Anyway, Google is only going to roll out fiber to neighborhoods where at least 10% of the potential customers sign up in advance, not to the entire city. I could totally understand running your fiber backbone rings then waiting to extend it into individual neighborhoods until people sign up - limit your capex for deployment - but this seems a bit insane.
It doesn't sound insane to me. It sounds responsible. If the demand is there, then they will roll it out. If it isn't, they won't.
Today's world is so run by idiot bean-counters that we are never likely to see a thing built "because it can" again. Rather sad, isn't it?
I'd rather see money spent on infrastructure that benefits the many instead of a luxury airliner for the rich. I guess that makes me an "idiot bean-counter".
I found that the easiest way for them to grasp the difference between countable and uncountable infinities is the difference between whole numbers and real numbers. A countable infinity will always have a finite number of elements between any two elements (whole numbers) where as an uncountable infinity will have an infinite number of elements between any to elements in the set (real numbers).
This is severely misleading, as there are an infinite number of elements between any two rational numbers, yet the rational numbers are still countably infinite.
If you really want to explain it correctly, then the best way is talk about one-to-one correspondence. Having a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers is what it means to be countably infinite, and has a direct analogy to people counting with their fingers. Cantor's diagonalization argument shows why you can't count the reals, or more technically, construct a one-to-one correspondence between the reals and the natural numbers. His argument is actually quite understandable and illuminating.
I'm glad your low IQ, inability to follow a train of thought, and inability to complete an argument have brought you laughter.
It's just your grandiose dreams, arrogance, and reliance on magical thinking that brings me laughter.
When I said "...include all human experiences" the experiences I was talking about were, well, ALL HUMAN experiences.
All you've stated so far was hand-waving bullshit without anything specific. I can experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all his awesomeness, but that doesn't mean I should come up with a scientific theory about him.
I'm not adding an additional component. I'm using logic to include all human experiences instead of the science default of excluding all human experience.
What experience would that be? There's a reason science is exclusive, because there's too much bullshit theories without being so.
BTW, you're the science dogma bitch in this conversation, I'm the one working at breaking the dogma of both science and religion by developing a universal system that logically takes into account ALL human experience.
There is a lot of evidence that supports the mechanisms for the transmission of that consciousness, but nothing for the actual seat of consciousness nor its reason for existing. [..] Learn what the word meditate means [..]
So in other words, you acknowledge all the science that supports materialism, but then insist on adding in an additional component without any basis in logic or experiment.
erase the negative connotations of the word based on US experience of con men
It's not just con men. It's all the delusional and wishful thinking that surrounds this area, too.
I have hope for science that it will pass this kindergarten phase of only being able to grasp one cause and one effect at the same time, because you know, reality isn't anything like that at all, everything is co-dependent by the simple fact of sharing space.
Yeah, that's great. Now come up with your experiment and theory that doesn't amount to a bunch of hand-waving bullshit and collect your Nobel. Until then, science has progressed by discounting dogmatists like you.
It's searches on multiple databases from a single interface that are in question, specifically a single search UI that checks both local data and online for results.
So where's the novelty in that? For example, haven't there been library search interfaces that search multiple databases at once around for decades before this patent? Ooh, ooh, it's "online" and local. Whoop-di-freakin'do.
It would be trivial to formulate laws which would be both reasonable and destructive, and one need only again look at the Amish to see the truth in that statement. Were your standard used judicially the Amish would no longer exist as a religious group, at least not in anything resembling the same form they exist today.
I'd say that's highly debatable. For example, in the case of education that you cited, nothing prevented the Amish from further education at home, and they were even putting their kids in public schools up to and including 8th grade. But regardless, cultures and religions change over time, and there can be no guarantees that people won't be forced to change.
When laws conflict with conscience, I fully support those who choose to act based on their conscience.
Conscience being entirely separable from religion, yet we as a society will inevitably have laws that some people will find unconscionable in which they don't get a religious exemption from. There are several laws in existence that impact me in such ways, but as an atheist I would never (nor could I) claim to be exempt from them.
I would be interested to see what primary sources you'd rely on to argue there was even sizable minority, let alone widespread, support amongst the founders of the Republic for the opposite belief.
