I'd much rather have my kid playing with titties and ass than 9mm pistols.
Just sayin'.
While modded insightful, perhaps you should rethink your position when it isn't clouded by an irrational fear of firearms.
Cause of death per 100,000 people
47.5 people died of Sexually transmitted diseases 26.0 people died of Intentional injuries (suicide, murder, war, etc.) and that's not limited to firearms.
Personally, I'd rather teach my children responsibility for both, rather than just jump on the anti-gun bandwagon because it gets a good response on an online forum.
Does not economics presume a "rational actor", acting in his or her self-interest? If I can choose between getting X for free and paying for X, then if I'm acting in my rational self-interest, I've got to take the free version unless there's some other consequence.
If your entire life was a simulation, then maybe.
Of course, a rational actor might also realize that a functioning society was a benefit. You don't HAVE to do anything.
His post may have been, but your hysterical defense of them was almost as bad. They're a political advocacy group, not angels. And they're very choosy about who's civil liberties they fight for. It's pretty much been ACLU policy that the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist except as the ridiculous "collective right" theory.
That always bothered me about the ACLU. It seems to be such a strange departure from their normally very 'rights-supportive' stance. When I first heard the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment I literally said, 'Wait, what?' I won't donate to the ACLU for that very purpose while I have supported other organizations focused on protecting civil rights. I really wish the ACLU would support all of the rights, and not come up with a rather absurd exclusion for one that isn't as popular with their base.
Ahh but what if they had anticipated the fix, pre-emptively beat them, and then feigned ignorance for a few days to make the companies think that they had outsmarted the hackers.
Only to find out that they themselves were victims of a double-cross, but the real joke is that it wasn't even a cross since the hackers were employees that were posing as hackers to lull the homebrew community into installing their code. The result is that the homebrew community has been slowly installing pieces of a much more vast program conceived in the secret vaults underneat the Washington Monument. The true nature of these fixes won't be known until the third high tide past the winter solstice when the tidal forces on the wii controllers motion sensors will signal the code to execute.
I do love how we are forced to assume the positive statement 'service is unlimited' is a lie, while the negative statment 'limited to xxxMB' is the truth.
I'd rather assume the latter is the lie, and the first is the truth.
The only reason PSU didn't lose customers is because PSU is a university with a captive audience.
I went to PSU before and after the bandwidth caps and I have hit that limit faster than they could send the emails. It wasn't hard either, just run a few too many updates, or pull in some data from a source that wasn't on Internet2 and you would be over. PSU's problem was a serious lack of enforcement combined with the fact that they used hubs instead of switches for a long period of time. There was already a bandwidth problem before napster even existed, then once it became popular outside of the tech-savy, it crushed the network in less than a few days.
I was desperate to use any other internet system before they switched out those hubs and cracked down on the assholes who were hosting terabytes of content from their dorms.
Sorry for the rant, in short, yes those emails did help. (Still pissed me off going over when I had to pull in video from a distant source though for one of my classes) That exemption for your room wasn't worth filling the paperwork over.
Would you try to transfer goods across the channel with nothing more than rope, some styrofoam and a good swimmer? Or would you take a few weeks to build at least a rudimentary boat?
If we rush to send someone there just to say we got someone there, what are we really accomplishing other than inflating our own egos? Money is tight for these sorts of endeavours. They aren't saying hold off till teleportation is possible, but hold off until we get the best 'bang for the buck'.
by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday October 23, @03:34PM (#25486357) Homepage I'd go... even if it was only with a few weeks of supplies and a suicide pill for when they run out.
People climb Everest even though there's a good chance of dying. How much greater a trip to mars?
I'd say that chance of dying on a trip to mars with only a few weeks of supplies is MUCH greater than the chance of dying on Everest.
OK. Nice theory. Go rent a car and use it in a crash-up derby. Go buy a copy of Photoshop and post it up on your website for all to download. See what happens asshole.
