I would happily not put words in your mouth if... you said something. Most of what your replies consist of is "nope.. you're not right there" and then you decline to say how I am, in fact, not right. This is the first post you've made where you actually explored some of your own opinions, instead of just stating them and moving on.
That has always been an important argument behind the patent system but it ignores that few inventions exist that do not build on other pre-existing inventions. The 'exclusive rights' have on more then one occation hindered that, thereby delaying or denying an invention to society.
It doesn't ignore that inventions are frequently built on other inventions. Have I, at any point, suggested that a patent should give you a right to deny any research potential until the expiration of the patent? No. I would quite passionately argue that the patent should give you commercial rights only. It might not be what we have. But patents do have utility. I'm not willing to discard that because the current system is overly restrictive.
The conclusion is imho that you need a bit of both. Yes, you need sharing of ideas, and yes, you need to be able to build on top of someone elses ideas. But you also seem to need some protection so that you can indeed profit from your invention at least in some cases.
I agree with this. Completely. I might've said "in most cases" but otherwise, yeah.
You can predict the future as well as I can... we both don't know. That you disagree with my view on how that would work doesn't mean either you or me did not think about it.
My skill at clairvoyance is as good as yours, sure. When I say that people are greedy, though, its a fairly accurate statement. Not always true. But often enough. Same when I say they're risk adverse. When someone tells people that they can't recover the expenditure of research, thats a big deterrent to invention. Are patents going to have problems? Definitely. Any form of IP is going to have the legal nightmares though. That is virtually inescapable. Its costly. But since it is costly to all forms of IP, I don't weight it very heavily. If you did away with IP, you'd avoid the legal battles. There's very probably going to be other expenditures though. I highly suspect that most companies would respond to IPlessness by using a de facto, rather than de jure, system of trade secrets. On stuff they wouldn't bother with now, because they can patent it. And at least some of what they gain from not paying lawyers they lose to paying for more security. I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm saying its a problem no matter what system you use. When some guy can't go commercial with an idea he spent effort to bring to fruition because of patents, its sad. Inventors, do yourself a favor. Do a patent search. I just don't see this as much of a problem. Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't much care who gets rich on what. I care whats available.
I'm not arguing this point at all, rather, I am arguing that the patent system in quite some cases causes risks on a similar level as not having the patent system. You keep ignoring those risks.
If you argue the risks are the same, why go to the trouble of changing? If some other system is better, why is it better? I've gone to the trouble to lay out logically why patents are good as well as why the problems don't offset the benefits. If you have problems with the current patent system, that's one thing. If you have problems inherent to patents, thats another. The difference is, one argues for altering the system and the other argues for doing away with the system.
Wrong, I don't get to get rich of the idea I came up with to improve someone elses idea, and society does not get the improved invention, at least not untill much later.
If your idea to improve someone else's involves building
I guess you missed where I said it cost more. Although buying a gaming PC rig is going to run you more than the console + the modchip and/or boot disc. And, there being more current titles on consoles than PCs means that you benefit comparatively more by setting up to pirate on the console.
And.. again. Plugging a chip into a slot, not a feat of great difficulty. Putting a boot disc into the drive.. also not a feat of great difficulty. In fact.. if you can't do it, then you have no reason to own either the console or a PC. Either one would be an expensive, fancy looking paperweight. Or doorstop. Plugging an ethernet cable in? if you can't do that, good luck with downloading stuff.
I did say it was a little more difficult. But "much more difficult?" Only if sleeping was a little difficult, breathing was just difficult, and putting round pegs in round holes is very difficult would I consider the process to pirate on a console "much more difficult" than that for a PC.
The only part of your post I might take issue with is:
If they made games no-one wanted, why are they being pirated?
Just because the game was pirated doesn't mean the game was any good. The cost of pirating is very low. Just a disc and some time, really. With a cost that low, its worth trying the game out.
If the game sucks, then you promptly uninstall it and microwave the disc. Just cause thats fun and the disc is otherwise useless. Unless you need coasters. You also pat yourself on the back and say "congratulations, me! I held on to $50."
I stick to my consoles, now. I haven't built a new computer in years. Haven't even upgraded it all that much. Just hasn't been worth my time and money.
Patent: regardless of if I come up with the same idea myself independently, I can still not use it Secret: If I come up with it independently I can use it.
I'm sorry to ask but can't you read? If you're so big on the free sharing of ideas, trade secrets are anathema to that ideal. Because they're secrets. You don't get to build anything off my ideas because I haven't told you. Maybe you come up with the same idea. Which, to be frank, is a waste. Twice the effort to develop the same invention. If you're not big on the free sharing of ideas, then whats the beef with patents? You've argued that sharing ideas freely is good. You've argued that trade secrets are good. Which position do you actually hold?
Not at all. Person A thought it up, Person B gets to use it.
Unless person A operates with trade secrets. Cause those're good, right?
If I refuse to license you my invention then you cannot. If you came up with the thing yourself without reverse engineering, spying or anything, you still cannot.
True. And what of it? So you don't get rich off somebody else's idea. That's not exactly a tragedy. Humankind is still enriched by the knowledge. Under patent law, the knowledge is publicly available. When the patent expires, everybody can use it. That's the goal. Whether or not any specific individual gets rich off the idea is absolutely unimportant. Someone came up with the idea. Someone put it in play. Who that someone actually is doesn't mean much.
You have said that multiple times, but saying it again and again does not make it such.
So you say. At least I can demonstrate having thought out the situation. And the consequences of altering the system. You cannot. People are greedy. They like having stuff. People are risk-adverse. When you make an activity more risky, they do less of it. When you make research more risky, they do less of it. When people do less research, they discover fewer things. People understand that if they can spend less money to get a product to market by copying someone else's research rather than doing the research themselves, they're less willing to do the research. You can tell me that isn't how people work. You can tell me that isn't how businesses work. You can say anything you very well like. That will not, in any way, make it sensible or believable. You have to demonstrate. You have not.
If I had no knowledge of that idea, then I had to put in similar efford and came to that idea independently. Why can't I use it? Where is my 'reward'? Where is my 'incentive' ?
You don't get one. You came up with something that was already known to man. You don't get a reward for doing it again anymore than you get a reward for coming into my office and doing a job that I've already done well.
It is a common problem that has occured in many key fields of development, is quite common in electronics and extremely common in software.
You do it again. You point to problems with patent systems and conclude that we should do away with them. You even say it is 'common' without bothering to define it. The best argument you could make with this assertion is that patent law could be better.
And I believe you are rather over estimating the positive effects of patents while virtually ignoring their problems.
Very good of you to think so. When I assess the problems of patents, I went on to analyze remedies to mitigate those problems. When I ask you to do the same for a lack of patents, you inform me there's no problem. Despite the fact that I've already outlined at least one problem.
You do realize that while patents did not apply to software, the rate of invention there was extremely high? That many of the thin
The point was that trade guilds not only protected the interlectual property but also passed it on. That it is outdated isn't just because patents came up as a better idea to protect ip, it was getting outdated in many aspects.
