So the newspapers essentially are asking Congress to step in and change the market place. They want the government to decide what businesses should exist and, specifically, how people should get their news.
This is quite wrong. Newspapers want to be able to negotiate, as a group, with Google/Facebook for how their content can be used by those two agencies. It's the exact opposite of trying to cut down on online news - they want to be compensated for their online news.
Pushing to re-establish the Constitution is what the majority of people (read Not Politicians) want
Citation very much needed. Leaving aside the fact that most people aren't aware of what the constitution actually says, most people are fine sacrificing their rights for various reasons. That's why we don't just have mob rule.
I'd also say the constitution would be pretty different if developed today. I'm not sure fetishizing it as the unchangeable text from heaven is that great. There are a lot of good ideas, but it's good to approach things from "why, is this still relevant" than assuming what was written must be correct.
since the whole planet agrees on the basic principles of free market capitalism,
Really? European countries are fairly socialist. China is a communist government with a healthy leavening of capitalism. In the middle east, most countries are essentially giant oil companies (that collude in a monopoly) that play dividends to all their citizens.
I mean, yes, everyone agrees that some free market capitalism in the mix is important. But no one thinks that unadulterated laissez-faire free market capitalism (except about half of America, the half in charge).
For most people, a phone or Kindle/mini-tablet,,, is all the in-flight entertainment they need.
Or, alternatively, maybe other people have different values than you do. When I fly, the number of people I see with a laptop seems to hover around 10%
if the TSA is incapable of doing its job, keeping that information secret isn't in the national interest.
Actually, I think keeping security holes secret is in the national interest - assuming that its not used an excuse to avoid fixing the hole. After all, that's the policy with technical exploits (90 day embargo on release to fix the issue is standard.)
There are a lot of tenant protection laws. I'd imagine it's far more likely to be "I'm giving two week notice." "Okay, well, I expect you to vacate your apartment in [minimum legal time, but probably 1 month\"
Which probably would include having the Federal Trade Commission apply existing laws against anti-competitive behavior.
That's exactly what happened. The FTC did step up. Verizon got the courts to rule that the FTC didn't have the juristiction to regulate their behavior (from a NN type area), but that the FCC could if it invoked Title II. It was only after that that the FCC stepped up.
Bull, if you have an e-commerce site making even $1,000 a day, it's not worth the downtime to switch.
Now, you may wanna switch because you cannot afford the downtime if they raise prices again and you don't notice, but the $280/yr savings, while real, aren't worth fucking up a well-oiled machine.
Restaurants often close. They have, what, an 80% year-on-year closure rate?
And your second point is nonsensical. You want to say that people are working 2 jobs, then have less free time, etc. However, the reason they are getting a second job (according to you) is that they need two jobs to make as much money (at higher rates) than they did before. Therefore, they are still working fewer aggregate hours.
They're not independent contractors. They are fully controlled employees of FryCooks LLC, who have very demanding requirements, which FryCooks LLC had imposed on them by RealCo. It's just a different entity, so the multiplications don't work.
Uber is a... $70 billion.... company. I understand when people don't want to impose on a small business. But Uber can afford to get some handicap accessible vehicles going.
The main problem with your solution is its trivial to work around. "I don't have any employees, I subcontract that to "fry cooks and cashiers LLC." I mean, companies already use cleaning services.
The electoral college had its place in the early days of the US republic but it's a completely useless relic by now
The electoral college had its place in 2016, by say directly electing Mike Pence, or punting the decision to the House of Reps, or simply doing something to take into account the severe unacceptability of Trump.
Now, it totally failed at that, but I think that the idea of a trusted middleman is definitely not obsolete.
They think that some people at the board of the carrier can fend off attacks... these attacks aren't local scale though.
P>Of course they are. The main systems aren't on the fucking internet. A Marine with a gun can stop untrusted people from attacking the system. And if you have enough redundancy in access, or trusted enough people, etc, than of course you can secure a system.
My Win 98 machine is perfectly secure. It has no access to the internet, and I don't load new software (it only exists to run some legacy code).
