When NASA's Kepler space telescope started finding planets at odd angles to their parent stars, scientists wondered if our solar system's tidy geometry, with the planets neatly orbiting around the sun's equator, was an exception to the rule.
Any scientist wondering this should probably look up the terms selection bias and anthropic principle, and stop calling himself a "scientist."
However, Google will indeed have the government coming to take their IP when the PageRank patent expires.
That's not the government "taking" their IP; that was part of the agreement when they purchased their coercive monopoly from the government---the agreement has a term of 20 years.
P.S.: Your sig? "Intents and purposes." Not "intensive purposes."
The biggest generation in history is just entering its childbearing years.
And fertility rates are dropping everywhere, and more people than ever are choosing to simply not have children. Of course by mentioning that, this article wouldn't be nearly as alarmist, so it was conveniently omitted.
The term for this is "punishing success." Create a technology that's too successful and pretty soon people will call to have it stolen from you for the "public good." And naturally they will mask their naked desire for such theft with terms like "sharing."
Note that I don't support software patents---I don't support the idea of patents, or "intellectual property", at all. But so long as we're going to have the government pointing its guns around at people, protecting businesses' intellectual assets as if they're real property, the idea of selective enforcement of patents, especially based on criteria like this, is even more repugnant than "IP" itself.
So! I hope Google will be equally as cheerful when the government comes in and wrenches all of their technologies away from them because they've become so ubiquitous! I mean, if there's anything "everyone" uses on the Internet nowadays that ought to be "shared," it's Google search, right?
In many jurisdictions in this so-called "free country," chatting with someone whom one merely believes to be underage is a crime, regardless of if the "underage" person is lying. For example, N.H. RSA 649-B:4. Ten years in jail because some 40-year-old guy convinced another 40-year-old guy he was really a 12-year-old girl.
There appears* to be a Pidgin plugin for Facebook. So, Pidgin+OTR, plus convincing whomever you're chatting with to install and enable the same thing, is the solution. Of course, as with most technological problems, the third part of that sequence---the human part---is going to be the hardest problem to solve. The tech exists, if only people would use it.
* I can't test any of this to see if it works because I don't have a Facebook account and never will.
Pidgin appears to support Facebook chat with a plugin; do you know if OTR works correctly over it? (I don't have a Facebook account and never will, so I can't test.)
If so, even if you have Pidgin+OTR, the problem becomes convincing the people you're chatting with to install it, especially if you're chatting up random strangers.
That's a survey of mainstream folk, not just tech geeks like us.
Facebook has basically become like a utility company. Yes, millions of people use it, for hours a day, but not because it's some cool dotcom social media site that they like, they use it because there's a perception that one "needs" to in order to stay connected.
That might be a nice way of putting a stop to this behavior. If their proactive spying on people gets them into a few nice, expensive lawsuits, their beancounters might decide this practice is too expensive and stop.
As if this kind of sensationalistic ignorance is confined to the Higgs discovery. Here is a similar example of a recent article by a NASA "science" writer. I can't even fathom what kind of leap of ignorance it takes to frame the relatively banal topic of connections between the Earth and Sun's magnetic field in terms of sci-fi "portals" (as in wormholes), but there you have it.
Some things in life are dropped into your lap without your voluntary consent. You know the saying: life ain't fair.
The distinction is whether or not something is "dropped into your lap" by natural forces beyond anyone's conscious control, or by other human beings who certainly have conscious control over their own actions and choices. The first simply is, the second is unethical and ought to be resisted.
I guess that's why Libertarians can't seem to break through all the hurdles set before them for so many years.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in New Hampshire for the past few years, eh?
I would agree with the first point, but see my earlier post about the so-called "common carrier" status the government sometimes applies to ISPs and telecoms. Indeed, if the ISPs are asking the government for protected status, then the government can impose any restrictions they choose on the ISPs, as part of that consensual arrangement. In this sense, the government and the ISPs are simply two parties negotiating a contract. If the ISPs don't like the other party's terms, they don't have to agree to such an arrangement, and they can walk away.
However, on your second point, the only reasons ISPs have to "buy" access to the spectrum, rather than simply begin using it, is because the government has imposed itself into the mix here, by force, and demands that people "buy" permission to use the spectrum, under threat of violence if they use it without seeking permission. This is not an example of a voluntary contract, so stipulations that the government places on purchasing permission to use the spectrum are no more ethical than any other examples of coercion.
