The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality"
I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?
So for things like snapshots and file versions, you obviously need a way to delete this data. I'm curious, though, if copies of the data only exist on tapes or discs stored in some large warehouse where it would take 5 years to find the specific data (i.e. longer than a trial would last), is that close enough? If the data might exist somewhere, but there's no reasonable way to get it, is it considered effectively deleted?
"Constitutionally-protected freedoms" would be a better term for it. In the US (and I believe analogously in the EU), while the federal government isn't supposed to be allowed to do anything not explicitly listed in the Constitution, individual states are forbidden from doing anything that violates the federal constitution. Listing a freedom in the constitution shouldn't be taken to mean that anything not listed isn't a right of the people, but that more local governments (states, member nations, cities, etc.) cannot do anything to restrict that freedom.
What the hell, every group on that list has the same words in their names. Either every party over there is honest about being basically the same, or you just had to take America's different-name/same-thing idea and go completely opposite.
It's a very, very risky industry, but at the end of the day there are still people willing to accept those risks and do the job. Society shouldn't be stepping in the way of that. Regulating safety precautions (as they do with OSHA), but not declaring that a willing worker should be legally unable to perform a job for which there is certainly a demand.
No disagreement here. When it comes to construction, the precautions you can take, such as tying yourself to some part of the structure to prevent falling to the ground, have been fairly well understood for a long time. Reliable prevention of pregnancy and disease is relatively new (something on the order of 50 years or so?), so for a lot of people it hasn't quite sunken in yet. Hopefully attitudes will change as it slowly becomes an accepted fact through the entire population.
Eh, who am I kidding. There will always be nutters that insist that if it feels good, you have to stop.
That is not the reason, as there have always been more dangerous and maybe even more degrading jobs around. My personal, addmittedly excentric, theory is that puritan sex ethics are a form of socialism: You shouldn't leave to a free market what everyone desires so dearly.
Yeah, that's a pretty eccentric idea. A much more reasonable one is the expression "If it feels good, stop." My first guess is that it may have been an effort by some early Christians to separate themselves from the more hedonistic Greek and Roman cultures; doing something just to be different than a competing culture happens fairly often through history. I wasn't trying to say that pregnancy and disease are the reasons that certain religious types dislike anything sexual, just that there are legitimate logical reasons for treating sexual relations with a bit more caution than you would treat the kid running the cash register at McDonald's.
Especially consider the massage business. A person is paid to perform a service in which they physically interact with you to provide relief of muscle tension and physical enjoyment. Tell me again how this is so different from prostitution?
Well, sexual activity tends to have more negative consequences than getting a massage, especially for the prostitute. It's usually difficult to get pregnant or catch HIV from giving a massage. Of course there are ways to reduce those risks, but they're a relatively recent development, so it may take a generation or two for the idea that pregnancy and disease can be reliably prevented to embed itself in the social consciousness. I'm certainly not trying to be Puritanical about it, I'm just pointing out that the negative consequences of sex require that you be a bit more careful about it than you would be with other, more mundane services.
The machines will eventually take control of our bodies, become our overlords, and turn us into bionic batteries. Keeanu Reeves will then be forced to die in a desperate plea to save humanity...
In fact, forget machines taking control of our bodies, becoming our overlords, and turning us into bionic batteries...
On April 21st 2011, Keychest becomes self aware and realized that the only way to protect Disney's content is to terminate all human life. Keychest takes control of the worlds nuclear arsenal and attacks. Mysteriously, sales plummet.
I'd bet money that Disney would still blame piracy for the decline in sales.
"The ability to work full time on the code base" comes from him being employed to do it, i.e. he doesn't need to spend time on other paid projects. Being employed could be considered compensation if he wasn't making any money on the project before, since he'll be getting more money for possibly the same amount of work that he was already doing. Many people (not necessarily the original author, just in general) also prefer the security of a steady job and having other people handle administration, sales, etc., instead of having to do those kinds of things themselves.
drop a serpentine belt and see how that feels! No power steering and no water pump!
