That article you pointed to is a bit of a political hack. They lost me early when they held AOL up as an example. Had they done 5 minuted research, they would know that AOL bit the big one in spite of having a huge lead because too many other providers went with a 19.95 flat fee. They didn't even have the ability to be anything but net neutral. The going rate soon fell to $9.95.
We wouldn't need net neutrality regulations if it was still the case that an ISP wanting to create fast lanes and special packages like cable TV would have to face literally dozens of competitors who were willing to be neutral. But that's not the case today. Due to natural monopoly conditions, many people have exactly ONE broadband provider available. Most others have TWO at best.
If you don't want network neutrality as a regulation, you'll need to come up with some way to drastically expand competition in the face of natural monopoly. Perhaps socialize the last mile and let all comers connect to it to provide internet.
On the other hand, since you're not likely in a forest in the middle of nowhere, when you are providing power, you're taking load off of their infrastructure since the power can pretty much go up to the pole and back down to your neighbor's house.
Unregulated markets lead to the same dark place with a corrupt few in power. When government has no power, the crony capitalists become the new government unopposed.
And I'm alive right now, but honestly, I haven't a clue what's going on in Togo today.
I can look back on the '60s and with a now adult perspective, say yeah, that thing I remember was racist as hell, but that requires willing reflection on old memories that I'm told many don't even have.
Yours is a variation on no true Scotsman. If you use Sophistry to explain away all the deaths due to Capitalism, you don't get to count Mao's killings or Stalin's against Communism either. Those were about power, not economics.
The problem is STATE communism, STATE socialism, and STATE Capitalism.
The problem in the U.S. is that we're trending towards the latter of those. And no, privatize everything isn't a solution, that just makes the 'government' a figurehead and makes the capitalists the actual state.
Every day people die from poverty all over the world. Then there's the Korean and Vietnam wars, war in the Middle East (ongoing), Millions lead poisoned in the U.S. because profits outweighed everything, and all the people they killed due to lead damaged brains.
Can you find anything in the Bill of rights that specifies a geographic border to it's various prohibitions?
The Constitution has nothing to do with U.S. agents not being able to get a Warrant in China, that's a national sovereignty issue (in other words, a geographical restriction on the U.S. government's authority above and beyond the Constitutional restrictions). Likewise, you can't assert 4th Amendment rights in China against the Chinese government because the Constitution applies to the U.S. government. It does not apply to the Chinese government.
As for U.S. agents working in China, they are restricted by the Constitution AS WELL as any restrictions the Chinese government places on them. So, they would need BOTH permission from China AND a warrant from a U.S. judge.
Kinda like when you were a kid. If Dad said no arcade and Mom said no R rated movies, you could do neither without consequences.
I'm referring to payouts over time. It is either possible for the PRNG to come up winner 3 times in a row and so the machine pays out 3 times (however unlikely) or there is further game logic that prevents that and so anyone playing after a jackpot is being defrauded since the result from the PRNG won't matter.
I'm betting (heh) that the same casinos that 'decide' the machine must be malfunctioning if it pays out twice in a row don't also 'decide' it's malfunctioning if it doesn't pay out in a few years.
In reality, it's more complicated, many machines do more frequent small payouts to keep people pumping the money in based on the false emotional belief that if it paid out $5 this time (on the 20th $1 pull), it may be getting ready to pay big.
But when applying statistics to randomness, any result is a possible result, some are just improbable. If a casino says this machine is paying off too often, so we're not going to honor that jackpot, they are defrauding the player. Likewise if there is game logic that decides there have been too many payouts and so turns a win into a loss programmatically in spite of the PRNG output. Those are quite distinct from the case where it pays out more than the posted rules have set as a max payout.
It seems to me that that is where they cross the line. Either the machine has actual randomness and so what it "should" pay out is governed by statistics, meaning that it can be expected to pay above the expected amount occasionally, or it is hard set to never pay out when it's at it's set limit and everyone who plays it for a chance to win is being actually defrauded since they have no actual chance of winning.
And that would be why I explicitly stated that you can still decompile it but it's a lot harder. There are tricks added to give decompilers fits (as I pointed out), but that's all they CAN do and have the code still run. Ultimately the code still has to be executable, so it still has to be understandable.
Here's a serious question. If we grant for the sake of argument an absolute right to search to make sure no contraband is brought in, wouldn't that be satisfied completely (with respect to the phone) if you perform a factory wipe? Poof, if there was any contraband, it's gone now, definitely no contraband entering the country there.
Sure, if the authorities had the unlimited right to search anything at any time, they'd probably catch people sooner if they break the law. Of course, if everyone was locked up at night and wore an ankle bracelet when they were let out to go to work in the morning, we could also cut crime way down.
But that's not the way the U.S. is supposed to work.
That's why I would like for the FTC to actually enforce truth in advertising. It's actually necessary if we are to have a functioning market economy. The lack of such enforcement is why the U.S. has so many unhealthy markets. In turn, that is one reason so many millennials have become skeptical of Capitalism.
If only you would read my posts as carefully as you read the binding agreements. I am talking about the *A*D*V*E*R*T*I*S*I*N*G*. You know, the part where they try to induce you to come in and buy stuff?
All they have to do to be honest is quit calling limited bandwidth unlimited.
Slashdot Mirror
That article you pointed to is a bit of a political hack. They lost me early when they held AOL up as an example. Had they done 5 minuted research, they would know that AOL bit the big one in spite of having a huge lead because too many other providers went with a 19.95 flat fee. They didn't even have the ability to be anything but net neutral. The going rate soon fell to $9.95.
We wouldn't need net neutrality regulations if it was still the case that an ISP wanting to create fast lanes and special packages like cable TV would have to face literally dozens of competitors who were willing to be neutral. But that's not the case today. Due to natural monopoly conditions, many people have exactly ONE broadband provider available. Most others have TWO at best.