And after their wealth, companies, and probably 10's of thousands of jobs have been destroyed?
Why would companies be liquidated?? The wealth is the relationships between employees, corporate assets, etc. There is a way to transfer ownership of parts of a company without hurting the company, it's called stock.
I have never gotten a job working for a poor man.
Of course poor people employ other people. This happens individually (poor people paying a kid to mow their lawn). This happens in aggregate (poor people buying stock, crowdsourcing). But, far more importantly, most small business owners (those who generate most new jobs) found their companies on debt, not savings. Now, if they do their job well, they will not remain poor. But the vast majority start poor.
It's also bullshit in that many companies are built on poor people as a customer base. E.g. Walmart. So, while the owners of Walmart may be rich, they are not personally pumping money into Walmart as a charity. The people pumping money into Walmart are poor people. The Waltons taking money out is another cost center for Walmart, not funding.
You add up all the wealth of all the billionaires in the US and what do you have? $100 billion?
Well Bill Gates alone clocks in at $90 billion. So I think that it would be worth quite a bit more. And being a billionaire doesn't even guarantee you a spot on the Forbes 400 list, so trivially the number is significantly higher than $400 billion calculated two different ways.
Trump's proposed budget is $4.2 trillion including both discretionary and non-discretionary spending
Yeah, billionaires combined are worth $7.71 trillion. So, you know, by themselves they could pay for the US for almost two years.
They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place.
I certainly don't think that's the case. Even if I granted you that at one point that's why they achieved dominance, they maintain dominance due to inertia and using market dominating power.
My guess is our argument is over nomenclature. I never imagined peer review meant "accurate". I always see peer review as "accurately done". That is, the experiment was done in a competent way. Therefore, it was worthy of serious consideration. Mainly that's spreading the idea for someone else to produce either a reproduction study or a study based on the conclusions of the first study (which is more likely to get funded).
But you're right, that a single study shouldn't be assumed to redefine knowledge. Maybe it should be acted upon pending verification (e.g. a study that shows mad cow is present in America might cause me to hold off eating beef until confirmed/refuted), but it shouldn't be assumed to be true, even if peer reviewed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how newspapers are rent-seeking. You probably mean another term. If anything, Google/Facebook are rent seekers in this situation..
This is quite wrong. Newspapers want to be able to negotiate, as a group, with Google/Facebook for how their content can be used by those two agencies. It's the exact opposite of trying to cut down on online news - they want to be compensated for their online news.
Citation very much needed. Leaving aside the fact that most people aren't aware of what the constitution actually says, most people are fine sacrificing their rights for various reasons. That's why we don't just have mob rule.
I'd also say the constitution would be pretty different if developed today. I'm not sure fetishizing it as the unchangeable text from heaven is that great. There are a lot of good ideas, but it's good to approach things from "why, is this still relevant" than assuming what was written must be correct.
Really? European countries are fairly socialist. China is a communist government with a healthy leavening of capitalism. In the middle east, most countries are essentially giant oil companies (that collude in a monopoly) that play dividends to all their citizens.
I mean, yes, everyone agrees that some free market capitalism in the mix is important. But no one thinks that unadulterated laissez-faire free market capitalism (except about half of America, the half in charge).
The amount of content seems to refer to many diverse stories, not depth in any story or with fluff.
Or, alternatively, maybe other people have different values than you do. When I fly, the number of people I see with a laptop seems to hover around 10%
Actually, I think keeping security holes secret is in the national interest - assuming that its not used an excuse to avoid fixing the hole. After all, that's the policy with technical exploits (90 day embargo on release to fix the issue is standard.)
There are a lot of tenant protection laws. I'd imagine it's far more likely to be "I'm giving two week notice." "Okay, well, I expect you to vacate your apartment in [minimum legal time, but probably 1 month\"
That's exactly what happened. The FTC did step up. Verizon got the courts to rule that the FTC didn't have the juristiction to regulate their behavior (from a NN type area), but that the FCC could if it invoked Title II. It was only after that that the FCC stepped up.
