Example: there is money to be made off every race, therefore, racial prejudice harms profit.
Unless you can convince people that your labor base is subhuman, and you don't have to pay them because they are property. Or because racial prejudice is universal in a society so "those people" can be charged more. Or because society can take the money from "those people" so suddenly they have no more to give. Or because, say white southerners control 99% of the assets in the region, and they are racist and refuse to patronize your company if it doesn't have racist policies. I mean, I can keep going if you like, but all of those things really happened.
: overdrawing a market results in market collapse and creates an optimal environment for competing upstarts to emerge, therefore, a balanced profit draw maximizes long term profit.
I don't know what "overdrawing a market" is, and this is the only use of this phrase on the internet (source: Google, Bing, DDG). I assume you mean "extracting monopoly profits." But what happens is the monopoly has a huge incentive to keep itself alive. When an upstart appears, esp. if it's regionally based, the monopoly takes a short term hit to undersell the upstart. A few people will use it because they hate the monopoly, but, in a tragedy of the commons, most people will go to the cheapest option, destroying the upstart. And, due to economies of scale, the upstart is never going to be able to compete on price with what the monopoly can offer. After the upstart is gone, the monopoly raises prices again
overpricing results in clients refusing to buy, seeking competitors even if the offering is lower in quality, or seeking illegal markets. Therefore, pricing affordably and tiered to match value delivered maximizes profit.
You're right. I mean that's why Coca Cola and Pepsi had to lower their prices to compete with RC Cola. Actually, even mocking this point is questionable, since "overpricing" is a strange term that doesn't make sense.
Maximizing profit is likely to be achieved by AI. And that profit is likely to be at the expense of those unable to develop AI to fight back.
Good luck being an AI dependent/AI producing startup now. Maybe you could have been purchased before if you started doing well against one of these companies. Now, they're sharing research, so you have to beat their entire combined effort,. And their research will be fed back into the group, so no bidding war for your tech.
But hey, you could always create a search engine that produces better results than Google/Bing/DDG (choose your favorite), get VC, and eventually supplant them. Also, you can buy this nifty bridge and charge tolls on it.
Fines are punitive. For that matter, so are punitive damages. They are not designed to make up for the pain/damage caused by ones actions, but to discourage similar actions in the future.
Oh, is that all you're talking about. Bundled peripheral? That was blatant and obvious? On a device where "the same configuration everywhere in the world" is the primary selling point?
I mean, I grant it may not have been a good move. But compared to removing the OtherOS functionality after they sold the PS3?
Western companies will run the internet. Google, Apple, Microsoft, dare I say PornHub.
They only thrive in an open internet
The US government has a history of not censoring the web. Those sites have a history (with the possible exception of PornHub) of doing underhanded/shady things to close down the competition. Do you really think that its int their interest to let the next huge startups thrive. Or will a set of "neutral" rules slowly accumulate that favorite incumbent companies.
Fact is not opinion. Liars may have interesting opinions. More importantly, as the Republican nominee he already wields political power. His stated opinions aren't just "opinions" like you or I have. They're also clear signals to Republican representatives.
So, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Good to know.
I mean, the US has the least regulated airwaves in the western world, Britain has far stricter libel laws, the US doesn't actually have "no hate speech laws" (neonazis are allowed to march in the US, the name is illegal in Germany), "fighting words"/incitement means you're not allowed to encourage people to commit crimes.
And the anti-obscenity laws not struck down basically say you cannot use the 7 dirty words repetitively and frequently in front of a minor.
Unlike with HD, you pay a very small premium for 4K in the 40-50 inch range. So, when you buy a new TV (that should last many years), you pay a bit extra to futureproof yourself.
That's why this article was dumb. It wasn't the uprezing that caused things to go slowly. It was the switch from CRTs to plasmas and LCDs... things that hadn't hit "cheap because of quantity" status. Now that LCDs/LEDs are everywhere, they're far cheaper, and you can up the pixel count for not nearly as much money.
That statement will make the Dollar the "fiat currency" of the United States. But it also implicitly means that any *other* currency is *not*...
Except, your implication is totally not true. There have been numerous other fiat currencies, e.g. in small towns. The US forbids a few things. You may not call it a "dollar" or some variant thereof. It cannot look too similar to US currency. A state may not introduce a fiat currency. A company may not make employees accept payment in company fiat currency. But feel free to make "ytene money" on your printer. If you can get a store to take it, bully for you.
