The supply was already scarce due to the supply chain being broken (most ports closed, roads impassable) and widespread demand
If the price goes up, that provides a massive incentive for suppliers to find alternate routes, including routes that wouldn't be economical under normal prices, or fix existing routes quickly. When the road's blocked, it becomes worthwhile to put in the labor to clear the road yourself because there's a payout waiting for you. If you can't charge anything extra, maybe you wait for the government to come in and clear the road, which could take days or weeks.
It's not as if we have a shortage of online content. The supply has actually increased tremendously and thus the effective market price of any individual piece has gone down. That sucks for the content producers, because their business is less profitable than it used to be, but no one said they were entitled to a certain level of profit. If they want to make more money, it's up to them to figure out how, preferably by innovating and contributing something new to society rather than rent-seeking.
No, this just means you (and/or the people you work with) are using tabs in the wrong way.
Which is inevitable in a team of any significant size. People aren't aware of the distinction, they have their editors set incorrectly, or they're just "rebels" who refuse to conform to what The Man tells them to do. You're going to end up with code that only looks right with one tab setting or the other anyway, sometimes mixed together in the same file. The only enforceable standard is just to ban tabs altogether, which can be an automated check at submit time.
The use case is obviously something like Fukushima, responding to an industrial accident no one was expecting. Even if you can deliver a self-driving car to the site, it might not be useful in the particular environment you're facing. Odds are, you're going to have to cope with the equipment that's already on site, which is primarily designed for humans.
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now
You underestimate both the incompetence and the malice of politicians. They can find a way to make it worse. And they'll sell it to you as "reform" because you don't care what it is as long as it's different.
I would jump at the chance to use even the *WORST* "IRV" solution over what we currently use.
Don't you think that's a problem? As bad as plurality voting is, it's always possible to make things worse, so maybe we'd better talk to some statisticians and subject matter experts before we jump at anything.
Millions of years of evolution have figured out the most efficient way to balance survival, intelligence, and metabolic conservation.
It's just not the case that evolution always leads to an optimal design. Evolution has a tendency to get stuck on "pretty good" solutions because some random decision early on limited the future solution space.
It's also not true that evolution is somehow finished with humans, having already figured out how to squeeze every ounce of efficiency from our brains. We are not the end product of evolution. For all we know, future generations may have more efficient brains than we have.
Even if you have enough bandwidth, it's still a waste to download the entirety of Wikipedia when you only need one or two articles at a given time. In your hypothetical world where bandwidth is so cheap that you can afford to download the whole Internet constantly, you'd be constantly deleting massive amounts of stale data that you downloaded and never looked at before it got superseded by newer data.
Besides, while we may have more bandwidth in the future, there will be more data in the future too. Bandwidth will probably never grow fast enough to catch up. Cheaper bandwidth will also allow people to share more data, making the problem even worse.
So why does the store's supplier give them a price break at 1,000 units, 10,000 units, 100,000 units, etc.? Large sales reduce transaction costs and mitigate risk. Would you rather sell $5,000 worth of fruit to one person or spend all day at the farmer's market hoping to sell $5 worth of fruit to 1,000 people?
If you've ever purchased anything for a business, you know this is the standard, not the exception. Excuse me if I don't believe that the music industry, that paragon of clear thinking and fair dealing, is the only sane business out there.
Furthermore, your revenues should also scale linearly with the number of listeners if you have a sane business model.
What are you talking about? Very few prices scale linearly with quantity. It's far more common to for the unit price to go down with quantity. At the grocery store, you can buy one piece of fruit for a dollar or five for four dollars. Buy a truckload of fruit and you'll get an even better rate. Is the business model of selling fruit "insane"?
The US dollar is the only currency you can pay US taxes with and the only currency the US government issues debt in, so as long as the US government exists, there is a guaranteed demand for US dollars.
I know, I know, "But the US is about to implode any day now!" And if it does, the entire world economy will go with it. BitCoin depends on the Internet and the Internet depends on a functioning economy. BitCoins won't do you any good if your ISP and your power company are bankrupt.
So in any realistic scenario where BitCoins have value, so does the US dollar. However, it's entirely plausible that BitCoin will fail but not the dollar. Congress could prevent law-abiding businesses from dealing in BitCoins, shutting down the major exchanges and effectively isolating BitCoin from the traditional financial system. The illicit market would still exist, so you'd still be able to convert cash to BitCoins to buy drugs with... but most people will just buy drugs with the cash directly.
I would have thought that, within the bounds of the law, their webserver, it's their prerogative to host what they want / construct their site how they want?
They can structure the files on their webserver however they want, but once they send those files to me, it's my prerogative to decide how (or if) I wish to render those files for display. If I hate your color scheme and want to replace it with a custom style sheet, I won't use your style sheet. If I use a text-only browser, because I'm blind or because I'm on a terminal, I may not even request the images that your HTML file links to. If I'm running a spider program that trawls the web collecting statistics on web design trends, your page might never be rendered for human viewing at all.