IT was once valued at 3.2B by private investors means that someone bought some percentage of stock at that value. Say, $32M for 1%.
You'll find stop loss orders selling.
Bull, if you have an e-commerce site making even $1,000 a day, it's not worth the downtime to switch.
Now, you may wanna switch because you cannot afford the downtime if they raise prices again and you don't notice, but the $280/yr savings, while real, aren't worth fucking up a well-oiled machine.
Restaurants often close. They have, what, an 80% year-on-year closure rate?
And your second point is nonsensical. You want to say that people are working 2 jobs, then have less free time, etc. However, the reason they are getting a second job (according to you) is that they need two jobs to make as much money (at higher rates) than they did before. Therefore, they are still working fewer aggregate hours.
They're not independent contractors. They are fully controlled employees of FryCooks LLC, who have very demanding requirements, which FryCooks LLC had imposed on them by RealCo. It's just a different entity, so the multiplications don't work.
Uber is a... $70 billion.... company. I understand when people don't want to impose on a small business. But Uber can afford to get some handicap accessible vehicles going.
The main problem with your solution is its trivial to work around. "I don't have any employees, I subcontract that to "fry cooks and cashiers LLC." I mean, companies already use cleaning services.
The electoral college had its place in 2016, by say directly electing Mike Pence, or punting the decision to the House of Reps, or simply doing something to take into account the severe unacceptability of Trump.
Now, it totally failed at that, but I think that the idea of a trusted middleman is definitely not obsolete.
Power protecting power is the most common prejudice, even back to the Magna Carta days.
What on earth makes you think that its on the Internet? Nothing in the article implies that, and it would be really stupid.
Although the article implies its off the shelf WinXP, as opposed to the long-term support WinXP (which, e.g., was not affected by WannaCry).
I can even see a case for the long-term support version being more secure, as there are no new features, just new bug fixes.
P>Of course they are. The main systems aren't on the fucking internet. A Marine with a gun can stop untrusted people from attacking the system. And if you have enough redundancy in access, or trusted enough people, etc, than of course you can secure a system.
My Win 98 machine is perfectly secure. It has no access to the internet, and I don't load new software (it only exists to run some legacy code).
Why would companies be liquidated?? The wealth is the relationships between employees, corporate assets, etc. There is a way to transfer ownership of parts of a company without hurting the company, it's called stock.
Of course poor people employ other people. This happens individually (poor people paying a kid to mow their lawn). This happens in aggregate (poor people buying stock, crowdsourcing). But, far more importantly, most small business owners (those who generate most new jobs) found their companies on debt, not savings. Now, if they do their job well, they will not remain poor. But the vast majority start poor.
It's also bullshit in that many companies are built on poor people as a customer base. E.g. Walmart. So, while the owners of Walmart may be rich, they are not personally pumping money into Walmart as a charity. The people pumping money into Walmart are poor people. The Waltons taking money out is another cost center for Walmart, not funding.
Well Bill Gates alone clocks in at $90 billion. So I think that it would be worth quite a bit more. And being a billionaire doesn't even guarantee you a spot on the Forbes 400 list, so trivially the number is significantly higher than $400 billion calculated two different ways.
Yeah, billionaires combined are worth $7.71 trillion. So, you know, by themselves they could pay for the US for almost two years.
Or the pockets of billionaires.
I certainly don't think that's the case. Even if I granted you that at one point that's why they achieved dominance, they maintain dominance due to inertia and using market dominating power.
My guess is our argument is over nomenclature. I never imagined peer review meant "accurate". I always see peer review as "accurately done". That is, the experiment was done in a competent way. Therefore, it was worthy of serious consideration. Mainly that's spreading the idea for someone else to produce either a reproduction study or a study based on the conclusions of the first study (which is more likely to get funded).
But you're right, that a single study shouldn't be assumed to redefine knowledge. Maybe it should be acted upon pending verification (e.g. a study that shows mad cow is present in America might cause me to hold off eating beef until confirmed/refuted), but it shouldn't be assumed to be true, even if peer reviewed.