So your response is that the "free market" allows him to open is own company, yet the same supposedly "free market" will prevent him opening up said company unless he pays the competition a ton of money (if they are even willing to license the patent at all) in order to be legally allowed to operate. Yup, that's sure a viable solution. =/
Technically, yes. You are engaging in censorship. A parent's right to censor material for their children the believe to be inappropriate is just a type of censorship that is generally accepted. It doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, censorship.
and I explicitly state here that the illogical desire to reject copyright law is not a "good logical reason"
Seems you specifically stated that it was illogical, you didn't even use the word arbitrary at all.
You're arguing for a reason why intellectual property should not be physical property, which it is not. That doesn't mean that it is not property. Arguing that "property" should be constrained only to "physical property" is at least arbitrary, and at worst reactionary denialism.
Actually it's entirely logical, not arbitrary. Everyday information is not intellectual property and it is not physical property. Since those are the only two types of property recognized by law then it cannot, in fact, be considered property. It is knowledge, an idea. If I find a piece of information, I have not taken it from someone. It is not a finite resource. It is not artificially scarce, I can tell anyone. Information does not have any owner, only people who know it all of which have the sole right to enjoy and dispose of their own version of it, but infinite versions can and will exist. Information is nothing like property and thus should not be considered as such. You may disagree, but it is not arbitrary, it is a logical argument.
Considering that the definition of engineering is generally the application of technical, scientific, and/or mathematic knowledge to design and realize the creation of some desired structure/object/process or method. Thus electrical engineering is engineering by virtue of it meets the definition of using technical and scientific knowledge to design and realize the creation of electrical circuits. It is more than just macroscopic construction. This doesn't relate to our discussion on property because there are certain properties of property (pun not intended) which information just doesn't meet.
The gold bar under my bed has value even if no one knows about it.
Technically, that gold bar of yours is useless if no one knows about it but you. If you want to utilize the value of a gold bar, you have to tell someone about it to sell it or trade it for something else of value. Property only has value because it is desired by others in order to be traded for other property or utilized.
The wife in this case had a secret affair, this information had no value until her husband found out about the information.
The other problem to think about is that property only has value because it is scarce and desired. Anything that can be infinitely copied by definition has no value. (Copyright gives value to things that can be infinitely copied by enforcing scarcity upon it. So no, that's not a contradiction).
You assume that the desire to reject copyright law in its current form is illogical.
While there are people who are against copyright entirely (many for entirely logical reasons) there are also those who are only against copyright in its current form, specifically the length of it. Which is once again completely logical.
To address the topic at hand, IANAL but I'm fairly certain that information is generally not considered legally protected property. Otherwise privacy laws would be considered to be handling theft or otherwise dealing with property when they do not. If the wife had given him permission to access her email or provided him with the credentials voluntarily for the purpose of him having access, then there is no crime here.
A logical reason against information being considered as "property" becomes a problem because in general you can't replicate property like you can information. This is the reason the entire concept of intellectual property was created, because information just doesn't behave as physical property would.
Uhm, a patent is supposed to be directions on how to implement an idea. The specific implementation (creation of the invention) is what is patented, not the idea itself.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work......too bad no one actually cares about the rules....
How will the passed net neutrality regulation affect either of those things?
I already said that what the FCC passed was not really Net Neutrality. I was addressing the fact what is actually desired from Net Neutrality does not solve an "imaginary" problem as many people keep saying.
One is telco industry financial porn that would vary rates by service - and never actually be put into play because customers would revolt to other carriers
Yet if all the carriers do this, there's no where to revolt to. There's not enough competition to prevent it. Not only that, but all the big named ISPs in the US have already been saying they have plans to do this type of thing and have been lobbying enough that the passed regulation might even allow it under the guise of "premium services" or whatnot.
The other is about a PEERING agreement, which the regulations say nothing about and never have.
Comcast is asking level 3 to pay them more money to carry the traffic that Comcast's own customers have requested. You obviously believe what Comcast has said, however it seems a little too convenient when they have only done this now, level 3 carries Netflix's data, and it competes against a video streaming service Comcast owns. Aside from the fact that why should level 3 have to pay extra to Comcast to give its customers the data they requested? Comcast is already being paid by its customers. From the techcrunch link:
Wrong. What Comcast is really doing is holding a certain set of bits hostage. Level 3 does act like a backbone and it is an extremely important backbone. Anything you do online probably touches Level 3 at some point. Therefore, to force Level 3 to pay what a CDN does to blow content through Comcast’s network is non-competitive
As another example, maybe you remember in 2006 when AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com
And why would any regulation block that? Are you seriously saying spam filtering is now outlawed?