So you contend that education is the primary reason for the fall of guilds? Yet if guilds are the primary repository of knowledge about their craft, and there isn't a legal protection of independantly gained knowledge, how do you disseminate information about the craft? Once you do, the guild can use it. And the tradeguild has other profitable skills that they don't have to (and indeed, have incentive not to) release to the public. They can bring their competitive advantage to bear and put the non-guild members who can only use the public domain knowledge out of business. Does that mean education didn't have anything to do with it? No. I'm just not convinced that our 'modern' education is so much better as to displace the tradeguild. I can't provide any scientific evidence, yet I can't help but note that both mine and other's experience point to the education system providing inadequate education for jobs. I speculate that this is a lot less likely to be the case for fields where knowledge is more.. err.. concrete? Fields like mathematics and programming where the rules are fairly well established and relatively direct.
In specific areas, esp. there where research requires large upfront investment? sure. In general? I strongly doubt that.
Here's the rub, though. What, exactly, constitutes "large upfront investment"? What may be large, for me as an individual, may only constitute a moderate expenditure for a small collective and may be absolutely trivial for a large corporation. If the protection is desirable for the large corporation's large expenditure, then why is it not also desirable for the individual's relatively large expenditure?
I'm going to combine a couple of your responses here:
-and where is the incentive in having to spend my time as inventor figuring out which silly details of my invention someone else thought of as well and bothered to patent? And that knowing that I'll miss out on a few and someone will come and sue me anyway? -And? you get to keep it forever or untill someone else figures it out on their own. Oh, they stole your trade secret? Go talk to uncle sam, he has some laws for dealing with that. For the individual there seems to be quite an advantage there I'd think? Socially this may be more desirable then the patent minefield we see for software also, in other cases it is less desirable for sure.
So.. it seems as if you're arguing that patents are bad because they prevent inventors from incorporating and utilizing the ideas of other people. But trade secrets are good because they prevent inventors from incorporating and utilizing the ideas of other people. How's that work? These aren't exactly compatible ideas. It would seem to me that between the two, patents are a far more desirable IP protection than trade secrets. When you patent, you are forced to disclose your invention. No disclosure, no protection. When the patent expires, its free game for anybody. If you protect under trade secrets, no body gets to benefit from your knowledge. There is no time limit. Although, I should point out that there are other ways of removing the trade secret protections. Reverse engineering is fair game. I'm less certain, but if the trade secret is disclosed illegally and published.. I think you're out of luck. Oh, you can sue the one who disclosed. But restoring the rights is difficult, at best. Still, it has its own legal minefields. Not to mention that a trade secret legal battle isn't likely to be any less expensive than a patent battle. How is this good for an individual? So... trade secrets are good things? Purely from the perspective of profits, perh
Thank you for the information. It has prompted me to go read up on UK government. Nothing too in-depth as peerage, precedence, and titles are a bit... much to me to absorb. Interesting stuff, though.
I sort of wish we had motions of no confidence. On the other hand, I don't think much of any of the prominient American politicians. Kind of frustrating to know that no matter who happens to be in office, I get screwed.
*sigh* crap. I lost power and a great deal of text. I'm too tired to go over the whole mess again, so I'll give you the highlights.
We indeed did away with most but not all trade guilds some time ago. Your argument misses one point of guilds however which is at least as relevant as interlectual property protection: education.
Your point here? You have a knack for leaving thoughts incomplete. I decline to speculate as to what you actually meant.
It is far from pointless in the face of the argument that inventions would not happen without patents. It proves that statement untrue. You can argue that patents help getting more inventions, and at least in specific areas of technology that is true.
Never did I assert that invention would halt without patents. Merely that there would be less inventing going on.
First of all, patents are not the only way to protect an investment. Are trade secrets more desirable? That depends on what 'field of invention' you are talking about, but isn't a clear cut case.
No, they're not more desirable from an individual or societal point of view. Trade secrets are predicated upon keeping the secret a secret. Patents are predicated on disclosure of your idea without completely destroying the financial incentive of disclosure.
Second, as shown and even argued by yourself in reply to my comment about ipsec, there can be good motivations to do such an investment and make the result available to everyone for free. Sometimes this is a good idea, sometimes not.
Well and good but patent law wouldn't prevent you from inventing something and releasing it freely, if you had good cause to do so. If patent law could stop you from doing so then, by definition, someone else invented it first. Ideally, anyway. Whether or not we have a patent system where that would be true is another argument. But I've already stated that I don't care for the current IP law. I just don't think we should toss out the baby with the bathwater.
Investment may help invention, but in many fields, it is not exactly a requirement for invention. [...] That same government supposedly also believes it should grow to become a 'small and efficient government'. If you don't mind I don't take their 'desires' and reasoning for granted.
Exactly. I never said that investment was a requirement for invention. Merely that it makes more people want to invent more stuff. So if inventy types are going to invent stuff with or without IP law, but we can also get the smart but self-interested people to invent with patents, why would we 86 the patents. So the government has a logical position for wanting to intervene in the market. I've yet to see anyone argue the point of either no patent/IP or only severely limited application of patents/IP with logic. Anecdotes and emotion and idealism, sure.
Yes, and that is exactly why a free flow of ideas works. It also means you get to use and improve on what others did.
Indeed, and so when AltruCorp sinks USD 10 million into a product and BenignCo drops USD 3 million to improve it and BorgLTD swoops in for USD 0.00 and we all compete in the marketplace.. you'd be okay with that? AltruCorp and BenignCo get to explain their large sunk costs and BorgLTD gets to simply make bank. Altru and Benign are less likely to make the outlay, knowing they could just wait for someone else to innovate for them. And the end result is the rate of invention is down.
Curiosity also drives invention. Open source helps that by giving people the possibility to tinker with the software they use, improve it, satisfy their curiosity about how something is done and so on. If you do not believe such things drive invention, and rather believe that money is the only working incentive, then all I can say is that history as much as todays reality show you wrong. This
Ah.. not to be indelicate.. but.. then shouldn't UK citizens also be generating an anti-Blair (and.. Labour? party) sentiment right alongside that anti-US subtext?
There are times, a great many of late, when I (I'm a US citizen) dislike or despise what the US government is doing, both domestically and abroad. But there are also times when the US catches flak from other countries. I usually find such occurances amusing. We get bashed for being heavy-handed in some international affairs. Only to then be bashed for not taking enough involvement in other international affairs. I don't mind (indeed, I even encourage) for citizens of any country to be openly critical of the US... when such criticism is due. There's certainly no need to go shoe-horning the US into the blame for all the world's ills. There's plenty as is.
Not, you understand, that I'm implying that criticism is undeserved in this case. I don't really know enough to comment about how stupid it is to burn political goodwill to extradite a couple of bankers. I just.. know enough to comment about how stupid it seems.
That is at best an unproven assumption. Yes, it makes logical sense, yet, there is a long history suggesting the opposite of what you say. Inventions have been made for thousands of years without patents.
