Dictionaries, stylebooks or some government bureau (in the case of the pompous "Académie française") do not and cannot create (nor steer) the language. At best, they merely document and codify the language that emerges. You don't need any stylebook or dictionary to define "LOL" before you can use it, nor should you use it just because they documented it.
It other words, this news has little bearing on what people actually use or will use.
Monopolies can raise prices, decrease product output and quality, and capture huge profits.
One trouble is that excites those "greedy capitalists" who see this as an opportunity to capture some of those profits for themselves, taking marketshare away from an abusive and disreputable service provider, by offering a better deal to willing customers. They can even pre-sign customers like Google Fiber did. They could even issue bonds or start crowdfunding campaigns to bootstrap the investment.
Comcast can't do zlich to prevent such competition. The municipalities on the other hand have the real monopoly as they control rights of way (utility poles, trenches, roads). Worse, they often grant exclusivity deals to motivate the few providers that are considering jumping through the piles of red tape. Municipalities do this with the motivation to get more taxes, but this really screws up their constituencies.
There's been multiple examples of people deploying their own connectivity solution and starting local broadband services. I think it's awesome when people solve a problem for themselves and their neighbors. Take charge, start a project and don't wait for someone else.
The examples I've seen were in rural area, and I suspect that helped. In more urban areas, the difficulty is getting a right of way from the local government (who is often in bed with incumbent ISPs).
If yelling FIRE was disallowed by the theater owner, that would be fine.
Also no talking during the movie.
There are many extremely strong restrictions and relaxations that people can agree to, and that is fine: No swearing in my barbershop. The boxers agree to punch each other in a boxing ring. The flutist in an orchestra agrees to breath as directed.
If the rules are unpopular, then people won't participate and they will provide alternatives. If some forums want to be NSFW and some want to be insult-free, then so be it.
The trouble is with un-owned or government-owned spaces, or venues that receive taxpayer money. Those are contentious because whatever rules will be decided will be one-size-fits-all monopoly rules.
Freedom of speech only pertains to government interference. Rationally, it is hard to justify the proportionality of using coercion (for example, fines with threats of prison and armed enforcement) in response to speech.
This should be easy for a defense attorney to invalidate. Hallucinated images (assembled largely from a corpus of previous images to "enhance" some evidence) are not the same as an image that is run through an abstract de-blurring algorithm.
It's probably easy to demonstrate the problem with some examples, so that judge and jury "gets it".
As a side note, I do much care for your insults ("troll").
In response to my question and analogy, you offer an insult and an unsubstantiated claim which begs the question again.
If you don't know the answer, then don't reply, let alone insult.
I don't know if this information is public, but what is his supposed crime, specifically?
Did he break the rules of the exchange? Did he trespass, break in, or otherwise tamper with the system?
If you're playing poker, actually manipulating the deck, looking at other people's cards, are both against the rules. Participants agree to those rules when they join the table.
Let's say you're really good at bluffing other people or reading their bluff, you've done nothing wrong. And calling it "manipulation" or "abuse" or "profiting" or "ruining other players" is just a way to obscure that fact.
It's good to hear a resurgence of interest in classical liberal concepts like secession.
Here are a few more that maybe people should think about: division of powers, limited and decentralized/local government, non-interventionism, nullification.
I wish it didn't take Trump getting elected for people to take those seriously.
Comey announced they filtered out all emails that were not sent to or from Hillary, which would indeed narrow down the set. But this method may suffer other problems.
Assuming that intent is relevant to the crime for argument's sake, if you are only looking for a smoking gun of Hillary's intent ("hey could you set up a private email server so that I can avoid those pesky Congressional investigations and FOIA requests"), then such a filter is adequate.
If you think maybe Hillary asked her assistant to do such thing, but was not stupid enough to put it in email herself (what are assistants for, if not plausible deniability?), then clues may be found in emails that were filtered out (ie. not "combed through").
This is but one example where the filter may be efficient (fast) but inadequate.
If the handover of ICANN turns bad, DNS will be replaced by an alternative technical solution. Such solutions are already worked, based on DHT and blockchain storage.