Who said anything about spam? When they set up that block, people couldn't send any emails to their own friends if they contained a link to www.dearaol.com. Spam filters should be handled by whatever client you use to use email, in this case I can understand Aol having a spam filter considering that they are the email provider, but this has nothing to do with spam. A spam filter should send spam into a spam folder, this was AOL preventing anyone from SENDING an email to any AOL user where the email contained that link. It's outright censorship, blocking emails based on content.
No Network Neutrality proposed to date solves any of the "problems" you listed - you'll note that the free market in fact handled them quite well.
Actually, the Network Neutrality that the advocacy groups are proposing, that most of the Net Neutrality advocates on slashdot have been stating they want, would solve these problems by disallowing them. The free market didn't handle any of them. Up until 2005 carriers weren't allowed to do any of this. That's when Net Neutrality was removed (note, that Net Neutrality is not a new desire, it's a desire to replace an old regulation). Since 2005, ISPs have been testing the waters with what they can get away with because there is just simply not enough competition at all. Comcast still throttles Bittorrent traffic, and the "free market" hasn't solved that yet.
What about in 2007 when Verizon censored text messages sent from a Pro-Choice group to its supporters? Give me a break, abuses are happening all the time. The problem is not imaginary. And yes, the FCC's passed "Net Neutrality" rules are no where near what is needed or desired. It doesn't mean that Net Neutrality isn't needed.
Many ISPs and other companies have been rattling about wanting to do pretty much everything that the concept of Net Neutrality is against for years. Up until 2005, Net Neutrality was pretty much law. It was a Supreme Court case that undid it.
As another example, maybe you remember in 2006 when AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com.
While what the FCC passed as "Net Neutrality" was not in fact Net Neutrality in anything but name, do not claim that it is solving an "imaginary" problem because that is outright wrong.
Perhaps you should re-read my comments before making assumptions. I understand the problem with wikipedia as it is unmonitored and unmoderated. I understand the desire for all information to be on paper and known. I also never said one should ignore explicit instructions from the judge.
My problem is situations such as having an encyclopedia in the juror room. Or things such as how if before the trial the juror had looked up the definition in an encyclopedia or dictionary there is nothing wrong if they remember that and refer to that yet if they look at an encyclopedia during the trial it's against the rules and instructions given. there's a disconnect here.
Lawyers intentionally choose juries who do not know anything concerning the issue at hand because they do not want someone who actually has the knowledge to be able to call them on any bullshit. So we routinely have a group of jurors who know nothing about the topic at hand and are encouraged not to learn anything about it, and then trust these jurors to make an informed decision. It's absurd. There's a reason why jury nullification and fully informed juries exist.
I'm not saying that someone should ignore explicit instructions from a judge, I'm saying that we should work to fix the system.
To use an earlier example. If I'm accused of cracking and other computer crimes, and the jury has been pruned for every single person who could know anything about computers at all has been removed. How the hell is that a jury of my peers?
The difference with movies is that the experience of seeing it in the theatre is different than watching it at home, that is correct.
The way they are not different is that the experience of seeing a live musical performance by a band is very very different from listening to it in your own home or off an MP3 player. Also, the musician gets a larger share of money in that case than the studio gets when you watch it in the theatre. =)
I don't equate the FCC with Net Neutrality. Especially considering that the "rules" they passed are not net Neutrality. However, if Net Neutrality ever does happen, it is the FCC which would enforce it.
Not to mention that, at least right now, it's much more likely that we'll be able to get the FCC to fix it's rules into real Net Neutrality than the possibility of Congress actually passing any Net Neutrality law.
Except the only reason the FCC can censor broadcasting is because congress expressly gave them the right to censor broadcasting. Therefore since right now the FCC only has regulatory authority for how the pipes are used and on the ISPs but do NOT have regulatory authority for any kind of content of the internet, Congress would have to pass a new law in order for any censorship of the internet to come out of the FCC.
