This is not really feasible in many areas. Full trials take a lot more resources than guilty pleas, and criminals know it. With no incentive to plead guilty, they'll make the court do all the extra work involved in a trial. If you ban plea bargaining in a big city, the courts will never be able to handle all their cases (they're already overworked). After not all that much time with this ban in effect, the average burglar could die of old age before his trial starts.
Or since you and yours is a minority abusing the network. All they have to do is refund your money and say "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
Actually, once the service offer is accepted by the customer, the ISP is under contractual obligation to provide that bandwidth. They don't get to cancel your service (regardless of what they give back as compensation) without your consent.
That would work for typical everyday use (like a checksum next to a link to a downloadable file). Of course, this is assuming that the birthday attack wasn't keeping a uniform file size.
It would also take a bit more (though maybe not much) to apply it to digital signatures.
My opinion on the first problem is, it's self-resolving, since we're beginning to see some good competition between broadband providers.
Ok, maybe you're starting to. Around here, it's all Comcast.
I can't wait to get back to school (broadband + static IP address = $17/mo).
The second problem, on the other hand, is IMO a legitimate concern, and that while I disagree with "net neutrality" legislation, if an ISP advertises its top speed at a level reachable only by "premium" server connections then that should be considered fraud.
Not only that, but they should point out that even that is a "peak" speed, not something which will be sustained for any useful amount of time.
New legislation should be put forward when it is clear that current ones do not suffice.
Some "what if" scenarios are more than just baseless speculation.
Sometimes, a telco will push for price deregulation claiming that they won't raise their rates unless they need to. Is it baseless speculation to say that the caps should be kept where they are, otherwise the telco will raise its rates?
Perhaps you want a more direct example. AT&T wants to be able to charge extra to large online entities in order to insure that their traffic is handled promptly -- this is hardly a secret. If you give telcos this option, they will use it. It is not just speculation; Whitacre himself says that AT&T wants to regulate traffic on its networks. It is baseless speculation to believe that the telcos will keep their hands off the internet like they're telling the government to do.
Short version of parent:
The study does not involve a reliable test for violence level.
The study looks politically motivated.
People typically have an issue where they act a bit crazy; this is probably hers.
It depends what's being referred to as a two-party system. I doubt anyone would make the claim that democracy in general must be a two-party system -- plenty of (most, in fact) other democracies aren't. However, if the statement is that American politics is a two-party system, then it is acknowledging something about American politics (i.e. that connections and money get people into office, not merit).
Yes, shelter is a need. Large mortgage payments however are a want - one can choose to live in smaller place, or a cheaper place, or a less desirable place. Ditto car loans - buy a decent car rather than bling and you can drive it for a decade or more. Ditto food, costs can easily be controlled by careful shopping and preparation. Ditto telecommunications.
That's a very nice straw man you've built.
Even if you go on the less expensive side, housing and car payments are far from being trivial costs.
Ditto food, costs can easily be controlled by careful shopping and preparation.
This is the most controllable expense on the list. It is also one of the smallest.
Ditto telecommunications.
Need or want, telecom service is very much within reach of most people. $10-15 per month for POTS, plus another $10-15 for dial-up access. Even a small cell phone plan isn't too much extra. A family of four would probably spend more on food.
Careful choice of where to live and which car to drive effects the amount of gas consumed.
This is still strongly affected by where one works, which, despite all the American dream crap rhetoric, is not something people choose as freely as what to eat for lunch.
Health care is not 'Necessity for survival' - it's a percieved right based on the groundless belief that everyone has a right to happy life.
I'm tired of people (not necessarily you) who say that insurance is not a need, and then say that when people get sick/injured and can't afford medical payments that it's their own fault for not being insured.
There are plenty of people who need health care. And plenty more who don't need it right now but could easily (and not through their own fault, mind you) become one of those who need it.
Paying a few percent of what you earn to know you won't suddenly get hit with expenses you can't possibly afford is generally seen as a wise choice.
And now, my favorite part of your post:
No, what is nearly unique to America is the inability to discern between a 'want' (a gas guzzling status symbol) and a need (transportation).
