I suspect part of the problem is it segregates people into two groups. Those willing to pay $2 for 10 minutes of time and those who wont. This seems highly co-related to disposable income and now the advertisements are shown only to those with less.
There is not a finite amount of money. Whenever a bank makes a loan, both the depositor and the creditor think they have that money. Through this trickery, the loan just increased the amount of money. Econ 101 should have taught you this.
NERA recommended making information available so that the masses can match the numbers reported to the SEC, the numbers reported to clients, and the numbers disclosed by custodians, or financial institutions that hold the securities for investment advisors.
The goal is to check if all the numbers are consistent, if properly formatted this is easy for a computer. The problem is that the data isnt nicely formatted, so netflix = fail. Mandating a format is the way to go.
There's a finite amount of room at Verizon's data centers, so I imagine they'll be able to charge plenty of money for this, and that smaller providers will be locked out (or will have to pay fractionally, e.g., through an already-colocated service like Akamai). Verizon gets a new profit center and Verizon users pay for it invisibly through advertising and the cost of any services that Google eventually offers for pay. Which is the truly worrisome aspect of net non-neutrality.
This argument is essentially
We should be equal, but you have something shiny. Destroy it, destroy it now!
A truth can misrepresent the truth. My favorite example, since voters reacted to the lie, is George Bush's "No new taxes", which he then claimed was kept as he only extended an existing tax. Even if you determined how to classify truths, the analysis is still fatally flawed. Not all promises are equal, not all people value promises the same.
Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.
A key part of this argument is that voters dont understand and therefore to help them we must lie to them. This line of thinking leads to many layers of assumptions and inferences. Social sciences have little certainty as such logical rube goldberg machines rarely have their intended consequences. KISS.
if we do things differently, things won't stay the same
Straw man
they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht until next quarter
Is the most blatant of the many ad hominem attacks.
Corporations are solely profit driven, people are not. Do not confuse the motivations of the people working for the corporation with the corporation. Just because ASCAP executives argue to extend IP for profit reasons does not mean they dont want to improve society. The idea that they dont enjoy (read value) culture is ridiculous. Though I can understand its easier to attack the person and the sensationalist aspect clearly gets you more karma.
*Havent read it all yet, but doubt there is a twist middle. Also most of it Ive heard before.
I dont doubt that they are greedy but I doubt they disagree with the logic of patents.
What they think doesnt matter, I agree that when patents economically beneficial they should be used. The logic is simple, I give up consumption today for more consumption later. A similar argument for copyrights exists.
As a consumer, I want IP to exist solely for selfish reasons. Do you not agree?
you can't just throw "science" or "evidence" at real world problems and get an unambiguously optimal answer.
Perfection doesnt exist, stop asking for it. Unless you live on a plane.
This is what we have here. Lessig values culture, the ASCAP value money for their members. Even with robot-like logical reasoning and clairvoyant wisdom, both sides are going to utterly fail at convincing the other.
They both value culture. ASCAP thinks a system that pays people to produce culture produces more/better culture. This is why evidence based legislature is beneficial, it forces attacking of policy rather than the people.
Why does it have to be a wing, instead of an independent agency? Such as the Federal Reserve.
I dont know what time you think citizens were good at policing the state. For the last 100 years 40% of the population abstained, and presidential turnout is among the highest.
There is a deeper problem here, people are bad at analyzing preferences in distant time or that have a rare occurrence. This is an educational problem. If people dont value journalism then the government mandate would become a monopoly, so hiding the symptom with a mandate could make the problem worse.
I agree, the only choice small investors have is whether they are in the stock market (time to vet a company beyond published material is too costly). This reliance on published material makes it surprising that the company, not the investors, choose the accounting firm.
The reason more control isnt given to the investors is because none of them care until a significant portion of their money is missing. At this point, the company is viewed as a bad apple and the lesson is to be more careful picking from the bunch.
Ask your self how many companies go beyond the legal requirements for shareholder votes. If there were shareholder pressure, then wouldnt examples be widespread?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it odd that I feel secure in their incompetence?
I suspect part of the problem is it segregates people into two groups. Those willing to pay $2 for 10 minutes of time and those who wont. This seems highly co-related to disposable income and now the advertisements are shown only to those with less.
There is not a finite amount of money. Whenever a bank makes a loan, both the depositor and the creditor think they have that money. Through this trickery, the loan just increased the amount of money. Econ 101 should have taught you this.
Normally talk show hosts are the whores of TV, but for there guests all services are free of charge.
Yep, this matters. 1.25871×10^11 Gal Used.
More thinking, less typing. You are right, my bad.
What an original argument style, fabricate your opponents case then refute it.
As said above this is done in many other cases, why should copyright infringement be any different? Oh right, you dont agree with the copyright laws.
props on the car analogy
NERA recommended making information available so that the masses can match the numbers reported to the SEC, the numbers reported to clients, and the numbers disclosed by custodians, or financial institutions that hold the securities for investment advisors.
