Yeah, it's almost as if they view an important part of the judicial branch as being a check on the power of the other branches of government. Of course, that would also mean realizing that the judge didn't "usurp" power, but instead "checked" it. Usurping the power would be if the judges themselves were deporting immigrants.
A new process made it easier to invalidate patents by creating a process for the USPTO double check their homework when given money and evidence by a third party. Patent holders, particular trolls, cried like little babies about that, saying that the USPTO is stealing their property. The court ruled that it was never their property, because it was just double checking their homework.
ISPs aren't a natural monopoly. If they actually were, there would have been be no need for exclusive and monopoly franchise agreements with local governments, the first mover would just win automatically.
Yeah, and they did pretty much all the time. You are arguing that BECAUSE monopoly agreements existed, that they weren't natural monopolies, which is not evidence.
There are places where there is _actually_ competition, so obviously not a "natural" monopoly, just a legally created one.
No, there aren't. Name a place in the US that has access to 10 wired ISPs. You can't, because most places are lucky if they have 2.
There were no Title II FCC regulations specific to us
Yeah, because it was Ma Bell that was under Title II, and you were the leasee. Unless your name Alexander Graham Bell, of goddamn course Title II regulations didn't apply to the company you founded.
P.S. Your personal insults aren't convincing anyone, they just get tiresome and expose your lack of ability to argue "complex" issues.
I don't need to convince everyone. EVERYONE ON SLASHDOT IS ALREADY ON MY SIDE.
1. If the problem is government regulation, then the solution isn't more government regulation.
Okay, so you are basically going to throw out any kind of possibility for rational discussion, since you can't handle more complexity than a bumper sticker.
The actual problem is that ISPs are primarily infrastructure projects, and for-profit, unregulated entities work poorly for managing infrastructure.
2. If the real issue is State and local level monopolies given to companies (and that is a major issue in some locations), then the proper solution is to work at the State level and local levels to remove monopolies which have been granted and instead allow competition. I'm all for that.
The problem is in the very nature of an infrastructure based market. The legal monopolies have been banned for 30 years, but it's a moot point because it's a natural monopoly.
I'm against government regulators at any level screwing up the Internet, including via #1 and via #2 above. The FCC bringing Internet access under Title II is an example of "Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses".
Except that the internet thrived under Title II, and had considerably MORE competition. Back in the dial-up days, the phone company had to allow anyone to lease out the lines, and a similar model exists today in most countries that have competitive ISP markets.
Your argument is just a bunch of unsubstantiated right-wing talking points, which don't apply at all to such a non-free market like ISPs. The paperwork will be a rounding error compared to power of holding users/sites hostage, the contracts are worthless due to things like mandatory arbitration clauses and terms being subject to change, the choice in ISPs is pathetic, and states have banned many of the most effective means of starting competing ISPs.
I made an argument with actual evidence: municipal broadband and its better service. States have effectively banned municipal broadband at the request of the same entities the FCC is deregulating. Our arguments are legislating away competition versus theoretically less paperwork.
I'm honestly probably more conservative than you, I just have the capacity to think at greater complexity than regulations = bad and business = good. Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses, and that opinion puts me in with nutjob commies like Adam Smith. So no, I'm not more concerned about cutting down paperwork as much as I am concerned about unchecked monopolists who happen to often conspire with the government and own many other things that conflict with the interests of their customers.
And that's largely useless at this point, since his position isn't elected. The point is to scare the turtle, so he's goes back in his shell, and you do that by making the man he wants to appoint known to America to be awful BEFORE appointing him to the FCC. Then, we could have appointed someone reasonable.
Now that that's out of the way, the FCC repeal of Net Neutrality rules is still good, limiting the FCC's ability to manipulate and control Internet access in the U.S., it's not going to cause any major issues for Internet users (because they aren't stupid and companies make more money giving people what they want),
That's only true to a certain extent, and certainly less true for monopolists, especially when they have conflicts of interest.
it will result in more flexibility and lower costs (a little) between users and their ISPs (because the FCC won't be telling them how to organize their business based on outdated and lobbyist views of the ISP industry and they won't be requiring as much regulatory compliance paperwork),
Quite the joker, I see.
and if your ISP decides to defraud you, you can still enforce your contract against them
Hilarious.
or else leave them for another one,
Good one.
or even start your own.
I'm dead from laughter now.
Let's face the facts, if we crushed the efforts to crush municipal and community broadband, it would do orders of magnitude more for users than any NN repeal would. That's why I called you a shill. You are delusional to the facts in front of your face.
You don't need the motives to directly compete if you plan gradual changes, particularly ones that don't occur the very second the option is possible. Sustained outrage is tough, while lobbying is a long-term investment.