Option #3: The kid has a severe psychiatric disorder and fixated on a family friend when it just as easily could have been Jodie Foster or Gabrielle Giffords.
Education does not have a pure application, in the same sense that abstract mathematics and partical physics don't have pure applications. In fact, it should not.
Often you need to learn the practical before you can get to the abstract. If this class didn't teach them how to use Microsoft Office, the job would fall on the first teacher who asked them to write an essay, taking time out of a more important class.
In the very first sentence of my post, I said it should be covered under fair use, even if the law says otherwise. I'm no lawyer and neither is the poster you linked to.
The bottom line is that this guy is trying to use copyright to stop speech he doesn't agree with. (Speech I disagree with as well.) If the law says he can get away with it, that's great for him, but that means there's a larger problem with the law itself.
Honestly, if it's not covered by fair use under the law, it should be. They provide proper attribution (although the OP would rather they didn't) and there's more to it than just redoing the audio. It has the basic structure of a news segment on the video. Surely the OP wouldn't mind if the BBC made a similar video with different commentary.
Clearly the objection is about who made the video and what they're saying with it, not copyright. In that case, the proper response is to not to prevent their speech, but to use your own speech to criticize it.
Markets aren't perfect, but efficiently allocating scarce resources is one thing they do well. When you have a quasi-governmental body decide who should get IPs, you end up with situations like this, where people need them can't get them and people who have them don't need them.
Exchanges, wallets, and businesses that accept BitCoin as payment can all be forced to migrate to some "BitCoin+", which ties transactions to a traceable personal identifier. The old network may still exist, but its utility for making significant financial transactions would be crippled.
It takes much longer than a month to develop a phone. The CeBit 2006 video in that article shows a preproduction F700 with substantially the same hardware as the final version.
It's the GP's analogy. If you think it's stupid, take it up with him/her.
Blaming Wikipedia for the world's focus on athletes over academics is like blaming paper for the words that are printed on it. You can try to change Wikipedia's policies all you want, but it won't make news organizations interview more academics or fewer athletes.
Slashdot Mirror
The supply was already scarce due to the supply chain being broken (most ports closed, roads impassable) and widespread demand
If the price goes up, that provides a massive incentive for suppliers to find alternate routes, including routes that wouldn't be economical under normal prices, or fix existing routes quickly. When the road's blocked, it becomes worthwhile to put in the labor to clear the road yourself because there's a payout waiting for you. If you can't charge anything extra, maybe you wait for the government to come in and clear the road, which could take days or weeks.
It's not as if we have a shortage of online content. The supply has actually increased tremendously and thus the effective market price of any individual piece has gone down. That sucks for the content producers, because their business is less profitable than it used to be, but no one said they were entitled to a certain level of profit. If they want to make more money, it's up to them to figure out how, preferably by innovating and contributing something new to society rather than rent-seeking.
No, this just means you (and/or the people you work with) are using tabs in the wrong way.
Which is inevitable in a team of any significant size. People aren't aware of the distinction, they have their editors set incorrectly, or they're just "rebels" who refuse to conform to what The Man tells them to do. You're going to end up with code that only looks right with one tab setting or the other anyway, sometimes mixed together in the same file. The only enforceable standard is just to ban tabs altogether, which can be an automated check at submit time.
The use case is obviously something like Fukushima, responding to an industrial accident no one was expecting. Even if you can deliver a self-driving car to the site, it might not be useful in the particular environment you're facing. Odds are, you're going to have to cope with the equipment that's already on site, which is primarily designed for humans.
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now
You underestimate both the incompetence and the malice of politicians. They can find a way to make it worse. And they'll sell it to you as "reform" because you don't care what it is as long as it's different.
I would jump at the chance to use even the *WORST* "IRV" solution over what we currently use.
Don't you think that's a problem? As bad as plurality voting is, it's always possible to make things worse, so maybe we'd better talk to some statisticians and subject matter experts before we jump at anything.
Millions of years of evolution have figured out the most efficient way to balance survival, intelligence, and metabolic conservation.
It's just not the case that evolution always leads to an optimal design. Evolution has a tendency to get stuck on "pretty good" solutions because some random decision early on limited the future solution space.
It's also not true that evolution is somehow finished with humans, having already figured out how to squeeze every ounce of efficiency from our brains. We are not the end product of evolution. For all we know, future generations may have more efficient brains than we have.
This hardware at this price running Linux
It is hardware running Linux. You can even install Ubuntu if you want.
Even if you have enough bandwidth, it's still a waste to download the entirety of Wikipedia when you only need one or two articles at a given time. In your hypothetical world where bandwidth is so cheap that you can afford to download the whole Internet constantly, you'd be constantly deleting massive amounts of stale data that you downloaded and never looked at before it got superseded by newer data.
