What, no "correlation is not causation" tag? I thought this was Slashdot's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here.
In the United States at least, "classified" binds the people responsible for maintaining its secrecy, basically people in the government. But once it's out, Wikileaks is within their legal rights to share that information. Unless of course it's protected by the DCMA.
This whole claim that Wikileaks thinks it's above the law is bunk.
The problem is free software is used to voluntarily erode privacy rights.
Not anymore! Now we have a server that looks like a night-light, just plug it in and it will do all your social networking for you! It's magic! No longer will you have to give up your privacy rights!...
#1) I don't want this reform. It means insurance companies will all flock to the state with the lowest standards, just as has happened with the credit companies. (They're all in Delaware.) And I don't trust Congress to implement this so it doesn't end up screwing me and further enriching the insurance companies.
#2) No pre-existing conditions: Insurance companies oppose this. It hurts their bottom line if they can't reject potentially expensive customers. The only reason they haven't been more vehement about it is because Congress and Obama used the public option as a bargaining chip to get this (unless it's also been traded away too.)
#3) Actually, I can't think of a reason any party would be particularly opposed to this. But I've never seen it be a part of the discussion, it always gets eclipsed by other things.
#4) Cheaper drugs: Pharma already opposes this now. That's why it isn't being considered.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> Why can't they do a simple bill, with some main points everyone can agree on...in about 10 pages of simple language everyone can understand and agree on? Start from there and build on it?
You only think there is something everyone agrees on, but there isn't. Any kind of reform will necessarily step on the toes of the players making money off of it, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and providers. And they have all been involved in trying to water things down. Someone below suggested that everyone agrees on drug reimportation, not the pharmaceutical companies. Removing the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption out to be a no-brainer, but you know the insurance companies will oppose it. Something like 75%+ of the country thinks we ought to have a public option, if not a single payer, but the insurance companies won't allow it.
And after all that, the GOP has radically different ideas for health care reform than the rest of us. Fundamentally, they don't agree with the very concept of insurance. Collectivized risk? Socialism! They have Godwined the debate a countless number of times over very mundane suggestions. When the Democrats talk about collectivizing risk, they want to individualize it. When the Democrats talk about reducing premiums, they talk about raising them. When the Democrats talk about making health care cheaper, they say it should be more expensive. Their very ideas for reform are the complete antithesis of what the Democrats are trying to do. And even so, if the Democrats were to completely capitulate and implement an idea they loved, right now they are pursuing a scorched earth political strategy of obstructing everything they can, just so they can run on how the Democrats can't get anything done.
Most people involved with or sympathetic to the ACLU would argue that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of citizenship, unless the constitution specifically mentions "citizen". The constitution usually uses a passive tense, and the rights enumerated are in the form "the government shall not", not "citizens have the right of".
Most specifically relevant here:
"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
These assassinations off the battlefield, regardless of citizenship or whether inside or outside US borders, is clearly unconstitutional.
It's very important to note these drone assassination missions aren't just being used to conduct warfare on the battlefield, they are being used to target and assassinate people in their own homes and in places as far from the battlefield as possible. The only apparent restriction is that they aren't being used to target people within US borders. Yet.
And as I've seen in one comment already, it is very important to note that just because the government accuses someone of something doesn't mean it's true. This is why we used to have a court system.
Of course it's economics. That's what every cost/benefit analysis is. Economics is just another word for the other "researcher's ideas", not any kind of challenge or refutation of them.
Are there no remarkable findings in the linked article worth reporting? Sure sounds like it to me.
Vivendi granted a non-commercial license for development of a Kings Quest game, Activision acquired Vivendi and revoked the permission. Just make sure this doesn't happen to you. Tell them you want to ensure the viability of your project on the off chance that Activation acquires them.
If you do this try to get permissions that cannot be revoked. I've read a story or two here about plugs on indie projects getting pulled because the copyright owner gave permission and then changed their mind.
Can someone who creates and exploits fear be called a terrorist? Someone whose primary tool is terror. I would think that would be the core definition.
When it comes to news about Venezuela, I'm bias-sensitive. There's a political divide there that is ten times as vicious as it is here. With that in mind, I'm confused about this bit of the summary, "former director of opposing news network Globovision." How does that fit in context?
Also, I understand that Venezuela has the highest murder rate of any country in the world. That seems like some necessary context for a law that punishes things that appear to encourage violent behavior.
I think the answer the OP really wants is whether fear over cell phone tower radiation will stop depressing prices anytime soon. That way he can buy the apartment at the depressed, "killer" price, and make a bundle selling it later.
This assumes that the information age lasts forever. Technology continuously improves and human civilization survives without interruption. And most importantly, that information survives brief or even extended periods of irrelevance.
