This is what life and market is about - speculation. Some speculate that prices for X will go up, others say it will go down. One group will win, the other will lose.
Same here. The group that wins will not come from an anti-science school, it will all work out at the end.
As always, the government meddling in people's lives only ends up screwing up something that people worked hard for to create in the first place.
What? You didn't know that education existed LONG before department of education came into being?
This is the problem I see with so many people today, the discouraging thing is that it is so prevalent everywhere, even/. is now sick with it - allowing and even requiring that government takes care of things.
Does this ever work out well? What about long term? Any subject at all?
So when government creates department of education, I automatically assume that it will hurt the education.
When government creates department of energy, I automatically assume that there will be more problems - more monopolies and various subsidies coming to some businesses that are basically investing not into energy research but into their ties with government, and that's why this department is created. This department ends up subsidizing certain companies, who grow beyond belief, while other companies in the field are destroyed, diminished, become outcasts for various reasons - from fiscal to regulatory.
This is the same with all government endeavors. When gov't creates a program or a department or passes a law, all you have to do is to look at it in reverse to understand what kind of problem will be created due to the intrusion.
"No child left behind"? - OK, so no child will be learning anything anymore.
"Fair housing act"? - OK, so there will be a housing bubble, many people who could otherwise afford housing will be competing in inflationary conditions against the people who will be subsidized, while the mortgage industry (getting 0-1% interest rates) will be slowly leading to a crash in the housing market, all while the securitization of loans pushed by HUD combined with FDIC will cause a real problem in the derivatives market. The subprime mortgages that never existed before in the market will be created by the market as a response to the government agenda. The whole thing will blow and eventually people who could otherwise own houses will end up homeless.
Fed with the mandate of stable prices? - OK, so then the 20th century will be marked with extraordinary inflation, while the 19th century without such forces had deflationary tendencies, and the dollar was strengthening while prices were gradually falling. But once the Fed is created the gov't gets its wish of counterfeiting bank notes and then it can grow without any limits or boundaries and eventually crash the economy, which will cause flight of capital and production and even a possible hyper-inflationary situation where prices skyrocket, just explode and then not only the prices are not stable, but there is nothing even to buy with existing dollars as a result of that fiasco.
"Patriot Act" - OK, well this will be the most blatantly unpatriotic law ever, that will kick the Constitution in the head repeatedly and cause huge losses in the Freedoms of the people.
"Social Security/EI/Medicare" - OK, this one will be a pyramid, that will drain the economy and people of their savings, not allowing people to save and invest on their own. Eventually all of this will crash under its own weight and then the question will be simple: why would any young person stay in the country to continue paying for the benefits of the old, who have already gotten more than they put in, even though the young never voted for it and never will see any benefits themselves?
By the way, SS was found unconstitutional on a number of occasions by the lower level courts based on the fact that it was partially funded by payroll taxes, and it is unconstitutional to tax one person directly to give benefits to another. The lower level courts saw through this unconstitutionality, even though the argument from the gov't was: no, these are not related. We just happened to pass the payroll tax at the same time while passing the idea of SS benefits, but they are not related, they are not a
I don't care. They KNOW what they are going to get when they are looking at 'anonymous' click stream etc.
They are going to get search results.
As I said: they are copying search results. How they got them. What is the exact mechanism. Why they think they are doing it, etc.etc.etc.
Irrelevant.
As irrelevant as it would be if a student was copying somehow in some way results from some other student during an exam.
Granted, this is not an exam, also I do not CARE that they are copying these results. The end results is the same: they are ending up with data from Google (and likely from other sources.)
Does it matter? No. Is this copying from Google? Yes.
You are not BadAnalogyGuy so why are you stepping on his turf?
Which part of MS is DENYING that they are copying the results while they are clearly copying the results are not clear?
They are copying the results, you are saying: them copying the results is only a by-product of them trying to improve their search hits etc.
But they are copying the result. I don't care why they are copying the results, I don't care that they are copying the results, but they are copying the results and there is no way around it, it has been shown.