( We could envisage a scenario in which, absent such a decree/requirement, you and I could agree some complex scheme to defraud the Federal Government of tax revenue. I could sell you a car for "ten bananas" and when asked for taxes by the government, could give them a couple of pieces of fruit to cover the tax. )
The law isn't that stupid. For tax purposes, you had a transaction for the car. If the cash value of the transaction was X, the appropriate taxes (e.g. income taxes in USD from the recipient) get paid. If the value of the car was Y, Y>X, then you'll pay the difference in income taxes as if you had received a gift. If you try wordplay, you'll learn three things. (1) Those who want the law to be read like a computer program are shown the error of their ways by people like you. (2) Laws are interpreted by people, who are not thrown into a tizzy because you replaced a use in one case with another. (3) Laws, because they are known to deal with a wildly complex world with limited space, are flexible.
crypto-currencies create a huge headache for the big (multinational) banks, because they allow private individuals to exchange funds between currencies without paying currency exchange fees.
That's always possible... in person. What it does is allow two people to exchange value across long distances, without needing to be converted into local currency along the way.
this fucked-up thing you created called the legal system that has fuck-all to do with justice anymore.
The legal system never had anything to do with justice. It's a system of peaceful dispute resolution with the primary goal of avoiding a Hatfield v. McCoy feud.
MS already has (probably better placed) people to deal with regulatory/tax collection agencies than Skype had. Or they would have moved those people off Skype to a more core function.
MOST attempts to send email currently are spam which is blocked by an ISP of one kind or another. The spam you see is spam that got through, the 1% that wasn't blocked.
For instance, right now if you try to send email through the network of Germany's largest ISP (DTAG), to and from rtfa@gmail.com, the ISP won't allow that - and shouldn't. Only gmail servers should be sending email from @gmail.com.
Done by the pipes refusing those packets? Or the servers rejecting the mails? Please provide more details, because I do not believe it works the way you do.
Google can prevent spam sent to your @gmail.com address, but Comcast has to deliver spam to your @comcast.com address?
No, no, no. Comcast (the underlying pipe supplier) has to deliver the packets defining the email to Comcast (the server that stores your e-mail). Net neutrality doesn't stop Comcast's server that stores your e-mail from tossing it out, or discarding the packets as they arrive.
TL;DR for above, there's a difference between managing the pipes (scheduling packets over routers, etc.) and email at a higher level (what info servers will accept and forward vs. eat.) No one is concerned with restricting the second level. Net neutrality only concerns itself with the pipes level.
As in the most-used network security measures will be affected (firewalls consider the source)
Firewalls are fine, right. Because those are at endpoints.
basic protocols required for a network to function at all discriminate by source - STP to prevent switch loops, EIGRP, OSPF, and BGP would be required to accept poisoned routes
And this goes back to why the law is huge. Because saying "you cannot refuse to route information because the originator refused to pay you" is more complex than just "you are never allowed to look at the source IP address." As a plus, laws are written in natural language, so we can fuzz over some details, dealing with stuff like intent.
If DDOS attacks couldn't be detected and stopped, whitehouse.gov would be down ALL THE TIME
And tehy are. Just not by Comcast monitoring their subscribers connections. It's happening on the whitehouse.gov's side.
I have no problem with having to turn off a filter instead of turn it on. If it protects children and idiots, and is simply a checkbox in the settings, that works fine for me.
First, because Chrome has a track record of complying with standards. Microsoft IE does not
Edge is a completely standards complaint browser, written from scratch. In fact, it technically is more compliant than Chrome. (The delta is in edge cases no one cares about.)
Chrome has become the de facto standard at this point
It depends on your audience. If you want an executive at a Fortune 500 company to read your site (from the office), it will work in IE and Firefox, then you test Edge, then Chrome if you have time (spoiler, you don't).
Microsoft has shown a patter of screwing their partners and their customers, and I have no interest in providing them with any more influence or power than I'm forced to.
While I agree with you, I feel the same about Google. Actually, I think Google has been worse. Microsoft will support the framework you built on forever. Google kills projects and leaves devs high and dry. Google spies on me. Microsoft just wanted my money (pre-Windows 10, I don't know who's winning on this dimension anymore.)
In any case, the fact that I want neither one of those two to win means I want whoever is doing worse to pick up steam.
Chrome has a community of developers making various extensions
So does Edge. I think they're paying developers to port them over? Anyway, you can get some important ones (ad blockers, etc.) so that's good.
Finally, I can log into Chrome with my gmail account, and my settings and extensions sync to whatever device I use.
One man's killer feature is another's feature that kills interest. I like my data on my machine.
Although the really reason I won't use Chrome is it seems to use tons of memory and crash all the time. And it's really hard to control JS on a page/source level.
