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.
I can send millions of requests to a poorly secured bank server, until I find a username password that gets a "logged in" response back. I can send a request after that to move money, and the server sends a response back with a reciept.
These are all things the server was configured to do. But I think most people would recognize that as theft.
No, we didn't. There was a concerted effort to prevent municipal WiFi. Based on using both state government to preempt municipal WiFI (its illegal in most states), and I've seen it in a bunch of places. It seems immensely popular once done.
People who got out of the USSR don't seem to get moderation. Governments shouldn't run sneaker factories. But there are plenty of things (e.g. roads) that work well when run by government. There's no real reason to assume without more justification that anything falls into one category or the other.
There are clear cut examples, and fuzzy lines (at least for me).
I'm fine with Amazon's free delivery, the free oil changes, the free gas. Those cases where the costs are really baked into the bundle your purchasing (e.g. shipping is included, or the cost of oil is removed, and it's not really anti-competitive.
Amazon Prime free two day delivery is a bit of a gray area for me. It's fine, but the $100 fixed fee part of it is really anti-competiive. I mean, imagine A2, an identical competitor to Amazon. Since each will require a $100 for Amazon (or A2) Prime, A2 will never get any of Amazon's customers, even though they should split them 50/50. That's crazy strong incumbency power.
For Youtube paying your costs, of course you want that. I have Amazon Prime. I get wanting both. The problem is that Youtube and enough other big companies do it (or think about this, say Google with their $500B in cash reserves makes it free to those big companies). Then, 5G comes out, and Verizon et al announce a huge rate hike on the new speed. But Google still subsides data on it so who cares. Meanwhile, no startup can play in the 5G space unless Google includes it on their "good guy list". Cause Google gets rates that are 50% of what Verizon charges anyone else (they buy so much data, its contractual)
That's the fear. That someone will dominate the space super effectively. That big companies (Google or Verizon or whomever) will be so subsidized by big players that it's impossible for start ups to happen.
In every step in the chain, you make the best move for you. But you end up in a hellish spot. There are a lot of situations like this... tragedy of the commons, the prisoners dillemma.
First, I have lived in New Hampshire. And there are a lot of things I loved about it. Including some of the more libertarian things. That said, a lot of what you want is crazy.
The movement is strong gaining new movers every week and unlike other movements has only grown larger over the years
So has the population as a whole. Pretty much every group is growing in size.
achieve political goals (like educating our children
New Hampshire has some pretty horrible schools, and the ones in Keene specifically were almost shut down by the fucking Supreme Court due to your inability to teach your children.
Keene, the town where I live, of less than 30,000 people is already the # one place in the world for BitCoins.
How are you liking those subsidized internet connections and power now? BitCoin may not be directly a result of large governments, but the underlying technology, and required infrastructure and even large mining groups are only possible under a large government. Hell, 70% of mining power is in China and directly subsidized by the Chinese government.
Why the hell would Newflix pay to upgrade my service for me to watch Youtube?
Ideally, because of net neutrality laws or regulations. Less ideally, consumer net neutrality pressure. I mean, India shut down Facebook's "free Facebook internet access" because of the obviously bad longterm results.
I'm not saying that's Newflix's optimal play (they would want to subsidize the cost of using their service only). The point is that that violates net neutrality.
I would like to sign people up for my service without their consent. I'd make more money. And my service will save them money. But we don't allow that to happen for very good reasons.
I think robots replace jobs for less skilled labor
Lawyers were actually one of the first jobs replaced by robots. Not the trial part, but the research part. It's one reason there is such a glut of lawyers... 90% of the work rookie lawyers do was automated.
Now, those robots were really AI in a computer, and AI was mostly hardcoded responses. But the same principle applies.
Fundamentally, robots replace jobs as the domain of the job can be understood. Robots first replaced jobs that required typing into the computer, then on a controlled factory line, then data entry (OCR), and the fields keep expanding.
A plumber's job is going to be pretty safe for a while. I'd guess a structural engineer's job, at least on the design side, is not. Or rather, 1/10 structural engineers will survive.
That famous offer you were referring to could be taken advantage of by any company that used the auto-throttle video protocols that the provider supported. As it happens, these are pretty common protocols most of the big boys (YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video) were already using, but you could have filled out the form promising the various guarantees of the video and gotten "raymoms's awesome videos" zero-rated too.
That's why it didn't violate net neutrality. While I would have loved to have an auto-detection of that protocol, the fact that it was free to the providers made it (in my opinion) net neutral.