Yes, there was that era of staggering rates of innovation that I believe we know as the dark ages. Tradeguilds were, essentially, a primitive intellectual property system. They protected the knowledge of their crafts for the financial gain of the members.
Observing that people invented for centuries without patents is accurate. But somewhat pointless. Individuals and civilizations have done things for centuries that we don't do anymore. Why? Because better ways have come along.
The government believes that a free market of ideas would select an ineffecient level of invention. Thus, they intervene in the market with patents to provide an incentive to inventors. A lack of patents decreases the rate of invention. How, you ask? Well, either individuals do the inventing, in which case they have to work day jobs to pay bills, and can only devote their 'free' time to the research. Less time available to invent == less inventions. Alternatively, businesses could foot the bill. But why would they? Businesses exist for profit, and the lack of patents all but guarantees that the cost of research is a sunk cost rather than an investment. Sunk costs are generally unattractive to businesses. Businesses pay them because they must to do business. That means that competitors face similar sunk costs if they're going to be your competitors. Not so with inventions. Once you've figured out how to make it, you've also figured out how I can make it, too.
In some industries, maybe, in others not. Software is not a manufactured prodict and different rules apply anyway.
Okay.. so because software is different, we should take rules that work in software markets and apply them to other markets? If you want to assert that patents (or IP in general, even) are unnecessary in the software market, thats fine. I wouldn't even really argue an opposing point. But I also wouldn't assert that patents are unnecessary in all markets simply because software can do okay without 'em. (I note here that I was under the impression that trademark and copyright law protected software, not patent law.)
so why should anyone consider your statements as more then unfounded anti open source banter?
I know that you weren't responding to me when you said that. But actually, I'm not convinced that the open source model, itself, drives any innovation whatsoever. Which is not to say that there isn't any innovation in open source software. Just that contributions to open source software aren't directly driven by money motives. Rather, they're driven by simple curiousity/enjoyment and indirect monetary gains, such as trading on a name you've built through OSS projects for a well-paying job. Neither of which are results of the open source model. You could just as easily code proprietary software for curiousity's sake, build a name doing it, and get a better paying job elsewhere.
I suppose I should note, here, that I'm not a particular fan of the patent system (or the IP laws, in general) we currently have. I also haven't seen a better system. So while I wouldn't do away with patents, I do think they need to be tweaked.
But I do think that kids should be shown age appropriate material.
Okay. But what is age-appropriate? Do you assume that all parents are going to be able to agree on when it is appropriate to show ___ type of content to their children? No? Then what right do you have to impose your views of appropriateness on other parents? Rather, in this case, impose the views of the ESRB on parents. The law would do nothing. Parents who pay no attention won't prevent their children from possessing the games. "Mom, will you buy me SuperPornoMallNinjaCatGirls: Hardcore?" "Sure, honey." Parents who do pay attention to their child(ren) will already be able to intervene in their child's possession of the game.
I'd definitely agree that clarity on the subject of free speech doesn't really exist. Such are the pitfalls of legislation on subjective topics. Enough people get in a snit over minors buying M rated video games and politicians start throwing their politicial weight around. Although they're not, now, bothering to get government enforcement of movie ratings. I also notice that they're not pushing for ratings on novels, graphic or otherwise, or the enforcement of same.
Additionally, enforcement of the law incurs costs for the State. Probably, even, costs in excess of the $25 you'd collect. Thus, the law is a net drain on government budgets. If, instead, parents monitor their children responsibly, the cost to the State is zero. Since parents should be monitoring their children anyway no additional costs are incurred by the family and the parent catches games that he doesn't want his child to be playing.
Lastly, its a freedom of speech issue because the government is attempting to dictate the circumstances for transfer of art. Video games are considered art, which is an aspect of speech. The US government and the state governments are generally not intended to impose its morals on the citizenry. When the exercise of one person's rights infringes on the rights of another then the government takes a hand. Whether or not this is the case in practice is another topic altogether. If I, as a parent (I'm not), choose to allow my child to play a video game that you wouldn't allow your child... well... it isn't as if my decision forces you to allow your child to play, does it? I wouldn't choose to impose my decision on you. All I ask is the same consideration.
If you want to speak technically, Congress didn't make this law or pass this judgement.
But more to the point, laws restricting freedoms can be passed and upheld when a case for public benefit is articulated.
We regulate both speech and the press with laws against libel and slander. We regulate firearms ownership and carry with background checks and licenses. We regulate what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. I'd wager that innocents find any searches unreasonable. Criminals doubly so. Yet we discard those notions of unreasonable and delcare that law enforcment, with 'reasonable suspicion' or 'probable cause' may, in fact, search.
If I, as a regular citizen, pick up some information vital to a case, I can be compelled to testify. But if I, as a reporter, pick up the same information vital to a case, I can profit off my knowledge without harming (possibly even helping) the criminals. So I get to make money, you get to read about it a few days earlier, and the criminals get to keep on victimizing people.
If law enforcement can make a case, regardless of what the reporter does, then I have a sneaking suspicion that the reporter won't be called to testify and a theoretical shield law wouldn't be in play. Only when law enforcement is hindered by a reporter would they be in play, and I'm not quite so certain I can support a reporter in that situation. I'm not overly fond of police, especially given the news of their recent excesses. However, given the diminishing legal authority for me to defend myself from criminals, police are fairly necessary. Even if they've no legal duty to protect you or I, as individuals.
Lastly, I will say that I would happily protect a reporter's freedom if they broke a law in order to expose criminal activity by those in power in order to force a redress. There's a compelling public benefit, protection from a corrupt government. But hindering law enforcement so the reporter can make a buck? What's the compelling reason? So that John Doe, Steve Schmoe, and Joe Blow get to read about it earlier. Whoopee.
They didn't really find another open door. They're still moving stuff from point A to point B by way of points C-F.
The door didn't really close. Just the crap they drag through is different. Or rather, the distribution of small, flat crap is down and bulky crap with pesky, ignored instructions* is up.
Err... fixed costs are, well, fixed. That means you owe them regardless of how much business you do. Or even if you open for business in a time period or not.
Being able to turn more profits on packages doesn't terribly surprise me, though. When I have a game shipped from FacelessCorporateVGRetailer.com, they pack it in a box. I'm sure the box with the game generates less revenue than an equivilent volume of letters. But the box is also less dense. It also only has to be sorted once (per facility?), whereas the volume of letters would have dozens or hundreds of sort operations.
First, surely you didn't read this particular thread.
The question was if a crime stops being a crime, then would those previously convicted have to be released? Yes. Yes they would. Wrongful imprisonment has, as an element, the requirement of a legal authority for the imprisonment. No crime of ___ on the books? Then legal authority to imprison for that act does not exist. But as I said, I have no idea if the release would be a commutation of sentence or something more like a pardon.