If I send a request to a server and it sends a response back, how can that be illegal?
It's illegal to rob a house, even if the door is unlocked.
That analogy is a poor one. It's like someone left their back door open and when asked "can I come in" they say "yes".
Did he call T-mobile and ask? No, he used an automated system. Seems like a door is the same thing. But if it makes you happier, the analogy can be more apt by making it an automatic door like at a grocery store.
And you can replace robbing a house with "Home Invasion", "Tresspassing", and in some states "Breaking and Entering" as the crimes you will be charged with just for going in.
It would be a poorly configured server. Again, the situation is different.
Well, I think the T-mobile infrastructure is malconfigured in this case.
Nothing is taken in the case of a server sending you files. It's not like taking money at all.
Electricity to transmit the response. Congestion on the spectrum (which T-mobile paid billions of dollars for). Slowing down the packets of paying customers at switches, etc.
That's all without the very real societally beneficial goals of making people pay their fair share of tower construction and maintenance. I mean, yes those costs are fixed(ish), but it's very expensive to rent the land, build the tower and maintain it.
Right, the pipes aren't allowed to distinguish between the two types of e-mail. It'd be very hard to write a law that allowed that without breaking net neutrality (this is why we have tens of millions of lines of law detailing edge cases).
That said, I don't really know of anyone who says "e-mail should be blocked by deep packet inspection at the ISP level". That sounds horrible to me. What if I run a mailing list for tens of thousands of people? Should Comcast be able to charge me more?
Certainly gmail or your client can filter the e-mails you receive. And net neturality doesn't even require the server receiving the email to save it... it can black-hole it right away. Just, if you run pipes, you're not allowed to make that decision. And that seems like the proper way to do it, IMHO.
Now, I don't see what caveats could be carved out for preventing mass unsolicited packets, e.g. handling DDOS or other attacks on the network. But DDOS, pretty much by definition, is something an ISP cannot detect, let alone prevent. After all, it looks like a bunch of individually innocuous requests.
But yeah, if there's some way to prevent that, that would be good. I haven't seen evidence that ISPs are currently preventing it (in the current non-net neutrality space), so I don't think it's going to happen. Same for blocking spam.
But such a law can be written to allow for experimentation and such. Commonly, the law would instruct the FCC (or some other agency) to make rules around net neutrality, with some goals. And that agency would look at things and say "oh, preventing DDOS is an exception"
think millions of pages of laws is already too much, so I'd prefer to err on the side of fewer laws rather than more.
Most of those pages arose from specific examples of people being asshats. Also, I don't understand why people think the law can be simple. A fairly constrained problem, like an OS, takes 10's of millions of lines of code, plus documentation, etc.
We're not too good at predicting the future, so I'd rather wait and see what happens and address things as needed, rather than being quite so proactive
It depends on how easy it is to undo. Breaking up monopolies is far hardr than preventing them, esp., since the monopoly has value that then has to be confiscated when broken up. But with some things (is this dun laoded) you fail safe, and with others (should Joe be able to start his custom shoemaking shop) you can fail dangerously.
I would consider running the internet to be a fail-safe situation.
It depends on what you mean by spam blocking. I don't see how it would be against any net neutrality operation. But if it did, it would only be one of like a million ways that spam is blocked, and the gains are huge.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you can convince people that your labor base is subhuman, and you don't have to pay them because they are property. Or because racial prejudice is universal in a society so "those people" can be charged more. Or because society can take the money from "those people" so suddenly they have no more to give. Or because, say white southerners control 99% of the assets in the region, and they are racist and refuse to patronize your company if it doesn't have racist policies. I mean, I can keep going if you like, but all of those things really happened.
I don't know what "overdrawing a market" is, and this is the only use of this phrase on the internet (source: Google, Bing, DDG). I assume you mean "extracting monopoly profits." But what happens is the monopoly has a huge incentive to keep itself alive. When an upstart appears, esp. if it's regionally based, the monopoly takes a short term hit to undersell the upstart. A few people will use it because they hate the monopoly, but, in a tragedy of the commons, most people will go to the cheapest option, destroying the upstart. And, due to economies of scale, the upstart is never going to be able to compete on price with what the monopoly can offer. After the upstart is gone, the monopoly raises prices again
You're right. I mean that's why Coca Cola and Pepsi had to lower their prices to compete with RC Cola. Actually, even mocking this point is questionable, since "overpricing" is a strange term that doesn't make sense.
Maximizing profit is likely to be achieved by AI. And that profit is likely to be at the expense of those unable to develop AI to fight back.