Such a fool, only thinking of gaining control via brute force. if I wanted to seize control of the internet, I'd suck up to ISPs like the Trump administration is doing.
Not if you are realistic. Banning abortion or cutting access to abortion services doesn't result in a decrease of abortions, just an increase in complications. And the accompanying lack of birth control causes MORE abortions.
Plus, there are far more natural "abortions" than medical ones. Finally, regarding late term abortions, there are roughly 100 a year, and they are pretty much all health complications that will kill the mother and/or fetus. You'll save far more children improving vehicle safety standards than any late-term abortion bill.
Obvious shill is obvious. EVERYONE who isn't paid to like Comcast hates Comcast. They are less well liked than Congress, which is very hard for a private company to pull off.
And, for the record, the rules you are talking about started with cable internet, were then shoehorned into DSL, and in that relatively short time, they fucked with Netflix, leading to the creation of these rules.
The real question was never whether or not dealing with cash costs money and causes hassles. It's how those costs compare to merchant fees and securing your POS, and how much leverage is created by a process not dictated by Visa and Mastercard. It's a complex and fragile equation that, in practice, ultimately boils down to accepting any form of payment that still has a decent enough market share ot be worth accepting.
No, you said that employees were stupid if they worked 60h/week.
Yeah, because it's against their own interest by any rational and informed assessment. There's nothing to the contrary.
Typical of leftist attitudes: when people say that they'd like to make their own choices, you first call them stupid and then you call them crazy.
No, typical of realists who care how words are used. Feeling stress is an inherent factor in any biological action taken, and stress is a necessary part of being a functional human. If you don't experience stress, you would have an experience almost parallel to one that doesn't feel pain. People who don't feel pain have to structure things like urination and constantly check themselves for wounds.
Yes, imagine that! People who make unusual amounts money have an unusual tolerance for stress and long work hours and have an unusual willingness to sacrifice health and personal comfort for their careers.
No, most of the people working overtime are just falling prey to collective delusions of office environments, and have min-maxed their work patterns to beast one or two metrics, regardless of the actual utility of their output. The biggest exception to overtime rules is management, which studies also show is mostly useless, and at the top, has an inverse correlation between utility and compensation. The other exception would be programmers, and even if they were mentally set for that overtime, there are enough physical strains to need rest.
The people who are really exceptions are the people like Stallman, likely on the Autistic sprectrum, and an idealogue for free software, viewing his work with practically religious importance. He was mentally able to maintain an exception due to that factor, and worked the kind of week that your delusions are based off of. Even still, he ended up wrecking his hands
And you're so consumed by your greed and envy that instead of accepting their choices and being happy for them that their sacrifices pay off, you declare them crazy. Because that's the kind of guy you are.
I didn't call them crazy. I said that anybody who was a real exception would be in the DSM-V, and I meant that more as a compliment than as an insult. Neurotypicals pretending that they are exceptional means sloppy, wasteful work, because it's based on a cargo-cult understanding of the accomplishments of the neurodiverse. Even worse, the culture based off of the imitations generally gets in the way of the real thing.
Those articles take original results out of context. Overtime rules don't apply to most higher earners, which by your own reasoning tells you that those results only apply to a subset of workers, namely those doing repetitive and boring tasks.
I never said that employers weren't stupid and acting against their own interest. Pretty of studies show that as well in many decisions made. What you are arguing is that because they gave in to unions on a matter where statistics show that they would be losing money to not agree anyway, that they will thus accept all arguments on overtime, which does not follow with human behavior and cognitive biases.
No, the context is pretty clear: humans are machines, and machines need proper maintenance and limits to wear caused in order to continue to function at optimal efficiency.
Plenty of artists, scientists, engineers, musicians, and others experience no stress from their work, and spending time on their work is the most valuable thing they can do with their time. I'm sorry if your job is so dull and boring that you don't get that.
If they experience no stress, they are probably anhedonic or suffering from some other medical condition. They definitely experience stress if they are capable of healthy range of feelings and emotions.
The intelligent way of phrasing your claim is that the levels of stress are considerably lower for certain people on certain passion projects. There are still limits, but they would fall outside of norms. And in regards to the tech industry, if it isn't your pet project or your startup, it almost certainly doesn't apply. Hell, even if it is, it probably doesn't apply unless you have at least one diagnosis from the DSM-V.
Has been found by who? Where is your data? Where are these studies? You're making up things out of thin air.
Pretty much allstudies done on overtime and productivity. which is a big part of why the overtime rules were allowed to exist in the first place.
No, your claim is that it is "stupid" to work more than 40 hours because your productivity drops. As an employee who gets overtime pay ("time-and-a-half"), my productivity doesn't matter at all to me. And if I'm self-employed, I make more money for every extra hour worked as long as I make a non-zero salary.