In fact, the only reason that the FCC has those obscenity rules for broadcasting is due to think-of-the-children right-wing conservatives who think that the government needs to protect the children from anything "indecent" rather than actually, ya know, parent their fucking kids. So crying that Net Neutrality will lead directly to censorship is ridiculous.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Franklin
Except that quote doesn't apply since Net Neutrality is attempting to secure LIBERTY for the consumers. This has nothing to do with security. Good try.
The only people I have heard bring up the fairness doctrine are Republicans shouting "see? that's like the fairness doctrine." and "what if they reinstitute the fairness doctrine for the internet?"
After being alarmist about something that doesn't exist, hasn't been talked about, and isn't even the same thing: you turn around and say that Net Neutrality backers are fighting against a problem that "doesn't exist". Oh hypocrisy, thou art a cruel mistress.
Notwithstanding that enforcing any kind of "fairness doctrine" for the internet would be logistically impossible without infringing on free speech, the concept of net neutrality is to not discriminate based on content. In fact, other than saying that they can't discriminate based on content, content shouldn't be mentioned at all when talking about net neutrality. Once again, the point here is not regulating the internet, it's regulating the ISPs. The ISPs have outright stated that they want to do all the things that Net Neutrality activists have stated are the problems Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent, yet people still say it's a "solution without a problem" or claim that allowing the FCC to pass a Net Neutrality bill gives them a precedent for whatever they want to do on the internet. Both are bullshit.
Since outside of stating that they cannot discriminate based on content, not a single government plan for Net Neutrality (or at least calling itself that) was about regulating content at all, the argument falls flat.
This is not to say that I like the crap that the FCC passed. What is actually in there is worse than doing nothing because it codifies allowing a lot of things that Net Neutrality was specifically supposed to disallow (such as paid prioritization). In addition it exempts wireless providers from most regulations. The problem isn't that they are going to far, the problem is that they gave way too many loopholes. However, it's still not "government regulation of the internet".
The problem is they have had the opportunity for a long time to differentiate themselves on service and haven't done so. The only difference between the ISPs near me is whether or not I want a contract and what bandwidth packages are available. Any time the bandwidth packages are the same, they are the same price.
Hell the only reason I chose my current ISP is because I have no contract and it's the same place I got my tv and phone from, and only because they gave me a discount for having them all.
AT&T U-Verse? I don't want a contract and I don't like AT&T customer service.
Verizon FiOS? I rent, so I can't have the box installed, plus I don't want a contract.
Dish Network? Prices are the same, speed is the same, cable > satellite.
Optimum? No contract, parents had it so when I moved, I already knew what to expect so I went with them. Prices aren't much different than anyone else around here.
Except that the unlimited data transfer is part of what makes a lot of services viable. If you can transfer 1GB or even 5GB, then netflix and other streaming services become moot because you can't really use them "anytime" can you? Especially when an HD movie streamed from netflix is easily 1GB or more.
Both of these show that the sex reassignment surgery does indeed alleviate the feelings of gender dysphoria. This is not to say that other problems may come as a result (due to aftereffects such as people's reactions to their new gender role, job situations, etc.) but that the gender dysphoria which caused their initial unhappiness and situation is indeed treated by the surgery. It's not a panacea, but it's not this useless and unnecessary operation that you believe it to be. Could you please show me the studies that show the opposite? If you require, I'll find more studies proving my point.
Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is never happier after that something is changed, they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness.
Not true. Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is indeed happier if that something is changed. If they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness, then it was not actually a result of that original thing which was changed and thus the cause has not been addressed. There is a large amount of counseling and testing that goes into deciding whether someone will have the surgery or not, in order to ensure that only those who actually need it will get it. The first article even goes into various interpretations of the results that could result in a less positive outcome, but dismisses them for many reasons. Thus confirming that the surgery is a good thing that helps these individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, perhaps I've just gotten too used to the idiots who actually use that reasoning without a hint of irony =P
So your response is that the "free market" allows him to open is own company, yet the same supposedly "free market" will prevent him opening up said company unless he pays the competition a ton of money (if they are even willing to license the patent at all) in order to be legally allowed to operate. Yup, that's sure a viable solution. =/
Technically, yes. You are engaging in censorship. A parent's right to censor material for their children the believe to be inappropriate is just a type of censorship that is generally accepted. It doesn't change the fact that it is, by definition, censorship.
While he might not be polite, the "fucking moron" is entirely correct. So, who is actually the moron?
I always think it's funny when the vocal newly minority still believe they are the majority.
