Worse that that, because once they had paid for the R&D for the recipe the real cost of ingredients in each new instance of the pizza approaches zero. With infinite supply the value of that product to the market should approach cost, which approaches zero.
Not to mention neighbours and near neighbours being able to share internet. In Sydney in the early 2000's there was a private network strung together using Pringles cans for antennas. It wasn't allowed to be connected to the Internet due to telco laws.
I doubt that you would be prosecuted as if YOU did the biting. i.e. for assault or murder, depending on the nature of the bite. Far more likely the only crime you may have committed would be keeping a dangerous dog, but only if it were reasonable for you to suspect that the dog was dangerous - such a dog that is required to wear a muzzle in public, or that you trained him to bite.
Of course it is not a valid analogy. You are equating a dog to a wireless access point and the act of that dog biting someone to the act of that someone using the wireless access point without permission. The only part of your analogy that works is that there is a owner in both cases.
It is very simple. Third person uses some of my property to commit a crime (a lawnmower, car, set of golf clubs or if they are really inventive, my water supply). Maybe I lent it to them, or maybe they just 'borrowed it' from my front lawn. Should I be held responsible for what they do? No, didn't think so.
"How politically correct is it to propose a model which would essentially give a large amount of money to porn companies?"
If more people watch, for example, Juicy Lucy goes Down Under, than Tom Cruise in his latest drivel (and you know they do, despite what the box office figures say), why shouldn't Lucy and her cohorts get remunerated accordingly?
Or. Anyone who uploads bits to anyone else gets a very small fee per MB. Anyone who downloads pays that fee plus a handling fee to their ISP (rather than a connection fee).
In other words you pay simply for the volume of data you take from the Internet. Sure you may still get piracy, but the people downloading would know that by going to the official site they are supporting the work, otherwise they are not.
Or you could look to how artistic works got created in the past - patronage.
Wanna know where that movie or music money goes? Well sometimes it goes to the star (McCartney is worth almost $800 mil, Cruise around $250 mil). But a huge wedge goes to the publishers and distributors.
The future for music may be a mix of live concerts and possible fan funded development. The film industry spending $250 million on a film may be doomed, but the quality and diversity of the films is likely to go up as a result. Super Size Me cost $65k to make and netted 30 million (although to be fair I don't know how much marketing cost). Source http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
A private company that is presumably offering "internet access" to it's customers, but then defining "internet access" to be a subset of the actual Internet.
Philips can sell bulbs at whatever price the market is prepared to buy them at. Nothing is forcing you to do so though as there are MUCH cheaper alternatives out there.
What I don't understand is your apparent unhappiness about a law designed to reduce energy consumption. Are you equally unhappy about laws to protect the environment from pollution or wanton destruction? Or laws which require cars to be sold with seat belts?
The OP showed that his reasons for driving a truck were pretty selfish (larger vehicle = more damage to environment and roadways), and misguided (safety rating of large vehicles tend to be worse than low fuel consumption compacts, such as the VW Golf, although this is changing).
I don't care how polite you say you are, if you drive a vehicle that is unnecessarily large and obstruct my view of the road ahead as a result (I am talking city driving here) then I will think of you accordingly. Oh, and coercing behaviour out of people isn't something I would equate with polite.
Prosecuting people for being serial killers? Maybe 100 people a year in a population of 300 million... a rounding error.
Surely all laws in a society should be about what is right, not what is mathematically significant?
The real problem is that the most tax paid is by the people (or companies) rich enough to attract a high rate, but not rich enough to be able to use every trick in the book to avoid tax.
Which is why my company in Australia, with a turn over of much less than one million last year, paid around the same to the Australian tax office that Google paid with a turnover of 200 million (or 1 billion, depending on who you ask).
No, you are not a troll, but someone who blindly follows rules probably needs a wake-up call.
So, if you run a cafe with free wireless the same applies? Or a school or university? What about care homes? If not, why the distinction?
What about the people who use your electricity, or land? You responsible for what they do? And if someone borrows your car and robs a bank, you responsible for the robbery?
See where this is going yet?
If you still need convincing, what about if your teenage child sends a compromising picture or receives one from a friend across your network. You wanna go down for kiddie porn?
