4 may be appropriate, but I think it's a thin argument. But even so... so what? Even if 4 is the way it was intended to be used, how is that even remotely headline-worthy?
"Not to be all pedantic, or anything, but "to moot" something is to debate. If they're mooting a proof, then the proof is very much under debate./sunglasses"
My thought exactly. To moot is to label something debatable, or (perhaps more accurately in context) to make something inconsequential or to render it of no importance.
But I saw nothing in TFA that suggests to me the word "moot". Not a thing.
"You seem to be confusing this Pew study with an earlier Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. survey. The Pew study found MSNBC to be the most "opinion dominated" station, with 85% of its content being opinion. The FDU survey found FOX viewers to be the least well-informed of all TV viewers... even less well informed than people who don't read or watch any news at all."
I confused nothing. The most common criticism of Fox is that it delivers opinionated rather than factual "news". Sadly, that criticism often comes from watchers of MSNBC.
What do you mean by "this kind of attitude"??? You are making exactly the same point that I was making.
Lots of people who can write a sonnet, or comfort the dying, can't balance a checkbook. So how is my comment in any way incompatible with Heinlein's???
"Humanities is religion for people who don't believe in a deity."
I think it's the other way around. I think majors in the humanities should take some engineering courses... like some basic math, and formal logic.
Then maybe "the common man" would have a little bit better basis to assess what effect "science" issues are having on them, on society, on government.
GP brings up the subject of AGW, and that's a great example. A great many folks have no way of evaluating what's being said, so they just pick a source to go with, whether that's Scientific American (just for example) or Fox News, or (far worse than Fox, according to a recent Pew study) MSNBC.
I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying that's not informed decision making.
"Police, on fishing expedition, get a warrant for all fingerprints recorded by the machine within X time period."
Fishing expeditions are explicitly prohibited by law. Not that it hasn't stopped them sometimes.
"So even if you aren't the thief, just another customer, your data gets handed over along with the data
from the burger."
Considering the state-of-the-art of fingerprint identification hardware and software, it probably WOULD be the burger's fingerprint found there. Or one of those greasy sausages.
"Fingerprint with no name, address, phone number, etc., attached = no useful information to be gained via subpoena."
It also means that without 2- or 3-part authentication, there are going to be some pretty spectacular failures. Fingerprints just don't work worth a shit. Yet.
"No, the Constitution only empowers the federal government to grant patents and copyrights. Article I, section 8 does not direct it to do so..."
Technically true. But realistically, when have you known the Federal government to NOT exercise a power it was given, not to mention usurp powers that it was not given?
With the sole exception, I should add, of declaring war.
" Tabarrok seems to tacitly assume that innovation can be regulated via legislation."
"Where in the world do you get that idea from?"
"From TFA, as in these lines: "
The fact that those words exist does not change the essential point: either you have misunderstood what Taborrok meant, or you are deliberately distorting it.
It is obvious that innovation CAN be controlled by legislation. Negatively influenced, at any rate, as we have clearly seen in recent history.
The other side of the curve, the one implying that patents can HELP innovation, is also clear from the historical record.
So while it may be, as you say, that Taborrok believes legislation can "control" innovation (although "control" is probably the wrong word here if you want to be accurate), it is completely beside the point, which was that there is TOO MUCH of it today.
"Ahem, you know that IBM Wolrd Community Grid use the BOINC client too, right? And many of the projects there make available the results to every scientists that wants it. The CEP database itself is open to everyone to browse and consult."
I did not know that, and I don't doubt it, but it matters little to me. If they use BOINC anyway, then what purpose do they serve?
My point was that for the most part I trust BOINC, but not IBM. I do not put it past IBM to lie, cheat, and steal as long as it makes them a profit.
Don't get me wrong: IBM has done some great things. And a lot of good research has come out of the Watson Research Center, for example. But it was also done for corporate profit, not for humanitarian reasons. Not that there is anything wrong with corporate profit either, as long as it is honest and socially responsible. In IBM's case, I will not assume that. I would have to be shown first.
"If you apply same-origin policy to images in HTML documents by default, then I fail to understand how it would be "fairly rare" for you to encounter a page that's a sea of broken images."
