest (or waist) almost all of them would want it now.
So when the people that are say in their 30's now get to be 65, (me) they will have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to put money away.
No matter how "responsible" a person is, they can't possibly save up enough to live out 25-or-so "twilight" years while paying $1200/day for personal homecare due to a catastrophic illness. The number one cause of bankruptcies in the United States is unexpected catastrophic illness.
Let me ask you this. If you are under the age of 40 and the government offered to lower your taxes by say 15-20%, but you would not be eligable for any social programs later in life, would you take it?
Now that is an extremely dangerous option to give people. The vast majority of people would say "yes," and they'd take it, then they'd not change a damn thing about their lives. They'd take that extra money and spend it. And when the time came that they needed social assistances and medical care, and they didn't have the money, they'd hold their dying hands out, and coldblooded beancounters like you would slap them away and say "tough cookies!" You'd probably smugly pat yourself on the back while you were at it, for being such a good planner and putting away a few thousand bucks yourself, when in reality, all you've done is simply been fortunate enough not (yet) to suffer the same expensive illne
Java is (so far) a programming language, this JDS nonsense not withstanding. It only has stuff that makes it work better on the Internet if the developers design and code that stuff
Uh, that's the point. It already does. Developers have already "designed and coded" that stuff into the core API. Java's core framework is astutely network-aware. It is trivially easy to write a Java app that uses the network, unlike C, which requires a great deal more knowledge of low-level network functionality and threading models.
Let's see. A 0.0001% chance that these cameras can be used to catch a criminal,
Can you cite a source for that number? Experience has shown that in other countries where such cameras are in widespread use (such as the UK), they are actually quite useful in securing convictions, and even deterring crime. Vandalism and thefts have notably dropped in areas where the cameras have been installed, and British police regularly rely on their footage as part of their cases against individuals suspected of property crimes or even violent crimes.
What if instead of these 75 new cameras, the city hired 75 new police officers, and stationed them at the same locations as these cameras, where they were to simply sit all day and watch what goes on. Would you still complain about an invasion of privacy?
Even in those cases where you do have the budget for an experienced network admin, all you've done is made it so that the weak link is no longer the network. Now, it's the users.
*ring *ring*
User: "Hello?"
Hacker: "Hi, is this Jane Doe?"
User: "Yes, who's this?"
Hacker: "Hi Jane, my name is Dirk Diggler, I'm with the university's computer department. We're presently migrating all of the user data for the arts department, and we need to copy your data over to the new server. Don't tell me your password; as you should know, you should never give away your password. However, we do need to access your account to make sure all of your data is successfully backed up, so what I need you to do is to log into your account, and change your password to 'test' for now. Once we've finished moving your data, I'll call you back and get you to change it back to whatever is is right now."
User: "Uh, OK, how do I change my password?"
I don't really have much to say, other than "Congratulations." They've been a poster-boy for OSS, and proven that network collaboration really can result in a stable, useful, well-developed product. I wonder what new innovations we'll be praising for the 2nd, or even 5th anniversary.
:)
Great job guys, and thanks for the browser.
For a scientist of his stature to admint he was wrong is a credit to the man and the profession.
Uhm, this isn't the first time he's been wrong. Indeed, the whole field of science is built upon scientists making educated and well-reasoned theories, then trying to prove it wrong. Pretty much all of our presently widely-accepted rules have come about this way. Many of them are even still called "theories." For example, "The Theory of Flight" has not been conclusively proven as a "Law" yet. Ditto for the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Atoms. We accept most of these ideas as facts nowadays, but the truth is, they're actually still just theories that haven't been proven wrong yet.
Anyone can sue anyone else at any time
*ahem*
You accidentally left off "... in the USA."
Some countries are a little more reasonable with their litigation laws.
Not if you never invest more than you are prepared to lose.
That's a gambling axiom, not an investment axiom. When gambling, you're just out for entertaiment, and you have to assume that you won't bring back any of the $100 or whatever that you took into the casino.
When investing, however, you can have a reasonable expectation of not only staying even (that is, you're not prepared to lose any of what you invested), but also of reasonable growth.
If you never invest more than you're prepared to lose, how would you ever retire? Where would you put your life savings, if not investments, while you saved up for retirement?
And in making those investments, isn't it reasonable to expect the companies you're investing in to be honest in stating earnings numbers, to enable you to make an informed decision about where to put your money?