Good luck being an AI dependent/AI producing startup now. Maybe you could have been purchased before if you started doing well against one of these companies. Now, they're sharing research, so you have to beat their entire combined effort,. And their research will be fed back into the group, so no bidding war for your tech.
But hey, you could always create a search engine that produces better results than Google/Bing/DDG (choose your favorite), get VC, and eventually supplant them. Also, you can buy this nifty bridge and charge tolls on it.
Fines are punitive. For that matter, so are punitive damages. They are not designed to make up for the pain/damage caused by ones actions, but to discourage similar actions in the future.
Ummm... different profanity interpretation in countries isn't indicative of anything.
See the way the British airwaves described (former)-PM receiving hog fellatio with how the US did it.
Also, see Libel Tourism, Britain
Oh, is that all you're talking about. Bundled peripheral? That was blatant and obvious? On a device where "the same configuration everywhere in the world" is the primary selling point?
I mean, I grant it may not have been a good move. But compared to removing the OtherOS functionality after they sold the PS3?
The US government has a history of not censoring the web. Those sites have a history (with the possible exception of PornHub) of doing underhanded/shady things to close down the competition. Do you really think that its int their interest to let the next huge startups thrive. Or will a set of "neutral" rules slowly accumulate that favorite incumbent companies.
Fact is not opinion. Liars may have interesting opinions. More importantly, as the Republican nominee he already wields political power. His stated opinions aren't just "opinions" like you or I have. They're also clear signals to Republican representatives.
So, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Good to know.
I mean, the US has the least regulated airwaves in the western world, Britain has far stricter libel laws, the US doesn't actually have "no hate speech laws" (neonazis are allowed to march in the US, the name is illegal in Germany), "fighting words"/incitement means you're not allowed to encourage people to commit crimes.
And the anti-obscenity laws not struck down basically say you cannot use the 7 dirty words repetitively and frequently in front of a minor.
I don't remembr horrible MS behavior around the xbone. I do by Sony with the PS3.
I'm still out of this gen. So, I can be swayed. Based on adoption of last gen/this gen, there are a lot of people like me.
Why did anyone trust Google ever?
TFS, not even TFA, states a very convincing alternative rationale: they want the data to use as a corpus for their machine learning algorithms.
Nope. A large part of the value of the messages is as a corpus for machine learning.
Unlike with HD, you pay a very small premium for 4K in the 40-50 inch range. So, when you buy a new TV (that should last many years), you pay a bit extra to futureproof yourself.
That's why this article was dumb. It wasn't the uprezing that caused things to go slowly. It was the switch from CRTs to plasmas and LCDs... things that hadn't hit "cheap because of quantity" status. Now that LCDs/LEDs are everywhere, they're far cheaper, and you can up the pixel count for not nearly as much money.
Except, your implication is totally not true. There have been numerous other fiat currencies, e.g. in small towns. The US forbids a few things. You may not call it a "dollar" or some variant thereof. It cannot look too similar to US currency. A state may not introduce a fiat currency. A company may not make employees accept payment in company fiat currency. But feel free to make "ytene money" on your printer. If you can get a store to take it, bully for you.
The law isn't that stupid. For tax purposes, you had a transaction for the car. If the cash value of the transaction was X, the appropriate taxes (e.g. income taxes in USD from the recipient) get paid. If the value of the car was Y, Y>X, then you'll pay the difference in income taxes as if you had received a gift. If you try wordplay, you'll learn three things. (1) Those who want the law to be read like a computer program are shown the error of their ways by people like you. (2) Laws are interpreted by people, who are not thrown into a tizzy because you replaced a use in one case with another. (3) Laws, because they are known to deal with a wildly complex world with limited space, are flexible.
That's always possible... in person. What it does is allow two people to exchange value across long distances, without needing to be converted into local currency along the way.
The legal system never had anything to do with justice. It's a system of peaceful dispute resolution with the primary goal of avoiding a Hatfield v. McCoy feud.
MS already has (probably better placed) people to deal with regulatory/tax collection agencies than Skype had. Or they would have moved those people off Skype to a more core function.
Done by the pipes refusing those packets? Or the servers rejecting the mails? Please provide more details, because I do not believe it works the way you do.
No, no, no. Comcast (the underlying pipe supplier) has to deliver the packets defining the email to Comcast (the server that stores your e-mail). Net neutrality doesn't stop Comcast's server that stores your e-mail from tossing it out, or discarding the packets as they arrive.