In the vast majority of cases, the images on a page that are not hosted by the domain you are visiting are ads. It's that simple. Sometimes you run into other situations, but it's relatively rare.
For example, here is a shot of my NoScript menu for this very page. Granted, NoScript itself is not an "image" blocker, but in reality most 3rd-parth images today are buried in a mass of identifiable JavaScript. NoScript blocks them by default, except for those I have marked "okay" ahead of time. If I think I am missing something, I can go to that list and allow a site that is currently blocked. I can allow it temporarily (until I shut down the browser app), or permanently. But even the one that are "permanently" blocked can be turned on temporarily if I wish.
I also use a Flash blocker (flash ads are HUGE bandwidth thieves), and some other tools.
Whether it is worthwhile to do those things is entirely up to you. But you DO have a choice, and that's a good thing.
"If you apply same-origin policy to images in HTML documents by default, then I fail to understand how it would be "fairly rare" for you to encounter a page that's a sea of broken images. For example, Wikipedia (upload.wikimedia.org), Wikia (nocookie.net), Google (gstatic.com), Yahoo! (yimg.com), and eBay (ebaystatic.com) all routinely host images on a separate domain from the HTML document, often to prevent repetition of the user's session cookie in the HTTP headers for each image request."
Because my browser (I usually use Firefox, with some plugins) allows me to allow them or block them on a domain-by-domain basis. Wikimedia.org is not blocked. Google is. I unblock it temporarily when I need it. Same with Yahoo.
Most images on Ebay are hosted by Ebay, but some people and companies use 3rd-party tools that inject content into their ads. I unblock them on a case-by-case basis.
Does that sound like a pain in the ass? Sometimes it is. But far more often it means relief from trackers, unwanted ads, bandwidth leeches, and more. As I wrote elsewhere, not long ago I temporarily turned off my blockers completely, and I was horrified by the amount of 3rd-party GARBAGE I was inundated with. While it may be a bit more work sometimes, most of the sites I visit frequently are not blocked, and my life is MUCH more pleasant.
Pretty soon you also get used to the little "no image" symbols and the "Hey! Turn on your javascript!" messages where ads would normally be. I'd rather see those than the ads.
But again: since it's on a domain-by-domain basis, you can choose the companies from which you want to receive ads. I don't have them ALL blocked. But the ones I haven't specifically allowed, are.
"It doesn't have to say that. The state is only entitled to collect taxes and fees, that's why the requirement only applies to that."
I rather think it DOES have to say that. There is nothing in it anywhere to even hint that it is limited to state monies only. It says "tender in payment of debts". It does not say "tender in payment of State debts", or "tender in payment of debts to the State". Considering the complete absence of any indication they meant something else, I suggest the words be taken at face value. And if it does not apply to individuals, why does part of that same sentence say "or law impairing the obligation of contracts"??? Are you going to say that part applies only to contracts with the State? I don't think so.
"However recognition of the state is not required for any other financial activity, in any currency. If you want to buy a widget from me for Euros, or Yens, I will sell it to you. Not illegal. You can even send me those Yens from Japan, and I will receive them through an appropriate, registered and licensed financial services company (PayPal, or just my bank.)"
Yes and no. I retract the bit about "requiring" that it go through an exchange first. But that's actually completely irrelevant. I could pay you in buckets of piss, and if you accept them, fine with me. But a State cannot "make" buckets of piss legal tender. That is the point being discussed here.
The second thing I have to say about that is no, you can't do that through PayPal. I know, because I've done it. You can accept foreign currency into your PayPal account, and you can pay in foreign currency from your PayPal account. But nobody in the U.S. can require you to pay a debt in foreign currency, PayPal or not. Again, that's the point here. And if you are required to pay a debt in local currency, sorry, but you CANNOT pay it directly with Yen in your PayPal account. PayPal will first convert it to dollars (and charge a fee for that conversion), before paying in dollars. I have bitched about that requirement more than once, but that's the way it works. Look it up.
