Right everyone believes that? maybe they say that, few really believe that. Although support is growing. How would someone like Obama have gotten elected if that were remotely true? And with the fervor he did?
Just remember that the only thing to stand up to a big business nowadays is big government, and the goal of any big business is to convince everyone that a small government can watch over big business just like a big government can.
completely wrong. This kind of proves my point above, because you don't understand what smaller government means. Businesses are not the problem themselves. the problems come from big business in bed with big government. Take this toyota thing. Do you think toyota is gonna make money off of this? no, they'll lose money. They do it enough, they'll be out of business. And look at what the government says in this case: they don't have software engineers to do this? great success of government. But if it wasn't for the fact, that government was already in there, there would be more competition from companies trying to analyze the cars. This might have been avoided all together. Maybe not, cus shit does happen, there is no perfect system.
i'm not pretending at all. You really don't understand how you don't need to be able to program to do much of computer science? How does it follow, that CS is math, but you need to program to do, what we both agree, is math? Did your (assuming you took CS) teachers spend most of their time showing code in front of students? Mine spent most of their time talking about theories, and logic and stuff. rarely was actual code shown (past the first few classes).
and like i said, andrew tanenbaum even stated as much. so unless you're gonna say he (and probably many others) don't know what computer science is, i think it's you that's wrong about this.
So CS is math. then all mathematicians should be good at programming according to your logic. IN reality, you can do a lot of stuff in CS without programming, and even andrew tanenbaum mentioned that a few of his fellow professors can't even program.
A Computer Scientist should always be a good programmer -- it's one of the core skills in CS.
not really. Let's quote Dijkstra:
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
Computer Science is math. you don't have to be a programmer to be good at math. But being good at math, is a strong positive in programming, obviously.
even if the millions cancel their internet? yeah actually a lose of revenue of that magnitude would make most companies cry pretty hard actually (million customers * 20 to 100 per month=lot of money). No, me leaving wouldn't make much of a different, but i wouldn't be the only one. and eventually they'd learn their lesson, or go bankrupt.
small time stories like this can generate a lot of negative attention for a big time company trying to squash it. or maybe that verizon math story is made up?
i suppose you argue that a perfectly free market is non existent. but for all practical purposes, we've experienced the benefits of free markets.. so i really don't care if you want to get into a semantics debate, go for it.
A free market, doesn't require that there be many producers, only, as many as the market demands... which when left alone, it will rise/fall to that number, through business success or failures.
You couldn't come up with better examples than milk and cars?
oh let's see, milk, food, cars, tools, computers, phones, houses, gadgets, ummm.. just about everything you purchase. lots of stuff.
I don't know where you're living, but milk costs significantly more than $1.50 a gallon here. And last time I checked, the government regulated what can and can't be in milk, requires nutrition information to be on the carton, requires an ingredient list to include any additives, requires pasteurization of milk products, requires that products be marked with a "sell by" date, and requires that the dairy be inspected regularly. And, last time I checked, it would be illegal for a dairy to sign a contract with the city government giving them the exclusive right to sell milk in this city (at any price they wanted)
I don't know the price milk off hand, it's small enough i never bother to check (again thanks to the free market for lowering the cost of milk and paying me enough that essentials are a trivial amount of my income)
And what you think that they'd put in addatives that would hurt you or something? i mean really, that's a great way to get people to buy our milk, we'll make sure its' quality isn't as good.
Yet, despite all that interference from government, there is a competitive market for milk. I'm sure the dairies complained about how government interference was going to drive them out of business when any of those "anti-business" regulations was proposed.
i'd rather have it unregulated, because the regulations do nothing. and you're right, the free market is doing great despite the government. funny that. but regulations on these things are not the reasons you get decent milk in your fridge whenever you want it. it's profit.
Again, where the hell have you been living? Fifty years ago medical care had more regulation, not less. Hospitals and insurance companies were highly regulated and were in many instances required to be non-profit. It was the deregulation of hospitals and insurance companies that started in the 1980s that started the current wave of costs spiraling out of control.
right, i hear all the time, about how much paper work was required in those times. i mean, really, you think there was more regulations? they might have had a few that aren't here now, but seriously, there was no medicare, no medicaid, i don't believe there was the stupid rules on insurance that require people to purchase in state and stuff like that. I think you are just totally off.