Newsflash, those who are highly religious and believe the bible is fact are quickly becoming the vocal minority (at least in the US).
Poor people do not have a voice. Homeless people do not have a voice. Thus it is not a democracy.
and I explicitly state here that the illogical desire to reject copyright law is not a "good logical reason"
Seems you specifically stated that it was illogical, you didn't even use the word arbitrary at all.
You're arguing for a reason why intellectual property should not be physical property, which it is not. That doesn't mean that it is not property. Arguing that "property" should be constrained only to "physical property" is at least arbitrary, and at worst reactionary denialism.
Actually it's entirely logical, not arbitrary. Everyday information is not intellectual property and it is not physical property. Since those are the only two types of property recognized by law then it cannot, in fact, be considered property. It is knowledge, an idea. If I find a piece of information, I have not taken it from someone. It is not a finite resource. It is not artificially scarce, I can tell anyone. Information does not have any owner, only people who know it all of which have the sole right to enjoy and dispose of their own version of it, but infinite versions can and will exist. Information is nothing like property and thus should not be considered as such. You may disagree, but it is not arbitrary, it is a logical argument.
Considering that the definition of engineering is generally the application of technical, scientific, and/or mathematic knowledge to design and realize the creation of some desired structure/object/process or method. Thus electrical engineering is engineering by virtue of it meets the definition of using technical and scientific knowledge to design and realize the creation of electrical circuits. It is more than just macroscopic construction. This doesn't relate to our discussion on property because there are certain properties of property (pun not intended) which information just doesn't meet.
The gold bar under my bed has value even if no one knows about it.
Technically, that gold bar of yours is useless if no one knows about it but you. If you want to utilize the value of a gold bar, you have to tell someone about it to sell it or trade it for something else of value. Property only has value because it is desired by others in order to be traded for other property or utilized.
The wife in this case had a secret affair, this information had no value until her husband found out about the information.
The other problem to think about is that property only has value because it is scarce and desired. Anything that can be infinitely copied by definition has no value. (Copyright gives value to things that can be infinitely copied by enforcing scarcity upon it. So no, that's not a contradiction).
You assume that the desire to reject copyright law in its current form is illogical.
While there are people who are against copyright entirely (many for entirely logical reasons) there are also those who are only against copyright in its current form, specifically the length of it. Which is once again completely logical.
To address the topic at hand, IANAL but I'm fairly certain that information is generally not considered legally protected property. Otherwise privacy laws would be considered to be handling theft or otherwise dealing with property when they do not. If the wife had given him permission to access her email or provided him with the credentials voluntarily for the purpose of him having access, then there is no crime here.
A logical reason against information being considered as "property" becomes a problem because in general you can't replicate property like you can information. This is the reason the entire concept of intellectual property was created, because information just doesn't behave as physical property would.
Take last thing I said and turn it around: check!
Make comment about having a pseudonym: Check!
Use canned line "you're completely pathetic.": check!
Come up with something new and different or contribute meaningfully to the conversation:
Seems you're missing something =)
Hurrah! The troll!Bot is back! :)
why do you cower? what are you afraid of?
you're completely pathetic.
BOOO!!! I wanted new material! You dissapoint me!
Uhm, a patent is supposed to be directions on how to implement an idea. The specific implementation (creation of the invention) is what is patented, not the idea itself.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work......too bad no one actually cares about the rules....
How will the passed net neutrality regulation affect either of those things?
I already said that what the FCC passed was not really Net Neutrality. I was addressing the fact what is actually desired from Net Neutrality does not solve an "imaginary" problem as many people keep saying.
One is telco industry financial porn that would vary rates by service - and never actually be put into play because customers would revolt to other carriers
Yet if all the carriers do this, there's no where to revolt to. There's not enough competition to prevent it. Not only that, but all the big named ISPs in the US have already been saying they have plans to do this type of thing and have been lobbying enough that the passed regulation might even allow it under the guise of "premium services" or whatnot.
The other is about a PEERING agreement, which the regulations say nothing about and never have.