Before someone mods you as flamebait, how about this:
I bought an old farm. I tore down the barn, and sold the salvageable parts.
What right would "Barn company X" have to come back and say that I used their barn in an improper manner?
The only time they could complain, is if I tore down the barn, and then blamed "Barn company X" for building a barn that fell down for no reason.
Save me from the ACs. When I say planning, I mean simple things like when you build a 150 home development or apartment complex, you make sure that there is a plan to improve the roads that lead up to those developments. You are going to need highway accesses, plans for stoplights/roundabouts/traffic control, what about that road that wasn't designed to hold 10x more cars?
That's part of what planning is. The concept that you have to understand the total impact of a development plan outside of just "Houses go here!". Ever see what happens when even a 10 home development plot taps into a sewer system that was never designed for it?
We have a responsibility to stop it because we have the capability to do so.
That is the basic premise.
The implementation of how we stop it is where it gets murky. But the concept that we should prevent people from killing each other is a sound and moral.
And although you have posted this as an AC, I do want to make a comment on your topic.
I'm glad that the US is not like the EU. I'm glad that Norway is not like Florida. I'm glad that there are different forms of government in relatively open societies because I think it is great that people can select to go to a country that is the best for them.
I shudder when I think that the US would be like the rest of the world, or the world being just like the US. Nothing like a tyrrany of the majority.
Once an alternative automotive fuel/system is in wide production and common use, I presume the sprawl will return.
I agree completely. That is why I'm trying to point it out now, when the 'pain' is being felt to show how we could have avoided it, and with a bit more cautious planning, we can avoid similar problems in the future.
It can be stopped by carbon neutral power sources (solar, wind, nuclear, etc). It can be delayed by small carbon footprint powersources (biomass come here). It can be reversed by carbon neutral power sources combined with carbon mining from the air. Those don't seem worse than the simptoms, just quite hard to build.
Those are solutions. But what is their cost? That is what I am referring to when I ask what the cost/benefit tradeoff is.
If the solution costs $1 trillion, but responding to the symptoms only costs $800 billion then the symptoms are less 'painful' than the cure. (Please try to view that as not a straight dollar cost, but an estimate that assigns monetary values to abstract things such as quality of life)
If the impacts to quality of life, cost, lost opportunities are greater than simply dealing with the symptoms then I would not support that plan, the plan would be worse than simply adapting.
What use is moving to Montana if we are unable to produce enough food because of changing climate conditions?
Well, I'm fairly adept at growing my own crops. Global climate change should extend the growing season in Montana, and groundwater and melting glaciers will last long enough for my lifetime. I'm also a fairly good shot should someone eye up my plots.
But I don't expect food shortage to be an issue during my lifetime. Mostly, I just like Montana and it is fairly hurricane proof.
Boo hoo, it's the cry of the urban planner who wants everyone in urban ratholes. No thanks.
That is quite the false dichotomy isn't it? I want to design communities that don't force you into urban ratholes, and you respond with 'boo hoo'? I want to see us develop the urban areas we have, to make them livable to more people so that we don't require everyone to move 50 miles from their jobs just to find a decent place to live.
Trust me when I say this, the last place I want to live is in a city. But the last thing i want to see happen is all of our contryside turned into generic urban fill. The problem is that the planning that existed to date was not part of a long term sustainable strategy. It banked on increasing the home-count and thus increased property tax revenue for governments, and not for the eventual collapse that will occur in 20-30 years when the cost of living in such a manner results in stagnating economies.
If you don't plan for that, then an urban rathole is what you will get.
I grew up in a rust-belt town. When you rely on a single industry to drive your local economy its foolish.
If you think living in a concrete jungle is the greatest thing, you live there
And that's why assumptions and jumping to conclusions is a bad thing. I live on a 40+ acres in upstate NY in a cedar log cabin. The first time I met my neighbor was when he drove up on his tractor so we could discuss hunting access routes.
Back on topic, I'm not advocating a concrete jungle, in fact, I'm advocating an increase to green space.
