Look at the mass migration away from California that's currently happening. Look at the reasons. High taxes, High debt, High housing prices and lower standards of living.
I have been hearing this exact same song for very literally over 20 years.
It is not that California lacks real problems, but this handwaving argument is wrong at every level and always has been. California is less the place for everyone that it used to be, but that is a real problem in other states, too, and always has been.
Exactly. It is not as if I am unwilling to pay a fair price for that particular movie or this particular TV season. It is not about a few dollars.
But I am unwilling to sign up for a service that only makes sense as a bundle -- I am unwilling to make even implied promises about piles of money in the future to buy stuff I do not want. No, I am not going to sign up to Paramount for an intro cheap price for one month to binge watch Trek-- signing up and unsigning up is playing their game, a game I hate.
I bought my house with a bizarre spaghetti explosion of cable tacked to the walls and inside the garage. A sales guy on foot came by trying to sell me Comcast one day. I asked who and how they installed the lines. "Our guys are great! They do a great job." I glanced over at the side of my garage -- we were both in the driveway. "Um. Wha. We didn't do that..." Yeah, right. As if the Cable Fairie from a parallel universe where the Comcast boobs were not the only game in town just felt like 'effin over the previous owners .
Doesn't matter. The wear and tear on city streets is likely substantially greater -- brakes, tires, suspension, transmission all take vastly more damage in stop and go, even if you save on fewer oil changes that cost near nothing.
So, yeah, a flat per mile number is probably wrong, but it is not wrong in a way that counters justthinkit's point -- probably it makes his/her point even stronger.
For the record, the nature of the evidence does matter to me, and it is worthy of additional investigation. I do not have a strong conclusion about Kavanagh at this point.
But in the bigger picture, what we have on hand is the inevitable consequence of Make America Great Again. Democratic senators could literally dance in the aisle screaming "Lock him up!" and there is no point in complaining -- the moral counterargument was thrown in the trash by the American rightwing.
Yeah, I understand all that perfectly. But the Greeks had no idea because they could not measure the doppler effect on hydrogen emission lines of various stars.
My point is the heliocentric model was ridiculed for reasons that made a significant degree of sense given the science as it existed at the time.
Bringing in perfection and "angelic" behavior into the discussion is a Straw Man.
Libertarianism is a set of universal principles; authoritarian is the lack of universal principles. The Free Market is a long-term societal process that is aligned with universal principles.
The Free Market is built on the idea that it is possible to apply human volition to create agreements, agreements that may be imperfect, but are usually "understandable enough" by two or more human minds. In our modern society, these agreements are contracts. Contracts expected to be enforceable by courts of law applying understandable concepts about contract law. The cornerstone of contract law is "the meeting of minds", and that is a logically necessary concept due the natural imperfections of human language and communication.
Without the willingness to enforce a certain degree of honesty by the force of law, we have no expectation of "the meeting of minds", we have no contracts, we have no expectations of anything, and the Free Market is indistinguishable from "the lack of universal principles" because what actually happens in the economy devolves down to power.
In the scenario on hand, the ISPs know perfectly well how likely it is for them to be able to fulfill their contracts, because that knowledge is necessity for even a basic level of competence in network management. IMNSHO simply accepting an excuse like "Oh, I was surprised! Netflix ate my homework" as a reason for breaking a contract is indistinguishable from accepting that any lie as sufficient reason to break any contract at any time. Under such conditions the Free Market is no less mythological than unicorns and leprachauns.
I am confused. Space-time curvature is related to gravity. Why can't a whole big big bunch of "light" exert a gravitational effect the same way a little bit of the slow usual matter does? Energy is energy and has mass.
There was actually more subtle and powerful argument. The Greeks eventually had a pretty good handle on the size of the Earth. So if the Earth goes around the Sun, that implies that we who think we are standing still are moving about a thousand miles an hour. Wouldn't we notice?
Until inertia is formalized as per Newton, the intuitive answer of "oh, I feel like I am still" has a strong emotional pull.
Worse still, how fast are we moving around the sun? It turns out be a much greater speed. So why don't we notice that?
And how come there is no apparent parallax detected when looking at the stars? Unless the stars were "ridiculously" far away, why don't we notice certain stars seem closer/brighter at different times of the year?
The ISPs are not helpless. They are not surprised. They understand the trends year to year, and have many options for corrective action. No one is putting a gun to the head of the CEO of the ISP and forcing them to sell what they cannot provide.
