Unfortunately, it won't happen. It would open the way for law suits for liability providing access to sites. As it is they get sort of a free pass on infringement sites because they don't filter content.
You're a shill for the MPAA, aren't you? Sure it would be a shock to the industry, but it's not like the customers are going to decide to stop spending their money. Most likely what would happen would be that the talent would flow to independent companies and any money that consumers were going to spend on movies would either be spent on independent films or other things. In neither case would that be devastating.
OTOH California would be a pit, but then again, they pretty much are already, this would be more of a coup de grace.
Do you have any actual relevant information? even in the days after 9/11 there was no talk of killing the internet being useful. It's just now a decade later that politicians are considering doing it. I tend to think that if it was that inevitable that the talk would have turned to that a lot more quickly.
Appropriate? If they're damaging the end users console by taking away features and preventing it from being fully utilized then no, it's not appropriate and MS should be sued. You can't just ban consoles because you don't like what the owner was choosing to do with it.
Making those sorts of blatant false dichotomies isn't really helping your case. Some of us genuinely want to be able to do whatever we like with our PS3s, and I don't think that other people pirating material makes it any less reasonable to expect to exercise some control over our own property.
That's the thing, it's not really war if people aren't in harms way. While it would be nice to settle things over an arm wrestling match or similar, the reality is that this sort of thing isn't really going to satisfy the people that demand war because it doesn't really allow for medals to be awarded in any particularly meaningful sense.
I'm not really sure why we need to go much beyond country codes. Having say a.edu,.com,.org,.gov and possibly a couple others for each country code is more than enough. Even without adding any others to the four I listed. It strikes me that if you need more granularity than that that you're probably doing it wrong.
Most servers aren't meant for only a city, so you're usually better off with a subdomain handling a particular state or city.
There are issues where he's genuinely an embarrassment. But that's in stark contrast to President Bush who was an embarrassment on most issues. Bush wouldn't have pushed for banking reform, health care reform or an end to GITMO. Remember that it's primarily Republicans that are fighting the President on those issues.
Suggesting that he's different in a way which is somehow bad is disingenuous. The differences are mostly positive, it's just that Bush didn't have to fight with members of the other party for most of his time in office. Whereas Obama has had to consider the view of the Republicans because quite frankly, the Republican party is pathologically incapable of cooperating across party lines right now. There's a small number with some concern for the well being of the American people, but they are very much in the minority as evidenced by their insistence on repealing the what was a Republican proposed health care reform for involving an individual mandate. An individual mandate that was proposed by conservatives originally.
I'm with you on that, as much as I distrusted President Bush, I'm not really sure that one can assume that it was an effort to kill pornography websites. It could very easily have been an honest effort at helping parents keep their kids away from it without unduly preventing adults from accessing it.
But in this case, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Besides he's hardly the only person that wanted it.
You don't need to go to those extremes though to pull back state power. In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield. It's why voting for people who believe in power being in the hands of the states is better than those wanting the federal government to run things, because the more locally power is concentrated the more obvious abuses will be.
I've got a nice tract of land down in Florida that I'm sure you'd be interested in.
People who vote for politicians that promise tax cuts shouldn't vote. Politicians promise tax cuts and cuts to spending, but I rarely if ever hear of a politician with the stones to tell the voters what he or she intends to cut. As a result what gets cut tends to be programs to help the lower classes earn their way up in society and what gets cut in terms of taxes tends to be on those that already have enough money.
Voting for such a candidate is more or less the picture of stupidity. Exercising a vote like that is at best a vote for the status quo and at worse a vote for involuntary poverty to all but the richest individuals.
And up until recently we were doing an admirable job of administering it in a way that was equitable. But with ICE seizing domains without any sort of permission and our efforts to gain a veto over the registrations, I think we're about to kill the golden goose, if we haven't already.
I can see this ending about as well as the veto in the UN security council. Requiring a second no in order to prevent the council from acting would go a long way towards having the UN actually doing something.
