It's clear that ICANN wants to create a bunch of privately owned TLD registrars. Good or bad, they have been pushing that barrow for several years now. But the current scheme hides those registrars behind idiotic faux-generic TLDs as if they were the original.com.net.org.edu.gov.mil. I'm just saying that it's more honest if you want to allow companies to buy private TLDs, then use their actual names.
ICANN has this cringe against letting companies use their names as TLDs, but want a bunch of registrars running private TLDs. It's self-contradictory and results in the current stupidity.
If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?
$185,000 non-refundable application fee plus $1 million per year. Plus whatever additional rules ICANN wants to attach. This isn't intended for the average company. If it went beyond, say, a hundred company TLDs, I'd raise the annual fee until the number drops below that. If it was below 25 coTLDs, I'd reduce the fee until it rises.
Let me put it another way: Why should the island of Tuvalu be allowed to have a TLD, (actually leased to and run out of a ISP in Canada IIRC), but not Google? (Or rather why should a small ISP in Canada have the entirely for-profit.tv TLD, when Google/Apple/Microsoft/Yahoo/ATT/Amazon/etc can't?)
Or for that matter, why should Nauru, population 9000, but not California, population 38 million?
You have a "stimulus" when you think people are not buying enough and saving too much; is that true of Americans? I don't think so.
Actually yes. There's been a rapid deleveraging since the Great Recession. That has the same economic effect as over-saving, it pulls too much money out circulation too quickly. Apparently the stimulus replaced only about a third of that. But if you include state- and county-government spending, there's actually been a greater reduction in overall government spending than the size of the stimulus. So in effect, there's a reduction in private spending at the same time as a reduction in overall government spending. Result... well, look around.
The Fed has tried to off-set that by, in effect, printing money. But QE is an inefficient way to increase circulating money, so has to be about ten times as large as simple direct stimulus spending. This creates inflation-bait if the economy does start to recover, requiring higher interest rates than otherwise, which will slow or kill the recovery. And all so that a few political wankers could puff up their chests and crap on about "belt tightening" and "gummit debt" during their reelection campaigns.
True, but doing so will drive down the value of the dollar to the point of collapsing it's economy.
Why would it do that? MMT (and the GP) just says new currency creation is limited by inflation. Obviously it's possible to collapse the economy, but why would anyone do that?
The point is that government debt is a fiction when it's in the domestic currency. "Repaying" loans in your own currency is also a fiction; you are just printing money. If you choose to destroy (via taxation) an equivalent amount of money elsewhere in the economy, so be it. But there's nothing that requires you to do so in order to pay debt. Taxes are only required to control inflation and to compel use of the domestic currency.
He isn't proposing operating the government taxless. He's saying they don't need those taxes to pay for anything, the function of taxes is not to allow spending, taxes are not "income" or "revenue" for the government. Taxes merely destroy currency in the economy. Spending creates it. There doesn't need to be a 1:1 balance between the two, with any difference made up by borrowing. Governments only need to balance the two effects to match an increasing supply of currency to the actual requirements of the growing economy. Too much, you get inflation, too little deflation or stagnation. Everything else is just about redistribution.
If that happened, then people would would stop lending money to the government
MMT says that government borrowing in its own currency is a fiction. It means nothing. Stopping it means nothing.
It would have been more honest to ban generic terms for TLDs (except the big five), and instead require the new TLDs to be the names or reasonable abbreviations of the controlling registrars. So instead of ".bike", they would have registered... wait they're called Donuts? Seriously? You gave a TLD to a company called Donuts? Sigh. Okay, bad example. But you get my point.
I think there is a lingering cringe against companies (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) having their own private TLD. But, in practice, that's all the new TLD are, TLDs owned by private companies for commercial gain. All the current system does is make it more obscure who controls each TLD, and more difficult for companies to control their brand IP.
It would be more honest, and more useful to the general internet user, if any companies could buy their TLD-name from ICANN for a fixed amount per year. (If they want, ICANN could restrict it to companies that have multiple public-facing services.)
I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have.apple for their services. Microsoft,.microsoft. Google,.google or.goog. ICANN makes say a $million/yr per registrar, users can better see who is whom (I mean, what the fuck is.guru?). Everyone wins.
"I hated it from the beginning. It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots—the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying."
Harrington was smart enough to recognise security theatre, along with the idiocy of confiscating pointy-things from pilots, and decent enough to feel disgust for violating children/elderly, yet he went along with those rules. "I was required". Bullshit. Unless his boss happened to be watching closely, he wasn't "required". At every point he had the discretionary power to confiscate weapons but say, "fuck it, I'm not taking clippers from pilots", to confiscate suspicious liquids but say, "this is clearly apple butter, not explosives", to search adults but say, "I don't need to examine children and old people".