As for the stuff you bring up, if Bush manages to change a law he has broken then I'm pretty sure that he can't be charged. End of story, right or wrong. If you wanted him charged now, you'd need to impeach him. For that, you would need the authority of Congress. The very body that Bush would have to go through to loosen the law. On the other hand, if you wait for Bush to leave the presidency and restore the laws to what they were... would you then be able to prosecute? I'm not so sure that ex post facto would be a protection, as the act was a crime when it was commited and was a crime when prosecution began. Even if ex post facto literally protected, it would be an interesting legal argument that the spirit of it does not.
But this is all fairly meaningless blather. I think its an interesting legal hypothetical. I don't expect morality, equality, consistiency, or justice from the law. Only legality. In fact, I think that'll be my sig.
My point wasn't to say "ooooh. lookit the women who think they're technophiles but aren't!" My point was to more say "using the ubiquitous tools of the day isn't particularly noteworthy."
The AC above was pretty close. Young women are pretty well noted (deservedly or not) as talking a lot on the phone. But since now the phone is celluar, there is something new going on? There isn't. Or instead of loading the camera with film, its loaded with a card. Its still a camera, though. Maybe if you could show a shift in who the women were communicating with, it would be notable. Say, they're using IM and email as a primary method of finding new friends. Or if a demographic of women now have friends from demographics they previously didn't, thanks to email, IMs, whatever. If the science changes but the activies are basically the same, its my opinion that this is No Big Deal.
The factoids that might perhaps slightly be called "mildly surprising" would be the ones about preference for gadgets over jewelry, vacations, and shoes. But that depends on how the question was asked.
"Would you rather have a plasma tv or a diamond necklace?" is a very different question from "Would you rather recieve a plasma tv or a diamond necklace as a gift?" Similarly, asking "would you rather buy a digital camera or designer shoes?" is a different question from asking "if you could have a digital camera or designer shoes, which would it be?" One is asking which do you find to be a more valuable purchase on a finite budget, and the other asks, if money weren't a factor, what would you have? Yet either one could be put into a survey and then written about as "technology is what women want!" It wouldn't at all surprise me if women responded in favor of the gadgets to one type of question, as gadgets can be enjoyed frequently. The other type, however, may elicit responses from the same women in a different fashion as they imagine the rarer occassions when they want to really go all out. Times when the plasma tv doesn't go with you and the digital camera may be useful for taking pictures. But if you don't look good for the event, maybe you don't want that particular picture.
The study found over the next five years women see themselves increasing their activities in six tech areas: digital cameras, cell phones, e-mail, camera phones, text messaging and instant messaging.
I'll grant you that not everybody is proficient with these devices/apps. But pushing shutter releases and send buttons does not make one tech savvy. Man or woman.
I also wonder where they draw the line for 'technology devices'. Since everything from forks to keys to credit cards to laptops is technology. Just not all of it is recent.
And lastly.. does the thought "well, I rebooted Windows and everything worked fine" count as "computer trouble-shooting" ?
I guess I don't understand the incentive for companies to artificially degrade throughput. For every packet they route around their system to slow down, they can't route some other packet. So they need more infrastructure to handle the same amount of data. On the other hand, if they store it somewhere.. well.. they've got to have some massive storage. If they dump the packet onto another provider, the other provider isn't going to want to hold on to it either. And if you do it often enough, maybe the second provider doesn't want to handle your traffic at all.
The only reasonable reason I can think for this sort of arrangement would be in an attempt to shift some (less important stuff that doesn't need to travel now) peak traffic to off-peak hours. This would allow for companies to maintain less transport infrastructure (since you've diminished the peak requirements some) but it would come at the cost of storage infrastructure. If this is more profitable, why isn't it already being done?
If the current transport infrastructure can't handle the demands of the traffic, then when everybody is paying for 'priority' the infrastructure still won't be able to handle the demands of the traffic. I'm not buying an argument that says the priority payments are going to pay for the extra infrastructure either. If it wasn't already profitable to own the infrastructure, why do people own it? And if the current infrastructure can handle the traffic, and is profitable without government intervention, why would any customers pay for service they're already recieving? Why would businesses incur costs when they can't make more money than they're already making? (If they could make more money, they'd be doing it.)
If I were to provide a service with the pay-for-priority sort of service, I'd have to cut you a discount on the non-priority traffic to remain competitive. I'd be offering two services. One that is basicially what you're used to and another that is worse than what you're used to. Either the discount I offer would eliminate the extra reveneue* from priority (if it didn't, no one would use your service) or, more likely, I'd offer you service at the normal price and give you less of a discount on non-priority traffic. Still.. if this was feasible, why don't we already see it?
*Actually, this isn't quite true. If you, as a service provider, handle a lot of non-priority traffic the discount may make my bandwidth offerings more attractive than other companies'. Its just that with so much traffic (web, streaming media, multiplayer gama data, etc) I can't really place someone with a mostly non-priority traffic load.
Ah... private property rights are laws that would restrict you from advertising porn in a magazine.
Yet private property rights do not prevent the sale of M or AO games to minors? How does that work, exactly?
In point of fact a law that actually did ban a class of adverts or restrict the sale of a class of games would be an intrusion into private property rights. If you would intrude on those rights, and others, there must be compelling reason, generally for the public good. No such public good has been demonstrated, thus no reason for the intrusion.
I'm not known for gentle conversation. I'm either known for honesty or assholishness or both, depending on who you ask:)
Hah! I'm okay with that. And you weren't particularly viscious or any such thing. You just didn't quite agree. So.. not quite dissent. Semi-dissent!;)
As for our government.. well Kurt Vonnegut said something I find quite amusing about US internvention in Iraq. Although it is kind of drifting away from the topic. But since I like it so much, I'll post it anyway.
Vonnegut: I want to say something in defense of the president. He is not the dumbest man at the White House. The Secretary of Defense is the dumbest man in the White House. He is so dumb he thought he could take over a country of 25 million people, Muslims, and their oil, with 200,000 American soldiers who didn't even know how to say "Hello" in Arabic... And we're supposed to be giving them democracy. Well, democracy means that after a hundred years you have to give up your slaves. And after a hundred and fifty years, you have to let your women vote. And during the early period all kinds of genocide and ethnic cleansing are quite all right. So that's what we've got over there.
Well, the thing is, "better spent" is his own perception, and it's one that you or I might not agree with. Also, the benefits he gains are not my concern. The risk he's taking is my concern, though, if I'm on the road with him.
Everything drivers do is because they percieve it to be not very risky. Whether you or I agree with that assessment is meaningless. Your choices as a driver are to drive or not drive, acknowledging the fact that you can't control what the other drivers do. You already know that other drivers eat while driving. If it concerns you, it already concerns you, yet you drive anyway. And, as I said before and you have offered no reasoning to refute, drivers that eat while they drive aren't going to be any better or worse at risk assessment.
But if you find yourself doing it regularly, you might want to re-evaluate the way you organize your time.