"Businesses do receive foreign payments into USD accounts,"
Businesses receive payments in dollars into USD accounts. But if it's a BANK account, and it's foreign currency, it is converted to dollars before going into that account. In many but not all circumstances they will also charge a small fee for doing that conversion. Banks that do not routinely do Forex (foreign exchange) do not do it for free.
"I can receive payments in CDN, and if they land into the CDN account they won't get converted into anything."
That's true, as as I already stated, that's true of PayPal as well. But it's also completely beside the point. If you want to pay somebody in dollars with it, it is still first converted to USD. And often there is a fee for the service.
I should not have simply written "nonsense" in reply to your other post, because strictly speaking, it's not nonsense. But I've found failures due to 3rd-party blocking to be (A) fairly rare, and (B) usually on sites I have no great need to frequent anyway. Your mileage may vary.
But usually when I block, I simply don't see the image. Or I just see the little "broken image" symbol in my browser.
"If a web application has a legitimate reason to access resources that are behind more than one domain, what's the non-poor way to design such a web application?"
It's relatively simple. The same way you handle sites that don't have JavaScript enabled, on a site that needs JavaScript to operate properly: show them a message saying that they have to turn it on or the site won't work.
"All "blocking external domains" does is cause web applications to show an error message: "The application could not start because either your web browser does not support cross-origin resource sharing or you have blocked external domains."
Slashdot Mirror
Use Pop3 and keep the server's inbox bare.
Granted, it's not a 100% solution. But odds are, if thieves scan your inbox and find nothing there, they won't be back.
Screw this IMAP stuff. It doesn't do anything I need and it leaves you vulnerable to this kind of attack.
"So meaning 4 seems appropriate"
4 may be appropriate, but I think it's a thin argument. But even so... so what? Even if 4 is the way it was intended to be used, how is that even remotely headline-worthy?
"Not to be all pedantic, or anything, but "to moot" something is to debate. If they're mooting a proof, then the proof is very much under debate. /sunglasses"
My thought exactly. To moot is to label something debatable, or (perhaps more accurately in context) to make something inconsequential or to render it of no importance.
But I saw nothing in TFA that suggests to me the word "moot". Not a thing.
"You seem to be confusing this Pew study with an earlier Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. survey. The Pew study found MSNBC to be the most "opinion dominated" station, with 85% of its content being opinion. The FDU survey found FOX viewers to be the least well-informed of all TV viewers... even less well informed than people who don't read or watch any news at all."
I confused nothing. The most common criticism of Fox is that it delivers opinionated rather than factual "news". Sadly, that criticism often comes from watchers of MSNBC.
I wasn't talking about majoring in the subject, just a brief intro.
And I am of the opinion that Boolean Algebra and similar discrete math constitutes a pretty good brief intro.
But a little bit of logical argument is also, very definitely, desirable. But I think that should be taught no later than high school.
What do you mean by "this kind of attitude"??? You are making exactly the same point that I was making.
Lots of people who can write a sonnet, or comfort the dying, can't balance a checkbook. So how is my comment in any way incompatible with Heinlein's???
"The most clued-up logicians I have ever met are graduates in philosophy. Logic is a seriously hard course of study..."
But BASIC formal logic is really no more than simple math. And the basic rules of logical argument are also fairly simple.
The bare essentials can be (and are) taught in college courses of one semester or a couple of quarters.
Or maybe private copyright is more accurate.
I know! Let's give the inventors the right to profit for a limited time, then turn it over to the public domain! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Astounding. Why didn't I think of that???
"Humanities is religion for people who don't believe in a deity."
I think it's the other way around. I think majors in the humanities should take some engineering courses... like some basic math, and formal logic.
Then maybe "the common man" would have a little bit better basis to assess what effect "science" issues are having on them, on society, on government.
GP brings up the subject of AGW, and that's a great example. A great many folks have no way of evaluating what's being said, so they just pick a source to go with, whether that's Scientific American (just for example) or Fox News, or (far worse than Fox, according to a recent Pew study) MSNBC.
I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying that's not informed decision making.
Yeah, right. Like Network Solutions turned out to be a great idea or something.
"Police, on fishing expedition, get a warrant for all fingerprints recorded by the machine within X time period."
Fishing expeditions are explicitly prohibited by law. Not that it hasn't stopped them sometimes.