Harrington went along with the security theatre, not just as an audience member, but as a performer. Even after recognising it as theatre.
You don't get to hide behind the "Sure it's wrong, but what can I, one man, do?" apathy defence when you're the fucker wearing the blue gloves!
It's amazing how people have projected project so much onto my comment.
It's possible to be passionate with being argumentative
I disagree. "Passion" isn't just the positive, it's also the negative. A "passionate relationship", for example, isn't just wild sex, it's also the wild arguments. Passion is about strong emotions. Good and bad.
A good manager knows how to steer passion into creativity. A bad manager doesn't, and usually ends up surrounded by passionless drones who do what they are told, no matter how stupid/wasteful/pointless, and allow bad decisions to play out to disaster.
I've watched, from outside, as a good manager steered an angry staffer into first ranting with the manager about the problem (by showing them the actual reason for the stupid/wasteful process), and then the rant culminating in the staffer solving the problem. Suddenly, "I can't believe they are so stupid! Why don't they just... [solution]?!" The rant was part of them sorting through what they knew, letting intuition and creativity play while their consciousness was distracted by the rant. And then the staffer designed the whole new system that afternoon, happily working away like a madman (passionately, you might say; the workplace equivalent of make-up sex.)
I'm guessing Zenasprime is that type of person, able to work with passionate people. You, perhaps, are not.
Note how the second option precludes the possibility that it's a bad plan. Which was my point. They don't want someone with an opinion, they want a servant.
The last time I was "passionate" about a job, they called me argumentative and difficult to work with, and insisted that I need to be a "team player". Make up your fucking minds. Do you want me to care, to really care? Or do you want me to just shut up and do the job? Because you can't have both.
The other planets let Pluto in their club, even though it was smaller than several of their moons, just to be polite to the outsider. But then they started seeing more and more of Pluto's close relatives all trying to get into the club on the family ticket. Worse, it looked like there was thousands more, perhaps millions. They risked being completely outnumbered by these Trans-Neptunians, outnumbered by orders of magnitude.
Fuck this, they thought, there goes the neighbourhood. And they re-voted and kicked Pluto out of the club.
And all the while, Ceres just laughed and farted. Laughed and farted.
Nothing would stop them. The accuser would have to prove that the publisher was also the uploader. Seems pretty black and white to me. If you can't prove someone committed an offence or were the party that wronged you, you shouldn't be able to get damages. What's complicated about that? Isn't that how it should work? Guilt by association is inherently unjust and historically abused.
It's an ice-breaker. The kids who are stuck there will almost inevitably read something. (Or flatten their phones.)
When I was a li'l 'un, my elementary school had a "religious instruction" class every Thursday afternoon for a year (which consistent of Catholic and two brands of Prots.) Not having religious parents, I was spared it, instead I was sent to the library every Thursday (as a warning to others, perhaps.) In the course of one year I went from Dr Seuss through mystery books, to adventure, then the entire stock of classic-era SF...
...Then I discovered the library had a whole other side.
[Plus, more seriously, it gives certain kids a quiet space to study and work, something they might not have at home with an overstressed single-parent and multiple siblings, and the distraction of electronic baby-sitters. It may make a huge difference in their academic results, which may cascade all the way through to their college potential.]
It may also be worth creating a presentation space to more prominently display certain books.
Even the smallest library looks huge to someone who's three foot tall and barely literate. Row upon row of stacks, shelves to (what seems like) the ceiling, endless line of spines on every shelf with sideways writing. (Angry-busy looking ladies behind the counters.) The paralysis of choice, the intimidation of an alien world.
Bring out selected books, with a display for each age bracket, changed regularly. Show the faces of the books. Draw kids in. Start the exploration.
Worse than that, there's a minority conservative government. So they didn't even win 50% of the votes either.
If around 65% of eligible voters actually voted, and of those 36% voted Tory. Then less than 24% of eligible voters supported the Tories. Hell of a mandate.
She appoints ministers to her government. In essence, she is still the executive. Therefore the government is not actually elected. Members of the House of Commons are elected, beyond that it's practical necessity that Her Maj chooses a Prime Minister who "has the confidence of the House" and tradition that she chooses only from amongst party leaders.
nor enact legislation
Actually, she is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.) She can similarly unilaterally strike down legislation that she has already signed into law.