I am well aware that I don't need bling or an SUV. Because of the included cost, I do not want such a car. What I have is a 15-year old sedan, which, because it receives good (but inexpensive) care, can top 30 mpg on the highway.
I don't need you lecturing me about overspending.
Taxes: Not paying is illegal. --> Need
Mortgage/Rent: Don't pay, you are homeless. Homeless people cannot really get a legit job (which is needed to pay for biological needs, such as food). --> Need
Car Loans: Depends where you live. In the city, public transportation is adequate. However, not all people can live in urban areas. These people need cars in order to have jobs (which they need in order to get enough money to sustain themselves). --> Need/Want
Insurance: Depending on where you live, not paying may be illegal. Either way, it's the only way some other needs can be met (e.g. health care). --> Need
Health Care: Necessity for survival. --> Need
Telecom: I'm sure if I thought for a while, I could come up with a reason to label this as a need, but I don't really feel like doing the work now. --> Want
Food: Necessity for survival. --> Need
Gas: See car loan. --> Need/Want
So we've got 5 needs, 2 need/wants and 1 want. Telecom, the least expensive of these, is the want. Taxes and mortage/rent, the most expensive, are needs. The need/wants are largely determined by location, which, despite all the "if you don't like it, then leave" is not a trivial thing to change. It might seem that living in a city would reduce needs costs, because you don't need a car (or gas), but all of the other needs are generally far more expensive (especially housing).
Now, these needs are not unique to America, but in many other places, they are less expensive, which explains the differences in costs of living.
Now how is this guild not a union? Because there are ways in which it's different from the AFL-CIO?
It doesn't have to demand wage-equality in order to be a union. You don't see the NEA demanding that all teachers receive the same salary.
Unions (non-corrupt ones, at least) follow issues which are important to union members. For IT, important issues include annual cost-of-living increases (important for almost all industries, really), limits on outsourcing (keep the IT jobs secure), availability of tech training (keep the tech workers up-to-date on modern tech), and probably quite a few others.
If such a thing gets off the ground, I want to know about it. I'd be pretty quick to join.
In the US, anyone can start a company. In most states, any two people that form a company together can apply for group health care coverage.
That company better have some really stable revenue sources ready to go at startup -- it's not like this lady is going to have a lot of money saved up from her current job.
In at least IL (state laws vary), the group health care provider cannot refuse you coverage
That still doesn't exactly leave the insurance providers at the mercy of the consumer.
they do a medical check and then they can adjust your rates up to 150%, but that is it.
Ooh, I bet that's easy to afford on $8 per hour!
Of course, Illinois law doesn't matter in states that border Canada.
If I were a small business and did not have the money in my budget to fill this task should I be fined?
With this adminstration, you probably would be. Remember, high barriers to entry limit competition.
Neocon economics, ftw.
Buy a 10-retro-PC game compliation for $10 and see how you feel about the individual games, you won't give a shit about them. But you keep your copy of Wind Waker (or whatever Nintendo game you've bought at the launch price) on the shelf and be sure to put it back in its case, right? Because you care more about it because you had to hand over a noticable amount of cash.
Yep, you know how Asteroids is so much more enthralling than LoZ....
And flying is like swimming in that you move through a fluid environment.
The difference between the rights granted by owning of physical property (you can kick me off your land) are different from the rights granted by holding a patent (but you can't make me stop with making widgets -- only from selling them).
Too often, "intellectual property" is taken to mean the exclusive right to produce.
The problem with the system as it is today is that anyone can just sit on a patent. Perhaps the system could be changed so that entities who (for some period of time) do not produce any product based on some patent they hold would lose the patent to the public domain. This would help control patent trolling by forcing patent trolls to either produce something or lose their patents.
Then there's still the problem which arises from the fact that a lot of innovation is based on derivative works of existing products. By limiting production of (and tinkering with) a patented product to the patent owner, you also confine continued innovation in that area to the patent holder.
Can't earn a living wage in a free market? Sounds like someone's lazy.
Well, the annual decline in real minimum wage doesn't exactly bode well for the traditional "working class."