True, but damage to your brain and heart, which overtime creates, should matter to you, not even considering that free time should be valuable to you on its own. If you had balls and a boss that wasn't an idiot, tell him to fuck off, pay you 75% more per hour, and let you rest, because that'd be better for everyone.
Truth be told, CA was likely Facebook giving one customer everything they give all of their customers. The Clinton campaign probably hired at least 4 equivalents to CA themselves, and there's probably dozens, if not hundreds more, using that same kind of data for non-political purposes..
1) A causal relationship has been found, and is pretty obvious. Overtime causes stress. Stress reduces productivity.
2) Not relevant here.
3) The claim isn't that you get less utility out of overtime hours, but that overtime hours cut into the productivity of the first 40 hours of the next week. For extended periods of time, estimated at roughly two months, you get more TOTAL utility from working 40 hours than 60.
Your reasoning is why overtime can be useful for SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. That, along with time-and-a-half pay, can be utilized to meet deadlines. But as a norm, exceeding the 40 hour week is unsustainable, and worse for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's almost as if they view an important part of the judicial branch as being a check on the power of the other branches of government. Of course, that would also mean realizing that the judge didn't "usurp" power, but instead "checked" it. Usurping the power would be if the judges themselves were deporting immigrants.
Slashdot IS an asshole environment.
No, he was appointed under Obama, but made head of the FCC under Trump. Obama shouldn't have let him, but he loves appeasing the GOP.
A new process made it easier to invalidate patents by creating a process for the USPTO double check their homework when given money and evidence by a third party. Patent holders, particular trolls, cried like little babies about that, saying that the USPTO is stealing their property. The court ruled that it was never their property, because it was just double checking their homework.
What would be patentable subject matter would be the hardware.
Yeah, and they did pretty much all the time. You are arguing that BECAUSE monopoly agreements existed, that they weren't natural monopolies, which is not evidence.
No, there aren't. Name a place in the US that has access to 10 wired ISPs. You can't, because most places are lucky if they have 2.
Yeah, because it was Ma Bell that was under Title II, and you were the leasee. Unless your name Alexander Graham Bell, of goddamn course Title II regulations didn't apply to the company you founded.
I don't need to convince everyone. EVERYONE ON SLASHDOT IS ALREADY ON MY SIDE.
Okay, so you are basically going to throw out any kind of possibility for rational discussion, since you can't handle more complexity than a bumper sticker. The actual problem is that ISPs are primarily infrastructure projects, and for-profit, unregulated entities work poorly for managing infrastructure.
The problem is in the very nature of an infrastructure based market. The legal monopolies have been banned for 30 years, but it's a moot point because it's a natural monopoly.
Except that the internet thrived under Title II, and had considerably MORE competition. Back in the dial-up days, the phone company had to allow anyone to lease out the lines, and a similar model exists today in most countries that have competitive ISP markets.
Your argument is just a bunch of unsubstantiated right-wing talking points, which don't apply at all to such a non-free market like ISPs. The paperwork will be a rounding error compared to power of holding users/sites hostage, the contracts are worthless due to things like mandatory arbitration clauses and terms being subject to change, the choice in ISPs is pathetic, and states have banned many of the most effective means of starting competing ISPs. I made an argument with actual evidence: municipal broadband and its better service. States have effectively banned municipal broadband at the request of the same entities the FCC is deregulating. Our arguments are legislating away competition versus theoretically less paperwork.
I'm honestly probably more conservative than you, I just have the capacity to think at greater complexity than regulations = bad and business = good. Consolidation of power is problematic in both governments and businesses, and that opinion puts me in with nutjob commies like Adam Smith. So no, I'm not more concerned about cutting down paperwork as much as I am concerned about unchecked monopolists who happen to often conspire with the government and own many other things that conflict with the interests of their customers.
And that's largely useless at this point, since his position isn't elected. The point is to scare the turtle, so he's goes back in his shell, and you do that by making the man he wants to appoint known to America to be awful BEFORE appointing him to the FCC. Then, we could have appointed someone reasonable.
That's only true to a certain extent, and certainly less true for monopolists, especially when they have conflicts of interest.
Quite the joker, I see.
Hilarious.
Good one.
I'm dead from laughter now.
Let's face the facts, if we crushed the efforts to crush municipal and community broadband, it would do orders of magnitude more for users than any NN repeal would. That's why I called you a shill. You are delusional to the facts in front of your face.
You don't need the motives to directly compete if you plan gradual changes, particularly ones that don't occur the very second the option is possible. Sustained outrage is tough, while lobbying is a long-term investment.
Or, perhaps, the ISPs want to avoid a PR disaster. The question is whether or not ISPs can be trusted, and the answer is no.
