I'm back in school and it's really discouraging how much research is only available by paying fees to gain access. It might be worthwhile if you're working, but it gets really hard to write research papers when most of the sources want $30 for a copy of a paper which may or may not be of any value to me.
Granted it's their right to do it, but it stifles innovation and artificially limits the amount of access that people have to the information needed to innovate. Granted when it's private research, they have a right to do it, but if it's being funded by tax payer dollars it should be mandatory that it be available for free under the normal rules of citation and use.
Nonsense, we have plenty of money, it's just that the GOP won't support the tax increase to the wealthy and the cuts to the actual problem areas of the budget. Additionally, they're fighting tooth and nail to defend homophobic policies rather than just let it slide, granted it's only a few million and normally not worth worrying about, but it's a blatant waste of tax payer resources. And don't forget about health reform which will make a significant impact on our ability to pay our bills, with 25% of our GDP going to pay for health care, that's a huge place to go looking for waste.
If you don't believe me, just look at the GOP's "budget." They make steep spending cuts and privatize medicare in order to grant huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and a windfall to insurance companies. The privatization might be tolerable if they were actually spending the "savings" on paying down our debt.
That's the thing, you can't increase spending and decrease revenue and expect for the invisible hand to balance things for you. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to know that if you cut taxes and increase spending that you get ballooning deficits in pretty much every case. The only exceptions being if you had an obscene tax stream to begin with.
Even Reagan, the man that apparently never raised taxes, raised taxes his second year in office when it became obvious that they had gone too far. The taxes were still lower than the 73% or so that they were when he took office, but they were raised as a part of trying to manage the budget.
It's not the tax cuts alone that get you, it's when you spend it on stupid things that gets you. Investments in education, science and developing the country are foolish to cut as a means of balancing the budget. A balanced budget requires cutting things like farm subsidies and defense. The extra defense spending on Iraq and Afghanistan alone would have been enough to pay for health care reform and plenty of investment in infrastructure.
It's called the paradox of efficiency, and that's why the government is supposed to step in and make sure that gains in efficiency aren't reflected in the price. If there weren't externalities involved and running out was the only issue, I'd say don't bother, but as it is, there are other compelling reasons for us not to use gas, other than supply problems
Precisely. I don't think that exploring our solar system is a bad idea, but I do think that we should be focusing on the deficit spending and as such thinking more carefully about what to fund NASA for. It would be much better at present to focus on replacing our satellites, the ones that are keeping an eye on climate change and studying the atmosphere because it's more directly useful at the moment, and with the moon we've got no particular reason for doing that now.
Normally, I'm all for spending on NASA, but skipping more practical science for something this expensive requires some justification.
No, it would be fucked up if they did provide specifics, and then didn't do the things they said the would/wouldn't. You're willingly signing a very vague contract that's fairly open-ended on this topic, so there's no complaints when open-ended things happen. It's not really very different than an employment contract that says, "... and other duties as required," Do you really think that Apple, or Google (since they do the same thing) should tell people - at the outset of a two year contract - every possible (and exact) thing they're going to be doing with that data, right down to which project will use it in what way? If you're expecting that, you should also expect that sort of limitation on what they can do to substantially drive up the cost of a service contract or the app space overhead (because of the clamp down it would have on their ability to innovate, and the huge bookeeping they'd have to do to know that one user from an earlier contract is NOT allowed to use a certain location-related app, while a newer user who signed a more up to date contract IS allowed). Or would you prefer a constant barrage of contract updates to which you must continually respond?
I disagree, if they did provide specifics and then didn't live up to it, then you'd have cause for a lawsuit because they'd be breaching the contract, but because they don't bother to tell you with whom they are planning to share the data you have no way of knowing until after the fact who it is that they're sharing data with, if even then.
Personally, I'd rather know, but because none of the options provides that information the ultimate choice is either ignore it or do without that entire class of services. Which includes such luxuries as banks.
Doesn't make it reasonable. In order to be routable, certain conditions are required, you do have a choice in whether or not you want your data to be sent via a network. You do have other options, such as carrier pidgeon and sneakernet. Wireless isn't secure, never has been and likely never will be, however with current implementations the security is good enough for most purposes.
Keep in mind that the set up wasn't designed by people with a deep knowledge of cryptology or security, it was designed by the same folks engineering the rest of the set up. It's been a problem in the past as well because nobody was checking to make sure that the protocol was in fact as secure as intended.