And there is literally nothing in a net neutral world that stops Newflix from doing what you're suggesting. What the net neutral world is stopping is Newflix paying for that different tier to appear only if they are connecting to Newflix.
I grant that, for reasons, stuff can get cheaper. I deny that a universal sudden decrease in cost (e.g. credit card fees) will see any of those savings passed on to the consumer. In fact, sudden and universal cost decreases are the least likely to get passed on to the consumer.
Stupid analogy, but it's like me saying "meeting an opposite gendered person doesn't create a new human life", and you reacting with "but otherwise humanity would have died out generations ago. long argument about how humanity exists." I grant that new humans are sometimes created. I just disagree on the mechanism
I would be tempted, if I cared and was locked in, to tell my provider that thanks toe the google software updates, they're system was broken. And stop paying.
They'll certainly switch you to an iPhone or a flipphone if you raised a fuss.
That seems like the best way to have an honest discussion, free of both argument from authority and any social pressure to hold back on your views on Snowden/other subjects.
It's the power of celebrity that leads to idiot anti-vaxars spreading disease, and other horrible things.
See, I asked for a specific example, not theory. Because it's hard to do in reality. And you answered with.... theory. I'm asking when prices decreased because of a decrease in the cost of goods/operations. Because I don't think I've ever seen it.
But the theory is stupid too. No (well-run) business determines prices by deciding what margin it would like. and multiplying their cost by that. It determines what the market will bear. And why would the fact that my costs went down somehow lower what the market would bear? Are you thinking that somehow businesses want to share their increased profits? Why?
if the cost of fraud is 0.1%, then every $1,000 you spend includes around $1 of fraud coverage. If it's 1%, then it's $10. The difference between these, if you have $70,000/year to spend (e.g. a mid-level IT job, after taxes), is $70 vs $700.
But, and this is important, I have fraud protection. I don't have to worry about someone stealing my credit card. That's a good thing. And the cost is subsidized by someone paying in cash or with their phone. Why would I want to take that risk on myself.
Reductions in fraud translate to reductions in operational costs, and eventually reductions in consumer prices.
Citation needed. Not theory, but please show a place where lower costs trickled to consumers as opposed to getting eaten up by retailers.
Cashback comes out of your bank's fees to the merchant..... total is compared to a 3.2% per-transaction fee, which bumps prices up
(1) Again, citation needed. Prices are set by what the market will bear. And again, people who use cards pay the same rate as those who don't. So either I get that 2% (and the fee's eat up another 1.2%) or the merchant keeps all 3.2%. Why would I give up money just so Walmart can make more and Visa less?
It took me a long time to trust future evidence because I saw it as a partisan battle, rather than legitimate science.
Isn't that the goal of half the parties? I don't need to convince you that my facts are right, just that it's a political argument and not a scientific one?
Umm... what you're talking about was earlier shit for like a month. Then the shitty terminals got replaced. Or are being replaced. On any terminal capable of NFC (or almost all) the first gen (for some reason first gen even though its been in Europe for a decade) the chip takes no real time.
That's like saying my new Apple phone is way better than Android because the screen isn't cracked and the battery can hold a charge.
And no, I don't look at a website loading for 25 seconds. I have an adblocker.
I'm not paying it. We all are. I'd be pretty stupid not to take advantage of what I'm paying for. And, due to cashback, pretty much everyone else is paying for it, and I'm not.
nd no less than 10x faster than a chip based transaction
Utter bullshit. The part of the transaction that uses the CC is less than 1% of the time of the transaction. The vast majority of the time is ringing up items, etc.
In case you didn't catch the implication, I'm stating that even if the payment step took no time "That's $35, but I don't care, have a nice day", it would be a 0.01x speedup.
I don't recall being asked on a ballot whether I wanted any of the above-mentioned ass-fuckery to be performed on my behalf.
Probably because we votge for representatives, not issue by issue. Don't like it, what have you done about it? Contributed money to a better candidate? Canvassed for them? Run yourself? Heck, even vote?
But they aren't ex post facto. If two parties (Ire. and Apple) make an illegal agreement, it gets unwound. If someone (e.g. Apple) took courses of action based on that understanding, it of course sucks for them. And they may have a course of action against the other party (or may not). But they don't get to insist the agreement be honored.
Otherwise, have I shown you this contract where Homeless Joe sold me all your stuff for a nickel?