The problem is, a lot of people WANT a simple apartment where they can live less than 10 miles from work. Unfortunately that is not what is being built in the United States. You end up with suburban sprawl for nearly 100 miles in every direction from a major city. With more longterm thought placed into zoning we could see the suburban sprawl greatly reduced. Existing urban areas (I'm including small cities in this area) have been ignored because it was cheaper to buy up some farms, sub-divide them into 1 acre plots and build mass-produced homes that were riding on the housing bubble.
The problem is that we have been building the most profitable, but not the most sustainable communities. With even the slightest planning, we could help people like you and I who like our open space and trees, while still housing the people who want their short commutes.
To be fair, we will have to address a myriad of issues before we are able to effect any real change in the US.
One of my biggest gripes is the lack of community planning since the 1950s. Everyone wanted to live in the suburbs, and now, thanks to the housing construction boom, local governments drunk on property tax revenue, and a complete lack of traffic planning we have broken the back of many of our communities.
I've seen so much of the countryside consumed in this glut of home building it sickens me. I'm not even 30 and I have seen some historical areas and homes purchased by development companies and turned into sales offices. 5000 sq ft homes on 1 acre plots are built while nothing is added to the existing communities. Watching people reward this blight by purchasing or renting these homes and commuting 30-50 miles boggles the mind.
It is a culture of the car. Shops are spaced out almost as much as the homes. The expectation is that you will drive to one business, get back in your car and drive to the next.
The design of our communities is so freaking wasteful it really marks the 'green' movement as a cute fad for people that really don't understand the problems that exist. 'greening' your less than 10 year old subdivision or condo is spending more money for less solution. Save the money and work to bring your community back to one where you don't have to get into your car to perform any sort of activity and you will see a much greater return.
(Now where's my coffee, thats too much of a rant for this early in the morning)
It seems that a lot of our problems are caused by the introduction of small particulates into the air and water. And once we figure out how to reflect 1% of the sunlight and eventually reduce our own greenhouse emissions I have to wonder one thing.
How do you turn it off when we are 'cooler'?
In actuality, I'm wondering a lot of things, but I'm fairly confident that dumping millions of barrels of reflective particles into the ocean is something that will not be high on a popularity poll.
Of course, I'm one of those evil people who isn't as concerned about global warming. Not because I don't believe it exists, but because a lot of the cure appears to be worse than the symptoms. How much will it cost to relocate costal communities over a 50-100 year timeframe, and how much will it cost so that we won't have to do that. Those are some of the answers I want addressed.
I could spend 3 million dollars to make my home hurricane proof, or I could move to Montana.
2 years isn't all that long to go without a failure. Mine's 1.5 so far and nothing at all has failed (knock on wood), and I carry it around all over the place. I'd say 4 years, maybe. Most well designed equipment doesn't seem to fail until the day after the service contract runs out.
The way I treated that laptop? I'm surprised it outlasted the warranty.
With Steam you agree that you own nothing. That Steam can take away your access to the game for any or no reason.
Why is this acceptable DRM? Would you be ok if Samsung made you agree to this with your TV? What about your car? Your house?
Because they won't do that. There is a vested interest in keeping Steam going. It is like a retail store in itself. They can sell things to you. It is a portal to take your money. If I had a freaking portal to your wallet that cost me little to maintain you can damned well be sure that I wouldn't be turning it off. What happens if they did decide to 'take away your stuff', well that would be the end of steam, I'd be out a few games which I would promptly pull off the net to replace what I already have.
Evil DRM is stuff like TIVO that requires a subscription for physical hardware. Steam is unobtrusive and unless they don't like money, isn't going anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I've considered this, but the impurities are still smaller than the wavelength of the brain-control D-waves.
The real important thing to do is make sure that your tinfoil hat is properly grounded.
I'd much rather have my kid playing with titties and ass than 9mm pistols.
Just sayin'.