Without the conviction to demand all actors to tell the truth, libertarianism is complete bullshit.
Most people think of it as a right that they should have. But they do not actually have it, as the current laws exist.
Unless you were a friend of John Gotti or personally attracted the attention of the police chief, tailing people 24/7 was too expensive to be practical...ten years ago.
Now tracking every car going down every major road in every metropolitan area is within reach, and perfectly legal. It is only a question of police department budget.
He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people.
If you think juxtaposing this Italian fellow with fellows like Christopher Columbus is winning argument, you should not be surprised if every intelligent, educated, honest person is a cultural Marxist in your eyes.
Isolated facts that appear to be purposefully isolated in that specific manner in order to obscure the big picture could reasonably be interpreted as trolling.
I am not offering an opinion on whether that applies to your earlier post BTW.
It matters insofar as prosperity is the only know non-cruel means of drastic population control, because economically secure modernized families seem to trend towards less than replacement births voluntarily the world over. Even in India, educated women who can easily feed and get medical care for their children just shrug after two or even one baby -- they are not personally interested in a larger than small family.
It would sure be nice not to have severe climate transitions over a measly century or so to create poverty and cause a few billion people to "die off" by other means.
Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree. It sure looks like a template with no real details filled out. I have never seen such a generic looking and uninformative website by an actual business ever.
I do recognize "kill yourself" as snark. The question in my mind is whether there are any boundaries on playing the man instead of the ball whatsoever. A little snark can have positive value in quickly communicating how strongly held a position is. But a lot of snark is a distraction and an indulgence. If someone cannot make their point adequately in a technical subject area with a technical argument, that seems like a problem with the person making the argument.
...the tiny little delicate plot device at the base of Doctor Otto Octavius' neck protecting his brain from being controlled by the AI robotic arms is damaged.
This makes me wonder what would happen if there were no rules about fraudulent claims.
How would that work out? Would it be okay for a company to outright lie about, say, their profits?
If I lie on a loan application about my income, I could conceivably be criminally and/or civilly liable. If Iie about certain facts about a car I am trying to sell you (e.g. I claim just had the brakes fixed, when my mechanic just confirmed my suspicion that the brakes were failing and I did not bother to have them fixed), I could conceivably be criminally and/or civilly liable.
What is so different about a CEO of a company who is offering one millionth ownership of a company on the public market if the CEO lies about everything? What can't that be criminally and/or civilly actionable? What is gained by allowing unlimited leeway for what is fundamentally no different from any other kind of fraud?
The idea that companies are honest now because they skate on the edges of the rules is laughable.
The rules are not expected to achieve some generic state of consistent trustworthiness. They are to prevent outright lying about certain things, so that the marketplace is honest enough to consistently attract divers investors. In the long run, that can be a win-win. More access to capital for businesses. More access to different kinds of investments to the general public.
I do not agree that a change in a "public stance" (from Linus' words) necessarily has anything to do with a "principle" (your word), especially in this case.
I do not claim to know Linus' heart, but I would guess he is a guy who is very focused on his work, and he sees amending the normal style of communication in the org has a small cost that might even have a larger compensatory gain. He probably does not see his style of communication as so important that it defines who he is as a person.
Is being a freewheeling fellow who feels license to tell people to kill themselves in a public forum something worthy of being proud of? I feel pity for anyone who would think that is the case. Apparently Linus would say "no", FWIW.
Stage 9 was probably found by an outsourced contractor that looks for copyright violations, and submitted the information to fill out the forms to its client, the law office. The law office had a moderately paid clerk print out a monthly batch of these things, to be "robosigned" by an actual lawyer who spends as little time as possible. The law office bills Paramount for all this wonderful work, with an hourly pricing for everyone involved that includes a fat profit for the law office.
When you contact the lawyer, a clerk prepares a response letter, and hands the original and response to the lawyer. The lawyer inspects the original C&D, signs the response (which says nothing more than "The original C&C is in order. Yes, you must comply."), and charges Paramount for an hour of the clerk and the lawyers time. Ka-ching! Even moar money.
They are never going to back down unless you actually pay for enough lawyer fees yourself to see this into a courtroom, but Paramounts lawyers here are going to laugh all the way to the bank. They are not going to apply their brains to the question of Stage 9 IP unless it looks like they might actually lose big in front of a real judge.
It is certainly possible to get huge positive benefits from "screens". But it is not realistic to expect such to happen, especially for young children. Even educational software is very gamified and of dubious positive value. It is only when you get to more real courses that computers offer significant educational value, which is for older children, and even those just do not work for everyone.