Which, again, argues that such freedom-impacting laws should be minimal for all people, regardless of religion.
Hint: Ignoring the content of my posts, including arguments with quotes from the page I supposedly haven't read, doesn't bolster your argument. It merely shows you have no argument and are huffing and puffing instead.
The onus is on you to quote what I supposedly have missed. You can't, because I've already addressed it in my response. As soon as you specify exactly what I missed, it will be easy to show otherwise.
I'm not making excuses, that was my first comment on this thread - and I wanted to just say that all this is funny =)
So in the very post you replied to, I put a question for a similar situation. Since you decided to enter the thread, how about you answer it, as the previous poster was afraid to.
Perhaps, but then if you want to ensure integrity you have to spend time checking the histories. I prefer the think twice, post once rule. That said, if forums do demand editing, transparent histories are the way to go.
My point was the original onus was yours, and still is since you are still on the field and your proxy has come up short.
I see from your reply that you couldn't be bothered to read the entire page to the end, so Alas, it seems you have strained peas in your ear.
I see that here, again, you refuse to provide a direct quotation or make a direct argument, referring instead to the end of the page.
That itself is pretty fucking stupid anyways, as I directly quoted from that page which gave the context, and then paraphrased the last part to shorten the quote and which was also originally quoted by the person who actually tried to provide some direct evidence. It's obvious I have read it and responded to it intelligently, while you are building up and knocking down strawmen.
Furthermore, I provided a direct quote which negated your original assertion that "Smith strongly advocated market regulation". Again, no response to this direct quote and challenge to your statement.
You're not a baby in a highchair, I have no intention of spoon-feeding you, especially if you insist on turning your head away every time a spoon approaches.
Oh really? So I can just claim that Wealth of Nations says exactly the opposite of what you said, and point you to the tome as reference?
Are you saying that reading ONE LOUSY PAGE from an online link is just too exhausting for you?
I did, and have already responded, though no thanks to you, obviously, since you provided no quotes, nor a single page. You left that for somebody else.
Don't give up just because it is hard and hasn't been done right in the past!
Given the past failures, I think converting an entire country to communism is a very bad idea. If people want to pursue this idea, they're better off trying to replicate it in tiny communities and then trying to scale it up, preferably through peaceful means.
So is your contention that religions should be required to adopt any legislatively-mandated social convention so long as it is not targeted at a religious organization in particular then?
Yes. That said, I believe such laws should be at a minimum, given the basic principles of freedom and allowing individuals their own pursuit of happiness.
I am still not sure where you are actually drawing your particular line in the sand.
Let's take some obvious examples. Let's say the government decided to outlaw the display of the cross. It's obviously targeted at Christians to prevent their free exercise of religion. Let's say for some absurd reason the government disallowed the display of jewelry. As ridiculous as I think this law would be, I don't think you should be allowed to wear a gold cross as a necklace.
So now that you've taken over the task of the original poster, I point out that what you quote is in support of preventing the private circulation of paper money:
"Where paper money, it is to be observed, is pretty much confined to the circulation between dealers and dealers, as at London, there is always plenty of gold and silver. Where it extends itself to a considerable part of the circulation between dealers and consumers, as in Scotland, and still more in North America, it banishes gold and silver almost entirely from the country; almost all the ordinary transactions of its interior commerce being thus carried on by paper. [..] To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker [violates liberty for the common good.]"
Other than allowing that Smith was for some regulation, especially in regards to paper money, that doesn't support what the original poster said, and for which you asked for quotes:
It's worth noting that Smith strongly advocated market regulation. He warned that inadequate or incompetent regulation of the market would lead to exactly the sorts of problems we're having now. He further warned against anything like corporate personhood as that would remove moral thinking from economic decisions.
Smith warned against government interference in the market:
"But the policy of Europe, by not leaving things at perfect liberty, occasions other inequalities of much greater importance.
It does this chiefly in the three following ways. First, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than would otherwise be disposed to enter into them; secondly, by increasing it in others beyond what it naturally would be; and, thirdly, by obstructing the free circulation of labour and stock, both from employment to employment, and from place to place."