While modded insightful, perhaps you should rethink your position when it isn't clouded by an irrational fear of firearms.
Cause of death per 100,000 people
47.5 people died of Sexually transmitted diseases
26.0 people died of Intentional injuries (suicide, murder, war, etc.) and that's not limited to firearms.
Personally, I'd rather teach my children responsibility for both, rather than just jump on the anti-gun bandwagon because it gets a good response on an online forum.
I mean, do you really want Comcast fighting for your rights?
Better than fighting against them.
Does not economics presume a "rational actor", acting in his or her self-interest? If I can choose between getting X for free and paying for X, then if I'm acting in my rational self-interest, I've got to take the free version unless there's some other consequence.
If your entire life was a simulation, then maybe.
Of course, a rational actor might also realize that a functioning society was a benefit. You don't HAVE to do anything.
His post may have been, but your hysterical defense of them was almost as bad. They're a political advocacy group, not angels. And they're very choosy about who's civil liberties they fight for. It's pretty much been ACLU policy that the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist except as the ridiculous "collective right" theory.
That always bothered me about the ACLU. It seems to be such a strange departure from their normally very 'rights-supportive' stance. When I first heard the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment I literally said, 'Wait, what?' I won't donate to the ACLU for that very purpose while I have supported other organizations focused on protecting civil rights. I really wish the ACLU would support all of the rights, and not come up with a rather absurd exclusion for one that isn't as popular with their base.
Ahh but what if they had anticipated the fix, pre-emptively beat them, and then feigned ignorance for a few days to make the companies think that they had outsmarted the hackers.
Only to find out that they themselves were victims of a double-cross, but the real joke is that it wasn't even a cross since the hackers were employees that were posing as hackers to lull the homebrew community into installing their code. The result is that the homebrew community has been slowly installing pieces of a much more vast program conceived in the secret vaults underneat the Washington Monument. The true nature of these fixes won't be known until the third high tide past the winter solstice when the tidal forces on the wii controllers motion sensors will signal the code to execute.
There is more, but you will
The first time when DOA is a good thing.
I don't know about that. I ordered a mail order steak once...
I do love how we are forced to assume the positive statement 'service is unlimited' is a lie, while the negative statment 'limited to xxxMB' is the truth.
I'd rather assume the latter is the lie, and the first is the truth.
The only reason PSU didn't lose customers is because PSU is a university with a captive audience.
I went to PSU before and after the bandwidth caps and I have hit that limit faster than they could send the emails. It wasn't hard either, just run a few too many updates, or pull in some data from a source that wasn't on Internet2 and you would be over. PSU's problem was a serious lack of enforcement combined with the fact that they used hubs instead of switches for a long period of time. There was already a bandwidth problem before napster even existed, then once it became popular outside of the tech-savy, it crushed the network in less than a few days.
I was desperate to use any other internet system before they switched out those hubs and cracked down on the assholes who were hosting terabytes of content from their dorms.
Sorry for the rant, in short, yes those emails did help. (Still pissed me off going over when I had to pull in video from a distant source though for one of my classes) That exemption for your room wasn't worth filling the paperwork over.
The analogy isn't the same though.
Would you try to transfer goods across the channel with nothing more than rope, some styrofoam and a good swimmer? Or would you take a few weeks to build at least a rudimentary boat?
If we rush to send someone there just to say we got someone there, what are we really accomplishing other than inflating our own egos? Money is tight for these sorts of endeavours. They aren't saying hold off till teleportation is possible, but hold off until we get the best 'bang for the buck'.
by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday October 23, @03:34PM (#25486357) Homepage ... even if it was only with a few weeks of supplies and a suicide pill for when they run out.
I'd go
People climb Everest even though there's a good chance of dying. How much greater a trip to mars?
I'd say that chance of dying on a trip to mars with only a few weeks of supplies is MUCH greater than the chance of dying on Everest.
OK. Nice theory. Go rent a car and use it in a crash-up derby. Go buy a copy of Photoshop and post it up on your website for all to download. See what happens asshole.