"So even if you aren't the thief, just another customer, your data gets handed over along with the data from the burger."
Considering the state-of-the-art of fingerprint identification hardware and software, it probably WOULD be the burger's fingerprint found there. Or one of those greasy sausages.
"Fingerprint with no name, address, phone number, etc., attached = no useful information to be gained via subpoena."
It also means that without 2- or 3-part authentication, there are going to be some pretty spectacular failures. Fingerprints just don't work worth a shit. Yet.
I'm not sure I'd count "giving up part of DC to Virginia" as "not exercisng their powers". But your other example is noted.
I imagine it's also possible for an artist to make a living doing cave paintings. That doesn't mean I'd want to do it.
I have a huge amount of respect for Grace Murray Hopper. But technology changes.
"No, the Constitution only empowers the federal government to grant patents and copyrights. Article I, section 8 does not direct it to do so..."
Technically true. But realistically, when have you known the Federal government to NOT exercise a power it was given, not to mention usurp powers that it was not given?
With the sole exception, I should add, of declaring war.
And I forgot to add: it is not JUST beside the point. It is also, according to the historical record, true.
" Tabarrok seems to tacitly assume that innovation can be regulated via legislation."
"Where in the world do you get that idea from?"
"From TFA, as in these lines: "
The fact that those words exist does not change the essential point: either you have misunderstood what Taborrok meant, or you are deliberately distorting it.
It is obvious that innovation CAN be controlled by legislation. Negatively influenced, at any rate, as we have clearly seen in recent history.
The other side of the curve, the one implying that patents can HELP innovation, is also clear from the historical record.
So while it may be, as you say, that Taborrok believes legislation can "control" innovation (although "control" is probably the wrong word here if you want to be accurate), it is completely beside the point, which was that there is TOO MUCH of it today.
"Ahem, you know that IBM Wolrd Community Grid use the BOINC client too, right? And many of the projects there make available the results to every scientists that wants it. The CEP database itself is open to everyone to browse and consult."
I did not know that, and I don't doubt it, but it matters little to me. If they use BOINC anyway, then what purpose do they serve?
My point was that for the most part I trust BOINC, but not IBM. I do not put it past IBM to lie, cheat, and steal as long as it makes them a profit.
Don't get me wrong: IBM has done some great things. And a lot of good research has come out of the Watson Research Center, for example. But it was also done for corporate profit, not for humanitarian reasons. Not that there is anything wrong with corporate profit either, as long as it is honest and socially responsible. In IBM's case, I will not assume that. I would have to be shown first.
"If you apply same-origin policy to images in HTML documents by default, then I fail to understand how it would be "fairly rare" for you to encounter a page that's a sea of broken images."
In the vast majority of cases, the images on a page that are not hosted by the domain you are visiting are ads. It's that simple. Sometimes you run into other situations, but it's relatively rare.
For example, here is a shot of my NoScript menu for this very page. Granted, NoScript itself is not an "image" blocker, but in reality most 3rd-parth images today are buried in a mass of identifiable JavaScript. NoScript blocks them by default, except for those I have marked "okay" ahead of time. If I think I am missing something, I can go to that list and allow a site that is currently blocked. I can allow it temporarily (until I shut down the browser app), or permanently. But even the one that are "permanently" blocked can be turned on temporarily if I wish.
I also use a Flash blocker (flash ads are HUGE bandwidth thieves), and some other tools.
Whether it is worthwhile to do those things is entirely up to you. But you DO have a choice, and that's a good thing.
"If you apply same-origin policy to images in HTML documents by default, then I fail to understand how it would be "fairly rare" for you to encounter a page that's a sea of broken images. For example, Wikipedia (upload.wikimedia.org), Wikia (nocookie.net), Google (gstatic.com), Yahoo! (yimg.com), and eBay (ebaystatic.com) all routinely host images on a separate domain from the HTML document, often to prevent repetition of the user's session cookie in the HTTP headers for each image request."
Because my browser (I usually use Firefox, with some plugins) allows me to allow them or block them on a domain-by-domain basis. Wikimedia.org is not blocked. Google is. I unblock it temporarily when I need it. Same with Yahoo.