How they are copying the results and whether it is direct copying or some by product of some other method of 'improving' their search, they are still copying the results.
We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop. We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting.
Well they ARE associating the content X with Page 3 and they ARE copying the Google search results to random queries. There is no way for them to associate a random content X to Page 3, because that content X is completely made up and leads to nowhere and is nowhere to be found on Page 3. Google came up with content X specifically so that it could never be found by any search engine.
--
Now, I am not saying it's WRONG to take results supplied by Google to the queries that users are typing in and use those key/value pairs to update MS index, whatever. But the MS management are even denying that they are doing this, so you are arguing against what the MS management is saying here while trying to support them, aren't you?
Because to us it is clear: MS management is lying. They are taking results from search queries and adding those indexes to their DB. They are lying that they are not doing it by giving out ridiculous statements like: we are not able to reverse engineer algorithm from the results. But they are not trying to reverse engineer algorithms, they are only interested in queries+results.
It is POSSIBLE that they are doing this generically, not just for Google searches but even for their own search engine searches to improve their results by looking at what the users are clicking on. Obviously Google is looking at what the Google users are clicking on, but they are looking at it on their own search, not at searches that were directed at OTHER SEARCH ENGINES.
So this is directed NOT ONLY at Bing, it is clearly directed at ALL search engines. So Bing maybe 'stealing' results from Google as well as from Yahoo or Altavista, etc.etc. Who cares? It's the DENIAL of the practice that is FUNNY here and another thing that's funny is you totally missing the point.
Suppose the web only consists of 2 pages and each page has the following content:
Page 1: A B C Page 2: D E F
Now suppose there are 2 search engines: G and B and each has its own algorithm to index the web.
Now suppose that search engine G thought that search engine B was copying the results that search engine G produced as response to search queries.
So search engine G set up a new page on the Internet with the following content
Page 3: W T F
THEN search engine G added an index in its database to be able to find the new Page 3 if it is queried for this content: X.
So clearly the content X is not found on any of the existing Internet pages. So if the search engine B was queried for the content X no page would be found.
Then search engine G used various tools supplied by search engine B to search for the content X in search engine G and the result was Page 3.
Eventually some time would pass and the search engine B would start producing Page 3 as the result when it is queried for content X.
There is no material connection, no logical way to connect Page 3 with content X. This connection DOES NOT EXIST ON THE INTERNET.
This connection only exists in the database of the search engine G.
Clearly the search engine B is copying the query that was sent to the search engine G and the results of the query (connecting content X to Page 3) and using it in its own database.
--
Also I actually think it is SMART that they are doing it. Nature has been doing it forever - copying genes from one organism to another, it maybe a winning strategy. It's only humans who attach 'moral values' to such actions.
/. is not posting my comments... 3 or 4 comments eaten by the/. monster...
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations. --
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations. --
I don't understand what's happening,/. is eating up my comments and not showing them. --- In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations. --
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
Clearly. But I also said that in an improving economy via people being able to do business and have upward mobility, the social structure will also be modified towards accepting more of other types of freedoms, it's inevitable.
Just like in the 19 century USA, the increase in wealth led to people having more freedoms and accepting of others having more freedoms, this will also happen in a wealthier China, with which I congratulate them.
wouldn't that be the day. No, they set up federal banks so they can print money and buy you out with that inflation of currency, which eventually allows the gov't to grow in size regardless of how the economy is doing and eventually it kills the economy. But you see, they buy the people out with that short sweet deal, where some people get something for nothing, some people who come right after the first set of people who get something for nothing get a little less of that 'something' for a little more of that 'nothing' and eventually nobody can get anything for anything, but hey, those people who set it up are long gone and now nobody wants to admit that their long gone relatives fucked it up for the great-grand children.
Basically what I am saying is that Jefferson was right about that Tree of Liberty and the blood thing.
The freedom of speech is nothing compared to freedom of doing business.
You see, when you are free to speak, but not to do business, that means you can be left poor, with no upward mobility, but you can complain about it all you want without (supposedly) consequences from the government.