I'm glad you understand everybody's life well enough to judge it. It couldn't possibly be that drivers who regularly eat on the road generally place more value on their time than you do. Or who knows why else they would do it. It just doesn't really matter. Only that they do, and you have no control over it.
I'm not trying to eliminate risk altogether. I'm saying, why introduce further risk factors?
And as I've told you, they introduce further risk factors because they gain more than they risk. The same, exact, reason you drive at all. Unless you are absolutely the most cautious driver on the road (odds are, you aren't. there's only one.), I'm sure you do things on the road that other people would not. And those people probably wonder why you're adding to your risk, too. The same answer applies.
I don't advocate discarding it. I advocate not presenting it as something more meaningful than it really is.
I'm not presenting it as more meaningful than it really is. I'm presenting it as the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk. Which means using it in such a fashion. Not simply relegating it to internet forums and saying "that's interesting" as you have suggested.
I'd suggest that the mere fact of eating while driving could be viewed as evidence that they have at least a slight deficiency in that area.
You might suggest it. But I have no reason to believe that eating cheeseburgers while driving is generally viewed as an intrinsically Good Thing. People who eat cheeseburgers while driving do so because they need to eat. But the time they might spend eating at a static location is better spent eating on the move. The benefits they gain from eating on the go outweighs the percieved increase in risk. This is not evidence of poor risk assessement. If you want to hold to your idea that eating cheeseburgers while driving is poor risk assessement, then I might ask you if you drive for any reason that isn't life and death. If you do, then you also have poor risk assessment, as you risk your life for something frivolous. Such as the $0.70 of onion you forgot to grab at the store but need for that wonderful french onion soup. Since this isn't a position I would take, however, I'm back to my position that drivers aren't generally poor at risk assessment and neither are cheesburger eating drivers.
If you want to know how risky a given factor is, one of the things you have to know is how prevalent that factor is. For example, let's define "driver who eats cheeseburgers while driving on a regular basis" as someone who does it at least once a week, just as an arbitrary standard for the sake of illustration.
Ah. Thank you for the explaination. I hadn't followed the line of thought completely.
Well, someone -- I think it was you -- said something to the effect that you don't need statistics to tell you that driving while blindfolded is a bad idea.
And what of it? I did say I don't need statistics to tell me driving blindfolded is a bad idea. Nowhere in that statement do I advocate discarding better information for worse because I don't have the 'best' information. In the abscence of statistics rooted in evidence about the risks of driving blindfolded, my most efficient approximation is my mind's ability to logically conclude that not being able to see would be bad for an activity heavily dependant on the sense of sight. For this deduction, my expenditures is perhapse a few calories of energy, employing my education in various fields (although I would have acquired this, even if I were blind), and some relevant experience at walking with eyes closed (although this I did for curiousity about how blind people cope). For me to acquire data, I would have to fund induce people to drive blindfolded (or do so myself) which could cost me thousands of dollars, plus a probable significant time investment. So, my logical deduction which cost me a mere few calories, at most, since the experience and the education were paid for before I was required to make this deduction, versus a cost of thousands of dollars on an experiment with an expected benefit of nearly zero, leads me to rationally decide not to conduct the experiment. It may provider better information but yields a less efficient outcome. You, however, seemed to advocate discarding a statistic that is the either the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk and discard it, though it cost you only the time it took to read it. Instead, you would rely on your individual estimation or instinct, at a similar cost to reading the statistic and with the attendant greater margin for error, simply because you don't have the statistic you want. Not a rational decision, as far as I can see.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't ignore that inventions are frequently built on other inventions. Have I, at any point, suggested that a patent should give you a right to deny any research potential until the expiration of the patent? No. I would quite passionately argue that the patent should give you commercial rights only. It might not be what we have. But patents do have utility. I'm not willing to discard that because the current system is overly restrictive.
I agree with this. Completely. I might've said "in most cases" but otherwise, yeah.
My skill at clairvoyance is as good as yours, sure. When I say that people are greedy, though, its a fairly accurate statement. Not always true. But often enough. Same when I say they're risk adverse. When someone tells people that they can't recover the expenditure of research, thats a big deterrent to invention. Are patents going to have problems? Definitely. Any form of IP is going to have the legal nightmares though. That is virtually inescapable. Its costly. But since it is costly to all forms of IP, I don't weight it very heavily. If you did away with IP, you'd avoid the legal battles. There's very probably going to be other expenditures though. I highly suspect that most companies would respond to IPlessness by using a de facto, rather than de jure, system of trade secrets. On stuff they wouldn't bother with now, because they can patent it. And at least some of what they gain from not paying lawyers they lose to paying for more security. I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm saying its a problem no matter what system you use. When some guy can't go commercial with an idea he spent effort to bring to fruition because of patents, its sad. Inventors, do yourself a favor. Do a patent search. I just don't see this as much of a problem. Maybe I'm wrong. I just don't much care who gets rich on what. I care whats available.
If you argue the risks are the same, why go to the trouble of changing? If some other system is better, why is it better? I've gone to the trouble to lay out logically why patents are good as well as why the problems don't offset the benefits. If you have problems with the current patent system, that's one thing. If you have problems inherent to patents, thats another. The difference is, one argues for altering the system and the other argues for doing away with the system.
If your idea to improve someone else's involves building
I guess you missed where I said it cost more. Although buying a gaming PC rig is going to run you more than the console + the modchip and/or boot disc. And, there being more current titles on consoles than PCs means that you benefit comparatively more by setting up to pirate on the console.
.. again. Plugging a chip into a slot, not a feat of great difficulty. Putting a boot disc into the drive.. also not a feat of great difficulty. In fact.. if you can't do it, then you have no reason to own either the console or a PC. Either one would be an expensive, fancy looking paperweight. Or doorstop. Plugging an ethernet cable in? if you can't do that, good luck with downloading stuff.
And
I did say it was a little more difficult. But "much more difficult?" Only if sleeping was a little difficult, breathing was just difficult, and putting round pegs in round holes is very difficult would I consider the process to pirate on a console "much more difficult" than that for a PC.
The only part of your post I might take issue with is:
If they made games no-one wanted, why are they being pirated?
Just because the game was pirated doesn't mean the game was any good. The cost of pirating is very low. Just a disc and some time, really. With a cost that low, its worth trying the game out.
If the game sucks, then you promptly uninstall it and microwave the disc. Just cause thats fun and the disc is otherwise useless. Unless you need coasters. You also pat yourself on the back and say "congratulations, me! I held on to $50."
I stick to my consoles, now. I haven't built a new computer in years. Haven't even upgraded it all that much. Just hasn't been worth my time and money.
O.o
Its a little more difficult, sure. Costs a little more, too. But consoles generally have more current titles on them than the PC.
And.. using solderless modchips and bootdisks, and plugging an ethernet cable into the console aren't exactly what I'd call acts of brilliance.
I'm sorry to ask but can't you read?
