Because the kind, generous people who have been helpfully cutting you student loan checks for the past 8 years are starting to get sick of your bullshit, that's why.
If you're independently wealthy and have no need for something so banal as a job to pay the bills, then you're right, studying forever so you can simply learn everything there is to know is an excellent course of action.
If you're in the US, you most certainly can refuse to give them access. They will say otherwise, but they're wrong, and 9 times out of 10 they know it.
It shits all over the rhetoric about protecting "American" interests and intellectual property if the relevant interests and intellectual property do not belong to Americans.
Not even the anti-protectionism crowd would bother defending the use of American political and legal machinery to specifically and disproportionately benefit foreign business.
Yes, they demanded that Apple run a recycling program that actually recycles hardware. If that recycling program doesn't meet reasonable standards to prove that it is a real recycling program, then the environmentalists are right to continue demanding that Apple implement a plan that does.
It doesn't demonstrate confusion if they are unwilling to accept on faith alone that the recycling plan Apple has in place is legitimate, it demonstrates commitment.
I have a friend who founded a computer sales and service company with precisely that goal. It's still fairly small and operates in a local market, but he started with very little working capital beyond his vehicle and personal know-how in a market already well-saturated by established competitors (including two Geek Squad dispatches).
So yes, there are at least some people out there who make environmental considerations (including power use and heat generation) with regard to their computer equipment.
"Of course not. If you don't like Verizon (or any other companies) Terms of Service, then find a new provider. It is as simple as that."
And if Verizon is sitting on a local broadband monopoly? What then?
"The.gov has very little Constitutional proscribed power to regulate contract law between two individuals."
Orly? Interpersonal contracts are HEAVILY regulated, and there are all sorts of things you simply can't write into a contract. If you don't believe me, try getting an indentured servitude to hold up in court.
To use your rented basement example: you may place certain, limited restrictions on my activities down there insofar as they are demonstrably intended to preserve your property... but that's about it. You cannot dictate my personal habits or preferences: you could not, for example, forbid me from watching Star Trek in my underwear. You also could not forbid me from engaging in sexual activity without your express permission, you couldn't even prevent me from doing so in the basement. You could require that I not smoke tobacco in the basement, but you could not mandate that I not smoke tobacco anywhere at any time. You could prevent me from having another person live in the basement with me, but you could not prevent me from having guests.
Are you kidding? They would LOVE that. There's a reason cable companies haven't been made Common Carriers, and instead fought for the DMCA: being a Common Carrier comes with responsibilities and limits on power. Verizon would absolutely cream themselves if they were suddenly permitted to block any communication they felt was "dangerous" or "controversial" or "against company policy".
Now, what we COULD do is instruct the FCC to cease renewing their radio spectrum leases until they are in compliance with the "recommended" net neutrality rules (they can say whatever they want, but they can't use publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast it). We could also tie compliance into the continued granting of public rights of way, easements, and other benefits that have been granted to them expressly to serve the public interest under the reasoning that if they do not wish to serve those interests, they are not entitled to those benefits.
Personally, I feel that the real problem is the fact that we allow telco monopolies at all. If Verizon were truly required to compete with Comcast, Charter, Time Warner, etc. for retail customers, then we would actually see them all improve. Capitalism works wonderfully when it is able to properly function.
One of the most controversial and activist SCOTUS decisions, one that is widely believed to have been a matter of pure political partisanship and that flies in the face of a great deal of precedent is probably not the the best argument you can make.
Clearly about 2/3 of the students were happy to remain enrolled in which their grades, upon which many real and important things (graduation, honors, finances) heavily depend, would be subject to an arbitrary and capricious curve.
I'd say your school must have had fairly lax admission requirements, since only 1/3 of your statistics class was smart enough to get out of a bad idea while the consequences were minimal.
About 1/4 to 1/3 of the people I know who use facebook have more than one account. Of course I know a lot of strange people... so that might not strengthen the case for your estimate.
Whatever you do, don't blink while looking at copyrighted materials... oh fuck, I have some books in front of me and I just blinked. I just did it again! Now I'm looking at a computer monitor instead. I am soooooo fucked for copyright infringement.
I'm no fan of trying to equate modern politicians with Hitler (at least those who are not overtly interested in committing genocide), but I have to say that comparing a conservative nationalist with strong tendencies toward militarism and foreign wars to Hitler is somewhat more reasonable than doing so with liberal environmentalists who wish to reduce pollution and greenhouse emissions.
To make a car analogy: likening a Camry to a Malibu is more reasonable than likening a Camry to a Maserati... they are all cars, and there are some similarities on which you could reasonably base the comparisons, but it's a bit of a stretch to argue that an ordinary mid-size sedan is more like an exotic luxury sports car than it is another ordinary mid-size sedan.
AGW proponents don't need to prove deniers are crazy to prove their point... that's what science is for.
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda. To be sure, both sides are engaged in some degree of each, but at the end of the day it does make a difference whether the scientists seek out the politicians or the politicians seek out the scientists.