Why is that even legal? What they're saying is that they will share your information with random third parties whether or not theirs any good reason to do so and fail to mention who exactly it is that they're sharing it with. On top of which they aren't promising that the 3rd parties will themselves be restricted to any sort of restrictions on what they do with it.
I realize that this gets attorneys all wet, but it's seriously fucked up that they can expect you to sign something like this and be held to it, when they're providing no meaningful information at all about what actually happens with the data.
I'm sorry, but you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you're broadcasting it in clear text for anybody to intercept. The reality is that no matter how they choose to spin it, it's really easy to accidentally intercept communications when they're not encrypted.
Next thing you'll tell me is that it's illegal to tape notes for yourself in public because somebody in the background might accidentally be audible while you're making a note.
You're an idiot. Yelling fire in a theater when you know that not to be the case is a completely different situation than what the Japanese authorities are trying to clamp down on. In this case the authorities have been caught spreading their own incorrect information and this move is just a way of them curtailing legitimate discussion.
I take it that you haven't noticed that the information that's been provided has been wildly inaccurate and getting worse over time.
My point is that Amazon already does provide this service, if on a limited basis. The person I was responding to was claiming that Amazon doesn't do that. My post acknowledged that it isn't everywhere.
I hate voice controls, I've got a rather deep voice and when I'm using voice menus sometimes the phone system can't pick up my voice at all no matter how loudly I yell at the damned thing. Google seems to have done a lot better with whatever they're using on Android, but it still has issues.
Voice recognition from across the room is even more complicated.
Not really, isn't the PSN requirement to download the app and for updates? At least that was my impression and the main reason why it annoyed me that they got rid of the disc.
You do realize that Amazon already provides this sort of service, right? Granted I'm sure it's not everywhere yet, but that's what Amazon Fresh does, they delivery groceries on a one time or regular basis direct to your door, and the food is usually on your doorstep when you get up in the morning.
Indeed. Albertson's has an interesting idea going, they've got basically three tiers of service, do it yourself, pickup and delivery. You pay a bit to have the groceries waiting for you when you stop by, but the cost of it can be a deal if you're in a situation of having to pay for daycare for an additional hour.
Depending upon jurisdiction that might not be the case. Some jurisdictions a verbal warning to stop is sufficient, but even there it's advisable to send a written notice by registered mail requesting proof that the debt is owed and that they are targeting the correct person. Makes it a lot harder to pretend that they didn't get it or weren't told.
As far as I know all Barnes & Noble eBook readers are based off Android, it's just that their Nook Color added a mostly full size LCD touchscreen, the others having only the small touchscreen at the bottom.
I disagree, collections agencies aren't inherently immoral, it's just that many do end up crossing the line both ethically and legally speaking. Without collections agencies the only reason that anybody would ever pay their bills would be because it was the ethical thing to do. Consequently the cost of just about anything would likely sky rocket.
That's not to say that there aren't a sufficient number of collection agencies that do behave illegally, but I do think that to some extent you have to recognize that it's a service that's needed and just make sure that you know your rights.
I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but they do have to prove that they own the debt and that you are indeed responsible for paying it, if they can't do that then there are penalties for harassing people. There is also typically a statute of limitation on debt, and one shouldn't believe them when they claim that they're going to collect old debts by going to court. Collection Practices
I see, so you're an expert on this? On what basis do you assert that it's not reasonable? The review on that incident has been completed and the conclusion was that he was well within both his rights and his training. The girl he hit apologized for assaulting him and has since been sentenced. Can't recall what the terms of it.
As for the second one, that's a straw man argument, it's got precisely nothing to do with anything I said. I never said that officers never abuse their power or make mistakes. I also never said that it wasn't appropriate either.
And what could be more democratic than selling goods for compensation? Isn't that generally how democracy works? You pay them your vote for them to give you whatever you want. And in modern times, you pay their campaign a lot of money and get to dump your toxic waste wherever you like.
Companies that behave like that tend not to last very long. The reason being that if you're supplier isn't being well cared for and bad things happen, all of a sudden you're screwed because they're withholding shipments or taking their time delivering. While not quite analogous, look at what's been happening to Toyota lately with their production facilities in Japan damaged from the quake.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm back in school and it's really discouraging how much research is only available by paying fees to gain access. It might be worthwhile if you're working, but it gets really hard to write research papers when most of the sources want $30 for a copy of a paper which may or may not be of any value to me.
