Common carrier is not something you can call yourself with impunity. You must ACT as one. Do you filter your network traffic, and offer your network (and not just wireless) to anyone as you please?
Suppose the movie theatre lets people who choose not to pay into a place to watch the movie. They have to stand for the whole length of the movie. Illegal?
I'm willing to bet with you that lots of people in 3rd world countries do that. Should it be illegal?
Again, no, because it's limited to his private circle of friends (as many as can fit in his living room). If he retransmitted it to everyone else's house in his city, IMHO it'd be stealing.
How private is private? The guy down the road owns a personal entertainment center. The whole town (200 people - it's a small town) likes to go there for a weekly party to watch his Pay-Per-View. They pay him a little every week for the favor by letting him eat at the local restaurant for free. Illegal?
Imagine walking down a supermarket aisle and hearing a chime as you pass the peanut butter letting you know it's on sale.
This is a silly idea - why would a chime tell me that the peanut butter is on sale. Let me consult the local SF writer and tell you how useless this would be:
Thousands and ringing chimes all over the place, from telephones to toilet buzzers, and queue whiners, radio static. What a bloody noisy place the supermarket of the future is!
Suppose we work out this detail. Let's carry on. So what is on sale on the shelf? It is the Planter's peanut butter. NO wait it's the goober's peanut butter. It's the peanut butter jelly. How would I know what gives a chime? Maybe I'll walk back and forth with the cart, figuring it all out.
And suppose we get past that and find the right item that's on sale. Is it really a sale, or is it just a marketing gimmick?
Actually, I am also Chinese, and I can say that is valid way to parse that word couplet. It also impresses upon one the right attitude, and may be more literally apt for the point he is making.
Cut the guy some slack willya?
It's a question of limits
on
Science Askew
·
· Score: 2
The Web, although large, is not infinite. So it has an infimum. As we all know, the infimum need not be a minimum.
(It's not entirely technically correct, but that's not the point of the joke.)
Well yes, but your opinion is not the direction in which we are going. Since the system is corrupt and there are tons of kickbacks everywhere, I say your alternative is less tenable then my quid pro quo alternative. I don't disagree with your ideals, but you should realize that your ideals are not going to be realized anytime soon, and in this environment, the quid pro quo guys who demand their share are your friends, at least for now.
Now is the time for us to be not be arguing such ideals, but to provide a balance against them.
Is that a rhetorical question? I have many arguments for why my tax dollars should be paying for these, especially since a large portion of that goes not towards it but some politician's kickbacks. If they want $X, then I want my $Y. Why don't you produce an argument about why $Y should go but $X should not, rather use a rhetorical device to fund crapola?
I am sorry, but in the real world, Calvin Klein would spend $1 million, which is about 1 percent of his net worth to negotiate and get the other guy to change his business name. There, problem solved.
There should not be any general principle about who should win the case. Real businessmen know how to work around such problems. It's the idiots like you that should leave the game and be a janitor or soemthing. As if every and any ambiguity in the law should be clarified with a rule. Ridiculous.
Re:The "philosophy of science" involves fakery?
on
Cheating at Seti@home
·
· Score: 2
Cold fusion and SETI are not the same thing. There is a wide body of firm evidence against cold fusion. There is no firm body evidence against aliens. Well actually there is - data from the initial SETI efforts itself. Are you then of the opinion that the question is answered in the negative and we should forget it? Is this it? First you critique it for not being sucessful, then you critique it for not being science. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it. It either was an honest but failed attempt to find something, or it was not a good attempt at all. What was it?
I say the methodology was clear and (GASP!) BENEFITTED astronomy. It was not wasted, but the science based on the Drake Equation is weak. Yes. Big deal - lots of science starts out that way.
The real problem with spam is that it is a waste of bandwidth. How much do you think it costs to receive email? Think about that, and the problems that system administrators have to deal with.