And do you really believe that the labor market would pay good workers a living wage? Most min-wage-level employers know that they won't lose all of their workers just because some other min-wage-level employer nearby raises its pay rates a bit. Most employees do not know whether or not they can get paid more by leaving and working at the place down the street. There's also a lot of hassle around changing jobs -- the temporary loss of pay is probably more than typical min-wage-level employees can afford.
private company, well within their rights to censor whatever they want.
Entrant into a contract, legally bound to deliver all mail, if that is the service that the customer pays for.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that there are people who sometimes walk from place to place, right?
That would work for typical everyday use (like a checksum next to a link to a downloadable file). Of course, this is assuming that the birthday attack wasn't keeping a uniform file size.
It would also take a bit more (though maybe not much) to apply it to digital signatures.
20+ hours, and still no dead beef jokes.
I can't wait to get back to school (broadband + static IP address = $17/mo).
Not only that, but they should point out that even that is a "peak" speed, not something which will be sustained for any useful amount of time.
Sometimes, a telco will push for price deregulation claiming that they won't raise their rates unless they need to. Is it baseless speculation to say that the caps should be kept where they are, otherwise the telco will raise its rates?
Perhaps you want a more direct example. AT&T wants to be able to charge extra to large online entities in order to insure that their traffic is handled promptly -- this is hardly a secret. If you give telcos this option, they will use it. It is not just speculation; Whitacre himself says that AT&T wants to regulate traffic on its networks. It is baseless speculation to believe that the telcos will keep their hands off the internet like they're telling the government to do.
If all else fails, there's always the possibility of distibution through sneakernet or something similar.
Short version of parent:
The study does not involve a reliable test for violence level.
The study looks politically motivated.
People typically have an issue where they act a bit crazy; this is probably hers.
It depends what's being referred to as a two-party system. I doubt anyone would make the claim that democracy in general must be a two-party system -- plenty of (most, in fact) other democracies aren't. However, if the statement is that American politics is a two-party system, then it is acknowledging something about American politics (i.e. that connections and money get people into office, not merit).
Yes, shelter is a need. Large mortgage payments however are a want - one can choose to live in smaller place, or a cheaper place, or a less desirable place. Ditto car loans - buy a decent car rather than bling and you can drive it for a decade or more. Ditto food, costs can easily be controlled by careful shopping and preparation. Ditto telecommunications.
That's a very nice straw man you've built.
Even if you go on the less expensive side, housing and car payments are far from being trivial costs.
Ditto food, costs can easily be controlled by careful shopping and preparation.
This is the most controllable expense on the list. It is also one of the smallest.
Ditto telecommunications.
Need or want, telecom service is very much within reach of most people. $10-15 per month for POTS, plus another $10-15 for dial-up access. Even a small cell phone plan isn't too much extra. A family of four would probably spend more on food.
Careful choice of where to live and which car to drive effects the amount of gas consumed.
This is still strongly affected by where one works, which, despite all the American dream crap rhetoric, is not something people choose as freely as what to eat for lunch.
Health care is not 'Necessity for survival' - it's a percieved right based on the groundless belief that everyone has a right to happy life.
I'm tired of people (not necessarily you) who say that insurance is not a need, and then say that when people get sick/injured and can't afford medical payments that it's their own fault for not being insured.
There are plenty of people who need health care. And plenty more who don't need it right now but could easily (and not through their own fault, mind you) become one of those who need it.
Paying a few percent of what you earn to know you won't suddenly get hit with expenses you can't possibly afford is generally seen as a wise choice.
And now, my favorite part of your post:
No, what is nearly unique to America is the inability to discern between a 'want' (a gas guzzling status symbol) and a need (transportation).
I am well aware that I don't need bling or an SUV. Because of the included cost, I do not want such a car. What I have is a 15-year old sedan, which, because it receives good (but inexpensive) care, can top 30 mpg on the highway.
I don't need you lecturing me about overspending.