Basically, your answer to how to survive a digital dark age is to assume that one will never occur?
What we preserve based on our present biases may not be what interest future archeologists. It may skew their perception of us as well. Imagine if all they found of us was the porn.
Companies like Valve and Apple have been doing this for years. I can't resell the games I buy through Steam or the Apple App Store, and I can't get them used.
Easy. Just like you said, the cost of the tax will be passed on to customers. As taxed carbon-based energy grows more expensive, consumers will turn to cleaner forms of energy that will be relatively cheaper, and companies will increase its production to meet the increased demand for cleaner energy.
Also, there may be no choice between electricity providers, but providers can offer a choice between clean and dirty energy. Portland General Electric does this. It costs slightly more but PGE guarantees the generation of a certain amount of renewable energy if we buy it.
The problem is netbooks are no longer netbooks, and instead they are becoming watered-down laptops.
IMO a netbook should be durable and ultraportable, low footprint and no moving parts - day-long battery life, under 10 inches, under 3 lbs, passively-cooled, solid-state storage, built-in 3G. These things should be nonnegotiable standards (just like nobody builds a phone that can't fit in your pocket.) They should emphasize their specialty, which is that you can work from anywhere, or watch TV from anywhere (is HD video really necessary?) through various apps like YouTube. And the specs should be throttled back to maintain a low price point so long as the above features are kept to. That should have been the goal. Technology would allow for more powerful netbooks in time.
Instead, manufacturers have made durability and ultraportability negotiable and instead are making netbooks bigger, more powerful, and more expensive, and not trying very hard on the durability front. So they end up competing directly with laptops, which are coming down in price so rapidly that you can now buy a regular laptop for the same price as a netbook. Why would any consumer spend $500 for a system that uses an Atom, has 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, 1024x600 screen, and 4 hour battery life when they can get a Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD, much better screen resolution, and a slightly worse (advertised) battery life?
If it has a 3 hour battery life, a spinning HDD, and is 12 inches large, is it really a netbook anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
We tried that on Chavez once already, but it didn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt
I know, I was shocked that they have computers and electricity.
What, no "correlation is not causation" tag? I thought this was Slashdot's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here.
In the United States at least, "classified" binds the people responsible for maintaining its secrecy, basically people in the government. But once it's out, Wikileaks is within their legal rights to share that information. Unless of course it's protected by the DCMA.
This whole claim that Wikileaks thinks it's above the law is bunk.
The problem is free software is used to voluntarily erode privacy rights.
Not anymore! Now we have a server that looks like a night-light, just plug it in and it will do all your social networking for you! It's magic! No longer will you have to give up your privacy rights! ...
Do I have the argument right?
Because not everyone agrees on them.
#1) I don't want this reform. It means insurance companies will all flock to the state with the lowest standards, just as has happened with the credit companies. (They're all in Delaware.) And I don't trust Congress to implement this so it doesn't end up screwing me and further enriching the insurance companies.
#2) No pre-existing conditions: Insurance companies oppose this. It hurts their bottom line if they can't reject potentially expensive customers. The only reason they haven't been more vehement about it is because Congress and Obama used the public option as a bargaining chip to get this (unless it's also been traded away too.)
#3) Actually, I can't think of a reason any party would be particularly opposed to this. But I've never seen it be a part of the discussion, it always gets eclipsed by other things.
#4) Cheaper drugs: Pharma already opposes this now. That's why it isn't being considered.
> Why can't they do a simple bill, with some main points everyone can agree on...in about 10 pages of simple language everyone can understand and agree on? Start from there and build on it?
You only think there is something everyone agrees on, but there isn't. Any kind of reform will necessarily step on the toes of the players making money off of it, insurance, pharmaceuticals, and providers. And they have all been involved in trying to water things down. Someone below suggested that everyone agrees on drug reimportation, not the pharmaceutical companies. Removing the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption out to be a no-brainer, but you know the insurance companies will oppose it. Something like 75%+ of the country thinks we ought to have a public option, if not a single payer, but the insurance companies won't allow it.
And after all that, the GOP has radically different ideas for health care reform than the rest of us. Fundamentally, they don't agree with the very concept of insurance. Collectivized risk? Socialism! They have Godwined the debate a countless number of times over very mundane suggestions. When the Democrats talk about collectivizing risk, they want to individualize it. When the Democrats talk about reducing premiums, they talk about raising them. When the Democrats talk about making health care cheaper, they say it should be more expensive. Their very ideas for reform are the complete antithesis of what the Democrats are trying to do. And even so, if the Democrats were to completely capitulate and implement an idea they loved, right now they are pursuing a scorched earth political strategy of obstructing everything they can, just so they can run on how the Democrats can't get anything done.