If you're so big on the free sharing of ideas, trade secrets are anathema to that ideal. Because they're secrets. You don't get to build anything off my ideas because I haven't told you. Maybe you come up with the same idea. Which, to be frank, is a waste. Twice the effort to develop the same invention. If you're not big on the free sharing of ideas, then whats the beef with patents? You've argued that sharing ideas freely is good. You've argued that trade secrets are good. Which position do you actually hold?
Unless person A operates with trade secrets. Cause those're good, right?
True. And what of it? So you don't get rich off somebody else's idea. That's not exactly a tragedy. Humankind is still enriched by the knowledge. Under patent law, the knowledge is publicly available. When the patent expires, everybody can use it. That's the goal. Whether or not any specific individual gets rich off the idea is absolutely unimportant. Someone came up with the idea. Someone put it in play. Who that someone actually is doesn't mean much.
So you say. At least I can demonstrate having thought out the situation. And the consequences of altering the system. You cannot. People are greedy. They like having stuff. People are risk-adverse. When you make an activity more risky, they do less of it. When you make research more risky, they do less of it. When people do less research, they discover fewer things. People understand that if they can spend less money to get a product to market by copying someone else's research rather than doing the research themselves, they're less willing to do the research. You can tell me that isn't how people work. You can tell me that isn't how businesses work. You can say anything you very well like. That will not, in any way, make it sensible or believable. You have to demonstrate. You have not.
You don't get one. You came up with something that was already known to man. You don't get a reward for doing it again anymore than you get a reward for coming into my office and doing a job that I've already done well.
You do it again. You point to problems with patent systems and conclude that we should do away with them. You even say it is 'common' without bothering to define it. The best argument you could make with this assertion is that patent law could be better.
Very good of you to think so. When I assess the problems of patents, I went on to analyze remedies to mitigate those problems. When I ask you to do the same for a lack of patents, you inform me there's no problem. Despite the fact that I've already outlined at least one problem.
So you contend that education is the primary reason for the fall of guilds? Yet if guilds are the primary repository of knowledge about their craft, and there isn't a legal protection of independantly gained knowledge, how do you disseminate information about the craft? Once you do, the guild can use it. And the tradeguild has other profitable skills that they don't have to (and indeed, have incentive not to) release to the public. They can bring their competitive advantage to bear and put the non-guild members who can only use the public domain knowledge out of business. Does that mean education didn't have anything to do with it? No. I'm just not convinced that our 'modern' education is so much better as to displace the tradeguild. I can't provide any scientific evidence, yet I can't help but note that both mine and other's experience point to the education system providing inadequate education for jobs. I speculate that this is a lot less likely to be the case for fields where knowledge is more .. err .. concrete? Fields like mathematics and programming where the rules are fairly well established and relatively direct.
Here's the rub, though. What, exactly, constitutes "large upfront investment"? What may be large, for me as an individual, may only constitute a moderate expenditure for a small collective and may be absolutely trivial for a large corporation. If the protection is desirable for the large corporation's large expenditure, then why is it not also desirable for the individual's relatively large expenditure?
I'm going to combine a couple of your responses here:
So .. it seems as if you're arguing that patents are bad because they prevent inventors from incorporating and utilizing the ideas of other people. But trade secrets are good because they prevent inventors from incorporating and utilizing the ideas of other people. How's that work? These aren't exactly compatible ideas. It would seem to me that between the two, patents are a far more desirable IP protection than trade secrets. When you patent, you are forced to disclose your invention. No disclosure, no protection. When the patent expires, its free game for anybody. If you protect under trade secrets, no body gets to benefit from your knowledge. There is no time limit. Although, I should point out that there are other ways of removing the trade secret protections. Reverse engineering is fair game. I'm less certain, but if the trade secret is disclosed illegally and published .. I think you're out of luck. Oh, you can sue the one who disclosed. But restoring the rights is difficult, at best. Still, it has its own legal minefields. Not to mention that a trade secret legal battle isn't likely to be any less expensive than a patent battle. How is this good for an individual? So ... trade secrets are good things? Purely from the perspective of profits, perh
Thank you for the information. It has prompted me to go read up on UK government. Nothing too in-depth as peerage, precedence, and titles are a bit ... much to me to absorb. Interesting stuff, though.
I sort of wish we had motions of no confidence. On the other hand, I don't think much of any of the prominient American politicians. Kind of frustrating to know that no matter who happens to be in office, I get screwed.
Your point here? You have a knack for leaving thoughts incomplete. I decline to speculate as to what you actually meant.
Never did I assert that invention would halt without patents. Merely that there would be less inventing going on.
No, they're not more desirable from an individual or societal point of view. Trade secrets are predicated upon keeping the secret a secret. Patents are predicated on disclosure of your idea without completely destroying the financial incentive of disclosure.
Well and good but patent law wouldn't prevent you from inventing something and releasing it freely, if you had good cause to do so. If patent law could stop you from doing so then, by definition, someone else invented it first. Ideally, anyway. Whether or not we have a patent system where that would be true is another argument. But I've already stated that I don't care for the current IP law. I just don't think we should toss out the baby with the bathwater.
Exactly. I never said that investment was a requirement for invention. Merely that it makes more people want to invent more stuff. So if inventy types are going to invent stuff with or without IP law, but we can also get the smart but self-interested people to invent with patents, why would we 86 the patents. So the government has a logical position for wanting to intervene in the market. I've yet to see anyone argue the point of either no patent/IP or only severely limited application of patents/IP with logic. Anecdotes and emotion and idealism, sure.
Indeed, and so when AltruCorp sinks USD 10 million into a product and BenignCo drops USD 3 million to improve it and BorgLTD swoops in for USD 0.00 and we all compete in the marketplace.. you'd be okay with that? AltruCorp and BenignCo get to explain their large sunk costs and BorgLTD gets to simply make bank. Altru and Benign are less likely to make the outlay, knowing they could just wait for someone else to innovate for them. And the end result is the rate of invention is down.
Ah.. not to be indelicate.. but.. then shouldn't UK citizens also be generating an anti-Blair (and.. Labour? party) sentiment right alongside that anti-US subtext?
... when such criticism is due. There's certainly no need to go shoe-horning the US into the blame for all the world's ills. There's plenty as is.
.. know enough to comment about how stupid it seems.
There are times, a great many of late, when I (I'm a US citizen) dislike or despise what the US government is doing, both domestically and abroad. But there are also times when the US catches flak from other countries. I usually find such occurances amusing. We get bashed for being heavy-handed in some international affairs. Only to then be bashed for not taking enough involvement in other international affairs. I don't mind (indeed, I even encourage) for citizens of any country to be openly critical of the US
Not, you understand, that I'm implying that criticism is undeserved in this case. I don't really know enough to comment about how stupid it is to burn political goodwill to extradite a couple of bankers. I just
Out of curiousity.. Why is the UK honoring a request made by the US under a treaty the US hasn't ratified?
Observing that people invented for centuries without patents is accurate. But somewhat pointless. Individuals and civilizations have done things for centuries that we don't do anymore. Why? Because better ways have come along.