As for proposing legislation, she actually instructs parliament on their whole legislative agenda for the new term. In modern times, this is just the winning party's agenda in a speech they've written for her, but the symbolism is still there: It is her government.
but to link cities between Australia and South America or Africa.
Oh for...
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ Tourist flights. Flies out of an Australian city every two weeks, returns to that same city 12-14 hours later. Doesn't land anywhere else. Has Antarctic experts on board to explain what the tourists are seeing. Has nothing to do with Sth America or Africa.
If you don't know what you are talking about, okay fine, but don't just make shit up.
Whether there still are any, and if any have ever used a 747, I think are very open questions.
Googled "antarctic flights" and clicked the first link. http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ Flights every two weeks during southern summer. Qantas 747. Operating since 1994. Next flight leaves in 4 days.
[Even though this is slashdot, I did actually look it up on the FAA website, but even they just say "Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)..." over and over without explanation.]
Human dissection was also forbidden by the church. I've always thought that the images look like deliberately abstracted versions of magnified anatomical images, disguised as botanical drawings. But the manuscript is way too decorative and formal for a mere coded notebook. [Ditto for an alchemist's secret work.]
Much more likely to be an expensive hoax for a wealthy collector. Any resemblance to blah blah, is strictly coincidental.
That said, the hoax may have well been sold as a super-secret forbidden alchemy text. "...and it is said that whoever shall decode the secret of the book..."
3: somebody predicted the invention of carbon dating and used an old blank book
You jest. But paper was expensive, scraping or cleaning and reusing paper, even whole books, wasn't uncommon.
[More recent analogy is the BBC recording over classic TV shows to save money on video tape; now madly trying to find copies, even fragments, forgotten in old archives and basements at TV stations around in the world.]
[[Or the current Canadian government's attitude to science libraries.]]
"Hey guys! I just went to Paris! I stayed in the plane the whole time and flew over it and came back!
People take balloon and helicopter rides, cruises, etc, just to sight-see. There are routine 747 flights over Antarctica which never land there, sight-seeing only through little airliner windows.
Slashdot Mirror
It's clear that ICANN wants to create a bunch of privately owned TLD registrars. Good or bad, they have been pushing that barrow for several years now. But the current scheme hides those registrars behind idiotic faux-generic TLDs as if they were the original .com .net .org .edu .gov .mil. I'm just saying that it's more honest if you want to allow companies to buy private TLDs, then use their actual names.
ICANN has this cringe against letting companies use their names as TLDs, but want a bunch of registrars running private TLDs. It's self-contradictory and results in the current stupidity.
If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?
$185,000 non-refundable application fee plus $1 million per year. Plus whatever additional rules ICANN wants to attach. This isn't intended for the average company. If it went beyond, say, a hundred company TLDs, I'd raise the annual fee until the number drops below that. If it was below 25 coTLDs, I'd reduce the fee until it rises.
Let me put it another way: Why should the island of Tuvalu be allowed to have a TLD, (actually leased to and run out of a ISP in Canada IIRC), but not Google? (Or rather why should a small ISP in Canada have the entirely for-profit .tv TLD, when Google/Apple/Microsoft/Yahoo/ATT/Amazon/etc can't?)
Or for that matter, why should Nauru, population 9000, but not California, population 38 million?
ban generic terms for TLDs (except the big five)
Oops. Big six. I forgot .mil.
Actually yes. There's been a rapid deleveraging since the Great Recession. That has the same economic effect as over-saving, it pulls too much money out circulation too quickly. Apparently the stimulus replaced only about a third of that. But if you include state- and county-government spending, there's actually been a greater reduction in overall government spending than the size of the stimulus. So in effect, there's a reduction in private spending at the same time as a reduction in overall government spending. Result... well, look around.
The Fed has tried to off-set that by, in effect, printing money. But QE is an inefficient way to increase circulating money, so has to be about ten times as large as simple direct stimulus spending. This creates inflation-bait if the economy does start to recover, requiring higher interest rates than otherwise, which will slow or kill the recovery. And all so that a few political wankers could puff up their chests and crap on about "belt tightening" and "gummit debt" during their reelection campaigns.
True, but doing so will drive down the value of the dollar to the point of collapsing it's economy.
Why would it do that? MMT (and the GP) just says new currency creation is limited by inflation. Obviously it's possible to collapse the economy, but why would anyone do that?
The point is that government debt is a fiction when it's in the domestic currency. "Repaying" loans in your own currency is also a fiction; you are just printing money. If you choose to destroy (via taxation) an equivalent amount of money elsewhere in the economy, so be it. But there's nothing that requires you to do so in order to pay debt. Taxes are only required to control inflation and to compel use of the domestic currency.
