These aren't predictions. Predictions are "The world will end in 2012"
These are simply a thought experiment. Take the known technology, and and scientists are discussing, and extrapolate it out a few years. It is what science fiction writers do. They get some things right, and some wrong.
What I find amusing is what they thought would improve, and what wouldn't. Wires would still exist. And why they could conceiving pushing a button could do something, three would still be a need for the push lever. It was like they figured out what technology would exist in the future, then transplanted it to their time line.
That is because flying cars are easier to see on film than the internet. I've read more books that predicted the internet than have predicted flying cars.
XCode is night and days better than it was just a few short months ago. But about the only thing it has going for it is a better auto complete than VS. It still has a long way to go.
It isn't always about eating. It is also about leisure, and enjoying yourself. When I go to the movies or a sport venue I like to splurg. You know, on a diet you can do that occasionally, and still be healthy. But Mr Mayor is saying "No Cake for you."
There was an experiment done where people where told to eat until they were full out of a bowl of soup. And the amount people ate was strongly correlated to the size of the container, despite everyone believing they only ate the amount they needed.
The article mentioned a study done with a bowl of Ms and a scoop. But, if it was me, and I was passing by the bowl, I'd take a scoops worth. If it is a small scoop, I'd get less. Not because I want less, but because it is easier.
In the soup case, perhaps people ate more because they didn't want it to go to waste? Or perhaps in the smaller case, they ate less so everyone got their share.
Will this law mean people drink less soda? Yeah. But there are lots of laws that can be passed that would make people do "better" at a cost of our freedom. It doesn't mean it is the right law to pass.
New York City is banning the sell of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16oz. While they aren't banning the sale of sugary drinks in large amounts to a single person, they are banning the sell in one container.
So yes they are banning something.
Assume a 16oz container is $1. I can see someone paying ohhh say $1.50 for a single 32oz container. (kind of like what happens today)
I like how you consider 16oz small, but 20oz is ok. Actually the thing is MOST fast food restaurants have 20oz sizes, some don't have a smaller size. So a 20oz size makes sense (only in that is a common size today, not because actual value means anything)
But the law itself doesn't make sense. What it DOES do is encourage more trash (Mr Major said himself "you can always buy 2") And of course for people who want more and buy two, it means more money for the company.
Just stop trying to legislate everything in our lives.
What will the next thing be? No double burgers? Only one alcoholic drink per night? Only one scoop of ice cream? Steak can't be larger than 8oz? No more cheese on your deli sandwich? Must you lite mayo instead of real mayo? Can't sell white bread only wheat?
Apple just released a new iPod, shortly before that iPhone 5, a few months prior iPad3, a few months prior iPhone 4s, a few months prior iPad 2. It looks like they are spending quite a bit of time and energy producing things. So what was your point?
For every person that decides to buy the album because they heard the song on that video, someone else decided not to buy the album and just listen to the video.
But I fail to see how copyright is well beyond its stated intent (based on this issue)
Fair use is fairly well defined and does NOT equate to "I get to use it any manner I choose"
Levi Jeans doesn't own a copyright on their jeans so they can't take it down.
There is a way for people to ask permission. But because a simple automated way doesn't exist, doesn't give you the right to just take it.
Of course that isn't what the topic is about. In this case it is fair use and permission doesn't have to be granted
If you don't see a problem with ABC excluding him, fine.
My problem is this guy claims to be a serious candidate, yet HE finds it "stunning" that ABC rejected him, and implies there is a conspiracy theory. He event went so far as to LIE about the reason. And the reason for ABC excluding him makes perfect sense. But "lets ignore common sense, and find a conspiracy."
I don't consider myself libertarian, but I generally vote that way more often than not (and the last quiz I took claimed that the I sided with Johnson 86% of the time, and 50ish for the two big dogs)
I would claim that Joe initiated force when he asked Bob to leave and called the cops.
I would also claim you lose some "owner of land rights" when you open that land up to others. When you run a business you also give up some rights. The government does some work for you (they allow you to run a business) in return you agree to do business with everyone. It is in societies best interest to do so. And it is also in your best interest (although you don't realize it)
I think there is a difference between private property and a business (a private property opened to the public)
What is your side on the question? Are you saying Bob should have a right to eat there? Or Joe should have a right to throw him out?
hate to say it but if I were an ABC affiliate trying to configure the program schedule around the advertising revenue im supposed to be selling,
Why isn't everyone trying to make this into a big conspiracy thing?
Its simple, they have a limited amount of time for the debate. So they only want to have the debate among the people that appear to have a chance to win. This isn't about money or ad revenue or any other conspiracy. They want to give the top contenders enough time, in that limited time period to present their opinions. ABC has decided (whether right or not) serious contenders have more than %50K in contributions, and are polling at greater than 10%.
If you are serious, show you are serious. Get out there and campaign. IF you are serious, and have a shot, those numbers should be easy to reach, even without corporate money.
Better yet, hold a pep rally outside the venue. Get someone inside to text out the questions... answer them yourselves.
Think outside the box. Get some of that "swelling" support to help you out.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Sure, they can. But that doesn't mean you can't point out that they didn't include someone?
He isn't asking for government intervention. He just wants a fair shot with the big boys.
Slashdot Mirror
No you won't.
Yep. What is your point?
Congress shall make no law ...; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
How can the government regulate, within limits, the manner, place, and time of speech? Doesn't that mean making a law that abridges the freedom?
... or abridging the freedom of speech...
How do Free Speech Zones NOT violate the letter of the law?
The problem with predictions
These aren't predictions. Predictions are "The world will end in 2012"
These are simply a thought experiment. Take the known technology, and and scientists are discussing, and extrapolate it out a few years. It is what science fiction writers do. They get some things right, and some wrong.