If there's a class-action lawsuit, I will take the proceeds and dump it right back to Redhat, in the form of subscriptions or straight donations.
I'm going to get modded into oblivion for this, but it has to be said.
The double-standards here on Slashdot are mind-boggling. When SCO infringes on the GPL, everyone jumps up, guns blazing, and spews venom all over their litigating asses, and we scream about protecting the legitimacy of the GPL and Linux's copyrights. But when the RIAA goes after P2P networks to protect their copyrights, they're evil. We scream how they should leave the networks alone, and instead go after those who are actually causing the problems. So they did. And we screamed at them still!
"How could they sue a bunch of kids?" we cried. Well, perhaps because that's who's downloading all the music?
A bug is found in Mozilla. "See, the system works", they say. A bug is found in IE. "Proof positive that Microsoft is crap!" they scream.
Enron, Worldcom, Nortel, and RedHat all admit that they were lying to investors, and restate their earnings downwards. "Greedy, heartless, bloodsucking corporate bastards!", we scream.
"... except RedHat. I'll donate money to them, even though they lied to try and manipulate earnings numbers. Because we like RedHat."
Boggles my mind.
Bacteria. Some scientist at UCLA did some calculations, and determined that a decent sized canyon in the Mojave desert covered 2 feet of water and a sheet to collect the hydrogen produced by the bacteria would be enough for all of Southern California.
:) Probably not very practical though, either way.
A canyon? Are you serious? You want to flood and cover up an entire canyon? Do you have any idea how irate environmentalists would be? Actually, I think they'd likely be confused - not sure if they should be furious or happy.
Geothermal
Won't produce enough power to run a country.
Photovoltaics
Not efficient enough. It takes just as much energy to create the cells as they'd return over their entire lifetime. Plus, they require large amounts of real estate and don't generate enough power.
Tidal
Limited to particular geographic regions, costly to maintain due to the beating the facitilities take during bad weather.
Convection
?
Isn't this the same as Geothermal?
Fission
The one clean, safe, efficient, renewable option presently at our disposal. We're already using it in limited amounts, though I agree we should be rapidly expanding the use of this energy source. Presently, the bad PR surrounding the word "nuclear" is holding it back, but hopefully, education will eventually catch up with the masses and we will overcome this particular limitation.
Fusion
This would be great, if we could manage to contain the reaction for more than a few milliseconds, and actually get more energy out of the reaction than it took to initiate and contain it.
Biomass Fuels
Probably practical for consumer use and travel, but not likely to be mass-produced in the quantities needed to power a country. Plus, if you grow millions of square miles of veggies, just to distill them down and run an SUV, while people in other parts of the world are starving, I hope you have a good marketing department, because the negative PR will bite you.
Solar Thermal
Not practical for much more than keeping yuppies' swimming pools warm enough for their soft, middle-aged butts.
Wind
Many of the same limitations of solar power, plus a couple borrowed from tidal. Namely, it won't generate enough to run a country, it is limited geographically to areas with high wind, requires a lot of real estate, and is not without its negative environmental impacts (read: multiple bird strikes per day, interference with migration/nesting patterns).
Hydroelectric
My second-favorite power source, after nuclear. It is unfortunately limited a little by goegraphical characteristics (need significant variations in altitude, natural water features, and reasonable rainfall), but takes less of a beating than tidal and actually generates large amounts of power, with little pollution and relatively localized environmental impact.
Anyway, to make a long story short, only two of your "solutions" are seriously viable and practical, and they are already in fairly widespread use. There's a reason corporations and governments are rushing to get behind options like "geothermal" and "solar" power - they mostly suck, and are inadequate to meet the power needs of a nation.
Personally I don't have a car and I take the bus.
...
:)
Then, in your sig
Freelance perl programer for hire!
I couldn't help wondering if these two statements were directly related.
What happens when J. Random Paedophile hacks the system and can use it to choose a victim?
And risk being caught by leaving all those computer logs??? Why wouldn't he just camp out in a van in front of the hall where they hold the local Girl Scouts weekly troop meetings?
Or in front of a school?
Or a carnival? Amusement park? Playground? Following the ice cream truck?
Hacking's way too much work when all those far simpler options are available. Stop making up boogiemen.
There are a few DVDs I'd like to obsolete a little faster than others, if that's at all possible, Bill.