That would be great... if only Apple were a charity focused on reforming patent law for the benefit of all Americans.
Since they are not, it would be incredibly odd for them to pursue such a goal, especially without any real evidence to suggest it would provide a better return to their investors, which is the only thing Apple actually has to work toward. Indeed, it is possible that they benefit far more from patent trolls and a flawed patent system than they suffer: as a major incumbent, they are quite capable of defending themselves from any challenge with too odious a settlement offer, but smaller start ups might not be able to do so. This insulates them from increased competition, and can give them leverage with small firms whose tech they wish to purchase if there is any danger that company would be targeted by a patent holder.
Simply put, Apple will not do this thing you suggest. Not now, not ever. Doing so would be insane and reckless, which is not what Apple does.
Who doesn't love eating scallops wrapped in bacon while wearing a poly-cotton shirt at a Saturday wedding where the bride might be menstrual and all of the women are showing their hair to men who are not their husbands?
Depends... what time is the class? What's the subject? Will I be held responsible for any missed work or information for the class? To what extent will I be held responsible? Am I scheduled for a test? Have I studied enough?
If this is an 8 AM lecture on the anatomy of the human spleen... I'm not sure I wouldn't take the opportunity to go back to sleep.
They don't know if a bomb will go off, and when this is pointed out they become afraid.
The unknown is only scary when it is pointed out that it is unknown. For example, you are probably not terribly afraid that there is an intruder in your home... but if I were to tell you that there is, you are far more likely to be afraid of that possibility.
So on one hand, we have the explanation that grossly inflated costs are driven by rent-seekers and the profit motive: that the so-called 'inefficiencies" of health care exist precisely because they create additional profit for various interests.
On the other hand, we have the explanation that the government has done something wrong, and if they'd only get their stupid hands out of it we could have costs comparable to those of countries where the entire system is run by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the kind, generous people who have been helpfully cutting you student loan checks for the past 8 years are starting to get sick of your bullshit, that's why.
If you're independently wealthy and have no need for something so banal as a job to pay the bills, then you're right, studying forever so you can simply learn everything there is to know is an excellent course of action.
If you're in the US, you most certainly can refuse to give them access. They will say otherwise, but they're wrong, and 9 times out of 10 they know it.
It shits all over the rhetoric about protecting "American" interests and intellectual property if the relevant interests and intellectual property do not belong to Americans.
Not even the anti-protectionism crowd would bother defending the use of American political and legal machinery to specifically and disproportionately benefit foreign business.
Yes, they demanded that Apple run a recycling program that actually recycles hardware. If that recycling program doesn't meet reasonable standards to prove that it is a real recycling program, then the environmentalists are right to continue demanding that Apple implement a plan that does.
It doesn't demonstrate confusion if they are unwilling to accept on faith alone that the recycling plan Apple has in place is legitimate, it demonstrates commitment.
I have a friend who founded a computer sales and service company with precisely that goal. It's still fairly small and operates in a local market, but he started with very little working capital beyond his vehicle and personal know-how in a market already well-saturated by established competitors (including two Geek Squad dispatches).
So yes, there are at least some people out there who make environmental considerations (including power use and heat generation) with regard to their computer equipment.
Except that it isn't personal property, it's business property. There is a difference.
If you want to rent out your house, you cannot permit or exclude renters as you see fit except within very narrow parameters.
"Of course not. If you don't like Verizon (or any other companies) Terms of Service, then find a new provider. It is as simple as that."
And if Verizon is sitting on a local broadband monopoly? What then?
"The .gov has very little Constitutional proscribed power to regulate contract law between two individuals."
Orly? Interpersonal contracts are HEAVILY regulated, and there are all sorts of things you simply can't write into a contract. If you don't believe me, try getting an indentured servitude to hold up in court.
To use your rented basement example: you may place certain, limited restrictions on my activities down there insofar as they are demonstrably intended to preserve your property... but that's about it. You cannot dictate my personal habits or preferences: you could not, for example, forbid me from watching Star Trek in my underwear. You also could not forbid me from engaging in sexual activity without your express permission, you couldn't even prevent me from doing so in the basement. You could require that I not smoke tobacco in the basement, but you could not mandate that I not smoke tobacco anywhere at any time. You could prevent me from having another person live in the basement with me, but you could not prevent me from having guests.
Are you kidding? They would LOVE that. There's a reason cable companies haven't been made Common Carriers, and instead fought for the DMCA: being a Common Carrier comes with responsibilities and limits on power. Verizon would absolutely cream themselves if they were suddenly permitted to block any communication they felt was "dangerous" or "controversial" or "against company policy".
Now, what we COULD do is instruct the FCC to cease renewing their radio spectrum leases until they are in compliance with the "recommended" net neutrality rules (they can say whatever they want, but they can't use publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast it). We could also tie compliance into the continued granting of public rights of way, easements, and other benefits that have been granted to them expressly to serve the public interest under the reasoning that if they do not wish to serve those interests, they are not entitled to those benefits.