But if you are free to do business, then you have ability to provide for yourself, provide for your needs and this means you have at minimum a way of surviving and hopefully even having an ability to move up in the economy. Society that does not take away ability of people to move up in the economic sense will eventually gain the freedom of speech that it needs.
It's much harder to gain freedom of doing business if you don't have that freedom, and it's much more crucial than other freedoms as well.
Freedoms on the Internet fall under the same principles. Today the Internet is not only for pure speech communications, but it is also a way to connect people together for other reasons - like creating business connections. These connections are not just ephemeral, they really have such an impact, they can make or break your entire business.
Government getting ability to shutdown the Internet does not just gain ability to stop your free speech. It gets ability to prevent you from doing business and that means it gets ability to prevent you from making a living.
Realize that this is the biggest threat that government poses at this point - preventing you from living your life, making your own plans, building your own future, because the government has a plan for you, and in THAT plan you have no future of your own.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, women can have their own Internet. With black jack and hookers. ..
Wait, I didn't think this through too well. Thinking thinking.
OK.
sudo make me a sandwich.
This is fine, as good an outcome as any.
This is what life and market is about - speculation. Some speculate that prices for X will go up, others say it will go down. One group will win, the other will lose.
Same here. The group that wins will not come from an anti-science school, it will all work out at the end.
Why do you need another OS if you already are running emacs?
You just had to rub it in, didn't you?
Reminds me of an old joke about a wrist watch with a built in TV and built in radio and photo-camera and various other tools.
The only catch was that if you bought that watch you always had to carry 2 suitcases with you.
They were filled with batteries.
As always, the government meddling in people's lives only ends up screwing up something that people worked hard for to create in the first place.
What? You didn't know that education existed LONG before department of education came into being?
This is the problem I see with so many people today, the discouraging thing is that it is so prevalent everywhere, even /. is now sick with it - allowing and even requiring that government takes care of things.
Does this ever work out well? What about long term? Any subject at all?
So when government creates department of education, I automatically assume that it will hurt the education.
When government creates department of energy, I automatically assume that there will be more problems - more monopolies and various subsidies coming to some businesses that are basically investing not into energy research but into their ties with government, and that's why this department is created. This department ends up subsidizing certain companies, who grow beyond belief, while other companies in the field are destroyed, diminished, become outcasts for various reasons - from fiscal to regulatory.
This is the same with all government endeavors. When gov't creates a program or a department or passes a law, all you have to do is to look at it in reverse to understand what kind of problem will be created due to the intrusion.
"No child left behind"? - OK, so no child will be learning anything anymore.
"Fair housing act"? - OK, so there will be a housing bubble, many people who could otherwise afford housing will be competing in inflationary conditions against the people who will be subsidized, while the mortgage industry (getting 0-1% interest rates) will be slowly leading to a crash in the housing market, all while the securitization of loans pushed by HUD combined with FDIC will cause a real problem in the derivatives market. The subprime mortgages that never existed before in the market will be created by the market as a response to the government agenda. The whole thing will blow and eventually people who could otherwise own houses will end up homeless.
Fed with the mandate of stable prices? - OK, so then the 20th century will be marked with extraordinary inflation, while the 19th century without such forces had deflationary tendencies, and the dollar was strengthening while prices were gradually falling. But once the Fed is created the gov't gets its wish of counterfeiting bank notes and then it can grow without any limits or boundaries and eventually crash the economy, which will cause flight of capital and production and even a possible hyper-inflationary situation where prices skyrocket, just explode and then not only the prices are not stable, but there is nothing even to buy with existing dollars as a result of that fiasco.
"Patriot Act" - OK, well this will be the most blatantly unpatriotic law ever, that will kick the Constitution in the head repeatedly and cause huge losses in the Freedoms of the people.
"Social Security/EI/Medicare" - OK, this one will be a pyramid, that will drain the economy and people of their savings, not allowing people to save and invest on their own. Eventually all of this will crash under its own weight and then the question will be simple: why would any young person stay in the country to continue paying for the benefits of the old, who have already gotten more than they put in, even though the young never voted for it and never will see any benefits themselves?