What I find amusing is what they thought would improve, and what wouldn't. Wires would still exist. And why they could conceiving pushing a button could do something, three would still be a need for the push lever. It was like they figured out what technology would exist in the future, then transplanted it to their time line.
It isn't a lame story. It is interesting to think what people thought would happen.
That is because flying cars are easier to see on film than the internet. I've read more books that predicted the internet than have predicted flying cars.
... their careless coding is a portal for malware that costs billions of dollars in damages
Yeah i'm pretty sure there was never ever any viruses or worms or anything else that was bad and cost unix owners tons of money.
XCode is night and days better than it was just a few short months ago. But about the only thing it has going for it is a better auto complete than VS. It still has a long way to go.
Most people who aren't affected by a law, don't generally oppose them. That doesn't mean the law is good.
It isn't always about eating. It is also about leisure, and enjoying yourself. When I go to the movies or a sport venue I like to splurg. You know, on a diet you can do that occasionally, and still be healthy. But Mr Mayor is saying "No Cake for you."
There was an experiment done where people where told to eat until they were full out of a bowl of soup. And the amount people ate was strongly correlated to the size of the container, despite everyone believing they only ate the amount they needed.
The article mentioned a study done with a bowl of Ms and a scoop. But, if it was me, and I was passing by the bowl, I'd take a scoops worth. If it is a small scoop, I'd get less. Not because I want less, but because it is easier.
In the soup case, perhaps people ate more because they didn't want it to go to waste? Or perhaps in the smaller case, they ate less so everyone got their share.
Will this law mean people drink less soda? Yeah. But there are lots of laws that can be passed that would make people do "better" at a cost of our freedom. It doesn't mean it is the right law to pass.
New York City is banning the sell of sugary drinks in containers larger than 16oz. While they aren't banning the sale of sugary drinks in large amounts to a single person, they are banning the sell in one container.
So yes they are banning something.
Assume a 16oz container is $1. I can see someone paying ohhh say $1.50 for a single 32oz container. (kind of like what happens today)
I like how you consider 16oz small, but 20oz is ok. Actually the thing is MOST fast food restaurants have 20oz sizes, some don't have a smaller size. So a 20oz size makes sense (only in that is a common size today, not because actual value means anything)
But the law itself doesn't make sense. What it DOES do is encourage more trash (Mr Major said himself "you can always buy 2") And of course for people who want more and buy two, it means more money for the company.
Just stop trying to legislate everything in our lives.
What will the next thing be? No double burgers? Only one alcoholic drink per night? Only one scoop of ice cream? Steak can't be larger than 8oz? No more cheese on your deli sandwich? Must you lite mayo instead of real mayo? Can't sell white bread only wheat?
All religions eventually devolve into violence and racism.
No it doesn't.
But some people will, and they'll do it with or without religion.
Apple just released a new iPod, shortly before that iPhone 5, a few months prior iPad3, a few months prior iPhone 4s, a few months prior iPad 2. It looks like they are spending quite a bit of time and energy producing things. So what was your point?
For every person that decides to buy the album because they heard the song on that video, someone else decided not to buy the album and just listen to the video.
But I fail to see how copyright is well beyond its stated intent (based on this issue)
Fair use is fairly well defined and does NOT equate to "I get to use it any manner I choose" Levi Jeans doesn't own a copyright on their jeans so they can't take it down.
There is a way for people to ask permission. But because a simple automated way doesn't exist, doesn't give you the right to just take it.
Of course that isn't what the topic is about. In this case it is fair use and permission doesn't have to be granted
If you don't see a problem with ABC excluding him, fine.
My problem is this guy claims to be a serious candidate, yet HE finds it "stunning" that ABC rejected him, and implies there is a conspiracy theory. He event went so far as to LIE about the reason. And the reason for ABC excluding him makes perfect sense. But "lets ignore common sense, and find a conspiracy."
I don't consider myself libertarian, but I generally vote that way more often than not (and the last quiz I took claimed that the I sided with Johnson 86% of the time, and 50ish for the two big dogs)
I would claim that Joe initiated force when he asked Bob to leave and called the cops.
I would also claim you lose some "owner of land rights" when you open that land up to others. When you run a business you also give up some rights. The government does some work for you (they allow you to run a business) in return you agree to do business with everyone. It is in societies best interest to do so. And it is also in your best interest (although you don't realize it)
I think there is a difference between private property and a business (a private property opened to the public)
What is your side on the question? Are you saying Bob should have a right to eat there? Or Joe should have a right to throw him out?
... sane (i.e., non-Libertarian) ....
You are implying Libertarians are insane, yet implying democrats and republicans are sane? What rock have you been living under?
hate to say it but if I were an ABC affiliate trying to configure the program schedule around the advertising revenue im supposed to be selling,
Why isn't everyone trying to make this into a big conspiracy thing?
Its simple, they have a limited amount of time for the debate. So they only want to have the debate among the people that appear to have a chance to win. This isn't about money or ad revenue or any other conspiracy. They want to give the top contenders enough time, in that limited time period to present their opinions. ABC has decided (whether right or not) serious contenders have more than %50K in contributions, and are polling at greater than 10%.
If you are serious, show you are serious. Get out there and campaign. IF you are serious, and have a shot, those numbers should be easy to reach, even without corporate money.
Better yet, hold a pep rally outside the venue. Get someone inside to text out the questions... answer them yourselves.
Think outside the box. Get some of that "swelling" support to help you out.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Sure, they can. But that doesn't mean you can't point out that they didn't include someone?
He isn't asking for government intervention. He just wants a fair shot with the big boys.