You might not see the problem, but that's becuase spammers have a bad reputation. This is why I do not like this article - when spammers do have a good reputation and anyone thinks nothing about sending email, what will you will have, is useless ineffective computers.
Bottom line is this: sending email costs the sender a fixed flat, neglible cost. Receiving email is a sunken cost of wiring up computers, paying for system admins or software to set it up. The rewards of this system lies in maximizing the gain associated with having good quality, desired email. If you let the noise in, you only stand to lose.
There - I've just phrased the argument succinctly in the businessspeak of cost-benefit-analysis for all managers and businessmen out there.
Not convinced? Must we actually wait until there is a real problem of one having to sift through junkmail, missing out on your time and business opportunity, before you can act?
So although, spam may never be wpied out totally, but efforts towards that are GOOD. Taking "the spam can be good" is the WRONG attitude.
But the reason why you'd break his legs, is because he tried to turn the argument on its head, making the supplier into the consumer. Not because of anything wrong with the argument, but because the argument was inappropriately applied.
Your anger, I believe, is misguided. You should learn a little bit about the philosophy of science. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. You seem to be firmly convinced that we are not in a position to know anything about whether aliens are in the sky. I can see and agree with this. But regardless of our knowledge of this, there is a definite YES or NO answer to this question, once one is commmited to a clear definition of what life is and the scope of our search. Mankind might take a very long time to answer that question, a length of time, which I, conservatively guess to be longer than our lives. This kind of long range endeavour should be given a kind of respect, given that we as humans invest so little of our energies to RATIONALLY answering long-term questions. Look around you - how much human effort is there expended into such thing? Why stamp them out, if you aren't even willing to stamp out clear fraudsters like BlackLight Energy?
In that case, I too helped the revolution along by being interested enough to upgrade PC's, then learn programming using MS Tools. Me and MS were in this together for a long while, until I got into Linux. Should not the government look out for me, now that MS has demostrated a willingness to screw with the options I, as a consumer, have?
It is not the choice of words I am protesting. I am addressing the one-sided nature of the argument made.
Microsoft helped spread technology? How about Intel, Lotus, and Novell? Let's attribute all the last 20 years of computer innovation to Microsoft and forget about the rest of the other companies.
Ascendent star, what you are?/One amongst many from places far!
You contradict yourself. First of all, if this is an issue of terminology then why object to what people call a universe or multiverse. As long as you know how the bird walks, swims and flies, then what does it matter if people choose to call it a duck or a bird. So we have a universe within a multiverse and that's how they spawned off one another... The understanding is in these relationships, and not the word choice.
Considering that he misread Mietszche, there's nothing admirable about his philosophy. Better instead that you go to read his source, than admire the Failed Corporal.
But the mature way to argue points is to stay on the topic and debate them.
Excuse me - why are you straying off topic? The issue is Richard's credibility, so why are talking about "immaturity"? Sure maturity can often be a sign of credibility, but that generalization is only statistical fact.
Consider Feigenbaum in the field of philosophy of science.
Consider Einstein's immature invocation of "God's" name in science.
Do you really want to debate the issue of maturity and credibility? Or would you prefer to stick to Richard's credibilty as an advocate of freedom? Because as an advocate of freedom, Richard is eminently qualified, whatever you stand on "immaturity" is.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what you mean is that only they can see their own, as well as followups to their own post.
Common carrier is not something you can call yourself with impunity. You must ACT as one. Do you filter your network traffic, and offer your network (and not just wireless) to anyone as you please?
OK - I am calling you out. Show me where it says Ghandi was Islamic?
Let me guess - you haven't any real experience with bulls, Professors, football teams or cheerleaders, right?
I'm willing to bet with you that lots of people in 3rd world countries do that. Should it be illegal?
Actually, Word is a clone of Lotus AmiPro.
This is a silly idea - why would a chime tell me that the peanut butter is on sale. Let me consult the local SF writer and tell you how useless this would be:
Cut the guy some slack willya?
(It's not entirely technically correct, but that's not the point of the joke.)