And ultimately that is in part your fault. It's in part my fault and everybody else that votes. I vote for people that I think are going to do the best by the country, the selection is somewhat limited, but I vote primarily against the Republicans because they've been the big government party of my generation. In the 30 years since I was born, the Republican party has increased the size of our national debt to the tune of nearly $10tn and increased the size of the portions of the government that it likes significantly.
The problem isn't the size of the government, the problem is what are we getting out of the government? Are we getting our money's worth out of our tax dollars as a whole? Are we better off for having a government rather than living in some sort of anarchistic non-state? Would we be genuinely better off if we shrunk the government or would it just result in the rich getting richer?
The problem is that most Americans haven't considered the reality in an honest way, and tend to vote the way that their parents did regardless of whether or not it's the same party as it used to be.
I'm not really sure why anybody would want a ".gay" TLD, personally, I wouldn't want that, it would make it way too easy to filter out materials for the gay community. It would also make it a lot easier to figure out if somebody was perhaps a closet homosexual.
But beyond that, when I need information about safe sex and such, those sites aren't going to be any easier to find with a.gay TLD, more likely the TLD would end up being filled primarily with porn.
As Mark Twain pointed out in his autobiography, everybody swears, it's just a matter of whether they use the conventional curse words or not. An old lady saying "oh dear" in a particular way is definitely swearing, it's just covered up with a different choice of words.
Now, that you mention it, I have that problem as well. The Xandros flavor that came bundled with my Eee PC was actually worse than Windows, and yet I wouldn't curse at it, I'd curse at my Windows box. And even then only when I was booted into Windows. Doesn't matter if it's Linux or FreeBSD or something else or if it's something I can reasonably expect to work properly, I just don't get mad enough to curse.
Perhaps it's the years of rage going back to MS-Dos 5 or so and through quite a few revisions of Windows that did it.
Perhaps that just means that the business world doesn't have any ethics or morals. It also probably means that MBAs ought to be required to take a lot more courses dealing with ethics because quite frankly they don't seem to understand that you can't just steal from people and justify it by being profitable for your business. I hope that there are more MBAs that don't think that way than I think they do, but looking around I have very little optimism for that.
They're pioneers in the same way that Richard Nixon pioneered the process of using plumbers in electoral politics. Just because the course requirements need revision is no excuse for cheating.
As somebody who has never cheated on any assignment or test in his entire academic life, I take exception to that. College degrees, even at the master's level are not that hard, if you're finding the need to cheat then you really need to be taking fewer courses and paying closer attention. I've got a bit of a learning disorder and have had to turn in papers on a regular basis without any revision because I couldn't count on getting either then help needed when I needed it or reliably reading the things. Did perfectly fine with the grades.
Those that choose to cheat are demonstrating a very serious lack of character. One of the things which is a necessity for progress in education is taking the failing grade if you're not able to study sufficiently to master the information to the teacher's satisfaction.
Not really, they're not being penalized for using the internet. They're being penalized for trying to pass somebody elses work off as their own. Granted because of the internet a lot of the rules are sorely in need of revision and clarification, but the basic idea of not passing off somebody elses work as your own is definitely still valid.
The problem is that in the modern age it's a lot easier to tag a student for copying logic and work from something that the student has never read. And that definitely requires some sort of adjustment as it's not really realistic to expect a student to comb through their assignments googling every phrase and establishing that there wasn't somebody else who at some point had that idea.
I'm not surprised that the humanities would be so far down the list. Depending upon the specialty they require you to cite the hell out of any work you do. Historians for instance cite everything that they possibly can in an effort to avoid saying anything that they might be held accountable for. As a result they tend to proactively look for things to cite in order to include the point without having to take credit for more than the basic line of reasoning.
The common cold isn't caused by one virus, there's many different ones which are responsible. So in other words you could probably create an immunization to cover most of it, but you'd be stuck developing a vaccine like this for each of them ones.
I was going to post that. Another thing which is really great for decreasing population growth is ensuring that parents don't have to be supported by their children in old age. That reduces the pressure to produce many children and as a result parents tend to have fewer children or none at all of their own choosing.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, it won't happen. It would open the way for law suits for liability providing access to sites. As it is they get sort of a free pass on infringement sites because they don't filter content.
