The REAL Effect is obvious. Without huge government subsidies Tesla's in HK are unsellable. Why else would people rush to buy them BEFORE the end of the tax subsidy
Because it saves them a bunch of cash? Even if I'm happy to buy at $130k, why wouldn't I buy it at $75k and save myself $55,000?
Why do drivers for Uber, Lyft et al need to wait for Seattle to pass a law before they can unionise? The freedom to collectively bargain is something that all private sectors workers (public sector is a little more complicated) should have a right to.
You don't deserve money for doing nothing, or for doing a job that requires almost no skills.
This is such a backwards way of thinking. People's time is valuable. Time they spend doing a job that requires almost no skills is time spent that they could be using to become skilled. This is why it's important that employers pay a livable wage; so we don't waste the value of our workforce.
So what exactly is to stop a court from ordering someone accused of murder to "tell us where the bodies are buried" and when the suspect says "I don't know" locking them up indefinitely?
But even then: if you don't understand how the encryption works, how do you know what method to use for encrypting the passwords on your website. Should you just take someone's word for it? (Answer: no. And yet that's how bcrypt became popular.)
As someone who works in the infosec industry, the fact this comment is rated +5 Informative fills me with panic.
Yes, you should absolutely take someone else's word for it, specifically you should take NIST's word for it. Because unless you're one of a handful of the most knowledgeable people in the world, you don't know enough about cryptography to judge the merits of a cryptographic hash algorithm.
Alternatively; if Uber drivers don't need to buy licenses and follow certain regulations, why should taxi drivers? It seems like Uber is working well enough under a de-regulated environment.
I went to the chemist a while back to buy some ibprofen, the chemist suggested a homeopathic, insisting it was just as good. If I hadn't been educated about homeopathy, I would have probably bought the homeopathic crap.
Banning enforcement of certain aspects of a contract may be useful. But it deprives the parties of the freedom to meaningfully enter into such contracts
You’re actually making the argument that the state declining to exert power over its citizens is actually a loss of freedom? That’s moronic.
Light behaves as both a particle and a wave—at the same time. Einstein taught us that, so we're all generally on board, but to actually understand what it means would require several Ph.D.s and a thorough understanding of quantum physics
Stop pretending physics is spooooky. It's not that difficult to understand, at least at a superficial level. And I don't have a degree, let a lone a Ph.D, but even I can explain it (again, superficially):
Time dilation means that the faster you go, the slower time goes. If you're travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, then the speed at which you're travelling through time is slowed infinitely. This means a photon experiences no passing of time between the moment it is created, and the moment it collides with something.
But the speed of light is finite, so it has to travel through time to go between two points. But because from the photon's perspective it's travel is instantaneous, it can't experience that time. So a photon doesn't know where it's going to land, until it does. And so until it does land, it could have landed anywhere. So when a photon is created, it travels out in all directions, like a wave, until it lands somewhere and the wave collapses.
If Scott Adams thought that, it's because he didn't do the necessary research to act as an informed consumer, and instead just took articles at face value when the referenced miscellaneous "scientists" and "researchers".
Can't these articles link to the journal's entry for the paper. This is of professional interest to me and I'd like to read the abstract at least, maybe even purchase the damn thing.
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country.
IANAL but that would seem to be a different situation: If the court requests a document you have and then you mail it to your overseas confederate, then I think you'll be on the hook for something like obstruction of justice.
But if you mail your confederate a document, then later the court requests you to produce it, you can tell them "That's the property of Confederate, who are a different entity. You'll need to request it from them."
And why is the situation like that? Because our Intellectual Property laws, which shape the markets for software and other information assets, are completely bonkers.
If we want to address this issue, we need a complete overhaul of our IP laws.
Yes it is, imagine if you had a single tank of petrol each month, and there were some stores you could drive to but it wouldn't use up any of your petrol. Even if most months you didn't use all your petrol up, you'd still prefer to visit those stores because you might need that petrol later if something comes up.
Network congestion is a pretext (a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason), the real reason for data caps is two-fold:
1. It allows ISPs to use a pricing model that takes advantage of market segmentation
2. It provides ISPs with leverage they can apply to other market entities to gain benefits, such as cash or quid pro quo (preferential treatment).
Slashdot Mirror
"Unions are linked to mafia" reads headlines of media companies owned by international corporate conglomerates. Hmmm
The REAL Effect is obvious. Without huge government subsidies Tesla's in HK are unsellable. Why else would people rush to buy them BEFORE the end of the tax subsidy
Because it saves them a bunch of cash? Even if I'm happy to buy at $130k, why wouldn't I buy it at $75k and save myself $55,000?
Why do drivers for Uber, Lyft et al need to wait for Seattle to pass a law before they can unionise? The freedom to collectively bargain is something that all private sectors workers (public sector is a little more complicated) should have a right to.