Furthermore, the screen world is full of entertainment, infortainment, and edutainment. I would say getting used to being entertained is a significant negative lesson.
To put it another way, Mister Rogers was right and Sesame Street was wrong. Sesame Street tried to use the modern media techniques to deliver educational content, and I think it was mostly (but not completely) a failure. Mister Rogers tried to keep it very very simple and slow and real, treat the viewers as human beings rather than eyeballs that needed to be grabbed by dazzling cinematic craft, and trust that simply showing interesting things is even better when not trying hard to entertain.
Of course, better than Mister Rogers is getting outside and digging in the dirt.
All or nothing, black and white arguments are the fave among practiced hypocrites who like to whine about hypocrisy (and that is something we see too much of on all over the political spectrum).
Torvald's argues that his essential stance and values have always been the same, but how he promotes his position has changed because circumstances have changed. Maybe that is right, maybe that is wrong, but I am not going to take your snowflaky opinion about Linus without you baking it up with...anything. Linus has an argument to back up his position. You have whining.
I would further add that core system replacement project management is effectively a rare skillset. There are reasons that these big giant companies avoid replacing these systems for 25+ years. Of course the time comes that it needs to be done. Then what? Well, nobody who who did the deed 25 years ago works here anymore.
If I need to buy a new car, that is a significant cost to me, but I can easily find lots of excellent advice from people who have experience on the topic. If I need to buy a house, that is a huge event in my life that does not happen often, but, again, I can easily find lots of excellent advice.
If I am Citibank and I want to replace a core system there may only be a few hundred people on the planet with truly relevant experience of working in such a complex crufty system and keeping the plane flying while replacing the wings. And, of course, for Citibank, there are all kinds of reasons, good and bad, that so-and-so's experience in that bank over there might be argued to not apply to a big important company like Citibank. Do you dare go outside and hire on a team of people for resumes that sort of apply? Do you dare stick with the people inside the company that you at least you know but lack certain key experience? Tough call.
100 years ago the basketball-americans that were a threat to the American way of life were Jews. In another 100 years, our present basketball-americans will be integrated just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the mass migration away from California that's currently happening. Look at the reasons. High taxes, High debt, High housing prices and lower standards of living.
I have been hearing this exact same song for very literally over 20 years.
It is not that California lacks real problems, but this handwaving argument is wrong at every level and always has been. California is less the place for everyone that it used to be, but that is a real problem in other states, too, and always has been.
Exactly. It is not as if I am unwilling to pay a fair price for that particular movie or this particular TV season. It is not about a few dollars.
But I am unwilling to sign up for a service that only makes sense as a bundle -- I am unwilling to make even implied promises about piles of money in the future to buy stuff I do not want. No, I am not going to sign up to Paramount for an intro cheap price for one month to binge watch Trek-- signing up and unsigning up is playing their game, a game I hate.
I bought my house with a bizarre spaghetti explosion of cable tacked to the walls and inside the garage. A sales guy on foot came by trying to sell me Comcast one day. I asked who and how they installed the lines. "Our guys are great! They do a great job." I glanced over at the side of my garage -- we were both in the driveway. "Um. Wha. We didn't do that..." Yeah, right. As if the Cable Fairie from a parallel universe where the Comcast boobs were not the only game in town just felt like 'effin over the previous owners .
Doesn't matter. The wear and tear on city streets is likely substantially greater -- brakes, tires, suspension, transmission all take vastly more damage in stop and go, even if you save on fewer oil changes that cost near nothing.
So, yeah, a flat per mile number is probably wrong, but it is not wrong in a way that counters justthinkit's point -- probably it makes his/her point even stronger.
For the record, the nature of the evidence does matter to me, and it is worthy of additional investigation. I do not have a strong conclusion about Kavanagh at this point.
But in the bigger picture, what we have on hand is the inevitable consequence of Make America Great Again. Democratic senators could literally dance in the aisle screaming "Lock him up!" and there is no point in complaining -- the moral counterargument was thrown in the trash by the American rightwing.
Yeah, I understand all that perfectly. But the Greeks had no idea because they could not measure the doppler effect on hydrogen emission lines of various stars.
My point is the heliocentric model was ridiculed for reasons that made a significant degree of sense given the science as it existed at the time.
Bringing in perfection and "angelic" behavior into the discussion is a Straw Man.
Libertarianism is a set of universal principles; authoritarian is the lack of universal principles. The Free Market is a long-term societal process that is aligned with universal principles.