A duty that was voluntarily agreed to, libertarians have no problem with. This is what libertarians mean when they talk of "responsibility."
A duty that was imposed upon someone without their express consent is simply a form of coercion. Anyone who calls this a "responsibility" is simply trying to rationalize coercion.
This article seems to indicate that "common carrier" status is not something that ISPs have applied for; it's a label that some have applied to them and that they have in general resisted, in order to avoid being regulated.
If "common carrier" status was something that a business could apply for, voluntarily, in order to gain whatever benefits that that label might confer, then yes, network neutrality under that agreement would be fine. The agreement could impose whatever conditions the parties agree to, and either party is free to walk away from the table if they can't agree to the conditions the other side wants. This concept of voluntary contracts is actually at the essence of the voluntary society that libertarians envision.
But if "common carrier" status is something that ISPs get without asking for it, then none of this applies. If "common carrier" is a label that governments impose on businesses of a certain nature, or size, or whatever, then it is no different than any other example of government regulation, and it's yet another classic example of the government punishing success. "You're too big now, so we're going to control you."
My idea of freedom is intellectually and ethically consistent, based on the "Non-Aggression Principle" and the concept of self-ownership. My idea of freedom says that everyone is absolutely the owner of themselves, and anything they legitimately produced or acquired ("private property"), and they can do whatever they want with themselves, or their property, so long as they're not violating anyone else's right to self-ownership or their own property.
Your idea of freedom is simpl thaty your side gets to say who gets to point the government's guns and who's doing the pointing---today at least. Your idea of freedom seems to be that your idea of freedom gets imposed on others regardless of their own wishes, simply because your faction is in control of the government (today, at least).
Slashdot Mirror
Thieves stealing from thieves. Nice.
The FDA, a government bureaucracy, has "rights"?
Any scientist wondering this should probably look up the terms selection bias and anthropic principle, and stop calling himself a "scientist."
That's not the government "taking" their IP; that was part of the agreement when they purchased their coercive monopoly from the government---the agreement has a term of 20 years.
P.S.: Your sig? "Intents and purposes." Not "intensive purposes."
What's your point? That two wrongs do in fact make right?
And fertility rates are dropping everywhere, and more people than ever are choosing to simply not have children. Of course by mentioning that, this article wouldn't be nearly as alarmist, so it was conveniently omitted.
Maybe it's time that the government step in and force Google to play fair. You know, for the good of society, they should be made to share with everyone. That's what Google seems to want for other companies, so what's good for them is good for Google, isn't it?
The term for this is "punishing success." Create a technology that's too successful and pretty soon people will call to have it stolen from you for the "public good." And naturally they will mask their naked desire for such theft with terms like "sharing."
Note that I don't support software patents---I don't support the idea of patents, or "intellectual property", at all. But so long as we're going to have the government pointing its guns around at people, protecting businesses' intellectual assets as if they're real property, the idea of selective enforcement of patents, especially based on criteria like this, is even more repugnant than "IP" itself.
So! I hope Google will be equally as cheerful when the government comes in and wrenches all of their technologies away from them because they've become so ubiquitous! I mean, if there's anything "everyone" uses on the Internet nowadays that ought to be "shared," it's Google search, right?
This is news? Why would anyone expect our so-called "law enforcement" officers to be held to any standard of honesty or integrity nowadays?
You want to pass a law in Australia banning a foreign company, over whom you have no jurisdiction, from banning users from your country.
Good luck with that.
Sweet.
In many jurisdictions in this so-called "free country," chatting with someone whom one merely believes to be underage is a crime, regardless of if the "underage" person is lying. For example, N.H. RSA 649-B:4. Ten years in jail because some 40-year-old guy convinced another 40-year-old guy he was really a 12-year-old girl.
You just described Pidgin with OTR.
There appears* to be a Pidgin plugin for Facebook. So, Pidgin+OTR, plus convincing whomever you're chatting with to install and enable the same thing, is the solution. Of course, as with most technological problems, the third part of that sequence---the human part---is going to be the hardest problem to solve. The tech exists, if only people would use it.