The goal is to check if all the numbers are consistent, if properly formatted this is easy for a computer. The problem is that the data isnt nicely formatted, so netflix = fail. Mandating a format is the way to go.
Every few years pick a country and bomb it, 20 years later they will start to recover. Remember this is for our children.
When someone disagrees with you there are too choices:
Glad to see slashdot has a healthy portion of the latter.
Not necessarily easy. With no quams about ethics, $20 game = hours of work for most people.
There's a finite amount of room at Verizon's data centers, so I imagine they'll be able to charge plenty of money for this, and that smaller providers will be locked out (or will have to pay fractionally, e.g., through an already-colocated service like Akamai). Verizon gets a new profit center and Verizon users pay for it invisibly through advertising and the cost of any services that Google eventually offers for pay. Which is the truly worrisome aspect of net non-neutrality.
This argument is essentially
We should be equal, but you have something shiny. Destroy it, destroy it now!
it appears from experience that they rarely do this voluntarily.
From watching the news, I would never have thought crime was decreasing. People are generally good, let that be the assumption till proven otherwise.
sign a 'smiling deal' with our arch enemies
Someone should really get the word out, there is ~10 billion dollars of trade. I'll update wikipedia then we can get this war started.
I have lost all respect for RIM
Rockefeller advanced medicine, RIM built perimeter. A little perspective please, the world has enough drama.
A truth can misrepresent the truth. My favorite example, since voters reacted to the lie, is George Bush's "No new taxes", which he then claimed was kept as he only extended an existing tax. Even if you determined how to classify truths, the analysis is still fatally flawed. Not all promises are equal, not all people value promises the same.
Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.
A key part of this argument is that voters dont understand and therefore to help them we must lie to them. This line of thinking leads to many layers of assumptions and inferences. Social sciences have little certainty as such logical rube goldberg machines rarely have their intended consequences. KISS.
Image Reconstruction from Brain Activity.
video, article
make shit tons of money for it cry out that they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht
Yes, the company really wants the yacht.
"Free Culture" is a decent read, with well argued points. Thanks. It is also entirely consistent with my viewpoint*.
Unlike in free culture. there is only a grain of truth in the above posts.
you can't just throw "science" or "evidence" at real world problems and get an unambiguously optimal answer.
Is a clear example of of perfect solution fallacy.
if we do things differently, things won't stay the same
Straw man
they can't afford an extra week in Cabo on their 3rd yacht until next quarter
Is the most blatant of the many ad hominem attacks.
Corporations are solely profit driven, people are not. Do not confuse the motivations of the people working for the corporation with the corporation. Just because ASCAP executives argue to extend IP for profit reasons does not mean they dont want to improve society. The idea that they dont enjoy (read value) culture is ridiculous. Though I can understand its easier to attack the person and the sensationalist aspect clearly gets you more karma.
*Havent read it all yet, but doubt there is a twist middle. Also most of it Ive heard before.
I dont doubt that they are greedy but I doubt they disagree with the logic of patents.
What they think doesnt matter, I agree that when patents economically beneficial they should be used. The logic is simple, I give up consumption today for more consumption later. A similar argument for copyrights exists.
As a consumer, I want IP to exist solely for selfish reasons. Do you not agree?
you can't just throw "science" or "evidence" at real world problems and get an unambiguously optimal answer.
Perfection doesnt exist, stop asking for it. Unless you live on a plane.
This is what we have here. Lessig values culture, the ASCAP value money for their members. Even with robot-like logical reasoning and clairvoyant wisdom, both sides are going to utterly fail at convincing the other.
They both value culture. ASCAP thinks a system that pays people to produce culture produces more/better culture. This is why evidence based legislature is beneficial, it forces attacking of policy rather than the people.
Clearly those who failed decided to fail. Did you ask the students why they decided to fail?
Why does it have to be a wing, instead of an independent agency? Such as the Federal Reserve.
I dont know what time you think citizens were good at policing the state. For the last 100 years 40% of the population abstained, and presidential turnout is among the highest.
There is a deeper problem here, people are bad at analyzing preferences in distant time or that have a rare occurrence. This is an educational problem. If people dont value journalism then the government mandate would become a monopoly, so hiding the symptom with a mandate could make the problem worse.
I agree, the only choice small investors have is whether they are in the stock market (time to vet a company beyond published material is too costly). This reliance on published material makes it surprising that the company, not the investors, choose the accounting firm.
The reason more control isnt given to the investors is because none of them care until a significant portion of their money is missing. At this point, the company is viewed as a bad apple and the lesson is to be more careful picking from the bunch.
Ask your self how many companies go beyond the legal requirements for shareholder votes. If there were shareholder pressure, then wouldnt examples be widespread?
Are these the same shareholders that elected those who committed the fraud?