stopping plagiarism isn't necessarily a bad thing in the short term
What?! You are merely allowing for it to possibly be a neutral thing — but only in a short term? In a long term, according to you, it is inevitably a bad thing. Wow... Especially for someone, who pretends to worry about "people 'at the bottom'", who'll "miss out"... Just who are these people, and what is it they'll miss, if plagiarism stops tomorrow? I know people — some of whom you'd no doubt consider 'at the bottom' — who'd love for the plagiarism to end. The cartoonists, the photographers, the musicians, the creators of YouTube videos — folks creating the original content (a.k.a. "OC"), whose work is currently mercilessly plagiarized by the wannabies. That's who will benefit from any reduction in plagiarism — both short term and for the foreseeable future.
Now, back to you — who are these "already uneducated masses", who will be "left further behind" by it?
a network to facilitate the spread of information
Plagiarism is not the information worth spreading. Not before the Internet, not over the Internet. No way, no how.
I agree with you though, it won't necessarily *break* the internet
It will most certainly not wreck it. My point stands — the choice of metaphor is entirely overblown, inflammatory, and out of place.
Drug that doesn't have its price gratuitously jacked sky high: The drug in TFS, yesterday and before.
I've never heard of a drug called "TFS", nor would I know anything about its price. That's not a citation.
Examples of loose IP laws allowing pharmaceuticals being manufactured cheaply
"Manufactured" is the key word here. Once the research is done and paid for, actual manufacturing may be cheap. Your very article is about poor countries being allowed to manufacture, what the pharmaceutical companies have researched and created — at high expense. That expense is being borne by the patients in the rich countries.
Example of state-owned pharmaceutical companies working
That link is also about manufacturing. The Chinese — quite telling for a Collectivist to offer China as an example — are particularly infamous intellectual property thieves.
Again, once it is known, mass-producing it may be cheap. Researching the next drug, however, is funded by the profits from the previous ones. Your attempts to tell companies: "No, you can not charge this much" — threatens those profits for them, and the availability of new drugs and treatments for the rest of us.
Keep your grabby Collectivist hands off — what you want, in essence, is price control, a notion far more evil and destructive than anything one CEO ill-trained in the Art of Public Relations could come up with.
You refuse to consider any options between infinitely evil runaway greed and medications not existing
There aren't any. Things either exist, or they don't. For new drugs to appear, years of effort — by highly-educated — is required. Any attempts to tell the corporations, which are keeping these well-paid researchers on their payroll, what they can and can not charge for the resulting products, slows down — and frequently kills off — this research.
when there are examples around the world of these other possibilities
You cited precisely zero such.
Saying "fuck you" to each other is going nowhere
Then you shouldn't have started, eh, Miss Manners?
May you one day be dependent on a medication that some greedmonster CEO jacks the price sky-high on, so that you may get exactly what you've asked for.
At that point, I'll have a choice of either paying the "greedmonster", or doing without. You — angry at someone else for making "too much" money — would like to rob me of that choice. And that's why I continue to wish for something painful and unnatural to happen to your tender insides...
The CEO's pay has vanishingly little to do with the price of the product. Do the Math.
Another is that IP laws could be revised to allow many companies to make generic versions of the drug for pennies on the dollar
Sure, this will lower the prices of the already existing drugs. It will also stop creation of new ones, however — as I said.
Instead of having a choice between buying it at whatever price and not buying it, you — and all the rest of us — will be unable to buy it, period.
fuck him and anyone who supports his decision
No, dear, if you want to get personal, fuck you — sideways with a splintered broomstick — for seeking to rob me of the drugs you consider overpriced. You could've just said: "forget it, at this price, I'll do without". But no, that's not good enough, is it? Like a good Illiberal, you are saying instead: "If I deem it too expensive, let no one have it!"
These are now the most evil "morals" I've ever seen.
Evil? If this company did not exist, you wouldn't be able to get this drug at all. Given a choice between:
Pay five times more.