By the way, SS was found unconstitutional on a number of occasions by the lower level courts based on the fact that it was partially funded by payroll taxes, and it is unconstitutional to tax one person directly to give benefits to another. The lower level courts saw through this unconstitutionality, even though the argument from the gov't was: no, these are not related. We just happened to pass the payroll tax at the same time while passing the idea of SS benefits, but they are not related, they are not a
I don't care. They KNOW what they are going to get when they are looking at 'anonymous' click stream etc.
They are going to get search results.
As I said: they are copying search results. How they got them. What is the exact mechanism. Why they think they are doing it, etc.etc.etc.
Irrelevant.
As irrelevant as it would be if a student was copying somehow in some way results from some other student during an exam.
Granted, this is not an exam, also I do not CARE that they are copying these results. The end results is the same: they are ending up with data from Google (and likely from other sources.)
Does it matter? No. Is this copying from Google? Yes.
You are not BadAnalogyGuy so why are you stepping on his turf?
Which part of MS is DENYING that they are copying the results while they are clearly copying the results are not clear?
They are copying the results, you are saying: them copying the results is only a by-product of them trying to improve their search hits etc.
But they are copying the result. I don't care why they are copying the results, I don't care that they are copying the results, but they are copying the results and there is no way around it, it has been shown.
How they are copying the results and whether it is direct copying or some by product of some other method of 'improving' their search, they are still copying the results.
And they are denying it.
Toolbar B does this for every website that user A visits with the express permission of user A.
- yeah, yeah, yeah, a bunch of BULL SHIT. Let's bring it down the actual facts: Microsoft managers are saying that you are full of shit right there, they are saying: we are not doing this. STOP. FULL. PERIOD. WHATEVER. Didn't you see this story?
MS is saying:
We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop. We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting.
Except you just answered to my comment with words that I do not understand what's happening while I clearly explained what Google did in their sting and that there is NO WAY for MS to be able to associate the content X with Page 3.
Well they ARE associating the content X with Page 3 and they ARE copying the Google search results to random queries. There is no way for them to associate a random content X to Page 3, because that content X is completely made up and leads to nowhere and is nowhere to be found on Page 3. Google came up with content X specifically so that it could never be found by any search engine.
--
Now, I am not saying it's WRONG to take results supplied by Google to the queries that users are typing in and use those key/value pairs to update MS index, whatever. But the MS management are even denying that they are doing this, so you are arguing against what the MS management is saying here while trying to support them, aren't you?
Because to us it is clear: MS management is lying. They are taking results from search queries and adding those indexes to their DB. They are lying that they are not doing it by giving out ridiculous statements like: we are not able to reverse engineer algorithm from the results. But they are not trying to reverse engineer algorithms, they are only interested in queries+results.
It is POSSIBLE that they are doing this generically, not just for Google searches but even for their own search engine searches to improve their results by looking at what the users are clicking on. Obviously Google is looking at what the Google users are clicking on, but they are looking at it on their own search, not at searches that were directed at OTHER SEARCH ENGINES.
So this is directed NOT ONLY at Bing, it is clearly directed at ALL search engines. So Bing maybe 'stealing' results from Google as well as from Yahoo or Altavista, etc.etc. Who cares? It's the DENIAL of the practice that is FUNNY here and another thing that's funny is you totally missing the point.
You totally missed the point.
I will make it easy for you to understand.
Suppose the web only consists of 2 pages and each page has the following content:
Page 1: A B C
Page 2: D E F
Now suppose there are 2 search engines: G and B and each has its own algorithm to index the web.
Now suppose that search engine G thought that search engine B was copying the results that search engine G produced as response to search queries.
So search engine G set up a new page on the Internet with the following content
Page 3: W T F
THEN search engine G added an index in its database to be able to find the new Page 3 if it is queried for this content: X.
So clearly the content X is not found on any of the existing Internet pages. So if the search engine B was queried for the content X no page would be found.
Then search engine G used various tools supplied by search engine B to search for the content X in search engine G and the result was Page 3.