So yes, in theory we could operate taxless
He isn't proposing operating the government taxless. He's saying they don't need those taxes to pay for anything, the function of taxes is not to allow spending, taxes are not "income" or "revenue" for the government. Taxes merely destroy currency in the economy. Spending creates it. There doesn't need to be a 1:1 balance between the two, with any difference made up by borrowing. Governments only need to balance the two effects to match an increasing supply of currency to the actual requirements of the growing economy. Too much, you get inflation, too little deflation or stagnation. Everything else is just about redistribution.
If that happened, then people would would stop lending money to the government
MMT says that government borrowing in its own currency is a fiction. It means nothing. Stopping it means nothing.
It would have been more honest to ban generic terms for TLDs (except the big five), and instead require the new TLDs to be the names or reasonable abbreviations of the controlling registrars. So instead of ".bike", they would have registered... wait they're called Donuts? Seriously? You gave a TLD to a company called Donuts? Sigh. Okay, bad example. But you get my point.
I think there is a lingering cringe against companies (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) having their own private TLD. But, in practice, that's all the new TLD are, TLDs owned by private companies for commercial gain. All the current system does is make it more obscure who controls each TLD, and more difficult for companies to control their brand IP.
It would be more honest, and more useful to the general internet user, if any companies could buy their TLD-name from ICANN for a fixed amount per year. (If they want, ICANN could restrict it to companies that have multiple public-facing services.)
I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have .apple for their services. Microsoft, .microsoft. Google, .google or .goog. ICANN makes say a $million/yr per registrar, users can better see who is whom (I mean, what the fuck is .guru?). Everyone wins.
projected project
Dumbed dumb.
The TSA exists because Americans tolerate it.
It's worse than that.
"I hated it from the beginning. It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots—the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying."
Harrington was smart enough to recognise security theatre, along with the idiocy of confiscating pointy-things from pilots, and decent enough to feel disgust for violating children/elderly, yet he went along with those rules. "I was required". Bullshit. Unless his boss happened to be watching closely, he wasn't "required". At every point he had the discretionary power to confiscate weapons but say, "fuck it, I'm not taking clippers from pilots", to confiscate suspicious liquids but say, "this is clearly apple butter, not explosives", to search adults but say, "I don't need to examine children and old people".
Harrington went along with the security theatre, not just as an audience member, but as a performer. Even after recognising it as theatre.
You don't get to hide behind the "Sure it's wrong, but what can I, one man, do?" apathy defence when you're the fucker wearing the blue gloves!
It's amazing how people have projected project so much onto my comment.
I disagree. "Passion" isn't just the positive, it's also the negative. A "passionate relationship", for example, isn't just wild sex, it's also the wild arguments. Passion is about strong emotions. Good and bad.
A good manager knows how to steer passion into creativity. A bad manager doesn't, and usually ends up surrounded by passionless drones who do what they are told, no matter how stupid/wasteful/pointless, and allow bad decisions to play out to disaster.
I've watched, from outside, as a good manager steered an angry staffer into first ranting with the manager about the problem (by showing them the actual reason for the stupid/wasteful process), and then the rant culminating in the staffer solving the problem. Suddenly, "I can't believe they are so stupid! Why don't they just... [solution]?!" The rant was part of them sorting through what they knew, letting intuition and creativity play while their consciousness was distracted by the rant. And then the staffer designed the whole new system that afternoon, happily working away like a madman (passionately, you might say; the workplace equivalent of make-up sex.)
I'm guessing Zenasprime is that type of person, able to work with passionate people. You, perhaps, are not.
Note how the second option precludes the possibility that it's a bad plan. Which was my point. They don't want someone with an opinion, they want a servant.
The last time I was "passionate" about a job, they called me argumentative and difficult to work with, and insisted that I need to be a "team player". Make up your fucking minds. Do you want me to care, to really care? Or do you want me to just shut up and do the job? Because you can't have both.
The other planets let Pluto in their club, even though it was smaller than several of their moons, just to be polite to the outsider. But then they started seeing more and more of Pluto's close relatives all trying to get into the club on the family ticket. Worse, it looked like there was thousands more, perhaps millions. They risked being completely outnumbered by these Trans-Neptunians, outnumbered by orders of magnitude.
Fuck this, they thought, there goes the neighbourhood. And they re-voted and kicked Pluto out of the club.
And all the while, Ceres just laughed and farted. Laughed and farted.