Also, if you want to copy and paste, there's an HTML version on Project Gutenberg/ebooks/3300
Instead of referring to a book that is several hundred pages long, you could actually provide quotes that back up what you say. Anybody can make specious claims and then point to a tome. As you are the one making claims, the onus is on you to back them up.
You're right that it was abused, but I would argue that no country has ever implemented communism as Marx talked about it. IE it has never been tried.
Given that multiple countries went down the path of communism, you might take the hint that the Marx ideal is just that, an ideal that doesn't come to fruition in national politics. Claiming it has never been tried is bullshit.
In this case, it's unclear without careful reading and used poorly. Dictionary reference for normal usage:
1. "cut the (umbilical) cord to stop needing someone else to look after you and start acting independently"
2. "to end support of someone or something, esp. financial support"
So what "cord" is the author referring to? Based on the article, it seems to be his subscription to television services:
"I cut the cord to save money. I live in Los Angeles and pay Time Warner $84.94 (plus $6.56 tax and fees) for telephone service and Internet connectivity at "up to" 20 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload speed. Adding digital TV to round out the triple play would cost me an additional $58.99 per month -- just about what I paid for my Roku box."
If a religion may be forced to adopt social customs which are viewed by society at large as newly requisite, how do you argue the 1st Amendment provides any protection to religious worship at all?
I don't know what is so difficult about the concept, but perhaps it's because you are taking it as an all-or-nothing approach. If there's evidence that a law was crafted for or against some religion, then it should be struck down. It's that simple, and that provides an immense amount of protection compared to governments where religions are persecuted.
No, it's dead, and do you really want what you stated? That would include no images, no forms like the one you typed your comment into, and certainly nothing as fancy as draggable maps. Do you really want to install an app for that?
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, Google is only going to roll out fiber to neighborhoods where at least 10% of the potential customers sign up in advance, not to the entire city. I could totally understand running your fiber backbone rings then waiting to extend it into individual neighborhoods until people sign up - limit your capex for deployment - but this seems a bit insane.
It doesn't sound insane to me. It sounds responsible. If the demand is there, then they will roll it out. If it isn't, they won't.
Today's world is so run by idiot bean-counters that we are never likely to see a thing built "because it can" again. Rather sad, isn't it?
I'd rather see money spent on infrastructure that benefits the many instead of a luxury airliner for the rich. I guess that makes me an "idiot bean-counter".
I found that the easiest way for them to grasp the difference between countable and uncountable infinities is the difference between whole numbers and real numbers. A countable infinity will always have a finite number of elements between any two elements (whole numbers) where as an uncountable infinity will have an infinite number of elements between any to elements in the set (real numbers).
This is severely misleading, as there are an infinite number of elements between any two rational numbers, yet the rational numbers are still countably infinite.
If you really want to explain it correctly, then the best way is talk about one-to-one correspondence. Having a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers is what it means to be countably infinite, and has a direct analogy to people counting with their fingers. Cantor's diagonalization argument shows why you can't count the reals, or more technically, construct a one-to-one correspondence between the reals and the natural numbers. His argument is actually quite understandable and illuminating.
I'm glad your low IQ, inability to follow a train of thought, and inability to complete an argument have brought you laughter.
It's just your grandiose dreams, arrogance, and reliance on magical thinking that brings me laughter.
When I said "...include all human experiences" the experiences I was talking about were, well, ALL HUMAN experiences.
All you've stated so far was hand-waving bullshit without anything specific. I can experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster in all his awesomeness, but that doesn't mean I should come up with a scientific theory about him.
I'm not adding an additional component. I'm using logic to include all human experiences instead of the science default of excluding all human experience.
What experience would that be? There's a reason science is exclusive, because there's too much bullshit theories without being so.
BTW, you're the science dogma bitch in this conversation, I'm the one working at breaking the dogma of both science and religion by developing a universal system that logically takes into account ALL human experience.
Thanks for the laugh.
There is a lot of evidence that supports the mechanisms for the transmission of that consciousness, but nothing for the actual seat of consciousness nor its reason for existing. [..] Learn what the word meditate means [..]
So in other words, you acknowledge all the science that supports materialism, but then insist on adding in an additional component without any basis in logic or experiment.
erase the negative connotations of the word based on US experience of con men
It's not just con men. It's all the delusional and wishful thinking that surrounds this area, too.