Not be able to buy it.
I — and everyone else with a brain — would choose the first option. Because, even if the drug is available, you don't have to buy it.But, if it is not available (second option), you will not be able to buy it at any price. Simple logic.
It is his right, and his prerogative to jack the price to whatever the market will bear. It is also his duty to the shareholders — both legal and moral obligation indeed.
anything that voluntarily effects your positive health should cause you to lose health insurance
That is — or should be — between you and the health insurance company.
You should be perfectly free to be self destructive, just not free to be a drain on societies resources when you do it
This is exactly why society must never accept the responsibility of taking care of you. Because, as you demonstrate, with the "taking care" comes the control. If Donald Trump is responsible for your health care, he should, of course, be able to tell you to stop eating red meat and fine you for not exercising.
In other words, yes, Collectivism is detrimental to personal freedoms — and why I refer to Collectivisim-proponents (Socialists, Communists, and Fascists alike) as Illiberals.
I would not want this, therefore it needs to be made illegal.
I would want this, therefore it needs to be made mandatory.
Any time you think, a new law/regulation should be put in place, check, whether your reasoning falls into one of the above. And, if it does, shut up and take a cold shower.
Examples include:
Narcotics and alcohol (including e-cigarettes), gambling, prostitution, tattoos and piercing, high-volume toilets and showers, "gas-guzzling" cars, "hate" speech, helmets and seat-belts, consumption of certain foods (from fat to sugar).
"Sensitivity" training, various trade-licenses, consumption of certain foods.
From the Libertarian point of view, John Deere is a party equal in standing to any farmer. Anyone disliking John Deere's or Digital Convergence's prices or policies should simply take his business elsewhere.
My complaint, however, was not about the nature of the disagreement between (some of) the farmers and a company, but the inflammatory tone of the headline. There was no complaint, that someone "sold out" anyone during the CueCat discussions, was there?
In ACLU's own terms, it is a "slippery slope" without the "clear bright line" separating the reasonable and egregious applications.
Once you accept an argument, that preventing somebody's "psychological trauma" is a sufficient reason to limit another's pursuit of happiness, the government can ban just about anything — may as well abolish the Constitution.
Because one can always pull out a poster boy — err, scratch that — a poster person, who may be "traumatized" by simply a sight of something. Such as, for example, a weapon. Voila, the Second Amendment sinks together with the First...
No, this argument is not valid and should not be allowed in a discussion about exercising freedoms.
It also places others at risk of severe psychiatric trauma
You realize, of course, how I can ban just about anything based on that argument? No? Let's begin with "traumatizing speech" and "verbal assaults"... Voila — down with the First Amendment! And so on...
That's the advantage of it being run by a private company — we, the people who do not own shares, don't need to decide, what's "better". The competition already does...
There are ways for traffic shaping to handle situations like these and give the customers exactly what they purchased.
If there is not enough bandwidth at a particular tower, somebody is going to get throttled no matter how the victim is chosen or how you "shape" the traffic.
Starting with those, who stream from YouTube, seems like a no-brainer — and the firefighters and other public service/emergency customers have special plans available to let them have priority.
No, If I want to use netflix there is no reason the ISP should get to denigrate it's performance vs youtube or any other video service
Is all traffic really "created equal"? What if the firefighters or police need to send a video of something they are working on — and the local tower is faced with the dilemma of whether to drop your or their packets? They can't analyze the stream's content (even if it weren't encrypted), but they do know the endpoints.
Yes. Whoever put this sentence together does not know first thing about DNS. He should not be writing for "Wired".
Whoever copy-pasted this junk into a Slashdot submission should be banned from ever submitting again, and the editor who let the submission through ought to be suspended without pay. From a metal hook. By the rib...
PJ Media are actually quite anti-Trump, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the author described his method in the article, allowing you — or anyone else — to replicate his results...