Nothing would stop them. The accuser would have to prove that the publisher was also the uploader. Seems pretty black and white to me. If you can't prove someone committed an offence or were the party that wronged you, you shouldn't be able to get damages. What's complicated about that? Isn't that how it should work? Guilt by association is inherently unjust and historically abused.
It's an ice-breaker. The kids who are stuck there will almost inevitably read something. (Or flatten their phones.)
When I was a li'l 'un, my elementary school had a "religious instruction" class every Thursday afternoon for a year (which consistent of Catholic and two brands of Prots.) Not having religious parents, I was spared it, instead I was sent to the library every Thursday (as a warning to others, perhaps.) In the course of one year I went from Dr Seuss through mystery books, to adventure, then the entire stock of classic-era SF...
...Then I discovered the library had a whole other side.
[Plus, more seriously, it gives certain kids a quiet space to study and work, something they might not have at home with an overstressed single-parent and multiple siblings, and the distraction of electronic baby-sitters. It may make a huge difference in their academic results, which may cascade all the way through to their college potential.]
It may also be worth creating a presentation space to more prominently display certain books.
Even the smallest library looks huge to someone who's three foot tall and barely literate. Row upon row of stacks, shelves to (what seems like) the ceiling, endless line of spines on every shelf with sideways writing. (Angry-busy looking ladies behind the counters.) The paralysis of choice, the intimidation of an alien world.
Bring out selected books, with a display for each age bracket, changed regularly. Show the faces of the books. Draw kids in. Start the exploration.
Worse than that, there's a minority conservative government. So they didn't even win 50% of the votes either.
If around 65% of eligible voters actually voted, and of those 36% voted Tory. Then less than 24% of eligible voters supported the Tories. Hell of a mandate.
She appoints ministers to her government. In essence, she is still the executive. Therefore the government is not actually elected. Members of the House of Commons are elected, beyond that it's practical necessity that Her Maj chooses a Prime Minister who "has the confidence of the House" and tradition that she chooses only from amongst party leaders.
nor enact legislation
Actually, she is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.) She can similarly unilaterally strike down legislation that she has already signed into law.
As for proposing legislation, she actually instructs parliament on their whole legislative agenda for the new term. In modern times, this is just the winning party's agenda in a speech they've written for her, but the symbolism is still there: It is her government.
It's not your money , so what the fuck does it have to do with you?
If there's enough people willing to pay, and they enjoy the experience, then you're just wrong.
People have paid millions to spend a week on the ISS. Their money, their interest, not your problem.
but to link cities between Australia and South America or Africa.
Oh for...
http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ Tourist flights. Flies out of an Australian city every two weeks, returns to that same city 12-14 hours later. Doesn't land anywhere else. Has Antarctic experts on board to explain what the tourists are seeing. Has nothing to do with Sth America or Africa.
If you don't know what you are talking about, okay fine, but don't just make shit up.
Whether there still are any, and if any have ever used a 747, I think are very open questions.
Googled "antarctic flights" and clicked the first link. http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ Flights every two weeks during southern summer. Qantas 747. Operating since 1994. Next flight leaves in 4 days.
I know this is slashdot, but for fuck's sake.
Thanks for that.
[Even though this is slashdot, I did actually look it up on the FAA website, but even they just say "Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)..." over and over without explanation.]
Human dissection was also forbidden by the church. I've always thought that the images look like deliberately abstracted versions of magnified anatomical images, disguised as botanical drawings. But the manuscript is way too decorative and formal for a mere coded notebook. [Ditto for an alchemist's secret work.]
Much more likely to be an expensive hoax for a wealthy collector. Any resemblance to blah blah, is strictly coincidental.
That said, the hoax may have well been sold as a super-secret forbidden alchemy text. "...and it is said that whoever shall decode the secret of the book..."
3: somebody predicted the invention of carbon dating and used an old blank book
You jest. But paper was expensive, scraping or cleaning and reusing paper, even whole books, wasn't uncommon.
[More recent analogy is the BBC recording over classic TV shows to save money on video tape; now madly trying to find copies, even fragments, forgotten in old archives and basements at TV stations around in the world.]
[[Or the current Canadian government's attitude to science libraries.]]
"Hey guys! I just went to Paris! I stayed in the plane the whole time and flew over it and came back!
People take balloon and helicopter rides, cruises, etc, just to sight-see. There are routine 747 flights over Antarctica which never land there, sight-seeing only through little airliner windows.
They can't even get their own name right.
"FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation [...] which goes by the acronym AST"