Yes, and if it weren't for government regulation it would be a mufflerless, seatbeltless, airbagless car with no emissions controls burning leaded gasoline and getting 11 miles-per-gallon. I'm old enough to remember how each of those requirements was going to "destroy the auto industry". But what destroyed the American auto industry was building unreliable, gas guzzling, over-sized vehicles that nobody wanted to buy. How's that free market working out for ya?
right people wouldn't pay more money for a quieter car. oh wait they do. people wouldn't pay more for extra safety.. oh wait they do. Without regulation, these things wouldn't be strictly required, sure. so if people wanted, they could buy them (assuming anyone would make cars like that). so yeah, people would be free to do what they like. what's you're problem with this?
yes people probably exagerate the effects of regulations, (i'm probably guilty of these at times) but they do have a negative effect.
Again you are letting good stories containing what you want to believe get in the way of reality.
good stories? i'm looking at the facts. that's really all i'm doing. and the facts continuously have a pattern, that government hinders, not helps, progress. that even well intended involvement by the government, hurts us all. and deprives us of things that the free market would otherwise bring us.
no, the consumers will leave/voice their opinions ect. which, well was the reason i heard about 4chan getting banned. i guess it's not surprising that they would start an attack on verizon though.
And we've given you concrete examples of things that did happen, and your answer has always been "oh well people will use dialup if their high-speed internet sucks because it's totally an equivalent good, just like a tricycle can replace a Porsche". Assuming, of course, that the phone company didn't decide to just hang-up on everyone every now and then just to make sure everyone who doesn't use their DSL is as miserable as they are.
there's satellite, which isn't great, but again. you want to screw over the whole system because some people don't have all the choices right now? And again, this is still not a big issue. Do you understand how the market works? do you understand, why you can go to the grocery store and buy a couple gallons of milk for only a few bucks? do you understand why your car, even if it's a crappy car, will still be a decent enough car? do you think all these other situations where the free market has flourished and delivered better goods for cheaper prices, had perfect competition? do you think there weren't people trying to cheat the system? You can apply your scenario to all other scenarios, but it never works out like that in the end. the best way to get rich is to deliver something valuable to your customers. that's what capitalism brings.
There's been plenty of cases out there where even the ISPs you deal with don't get a say in the matter, after all they have to buy their bandwidth from somewhere. In the US, after the FCC "deregulated" the regulation requiring telcos to share their lines, most of them kicked companies like speakeasy out of their markets, regardless of what those ISPs' customers wanted. Then there's the Canadian case of Bell Canada throttling other ISPs' connections [michaelgeist.ca] (again, without telling anyone, because companies don't want an informed marketplace).
They found out about it didn't they? companies can try to keep things a secret, but it doesn't usually work that well. And why should a company have to share a line? Of course, your answer here is that because government paid for it, in part. so the solution of having to much government involvement is more government involvement.
We enjoy the fruits of the free market every day, yet, in general, we despise it, because it doesn't seem like it would work, but history is full of it working. I dunno why these ideas of government control are still so popular. Look at what government control has done to education? they get involved with subsidizing tuition at the college level, and look at the costs? Fortunately we still have a lot of freedom at the higher level, so there's still competition that generates decent colleges. Government is completely in charge of lower level education and look how bad we are relative to other countries? Look at what's happened in medical care? prices have gone up tremendously. 50 years ago, there was no involvement and prices were lower, and people got the care they needed. Granted quality, has gone up, but that's inspite of government holding it back, with regulations, which are basically just extra taxes, because now all the medical paper work has to be done. and this whole system feeds into our insurance companies, who don't really have to compete. and the government gives tax breaks to employers who buy insurance for employees, but won't give a tax break if employees buy it on their own, thus artificially manipulating the market, and doing so to a great cost to everyone.
look at what happened with 4chan and verizon blocking that on some networks. I really doubt it would happen very often, since it's hasn't happened yet.
i've given concrete examples, explained why things work, and all that i've basically heard in opposition is that things might happen (when they haven't, and it's been this way awhile). and i'm the true believer??
they're gonna just cut off parts of the net? they will lose customers. that's what happens. if toyota makes a crappy car there's honda, subaru, ford ect. although people might enjoy more options in buying a car, the internet business is still pretty young.
and if my isp blocks me from posting here, i'm gonna keep giving them money? No, they'll start losing money, thus they won't block me, and in the case they do, they'll go bankrupt.
Comcast initiated RST attacks on users and denied it for ages. Bandwidth caps began applying, except to the streaming services provided by the carriers themselves. But if you're willing to trust a corporation not to fuck you over, well, that's your own game of russian roulette.