I have hope for science that it will pass this kindergarten phase of only being able to grasp one cause and one effect at the same time, because you know, reality isn't anything like that at all, everything is co-dependent by the simple fact of sharing space.
Yeah, that's great. Now come up with your experiment and theory that doesn't amount to a bunch of hand-waving bullshit and collect your Nobel. Until then, science has progressed by discounting dogmatists like you.
when you see any text in Comic Sans, you know that you don't have to read it because it's practically certainly rubbish. ~
I like Comic Sans, you insensitive clod! Actually, I'm not kidding.
Also, a couple of really smart guys that have used it in their slides: Simon Peyton-Jones of Haskell fame, and Tim Sweeney of Gears of War fame.
It's searches on multiple databases from a single interface that are in question, specifically a single search UI that checks both local data and online for results.
So where's the novelty in that? For example, haven't there been library search interfaces that search multiple databases at once around for decades before this patent? Ooh, ooh, it's "online" and local. Whoop-di-freakin'do.
It would be trivial to formulate laws which would be both reasonable and destructive, and one need only again look at the Amish to see the truth in that statement. Were your standard used judicially the Amish would no longer exist as a religious group, at least not in anything resembling the same form they exist today.
I'd say that's highly debatable. For example, in the case of education that you cited, nothing prevented the Amish from further education at home, and they were even putting their kids in public schools up to and including 8th grade. But regardless, cultures and religions change over time, and there can be no guarantees that people won't be forced to change.
When laws conflict with conscience, I fully support those who choose to act based on their conscience.
Conscience being entirely separable from religion, yet we as a society will inevitably have laws that some people will find unconscionable in which they don't get a religious exemption from. There are several laws in existence that impact me in such ways, but as an atheist I would never (nor could I) claim to be exempt from them.
I would be interested to see what primary sources you'd rely on to argue there was even sizable minority, let alone widespread, support amongst the founders of the Republic for the opposite belief.
Which, again, argues that such freedom-impacting laws should be minimal for all people, regardless of religion.
Hint: Ignoring the content of my posts, including arguments with quotes from the page I supposedly haven't read, doesn't bolster your argument. It merely shows you have no argument and are huffing and puffing instead.
The onus is on you to quote what I supposedly have missed. You can't, because I've already addressed it in my response. As soon as you specify exactly what I missed, it will be easy to show otherwise.
I'm not making excuses, that was my first comment on this thread - and I wanted to just say that all this is funny =)
So in the very post you replied to, I put a question for a similar situation. Since you decided to enter the thread, how about you answer it, as the previous poster was afraid to.
Perhaps, but then if you want to ensure integrity you have to spend time checking the histories. I prefer the think twice, post once rule. That said, if forums do demand editing, transparent histories are the way to go.
Why in the hell would I bother posting a me too?
My point was the original onus was yours, and still is since you are still on the field and your proxy has come up short.
I see from your reply that you couldn't be bothered to read the entire page to the end, so Alas, it seems you have strained peas in your ear.
I see that here, again, you refuse to provide a direct quotation or make a direct argument, referring instead to the end of the page.
That itself is pretty fucking stupid anyways, as I directly quoted from that page which gave the context, and then paraphrased the last part to shorten the quote and which was also originally quoted by the person who actually tried to provide some direct evidence. It's obvious I have read it and responded to it intelligently, while you are building up and knocking down strawmen.
Furthermore, I provided a direct quote which negated your original assertion that "Smith strongly advocated market regulation". Again, no response to this direct quote and challenge to your statement.
You're not a baby in a highchair, I have no intention of spoon-feeding you, especially if you insist on turning your head away every time a spoon approaches.
Oh really? So I can just claim that Wealth of Nations says exactly the opposite of what you said, and point you to the tome as reference?
Are you saying that reading ONE LOUSY PAGE from an online link is just too exhausting for you?
I did, and have already responded, though no thanks to you, obviously, since you provided no quotes, nor a single page. You left that for somebody else.
Don't give up just because it is hard and hasn't been done right in the past!