The government believes that a free market of ideas would select an ineffecient level of invention. Thus, they intervene in the market with patents to provide an incentive to inventors. A lack of patents decreases the rate of invention. How, you ask? Well, either individuals do the inventing, in which case they have to work day jobs to pay bills, and can only devote their 'free' time to the research. Less time available to invent == less inventions. Alternatively, businesses could foot the bill. But why would they? Businesses exist for profit, and the lack of patents all but guarantees that the cost of research is a sunk cost rather than an investment. Sunk costs are generally unattractive to businesses. Businesses pay them because they must to do business. That means that competitors face similar sunk costs if they're going to be your competitors. Not so with inventions. Once you've figured out how to make it, you've also figured out how I can make it, too.
Okay.. so because software is different, we should take rules that work in software markets and apply them to other markets? If you want to assert that patents (or IP in general, even) are unnecessary in the software market, thats fine. I wouldn't even really argue an opposing point. But I also wouldn't assert that patents are unnecessary in all markets simply because software can do okay without 'em. (I note here that I was under the impression that trademark and copyright law protected software, not patent law.)
I know that you weren't responding to me when you said that. But actually, I'm not convinced that the open source model, itself, drives any innovation whatsoever. Which is not to say that there isn't any innovation in open source software. Just that contributions to open source software aren't directly driven by money motives. Rather, they're driven by simple curiousity/enjoyment and indirect monetary gains, such as trading on a name you've built through OSS projects for a well-paying job. Neither of which are results of the open source model. You could just as easily code proprietary software for curiousity's sake, build a name doing it, and get a better paying job elsewhere.
I suppose I should note, here, that I'm not a particular fan of the patent system (or the IP laws, in general) we currently have. I also haven't seen a better system. So while I wouldn't do away with patents, I do think they need to be tweaked.
Actual work for an X1900?
I think I'm going to cry. That poor deprived video card...
Won't you think of the video cards!?
I'd definitely agree that clarity on the subject of free speech doesn't really exist. Such are the pitfalls of legislation on subjective topics. Enough people get in a snit over minors buying M rated video games and politicians start throwing their politicial weight around. Although they're not, now, bothering to get government enforcement of movie ratings. I also notice that they're not pushing for ratings on novels, graphic or otherwise, or the enforcement of same.
Additionally, enforcement of the law incurs costs for the State. Probably, even, costs in excess of the $25 you'd collect. Thus, the law is a net drain on government budgets. If, instead, parents monitor their children responsibly, the cost to the State is zero. Since parents should be monitoring their children anyway no additional costs are incurred by the family and the parent catches games that he doesn't want his child to be playing.
Lastly, its a freedom of speech issue because the government is attempting to dictate the circumstances for transfer of art. Video games are considered art, which is an aspect of speech. The US government and the state governments are generally not intended to impose its morals on the citizenry. When the exercise of one person's rights infringes on the rights of another then the government takes a hand. Whether or not this is the case in practice is another topic altogether. If I, as a parent (I'm not), choose to allow my child to play a video game that you wouldn't allow your child
Well yes and no. Avoiding the taxes assessed by this statute would (likely) be penalized under the requirements and guidelines of NC tax law.
However, the taxes assessed are outlined by legislation. Thus a new law had to be passed anyway.
If you want to speak technically, Congress didn't make this law or pass this judgement.
But more to the point, laws restricting freedoms can be passed and upheld when a case for public benefit is articulated.
We regulate both speech and the press with laws against libel and slander. We regulate firearms ownership and carry with background checks and licenses. We regulate what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. I'd wager that innocents find any searches unreasonable. Criminals doubly so. Yet we discard those notions of unreasonable and delcare that law enforcment, with 'reasonable suspicion' or 'probable cause' may, in fact, search.
If I, as a regular citizen, pick up some information vital to a case, I can be compelled to testify. But if I, as a reporter, pick up the same information vital to a case, I can profit off my knowledge without harming (possibly even helping) the criminals. So I get to make money, you get to read about it a few days earlier, and the criminals get to keep on victimizing people.
If law enforcement can make a case, regardless of what the reporter does, then I have a sneaking suspicion that the reporter won't be called to testify and a theoretical shield law wouldn't be in play. Only when law enforcement is hindered by a reporter would they be in play, and I'm not quite so certain I can support a reporter in that situation. I'm not overly fond of police, especially given the news of their recent excesses. However, given the diminishing legal authority for me to defend myself from criminals, police are fairly necessary. Even if they've no legal duty to protect you or I, as individuals.
Lastly, I will say that I would happily protect a reporter's freedom if they broke a law in order to expose criminal activity by those in power in order to force a redress. There's a compelling public benefit, protection from a corrupt government. But hindering law enforcement so the reporter can make a buck? What's the compelling reason? So that John Doe, Steve Schmoe, and Joe Blow get to read about it earlier. Whoopee.
They didn't really find another open door. They're still moving stuff from point A to point B by way of points C-F.
The door didn't really close. Just the crap they drag through is different. Or rather, the distribution of small, flat crap is down and bulky crap with pesky, ignored instructions* is up.
* (This end up, Fragile)
Err... fixed costs are, well, fixed. That means you owe them regardless of how much business you do. Or even if you open for business in a time period or not.
Being able to turn more profits on packages doesn't terribly surprise me, though. When I have a game shipped from FacelessCorporateVGRetailer.com, they pack it in a box. I'm sure the box with the game generates less revenue than an equivilent volume of letters. But the box is also less dense. It also only has to be sorted once (per facility?), whereas the volume of letters would have dozens or hundreds of sort operations.
First, surely you didn't read this particular thread.
... would you then be able to prosecute? I'm not so sure that ex post facto would be a protection, as the act was a crime when it was commited and was a crime when prosecution began. Even if ex post facto literally protected, it would be an interesting legal argument that the spirit of it does not.
The question was if a crime stops being a crime, then would those previously convicted have to be released? Yes. Yes they would. Wrongful imprisonment has, as an element, the requirement of a legal authority for the imprisonment. No crime of ___ on the books? Then legal authority to imprison for that act does not exist. But as I said, I have no idea if the release would be a commutation of sentence or something more like a pardon.
As for the stuff you bring up, if Bush manages to change a law he has broken then I'm pretty sure that he can't be charged. End of story, right or wrong. If you wanted him charged now, you'd need to impeach him. For that, you would need the authority of Congress. The very body that Bush would have to go through to loosen the law. On the other hand, if you wait for Bush to leave the presidency and restore the laws to what they were
But this is all fairly meaningless blather. I think its an interesting legal hypothetical. I don't expect morality, equality, consistiency, or justice from the law. Only legality. In fact, I think that'll be my sig.
It doesn't really matter how you categorize.
My point wasn't to say "ooooh. lookit the women who think they're technophiles but aren't!"
My point was to more say "using the ubiquitous tools of the day isn't particularly noteworthy."
