Except you own list of what it would eliminate isn't in accordance with your 3 laws.
*No monsato- you're overriding the free will of those who don't care about gmo
*No monopolies/oligopolies- not only would your 3 laws not enforce this, it would encourage their formation, because rule 3 would allow giant conpanies to merge . Otherwise you'd be overriding the will of their founders.
*No secret backroom deals- see above
Its decent as a vague philosophy goes, but laughably naive for a real world policy.
And in the US without it the small kookie far right wing of the republican party can hold up everything via filibuster. For example, background checks on gun ownership which are polling at above 85%. No difference.
You seem to be under the impression that I want as many people as possible to use my code. That isn't my goal. I really don't care if you choose not to use my code because it costs too much, it doesn't harm me at all.
Oh, you can absolutely take my code and sell it- but you can't include it in a non-free project. If you can add value to it great- just provide it back to the community. My goal is that any program I own should be open source so I can alter and improve it. If you close source a derivative, you've actively hurt my goal and philosophy, and done so off the back of my work. Why the hell should I help you do that? My goal isn't to maximize usage of my code, its to maximize the amount of freedom I have over the software I use. Only the GPL does that.
Appending a region code to the EBS and region checking in the receiver would easily fix this. I don't know that they do this, but it could be done trivially and I doubt that the government hasn't thought of it.
No its *required* for the Utopian code sharing universe of free software. The goal isn't for every dev to have free access to my code to save them work- its for every user to have access to *all* of the code to *all* of their programs, so they can alter and improve them. Allowing people to make closed source derivatives actually harms this goal by making it easier to make a complex piece of closed source software. My goal isn't maximum usage, its to ensure that the code remains free in every version for all time.
You don't like it? Spend the time and money to write your own. If you don't support my ideals, you don't get the fruits of my labor.
Welcome to the point. If you aren't willing to open source your code as well, then I don't want you to use mine. You can pay someone to write your own version. Pay in cash or pay in code, but no free ride to businesses.
Our job isn't to vote for our own best interests. Its to vote for the best interests of the nation. If that requires us to vote against someone who will help us more personally, so be it.
Not defending any of the three above, 2 of them were horrors and the other was a figurehead do nothing (Arnold). But I get tired of the "own best interest" line.
1)Since I find people in a group are generally an order of magnitude more annoying than someone talking on a cellphone, yes probably.
2)If you eat in absolute silence, so will I. But if you get to talk, so do I. The fact that I use a cellphone to do so is irrelevant. And if you're about to bring up some bullshit about cellphones being more distracting because you can't hear the other side- you're complaining about me being rude when you're eavesdropping?
No. You don't get to decide when its acceptable or not. I do, and the owner of the establishment does. You can go shove it. But I'll tell you what- if you agree to eat in absolute silence, speaking the absolute minimum to the staff to finish your transaction, I'll do the same. Until then I have the absolute right to talk to whomever I want, just as you do.
Now if I'm yelling into my cellphone, you have the right to ask me to talk at a reasonable volume. But you have no right to prevent me from talking because I choose to do so on a phone.
At a restaurant? Yes, its definitely too much. Because the people I love and care about are 3000 miles away I can't talk to them during dinner while you're laughing obnoxiously with your companion? Fuck you.
In their defense- having a button in their app to call a friend would require that permission, and is likely what they're using it for. Which isn't really without user intervention. But the permission is all or nothing- can place a call or can't.
And as a user I want to be able to deny certain permissions to certain apps. For example, I may be ok with an app having my location and reading my contacts- but not the ability to connect to the internet and send them somewhere. I should be able to allow some activities and block others.
Although not using ANDROID_ID- thats only a problem in pre-2.2, which is less than 2% of the userbase these days. IMEI isn't reliable because a device may not have telephony (tablets) or may be CDMA (no IMEI). It also is an identity containing number (you can directly track IMEI->phone number->person) whereas ANDROID_ID is unique but anonymous. There's no excuse for not using it.