Besides, while we may have more bandwidth in the future, there will be more data in the future too. Bandwidth will probably never grow fast enough to catch up. Cheaper bandwidth will also allow people to share more data, making the problem even worse.
You can download a copy of Wikipedia to your PC, but nobody does.
So why does the store's supplier give them a price break at 1,000 units, 10,000 units, 100,000 units, etc.? Large sales reduce transaction costs and mitigate risk. Would you rather sell $5,000 worth of fruit to one person or spend all day at the farmer's market hoping to sell $5 worth of fruit to 1,000 people?
If you've ever purchased anything for a business, you know this is the standard, not the exception. Excuse me if I don't believe that the music industry, that paragon of clear thinking and fair dealing, is the only sane business out there.
If you told the young Aubrey Drake Graham that someday he'd be making "only" $1 million a year as a musician, he'd probably be thrilled.
Furthermore, your revenues should also scale linearly with the number of listeners if you have a sane business model.
What are you talking about? Very few prices scale linearly with quantity. It's far more common to for the unit price to go down with quantity. At the grocery store, you can buy one piece of fruit for a dollar or five for four dollars. Buy a truckload of fruit and you'll get an even better rate. Is the business model of selling fruit "insane"?
H-T-T-P colon slash slash slash dot dot org
The US dollar is the only currency you can pay US taxes with and the only currency the US government issues debt in, so as long as the US government exists, there is a guaranteed demand for US dollars.
I know, I know, "But the US is about to implode any day now!" And if it does, the entire world economy will go with it. BitCoin depends on the Internet and the Internet depends on a functioning economy. BitCoins won't do you any good if your ISP and your power company are bankrupt.
So in any realistic scenario where BitCoins have value, so does the US dollar. However, it's entirely plausible that BitCoin will fail but not the dollar. Congress could prevent law-abiding businesses from dealing in BitCoins, shutting down the major exchanges and effectively isolating BitCoin from the traditional financial system. The illicit market would still exist, so you'd still be able to convert cash to BitCoins to buy drugs with... but most people will just buy drugs with the cash directly.
I would have thought that, within the bounds of the law, their webserver, it's their prerogative to host what they want / construct their site how they want?
They can structure the files on their webserver however they want, but once they send those files to me, it's my prerogative to decide how (or if) I wish to render those files for display. If I hate your color scheme and want to replace it with a custom style sheet, I won't use your style sheet. If I use a text-only browser, because I'm blind or because I'm on a terminal, I may not even request the images that your HTML file links to. If I'm running a spider program that trawls the web collecting statistics on web design trends, your page might never be rendered for human viewing at all.
Option #3: The kid has a severe psychiatric disorder and fixated on a family friend when it just as easily could have been Jodie Foster or Gabrielle Giffords.
Education does not have a pure application, in the same sense that abstract mathematics and partical physics don't have pure applications. In fact, it should not.
Often you need to learn the practical before you can get to the abstract. If this class didn't teach them how to use Microsoft Office, the job would fall on the first teacher who asked them to write an essay, taking time out of a more important class.
In the very first sentence of my post, I said it should be covered under fair use, even if the law says otherwise. I'm no lawyer and neither is the poster you linked to.
The bottom line is that this guy is trying to use copyright to stop speech he doesn't agree with. (Speech I disagree with as well.) If the law says he can get away with it, that's great for him, but that means there's a larger problem with the law itself.
Honestly, if it's not covered by fair use under the law, it should be. They provide proper attribution (although the OP would rather they didn't) and there's more to it than just redoing the audio. It has the basic structure of a news segment on the video. Surely the OP wouldn't mind if the BBC made a similar video with different commentary.
Clearly the objection is about who made the video and what they're saying with it, not copyright. In that case, the proper response is to not to prevent their speech, but to use your own speech to criticize it.
Even if the UK could sell them at a profit, why would they when the IPs are only getting more valuable in the medium term?
Because somebody offers them enough money in the present to compensate them for what they'd make in the future. See time value of money.
Markets aren't perfect, but efficiently allocating scarce resources is one thing they do well. When you have a quasi-governmental body decide who should get IPs, you end up with situations like this, where people need them can't get them and people who have them don't need them.
Exchanges, wallets, and businesses that accept BitCoin as payment can all be forced to migrate to some "BitCoin+", which ties transactions to a traceable personal identifier. The old network may still exist, but its utility for making significant financial transactions would be crippled.
It takes much longer than a month to develop a phone. The CeBit 2006 video in that article shows a preproduction F700 with substantially the same hardware as the final version.
It's the GP's analogy. If you think it's stupid, take it up with him/her.
Blaming Wikipedia for the world's focus on athletes over academics is like blaming paper for the words that are printed on it. You can try to change Wikipedia's policies all you want, but it won't make news organizations interview more academics or fewer athletes.