Granted it's their right to do it, but it stifles innovation and artificially limits the amount of access that people have to the information needed to innovate. Granted when it's private research, they have a right to do it, but if it's being funded by tax payer dollars it should be mandatory that it be available for free under the normal rules of citation and use.
Nonsense, we have plenty of money, it's just that the GOP won't support the tax increase to the wealthy and the cuts to the actual problem areas of the budget. Additionally, they're fighting tooth and nail to defend homophobic policies rather than just let it slide, granted it's only a few million and normally not worth worrying about, but it's a blatant waste of tax payer resources. And don't forget about health reform which will make a significant impact on our ability to pay our bills, with 25% of our GDP going to pay for health care, that's a huge place to go looking for waste.
If you don't believe me, just look at the GOP's "budget." They make steep spending cuts and privatize medicare in order to grant huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and a windfall to insurance companies. The privatization might be tolerable if they were actually spending the "savings" on paying down our debt.
I assume you mean wouldn't have been possible.
That's the thing, you can't increase spending and decrease revenue and expect for the invisible hand to balance things for you. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to know that if you cut taxes and increase spending that you get ballooning deficits in pretty much every case. The only exceptions being if you had an obscene tax stream to begin with.
Even Reagan, the man that apparently never raised taxes, raised taxes his second year in office when it became obvious that they had gone too far. The taxes were still lower than the 73% or so that they were when he took office, but they were raised as a part of trying to manage the budget.
It's not the tax cuts alone that get you, it's when you spend it on stupid things that gets you. Investments in education, science and developing the country are foolish to cut as a means of balancing the budget. A balanced budget requires cutting things like farm subsidies and defense. The extra defense spending on Iraq and Afghanistan alone would have been enough to pay for health care reform and plenty of investment in infrastructure.
It's called the paradox of efficiency, and that's why the government is supposed to step in and make sure that gains in efficiency aren't reflected in the price. If there weren't externalities involved and running out was the only issue, I'd say don't bother, but as it is, there are other compelling reasons for us not to use gas, other than supply problems
Don't worry, this is just a scheme to blast the poor into space. And leave them there.
Precisely. I don't think that exploring our solar system is a bad idea, but I do think that we should be focusing on the deficit spending and as such thinking more carefully about what to fund NASA for. It would be much better at present to focus on replacing our satellites, the ones that are keeping an eye on climate change and studying the atmosphere because it's more directly useful at the moment, and with the moon we've got no particular reason for doing that now.
Normally, I'm all for spending on NASA, but skipping more practical science for something this expensive requires some justification.
No, it would be fucked up if they did provide specifics, and then didn't do the things they said the would/wouldn't. You're willingly signing a very vague contract that's fairly open-ended on this topic, so there's no complaints when open-ended things happen. It's not really very different than an employment contract that says, "... and other duties as required," Do you really think that Apple, or Google (since they do the same thing) should tell people - at the outset of a two year contract - every possible (and exact) thing they're going to be doing with that data, right down to which project will use it in what way? If you're expecting that, you should also expect that sort of limitation on what they can do to substantially drive up the cost of a service contract or the app space overhead (because of the clamp down it would have on their ability to innovate, and the huge bookeeping they'd have to do to know that one user from an earlier contract is NOT allowed to use a certain location-related app, while a newer user who signed a more up to date contract IS allowed). Or would you prefer a constant barrage of contract updates to which you must continually respond?
I disagree, if they did provide specifics and then didn't live up to it, then you'd have cause for a lawsuit because they'd be breaching the contract, but because they don't bother to tell you with whom they are planning to share the data you have no way of knowing until after the fact who it is that they're sharing data with, if even then.
Personally, I'd rather know, but because none of the options provides that information the ultimate choice is either ignore it or do without that entire class of services. Which includes such luxuries as banks.
Doesn't make it reasonable. In order to be routable, certain conditions are required, you do have a choice in whether or not you want your data to be sent via a network. You do have other options, such as carrier pidgeon and sneakernet. Wireless isn't secure, never has been and likely never will be, however with current implementations the security is good enough for most purposes.
Keep in mind that the set up wasn't designed by people with a deep knowledge of cryptology or security, it was designed by the same folks engineering the rest of the set up. It's been a problem in the past as well because nobody was checking to make sure that the protocol was in fact as secure as intended.