Eventually some time would pass and the search engine B would start producing Page 3 as the result when it is queried for content X.
There is no material connection, no logical way to connect Page 3 with content X. This connection DOES NOT EXIST ON THE INTERNET.
This connection only exists in the database of the search engine G.
Clearly the search engine B is copying the query that was sent to the search engine G and the results of the query (connecting content X to Page 3) and using it in its own database.
--
Also I actually think it is SMART that they are doing it. Nature has been doing it forever - copying genes from one organism to another, it maybe a winning strategy. It's only humans who attach 'moral values' to such actions.
Too bad, before you get anything you have to pay me the million. Do you have a million?
Good luck with that.
Government bureaucracy exists only for one reason anyway: creation and protection of monopolies.
anybody who offers ANYTHING below MY PRICE must be declared illegal.
You see, it doesn't have to be free, it just has to be less expensive than my offering, and presto, it would be illegal.
By the way, from now on I am selling EVERYTHING and ANYTHING costs at least a 1,000,000 dollars a piece or a pound.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#41414080 - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
unbelievable that the TV heads are talking about it in AMERICA of all places.
Yes, US government and the Fed will cause the new economic collapse and possibly a new world war of some sort in the process.
and BTW, the /. pros only need to read the name of the story, not even the scoop to be able to comment. And the gurus haven't even done that in years.
An accident happens if you have a hammer in the shed and shed burns.
When you have a 'death ray' in a shed, and shed burns, you know it's not an 'accident'.
Yes, what you just read, and what was posted at
04:27
04:39
04:41
04:52
07:53
None of which were appearing until after the last comment was posted, all of them initially eaten by the /. monster.
/. is not posting my comments... 3 or 4 comments eaten by the /. monster ...
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
--
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
--
I don't understand what's happening, /. is eating up my comments and not showing them.
---
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
--
In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.
Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.
China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.
I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
Clearly. But I also said that in an improving economy via people being able to do business and have upward mobility, the social structure will also be modified towards accepting more of other types of freedoms, it's inevitable.
Just like in the 19 century USA, the increase in wealth led to people having more freedoms and accepting of others having more freedoms, this will also happen in a wealthier China, with which I congratulate them.
wouldn't that be the day. No, they set up federal banks so they can print money and buy you out with that inflation of currency, which eventually allows the gov't to grow in size regardless of how the economy is doing and eventually it kills the economy. But you see, they buy the people out with that short sweet deal, where some people get something for nothing, some people who come right after the first set of people who get something for nothing get a little less of that 'something' for a little more of that 'nothing' and eventually nobody can get anything for anything, but hey, those people who set it up are long gone and now nobody wants to admit that their long gone relatives fucked it up for the great-grand children.
Basically what I am saying is that Jefferson was right about that Tree of Liberty and the blood thing.
It's much more fundamental than that.
The freedom of speech is nothing compared to freedom of doing business.
You see, when you are free to speak, but not to do business, that means you can be left poor, with no upward mobility, but you can complain about it all you want without (supposedly) consequences from the government.
But if you are free to do business, then you have ability to provide for yourself, provide for your needs and this means you have at minimum a way of surviving and hopefully even having an ability to move up in the economy. Society that does not take away ability of people to move up in the economic sense will eventually gain the freedom of speech that it needs.
It's much harder to gain freedom of doing business if you don't have that freedom, and it's much more crucial than other freedoms as well.
Freedoms on the Internet fall under the same principles. Today the Internet is not only for pure speech communications, but it is also a way to connect people together for other reasons - like creating business connections. These connections are not just ephemeral, they really have such an impact, they can make or break your entire business.
Government getting ability to shutdown the Internet does not just gain ability to stop your free speech. It gets ability to prevent you from doing business and that means it gets ability to prevent you from making a living.
Realize that this is the biggest threat that government poses at this point - preventing you from living your life, making your own plans, building your own future, because the government has a plan for you, and in THAT plan you have no future of your own.
The key idea is that of inflation.... The consequence of this inflation is that much of the current universe is not within our 14 Gyr lightcone.
- damn you, helicopter Ben, you strike again!