What's so special about veterans — from the technological point of view — that a separate platform is warranted just for them?
Seems like a pure PR-move. Now, when asked about being so partisan in their search-results, Google's PR-people (both paid and otherwise) can smugly switch topic to their "helping veterans".
Slashdot Mirror
So, the "whole thing" is already broken — wrecked — by the ban on child pornography?
What?! You are merely allowing for it to possibly be a neutral thing — but only in a short term? In a long term, according to you, it is inevitably a bad thing. Wow... Especially for someone, who pretends to worry about "people 'at the bottom'", who'll "miss out"... Just who are these people, and what is it they'll miss, if plagiarism stops tomorrow? I know people — some of whom you'd no doubt consider 'at the bottom' — who'd love for the plagiarism to end. The cartoonists, the photographers, the musicians, the creators of YouTube videos — folks creating the original content (a.k.a. "OC"), whose work is currently mercilessly plagiarized by the wannabies. That's who will benefit from any reduction in plagiarism — both short term and for the foreseeable future.
Now, back to you — who are these "already uneducated masses", who will be "left further behind" by it?
Plagiarism is not the information worth spreading. Not before the Internet, not over the Internet. No way, no how.
It will most certainly not wreck it. My point stands — the choice of metaphor is entirely overblown, inflammatory, and out of place.
How exactly will the reduction of plagiarism wreck the Internet? Will the DNS-servers stop working? Will connection latencies increase? What?..
I've never heard of a drug called "TFS", nor would I know anything about its price. That's not a citation.
"Manufactured" is the key word here. Once the research is done and paid for, actual manufacturing may be cheap. Your very article is about poor countries being allowed to manufacture, what the pharmaceutical companies have researched and created — at high expense. That expense is being borne by the patients in the rich countries.
That link is also about manufacturing. The Chinese — quite telling for a Collectivist to offer China as an example — are particularly infamous intellectual property thieves.
Again, once it is known, mass-producing it may be cheap. Researching the next drug, however, is funded by the profits from the previous ones. Your attempts to tell companies: "No, you can not charge this much" — threatens those profits for them, and the availability of new drugs and treatments for the rest of us.
Keep your grabby Collectivist hands off — what you want, in essence, is price control, a notion far more evil and destructive than anything one CEO ill-trained in the Art of Public Relations could come up with.
There aren't any. Things either exist, or they don't. For new drugs to appear, years of effort — by highly-educated — is required. Any attempts to tell the corporations, which are keeping these well-paid researchers on their payroll, what they can and can not charge for the resulting products, slows down — and frequently kills off — this research.
You cited precisely zero such.
Then you shouldn't have started, eh, Miss Manners?
At that point, I'll have a choice of either paying the "greedmonster", or doing without. You — angry at someone else for making "too much" money — would like to rob me of that choice. And that's why I continue to wish for something painful and unnatural to happen to your tender insides...
The CEO's pay has vanishingly little to do with the price of the product. Do the Math.
Sure, this will lower the prices of the already existing drugs. It will also stop creation of new ones, however — as I said.
Instead of having a choice between buying it at whatever price and not buying it, you — and all the rest of us — will be unable to buy it, period.
No, dear, if you want to get personal, fuck you — sideways with a splintered broomstick — for seeking to rob me of the drugs you consider overpriced. You could've just said: "forget it, at this price, I'll do without". But no, that's not good enough, is it? Like a good Illiberal, you are saying instead: "If I deem it too expensive, let no one have it!"
Evil? If this company did not exist, you wouldn't be able to get this drug at all. Given a choice between:
I — and everyone else with a brain — would choose the first option. Because, even if the drug is available, you don't have to buy it.But, if it is not available (second option), you will not be able to buy it at any price. Simple logic.
It is his right, and his prerogative to jack the price to whatever the market will bear. It is also his duty to the shareholders — both legal and moral obligation indeed.
That is — or should be — between you and the health insurance company.