And the end result is people wont' get the service they want and will find alternatives. And you can make the same comparison to cars, which is a lot more appropriate. But in general, the free market works well to protect the consumer. why, because the consumer must willing pay for the service. So they're not gonna pay for something that doesn't work. Adam Smith's invisible hand is well at work, even when you're not aware of it.
So it's a monopoly, but not a monopoly. Because there are other, often inferior, alternatives to a monopoly granted by the municipality. You're saying that because dialup is available in the area, they have carte blanche to abuse their customers, am I right?
it's not really a monopoly is my point, unless you make your definition only to a narrow market. And again, the market protects customers, even with the smaller threat of dialup/satellite, it's not ideal, but it's good enough, becuase they still have to have costumers and the best way to keep/make more customers to treat them right. Most places know this, even if it doesn't always seem like they do.
You act like it's easy as it is. No, it's hard. The incumbents love how difficult it is now, they just don't like it when people get sick of their shit and apply legal pressure.
So you're saying because it's hard now, why not make it even harder?
But unnn.. do provide me with some links to the current wonderful regulations, becuase i'm to stupid to find them myself (and i haven't heard of them).
so why pass it then, even if it's true that the threat made them back off? And if they implemented those plans, how long do you think they'd last? really? They wouldn't. there's too many options.
As for it being harder to get into the industry, that's easy to say but do you have the least bit of evidence to back that up? Do you have any idea how difficult it is *now* ??
WHy make it harder? I'm not saying it's easy, It's not easy for anybody to come along and make a successful business. but successful businesses are good things for everyone, so I really want as little resistance to them as possible. And by making it harder, you'll make it easier on comcast, because the big guys have economies of scale, and that regulation doesn't fade them at all. It will screw up the little guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Right everyone believes that? maybe they say that, few really believe that. Although support is growing. How would someone like Obama have gotten elected if that were remotely true? And with the fervor he did?
Just remember that the only thing to stand up to a big business nowadays is big government, and the goal of any big business is to convince everyone that a small government can watch over big business just like a big government can.
completely wrong. This kind of proves my point above, because you don't understand what smaller government means. Businesses are not the problem themselves. the problems come from big business in bed with big government. Take this toyota thing. Do you think toyota is gonna make money off of this? no, they'll lose money. They do it enough, they'll be out of business. And look at what the government says in this case: they don't have software engineers to do this? great success of government. But if it wasn't for the fact, that government was already in there, there would be more competition from companies trying to analyze the cars. This might have been avoided all together. Maybe not, cus shit does happen, there is no perfect system.
i'm not pretending at all. You really don't understand how you don't need to be able to program to do much of computer science? How does it follow, that CS is math, but you need to program to do, what we both agree, is math? Did your (assuming you took CS) teachers spend most of their time showing code in front of students? Mine spent most of their time talking about theories, and logic and stuff. rarely was actual code shown (past the first few classes).
and like i said, andrew tanenbaum even stated as much. so unless you're gonna say he (and probably many others) don't know what computer science is, i think it's you that's wrong about this.
Then, since we both agree, CS is math, you should never take a math course from a math teacher who can't code.
I guess that's where idiocy like Object Orientation and all that crap comes from.
if it weren't for OO you won't have excel or OO in their current states, as of yet anyways.
So CS is math. then all mathematicians should be good at programming according to your logic. IN reality, you can do a lot of stuff in CS without programming, and even andrew tanenbaum mentioned that a few of his fellow professors can't even program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics
I mean down to the falling/trailing edge of the voltage change.
that's overkill. Although i agree, exposure to asm is a very good thing.
I always have problems with interviews.. i might have to check it out.
A Computer Scientist should always be a good programmer -- it's one of the core skills in CS.
not really. Let's quote Dijkstra:
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
Computer Science is math. you don't have to be a programmer to be good at math. But being good at math, is a strong positive in programming, obviously.
even if the millions cancel their internet? yeah actually a lose of revenue of that magnitude would make most companies cry pretty hard actually (million customers * 20 to 100 per month=lot of money). No, me leaving wouldn't make much of a different, but i wouldn't be the only one. and eventually they'd learn their lesson, or go bankrupt.
small time stories like this can generate a lot of negative attention for a big time company trying to squash it. or maybe that verizon math story is made up?
well u sure showed me! how do i get ur smartz pl0x???
txhxxx
i suppose you argue that a perfectly free market is non existent. but for all practical purposes, we've experienced the benefits of free markets.. so i really don't care if you want to get into a semantics debate, go for it.