You don't deserve money for doing nothing, or for doing a job that requires almost no skills.
This is such a backwards way of thinking. People's time is valuable. Time they spend doing a job that requires almost no skills is time spent that they could be using to become skilled. This is why it's important that employers pay a livable wage; so we don't waste the value of our workforce.
So what exactly is to stop a court from ordering someone accused of murder to "tell us where the bodies are buried" and when the suspect says "I don't know" locking them up indefinitely?
This. If we want to find out how to encourage more women to join an open-source project, we might start by examining what makes them leave one.
Sure, but to do that we're going to need data, and as we all (should) know, anecdotes are not data.
But even then: if you don't understand how the encryption works, how do you know what method to use for encrypting the passwords on your website. Should you just take someone's word for it? (Answer: no. And yet that's how bcrypt became popular.)
As someone who works in the infosec industry, the fact this comment is rated +5 Informative fills me with panic. Yes, you should absolutely take someone else's word for it, specifically you should take NIST's word for it. Because unless you're one of a handful of the most knowledgeable people in the world, you don't know enough about cryptography to judge the merits of a cryptographic hash algorithm.
Alternatively; if Uber drivers don't need to buy licenses and follow certain regulations, why should taxi drivers? It seems like Uber is working well enough under a de-regulated environment.
Australia actually.
I went to the chemist a while back to buy some ibprofen, the chemist suggested a homeopathic, insisting it was just as good. If I hadn't been educated about homeopathy, I would have probably bought the homeopathic crap.
Banning enforcement of certain aspects of a contract may be useful. But it deprives the parties of the freedom to meaningfully enter into such contracts
You’re actually making the argument that the state declining to exert power over its citizens is actually a loss of freedom? That’s moronic.
Light behaves as both a particle and a wave—at the same time. Einstein taught us that, so we're all generally on board, but to actually understand what it means would require several Ph.D.s and a thorough understanding of quantum physics
Stop pretending physics is spooooky. It's not that difficult to understand, at least at a superficial level. And I don't have a degree, let a lone a Ph.D, but even I can explain it (again, superficially):
Time dilation means that the faster you go, the slower time goes. If you're travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum, then the speed at which you're travelling through time is slowed infinitely. This means a photon experiences no passing of time between the moment it is created, and the moment it collides with something.
But the speed of light is finite, so it has to travel through time to go between two points. But because from the photon's perspective it's travel is instantaneous, it can't experience that time. So a photon doesn't know where it's going to land, until it does. And so until it does land, it could have landed anywhere. So when a photon is created, it travels out in all directions, like a wave, until it lands somewhere and the wave collapses.
The part that's hard to understand is the why.
To be fair the dungeons in DF aren't that complex... getting there though
If Scott Adams thought that, it's because he didn't do the necessary research to act as an informed consumer, and instead just took articles at face value when the referenced miscellaneous "scientists" and "researchers".
Found it: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Can't these articles link to the journal's entry for the paper. This is of professional interest to me and I'd like to read the abstract at least, maybe even purchase the damn thing.
The only thing that's tearing cosmology apart is the gradual expansion of space.
We cannot accept that rivers in India show higher concentrations of active antibiotic than the blood of someone undergoing treatment.
I'd have to see a source before I'd credit that as true, but damn, it's a frightening concept.
If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country.
IANAL but that would seem to be a different situation: If the court requests a document you have and then you mail it to your overseas confederate, then I think you'll be on the hook for something like obstruction of justice.
But if you mail your confederate a document, then later the court requests you to produce it, you can tell them "That's the property of Confederate, who are a different entity. You'll need to request it from them."
And In other news: Horse and Buggy Industry Face Millions In Losses From Private Automobiles.
If we want to address this issue, we need a complete overhaul of our IP laws.
Yeah, but nobody talking about net neutrality wants all packets to be equal. They want all destinations to be equal.
If travelling to one destination does not count against your data cap, then that destination is not on equal footing.
Subsidizing traffic doesn't violate net neutrality, because it doesn't affect the delivery of data, only the cost to the end user.
It does violate net neutrality, because it affects the cost of delivery of data to and from the end user.
What Wikipedia is doing here is a good thing by itself, but if the practice were to become commonplace, it's something that would be very bad.
Yes it is, imagine if you had a single tank of petrol each month, and there were some stores you could drive to but it wouldn't use up any of your petrol. Even if most months you didn't use all your petrol up, you'd still prefer to visit those stores because you might need that petrol later if something comes up.
1. It allows ISPs to use a pricing model that takes advantage of market segmentation
2. It provides ISPs with leverage they can apply to other market entities to gain benefits, such as cash or quid pro quo (preferential treatment).
Net Neutrality, just like freedom of speech, or any other broad principle, has some downsides. But ultimately the good vastly outweighs the bad.