Comcast is asking level 3 to pay them more money to carry the traffic that Comcast's own customers have requested. You obviously believe what Comcast has said, however it seems a little too convenient when they have only done this now, level 3 carries Netflix's data, and it competes against a video streaming service Comcast owns. Aside from the fact that why should level 3 have to pay extra to Comcast to give its customers the data they requested? Comcast is already being paid by its customers. From the techcrunch link:
Wrong. What Comcast is really doing is holding a certain set of bits hostage. Level 3 does act like a backbone and it is an extremely important backbone. Anything you do online probably touches Level 3 at some point. Therefore, to force Level 3 to pay what a CDN does to blow content through Comcast’s network is non-competitive
As another example, maybe you remember in 2006 when AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com
And why would any regulation block that? Are you seriously saying spam filtering is now outlawed?
Who said anything about spam? When they set up that block, people couldn't send any emails to their own friends if they contained a link to www.dearaol.com. Spam filters should be handled by whatever client you use to use email, in this case I can understand Aol having a spam filter considering that they are the email provider, but this has nothing to do with spam. A spam filter should send spam into a spam folder, this was AOL preventing anyone from SENDING an email to any AOL user where the email contained that link. It's outright censorship, blocking emails based on content.
No Network Neutrality proposed to date solves any of the "problems" you listed - you'll note that the free market in fact handled them quite well.
Actually, the Network Neutrality that the advocacy groups are proposing, that most of the Net Neutrality advocates on slashdot have been stating they want, would solve these problems by disallowing them. The free market didn't handle any of them. Up until 2005 carriers weren't allowed to do any of this. That's when Net Neutrality was removed (note, that Net Neutrality is not a new desire, it's a desire to replace an old regulation). Since 2005, ISPs have been testing the waters with what they can get away with because there is just simply not enough competition at all. Comcast still throttles Bittorrent traffic, and the "free market" hasn't solved that yet.
What about in 2007 when Verizon censored text messages sent from a Pro-Choice group to its supporters? Give me a break, abuses are happening all the time. The problem is not imaginary. And yes, the FCC's passed "Net Neutrality" rules are no where near what is needed or desired. It doesn't mean that Net Neutrality isn't needed.
Since we do not have that problem today why are you seeking to "solve" it?
We Don't?
Many ISPs and other companies have been rattling about wanting to do pretty much everything that the concept of Net Neutrality is against for years. Up until 2005, Net Neutrality was pretty much law. It was a Supreme Court case that undid it.
As another example, maybe you remember in 2006 when AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com.
While what the FCC passed as "Net Neutrality" was not in fact Net Neutrality in anything but name, do not claim that it is solving an "imaginary" problem because that is outright wrong.
Perhaps you should re-read my comments before making assumptions. I understand the problem with wikipedia as it is unmonitored and unmoderated. I understand the desire for all information to be on paper and known. I also never said one should ignore explicit instructions from the judge.
My problem is situations such as having an encyclopedia in the juror room. Or things such as how if before the trial the juror had looked up the definition in an encyclopedia or dictionary there is nothing wrong if they remember that and refer to that yet if they look at an encyclopedia during the trial it's against the rules and instructions given. there's a disconnect here.
Lawyers intentionally choose juries who do not know anything concerning the issue at hand because they do not want someone who actually has the knowledge to be able to call them on any bullshit. So we routinely have a group of jurors who know nothing about the topic at hand and are encouraged not to learn anything about it, and then trust these jurors to make an informed decision. It's absurd. There's a reason why jury nullification and fully informed juries exist.
I'm not saying that someone should ignore explicit instructions from a judge, I'm saying that we should work to fix the system.
To use an earlier example. If I'm accused of cracking and other computer crimes, and the jury has been pruned for every single person who could know anything about computers at all has been removed. How the hell is that a jury of my peers?
^this^ =)
The difference with movies is that the experience of seeing it in the theatre is different than watching it at home, that is correct.
The way they are not different is that the experience of seeing a live musical performance by a band is very very different from listening to it in your own home or off an MP3 player. Also, the musician gets a larger share of money in that case than the studio gets when you watch it in the theatre. =)
I don't equate the FCC with Net Neutrality. Especially considering that the "rules" they passed are not net Neutrality. However, if Net Neutrality ever does happen, it is the FCC which would enforce it.
Not to mention that, at least right now, it's much more likely that we'll be able to get the FCC to fix it's rules into real Net Neutrality than the possibility of Congress actually passing any Net Neutrality law.
Except the only reason the FCC can censor broadcasting is because congress expressly gave them the right to censor broadcasting. Therefore since right now the FCC only has regulatory authority for how the pipes are used and on the ISPs but do NOT have regulatory authority for any kind of content of the internet, Congress would have to pass a new law in order for any censorship of the internet to come out of the FCC.