I bid $10. Someone asks $9.99. Obviously we're going to make a deal. There's an overflow of 1 cent- one of us will make 1 more cent than they expected to. Either of us could move, we could split the difference, or we could just set an exchange wide rule for this (say the seller always makes it, or the buyer).
Now add in HFT. Same scenario. The HFT sees my $10 bid before the seller does, and sends a buy for $9.99 exactly to the seller, buying the stock. He then sells to me for $10. He makes that extra penny. Has he helped me? Not at all- he took an average of half a penny from me. Does he help the seller? Nope, he took half a penny from them, for the service of completing the transaction a few microseconds sooner.
HFT are parasites. They provide no value to either side, but make a vig. There is no bid-ask gap that they reduce because the bid is higher than the ask. If it wasn't there'd be no money for them to make. Its immoral, unethical, and ought to be illegal. It also siphons millions to billions from the economy.
Noise issues, power issues, and the likelihood that cheapening SSD will make magnetic disks obsolete. People who really care about speed just go solid state. With the price dropping I'm sure we all will in a few years.
Interstate commerce. This one is even legitamate, if the server running the exchange and the user aren't in the same state it is interstate.
Or as mentioned various anti-money laundering statutes. Or declare that exchanges are banks (they are in a lot of ways) and regulate them under banking statutes. Bonus if they can get PayPal declared a bank at the same time- that's well overdue.
Wow, that's an entirely laughable concept. Its quite easy to regulate- make it illegal to accept it as payment, and arrest anyone who takes payment in it. It wouldn't entirely stamp it out, but it would make it useless in day to day commerce, which will relegate it to a niche in black market trades at best. In reality it would pretty much kill it in any country that did it- normal people are not going to use a currency where you have to track down an underground website thats constantly being changed in order to buy groceries.
iPods are music players. People are used to buying them, and not used to just using their phones. Its carry over sales. And their numbers are decreasing by double digit numbers year over year. A new player could try to position themselves as a music player, but their chances of success are slim without the years of name recognition and itunes platform. Plus its a decreasing market. Nobody with sane business sense would try.
As for #4- you said you didn't want a cell phone. You wanted a wifi only device. So the carriers don't need to activate anything. Just buy the phone, but don't buy a plan for it at all. Plenty of stores will hook you up with that- just go to any radio shack, best buy, etc.
Because the market for this is vanishingly small, in fact its almost 0. Almost everyone has a phone. So why would they want a device that runs the same software and has the same capabilities, but doesn't have cellular data, sms, or voice? The only reason to make them is to cater to the market of people who
1)don't want a cell phone 2)want a pocket sized computer 3)don't want a data plan 4)are too cheap to just buy an unlocked phone without data, which includes the idea of just buying a used phone and not buying a data plan 5)yet are willing to pay enough to buy a device that will have higher up front costs, due to lack of a subisdized model
I'd be shocked if the total market for the product was in the millions in the industrial world. Your niche isn't worth the cost of marketing to, just suck it up and buy an unlocked phone without a data plan.
Stroustrup's book is practically unreadable. Unorganized, stream of conscious writing style. Hard to find anything, and absolutely unsuitable for a reference. Given how great the C book by K&R was, I thought reading from the author for C++ would be great. In reality it was a waste of money.
THe original point was to insulate non-managing investors from liability, which allowed much larger partnerships than normal to form. The original corporations were partnerships between a small set of people, and they jointly owned liability and the company. Incorporation allowed them to bring on partners who just gave them money and were otherwise not involved in day to day business, making it easier to raise money. But the people who ran the companies were still liable for their decisions.
This would be bringing us back to that idea. If you make a decision that breaks a law, you're liable.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you own list of what it would eliminate isn't in accordance with your 3 laws.
*No monsato- you're overriding the free will of those who don't care about gmo
*No monopolies/oligopolies- not only would your 3 laws not enforce this, it would encourage their formation, because rule 3 would allow giant conpanies to merge . Otherwise you'd be overriding the will of their founders.