The Free Market is built on the idea that it is possible to apply human volition to create agreements, agreements that may be imperfect, but are usually "understandable enough" by two or more human minds. In our modern society, these agreements are contracts. Contracts expected to be enforceable by courts of law applying understandable concepts about contract law. The cornerstone of contract law is "the meeting of minds", and that is a logically necessary concept due the natural imperfections of human language and communication.
Without the willingness to enforce a certain degree of honesty by the force of law, we have no expectation of "the meeting of minds", we have no contracts, we have no expectations of anything, and the Free Market is indistinguishable from "the lack of universal principles" because what actually happens in the economy devolves down to power.
In the scenario on hand, the ISPs know perfectly well how likely it is for them to be able to fulfill their contracts, because that knowledge is necessity for even a basic level of competence in network management. IMNSHO simply accepting an excuse like "Oh, I was surprised! Netflix ate my homework" as a reason for breaking a contract is indistinguishable from accepting that any lie as sufficient reason to break any contract at any time. Under such conditions the Free Market is no less mythological than unicorns and leprachauns.
I am confused. Space-time curvature is related to gravity. Why can't a whole big big bunch of "light" exert a gravitational effect the same way a little bit of the slow usual matter does? Energy is energy and has mass.
Is there something I am missing?
There was actually more subtle and powerful argument. The Greeks eventually had a pretty good handle on the size of the Earth. So if the Earth goes around the Sun, that implies that we who think we are standing still are moving about a thousand miles an hour. Wouldn't we notice?
Until inertia is formalized as per Newton, the intuitive answer of "oh, I feel like I am still" has a strong emotional pull.
Worse still, how fast are we moving around the sun? It turns out be a much greater speed. So why don't we notice that?
And how come there is no apparent parallax detected when looking at the stars? Unless the stars were "ridiculously" far away, why don't we notice certain stars seem closer/brighter at different times of the year?
The ISPs are not helpless. They are not surprised. They understand the trends year to year, and have many options for corrective action. No one is putting a gun to the head of the CEO of the ISP and forcing them to sell what they cannot provide.
Without the conviction to demand all actors to tell the truth, libertarianism is complete bullshit.
Most people think of it as a right that they should have. But they do not actually have it, as the current laws exist.
Unless you were a friend of John Gotti or personally attracted the attention of the police chief, tailing people 24/7 was too expensive to be practical...ten years ago.
Now tracking every car going down every major road in every metropolitan area is within reach, and perfectly legal. It is only a question of police department budget.
He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people.
If you think juxtaposing this Italian fellow with fellows like Christopher Columbus is winning argument, you should not be surprised if every intelligent, educated, honest person is a cultural Marxist in your eyes.
Isolated facts that appear to be purposefully isolated in that specific manner in order to obscure the big picture could reasonably be interpreted as trolling.
I am not offering an opinion on whether that applies to your earlier post BTW.
It matters insofar as prosperity is the only know non-cruel means of drastic population control, because economically secure modernized families seem to trend towards less than replacement births voluntarily the world over. Even in India, educated women who can easily feed and get medical care for their children just shrug after two or even one baby -- they are not personally interested in a larger than small family.
It would sure be nice not to have severe climate transitions over a measly century or so to create poverty and cause a few billion people to "die off" by other means.
Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree. It sure looks like a template with no real details filled out. I have never seen such a generic looking and uninformative website by an actual business ever.
I do recognize "kill yourself" as snark. The question in my mind is whether there are any boundaries on playing the man instead of the ball whatsoever. A little snark can have positive value in quickly communicating how strongly held a position is. But a lot of snark is a distraction and an indulgence. If someone cannot make their point adequately in a technical subject area with a technical argument, that seems like a problem with the person making the argument.
...the tiny little delicate plot device at the base of Doctor Otto Octavius' neck protecting his brain from being controlled by the AI robotic arms is damaged.
This makes me wonder what would happen if there were no rules about fraudulent claims.
How would that work out? Would it be okay for a company to outright lie about, say, their profits?
If I lie on a loan application about my income, I could conceivably be criminally and/or civilly liable. If Iie about certain facts about a car I am trying to sell you (e.g. I claim just had the brakes fixed, when my mechanic just confirmed my suspicion that the brakes were failing and I did not bother to have them fixed), I could conceivably be criminally and/or civilly liable.