Before someone mods you as flamebait, how about this:
I bought an old farm. I tore down the barn, and sold the salvageable parts.
What right would "Barn company X" have to come back and say that I used their barn in an improper manner?
The only time they could complain, is if I tore down the barn, and then blamed "Barn company X" for building a barn that fell down for no reason.
Save me from the ACs. When I say planning, I mean simple things like when you build a 150 home development or apartment complex, you make sure that there is a plan to improve the roads that lead up to those developments. You are going to need highway accesses, plans for stoplights/roundabouts/traffic control, what about that road that wasn't designed to hold 10x more cars?
That's part of what planning is. The concept that you have to understand the total impact of a development plan outside of just "Houses go here!". Ever see what happens when even a 10 home development plot taps into a sewer system that was never designed for it?
We have a responsibility to stop it because we have the capability to do so.
That is the basic premise.
The implementation of how we stop it is where it gets murky. But the concept that we should prevent people from killing each other is a sound and moral.
And although you have posted this as an AC, I do want to make a comment on your topic.
I'm glad that the US is not like the EU. I'm glad that Norway is not like Florida. I'm glad that there are different forms of government in relatively open societies because I think it is great that people can select to go to a country that is the best for them.
I shudder when I think that the US would be like the rest of the world, or the world being just like the US. Nothing like a tyrrany of the majority.
Once an alternative automotive fuel/system is in wide production and common use, I presume the sprawl will return.
I agree completely. That is why I'm trying to point it out now, when the 'pain' is being felt to show how we could have avoided it, and with a bit more cautious planning, we can avoid similar problems in the future.
It can be stopped by carbon neutral power sources (solar, wind, nuclear, etc). It can be delayed by small carbon footprint powersources (biomass come here). It can be reversed by carbon neutral power sources combined with carbon mining from the air. Those don't seem worse than the simptoms, just quite hard to build.
Those are solutions. But what is their cost? That is what I am referring to when I ask what the cost/benefit tradeoff is.
If the solution costs $1 trillion, but responding to the symptoms only costs $800 billion then the symptoms are less 'painful' than the cure. (Please try to view that as not a straight dollar cost, but an estimate that assigns monetary values to abstract things such as quality of life)
If the impacts to quality of life, cost, lost opportunities are greater than simply dealing with the symptoms then I would not support that plan, the plan would be worse than simply adapting.
What use is moving to Montana if we are unable to produce enough food because of changing climate conditions?
Well, I'm fairly adept at growing my own crops. Global climate change should extend the growing season in Montana, and groundwater and melting glaciers will last long enough for my lifetime. I'm also a fairly good shot should someone eye up my plots.
But I don't expect food shortage to be an issue during my lifetime. Mostly, I just like Montana and it is fairly hurricane proof.
Boo hoo, it's the cry of the urban planner who wants everyone in urban ratholes. No thanks.
That is quite the false dichotomy isn't it? I want to design communities that don't force you into urban ratholes, and you respond with 'boo hoo'? I want to see us develop the urban areas we have, to make them livable to more people so that we don't require everyone to move 50 miles from their jobs just to find a decent place to live.
Trust me when I say this, the last place I want to live is in a city. But the last thing i want to see happen is all of our contryside turned into generic urban fill. The problem is that the planning that existed to date was not part of a long term sustainable strategy. It banked on increasing the home-count and thus increased property tax revenue for governments, and not for the eventual collapse that will occur in 20-30 years when the cost of living in such a manner results in stagnating economies.
If you don't plan for that, then an urban rathole is what you will get.
I grew up in a rust-belt town. When you rely on a single industry to drive your local economy its foolish.
If you think living in a concrete jungle is the greatest thing, you live there
And that's why assumptions and jumping to conclusions is a bad thing. I live on a 40+ acres in upstate NY in a cedar log cabin. The first time I met my neighbor was when he drove up on his tractor so we could discuss hunting access routes.