Given the past failures, I think converting an entire country to communism is a very bad idea. If people want to pursue this idea, they're better off trying to replicate it in tiny communities and then trying to scale it up, preferably through peaceful means.
So is your contention that religions should be required to adopt any legislatively-mandated social convention so long as it is not targeted at a religious organization in particular then?
Yes. That said, I believe such laws should be at a minimum, given the basic principles of freedom and allowing individuals their own pursuit of happiness.
I am still not sure where you are actually drawing your particular line in the sand.
Let's take some obvious examples. Let's say the government decided to outlaw the display of the cross. It's obviously targeted at Christians to prevent their free exercise of religion. Let's say for some absurd reason the government disallowed the display of jewelry. As ridiculous as I think this law would be, I don't think you should be allowed to wear a gold cross as a necklace.
So now that you've taken over the task of the original poster, I point out that what you quote is in support of preventing the private circulation of paper money:
"Where paper money, it is to be observed, is pretty much confined to the circulation between dealers and dealers, as at London, there is always plenty of gold and silver. Where it extends itself to a considerable part of the circulation between dealers and consumers, as in Scotland, and still more in North America, it banishes gold and silver almost entirely from the country; almost all the ordinary transactions of its interior commerce being thus carried on by paper. [..] To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker [violates liberty for the common good.]"
Other than allowing that Smith was for some regulation, especially in regards to paper money, that doesn't support what the original poster said, and for which you asked for quotes:
It's worth noting that Smith strongly advocated market regulation. He warned that inadequate or incompetent regulation of the market would lead to exactly the sorts of problems we're having now. He further warned against anything like corporate personhood as that would remove moral thinking from economic decisions.
Smith warned against government interference in the market:
"But the policy of Europe, by not leaving things at perfect liberty, occasions other inequalities of much greater importance.
It does this chiefly in the three following ways. First, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than would otherwise be disposed to enter into them; secondly, by increasing it in others beyond what it naturally would be; and, thirdly, by obstructing the free circulation of labour and stock, both from employment to employment, and from place to place."
Also, if you want to copy and paste, there's an HTML version on Project Gutenberg/ebooks/3300
Instead of referring to a book that is several hundred pages long, you could actually provide quotes that back up what you say. Anybody can make specious claims and then point to a tome. As you are the one making claims, the onus is on you to back them up.
Unfortunately, I can't remember how to edit a post.
You can't, and it's a feature that prevents people from changing the conversation history. Preview is your friend.
Any pointers where to find the respective quotes?
I highly doubt you'll get them. It's easier to make these claims than to back them up with actual quotes.
You're right that it was abused, but I would argue that no country has ever implemented communism as Marx talked about it. IE it has never been tried.
Given that multiple countries went down the path of communism, you might take the hint that the Marx ideal is just that, an ideal that doesn't come to fruition in national politics. Claiming it has never been tried is bullshit.
I've already read it. It's pretty bland stuff, and I have my doubts that Slashdot censored it in the first place, but who knows.
What does "cut the cord" mean?
In this case, it's unclear without careful reading and used poorly. Dictionary reference for normal usage:
1. "cut the (umbilical) cord to stop needing someone else to look after you and start acting independently"
2. "to end support of someone or something, esp. financial support"
So what "cord" is the author referring to? Based on the article, it seems to be his subscription to television services:
"I cut the cord to save money. I live in Los Angeles and pay Time Warner $84.94 (plus $6.56 tax and fees) for telephone service and Internet connectivity at "up to" 20 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload speed. Adding digital TV to round out the triple play would cost me an additional $58.99 per month -- just about what I paid for my Roku box."
If a religion may be forced to adopt social customs which are viewed by society at large as newly requisite, how do you argue the 1st Amendment provides any protection to religious worship at all?
I don't know what is so difficult about the concept, but perhaps it's because you are taking it as an all-or-nothing approach. If there's evidence that a law was crafted for or against some religion, then it should be struck down. It's that simple, and that provides an immense amount of protection compared to governments where religions are persecuted.
HTML: Hyper Text Markup Language...
Cant we just have that back?
No, it's dead, and do you really want what you stated? That would include no images, no forms like the one you typed your comment into, and certainly nothing as fancy as draggable maps. Do you really want to install an app for that?