Except that a blinking LED is functionally indistinguishable from a broadcast antenna anyway. The only difference is that the light from a broadcast antenna goes through most solid materials, and that really isn't that important of a difference.
So, I don't understand why broadcast antennae need to be regulated differently from blinking LEDs. Given current technology a receiver that could distinguish between 5 or 6 different broadcasters in the same frequency range isn't that hard. And your scheme disincents the creation of receivers that are capable of doing this.
I don't think that ownership of a color is a reasonable thing.
If the Democrats are really interested in media no longer representing narrow corporate interests they will instead support policies encouraging the democratization of media.
Stop treating spectrum as property and open up a range of spectrum that ordinary TV receivers can receive that is completely unregulated by the FCC at all.
Support net neutrality, or municipalities owning their own network infrastructure, or both.
Loosening copyright law so someone who's producing a documentary doesn't have to get a copyright holder's permission to show a poster that happens to be hanging in the dorm room of a student being interviewed.
Any or all of these would do far more to encourage varied viewpoints in mainstream media than any kind of stupid mandate for 'fairness'. All that does is make sure both mainstream clubs get their say instead of random citizens with their many and varied viewpoints. There are generally far more than two sides to any issue.
The Democrats aren't miffed about corporate centralized control of media, and any protestations to the contrary are shown to be complete hypocrisy by things like the fairness doctrine. They're only miffed that this centralized control has tended to exclude them.
As I understand things, there is sufficient competition in cross-country networks. So a municipality should have a choice of backbone providers to connect to.
Why is it that suddenly people are working out ways to mention Dawkins in as many articles as they can that have little if nothing to do with him? Are we playing a six-degrees-to-Richard-Dawkins game here?
As others have pointed out, it's because Richard Dawkins has sort of started to become popular. So I think it's because many more people have taken the time to become familiar with him and things he's written. So when you're one of these people and your mind is looking for a handy reference Richard Dawkins springs more easily to mind.
The same could be said about people. Whether you are good or evil depends on your actions and their results, not some mystical spirit force. Since corporations are capable of carrying out actions that have results, they can be good or evil.
The web needs some scheme for content based addressing. Like the urn:sha1 scheme used in gnutella. This (and some sort of reasonable caching scheme) would do a lot to alleviate problems like this. It could also help a lot with the Slashdot effect.
LONG LIVE FREEDOM, AS LONG AS WE OWN ALL OF IT!!!!:)
I know.:-( I've noticed this as well. I don't understand. That way lies a whole host of evil things. I don't really want a recapitulation of the feudal age with modern corporations as the lords.
"Because the world is not perfect, and there are always extenuating circumstances that can not be covered by codified rules, we must then use a system of enforcment that can artifcialy create this via imperfection".?
That's basically it. Except... it's not possible to create a perfect set of codified rules, even if you're god. It's not just so difficult as to be beyond us limited humans, it's mathematically impossible, like having a circle who's circumference and radius were not related by pi.
Copyright is supposed to be imperfect and leaky. I do not want a scheme for perfectly enforcing it via architecture.
This goes for most laws. The difficulty of enforcing laws is what keeps a lot of laws from being horribly onerous burdens rather than simply being annoying inconveniences. I'm against any scheme for perfectly enforcing laws. Laws should always be tempered by human understanding.
I think Godels incompleteness theorem applies here. Laws are like a system of axioms. You cannot make a system of axioms that can in all cases separate behavior you want from behavior you don't. So making that system of axioms be enforced by the architecture is inevitably going to prevent behaviors that you don't want to prevent.
I actually think that barriers to entry is the most important factor, but that we currently do better than many places in this regard. I believe that factor is what plagues many central and south american economies. I think it's also a problem for some european economies, and is the real evil of feudalism.
But I do think steepness is also an important measure of economic health. It is a strong indicator of how robust your economy is to change. The more centralized you are, the easier it is for some small change that hurts a particular individual or company to send your economy into a death spiral.
I also think that you are correct and that the income disparity represented by steepness is an indicator that parts of society are not benefitting as they should from capitalism.
That graph is structured in such a way that it won't tell me a lot. I would like the person who constructed it to show graphs for other countries. I bet they look nearly identical. The few outliers with a really high income dwarf everybody else.
I would like to see that graph plotted on a log/log chart with the bottom axis being "number of people in this thousand dollar wide income bracket" and the left axis being "income". I would then like our economy compared to others on that graph.
After reading Linked I've come to the conclusion that having a power law curve (the thing that gives you the 80-20 rule) is inevitable in any economy. There are only two questions to be answered.
First, how steep is that curve? Do you have excessive centralization. I think, but do not know, that the US's curve has been getting steeper over the years. This is likely not good.
Secondly, how easy is it to begin acquiring links because you're more attractive for whatever reason? This is where things that make it expensive for small businesses to start, compete or generally raise barriers to entry come in.
Personally, I think we ought to revisit a lot of laws we have concerning monopolistic behavior and financial transactions and tweak them using insights from that book. That book demonstrates through numerous examples that there are a set of powerful laws governing almost all networks that grow organically. Even the network of which molecules interact with which molecules in cells has characteristics that are similar to the network of hypertext links on webpages, which has characteristics that are similar to the food web.