A free market, doesn't require that there be many producers, only, as many as the market demands... which when left alone, it will rise/fall to that number, through business success or failures.
You couldn't come up with better examples than milk and cars?
oh let's see, milk, food, cars, tools, computers, phones, houses, gadgets, ummm.. just about everything you purchase. lots of stuff.
I don't know where you're living, but milk costs significantly more than $1.50 a gallon here. And last time I checked, the government regulated what can and can't be in milk, requires nutrition information to be on the carton, requires an ingredient list to include any additives, requires pasteurization of milk products, requires that products be marked with a "sell by" date, and requires that the dairy be inspected regularly. And, last time I checked, it would be illegal for a dairy to sign a contract with the city government giving them the exclusive right to sell milk in this city (at any price they wanted)
I don't know the price milk off hand, it's small enough i never bother to check (again thanks to the free market for lowering the cost of milk and paying me enough that essentials are a trivial amount of my income)
And what you think that they'd put in addatives that would hurt you or something? i mean really, that's a great way to get people to buy our milk, we'll make sure its' quality isn't as good.
Yet, despite all that interference from government, there is a competitive market for milk. I'm sure the dairies complained about how government interference was going to drive them out of business when any of those "anti-business" regulations was proposed.
i'd rather have it unregulated, because the regulations do nothing. and you're right, the free market is doing great despite the government. funny that. but regulations on these things are not the reasons you get decent milk in your fridge whenever you want it. it's profit.
Again, where the hell have you been living? Fifty years ago medical care had more regulation, not less. Hospitals and insurance companies were highly regulated and were in many instances required to be non-profit. It was the deregulation of hospitals and insurance companies that started in the 1980s that started the current wave of costs spiraling out of control.
right, i hear all the time, about how much paper work was required in those times. i mean, really, you think there was more regulations? they might have had a few that aren't here now, but seriously, there was no medicare, no medicaid, i don't believe there was the stupid rules on insurance that require people to purchase in state and stuff like that. I think you are just totally off.
Yes, and if it weren't for government regulation it would be a mufflerless, seatbeltless, airbagless car with no emissions controls burning leaded gasoline and getting 11 miles-per-gallon. I'm old enough to remember how each of those requirements was going to "destroy the auto industry". But what destroyed the American auto industry was building unreliable, gas guzzling, over-sized vehicles that nobody wanted to buy. How's that free market working out for ya?
right people wouldn't pay more money for a quieter car. oh wait they do. people wouldn't pay more for extra safety.. oh wait they do. Without regulation, these things wouldn't be strictly required, sure. so if people wanted, they could buy them (assuming anyone would make cars like that). so yeah, people would be free to do what they like. what's you're problem with this?
yes people probably exagerate the effects of regulations, (i'm probably guilty of these at times) but they do have a negative effect.
Again you are letting good stories containing what you want to believe get in the way of reality.
good stories? i'm looking at the facts. that's really all i'm doing. and the facts continuously have a pattern, that government hinders, not helps, progress. that even well intended involvement by the government, hurts us all. and deprives us of things that the free market would otherwise bring us.
no, the consumers will leave/voice their opinions ect. which, well was the reason i heard about 4chan getting banned. i guess it's not surprising that they would start an attack on verizon though.
And we've given you concrete examples of things that did happen, and your answer has always been "oh well people will use dialup if their high-speed internet sucks because it's totally an equivalent good, just like a tricycle can replace a Porsche". Assuming, of course, that the phone company didn't decide to just hang-up on everyone every now and then just to make sure everyone who doesn't use their DSL is as miserable as they are.
there's satellite, which isn't great, but again. you want to screw over the whole system because some people don't have all the choices right now? And again, this is still not a big issue. Do you understand how the market works? do you understand, why you can go to the grocery store and buy a couple gallons of milk for only a few bucks? do you understand why your car, even if it's a crappy car, will still be a decent enough car? do you think all these other situations where the free market has flourished and delivered better goods for cheaper prices, had perfect competition? do you think there weren't people trying to cheat the system? You can apply your scenario to all other scenarios, but it never works out like that in the end. the best way to get rich is to deliver something valuable to your customers. that's what capitalism brings.
