It could, but there's no reason for ads to require you to tell them where you are at an given time. I get that advertisers get hard over it, but at some point you have to draw a line.
More than that though, how much of the location stuff is really at the request of the developers? What say do they get when it comes to the overly invasive advertising other than not using it at all?
A lot of that has to do with what they're doing. The science is more important now than what they used to do, but it's seen as routine and boring. Which really is an amazing accomplishment, really. But it lacks the flash to really get people excited about it outside of science. And the experiments themselves are not particularly easy for lay people to understand.
And those people shouldn't have to know. The ISP should be sending out a new modem or update that handles it in the modem. The end user shouldn't need to know about it unless he or she wants to.
Yeah, any application which requires a one to one mapping of IP addresses across the entire network is not going to work with NAT as it's typically used. And definitely not if we run out of unique IPs. As it stands now, it's likely that there are several layers of NAT in between you, me and slashdot.
The biggest limitations aren't really recognized because nobody has been able to release anything that is being limited. At least not on a major scale. We won't know what those things are until the excessive NATing is gone.
That's why some of us advocate increasing the short term tax rate to something much higher than what we currently have and tailing off to what we've got now for long term capital gains. And pushing the holding period to 2 years or so. And cut the tax rate on dividends to the rate that people pay for capital gains.
The effect of that is to increase the holding period of an investment and discourage reckless speculation. People tend to forget that Enron produced far more winners than losers. The people who ended up holding the bag were a small fraction of the total number of people who invested in it.
It also has the upside of discouraging charlatans that practice technical analysis from screwing up the markets with their charts. Any practice which ignores what a business does to make money should be discouraged.
This is the natural consequences of the small government platform. If you cut taxes and government size you must necessarily cut services or run up mountains of debt, then cut services and raise taxes.
Unfortunately, corporations seem to like to run themselves that way as well with a significant amount of the profits going to the executives running them.
The problem is outside the home. There's no reason why people at home need to switch from IPv4 to IPv6, you can just replace or upgrade the modem to convert between the two without a whole lot of trouble. You can include NAT which does the translation nicely.
The bigger problem is that the ISPs haven't made it available yet in any universal way. I just checked the other day and Qwest still hasn't, as far as I can tell, made it available, definitely not on my modem anyways.
Precisely, there's all sorts of things you can do if you're not concerned with backwards compatibility. One of the main reasons why Apple has been resurgent in the OS market is that they broke backwards compatibility and made some really significant changes to the way their platform worked. OSX is significantly more reliable and more stable than their previous releases were. Mainly because they completely redid things with experience from known stable OSes.
MS has had a lot of trouble due to trying to maintain too much compatibility for too long. It's a competitive advantage that they can run old code, giving that up would make it much easier for people to switch platforms.
They do, however there are limitations on what they can do. They can require a drug screening and back ground check, references, but something like this is questionable at best.
Basically sounds to me like their trying to find a legal way of going back to pre-affirmative action times and hire people based upon things other than fit and qualification. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but this looks like a convenient way to not hire minorities.
Yes, but not really, what it means is that those groups can now functionally crowd out smaller less powerful voices and undermine their ability to practice their 1st amendment rights in an effective manner. While simultaneously not being required to air things which they believe to be factually correct.
I seriously doubt that the Republican interest groups really believed that President Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya hell bent on turning the US into a socialist paradise.
And while there is no inherent right to be heard, it is implied that it is the result of not forcing people to listen, not being crowded out by a bunch of elites.
I wish I could mod you up. When we decided that packing the judiciary with people that were likely to distort the rule of law in favor of our desires we took a huge step back from genuine democracy.
Rights are by virtue of what you are, what one deserves is by virtue of what you do. The right to vote is based upon being a citizen over the age of 18 who isn't a convicted felon. A raise in pay is generally deserved, or not, based upon what one does.
One doesn't deserve constitutional rights, one gets them by virtue of dealing with the US government on US controlled soil. Otherwise it's whoever controls the location that decides what those rights are.
Fundamental human rights are a bit harder to pin down precisely.
The right to vote and the right to free speech are tightly enmeshed. There's only two things that a person can do which will result in them losing the right to vote, get convicted of a felony or give up ones citizenship.
It was a serious joke to allow corporations and unions to have the same right to speech that individuals have. One of the biggest problems with the political system right now is huge amounts of money funneled in to the races. Allowing groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to slander whomever they like.
Locally the BIAW just got slapped with a half million dollar penalty for violating campaign financing laws. They've been active in trying to get Republicans elected to the state legislature here in WA, and have shown no particular interest in complying with campaign finance law.