Although it might be appropriate to start lobbying Apple, it's probably too early to panic or get upset (as many seem to be doing). What Mr. Jobs actually said isn't entirely unreasonable. It seems to leave the door open for 3rd party apps, but in a less chaotic environment than you see on the PC/Mac. Seems like it might be a reasonable strategy that won't lock out 3rd party developers.
Riiiight. So if you write a nice program to do opportunistic VOIP via 802.11 so you don't have to use the cell carrier's network most of the time it's going to get approved? I don't think so.
And AT&T didn't want to see their network go down because someone connected an evil non-AT&T phone to it.
The proper translation of this statement of course is "We don't want anybody do be able to do anything on our network unless we're making money from it apart from the fee we charge for the bandwidth."
Stupid telecom companies will never learn. They don't want to create a free market of any kind. Anytime they make any protest involving having a free market, they're being rank hypocrites.
Well he and his wife cooperated in tracking it down because they both noticed and were annoyed by it. So, aside from the fact that I suspect you're being sarcastic, I'd have to agree with you. A great start.:-)
That's my solution as well. I've looked into OpenVPN, but it looks quite complicated to set up in comparison. Of course most browsers do not route their DNS queries through SOCKS despite the fact that SOCKS5 can do that. So the hotel's DNS server can still get an idea of where you're going.
If they walk out the door the business is as good as dead anyway. The only thing you gain by holding the patent is the ability to make it hard for a new one from starting up in the same space.
I suspect that this is an error, and that the real value lies in the expertise and ability of the lone inventor or small company to create the technology in question. It's really interesting how business shies away from valuing people and expertise over some sort of even very nebulous, intangible and somewhat imaginary asset. I think there are some powerful blinders in operation somewhere.
Even though I am one of those pinko liberals this is one point I've got to give to the right. Any proposed solution that involves hurting the economies of the nations with resources to actually deal with the problem is not the answer. As many others have pointed out, global warming is a fact and it is going to take a lot of money and knowledge to survive it. Simply cutting back on emissions is not going to solve anything.
Well, the truth is that cutting back on CO2 emissions will almost certainly help the economy in the long run, not hurt it. Reducing dependence on oil helps the economy by removing dependence on a volatile commodity who's price is increasing as it becomes scarcers, and reducing our dependence makes it easier for us to ignore the Middle East. Reducing emissions almost always involves increasing efficiency which results in lower costs.
The problem is that it requires large investments for long-term gain. The forces we've set up in our capitalist system strongly discourage that kind of investing. Companies care how they do from quarter to quarter far more than they care about how they do from year to year even.
That's an interesting takeaway from that movie. Me, I was more struck by the graph of historical atmospheric CO2 levels vs. average temperature and the graph of projected CO2 levels. But different people bring different things to that movie and likely take different things away. I'm guessing you wanted to find reasons to hate Al Gore. Me, I was looking for solid evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels were really an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a blinking LED is functionally indistinguishable from a broadcast antenna anyway. The only difference is that the light from a broadcast antenna goes through most solid materials, and that really isn't that important of a difference.
So, I don't understand why broadcast antennae need to be regulated differently from blinking LEDs. Given current technology a receiver that could distinguish between 5 or 6 different broadcasters in the same frequency range isn't that hard. And your scheme disincents the creation of receivers that are capable of doing this.
I don't think that ownership of a color is a reasonable thing.
If the Democrats are really interested in media no longer representing narrow corporate interests they will instead support policies encouraging the democratization of media.
Any or all of these would do far more to encourage varied viewpoints in mainstream media than any kind of stupid mandate for 'fairness'. All that does is make sure both mainstream clubs get their say instead of random citizens with their many and varied viewpoints. There are generally far more than two sides to any issue.
The Democrats aren't miffed about corporate centralized control of media, and any protestations to the contrary are shown to be complete hypocrisy by things like the fairness doctrine. They're only miffed that this centralized control has tended to exclude them.
As I understand things, there is sufficient competition in cross-country networks. So a municipality should have a choice of backbone providers to connect to.
As others have pointed out, it's because Richard Dawkins has sort of started to become popular. So I think it's because many more people have taken the time to become familiar with him and things he's written. So when you're one of these people and your mind is looking for a handy reference Richard Dawkins springs more easily to mind.
The same could be said about people. Whether you are good or evil depends on your actions and their results, not some mystical spirit force. Since corporations are capable of carrying out actions that have results, they can be good or evil.
What? You expect RedHat to actually use this? I don't know what planet you're from, but you're not from mine.
The web needs some scheme for content based addressing. Like the urn:sha1 scheme used in gnutella. This (and some sort of reasonable caching scheme) would do a lot to alleviate problems like this. It could also help a lot with the Slashdot effect.
I know. :-( I've noticed this as well. I don't understand. That way lies a whole host of evil things. I don't really want a recapitulation of the feudal age with modern corporations as the lords.