Back on topic, I'm not advocating a concrete jungle, in fact, I'm advocating an increase to green space.
The problem is, a lot of people WANT a simple apartment where they can live less than 10 miles from work. Unfortunately that is not what is being built in the United States. You end up with suburban sprawl for nearly 100 miles in every direction from a major city. With more longterm thought placed into zoning we could see the suburban sprawl greatly reduced. Existing urban areas (I'm including small cities in this area) have been ignored because it was cheaper to buy up some farms, sub-divide them into 1 acre plots and build mass-produced homes that were riding on the housing bubble.
The problem is that we have been building the most profitable, but not the most sustainable communities. With even the slightest planning, we could help people like you and I who like our open space and trees, while still housing the people who want their short commutes.
Actually, it looks to be the start of a trend.
It will be the next "Snitches get Stitches" t-shirt meme. Everyone and their brother will put one on.
To be fair, we will have to address a myriad of issues before we are able to effect any real change in the US.
One of my biggest gripes is the lack of community planning since the 1950s. Everyone wanted to live in the suburbs, and now, thanks to the housing construction boom, local governments drunk on property tax revenue, and a complete lack of traffic planning we have broken the back of many of our communities.
I've seen so much of the countryside consumed in this glut of home building it sickens me. I'm not even 30 and I have seen some historical areas and homes purchased by development companies and turned into sales offices. 5000 sq ft homes on 1 acre plots are built while nothing is added to the existing communities. Watching people reward this blight by purchasing or renting these homes and commuting 30-50 miles boggles the mind.
It is a culture of the car. Shops are spaced out almost as much as the homes. The expectation is that you will drive to one business, get back in your car and drive to the next.
The design of our communities is so freaking wasteful it really marks the 'green' movement as a cute fad for people that really don't understand the problems that exist. 'greening' your less than 10 year old subdivision or condo is spending more money for less solution. Save the money and work to bring your community back to one where you don't have to get into your car to perform any sort of activity and you will see a much greater return.
(Now where's my coffee, thats too much of a rant for this early in the morning)
But what could possibly go wrong?
It seems that a lot of our problems are caused by the introduction of small particulates into the air and water. And once we figure out how to reflect 1% of the sunlight and eventually reduce our own greenhouse emissions I have to wonder one thing.
How do you turn it off when we are 'cooler'?
In actuality, I'm wondering a lot of things, but I'm fairly confident that dumping millions of barrels of reflective particles into the ocean is something that will not be high on a popularity poll.
Of course, I'm one of those evil people who isn't as concerned about global warming. Not because I don't believe it exists, but because a lot of the cure appears to be worse than the symptoms. How much will it cost to relocate costal communities over a 50-100 year timeframe, and how much will it cost so that we won't have to do that. Those are some of the answers I want addressed.
I could spend 3 million dollars to make my home hurricane proof, or I could move to Montana.
2 years isn't all that long to go without a failure. Mine's 1.5 so far and nothing at all has failed (knock on wood), and I carry it around all over the place. I'd say 4 years, maybe. Most well designed equipment doesn't seem to fail until the day after the service contract runs out.
The way I treated that laptop? I'm surprised it outlasted the warranty.
With Steam you agree that you own nothing. That Steam can take away your access to the game for any or no reason.
Why is this acceptable DRM? Would you be ok if Samsung made you agree to this with your TV? What about your car? Your house?
Because they won't do that. There is a vested interest in keeping Steam going. It is like a retail store in itself. They can sell things to you. It is a portal to take your money. If I had a freaking portal to your wallet that cost me little to maintain you can damned well be sure that I wouldn't be turning it off. What happens if they did decide to 'take away your stuff', well that would be the end of steam, I'd be out a few games which I would promptly pull off the net to replace what I already have.
Evil DRM is stuff like TIVO that requires a subscription for physical hardware. Steam is unobtrusive and unless they don't like money, isn't going anywhere.