You're a shill for the MPAA, aren't you? Sure it would be a shock to the industry, but it's not like the customers are going to decide to stop spending their money. Most likely what would happen would be that the talent would flow to independent companies and any money that consumers were going to spend on movies would either be spent on independent films or other things. In neither case would that be devastating.
OTOH California would be a pit, but then again, they pretty much are already, this would be more of a coup de grace.
Do you have any actual relevant information? even in the days after 9/11 there was no talk of killing the internet being useful. It's just now a decade later that politicians are considering doing it. I tend to think that if it was that inevitable that the talk would have turned to that a lot more quickly.
Appropriate? If they're damaging the end users console by taking away features and preventing it from being fully utilized then no, it's not appropriate and MS should be sued. You can't just ban consoles because you don't like what the owner was choosing to do with it.
Making those sorts of blatant false dichotomies isn't really helping your case. Some of us genuinely want to be able to do whatever we like with our PS3s, and I don't think that other people pirating material makes it any less reasonable to expect to exercise some control over our own property.
That's the thing, it's not really war if people aren't in harms way. While it would be nice to settle things over an arm wrestling match or similar, the reality is that this sort of thing isn't really going to satisfy the people that demand war because it doesn't really allow for medals to be awarded in any particularly meaningful sense.
I'm not really sure why we need to go much beyond country codes. Having say a .edu, .com, .org, .gov and possibly a couple others for each country code is more than enough. Even without adding any others to the four I listed. It strikes me that if you need more granularity than that that you're probably doing it wrong.
Most servers aren't meant for only a city, so you're usually better off with a subdomain handling a particular state or city.
There are issues where he's genuinely an embarrassment. But that's in stark contrast to President Bush who was an embarrassment on most issues. Bush wouldn't have pushed for banking reform, health care reform or an end to GITMO. Remember that it's primarily Republicans that are fighting the President on those issues.
Suggesting that he's different in a way which is somehow bad is disingenuous. The differences are mostly positive, it's just that Bush didn't have to fight with members of the other party for most of his time in office. Whereas Obama has had to consider the view of the Republicans because quite frankly, the Republican party is pathologically incapable of cooperating across party lines right now. There's a small number with some concern for the well being of the American people, but they are very much in the minority as evidenced by their insistence on repealing the what was a Republican proposed health care reform for involving an individual mandate. An individual mandate that was proposed by conservatives originally.
I'm with you on that, as much as I distrusted President Bush, I'm not really sure that one can assume that it was an effort to kill pornography websites. It could very easily have been an honest effort at helping parents keep their kids away from it without unduly preventing adults from accessing it.
But in this case, I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Besides he's hardly the only person that wanted it.
You don't need to go to those extremes though to pull back state power. In the case of the U.S. that means voting for people who want to cut the budget because the less money the government has, they less power they wield. It's why voting for people who believe in power being in the hands of the states is better than those wanting the federal government to run things, because the more locally power is concentrated the more obvious abuses will be.
I've got a nice tract of land down in Florida that I'm sure you'd be interested in.
People who vote for politicians that promise tax cuts shouldn't vote. Politicians promise tax cuts and cuts to spending, but I rarely if ever hear of a politician with the stones to tell the voters what he or she intends to cut. As a result what gets cut tends to be programs to help the lower classes earn their way up in society and what gets cut in terms of taxes tends to be on those that already have enough money.
Voting for such a candidate is more or less the picture of stupidity. Exercising a vote like that is at best a vote for the status quo and at worse a vote for involuntary poverty to all but the richest individuals.
And up until recently we were doing an admirable job of administering it in a way that was equitable. But with ICE seizing domains without any sort of permission and our efforts to gain a veto over the registrations, I think we're about to kill the golden goose, if we haven't already.
I can see this ending about as well as the veto in the UN security council. Requiring a second no in order to prevent the council from acting would go a long way towards having the UN actually doing something.
And ultimately that is in part your fault. It's in part my fault and everybody else that votes. I vote for people that I think are going to do the best by the country, the selection is somewhat limited, but I vote primarily against the Republicans because they've been the big government party of my generation. In the 30 years since I was born, the Republican party has increased the size of our national debt to the tune of nearly $10tn and increased the size of the portions of the government that it likes significantly.
