Net neutrality is about source of data, not about the type of data. It still allows for QoS for voice and other real-time data uses. All it says is that traffic must be treated exactly the same depending on the source/origin. So you aren't allowed for example, to slow netflix down but let hulu go through at full speed, etc.
One should not minimize the value of knowledge either. I'm a lot more scared of ignorant smart people than of ignorant idiots. You could argue the point that trivia isn't knowledge, but even then, some basic knowledge of culture, cinema, politics and sports make for better rounded people. Most of the cultural questions have to do with influential people and it's still worth knowing about them, if only to know how they influenced trends or some such.
and the user can always exit Steam and drop to GNOME to run non-Steam games.
Indeed. All three of them too!
My monitor is a Dell 3007WFP, which was released in the US in December 2005 (so 8 years ago). It's also far from being the only 30" monitor released at that time with that resolution, although most modern 30 inchers seem to be 16:9 instead of my preferred 16:10.
As for pixels, I can definitely see pixels on mine if I disable AA in games, although I only need 2xAA for it to appear totally smooth. 4K would probably take it close to the point where the pixels aren't visible anymore from 3 feet away even with AA disabled, but I haven't used a 4K monitor yet so I'm not positive. I can absolutely guarantee that anyone would be able to make the difference between my monitor and a 4K one though.
I think you're underestimating how much GPU power games need these days. I bought a Dell 30" monitor 5 years ago, which I'm still using for gaming. The native resolution is 2560x1600, so not even close to the new 4K ones. At this resolution, my old 3 years old Radeon 5870 was struggling to get smooth framerates for several games. So I bought the new GTX 780 when it came out for $600. The new card is fantastic, I can finally play The Witcher 2 at full resolution with high settings, same with Bioshock Infinite, etc. Keep in mind, the new 4K resolutions will demand even more out of GPUs, so it's not likely that the demand will go down all that much yet.
Sure, if you're a gamer who fires up a 1080p console port once in a while, a cheap GPU will do. If you're an avid gamer who needs more than 1080p, you still need to buy the $400+ cards to keep up.
We were discussing human rights in general here, not just your 2nd amendment. I was responding to this idiotic statement by jcr
No it didn't, and the idea that the constitution created our rights is a very dangerous misconception. Our rights are intrinsic to our human nature, and what the constitution does is delegate certain powers to the government.
The whole "We hold these truths to be self-evident" concept creeps me out so much, especially if people are buying into it without thinking about it. Whenever people are talking about "self-evident truths", you should be extremely wary, especially when they have guns to back their statements up. I happen to agree with the ideals in this case, but I'm under no illusion that these "rights" would exist without the threat of violence to back them up.
I'm not American and I think your 2nd amendment was very poorly worded, especially the part about "bearing" arms. If the aim is to allow the general population to resist a potentially oppressive government, then guaranteeing the right to own weapons is enough. The right to take them with you everywhere is a completely different issue. Personally, I think walking around with a loaded weapon should be extremely illegal. In fact, wielding a loaded weapon should always be treated as if you were intending to use it right then and there. This would allow guns to be allowed for hunting, as well as in all actual self-defense situations, and insure their availability should civil war be necessary. Basically, carrying a loaded weapon with you in all other situations should be treated as criminal intent.
The Amish are only able to hold together without the threat of violence because they dump the responsibility on others. Small, tightly-knit group of people always have an ultimate solution to cases they can't handle : expulsion. These groups will typically use several methods to enforce their rules. Usually it starts with reason (convince people through logic), then shaming (for your Amish example above, that would be the forced beard-cutting and such) and finally when those fail, they expel the offending member from the community. To keep with your Amish example, when a violent offender becomes too much to handle for them, say a serial rapist or murderer, they call outside authorities to deal with them.
Let's pretend that this option wasn't available because the whole world is Amish. What happens when a few pariahs get together and go down the path of banditry? They'll steal and rape and pillage their ways until someone uses violence to stop them. So you start needing people to deal with those cases. So now you need a police force, etc...
To come back to your original statement, you're right that evolution applies to societies in general. The societies with the best set or rules (laws & ideology) will tend to prosper and others will fail. However, the willingness to use violence is the most basic component of every society. If tomorrow, somebody convinces half the people of a country that murder is right, the only option for the other half is to defend themselves. Sure, you can try to convince people through reason, but if that fails, violence is the only last resort that works. If you forgo violence and someone is willing to use it against you, you'll die, and all your nice ideologies about rights and peace and whatnot will go with you.
I understand well the intent behind the "unalienable rights" statement. The problem is that it doesn't reflect the physical reality and as such, it is untrue. I can make a document declaring that humans have the innate power of flight, but when I decide to jump off a cliff to act upon my belief, flapping my arms is not going to help me.
But that's my very point - they are not unalienable. They are made up. Human rights have no basis in reality, there's no fundamental law of nature that grant humans those rights. They are only an ideology and, as soon as someone with different views gathers the most power, they'll cease to exist. In the future, it's possible that technology will enable someone with a different ideology to seize power, and those "unalienable" rights would go away, perhaps never to return until humanity becomes extinct.
If rights effectively go away once you don't own the biggest guns anymore, then by definition they aren't unalienable : they are created by mankind. This is why you have to be willing to kill to defend your ideologies, otherwise people can use violence to enforce their way of life over you.
This is a ridiculous statement. The concept of human rights are a human creation. The truth is that every "right" you have is currently granted to you at the point of a gun, through social constructs like law and its enforcement. Viewing rights as intrinsic is dangerous, because in the end it's just an ideology. I do agree with the idea of basic human rights granted to everyone, but we should never lose sight that we only have them because we kill and imprison people who disagree.
Without the constitution, those "intrinsic" rights would cease to exist immediately to the whim of whoever owns the most efficient means of violence to enforce their views.
I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Even if the guy was the antichrist and his favorite hobby was raping babies, how does it change the facts?
There was an overzealous "watch" guy stalking an unarmed man coming back from the store. At no point did the victim ever do anything that warranted harassment or stalking. Zimmerman is the one who initiated the confrontation, the one who caused it and the one bearing full responsibility for the events that followed.
The fact that the victim might have been a criminal has nothing to do whatsoever with what happened.
Yeah, last time I had surgery, they wouldn't even lead me to any answer. It basically went :
Doctor : Why are you here?
Me : Surgery.
Doctor : What kind?
Me : Eye surgery to correct strabismus.
Doctor : Which eye?
Me : Left.
They didn't just read stuff asking me to confirm it, I actually had to give them the information. I assume this way there's much less risk of a patient just confirming all the surgeon's questions.
Google will host email for your own domain for free. All you need to do is point your MX at their servers and register for a free account. No hassle, I've been doing this for years for my domains. Works like a charm. They also support POP3/IMAP access if you don't like using the web interface.
Basically, there's nothing you can do if you keep using WPA.
One option is to lower your wi-fi antenna power to exclude the area where the attacks are coming from. This can be hard to do if you need good coverage for a whole house or some such.
Your best bet would be to use either 802.1x or EAP-PEAP. That's highly dependent on what router you're using, usually only high-end routers support these options, although some home routers certainly do (I remember the good old WAP54G supporting it). If you're going 802.1x, just setup a radius server, configure your devices and you're pretty much set. If you go the PEAP route, you'll need some certificates, and possibly a radius server unless you use client certificates for authentication.
Both options will foil your wannabe hacker. Plus, you'll likely have the only advanced Wi-Fi setup around, gaining you geek creds