You don't want to associate with me, so I try to force you (via government)?
We don't accept that in dating and marriage, as it's called stalking and rape, yet somehow it is virtuous to force in the context of other human relationships?
The "cure" seems even less civilized than the problem. It is using aggressive force against people who act peaceful (although distastefully in some cases).
Having your property searched (trespassed on by police) is different than not getting a loan. You own your house. You don't own the bank's money.
If police were not a privileged monopoly, they would owe restitution for bad searches, just like a trespasser does. But given that it is a monopoly, we try to rein its power in with rules.
The idea that the world is better or more rational by ignoring rational inferences is mistaken. Take for example the effort to "ban the box" (which means employers don't get to ask if you're a felon). Although such legislation are intended to help black people, but the the results appear to have been opposite [1].
People (including employers, creditors, insurers, retailers,...) try to evaluate risks as best they can. If you make them blind to a signal, but they are unwilling to increase their risk tolerance, they will behave more conservatively, not less. They will decrease their service and use even cruder methods to control their risk.
Counting deaths is the wrong measure. The average number of days lost is more typical and informative to evaluate the impact of such problems.
I tried to find the paper for this WHO study, but couldn't find it. Pointers appreciated.
This US data is a big dated but useful as order of magnitudes:
Plane crash (200 deaths a year, 1 day lost per average person), house fire (18 days), pesticides (16000, EPA: 27 days), air pollution (50.000, 61 days), crime (26.000 murders, 113 days), driving (43.000, 182 days), smoking (5.5 years lost for average smoker), poverty (7 to 10 years lost).
It is also useful to point out to people who freak out when they read such headlines that air pollution was far worse in the past. From soot to manure particles, not to mention unsanitary housing, there are reasons why life expectancy has increased dramatically (although, water and food sanitation, as well as waste disposal were bigger factors).
Consider how cheap cellphones are helping pretty much everyone (even the poorest) across the world, with communication, texting services and payment.
Or real-time translation, educational resources, or even sign language.
Not to mention drug design, logistics, financial services, weather forecasts,... The list goes on.
It sounds like the majority of people don't share your priorities or preferences, as their actions demonstrate. Resolving the problems that you care about are not on top of their ranking.
Maybe you should persuade people to see your way. Instead of some spending that you think is not essential, they should spend their money on some more worthwhile project.
For example, I like Literacy Bridge, which is a device to spread important knowledge in remote and under-developed regions of the world.
"Literacy Bridge saves lives and improves the livelihoods of impoverished families through comprehensive programs that provide on-demand access to locally relevant knowledge. At the heart of the programs is the Talking Book, an innovative low-cost audio computer."
There are recurring political strategies: (1) under-budget and over-promise, (2) spread the money in every jurisdiction.
The first one makes it easier to get the foot in the door. You'll have a fantastic plane with a gazillion features, but it will only cost a few millions over a couple of years.
A few years later, when the plane barely flies and a bunch of millions have already been spent, the second strategy comes into play. Not only is it really hard to resist spending "just a little bit more" when you're "this close to being done", but it is really hard to stop spending once you have concentrated interests that have their livelihood depending on the pork.
On the other hand, biomass has been increasing, arable footprint is likely to shrink, people are better fed and live better, no shortage of wilderness. http://www.econtalk.org/archiv...
Let's ignore all the known problems mentioned by other commenters (such as the Mises' economic calculation problem, Hayek's knowledge problem, and other incentive problems, which you can read more about in [1]) for a moment.
Try it:
1. Buy a piece of land, organize as a commune with a master computer program and plan.
2. Because your commune will work so well (very effective production and happy participants), you'll be able to expand.
3. Take over the world (peacefully)!
Slashdot Mirror
If your price is higher, that's price gouging. ;-)
If your price is lower, that's predatory pricing.
If your price is the same, that's collusion.
Dictionaries, stylebooks or some government bureau (in the case of the pompous "Académie française") do not and cannot create (nor steer) the language. At best, they merely document and codify the language that emerges. You don't need any stylebook or dictionary to define "LOL" before you can use it, nor should you use it just because they documented it.