Personally, I feel that the real problem is the fact that we allow telco monopolies at all. If Verizon were truly required to compete with Comcast, Charter, Time Warner, etc. for retail customers, then we would actually see them all improve. Capitalism works wonderfully when it is able to properly function.
One of the most controversial and activist SCOTUS decisions, one that is widely believed to have been a matter of pure political partisanship and that flies in the face of a great deal of precedent is probably not the the best argument you can make.
Clearly about 2/3 of the students were happy to remain enrolled in which their grades, upon which many real and important things (graduation, honors, finances) heavily depend, would be subject to an arbitrary and capricious curve.
I'd say your school must have had fairly lax admission requirements, since only 1/3 of your statistics class was smart enough to get out of a bad idea while the consequences were minimal.
That's what you get for talking to Chicago School economists.
About 1/4 to 1/3 of the people I know who use facebook have more than one account. Of course I know a lot of strange people... so that might not strengthen the case for your estimate.
"Not once they're already produced."
If I told you that you could have a free car, but you had to pay for it before it was free... would I really be offering you a free car?
"I was under the impression that they pay their cable/satellite bill."
Unless they don't have cable or satellite, or if they pirate the signal.
"No, there is no other solution. We're not stupid, and we can go elsewhere."
Oh, but that's where you are wrong. We are quite demonstrably stupid, and there is nowhere else to go.
Now sit down, shut up, and let them rent you out to the highest bidder like you're supposed to.
Whatever you do, don't blink while looking at copyrighted materials... oh fuck, I have some books in front of me and I just blinked. I just did it again! Now I'm looking at a computer monitor instead. I am soooooo fucked for copyright infringement.
"It should not surprise anyone, the MPAA and RIAA are communists so are Networks."
They're what now? Put down the pipe dude, they are certainly NOT communists.
I'm no fan of trying to equate modern politicians with Hitler (at least those who are not overtly interested in committing genocide), but I have to say that comparing a conservative nationalist with strong tendencies toward militarism and foreign wars to Hitler is somewhat more reasonable than doing so with liberal environmentalists who wish to reduce pollution and greenhouse emissions.
To make a car analogy: likening a Camry to a Malibu is more reasonable than likening a Camry to a Maserati... they are all cars, and there are some similarities on which you could reasonably base the comparisons, but it's a bit of a stretch to argue that an ordinary mid-size sedan is more like an exotic luxury sports car than it is another ordinary mid-size sedan.
AGW proponents don't need to prove deniers are crazy to prove their point... that's what science is for.
One side sees this primarily as a scientific question to be resolved through inquiry and research... the other views it primarily as a political problem to be resolved through rhetoric and propaganda. To be sure, both sides are engaged in some degree of each, but at the end of the day it does make a difference whether the scientists seek out the politicians or the politicians seek out the scientists.
That would be great... if only Apple were a charity focused on reforming patent law for the benefit of all Americans.
Since they are not, it would be incredibly odd for them to pursue such a goal, especially without any real evidence to suggest it would provide a better return to their investors, which is the only thing Apple actually has to work toward. Indeed, it is possible that they benefit far more from patent trolls and a flawed patent system than they suffer: as a major incumbent, they are quite capable of defending themselves from any challenge with too odious a settlement offer, but smaller start ups might not be able to do so. This insulates them from increased competition, and can give them leverage with small firms whose tech they wish to purchase if there is any danger that company would be targeted by a patent holder.
Simply put, Apple will not do this thing you suggest. Not now, not ever. Doing so would be insane and reckless, which is not what Apple does.
Can there be a switch to make everyone be voiced by Wes Johnson?
Who doesn't love eating scallops wrapped in bacon while wearing a poly-cotton shirt at a Saturday wedding where the bride might be menstrual and all of the women are showing their hair to men who are not their husbands?
"fucking planes that go into fucking space"
It's even better if you mean that literally.
Depends... what time is the class? What's the subject? Will I be held responsible for any missed work or information for the class? To what extent will I be held responsible? Am I scheduled for a test? Have I studied enough?
If this is an 8 AM lecture on the anatomy of the human spleen... I'm not sure I wouldn't take the opportunity to go back to sleep.
They don't know if a bomb will go off, and when this is pointed out they become afraid.
The unknown is only scary when it is pointed out that it is unknown. For example, you are probably not terribly afraid that there is an intruder in your home... but if I were to tell you that there is, you are far more likely to be afraid of that possibility.
So on one hand, we have the explanation that grossly inflated costs are driven by rent-seekers and the profit motive: that the so-called 'inefficiencies" of health care exist precisely because they create additional profit for various interests.
On the other hand, we have the explanation that the government has done something wrong, and if they'd only get their stupid hands out of it we could have costs comparable to those of countries where the entire system is run by the government.
Does that pretty much sum things up?