Not to me. When my wallet was stolen, I simply called a 1-800 number, and boom, no cost to me CC invalidated and replaced. Also, anything they happen to have bought comes out of the store's wallet, not mine.
Slashdot Mirror
It's illegal to rob a house, even if the door is unlocked.
I can send millions of requests to a poorly secured bank server, until I find a username password that gets a "logged in" response back. I can send a request after that to move money, and the server sends a response back with a reciept.
These are all things the server was configured to do. But I think most people would recognize that as theft.
Cool, so instead of theft of service, you can plea that you were merely operating an unlicensed transmitter. FCC loves that.
I suppose you may prefer federal to state prison.
No, we didn't. There was a concerted effort to prevent municipal WiFi. Based on using both state government to preempt municipal WiFI (its illegal in most states), and I've seen it in a bunch of places. It seems immensely popular once done.
People who got out of the USSR don't seem to get moderation. Governments shouldn't run sneaker factories. But there are plenty of things (e.g. roads) that work well when run by government. There's no real reason to assume without more justification that anything falls into one category or the other.
And a huge amount of the EU is already beyond 100Mbps, this is just to catch up their equivalent of the 10% behind.
There are clear cut examples, and fuzzy lines (at least for me).
I'm fine with Amazon's free delivery, the free oil changes, the free gas. Those cases where the costs are really baked into the bundle your purchasing (e.g. shipping is included, or the cost of oil is removed, and it's not really anti-competitive.
Amazon Prime free two day delivery is a bit of a gray area for me. It's fine, but the $100 fixed fee part of it is really anti-competiive. I mean, imagine A2, an identical competitor to Amazon. Since each will require a $100 for Amazon (or A2) Prime, A2 will never get any of Amazon's customers, even though they should split them 50/50. That's crazy strong incumbency power.
For Youtube paying your costs, of course you want that. I have Amazon Prime. I get wanting both. The problem is that Youtube and enough other big companies do it (or think about this, say Google with their $500B in cash reserves makes it free to those big companies). Then, 5G comes out, and Verizon et al announce a huge rate hike on the new speed. But Google still subsides data on it so who cares. Meanwhile, no startup can play in the 5G space unless Google includes it on their "good guy list". Cause Google gets rates that are 50% of what Verizon charges anyone else (they buy so much data, its contractual)
That's the fear. That someone will dominate the space super effectively. That big companies (Google or Verizon or whomever) will be so subsidized by big players that it's impossible for start ups to happen.
In every step in the chain, you make the best move for you. But you end up in a hellish spot. There are a lot of situations like this... tragedy of the commons, the prisoners dillemma.
Does that make sense?
Seems like a good idea. Shame that the US is going to fall further behind on this front.
First, I have lived in New Hampshire. And there are a lot of things I loved about it. Including some of the more libertarian things. That said, a lot of what you want is crazy.
So has the population as a whole. Pretty much every group is growing in size.
New Hampshire has some pretty horrible schools, and the ones in Keene specifically were almost shut down by the fucking Supreme Court due to your inability to teach your children.
How are you liking those subsidized internet connections and power now? BitCoin may not be directly a result of large governments, but the underlying technology, and required infrastructure and even large mining groups are only possible under a large government. Hell, 70% of mining power is in China and directly subsidized by the Chinese government.
Ideally, because of net neutrality laws or regulations. Less ideally, consumer net neutrality pressure. I mean, India shut down Facebook's "free Facebook internet access" because of the obviously bad longterm results.
I'm not saying that's Newflix's optimal play (they would want to subsidize the cost of using their service only). The point is that that violates net neutrality.
I would like to sign people up for my service without their consent. I'd make more money. And my service will save them money. But we don't allow that to happen for very good reasons.
Lawyers were actually one of the first jobs replaced by robots. Not the trial part, but the research part. It's one reason there is such a glut of lawyers... 90% of the work rookie lawyers do was automated.
Now, those robots were really AI in a computer, and AI was mostly hardcoded responses. But the same principle applies.
Fundamentally, robots replace jobs as the domain of the job can be understood. Robots first replaced jobs that required typing into the computer, then on a controlled factory line, then data entry (OCR), and the fields keep expanding.
A plumber's job is going to be pretty safe for a while. I'd guess a structural engineer's job, at least on the design side, is not. Or rather, 1/10 structural engineers will survive.
That famous offer you were referring to could be taken advantage of by any company that used the auto-throttle video protocols that the provider supported. As it happens, these are pretty common protocols most of the big boys (YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video) were already using, but you could have filled out the form promising the various guarantees of the video and gotten "raymoms's awesome videos" zero-rated too.