That's happened to me before. The lack of power steering was annoying, but I was more concerned about the temperature gauge hitting the top of the dial. I was lucky that it was only about 5 miles from my apartment to work, with a service shop just up the street; if it had been much farther, I probably would have had a close encounter with a large boom.
If people could travel in time, the universe would become unstable. People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history...
Your second sentence does not necessarily follow from your first sentence. It would be logically consistent (I would say "theoretically possible", but those words have a specific meaning in physics, and that's not the right meaning here) to travel from Time B back to Time A and have everything that happens between A and B lead to your traveling back in time. You can't travel back in time and change history, because, like you said, the change might lead to you not traveling back in time, creating a paradox. You could, however, travel back in time and not change history.
Calling Cubs fans "baseball fans" is like calling Scientologists "religious". They're not really playing the same game as everyone else...
Well they seem to be playing the same game as the Pirates. You could probably argue that they're playing the same game as the Detroit Lions and Oakland Raiders, too.
For all those different models with different screen sizes and different input options, a developer will have more work just making sure his or her app works for the wide variety of phones.
For keyboard input, I would assume that the operating system abstracts away whether the phone has a physical or touchscreen keyboard. You have a point about the screen size, but it's not like that's a new problem in software development, so any competent interface designer and/or programmer knows how to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, can't be. Bonk wasn't made by Nintendo.
The libertarian side of me gets really worried when the government gets involved in anything that says "neutrality" I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech...PERIOD!
Maybe I'm being naive, but isn't the ultimate goal of Network Neutrality to ensure that people have the freedom to use their Internet connections however they want, without some entity between the endpoints interfering solely for that entity's financial gain?
So for things like snapshots and file versions, you obviously need a way to delete this data. I'm curious, though, if copies of the data only exist on tapes or discs stored in some large warehouse where it would take 5 years to find the specific data (i.e. longer than a trial would last), is that close enough? If the data might exist somewhere, but there's no reasonable way to get it, is it considered effectively deleted?
"Constitutionally-protected freedoms" would be a better term for it. In the US (and I believe analogously in the EU), while the federal government isn't supposed to be allowed to do anything not explicitly listed in the Constitution, individual states are forbidden from doing anything that violates the federal constitution. Listing a freedom in the constitution shouldn't be taken to mean that anything not listed isn't a right of the people, but that more local governments (states, member nations, cities, etc.) cannot do anything to restrict that freedom.
... because arbitrary power with no due process and little or no burden of proof on the accuser has always worked out so well in the past.
Pretty much every time, yeah.
Oh, wait, you meant for everyone besides those in power, huh?
What the hell, every group on that list has the same words in their names. Either every party over there is honest about being basically the same, or you just had to take America's different-name/same-thing idea and go completely opposite.
It's a very, very risky industry, but at the end of the day there are still people willing to accept those risks and do the job. Society shouldn't be stepping in the way of that. Regulating safety precautions (as they do with OSHA), but not declaring that a willing worker should be legally unable to perform a job for which there is certainly a demand.
No disagreement here. When it comes to construction, the precautions you can take, such as tying yourself to some part of the structure to prevent falling to the ground, have been fairly well understood for a long time. Reliable prevention of pregnancy and disease is relatively new (something on the order of 50 years or so?), so for a lot of people it hasn't quite sunken in yet. Hopefully attitudes will change as it slowly becomes an accepted fact through the entire population.
Eh, who am I kidding. There will always be nutters that insist that if it feels good, you have to stop.
That is not the reason, as there have always been more dangerous and maybe even more degrading jobs around. My personal, addmittedly excentric, theory is that puritan sex ethics are a form of socialism: You shouldn't leave to a free market what everyone desires so dearly.
Yeah, that's a pretty eccentric idea. A much more reasonable one is the expression "If it feels good, stop." My first guess is that it may have been an effort by some early Christians to separate themselves from the more hedonistic Greek and Roman cultures; doing something just to be different than a competing culture happens fairly often through history. I wasn't trying to say that pregnancy and disease are the reasons that certain religious types dislike anything sexual, just that there are legitimate logical reasons for treating sexual relations with a bit more caution than you would treat the kid running the cash register at McDonald's.