The problem isn't the size of the government, the problem is what are we getting out of the government? Are we getting our money's worth out of our tax dollars as a whole? Are we better off for having a government rather than living in some sort of anarchistic non-state? Would we be genuinely better off if we shrunk the government or would it just result in the rich getting richer?
The problem is that most Americans haven't considered the reality in an honest way, and tend to vote the way that their parents did regardless of whether or not it's the same party as it used to be.
I'm not really sure why anybody would want a ".gay" TLD, personally, I wouldn't want that, it would make it way too easy to filter out materials for the gay community. It would also make it a lot easier to figure out if somebody was perhaps a closet homosexual.
But beyond that, when I need information about safe sex and such, those sites aren't going to be any easier to find with a .gay TLD, more likely the TLD would end up being filled primarily with porn.
Depends, how many Win Me computers could possibly be in working order today?
As Mark Twain pointed out in his autobiography, everybody swears, it's just a matter of whether they use the conventional curse words or not. An old lady saying "oh dear" in a particular way is definitely swearing, it's just covered up with a different choice of words.
Now, that you mention it, I have that problem as well. The Xandros flavor that came bundled with my Eee PC was actually worse than Windows, and yet I wouldn't curse at it, I'd curse at my Windows box. And even then only when I was booted into Windows. Doesn't matter if it's Linux or FreeBSD or something else or if it's something I can reasonably expect to work properly, I just don't get mad enough to curse.
Perhaps it's the years of rage going back to MS-Dos 5 or so and through quite a few revisions of Windows that did it.
Perhaps that just means that the business world doesn't have any ethics or morals. It also probably means that MBAs ought to be required to take a lot more courses dealing with ethics because quite frankly they don't seem to understand that you can't just steal from people and justify it by being profitable for your business. I hope that there are more MBAs that don't think that way than I think they do, but looking around I have very little optimism for that.
They're pioneers in the same way that Richard Nixon pioneered the process of using plumbers in electoral politics. Just because the course requirements need revision is no excuse for cheating.
As somebody who has never cheated on any assignment or test in his entire academic life, I take exception to that. College degrees, even at the master's level are not that hard, if you're finding the need to cheat then you really need to be taking fewer courses and paying closer attention. I've got a bit of a learning disorder and have had to turn in papers on a regular basis without any revision because I couldn't count on getting either then help needed when I needed it or reliably reading the things. Did perfectly fine with the grades.
Those that choose to cheat are demonstrating a very serious lack of character. One of the things which is a necessity for progress in education is taking the failing grade if you're not able to study sufficiently to master the information to the teacher's satisfaction.
Not really, they're not being penalized for using the internet. They're being penalized for trying to pass somebody elses work off as their own. Granted because of the internet a lot of the rules are sorely in need of revision and clarification, but the basic idea of not passing off somebody elses work as your own is definitely still valid.
The problem is that in the modern age it's a lot easier to tag a student for copying logic and work from something that the student has never read. And that definitely requires some sort of adjustment as it's not really realistic to expect a student to comb through their assignments googling every phrase and establishing that there wasn't somebody else who at some point had that idea.
I'm not surprised that the humanities would be so far down the list. Depending upon the specialty they require you to cite the hell out of any work you do. Historians for instance cite everything that they possibly can in an effort to avoid saying anything that they might be held accountable for. As a result they tend to proactively look for things to cite in order to include the point without having to take credit for more than the basic line of reasoning.
The common cold isn't caused by one virus, there's many different ones which are responsible. So in other words you could probably create an immunization to cover most of it, but you'd be stuck developing a vaccine like this for each of them ones.
I was going to post that. Another thing which is really great for decreasing population growth is ensuring that parents don't have to be supported by their children in old age. That reduces the pressure to produce many children and as a result parents tend to have fewer children or none at all of their own choosing.
You're trolling, right? Can you at least back that up with some sort of a citation.
Nope, because everybody knows that particular shot causes dyslexia.