The AC above was pretty close. Young women are pretty well noted (deservedly or not) as talking a lot on the phone. But since now the phone is celluar, there is something new going on? There isn't. Or instead of loading the camera with film, its loaded with a card. Its still a camera, though. Maybe if you could show a shift in who the women were communicating with, it would be notable. Say, they're using IM and email as a primary method of finding new friends. Or if a demographic of women now have friends from demographics they previously didn't, thanks to email, IMs, whatever. If the science changes but the activies are basically the same, its my opinion that this is No Big Deal.
The factoids that might perhaps slightly be called "mildly surprising" would be the ones about preference for gadgets over jewelry, vacations, and shoes. But that depends on how the question was asked.
"Would you rather have a plasma tv or a diamond necklace?" is a very different question from "Would you rather recieve a plasma tv or a diamond necklace as a gift?" Similarly, asking "would you rather buy a digital camera or designer shoes?" is a different question from asking "if you could have a digital camera or designer shoes, which would it be?" One is asking which do you find to be a more valuable purchase on a finite budget, and the other asks, if money weren't a factor, what would you have? Yet either one could be put into a survey and then written about as "technology is what women want!" It wouldn't at all surprise me if women responded in favor of the gadgets to one type of question, as gadgets can be enjoyed frequently. The other type, however, may elicit responses from the same women in a different fashion as they imagine the rarer occassions when they want to really go all out. Times when the plasma tv doesn't go with you and the digital camera may be useful for taking pictures. But if you don't look good for the event, maybe you don't want that particular picture.
I'll grant you that not everybody is proficient with these devices/apps. But pushing shutter releases and send buttons does not make one tech savvy. Man or woman.
I also wonder where they draw the line for 'technology devices'. Since everything from forks to keys to credit cards to laptops is technology. Just not all of it is recent.
And lastly.. does the thought "well, I rebooted Windows and everything worked fine" count as "computer trouble-shooting" ?
I guess I don't understand the incentive for companies to artificially degrade throughput. For every packet they route around their system to slow down, they can't route some other packet. So they need more infrastructure to handle the same amount of data. On the other hand, if they store it somewhere.. well.. they've got to have some massive storage. If they dump the packet onto another provider, the other provider isn't going to want to hold on to it either. And if you do it often enough, maybe the second provider doesn't want to handle your traffic at all.
The only reasonable reason I can think for this sort of arrangement would be in an attempt to shift some (less important stuff that doesn't need to travel now) peak traffic to off-peak hours. This would allow for companies to maintain less transport infrastructure (since you've diminished the peak requirements some) but it would come at the cost of storage infrastructure. If this is more profitable, why isn't it already being done?
If the current transport infrastructure can't handle the demands of the traffic, then when everybody is paying for 'priority' the infrastructure still won't be able to handle the demands of the traffic. I'm not buying an argument that says the priority payments are going to pay for the extra infrastructure either. If it wasn't already profitable to own the infrastructure, why do people own it? And if the current infrastructure can handle the traffic, and is profitable without government intervention, why would any customers pay for service they're already recieving? Why would businesses incur costs when they can't make more money than they're already making? (If they could make more money, they'd be doing it.)
If I were to provide a service with the pay-for-priority sort of service, I'd have to cut you a discount on the non-priority traffic to remain competitive. I'd be offering two services. One that is basicially what you're used to and another that is worse than what you're used to. Either the discount I offer would eliminate the extra reveneue* from priority (if it didn't, no one would use your service) or, more likely, I'd offer you service at the normal price and give you less of a discount on non-priority traffic. Still.. if this was feasible, why don't we already see it?
*Actually, this isn't quite true. If you, as a service provider, handle a lot of non-priority traffic the discount may make my bandwidth offerings more attractive than other companies'. Its just that with so much traffic (web, streaming media, multiplayer gama data, etc) I can't really place someone with a mostly non-priority traffic load.
Ah... private property rights are laws that would restrict you from advertising porn in a magazine.
Yet private property rights do not prevent the sale of M or AO games to minors? How does that work, exactly?
In point of fact a law that actually did ban a class of adverts or restrict the sale of a class of games would be an intrusion into private property rights. If you would intrude on those rights, and others, there must be compelling reason, generally for the public good. No such public good has been demonstrated, thus no reason for the intrusion.
As for our government.. well Kurt Vonnegut said something I find quite amusing about US internvention in Iraq. Although it is kind of drifting away from the topic. But since I like it so much, I'll post it anyway.
Vonnegut: I want to say something in defense of the president. He is not the dumbest man at the White House. The Secretary of Defense is the dumbest man in the White House. He is so dumb he thought he could take over a country of 25 million people, Muslims, and their oil, with 200,000 American soldiers who didn't even know how to say "Hello" in Arabic... And we're supposed to be giving them democracy. Well, democracy means that after a hundred years you have to give up your slaves. And after a hundred and fifty years, you have to let your women vote. And during the early period all kinds of genocide and ethnic cleansing are quite all right. So that's what we've got over there.
I'm glad you understand everybody's life well enough to judge it. It couldn't possibly be that drivers who regularly eat on the road generally place more value on their time than you do. Or who knows why else they would do it. It just doesn't really matter. Only that they do, and you have no control over it.
And as I've told you, they introduce further risk factors because they gain more than they risk. The same, exact, reason you drive at all. Unless you are absolutely the most cautious driver on the road (odds are, you aren't. there's only one.), I'm sure you do things on the road that other people would not. And those people probably wonder why you're adding to your risk, too. The same answer applies.
I'm not presenting it as more meaningful than it really is. I'm presenting it as the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk. Which means using it in such a fashion. Not simply relegating it to internet forums and saying "that's interesting" as you have suggested.
Ah. Thank you for the explaination. I hadn't followed the line of thought completely.
And what of it? I did say I don't need statistics to tell me driving blindfolded is a bad idea. Nowhere in that statement do I advocate discarding better information for worse because I don't have the 'best' information. In the abscence of statistics rooted in evidence about the risks of driving blindfolded, my most efficient approximation is my mind's ability to logically conclude that not being able to see would be bad for an activity heavily dependant on the sense of sight. For this deduction, my expenditures is perhapse a few calories of energy, employing my education in various fields (although I would have acquired this, even if I were blind), and some relevant experience at walking with eyes closed (although this I did for curiousity about how blind people cope). For me to acquire data, I would have to fund induce people to drive blindfolded (or do so myself) which could cost me thousands of dollars, plus a probable significant time investment. So, my logical deduction which cost me a mere few calories, at most, since the experience and the education were paid for before I was required to make this deduction, versus a cost of thousands of dollars on an experiment with an expected benefit of nearly zero, leads me to rationally decide not to conduct the experiment. It may provider better information but yields a less efficient outcome. You, however, seemed to advocate discarding a statistic that is the either the best available or most efficient data we have about accident risk and discard it, though it cost you only the time it took to read it. Instead, you would rely on your individual estimation or instinct, at a similar cost to reading the statistic and with the attendant greater margin for error, simply because you don't have the statistic you want. Not a rational decision, as far as I can see.