Why is that even legal? What they're saying is that they will share your information with random third parties whether or not theirs any good reason to do so and fail to mention who exactly it is that they're sharing it with. On top of which they aren't promising that the 3rd parties will themselves be restricted to any sort of restrictions on what they do with it.
I realize that this gets attorneys all wet, but it's seriously fucked up that they can expect you to sign something like this and be held to it, when they're providing no meaningful information at all about what actually happens with the data.
I'm pretty sure there's an app for that, it's just that Steve is too selfish to share.
I'm sorry, but you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you're broadcasting it in clear text for anybody to intercept. The reality is that no matter how they choose to spin it, it's really easy to accidentally intercept communications when they're not encrypted.
Next thing you'll tell me is that it's illegal to tape notes for yourself in public because somebody in the background might accidentally be audible while you're making a note.
You're an idiot. Yelling fire in a theater when you know that not to be the case is a completely different situation than what the Japanese authorities are trying to clamp down on. In this case the authorities have been caught spreading their own incorrect information and this move is just a way of them curtailing legitimate discussion.
I take it that you haven't noticed that the information that's been provided has been wildly inaccurate and getting worse over time.
My point is that Amazon already does provide this service, if on a limited basis. The person I was responding to was claiming that Amazon doesn't do that. My post acknowledged that it isn't everywhere.
Would it respond each time after the 50th by showing a really good Jean-Luc Picard facepalm?
I hate voice controls, I've got a rather deep voice and when I'm using voice menus sometimes the phone system can't pick up my voice at all no matter how loudly I yell at the damned thing. Google seems to have done a lot better with whatever they're using on Android, but it still has issues.
Voice recognition from across the room is even more complicated.
Say, mr. Anonymous, where were you a couple days ago?
Not really, isn't the PSN requirement to download the app and for updates? At least that was my impression and the main reason why it annoyed me that they got rid of the disc.
You do realize that Amazon already provides this sort of service, right? Granted I'm sure it's not everywhere yet, but that's what Amazon Fresh does, they delivery groceries on a one time or regular basis direct to your door, and the food is usually on your doorstep when you get up in the morning.
Indeed. Albertson's has an interesting idea going, they've got basically three tiers of service, do it yourself, pickup and delivery. You pay a bit to have the groceries waiting for you when you stop by, but the cost of it can be a deal if you're in a situation of having to pay for daycare for an additional hour.
Depending upon jurisdiction that might not be the case. Some jurisdictions a verbal warning to stop is sufficient, but even there it's advisable to send a written notice by registered mail requesting proof that the debt is owed and that they are targeting the correct person. Makes it a lot harder to pretend that they didn't get it or weren't told.
As far as I know all Barnes & Noble eBook readers are based off Android, it's just that their Nook Color added a mostly full size LCD touchscreen, the others having only the small touchscreen at the bottom.
I disagree, collections agencies aren't inherently immoral, it's just that many do end up crossing the line both ethically and legally speaking. Without collections agencies the only reason that anybody would ever pay their bills would be because it was the ethical thing to do. Consequently the cost of just about anything would likely sky rocket.
That's not to say that there aren't a sufficient number of collection agencies that do behave illegally, but I do think that to some extent you have to recognize that it's a service that's needed and just make sure that you know your rights.
I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but they do have to prove that they own the debt and that you are indeed responsible for paying it, if they can't do that then there are penalties for harassing people. There is also typically a statute of limitation on debt, and one shouldn't believe them when they claim that they're going to collect old debts by going to court. Collection Practices
I see, so you're an expert on this? On what basis do you assert that it's not reasonable? The review on that incident has been completed and the conclusion was that he was well within both his rights and his training. The girl he hit apologized for assaulting him and has since been sentenced. Can't recall what the terms of it.
As for the second one, that's a straw man argument, it's got precisely nothing to do with anything I said. I never said that officers never abuse their power or make mistakes. I also never said that it wasn't appropriate either.
And what could be more democratic than selling goods for compensation? Isn't that generally how democracy works? You pay them your vote for them to give you whatever you want. And in modern times, you pay their campaign a lot of money and get to dump your toxic waste wherever you like.
Companies that behave like that tend not to last very long. The reason being that if you're supplier isn't being well cared for and bad things happen, all of a sudden you're screwed because they're withholding shipments or taking their time delivering. While not quite analogous, look at what's been happening to Toyota lately with their production facilities in Japan damaged from the quake.