I fail to see a problem here. Corporations are not people, nor are other collections of people. The reason why individuals have a right to privacy which is enshrined in various portions of the constitution is that an individual has far, far more to lose than a corporate entity does if the information is made public.
It's really not that hard, put a blind fold on and use a screen reader. Of all the disabilities out there, blindness is one of the easiest to simulate.
Companies frequently justify discrimination on the basis of cost. But as more and more services move to online only or mainly online, there's a greater and greater need for this to be considered a human right. Even if it does mean that a few CEOs will have to settle for gold bathroom fixtures instead of platinum.
Designing websites that are accessible to the blind, is not that difficult. Pretty much all of it is already covered in best practices. You know things like always giving your images an informative alt text, not using frames, avoiding flash for navigation, avoiding flash for presenting materials that don't need to be visual etc.
It's really not that big of a challenge, and really most of that ought to be already happening on the site anyways.
It's not a worthless law. That's a bit like saying that because people choose to try and outrun the cops when caught speeding that we shouldn't have laws against speeding anyways. The point is that in most of the places where texting is illegal it's not a primary offense, and even in places where it is a primary offense, it hasn't been a primary offense for very long.
If it's still resulting in more accidents and deaths in a couple years, then it's perhaps time to reconsider, but laws like this tend to take a while before people accept that they can get cited for it. You're not going to convince everybody, but traveling around town is dangerous enough, without dumb asses engaging in that sort of activity. If they wouldn't take out other people in the process, I'd be very tempted to say, just let them text.
Because it allows them to pullover the drivers they see texting, without having to wait until they do something overtly dangerous. Which means that if they catch you doing it at a stop light, they don't have to wait until you've gone a ways down the road to pull you over.
The only problem with that is that texting while driving is a completely obvious risk. People do it anyways. Speeding is also an obvious risk. People do it anyways.
I guess I don't share your optimism for people recognizing that they're doing something dangerous. Hell, even safety belts have a compliance rate which is well below what it should be.
Because calling it theft gets all those law and order morons to back it reflexively. If you called it infringement then they'd have to think about it and understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
They've needed them for some time, it's just that for some reason they aren't really available yet.
It could, but there's no reason for ads to require you to tell them where you are at an given time. I get that advertisers get hard over it, but at some point you have to draw a line.
More than that though, how much of the location stuff is really at the request of the developers? What say do they get when it comes to the overly invasive advertising other than not using it at all?
A lot of that has to do with what they're doing. The science is more important now than what they used to do, but it's seen as routine and boring. Which really is an amazing accomplishment, really. But it lacks the flash to really get people excited about it outside of science. And the experiments themselves are not particularly easy for lay people to understand.
And those people shouldn't have to know. The ISP should be sending out a new modem or update that handles it in the modem. The end user shouldn't need to know about it unless he or she wants to.
Yeah, any application which requires a one to one mapping of IP addresses across the entire network is not going to work with NAT as it's typically used. And definitely not if we run out of unique IPs. As it stands now, it's likely that there are several layers of NAT in between you, me and slashdot.
The biggest limitations aren't really recognized because nobody has been able to release anything that is being limited. At least not on a major scale. We won't know what those things are until the excessive NATing is gone.
That's why some of us advocate increasing the short term tax rate to something much higher than what we currently have and tailing off to what we've got now for long term capital gains. And pushing the holding period to 2 years or so. And cut the tax rate on dividends to the rate that people pay for capital gains.
The effect of that is to increase the holding period of an investment and discourage reckless speculation. People tend to forget that Enron produced far more winners than losers. The people who ended up holding the bag were a small fraction of the total number of people who invested in it.
It also has the upside of discouraging charlatans that practice technical analysis from screwing up the markets with their charts. Any practice which ignores what a business does to make money should be discouraged.
This is the natural consequences of the small government platform. If you cut taxes and government size you must necessarily cut services or run up mountains of debt, then cut services and raise taxes.
Unfortunately, corporations seem to like to run themselves that way as well with a significant amount of the profits going to the executives running them.
The problem is outside the home. There's no reason why people at home need to switch from IPv4 to IPv6, you can just replace or upgrade the modem to convert between the two without a whole lot of trouble. You can include NAT which does the translation nicely.
The bigger problem is that the ISPs haven't made it available yet in any universal way. I just checked the other day and Qwest still hasn't, as far as I can tell, made it available, definitely not on my modem anyways.