That's why it didn't violate net neutrality. While I would have loved to have an auto-detection of that protocol, the fact that it was free to the providers made it (in my opinion) net neutral.
And there is literally nothing in a net neutral world that stops Newflix from doing what you're suggesting. What the net neutral world is stopping is Newflix paying for that different tier to appear only if they are connecting to Newflix.
I grant that, for reasons, stuff can get cheaper. I deny that a universal sudden decrease in cost (e.g. credit card fees) will see any of those savings passed on to the consumer. In fact, sudden and universal cost decreases are the least likely to get passed on to the consumer.
Stupid analogy, but it's like me saying "meeting an opposite gendered person doesn't create a new human life", and you reacting with "but otherwise humanity would have died out generations ago. long argument about how humanity exists." I grant that new humans are sometimes created. I just disagree on the mechanism
Hence my request for any example
I would be tempted, if I cared and was locked in, to tell my provider that thanks toe the google software updates, they're system was broken. And stop paying.
They'll certainly switch you to an iPhone or a flipphone if you raised a fuss.
That seems like the best way to have an honest discussion, free of both argument from authority and any social pressure to hold back on your views on Snowden/other subjects.
It's the power of celebrity that leads to idiot anti-vaxars spreading disease, and other horrible things.
See, I asked for a specific example, not theory. Because it's hard to do in reality. And you answered with.... theory. I'm asking when prices decreased because of a decrease in the cost of goods/operations. Because I don't think I've ever seen it.
But the theory is stupid too. No (well-run) business determines prices by deciding what margin it would like. and multiplying their cost by that. It determines what the market will bear. And why would the fact that my costs went down somehow lower what the market would bear? Are you thinking that somehow businesses want to share their increased profits? Why?
But, and this is important, I have fraud protection. I don't have to worry about someone stealing my credit card. That's a good thing. And the cost is subsidized by someone paying in cash or with their phone. Why would I want to take that risk on myself.
Citation needed. Not theory, but please show a place where lower costs trickled to consumers as opposed to getting eaten up by retailers.
(1) Again, citation needed. Prices are set by what the market will bear. And again, people who use cards pay the same rate as those who don't. So either I get that 2% (and the fee's eat up another 1.2%) or the merchant keeps all 3.2%. Why would I give up money just so Walmart can make more and Visa less?
Isn't that the goal of half the parties? I don't need to convince you that my facts are right, just that it's a political argument and not a scientific one?
Umm... what you're talking about was earlier shit for like a month. Then the shitty terminals got replaced. Or are being replaced. On any terminal capable of NFC (or almost all) the first gen (for some reason first gen even though its been in Europe for a decade) the chip takes no real time.
That's like saying my new Apple phone is way better than Android because the screen isn't cracked and the battery can hold a charge.
And no, I don't look at a website loading for 25 seconds. I have an adblocker.
I'm not paying it. We all are. I'd be pretty stupid not to take advantage of what I'm paying for. And, due to cashback, pretty much everyone else is paying for it, and I'm not.
Why would you want a contactless card?
Utter bullshit. The part of the transaction that uses the CC is less than 1% of the time of the transaction. The vast majority of the time is ringing up items, etc.
In case you didn't catch the implication, I'm stating that even if the payment step took no time "That's $35, but I don't care, have a nice day", it would be a 0.01x speedup.
Probably because we votge for representatives, not issue by issue. Don't like it, what have you done about it? Contributed money to a better candidate? Canvassed for them? Run yourself? Heck, even vote?
Which isn't made more likely by allowing cameras in the courtroom. I'm don't think he should get to grandstand as a substitute for a defense.
But they aren't ex post facto. If two parties (Ire. and Apple) make an illegal agreement, it gets unwound. If someone (e.g. Apple) took courses of action based on that understanding, it of course sucks for them. And they may have a course of action against the other party (or may not). But they don't get to insist the agreement be honored.
Otherwise, have I shown you this contract where Homeless Joe sold me all your stuff for a nickel?
Not to me. When my wallet was stolen, I simply called a 1-800 number, and boom, no cost to me CC invalidated and replaced. Also, anything they happen to have bought comes out of the store's wallet, not mine.
Amazingly, not everyone thinks like you. I like cords. I like power cords. I like earphone cords. I like keyboard cords and mouse cords to my desktop.
Apple was and remains wrong about batteries, and I don't understand why anyone would disagree.