Well, I agree with this. But I don't think having machines perfectly apply the laws is the answer. :-)
That's basically it. Except... it's not possible to create a perfect set of codified rules, even if you're god. It's not just so difficult as to be beyond us limited humans, it's mathematically impossible, like having a circle who's circumference and radius were not related by pi.
That is an excellent paraphrase, and I should've used it. But it's of a somewhat narrower scope than my argument.
Copyright is supposed to be imperfect and leaky. I do not want a scheme for perfectly enforcing it via architecture.
This goes for most laws. The difficulty of enforcing laws is what keeps a lot of laws from being horribly onerous burdens rather than simply being annoying inconveniences. I'm against any scheme for perfectly enforcing laws. Laws should always be tempered by human understanding.
I think Godels incompleteness theorem applies here. Laws are like a system of axioms. You cannot make a system of axioms that can in all cases separate behavior you want from behavior you don't. So making that system of axioms be enforced by the architecture is inevitably going to prevent behaviors that you don't want to prevent.
I actually think that barriers to entry is the most important factor, but that we currently do better than many places in this regard. I believe that factor is what plagues many central and south american economies. I think it's also a problem for some european economies, and is the real evil of feudalism.
But I do think steepness is also an important measure of economic health. It is a strong indicator of how robust your economy is to change. The more centralized you are, the easier it is for some small change that hurts a particular individual or company to send your economy into a death spiral.
I also think that you are correct and that the income disparity represented by steepness is an indicator that parts of society are not benefitting as they should from capitalism.
That graph is structured in such a way that it won't tell me a lot. I would like the person who constructed it to show graphs for other countries. I bet they look nearly identical. The few outliers with a really high income dwarf everybody else.
I would like to see that graph plotted on a log/log chart with the bottom axis being "number of people in this thousand dollar wide income bracket" and the left axis being "income". I would then like our economy compared to others on that graph.
After reading Linked I've come to the conclusion that having a power law curve (the thing that gives you the 80-20 rule) is inevitable in any economy. There are only two questions to be answered.
First, how steep is that curve? Do you have excessive centralization. I think, but do not know, that the US's curve has been getting steeper over the years. This is likely not good.
Secondly, how easy is it to begin acquiring links because you're more attractive for whatever reason? This is where things that make it expensive for small businesses to start, compete or generally raise barriers to entry come in.
Personally, I think we ought to revisit a lot of laws we have concerning monopolistic behavior and financial transactions and tweak them using insights from that book. That book demonstrates through numerous examples that there are a set of powerful laws governing almost all networks that grow organically. Even the network of which molecules interact with which molecules in cells has characteristics that are similar to the network of hypertext links on webpages, which has characteristics that are similar to the food web.
Riiiight. So if you write a nice program to do opportunistic VOIP via 802.11 so you don't have to use the cell carrier's network most of the time it's going to get approved? I don't think so.
What does this have to do with being homosexual or happy and joyful? I don't understand.
And AT&T didn't want to see their network go down because someone connected an evil non-AT&T phone to it.
The proper translation of this statement of course is "We don't want anybody do be able to do anything on our network unless we're making money from it apart from the fee we charge for the bandwidth."
Stupid telecom companies will never learn. They don't want to create a free market of any kind. Anytime they make any protest involving having a free market, they're being rank hypocrites.
Well he and his wife cooperated in tracking it down because they both noticed and were annoyed by it. So, aside from the fact that I suspect you're being sarcastic, I'd have to agree with you. A great start. :-)
That's my solution as well. I've looked into OpenVPN, but it looks quite complicated to set up in comparison. Of course most browsers do not route their DNS queries through SOCKS despite the fact that SOCKS5 can do that. So the hotel's DNS server can still get an idea of where you're going.
That makes sense. And there the patent is serving as sort of a more enforceable non-compete clause. Hmmm....
If they walk out the door the business is as good as dead anyway. The only thing you gain by holding the patent is the ability to make it hard for a new one from starting up in the same space.
I suspect that this is an error, and that the real value lies in the expertise and ability of the lone inventor or small company to create the technology in question. It's really interesting how business shies away from valuing people and expertise over some sort of even very nebulous, intangible and somewhat imaginary asset. I think there are some powerful blinders in operation somewhere.
Well, the truth is that cutting back on CO2 emissions will almost certainly help the economy in the long run, not hurt it. Reducing dependence on oil helps the economy by removing dependence on a volatile commodity who's price is increasing as it becomes scarcers, and reducing our dependence makes it easier for us to ignore the Middle East. Reducing emissions almost always involves increasing efficiency which results in lower costs.
The problem is that it requires large investments for long-term gain. The forces we've set up in our capitalist system strongly discourage that kind of investing. Companies care how they do from quarter to quarter far more than they care about how they do from year to year even.
That's an interesting takeaway from that movie. Me, I was more struck by the graph of historical atmospheric CO2 levels vs. average temperature and the graph of projected CO2 levels. But different people bring different things to that movie and likely take different things away. I'm guessing you wanted to find reasons to hate Al Gore. Me, I was looking for solid evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels were really an issue.