This is exactly why society must never accept the responsibility of taking care of you. Because, as you demonstrate, with the "taking care" comes the control. If Donald Trump is responsible for your health care, he should, of course, be able to tell you to stop eating red meat and fine you for not exercising.
In other words, yes, Collectivism is detrimental to personal freedoms — and why I refer to Collectivisim-proponents (Socialists, Communists, and Fascists alike) as Illiberals.
A typical Illiberal line of thinking:
Any time you think, a new law/regulation should be put in place, check, whether your reasoning falls into one of the above. And, if it does, shut up and take a cold shower.
Examples include:
From the Libertarian point of view, John Deere is a party equal in standing to any farmer. Anyone disliking John Deere's or Digital Convergence's prices or policies should simply take his business elsewhere.
My complaint, however, was not about the nature of the disagreement between (some of) the farmers and a company, but the inflammatory tone of the headline. There was no complaint, that someone "sold out" anyone during the CueCat discussions, was there?
What happened to my Slashdot?..
In ACLU's own terms, it is a "slippery slope" without the "clear bright line" separating the reasonable and egregious applications.
Once you accept an argument, that preventing somebody's "psychological trauma" is a sufficient reason to limit another's pursuit of happiness, the government can ban just about anything — may as well abolish the Constitution.
Because one can always pull out a poster boy — err, scratch that — a poster person, who may be "traumatized" by simply a sight of something. Such as, for example, a weapon. Voila, the Second Amendment sinks together with the First...
No, this argument is not valid and should not be allowed in a discussion about exercising freedoms.
Whatever the list, if Java is in the first place, there is no honor in being anywhere near the top.
Burglarized by whom?..
Brought to you by ThePeople's Cube:
You realize, of course, how I can ban just about anything based on that argument? No? Let's begin with "traumatizing speech" and "verbal assaults"... Voila — down with the First Amendment! And so on...
One's not wearing a helmet only endangers the non-wearer. There is simply no standing for the government to mandate it.
Of course, these companies are doing it for a different reason — they want (more) people to use their services, helmet or not.
You are under the false assumption that this article is about wired Internet service.
How embarrassing... Remember to logout.
As you know — or should know — resource-dedication means resource-wastage. That is to say, this "FirstNet" thing should never have been created.
But that's not relevant, because, as we know from that earlier article I linked to already, for whatever reasons, firefighters do use private cellular networks.
That's the advantage of it being run by a private company — we, the people who do not own shares, don't need to decide, what's "better". The competition already does...
If there is not enough bandwidth at a particular tower, somebody is going to get throttled no matter how the victim is chosen or how you "shape" the traffic.
Starting with those, who stream from YouTube, seems like a no-brainer — and the firefighters and other public service/emergency customers have special plans available to let them have priority.
Is all traffic really "created equal"? What if the firefighters or police need to send a video of something they are working on — and the local tower is faced with the dilemma of whether to drop your or their packets? They can't analyze the stream's content (even if it weren't encrypted), but they do know the endpoints.
YouTube, being pure entertainment, loses...
Yes. Whoever put this sentence together does not know first thing about DNS. He should not be writing for "Wired".
Whoever copy-pasted this junk into a Slashdot submission should be banned from ever submitting again, and the editor who let the submission through ought to be suspended without pay. From a metal hook. By the rib...
I thought, Google employees were very much against this sort of thing. And Electronic Frontier Foundation disapproves too.
Or is it only bad, when American military works on it?
Yeah, sure "fish aren't humans" — will the robot (particularly, the software) require much rework to begin killing, say, enemy divers?
PJ Media are actually quite anti-Trump, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the author described his method in the article, allowing you — or anyone else — to replicate his results...
What's so special about veterans — from the technological point of view — that a separate platform is warranted just for them?
Seems like a pure PR-move. Now, when asked about being so partisan in their search-results, Google's PR-people (both paid and otherwise) can smugly switch topic to their "helping veterans".