What is so different about a CEO of a company who is offering one millionth ownership of a company on the public market if the CEO lies about everything? What can't that be criminally and/or civilly actionable? What is gained by allowing unlimited leeway for what is fundamentally no different from any other kind of fraud?
The idea that companies are honest now because they skate on the edges of the rules is laughable.
The rules are not expected to achieve some generic state of consistent trustworthiness. They are to prevent outright lying about certain things, so that the marketplace is honest enough to consistently attract divers investors. In the long run, that can be a win-win. More access to capital for businesses. More access to different kinds of investments to the general public.
I do not agree that a change in a "public stance" (from Linus' words) necessarily has anything to do with a "principle" (your word), especially in this case.
I do not claim to know Linus' heart, but I would guess he is a guy who is very focused on his work, and he sees amending the normal style of communication in the org has a small cost that might even have a larger compensatory gain. He probably does not see his style of communication as so important that it defines who he is as a person.
Is being a freewheeling fellow who feels license to tell people to kill themselves in a public forum something worthy of being proud of? I feel pity for anyone who would think that is the case. Apparently Linus would say "no", FWIW.
Exactly.
Most likely...
Stage 9 was probably found by an outsourced contractor that looks for copyright violations, and submitted the information to fill out the forms to its client, the law office. The law office had a moderately paid clerk print out a monthly batch of these things, to be "robosigned" by an actual lawyer who spends as little time as possible. The law office bills Paramount for all this wonderful work, with an hourly pricing for everyone involved that includes a fat profit for the law office.
When you contact the lawyer, a clerk prepares a response letter, and hands the original and response to the lawyer. The lawyer inspects the original C&D, signs the response (which says nothing more than "The original C&C is in order. Yes, you must comply."), and charges Paramount for an hour of the clerk and the lawyers time. Ka-ching! Even moar money.
They are never going to back down unless you actually pay for enough lawyer fees yourself to see this into a courtroom, but Paramounts lawyers here are going to laugh all the way to the bank. They are not going to apply their brains to the question of Stage 9 IP unless it looks like they might actually lose big in front of a real judge.
First the robots came for the hedgehogs, but I did not speak out because I was not a hedgehog.
It is certainly possible to get huge positive benefits from "screens". But it is not realistic to expect such to happen, especially for young children. Even educational software is very gamified and of dubious positive value. It is only when you get to more real courses that computers offer significant educational value, which is for older children, and even those just do not work for everyone.
Furthermore, the screen world is full of entertainment, infortainment, and edutainment. I would say getting used to being entertained is a significant negative lesson.
To put it another way, Mister Rogers was right and Sesame Street was wrong. Sesame Street tried to use the modern media techniques to deliver educational content, and I think it was mostly (but not completely) a failure. Mister Rogers tried to keep it very very simple and slow and real, treat the viewers as human beings rather than eyeballs that needed to be grabbed by dazzling cinematic craft, and trust that simply showing interesting things is even better when not trying hard to entertain.
Of course, better than Mister Rogers is getting outside and digging in the dirt.
All or nothing, black and white arguments are the fave among practiced hypocrites who like to whine about hypocrisy (and that is something we see too much of on all over the political spectrum).
Torvald's argues that his essential stance and values have always been the same, but how he promotes his position has changed because circumstances have changed. Maybe that is right, maybe that is wrong, but I am not going to take your snowflaky opinion about Linus without you baking it up with...anything. Linus has an argument to back up his position. You have whining.
Another factor: relevant in house expertise.
I would further add that core system replacement project management is effectively a rare skillset. There are reasons that these big giant companies avoid replacing these systems for 25+ years. Of course the time comes that it needs to be done. Then what? Well, nobody who who did the deed 25 years ago works here anymore.
If I need to buy a new car, that is a significant cost to me, but I can easily find lots of excellent advice from people who have experience on the topic. If I need to buy a house, that is a huge event in my life that does not happen often, but, again, I can easily find lots of excellent advice.
If I am Citibank and I want to replace a core system there may only be a few hundred people on the planet with truly relevant experience of working in such a complex crufty system and keeping the plane flying while replacing the wings. And, of course, for Citibank, there are all kinds of reasons, good and bad, that so-and-so's experience in that bank over there might be argued to not apply to a big important company like Citibank. Do you dare go outside and hire on a team of people for resumes that sort of apply? Do you dare stick with the people inside the company that you at least you know but lack certain key experience? Tough call.
100 years ago the basketball-americans that were a threat to the American way of life were Jews. In another 100 years, our present basketball-americans will be integrated just fine.