TL;DR for above, there's a difference between managing the pipes (scheduling packets over routers, etc.) and email at a higher level (what info servers will accept and forward vs. eat.) No one is concerned with restricting the second level. Net neutrality only concerns itself with the pipes level.
Firewalls are fine, right. Because those are at endpoints.
And this goes back to why the law is huge. Because saying "you cannot refuse to route information because the originator refused to pay you" is more complex than just "you are never allowed to look at the source IP address." As a plus, laws are written in natural language, so we can fuzz over some details, dealing with stuff like intent.
And tehy are. Just not by Comcast monitoring their subscribers connections. It's happening on the whitehouse.gov's side.
I have no problem with having to turn off a filter instead of turn it on. If it protects children and idiots, and is simply a checkbox in the settings, that works fine for me.
In general, I care far more about being embarrassed in front of my friends than everyone in China.
Edge is a completely standards complaint browser, written from scratch. In fact, it technically is more compliant than Chrome. (The delta is in edge cases no one cares about.)
It depends on your audience. If you want an executive at a Fortune 500 company to read your site (from the office), it will work in IE and Firefox, then you test Edge, then Chrome if you have time (spoiler, you don't).
While I agree with you, I feel the same about Google. Actually, I think Google has been worse. Microsoft will support the framework you built on forever. Google kills projects and leaves devs high and dry. Google spies on me. Microsoft just wanted my money (pre-Windows 10, I don't know who's winning on this dimension anymore.)
In any case, the fact that I want neither one of those two to win means I want whoever is doing worse to pick up steam.
So does Edge. I think they're paying developers to port them over? Anyway, you can get some important ones (ad blockers, etc.) so that's good.
One man's killer feature is another's feature that kills interest. I like my data on my machine.
Although the really reason I won't use Chrome is it seems to use tons of memory and crash all the time. And it's really hard to control JS on a page/source level.
Did he call T-mobile and ask? No, he used an automated system. Seems like a door is the same thing. But if it makes you happier, the analogy can be more apt by making it an automatic door like at a grocery store.
And you can replace robbing a house with "Home Invasion", "Tresspassing", and in some states "Breaking and Entering" as the crimes you will be charged with just for going in.
Well, I think the T-mobile infrastructure is malconfigured in this case.
Electricity to transmit the response. Congestion on the spectrum (which T-mobile paid billions of dollars for). Slowing down the packets of paying customers at switches, etc.
That's all without the very real societally beneficial goals of making people pay their fair share of tower construction and maintenance. I mean, yes those costs are fixed(ish), but it's very expensive to rent the land, build the tower and maintain it.
Right, the pipes aren't allowed to distinguish between the two types of e-mail. It'd be very hard to write a law that allowed that without breaking net neutrality (this is why we have tens of millions of lines of law detailing edge cases).
That said, I don't really know of anyone who says "e-mail should be blocked by deep packet inspection at the ISP level". That sounds horrible to me. What if I run a mailing list for tens of thousands of people? Should Comcast be able to charge me more?
Certainly gmail or your client can filter the e-mails you receive. And net neturality doesn't even require the server receiving the email to save it... it can black-hole it right away. Just, if you run pipes, you're not allowed to make that decision. And that seems like the proper way to do it, IMHO.
Now, I don't see what caveats could be carved out for preventing mass unsolicited packets, e.g. handling DDOS or other attacks on the network. But DDOS, pretty much by definition, is something an ISP cannot detect, let alone prevent. After all, it looks like a bunch of individually innocuous requests.
But yeah, if there's some way to prevent that, that would be good. I haven't seen evidence that ISPs are currently preventing it (in the current non-net neutrality space), so I don't think it's going to happen. Same for blocking spam.
But such a law can be written to allow for experimentation and such. Commonly, the law would instruct the FCC (or some other agency) to make rules around net neutrality, with some goals. And that agency would look at things and say "oh, preventing DDOS is an exception"
Most of those pages arose from specific examples of people being asshats. Also, I don't understand why people think the law can be simple. A fairly constrained problem, like an OS, takes 10's of millions of lines of code, plus documentation, etc.
It depends on how easy it is to undo. Breaking up monopolies is far hardr than preventing them, esp., since the monopoly has value that then has to be confiscated when broken up. But with some things (is this dun laoded) you fail safe, and with others (should Joe be able to start his custom shoemaking shop) you can fail dangerously.
I would consider running the internet to be a fail-safe situation.
It depends on what you mean by spam blocking. I don't see how it would be against any net neutrality operation. But if it did, it would only be one of like a million ways that spam is blocked, and the gains are huge.
Countries are literally paying negative interest rates on the money they borrow. Paying off any debt right now is retarded.