In fact, the only reason that the FCC has those obscenity rules for broadcasting is due to think-of-the-children right-wing conservatives who think that the government needs to protect the children from anything "indecent" rather than actually, ya know, parent their fucking kids. So crying that Net Neutrality will lead directly to censorship is ridiculous.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Franklin
Except that quote doesn't apply since Net Neutrality is attempting to secure LIBERTY for the consumers. This has nothing to do with security. Good try.
The only people I have heard bring up the fairness doctrine are Republicans shouting "see? that's like the fairness doctrine." and "what if they reinstitute the fairness doctrine for the internet?"
After being alarmist about something that doesn't exist, hasn't been talked about, and isn't even the same thing: you turn around and say that Net Neutrality backers are fighting against a problem that "doesn't exist". Oh hypocrisy, thou art a cruel mistress.
Notwithstanding that enforcing any kind of "fairness doctrine" for the internet would be logistically impossible without infringing on free speech, the concept of net neutrality is to not discriminate based on content. In fact, other than saying that they can't discriminate based on content, content shouldn't be mentioned at all when talking about net neutrality. Once again, the point here is not regulating the internet, it's regulating the ISPs. The ISPs have outright stated that they want to do all the things that Net Neutrality activists have stated are the problems Net Neutrality is supposed to prevent, yet people still say it's a "solution without a problem" or claim that allowing the FCC to pass a Net Neutrality bill gives them a precedent for whatever they want to do on the internet. Both are bullshit.
Since outside of stating that they cannot discriminate based on content, not a single government plan for Net Neutrality (or at least calling itself that) was about regulating content at all, the argument falls flat.
This is not to say that I like the crap that the FCC passed. What is actually in there is worse than doing nothing because it codifies allowing a lot of things that Net Neutrality was specifically supposed to disallow (such as paid prioritization). In addition it exempts wireless providers from most regulations. The problem isn't that they are going to far, the problem is that they gave way too many loopholes. However, it's still not "government regulation of the internet".
The problem is they have had the opportunity for a long time to differentiate themselves on service and haven't done so. The only difference between the ISPs near me is whether or not I want a contract and what bandwidth packages are available. Any time the bandwidth packages are the same, they are the same price.
Hell the only reason I chose my current ISP is because I have no contract and it's the same place I got my tv and phone from, and only because they gave me a discount for having them all.
AT&T U-Verse? I don't want a contract and I don't like AT&T customer service.
Verizon FiOS? I rent, so I can't have the box installed, plus I don't want a contract.
Dish Network? Prices are the same, speed is the same, cable > satellite.
Optimum? No contract, parents had it so when I moved, I already knew what to expect so I went with them. Prices aren't much different than anyone else around here.
Every ISP around here except for Optimum uses 2 year contracts. Which is why there isn't even a choice for me.
Except none of the government plans are about regulating content...so your argument just kinda falls flat.
Except that the unlimited data transfer is part of what makes a lot of services viable. If you can transfer 1GB or even 5GB, then netflix and other streaming services become moot because you can't really use them "anytime" can you? Especially when an HD movie streamed from netflix is easily 1GB or more.
A nice study of a follow-up on a few individuals who had sex reassignment surgery Here's another one
Both of these show that the sex reassignment surgery does indeed alleviate the feelings of gender dysphoria. This is not to say that other problems may come as a result (due to aftereffects such as people's reactions to their new gender role, job situations, etc.) but that the gender dysphoria which caused their initial unhappiness and situation is indeed treated by the surgery. It's not a panacea, but it's not this useless and unnecessary operation that you believe it to be. Could you please show me the studies that show the opposite? If you require, I'll find more studies proving my point.
Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is never happier after that something is changed, they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness.
Not true. Someone who is unhappy as a result of something outside of their control is indeed happier if that something is changed. If they just start blaming something else for their unhappiness, then it was not actually a result of that original thing which was changed and thus the cause has not been addressed. There is a large amount of counseling and testing that goes into deciding whether someone will have the surgery or not, in order to ensure that only those who actually need it will get it. The first article even goes into various interpretations of the results that could result in a less positive outcome, but dismisses them for many reasons. Thus confirming that the surgery is a good thing that helps these individuals.