Now is the time for us to be not be arguing such ideals, but to provide a balance against them.
Is that a rhetorical question? I have many arguments for why my tax dollars should be paying for these, especially since a large portion of that goes not towards it but some politician's kickbacks. If they want $X, then I want my $Y. Why don't you produce an argument about why $Y should go but $X should not, rather use a rhetorical device to fund crapola?
There should not be any general principle about who should win the case. Real businessmen know how to work around such problems. It's the idiots like you that should leave the game and be a janitor or soemthing. As if every and any ambiguity in the law should be clarified with a rule. Ridiculous.
I say the methodology was clear and (GASP!) BENEFITTED astronomy. It was not wasted, but the science based on the Drake Equation is weak. Yes. Big deal - lots of science starts out that way.
You might not see the problem, but that's becuase spammers have a bad reputation. This is why I do not like this article - when spammers do have a good reputation and anyone thinks nothing about sending email, what will you will have, is useless ineffective computers.
Bottom line is this: sending email costs the sender a fixed flat, neglible cost. Receiving email is a sunken cost of wiring up computers, paying for system admins or software to set it up. The rewards of this system lies in maximizing the gain associated with having good quality, desired email. If you let the noise in, you only stand to lose.
There - I've just phrased the argument succinctly in the businessspeak of cost-benefit-analysis for all managers and businessmen out there.
Not convinced? Must we actually wait until there is a real problem of one having to sift through junkmail, missing out on your time and business opportunity, before you can act?
So although, spam may never be wpied out totally, but efforts towards that are GOOD. Taking "the spam can be good" is the WRONG attitude.
But the reason why you'd break his legs, is because he tried to turn the argument on its head, making the supplier into the consumer. Not because of anything wrong with the argument, but because the argument was inappropriately applied.
That's not true. Consider how inflation solves inadequacies of the big bang.
Your anger, I believe, is misguided. You should learn a little bit about the philosophy of science. There is a difference between ontology and epistemology. You seem to be firmly convinced that we are not in a position to know anything about whether aliens are in the sky. I can see and agree with this. But regardless of our knowledge of this, there is a definite YES or NO answer to this question, once one is commmited to a clear definition of what life is and the scope of our search. Mankind might take a very long time to answer that question, a length of time, which I, conservatively guess to be longer than our lives.
This kind of long range endeavour should be given a kind of respect, given that we as humans invest so little of our energies to RATIONALLY answering long-term questions. Look around you - how much human effort is there expended into such thing? Why stamp them out, if you aren't even willing to stamp out clear fraudsters like BlackLight Energy?
I would say that IE became comparable to Netscape 4.77 features wise at about IE4.0. When was this? I don't know. 1998?
It is not the choice of words I am protesting. I am addressing the one-sided nature of the argument made.
Ascendent star, what you are?/One amongst many from places far!
-- from "The Songs of Aulerka"
You contradict yourself. First of all, if this is an issue of terminology then why object to what people call a universe or multiverse. As long as you know how the bird walks, swims and flies, then what does it matter if people choose to call it a duck or a bird. So we have a universe within a multiverse and that's how they spawned off one another ... The understanding is in these relationships, and not the word choice.
Will you be here all week?
Here's another tip - that wasn't an academic paper. It's Larry bullshitting, having a laugh at all those who take him too seriously.
Considering that he misread Mietszche, there's nothing admirable about his philosophy. Better instead that you go to read his source, than admire the Failed Corporal.
Excuse me - why are you straying off topic? The issue is Richard's credibility, so why are talking about "immaturity"? Sure maturity can often be a sign of credibility, but that generalization is only statistical fact.
Consider Feigenbaum in the field of philosophy of science.
Consider Einstein's immature invocation of "God's" name in science.
Do you really want to debate the issue of maturity and credibility? Or would you prefer to stick to Richard's credibilty as an advocate of freedom? Because as an advocate of freedom, Richard is eminently qualified, whatever you stand on "immaturity" is.