There's been plenty of cases out there where even the ISPs you deal with don't get a say in the matter, after all they have to buy their bandwidth from somewhere. In the US, after the FCC "deregulated" the regulation requiring telcos to share their lines, most of them kicked companies like speakeasy out of their markets, regardless of what those ISPs' customers wanted. Then there's the Canadian case of Bell Canada throttling other ISPs' connections [michaelgeist.ca] (again, without telling anyone, because companies don't want an informed marketplace).
They found out about it didn't they? companies can try to keep things a secret, but it doesn't usually work that well. And why should a company have to share a line? Of course, your answer here is that because government paid for it, in part. so the solution of having to much government involvement is more government involvement.
We enjoy the fruits of the free market every day, yet, in general, we despise it, because it doesn't seem like it would work, but history is full of it working. I dunno why these ideas of government control are still so popular. Look at what government control has done to education? they get involved with subsidizing tuition at the college level, and look at the costs? Fortunately we still have a lot of freedom at the higher level, so there's still competition that generates decent colleges. Government is completely in charge of lower level education and look how bad we are relative to other countries? Look at what's happened in medical care? prices have gone up tremendously. 50 years ago, there was no involvement and prices were lower, and people got the care they needed. Granted quality, has gone up, but that's inspite of government holding it back, with regulations, which are basically just extra taxes, because now all the medical paper work has to be done. and this whole system feeds into our insurance companies, who don't really have to compete. and the government gives tax breaks to employers who buy insurance for employees, but won't give a tax break if employees buy it on their own, thus artificially manipulating the market, and doing so to a great cost to everyone.
sfdioahgaghasdf,afhalhf ok i'm done.
and how often does that happen? i'm sure it has happened.. but it's pretty rare.
look at what happened with 4chan and verizon blocking that on some networks. I really doubt it would happen very often, since it's hasn't happened yet.
i've given concrete examples, explained why things work, and all that i've basically heard in opposition is that things might happen (when they haven't, and it's been this way awhile). and i'm the true believer??
they're gonna just cut off parts of the net? they will lose customers. that's what happens. if toyota makes a crappy car there's honda, subaru, ford ect. although people might enjoy more options in buying a car, the internet business is still pretty young.
and if my isp blocks me from posting here, i'm gonna keep giving them money? No, they'll start losing money, thus they won't block me, and in the case they do, they'll go bankrupt.
Comcast initiated RST attacks on users and denied it for ages. Bandwidth caps began applying, except to the streaming services provided by the carriers themselves. But if you're willing to trust a corporation not to fuck you over, well, that's your own game of russian roulette.
And the end result is people wont' get the service they want and will find alternatives. And you can make the same comparison to cars, which is a lot more appropriate. But in general, the free market works well to protect the consumer. why, because the consumer must willing pay for the service. So they're not gonna pay for something that doesn't work. Adam Smith's invisible hand is well at work, even when you're not aware of it.
So it's a monopoly, but not a monopoly. Because there are other, often inferior, alternatives to a monopoly granted by the municipality. You're saying that because dialup is available in the area, they have carte blanche to abuse their customers, am I right?
it's not really a monopoly is my point, unless you make your definition only to a narrow market. And again, the market protects customers, even with the smaller threat of dialup/satellite, it's not ideal, but it's good enough, becuase they still have to have costumers and the best way to keep/make more customers to treat them right. Most places know this, even if it doesn't always seem like they do.
You act like it's easy as it is. No, it's hard. The incumbents love how difficult it is now, they just don't like it when people get sick of their shit and apply legal pressure.
So you're saying because it's hard now, why not make it even harder?
lol i love it. call me a moron pl0z thx.
But unnn.. do provide me with some links to the current wonderful regulations, becuase i'm to stupid to find them myself (and i haven't heard of them).
so why pass it then, even if it's true that the threat made them back off? And if they implemented those plans, how long do you think they'd last? really? They wouldn't. there's too many options.
As for it being harder to get into the industry, that's easy to say but do you have the least bit of evidence to back that up? Do you have any idea how difficult it is *now* ??
WHy make it harder? I'm not saying it's easy, It's not easy for anybody to come along and make a successful business. but successful businesses are good things for everyone, so I really want as little resistance to them as possible. And by making it harder, you'll make it easier on comcast, because the big guys have economies of scale, and that regulation doesn't fade them at all. It will screw up the little guy.
not like this, the FCC has stepped in and mucked with minor stuff. and that was only recently.