Taxes: Not paying is illegal. --> Need
Mortgage/Rent: Don't pay, you are homeless. Homeless people cannot really get a legit job (which is needed to pay for biological needs, such as food). --> Need
Car Loans: Depends where you live. In the city, public transportation is adequate. However, not all people can live in urban areas. These people need cars in order to have jobs (which they need in order to get enough money to sustain themselves). --> Need/Want
Insurance: Depending on where you live, not paying may be illegal. Either way, it's the only way some other needs can be met (e.g. health care). --> Need
Health Care: Necessity for survival. --> Need
Telecom: I'm sure if I thought for a while, I could come up with a reason to label this as a need, but I don't really feel like doing the work now. --> Want
Food: Necessity for survival. --> Need
Gas: See car loan. --> Need/Want
So we've got 5 needs, 2 need/wants and 1 want. Telecom, the least expensive of these, is the want. Taxes and mortage/rent, the most expensive, are needs. The need/wants are largely determined by location, which, despite all the "if you don't like it, then leave" is not a trivial thing to change. It might seem that living in a city would reduce needs costs, because you don't need a car (or gas), but all of the other needs are generally far more expensive (especially housing).
Now, these needs are not unique to America, but in many other places, they are less expensive, which explains the differences in costs of living.
Now how is this guild not a union? Because there are ways in which it's different from the AFL-CIO?
It doesn't have to demand wage-equality in order to be a union. You don't see the NEA demanding that all teachers receive the same salary.
Unions (non-corrupt ones, at least) follow issues which are important to union members. For IT, important issues include annual cost-of-living increases (important for almost all industries, really), limits on outsourcing (keep the IT jobs secure), availability of tech training (keep the tech workers up-to-date on modern tech), and probably quite a few others.
If such a thing gets off the ground, I want to know about it. I'd be pretty quick to join.
I can't imagine what kind of market can exist without a government to enforce property rights.
XD
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if that CEO costs more than that entire $100M.
In the US, anyone can start a company. In most states, any two people that form a company together can apply for group health care coverage.
That company better have some really stable revenue sources ready to go at startup -- it's not like this lady is going to have a lot of money saved up from her current job.
In at least IL (state laws vary), the group health care provider cannot refuse you coverage
That still doesn't exactly leave the insurance providers at the mercy of the consumer.
they do a medical check and then they can adjust your rates up to 150%, but that is it.
Ooh, I bet that's easy to afford on $8 per hour!
Of course, Illinois law doesn't matter in states that border Canada.
If I were a small business and did not have the money in my budget to fill this task should I be fined?
With this adminstration, you probably would be. Remember, high barriers to entry limit competition.
Neocon economics, ftw.
Yes but is the pun in "raise" because their console is called Wii
Please explain this one?
Buy a 10-retro-PC game compliation for $10 and see how you feel about the individual games, you won't give a shit about them. But you keep your copy of Wind Waker (or whatever Nintendo game you've bought at the launch price) on the shelf and be sure to put it back in its case, right? Because you care more about it because you had to hand over a noticable amount of cash.
Yep, you know how Asteroids is so much more enthralling than LoZ....
And flying is like swimming in that you move through a fluid environment.
The difference between the rights granted by owning of physical property (you can kick me off your land) are different from the rights granted by holding a patent (but you can't make me stop with making widgets -- only from selling them).
Too often, "intellectual property" is taken to mean the exclusive right to produce.
The problem with the system as it is today is that anyone can just sit on a patent. Perhaps the system could be changed so that entities who (for some period of time) do not produce any product based on some patent they hold would lose the patent to the public domain. This would help control patent trolling by forcing patent trolls to either produce something or lose their patents.
Then there's still the problem which arises from the fact that a lot of innovation is based on derivative works of existing products. By limiting production of (and tinkering with) a patented product to the patent owner, you also confine continued innovation in that area to the patent holder.
Can't earn a living wage in a free market? Sounds like someone's lazy.
Well, the annual decline in real minimum wage doesn't exactly bode well for the traditional "working class."
And do you really believe that the labor market would pay good workers a living wage? Most min-wage-level employers know that they won't lose all of their workers just because some other min-wage-level employer nearby raises its pay rates a bit. Most employees do not know whether or not they can get paid more by leaving and working at the place down the street. There's also a lot of hassle around changing jobs -- the temporary loss of pay is probably more than typical min-wage-level employees can afford.
So the question here: is the included software worth the $431 difference?
Yeah, I was gonna say...
If it's a design flaw, why don't they all fail soon?
private company, well within their rights to censor whatever they want.
Entrant into a contract, legally bound to deliver all mail, if that is the service that the customer pays for.