* I can't test any of this to see if it works because I don't have a Facebook account and never will.
Pidgin appears to support Facebook chat with a plugin; do you know if OTR works correctly over it? (I don't have a Facebook account and never will, so I can't test.)
If so, even if you have Pidgin+OTR, the problem becomes convincing the people you're chatting with to install it, especially if you're chatting up random strangers.
You did miss a memo.
Report: Facebook Is Most Hated Social Media Company .
That's a survey of mainstream folk, not just tech geeks like us.
Facebook has basically become like a utility company. Yes, millions of people use it, for hours a day, but not because it's some cool dotcom social media site that they like, they use it because there's a perception that one "needs" to in order to stay connected.
That might be a nice way of putting a stop to this behavior. If their proactive spying on people gets them into a few nice, expensive lawsuits, their beancounters might decide this practice is too expensive and stop.
As if this kind of sensationalistic ignorance is confined to the Higgs discovery. Here is a similar example of a recent article by a NASA "science" writer. I can't even fathom what kind of leap of ignorance it takes to frame the relatively banal topic of connections between the Earth and Sun's magnetic field in terms of sci-fi "portals" (as in wormholes), but there you have it.
The distinction is whether or not something is "dropped into your lap" by natural forces beyond anyone's conscious control, or by other human beings who certainly have conscious control over their own actions and choices. The first simply is, the second is unethical and ought to be resisted.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in New Hampshire for the past few years, eh?
I would agree with the first point, but see my earlier post about the so-called "common carrier" status the government sometimes applies to ISPs and telecoms. Indeed, if the ISPs are asking the government for protected status, then the government can impose any restrictions they choose on the ISPs, as part of that consensual arrangement. In this sense, the government and the ISPs are simply two parties negotiating a contract. If the ISPs don't like the other party's terms, they don't have to agree to such an arrangement, and they can walk away.
However, on your second point, the only reasons ISPs have to "buy" access to the spectrum, rather than simply begin using it, is because the government has imposed itself into the mix here, by force, and demands that people "buy" permission to use the spectrum, under threat of violence if they use it without seeking permission. This is not an example of a voluntary contract, so stipulations that the government places on purchasing permission to use the spectrum are no more ethical than any other examples of coercion.
"We"? Who is this "we"? Here in New Hampshire, they passed a paper trail law in 1994 and we've not had any of these problems.
A duty that was voluntarily agreed to, libertarians have no problem with. This is what libertarians mean when they talk of "responsibility."
A duty that was imposed upon someone without their express consent is simply a form of coercion. Anyone who calls this a "responsibility" is simply trying to rationalize coercion.
This article seems to indicate that "common carrier" status is not something that ISPs have applied for; it's a label that some have applied to them and that they have in general resisted, in order to avoid being regulated.
If "common carrier" status was something that a business could apply for, voluntarily, in order to gain whatever benefits that that label might confer, then yes, network neutrality under that agreement would be fine. The agreement could impose whatever conditions the parties agree to, and either party is free to walk away from the table if they can't agree to the conditions the other side wants. This concept of voluntary contracts is actually at the essence of the voluntary society that libertarians envision.
But if "common carrier" status is something that ISPs get without asking for it, then none of this applies. If "common carrier" is a label that governments impose on businesses of a certain nature, or size, or whatever, then it is no different than any other example of government regulation, and it's yet another classic example of the government punishing success. "You're too big now, so we're going to control you."
My idea of freedom is intellectually and ethically consistent, based on the "Non-Aggression Principle" and the concept of self-ownership. My idea of freedom says that everyone is absolutely the owner of themselves, and anything they legitimately produced or acquired ("private property"), and they can do whatever they want with themselves, or their property, so long as they're not violating anyone else's right to self-ownership or their own property.
Your idea of freedom is simpl thaty your side gets to say who gets to point the government's guns and who's doing the pointing---today at least. Your idea of freedom seems to be that your idea of freedom gets imposed on others regardless of their own wishes, simply because your faction is in control of the government (today, at least).
The difference between "government" and "Mad Max" is merely one of popular acceptance, or resignation.
The government is simply the biggest gang out there.
Your idea of "freedom" is expropriating others' private property for your own freedoms, just because those others are large business entities, right?