Sadly I think you are right. They have a precedent with motor vehicles. And as we all know you can do way more harm by copyright infringement than you can with a vehicle.
You may be okay with that, but I sure as hell am not. At least not while police harass people for not wearing helmets while cycling, or youngsters walking to school unattended, or breaking up legitimate protests, or prosecuting people for smoking a bit of dope, all of which are regarded as worthwhile activities for the police in Sydney.
The problem is that the police really aren't there for the average Joe. They are there to keep society in order so that the rich stay that way.
What I would love is an alternative DNS network that circumvented the official ones and allowed us a free internet again. After all there is no reason why we HAVE to allow ICANN to decide where our domain names go,
Would love to see the justification for ISPs blocking an alternative DNS.
I will also add that I am wrong due to the fact that most of Russia is in Asia, and even on the projection I am looking at the bit of Russia to the left of the Urals is definitely smaller than the bit below Russia and above Australia, EVEN if you include Franz Josef land and all the sea in between.
I blame old age and the fact that/. doesn't allow editing.
They are not parasites. They are just lacking good accountants. Most rich people pay a far lower % of income tax than the man on the street, courtesy of tax minimisation planning and clever accountants.
Is this REALLY what you think? Because outside in the real world all we really see is same old same old...
Still killing Afghans and using more drones than ever to execute people who may or may not be involved in terrorism, and their families, and any pets, livestock and passers by that happen to be in the area.
Oh, and adding Australia to the very long list of countries that you have bases in. Does anyone have a military base in the US? No, well why the fuck do you have to have one in my bloody country?
Slashdot Mirror
Worse that that, because once they had paid for the R&D for the recipe the real cost of ingredients in each new instance of the pizza approaches zero. With infinite supply the value of that product to the market should approach cost, which approaches zero.
Not to mention neighbours and near neighbours being able to share internet. In Sydney in the early 2000's there was a private network strung together using Pringles cans for antennas. It wasn't allowed to be connected to the Internet due to telco laws.
I doubt that you would be prosecuted as if YOU did the biting. i.e. for assault or murder, depending on the nature of the bite. Far more likely the only crime you may have committed would be keeping a dangerous dog, but only if it were reasonable for you to suspect that the dog was dangerous - such a dog that is required to wear a muzzle in public, or that you trained him to bite.
Of course it is not a valid analogy. You are equating a dog to a wireless access point and the act of that dog biting someone to the act of that someone using the wireless access point without permission. The only part of your analogy that works is that there is a owner in both cases.
It is very simple. Third person uses some of my property to commit a crime (a lawnmower, car, set of golf clubs or if they are really inventive, my water supply). Maybe I lent it to them, or maybe they just 'borrowed it' from my front lawn. Should I be held responsible for what they do? No, didn't think so.
"How politically correct is it to propose a model which would essentially give a large amount of money to porn companies?"
If more people watch, for example, Juicy Lucy goes Down Under, than Tom Cruise in his latest drivel (and you know they do, despite what the box office figures say), why shouldn't Lucy and her cohorts get remunerated accordingly?
Or. Anyone who uploads bits to anyone else gets a very small fee per MB. Anyone who downloads pays that fee plus a handling fee to their ISP (rather than a connection fee).
In other words you pay simply for the volume of data you take from the Internet. Sure you may still get piracy, but the people downloading would know that by going to the official site they are supporting the work, otherwise they are not.
The centre for economic and policy research postulates a tax deductable "artistic freedom voucher":
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/the-artistic-freedom-voucher-internet-age-alternative-to-copyrights
Then there is Kickstarter.
Or you could look to how artistic works got created in the past - patronage.
Wanna know where that movie or music money goes? Well sometimes it goes to the star (McCartney is worth almost $800 mil, Cruise around $250 mil). But a huge wedge goes to the publishers and distributors.
The future for music may be a mix of live concerts and possible fan funded development. The film industry spending $250 million on a film may be doomed, but the quality and diversity of the films is likely to go up as a result. Super Size Me cost $65k to make and netted 30 million (although to be fair I don't know how much marketing cost). Source http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
A private company that is presumably offering "internet access" to it's customers, but then defining "internet access" to be a subset of the actual Internet.