*No secret backroom deals- see above
Its decent as a vague philosophy goes, but laughably naive for a real world policy.
And in the US without it the small kookie far right wing of the republican party can hold up everything via filibuster. For example, background checks on gun ownership which are polling at above 85%. No difference.
If you don't like the cost, don't use it.
You seem to be under the impression that I want as many people as possible to use my code. That isn't my goal. I really don't care if you choose not to use my code because it costs too much, it doesn't harm me at all.
Oh, you can absolutely take my code and sell it- but you can't include it in a non-free project. If you can add value to it great- just provide it back to the community. My goal is that any program I own should be open source so I can alter and improve it. If you close source a derivative, you've actively hurt my goal and philosophy, and done so off the back of my work. Why the hell should I help you do that? My goal isn't to maximize usage of my code, its to maximize the amount of freedom I have over the software I use. Only the GPL does that.
Appending a region code to the EBS and region checking in the receiver would easily fix this. I don't know that they do this, but it could be done trivially and I doubt that the government hasn't thought of it.
No its *required* for the Utopian code sharing universe of free software. The goal isn't for every dev to have free access to my code to save them work- its for every user to have access to *all* of the code to *all* of their programs, so they can alter and improve them. Allowing people to make closed source derivatives actually harms this goal by making it easier to make a complex piece of closed source software. My goal isn't maximum usage, its to ensure that the code remains free in every version for all time.
You don't like it? Spend the time and money to write your own. If you don't support my ideals, you don't get the fruits of my labor.
Welcome to the point. If you aren't willing to open source your code as well, then I don't want you to use mine. You can pay someone to write your own version. Pay in cash or pay in code, but no free ride to businesses.
Cable has EBS as well. I'd be shocked if satellite didn't.
Source: I was up at 1 am the other night and got to listen to the test.
Our job isn't to vote for our own best interests. Its to vote for the best interests of the nation. If that requires us to vote against someone who will help us more personally, so be it.
Not defending any of the three above, 2 of them were horrors and the other was a figurehead do nothing (Arnold). But I get tired of the "own best interest" line.
Nope, I'm talking at a conversational volume. If I am yelling, then you have a right to ask me to quiet down. But not to force me to stop talking.
1)Since I find people in a group are generally an order of magnitude more annoying than someone talking on a cellphone, yes probably.
2)If you eat in absolute silence, so will I. But if you get to talk, so do I. The fact that I use a cellphone to do so is irrelevant. And if you're about to bring up some bullshit about cellphones being more distracting because you can't hear the other side- you're complaining about me being rude when you're eavesdropping?
No. You don't get to decide when its acceptable or not. I do, and the owner of the establishment does. You can go shove it. But I'll tell you what- if you agree to eat in absolute silence, speaking the absolute minimum to the staff to finish your transaction, I'll do the same. Until then I have the absolute right to talk to whomever I want, just as you do.
Now if I'm yelling into my cellphone, you have the right to ask me to talk at a reasonable volume. But you have no right to prevent me from talking because I choose to do so on a phone.
Annonymous tip= worker who didn't like the policy and found out, or former worker who didn't like the policy or wanted to hurt the company.
At a restaurant? Yes, its definitely too much. Because the people I love and care about are 3000 miles away I can't talk to them during dinner while you're laughing obnoxiously with your companion? Fuck you.
In their defense- having a button in their app to call a friend would require that permission, and is likely what they're using it for. Which isn't really without user intervention. But the permission is all or nothing- can place a call or can't.
And as a user I want to be able to deny certain permissions to certain apps. For example, I may be ok with an app having my location and reading my contacts- but not the ability to connect to the internet and send them somewhere. I should be able to allow some activities and block others.