Precisely, there's all sorts of things you can do if you're not concerned with backwards compatibility. One of the main reasons why Apple has been resurgent in the OS market is that they broke backwards compatibility and made some really significant changes to the way their platform worked. OSX is significantly more reliable and more stable than their previous releases were. Mainly because they completely redid things with experience from known stable OSes.
MS has had a lot of trouble due to trying to maintain too much compatibility for too long. It's a competitive advantage that they can run old code, giving that up would make it much easier for people to switch platforms.
They do, however there are limitations on what they can do. They can require a drug screening and back ground check, references, but something like this is questionable at best.
Basically sounds to me like their trying to find a legal way of going back to pre-affirmative action times and hire people based upon things other than fit and qualification. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but this looks like a convenient way to not hire minorities.
Yes, but not really, what it means is that those groups can now functionally crowd out smaller less powerful voices and undermine their ability to practice their 1st amendment rights in an effective manner. While simultaneously not being required to air things which they believe to be factually correct.
I seriously doubt that the Republican interest groups really believed that President Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya hell bent on turning the US into a socialist paradise.
And while there is no inherent right to be heard, it is implied that it is the result of not forcing people to listen, not being crowded out by a bunch of elites.
I wish I could mod you up. When we decided that packing the judiciary with people that were likely to distort the rule of law in favor of our desires we took a huge step back from genuine democracy.
Rights are by virtue of what you are, what one deserves is by virtue of what you do. The right to vote is based upon being a citizen over the age of 18 who isn't a convicted felon. A raise in pay is generally deserved, or not, based upon what one does.
One doesn't deserve constitutional rights, one gets them by virtue of dealing with the US government on US controlled soil. Otherwise it's whoever controls the location that decides what those rights are.
Fundamental human rights are a bit harder to pin down precisely.
The right to vote and the right to free speech are tightly enmeshed. There's only two things that a person can do which will result in them losing the right to vote, get convicted of a felony or give up ones citizenship.
It was a serious joke to allow corporations and unions to have the same right to speech that individuals have. One of the biggest problems with the political system right now is huge amounts of money funneled in to the races. Allowing groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to slander whomever they like.
Locally the BIAW just got slapped with a half million dollar penalty for violating campaign financing laws. They've been active in trying to get Republicans elected to the state legislature here in WA, and have shown no particular interest in complying with campaign finance law.
I fail to see a problem here. Corporations are not people, nor are other collections of people. The reason why individuals have a right to privacy which is enshrined in various portions of the constitution is that an individual has far, far more to lose than a corporate entity does if the information is made public.
It's really not that hard, put a blind fold on and use a screen reader. Of all the disabilities out there, blindness is one of the easiest to simulate.
Companies frequently justify discrimination on the basis of cost. But as more and more services move to online only or mainly online, there's a greater and greater need for this to be considered a human right. Even if it does mean that a few CEOs will have to settle for gold bathroom fixtures instead of platinum.
Designing websites that are accessible to the blind, is not that difficult. Pretty much all of it is already covered in best practices. You know things like always giving your images an informative alt text, not using frames, avoiding flash for navigation, avoiding flash for presenting materials that don't need to be visual etc.
It's really not that big of a challenge, and really most of that ought to be already happening on the site anyways.
That's more how I imagine it. Choose two points, then the route between the two is the actual passphrase.
It's not a worthless law. That's a bit like saying that because people choose to try and outrun the cops when caught speeding that we shouldn't have laws against speeding anyways. The point is that in most of the places where texting is illegal it's not a primary offense, and even in places where it is a primary offense, it hasn't been a primary offense for very long.
If it's still resulting in more accidents and deaths in a couple years, then it's perhaps time to reconsider, but laws like this tend to take a while before people accept that they can get cited for it. You're not going to convince everybody, but traveling around town is dangerous enough, without dumb asses engaging in that sort of activity. If they wouldn't take out other people in the process, I'd be very tempted to say, just let them text.
Because it allows them to pullover the drivers they see texting, without having to wait until they do something overtly dangerous. Which means that if they catch you doing it at a stop light, they don't have to wait until you've gone a ways down the road to pull you over.
The only problem with that is that texting while driving is a completely obvious risk. People do it anyways. Speeding is also an obvious risk. People do it anyways.
I guess I don't share your optimism for people recognizing that they're doing something dangerous. Hell, even safety belts have a compliance rate which is well below what it should be.
Because calling it theft gets all those law and order morons to back it reflexively. If you called it infringement then they'd have to think about it and understand it.
Didn't you get the memo? Every time you install free software you're committing piracy. Also you're a bad person and like to stomp on puppies.
As opposed to desktop apps which don't allow you to return them once the shrink wrap has been broken, even if it's less than 24hours?