Most images on Ebay are hosted by Ebay, but some people and companies use 3rd-party tools that inject content into their ads. I unblock them on a case-by-case basis.
Does that sound like a pain in the ass? Sometimes it is. But far more often it means relief from trackers, unwanted ads, bandwidth leeches, and more. As I wrote elsewhere, not long ago I temporarily turned off my blockers completely, and I was horrified by the amount of 3rd-party GARBAGE I was inundated with. While it may be a bit more work sometimes, most of the sites I visit frequently are not blocked, and my life is MUCH more pleasant.
Pretty soon you also get used to the little "no image" symbols and the "Hey! Turn on your javascript!" messages where ads would normally be. I'd rather see those than the ads.
But again: since it's on a domain-by-domain basis, you can choose the companies from which you want to receive ads. I don't have them ALL blocked. But the ones I haven't specifically allowed, are.
"It doesn't have to say that. The state is only entitled to collect taxes and fees, that's why the requirement only applies to that."
I rather think it DOES have to say that. There is nothing in it anywhere to even hint that it is limited to state monies only. It says "tender in payment of debts". It does not say "tender in payment of State debts", or "tender in payment of debts to the State". Considering the complete absence of any indication they meant something else, I suggest the words be taken at face value. And if it does not apply to individuals, why does part of that same sentence say "or law impairing the obligation of contracts"??? Are you going to say that part applies only to contracts with the State? I don't think so.
"However recognition of the state is not required for any other financial activity, in any currency. If you want to buy a widget from me for Euros, or Yens, I will sell it to you. Not illegal. You can even send me those Yens from Japan, and I will receive them through an appropriate, registered and licensed financial services company (PayPal, or just my bank.)"
Yes and no. I retract the bit about "requiring" that it go through an exchange first. But that's actually completely irrelevant. I could pay you in buckets of piss, and if you accept them, fine with me. But a State cannot "make" buckets of piss legal tender. That is the point being discussed here.
The second thing I have to say about that is no, you can't do that through PayPal. I know, because I've done it. You can accept foreign currency into your PayPal account, and you can pay in foreign currency from your PayPal account. But nobody in the U.S. can require you to pay a debt in foreign currency, PayPal or not. Again, that's the point here. And if you are required to pay a debt in local currency, sorry, but you CANNOT pay it directly with Yen in your PayPal account. PayPal will first convert it to dollars (and charge a fee for that conversion), before paying in dollars. I have bitched about that requirement more than once, but that's the way it works. Look it up.
"Businesses do receive foreign payments into USD accounts,"
Businesses receive payments in dollars into USD accounts. But if it's a BANK account, and it's foreign currency, it is converted to dollars before going into that account. In many but not all circumstances they will also charge a small fee for doing that conversion. Banks that do not routinely do Forex (foreign exchange) do not do it for free.
"I can receive payments in CDN, and if they land into the CDN account they won't get converted into anything."
That's true, as as I already stated, that's true of PayPal as well. But it's also completely beside the point. If you want to pay somebody in dollars with it, it is still first converted to USD. And often there is a fee for the service.
Darn. Slip of the finger there.
I should not have simply written "nonsense" in reply to your other post, because strictly speaking, it's not nonsense. But I've found failures due to 3rd-party blocking to be (A) fairly rare, and (B) usually on sites I have no great need to frequent anyway. Your mileage may vary.
But usually when I block, I simply don't see the image. Or I just see the little "broken image" symbol in my browser.
"If a web application has a legitimate reason to access resources that are behind more than one domain, what's the non-poor way to design such a web application?"
It's relatively simple. The same way you handle sites that don't have JavaScript enabled, on a site that needs JavaScript to operate properly: show them a message saying that they have to turn it on or the site won't work.
How do you handle
A "Cancel or Allow" pop-up for each domain that each page accesses could get tiring for the user.
It does, sometimes. Occasionally I will allow it for a site temporarily.
"All "blocking external domains" does is cause web applications to show an error message: "The application could not start because either your web browser does not support cross-origin resource sharing or you have blocked external domains."
Nonsense. I'm doing it right now.