It other words, this news has little bearing on what people actually use or will use.
I don't see how that matters. Policies should not be judged on intentions or goals, but actual effects.
In this case, this expression was considered illegal because it didn't meet some regulation (thus "not free speech").
Monopolies can raise prices, decrease product output and quality, and capture huge profits.
One trouble is that excites those "greedy capitalists" who see this as an opportunity to capture some of those profits for themselves, taking marketshare away from an abusive and disreputable service provider, by offering a better deal to willing customers. They can even pre-sign customers like Google Fiber did. They could even issue bonds or start crowdfunding campaigns to bootstrap the investment.
Comcast can't do zlich to prevent such competition. The municipalities on the other hand have the real monopoly as they control rights of way (utility poles, trenches, roads). Worse, they often grant exclusivity deals to motivate the few providers that are considering jumping through the piles of red tape. Municipalities do this with the motivation to get more taxes, but this really screws up their constituencies.
There's been multiple examples of people deploying their own connectivity solution and starting local broadband services. I think it's awesome when people solve a problem for themselves and their neighbors. Take charge, start a project and don't wait for someone else.
The examples I've seen were in rural area, and I suspect that helped. In more urban areas, the difficulty is getting a right of way from the local government (who is often in bed with incumbent ISPs).
If yelling FIRE was disallowed by the theater owner, that would be fine.
Also no talking during the movie.
There are many extremely strong restrictions and relaxations that people can agree to, and that is fine: No swearing in my barbershop. The boxers agree to punch each other in a boxing ring. The flutist in an orchestra agrees to breath as directed.
If the rules are unpopular, then people won't participate and they will provide alternatives. If some forums want to be NSFW and some want to be insult-free, then so be it.
The trouble is with un-owned or government-owned spaces, or venues that receive taxpayer money. Those are contentious because whatever rules will be decided will be one-size-fits-all monopoly rules.
Freedom of speech only pertains to government interference. Rationally, it is hard to justify the proportionality of using coercion (for example, fines with threats of prison and armed enforcement) in response to speech.
This should be easy for a defense attorney to invalidate. Hallucinated images (assembled largely from a corpus of previous images to "enhance" some evidence) are not the same as an image that is run through an abstract de-blurring algorithm.
It's probably easy to demonstrate the problem with some examples, so that judge and jury "gets it".
Thanks! +1 for excellent answer
Thanks (you provided an actual answer, best one by a mile).
As a side note, I do much care for your insults ("troll").
In response to my question and analogy, you offer an insult and an unsubstantiated claim which begs the question again.
If you don't know the answer, then don't reply, let alone insult.
"He deliberately, willfully and maliciously broke those rules"
Great, then the what are specifically "those rules" he broke?
I don't know if this information is public, but what is his supposed crime, specifically?
Did he break the rules of the exchange? Did he trespass, break in, or otherwise tamper with the system?
If you're playing poker, actually manipulating the deck, looking at other people's cards, are both against the rules. Participants agree to those rules when they join the table.
Let's say you're really good at bluffing other people or reading their bluff, you've done nothing wrong. And calling it "manipulation" or "abuse" or "profiting" or "ruining other players" is just a way to obscure that fact.
Strange...
It's good to hear a resurgence of interest in classical liberal concepts like secession.
Here are a few more that maybe people should think about: division of powers, limited and decentralized/local government, non-interventionism, nullification.
I wish it didn't take Trump getting elected for people to take those seriously.
Comey announced they filtered out all emails that were not sent to or from Hillary, which would indeed narrow down the set. But this method may suffer other problems.
Assuming that intent is relevant to the crime for argument's sake, if you are only looking for a smoking gun of Hillary's intent ("hey could you set up a private email server so that I can avoid those pesky Congressional investigations and FOIA requests"), then such a filter is adequate.
If you think maybe Hillary asked her assistant to do such thing, but was not stupid enough to put it in email herself (what are assistants for, if not plausible deniability?), then clues may be found in emails that were filtered out (ie. not "combed through").