If you don't want network neutrality as a regulation, you'll need to come up with some way to drastically expand competition in the face of natural monopoly. Perhaps socialize the last mile and let all comers connect to it to provide internet.
Fair queuing is perfectly compatible with net neutrality, and makes sure people streaming don't disrupt other customer's communications.
On the other hand, since you're not likely in a forest in the middle of nowhere, when you are providing power, you're taking load off of their infrastructure since the power can pretty much go up to the pole and back down to your neighbor's house.
Is it possible they just didn't like you?
Sure, but absent government, the same crony capitalists become feudal lords and kings instead.
I'm well aware of the definition, thank you. Now actually THINK about what I said and imagine what it could mean.
If the school's code actually said anything about it, then he might be up for detention or similar disciplinary action, but apparently, it does not.
He shouldn't be facing any sort of charges outside of school. He simply didn't do anything that fits the charge.
I'm pretty sure making an off-duty deputy wet his diaper isn't an actual charge.
Unregulated markets lead to the same dark place with a corrupt few in power. When government has no power, the crony capitalists become the new government unopposed.
And I'm alive right now, but honestly, I haven't a clue what's going on in Togo today.
I can look back on the '60s and with a now adult perspective, say yeah, that thing I remember was racist as hell, but that requires willing reflection on old memories that I'm told many don't even have.
Yours is a variation on no true Scotsman. If you use Sophistry to explain away all the deaths due to Capitalism, you don't get to count Mao's killings or Stalin's against Communism either. Those were about power, not economics.
The problem is STATE communism, STATE socialism, and STATE Capitalism.
The problem in the U.S. is that we're trending towards the latter of those. And no, privatize everything isn't a solution, that just makes the 'government' a figurehead and makes the capitalists the actual state.
Every day people die from poverty all over the world. Then there's the Korean and Vietnam wars, war in the Middle East (ongoing), Millions lead poisoned in the U.S. because profits outweighed everything, and all the people they killed due to lead damaged brains.
Can you find anything in the Bill of rights that specifies a geographic border to it's various prohibitions?
The Constitution has nothing to do with U.S. agents not being able to get a Warrant in China, that's a national sovereignty issue (in other words, a geographical restriction on the U.S. government's authority above and beyond the Constitutional restrictions). Likewise, you can't assert 4th Amendment rights in China against the Chinese government because the Constitution applies to the U.S. government. It does not apply to the Chinese government.
As for U.S. agents working in China, they are restricted by the Constitution AS WELL as any restrictions the Chinese government places on them. So, they would need BOTH permission from China AND a warrant from a U.S. judge.
Kinda like when you were a kid. If Dad said no arcade and Mom said no R rated movies, you could do neither without consequences.
THAT is something where they could lose in a lawsuit.
I'm referring to payouts over time. It is either possible for the PRNG to come up winner 3 times in a row and so the machine pays out 3 times (however unlikely) or there is further game logic that prevents that and so anyone playing after a jackpot is being defrauded since the result from the PRNG won't matter.
I'm betting (heh) that the same casinos that 'decide' the machine must be malfunctioning if it pays out twice in a row don't also 'decide' it's malfunctioning if it doesn't pay out in a few years.
In reality, it's more complicated, many machines do more frequent small payouts to keep people pumping the money in based on the false emotional belief that if it paid out $5 this time (on the 20th $1 pull), it may be getting ready to pay big.
But when applying statistics to randomness, any result is a possible result, some are just improbable. If a casino says this machine is paying off too often, so we're not going to honor that jackpot, they are defrauding the player. Likewise if there is game logic that decides there have been too many payouts and so turns a win into a loss programmatically in spite of the PRNG output. Those are quite distinct from the case where it pays out more than the posted rules have set as a max payout.
Actually they are. They're just at the not stupid end of the statistical spread of people at the table. That is they don't hit on 20, etc.
It seems to me that that is where they cross the line. Either the machine has actual randomness and so what it "should" pay out is governed by statistics, meaning that it can be expected to pay above the expected amount occasionally, or it is hard set to never pay out when it's at it's set limit and everyone who plays it for a chance to win is being actually defrauded since they have no actual chance of winning.
Since they are offering a prorated refund, no financial damage has been done and the suit would fail.
And that would be why I explicitly stated that you can still decompile it but it's a lot harder. There are tricks added to give decompilers fits (as I pointed out), but that's all they CAN do and have the code still run. Ultimately the code still has to be executable, so it still has to be understandable.
So you're saying people on medicare and medicaid go to special medicare hospitals run by the government?
Here's a serious question. If we grant for the sake of argument an absolute right to search to make sure no contraband is brought in, wouldn't that be satisfied completely (with respect to the phone) if you perform a factory wipe? Poof, if there was any contraband, it's gone now, definitely no contraband entering the country there.
The Constitution does not have a geographic limitation. It applies to the U.S. government wherever it or it's agents may be.
Sure, if the authorities had the unlimited right to search anything at any time, they'd probably catch people sooner if they break the law. Of course, if everyone was locked up at night and wore an ankle bracelet when they were let out to go to work in the morning, we could also cut crime way down.
But that's not the way the U.S. is supposed to work.
That's why I would like for the FTC to actually enforce truth in advertising. It's actually necessary if we are to have a functioning market economy. The lack of such enforcement is why the U.S. has so many unhealthy markets. In turn, that is one reason so many millennials have become skeptical of Capitalism.
If only you would read my posts as carefully as you read the binding agreements. I am talking about the *A*D*V*E*R*T*I*S*I*N*G*. You know, the part where they try to induce you to come in and buy stuff?
All they have to do to be honest is quit calling limited bandwidth unlimited.