Especially consider the massage business. A person is paid to perform a service in which they physically interact with you to provide relief of muscle tension and physical enjoyment. Tell me again how this is so different from prostitution?
Well, sexual activity tends to have more negative consequences than getting a massage, especially for the prostitute. It's usually difficult to get pregnant or catch HIV from giving a massage. Of course there are ways to reduce those risks, but they're a relatively recent development, so it may take a generation or two for the idea that pregnancy and disease can be reliably prevented to embed itself in the social consciousness. I'm certainly not trying to be Puritanical about it, I'm just pointing out that the negative consequences of sex require that you be a bit more careful about it than you would be with other, more mundane services.
Yeah like those "Saw" movies. They ought to be banned from every country on this planet.
Doesn't the Geneva Convention already do that?
The machines will eventually take control of our bodies, become our overlords, and turn us into bionic batteries. Keeanu Reeves will then be forced to die in a desperate plea to save humanity...
In fact, forget machines taking control of our bodies, becoming our overlords, and turning us into bionic batteries...
On April 21st 2011, Keychest becomes self aware and realized that the only way to protect Disney's content is to terminate all human life. Keychest takes control of the worlds nuclear arsenal and attacks. Mysteriously, sales plummet.
I'd bet money that Disney would still blame piracy for the decline in sales.
"The ability to work full time on the code base" comes from him being employed to do it, i.e. he doesn't need to spend time on other paid projects. Being employed could be considered compensation if he wasn't making any money on the project before, since he'll be getting more money for possibly the same amount of work that he was already doing. Many people (not necessarily the original author, just in general) also prefer the security of a steady job and having other people handle administration, sales, etc., instead of having to do those kinds of things themselves.
I had the power steering belt break in my '88 Celica ... except I noticed pretty damned quick since that same belt also ran the water pump.
I think that may be a fairly common setup, since it was the same way in my 2000 Taurus.
drop a serpentine belt and see how that feels! No power steering and no water pump!
That's happened to me before. The lack of power steering was annoying, but I was more concerned about the temperature gauge hitting the top of the dial. I was lucky that it was only about 5 miles from my apartment to work, with a service shop just up the street; if it had been much farther, I probably would have had a close encounter with a large boom.
If people could travel in time, the universe would become unstable. People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history ...
Your second sentence does not necessarily follow from your first sentence. It would be logically consistent (I would say "theoretically possible", but those words have a specific meaning in physics, and that's not the right meaning here) to travel from Time B back to Time A and have everything that happens between A and B lead to your traveling back in time. You can't travel back in time and change history, because, like you said, the change might lead to you not traveling back in time, creating a paradox. You could, however, travel back in time and not change history.
So what does a coach being murdered say about cricket supporters? Or the countless riots over soccer/football games?
But how does this explain the 2004 Red Sox?
Easy, it pisses off the Cubs fans even more, since now they don't have the Red Sox fans to commiserate with.
Not only did you feel the need to explain the joke, you missed half of it. Here's a hint: there are a few other types of quarks.
Calling Cubs fans "baseball fans" is like calling Scientologists "religious". They're not really playing the same game as everyone else...
Well they seem to be playing the same game as the Pirates. You could probably argue that they're playing the same game as the Detroit Lions and Oakland Raiders, too.
M$ has refined the art of blowing butterflies, rainbows & unicorns up everybody's ass
Um, ouch?
In theory wouldn't anti-helium be more stable than anti-hydrogen. It being a noble anti-gas and all that.
Chemically, yes, anti-helium would be more inert than anti-hydrogen. Mutual annihilation isn't a chemical reaction, though.
It's the difference between "n00b" and "newbie".
Who was it the other week saying there wasn't an American lean to this site?
Someone who hasn't read the FAQ
For all those different models with different screen sizes and different input options, a developer will have more work just making sure his or her app works for the wide variety of phones.
For keyboard input, I would assume that the operating system abstracts away whether the phone has a physical or touchscreen keyboard. You have a point about the screen size, but it's not like that's a new problem in software development, so any competent interface designer and/or programmer knows how to deal with it.