So you agree completely with the government. You agree with all republicans and all Democrats. You agree with the homosexual ones and the straight ones?
You want no control over what you watch? Internet filtering software is a great thing. The government should provide a high quality version for free. But configuring it should be up to each person.
Read my sig. It's impossible to make these decisions on anything beyond a personal level.
Are the rights of a corporation more important, or the rights of an actual human being more important?
To quote something I read before on slashdot (pardon me for not remembering your name, although I hold you in the highest regard!):
Companies don't need anything. People need things. Companies are nothing more than tools we create in order to benefit actual human beings. When you talk about the needs of companies, you are treating them as ends, not as means. Then we--human beings--become the means to satisfy their needs.
India is a democratic country -- their laws are by definition reflective of their social values.
This is a fallacious correlation. Just because laws have been arrived at through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they represent social values. There are much more important driving factors for legislation in a democracy than these social values. There are many ways (for example, lobbyists/bribery) that groups can influence democratic legislation, even in directions contrary to social values. The only possible government in which your ideals of democracy would be upheld would be one that's extremely limited socially so that no one's social values could be trampled upon.
If they want porn cencored, they are within their rights to want it.
I disagree with this. This is a case where your social values are at odds with personal liberties and just because such regulations would be arrived at through a democratic process doesn't mean that it's okay to take these liberties away. You could make the same case with racial segregation, where only a few really wanted to integrate, but the views of the majority democratically determined that segregation was legal and allowable. Another example could be gay marriage, where a majority is often against it, but since it is (arguably) within a gay couple's right to marry, these social values should not influence the democratic process to take their rights away.
If I can't be expected to understand the laws as a normal human, then I can't reasonably be expected to follow them either.
Then what the hell do we have lawyers for? The fact of the matter is that the system is a complex one, and precedent shows there's a certain level of detail that is needed to ensure a law holds up without significant loopholes.
Maybe once upon a time the full code of laws and common law judgements could be understood by the average educated person, but unless you've got an interest or are law-qualified it's unlikely that the average educated person these days would be able to fully grasp a particular law without some assistance. I'm not suggesting that legislators shouldn't understand at least somewhat more than the average person, but that's what they should have legal staff for, practically speaking.
I'm not worried about the batshit crazy speech, because all reasonable people can see how batshit crazy it is.
I'm worried about the mildly crazy woo-woo speech, because some reasonable people can't see it for the falsehood that it is.
But yeah, okay fine, we're not trying to legislate it out of existence, we're trying to LAUGH it out of existence. Sadly, it's not working as well as we might hope.
First, this isn't about war in the middle east. Nobody here is advocating starting a war while actively avoiding military service.
Second, the pirates are aggressors. Slashdotters aren't suggesting merchants go out and hunt pirates, they're debating the merits of shooting back, and with what.
The more I hear from climate "skeptics" the more the arguments feel similar to those of the evolution skeptics.
And moon landing "skeptics". And round earth "skeptics". And tobacco/lung cancer "skeptics".
Most people don't have the intelligence or scientific background to make an informed decision on climate change, yet many still somehow think their opinions somehow matter. How on earth they feel they can justify that view, I don't know. These are people who defer to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh for all their political views, and if a scientific truth makes them uncomfortable... well it must be a massive conspiracy.
Fucking imbeciles. I think it's telling that there's an overwhelmingly negative correlation between AGW denialism and scientific education.
And here you are saying skeptics are a bad thing.... Copernicus was a skeptic of science at his time, and now we applaud the science he used and moved along. How many skeptics throughout history should I mention before you get what I am saying here.??
You must not know much about sicence because it is based on theories which are not proven and more then likely through good science can be disproven at a later date...But lets leave it at that, go back to science class and learn a little more please.
As someone who works in a large financial institution and who's job is basically to assess SaaS vendors to whom we give data to, I wish this was true. However, I'll tell you what happens in the real world:
1) Someone comes up to me with a project. "We need to give to to perform "
2) I say "never heard of this company before. We need to go over and check them out, They're in , it will cost $10k to get me there and back."
3) project goes: "we can't afford that, we only have a budget of $5k for the entire project"
4) I say "too bad, the risk is too high, we can't engage the vendor"
5) project says "we have already entered into a contract with them and they've been doing for two months already"
6) project escalates to risk management who rubber stamp approval for the deviation.
9) leaks data like a sieve. my company gets bad media attention and gets hit with multi-million dollar fines from regulators. Senior management come to me and ask "why did you let this happen?".
The truth of the matter is, in a large company it is so much cheaper to simply outsource anything you can. The person who is running the project doesn't care about the quality of the solution, their only concern is to deliver to scope, on time, and on budget. By the time the whole thing goes cactus shaped they're long out of the picture.
Software as a Service in reality meets very little barrier to adoption.
>>>So, what if you don't have the money to put into a private savings account?
Then you sign-up for Welfare when you retire at age 70 or higher. That's what that program is for - to help those without enough money to care for themselves.
>>>The majority of businesses fail over time
If only the government would do that same (or have the balls to layoff not-needed workers to reduce expenses, rather than have them just sitting-around doing nothing). Government is a MONOPOLY and therefore no better than if Microsoft had a monopoly, or Comcast had a monopoly, or Ford had a monopoly.
Anyone who works 13 hours a day, either likes their job or is earning enough money that they are going to retire early.
It regularly consumes 13 hours of my day, factor in an average 8 hours of sleep and that leaves me with 3 hours in which to do things like play games, eat food, etc.
9 hour work day + 2 hours commute either way == 13 hours.
He's not working 13 hour long days, he's just got a fairly long commute time. I have effectively the same thing; except I play either iPhone games or DS games to and from (or occasionally some sort of reading material).
Just about every computer on the market today runs Unix, except the Mac (and nobody cares about it). -- Bill Joy 6/21/85