This is but one example where the filter may be efficient (fast) but inadequate.
If the handover of ICANN turns bad, DNS will be replaced by an alternative technical solution. Such solutions are already worked, based on DHT and blockchain storage.
You don't want to associate with me, so I try to force you (via government)?
We don't accept that in dating and marriage, as it's called stalking and rape, yet somehow it is virtuous to force in the context of other human relationships?
The "cure" seems even less civilized than the problem. It is using aggressive force against people who act peaceful (although distastefully in some cases).
Everyone should be able to drive the fastest car.
Having your property searched (trespassed on by police) is different than not getting a loan. You own your house. You don't own the bank's money.
...) try to evaluate risks as best they can. If you make them blind to a signal, but they are unwilling to increase their risk tolerance, they will behave more conservatively, not less. They will decrease their service and use even cruder methods to control their risk.
If police were not a privileged monopoly, they would owe restitution for bad searches, just like a trespasser does. But given that it is a monopoly, we try to rein its power in with rules.
The idea that the world is better or more rational by ignoring rational inferences is mistaken. Take for example the effort to "ban the box" (which means employers don't get to ask if you're a felon). Although such legislation are intended to help black people, but the the results appear to have been opposite [1].
People (including employers, creditors, insurers, retailers,
[1] http://phys.org/news/2016-06-e...
Counting deaths is the wrong measure. The average number of days lost is more typical and informative to evaluate the impact of such problems.
I tried to find the paper for this WHO study, but couldn't find it. Pointers appreciated.
This US data is a big dated but useful as order of magnitudes:
Plane crash (200 deaths a year, 1 day lost per average person), house fire (18 days), pesticides (16000, EPA: 27 days), air pollution (50.000, 61 days), crime (26.000 murders, 113 days), driving (43.000, 182 days), smoking (5.5 years lost for average smoker), poverty (7 to 10 years lost).
It is also useful to point out to people who freak out when they read such headlines that air pollution was far worse in the past. From soot to manure particles, not to mention unsanitary housing, there are reasons why life expectancy has increased dramatically (although, water and food sanitation, as well as waste disposal were bigger factors).
Consider how cheap cellphones are helping pretty much everyone (even the poorest) across the world, with communication, texting services and payment. ... The list goes on.
Or real-time translation, educational resources, or even sign language.
Not to mention drug design, logistics, financial services, weather forecasts,
It sounds like the majority of people don't share your priorities or preferences, as their actions demonstrate. Resolving the problems that you care about are not on top of their ranking.
Maybe you should persuade people to see your way. Instead of some spending that you think is not essential, they should spend their money on some more worthwhile project.
For example, I like Literacy Bridge, which is a device to spread important knowledge in remote and under-developed regions of the world.
"Literacy Bridge saves lives and improves the livelihoods of impoverished families through comprehensive programs that provide on-demand access to locally relevant knowledge. At the heart of the programs is the Talking Book, an innovative low-cost audio computer."
There are recurring political strategies: (1) under-budget and over-promise, (2) spread the money in every jurisdiction.
The first one makes it easier to get the foot in the door. You'll have a fantastic plane with a gazillion features, but it will only cost a few millions over a couple of years.
A few years later, when the plane barely flies and a bunch of millions have already been spent, the second strategy comes into play. Not only is it really hard to resist spending "just a little bit more" when you're "this close to being done", but it is really hard to stop spending once you have concentrated interests that have their livelihood depending on the pork.
On the other hand, biomass has been increasing, arable footprint is likely to shrink, people are better fed and live better, no shortage of wilderness.
http://www.econtalk.org/archiv...
Let's ignore all the known problems mentioned by other commenters (such as the Mises' economic calculation problem, Hayek's knowledge problem, and other incentive problems, which you can read more about in [1]) for a moment.
Try it:
1. Buy a piece of land, organize as a commune with a master computer program and plan.
2. Because your commune will work so well (very effective production and happy participants), you'll be able to expand.
3. Take over the world (peacefully)!
[1]: https://mises.org/library/end-...