Most people involved with or sympathetic to the ACLU would argue that the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of citizenship, unless the constitution specifically mentions "citizen". The constitution usually uses a passive tense, and the rights enumerated are in the form "the government shall not", not "citizens have the right of".
Most specifically relevant here:
"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
These assassinations off the battlefield, regardless of citizenship or whether inside or outside US borders, is clearly unconstitutional.
It's very important to note these drone assassination missions aren't just being used to conduct warfare on the battlefield, they are being used to target and assassinate people in their own homes and in places as far from the battlefield as possible. The only apparent restriction is that they aren't being used to target people within US borders. Yet.
And as I've seen in one comment already, it is very important to note that just because the government accuses someone of something doesn't mean it's true. This is why we used to have a court system.
If they are merely suspected of it? They should be assassinated within their own homes? Why even bother having a judicial system at all? Or laws?
Of course it's economics. That's what every cost/benefit analysis is. Economics is just another word for the other "researcher's ideas", not any kind of challenge or refutation of them.
Are there no remarkable findings in the linked article worth reporting? Sure sounds like it to me.
Ah, here we go. http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/03/01/0546238/8-Year-Fan-Made-Game-Project-Shut-Down-By-Activision
Vivendi granted a non-commercial license for development of a Kings Quest game, Activision acquired Vivendi and revoked the permission. Just make sure this doesn't happen to you. Tell them you want to ensure the viability of your project on the off chance that Activation acquires them.
If you do this try to get permissions that cannot be revoked. I've read a story or two here about plugs on indie projects getting pulled because the copyright owner gave permission and then changed their mind.
Can someone who creates and exploits fear be called a terrorist? Someone whose primary tool is terror. I would think that would be the core definition.
When it comes to news about Venezuela, I'm bias-sensitive. There's a political divide there that is ten times as vicious as it is here. With that in mind, I'm confused about this bit of the summary, "former director of opposing news network Globovision." How does that fit in context?
Also, I understand that Venezuela has the highest murder rate of any country in the world. That seems like some necessary context for a law that punishes things that appear to encourage violent behavior.
I think the answer the OP really wants is whether fear over cell phone tower radiation will stop depressing prices anytime soon. That way he can buy the apartment at the depressed, "killer" price, and make a bundle selling it later.
Imgburn?
This assumes that the information age lasts forever. Technology continuously improves and human civilization survives without interruption. And most importantly, that information survives brief or even extended periods of irrelevance.
Basically, your answer to how to survive a digital dark age is to assume that one will never occur?
What we preserve based on our present biases may not be what interest future archeologists. It may skew their perception of us as well. Imagine if all they found of us was the porn.
Companies like Valve and Apple have been doing this for years. I can't resell the games I buy through Steam or the Apple App Store, and I can't get them used.
What format of money have you been using? This happened decades ago, but then again I only use pennies.
He means that without the multiplayer network Microsoft would not have been able to leech money off of these products.
I may be wrong but I think that in this case, it is the same thing.
How exactly?
Easy. Just like you said, the cost of the tax will be passed on to customers. As taxed carbon-based energy grows more expensive, consumers will turn to cleaner forms of energy that will be relatively cheaper, and companies will increase its production to meet the increased demand for cleaner energy.
Also, there may be no choice between electricity providers, but providers can offer a choice between clean and dirty energy. Portland General Electric does this. It costs slightly more but PGE guarantees the generation of a certain amount of renewable energy if we buy it.
Of course, hydroelectric power is plentiful here.
The problem is netbooks are no longer netbooks, and instead they are becoming watered-down laptops.
IMO a netbook should be durable and ultraportable, low footprint and no moving parts - day-long battery life, under 10 inches, under 3 lbs, passively-cooled, solid-state storage, built-in 3G. These things should be nonnegotiable standards (just like nobody builds a phone that can't fit in your pocket.) They should emphasize their specialty, which is that you can work from anywhere, or watch TV from anywhere (is HD video really necessary?) through various apps like YouTube. And the specs should be throttled back to maintain a low price point so long as the above features are kept to. That should have been the goal. Technology would allow for more powerful netbooks in time.
Instead, manufacturers have made durability and ultraportability negotiable and instead are making netbooks bigger, more powerful, and more expensive, and not trying very hard on the durability front. So they end up competing directly with laptops, which are coming down in price so rapidly that you can now buy a regular laptop for the same price as a netbook. Why would any consumer spend $500 for a system that uses an Atom, has 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD, 1024x600 screen, and 4 hour battery life when they can get a Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD, much better screen resolution, and a slightly worse (advertised) battery life?
If it has a 3 hour battery life, a spinning HDD, and is 12 inches large, is it really a netbook anymore?