Such a fool, only thinking of gaining control via brute force. if I wanted to seize control of the internet, I'd suck up to ISPs like the Trump administration is doing.
Not if you are realistic. Banning abortion or cutting access to abortion services doesn't result in a decrease of abortions, just an increase in complications. And the accompanying lack of birth control causes MORE abortions.
Plus, there are far more natural "abortions" than medical ones. Finally, regarding late term abortions, there are roughly 100 a year, and they are pretty much all health complications that will kill the mother and/or fetus. You'll save far more children improving vehicle safety standards than any late-term abortion bill.
Then Obama should have made use of the bully pulpit and called Pai an obvious cocksucker for the industry.
And, for the record, the rules you are talking about started with cable internet, were then shoehorned into DSL, and in that relatively short time, they fucked with Netflix, leading to the creation of these rules.
The real question was never whether or not dealing with cash costs money and causes hassles. It's how those costs compare to merchant fees and securing your POS, and how much leverage is created by a process not dictated by Visa and Mastercard. It's a complex and fragile equation that, in practice, ultimately boils down to accepting any form of payment that still has a decent enough market share ot be worth accepting.
Yeah, because it's against their own interest by any rational and informed assessment. There's nothing to the contrary.
No, typical of realists who care how words are used. Feeling stress is an inherent factor in any biological action taken, and stress is a necessary part of being a functional human. If you don't experience stress, you would have an experience almost parallel to one that doesn't feel pain. People who don't feel pain have to structure things like urination and constantly check themselves for wounds.
No, most of the people working overtime are just falling prey to collective delusions of office environments, and have min-maxed their work patterns to beast one or two metrics, regardless of the actual utility of their output. The biggest exception to overtime rules is management, which studies also show is mostly useless, and at the top, has an inverse correlation between utility and compensation. The other exception would be programmers, and even if they were mentally set for that overtime, there are enough physical strains to need rest. The people who are really exceptions are the people like Stallman, likely on the Autistic sprectrum, and an idealogue for free software, viewing his work with practically religious importance. He was mentally able to maintain an exception due to that factor, and worked the kind of week that your delusions are based off of. Even still, he ended up wrecking his hands
I didn't call them crazy. I said that anybody who was a real exception would be in the DSM-V, and I meant that more as a compliment than as an insult. Neurotypicals pretending that they are exceptional means sloppy, wasteful work, because it's based on a cargo-cult understanding of the accomplishments of the neurodiverse. Even worse, the culture based off of the imitations generally gets in the way of the real thing.
I never said that employers weren't stupid and acting against their own interest. Pretty of studies show that as well in many decisions made. What you are arguing is that because they gave in to unions on a matter where statistics show that they would be losing money to not agree anyway, that they will thus accept all arguments on overtime, which does not follow with human behavior and cognitive biases.
No, the context is pretty clear: humans are machines, and machines need proper maintenance and limits to wear caused in order to continue to function at optimal efficiency.
If they experience no stress, they are probably anhedonic or suffering from some other medical condition. They definitely experience stress if they are capable of healthy range of feelings and emotions.
The intelligent way of phrasing your claim is that the levels of stress are considerably lower for certain people on certain passion projects. There are still limits, but they would fall outside of norms. And in regards to the tech industry, if it isn't your pet project or your startup, it almost certainly doesn't apply. Hell, even if it is, it probably doesn't apply unless you have at least one diagnosis from the DSM-V.
But does it know why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Pretty much all studies done on overtime and productivity. which is a big part of why the overtime rules were allowed to exist in the first place.
True, but damage to your brain and heart, which overtime creates, should matter to you, not even considering that free time should be valuable to you on its own. If you had balls and a boss that wasn't an idiot, tell him to fuck off, pay you 75% more per hour, and let you rest, because that'd be better for everyone.
Truth be told, CA was likely Facebook giving one customer everything they give all of their customers. The Clinton campaign probably hired at least 4 equivalents to CA themselves, and there's probably dozens, if not hundreds more, using that same kind of data for non-political purposes..
I believe his point is that two medians are not useful points of comparison to each other, not that they literally can't be compared.
2) Not relevant here.
3) The claim isn't that you get less utility out of overtime hours, but that overtime hours cut into the productivity of the first 40 hours of the next week. For extended periods of time, estimated at roughly two months, you get more TOTAL utility from working 40 hours than 60.
Your reasoning is why overtime can be useful for SHORT PERIODS OF TIME. That, along with time-and-a-half pay, can be utilized to meet deadlines. But as a norm, exceeding the 40 hour week is unsustainable, and worse for everyone.
The bigger problem is the stupidity, as continually working more than 40 hours results in major drops in productivity.