Trades descriptions appeal anyone?
Progress and tracking?
Yep, you certainly sound like a recent MBA grad...
Who said they couldn't do both?
Blimey. You really have given this some thought. If I were in charge I can think of a hellava lot of things to do before I got to SMS's.
I think I might start with Lawyers...
But they are more efficient at producing light from power and so generate less heat, and therefore less damage.
Come now, the alternative to an 100W incandescent lamp costing a dollar is NOT a bulb costing $29. It is a CFL costing around $8.
Philips can sell bulbs at whatever price the market is prepared to buy them at. Nothing is forcing you to do so though as there are MUCH cheaper alternatives out there.
What I don't understand is your apparent unhappiness about a law designed to reduce energy consumption. Are you equally unhappy about laws to protect the environment from pollution or wanton destruction? Or laws which require cars to be sold with seat belts?
Okay, I will bite...
The OP showed that his reasons for driving a truck were pretty selfish (larger vehicle = more damage to environment and roadways), and misguided (safety rating of large vehicles tend to be worse than low fuel consumption compacts, such as the VW Golf, although this is changing).
I don't care how polite you say you are, if you drive a vehicle that is unnecessarily large and obstruct my view of the road ahead as a result (I am talking city driving here) then I will think of you accordingly. Oh, and coercing behaviour out of people isn't something I would equate with polite.
Prosecuting people for being serial killers? Maybe 100 people a year in a population of 300 million ... a rounding error.
Surely all laws in a society should be about what is right, not what is mathematically significant?
The real problem is that the most tax paid is by the people (or companies) rich enough to attract a high rate, but not rich enough to be able to use every trick in the book to avoid tax.
Which is why my company in Australia, with a turn over of much less than one million last year, paid around the same to the Australian tax office that Google paid with a turnover of 200 million (or 1 billion, depending on who you ask).
No, you are not a troll, but someone who blindly follows rules probably needs a wake-up call.
So, if you run a cafe with free wireless the same applies? Or a school or university? What about care homes? If not, why the distinction?
What about the people who use your electricity, or land? You responsible for what they do? And if someone borrows your car and robs a bank, you responsible for the robbery?
See where this is going yet?
If you still need convincing, what about if your teenage child sends a compromising picture or receives one from a friend across your network. You wanna go down for kiddie porn?
Sadly I think you are right. They have a precedent with motor vehicles. And as we all know you can do way more harm by copyright infringement than you can with a vehicle.
You may be okay with that, but I sure as hell am not. At least not while police harass people for not wearing helmets while cycling, or youngsters walking to school unattended, or breaking up legitimate protests, or prosecuting people for smoking a bit of dope, all of which are regarded as worthwhile activities for the police in Sydney.
The problem is that the police really aren't there for the average Joe. They are there to keep society in order so that the rich stay that way.
It's worse than that. Think of the children...
Good point actually. The moment they start to filter they can't say they offer access to the Internet, only the Internet*
*stuff the government doesn't like excluded, subject to change at any time
What I would love is an alternative DNS network that circumvented the official ones and allowed us a free internet again. After all there is no reason why we HAVE to allow ICANN to decide where our domain names go,
Would love to see the justification for ISPs blocking an alternative DNS.
I will also add that I am wrong due to the fact that most of Russia is in Asia, and even on the projection I am looking at the bit of Russia to the left of the Urals is definitely smaller than the bit below Russia and above Australia, EVEN if you include Franz Josef land and all the sea in between.
I blame old age and the fact that /. doesn't allow editing.
Last time I looked Asia was a big place. Not as big as Russia but that's the Van Der Grinton projection for you.
So maybe you are both right.
They are not parasites. They are just lacking good accountants. Most rich people pay a far lower % of income tax than the man on the street, courtesy of tax minimisation planning and clever accountants.
Is this REALLY what you think? Because outside in the real world all we really see is same old same old...
Still killing Afghans and using more drones than ever to execute people who may or may not be involved in terrorism, and their families, and any pets, livestock and passers by that happen to be in the area.
Oh, and adding Australia to the very long list of countries that you have bases in. Does anyone have a military base in the US? No, well why the fuck do you have to have one in my bloody country?