Although not using ANDROID_ID- thats only a problem in pre-2.2, which is less than 2% of the userbase these days. IMEI isn't reliable because a device may not have telephony (tablets) or may be CDMA (no IMEI). It also is an identity containing number (you can directly track IMEI->phone number->person) whereas ANDROID_ID is unique but anonymous. There's no excuse for not using it.
No, it does so in the opposite direction.
I bid $10. Someone asks $9.99. Obviously we're going to make a deal. There's an overflow of 1 cent- one of us will make 1 more cent than they expected to. Either of us could move, we could split the difference, or we could just set an exchange wide rule for this (say the seller always makes it, or the buyer).
Now add in HFT. Same scenario. The HFT sees my $10 bid before the seller does, and sends a buy for $9.99 exactly to the seller, buying the stock. He then sells to me for $10. He makes that extra penny. Has he helped me? Not at all- he took an average of half a penny from me. Does he help the seller? Nope, he took half a penny from them, for the service of completing the transaction a few microseconds sooner.
HFT are parasites. They provide no value to either side, but make a vig. There is no bid-ask gap that they reduce because the bid is higher than the ask. If it wasn't there'd be no money for them to make. Its immoral, unethical, and ought to be illegal. It also siphons millions to billions from the economy.
Noise issues, power issues, and the likelihood that cheapening SSD will make magnetic disks obsolete. People who really care about speed just go solid state. With the price dropping I'm sure we all will in a few years.
Interstate commerce. This one is even legitamate, if the server running the exchange and the user aren't in the same state it is interstate.
Or as mentioned various anti-money laundering statutes. Or declare that exchanges are banks (they are in a lot of ways) and regulate them under banking statutes. Bonus if they can get PayPal declared a bank at the same time- that's well overdue.
Wow, that's an entirely laughable concept. Its quite easy to regulate- make it illegal to accept it as payment, and arrest anyone who takes payment in it. It wouldn't entirely stamp it out, but it would make it useless in day to day commerce, which will relegate it to a niche in black market trades at best. In reality it would pretty much kill it in any country that did it- normal people are not going to use a currency where you have to track down an underground website thats constantly being changed in order to buy groceries.
iPods are music players. People are used to buying them, and not used to just using their phones. Its carry over sales. And their numbers are decreasing by double digit numbers year over year. A new player could try to position themselves as a music player, but their chances of success are slim without the years of name recognition and itunes platform. Plus its a decreasing market. Nobody with sane business sense would try.
As for #4- you said you didn't want a cell phone. You wanted a wifi only device. So the carriers don't need to activate anything. Just buy the phone, but don't buy a plan for it at all. Plenty of stores will hook you up with that- just go to any radio shack, best buy, etc.
Because the market for this is vanishingly small, in fact its almost 0. Almost everyone has a phone. So why would they want a device that runs the same software and has the same capabilities, but doesn't have cellular data, sms, or voice? The only reason to make them is to cater to the market of people who
1)don't want a cell phone
2)want a pocket sized computer
3)don't want a data plan
4)are too cheap to just buy an unlocked phone without data, which includes the idea of just buying a used phone and not buying a data plan
5)yet are willing to pay enough to buy a device that will have higher up front costs, due to lack of a subisdized model
I'd be shocked if the total market for the product was in the millions in the industrial world. Your niche isn't worth the cost of marketing to, just suck it up and buy an unlocked phone without a data plan.
Stroustrup's book is practically unreadable. Unorganized, stream of conscious writing style. Hard to find anything, and absolutely unsuitable for a reference. Given how great the C book by K&R was, I thought reading from the author for C++ would be great. In reality it was a waste of money.
Washington, not Oregon.
THe original point was to insulate non-managing investors from liability, which allowed much larger partnerships than normal to form. The original corporations were partnerships between a small set of people, and they jointly owned liability and the company. Incorporation allowed them to bring on partners who just gave them money and were otherwise not involved in day to day business, making it easier to raise money. But the people who ran the companies were still liable for their decisions.
This would be bringing us back to that idea. If you make a decision that breaks a law, you're liable.