Here's an idea: THE PRIVACY CAR. Yes, a car with no GPS, no Internet connection, invisible to radar, a license plate that cannot be read by a camera, no RFID tags in the wheels or anywhere elase, and tinted windows.
The problem here is you are proposing new government regulations to correct the damage of previous ones. The truth is that competition is restricted by government, notably localities, who do not want unlimited wires in their neighborhoods. Wireless space, likewise, is limited by FCC licenses. Both are government imposed limits that help to create local monopolies and oligopolies in general.
Your assertion that these are natural monopolies is not true. In fact, a natural monopoly is very rare today. Nearly all monopolies today are the consequence of laws and regulations. I do not consider such monopolies to be "natural"
Bitcoin does potetially weaken the power of central banks and governments, transfering it back to the people, the way it was for thousands of years. Is it an outright threat? Only if your goal is to control people through virtual currency, and maintain the power to transfer wealth from the people to the government without the people being able to oppose it by printing money.
Interestingly, while we compare it to western banking, it really undercuts more corrupt regimes that try to boalster their self-inflating currencies by putting up roadblocks to currency trade... e.g., Argentina's heavy restrictions on purchasing US Dollars with pesos in order to continue the wealth transfer to the government through currency inflation money printing. You'd think that western governments would be a bit more supportive of a decentralized virtual currency that helps people in countries like that.
Perhaps people should just tell the ECB it is like a game currency (Linden dollars)...
This isn't a court of law. This is/. This is a story. Understanding financials here does help to complete the story, particularly since, as he pointed out, any further action requires cost. Right?
I do consider financial impact to be a higher morale ground than "they liked my videos, and found another use for it." So, now that he indicated that he lost the potential for revenue on YouTube (albeit $0.04 if he's lucky), I can sympathize a tad more.
Despite losing potential ad revenue, it is clear that he fired the first shot that brought YouTube's algorithms into it, and, as I understand it, would not of likely of had ANY financial risk if he just let this other organization show off his great videos.
Poster's initial action bringing YouTube into the conflict: "Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed."
The supreme court could rule this as unconstutional. In comparing free speech cases, the supreme court will oppose laws that create a 'chill on free speech'. In fact, this is the most common arguement today for overturning laws to protect free speech rights. Does the constitution mention "chills"? No. It is inherently understood as necessary.
The arguement I'd make is that by publicizing how a voter voted, they create a chill on voting. Because people know that potential employers could one day find how they voted in an online database when they did a search for their name, and might have internalized prejudice when viewing howing the person voted, people will increasingly become afraid to vote for fear it can impact opportunities in the future. This creates a chill on voting. If voting is a constitutional right, then laws that unnecessarily create this chill are unconstitutional.
The fundamental problem is that lack of anonymity creates pressure to change one's vote not due to one's personal beliefs, but rather due to pressure from an outcome of what another might think. In the extreme case, we are talking potential retaliation by a regime or political part. This has happened repeatedly through history, and happens today. While the extreme case doesn't appear to apply in the US today, in pre-WW II German, it did. If civilized countries can change quickly to oppress, then how, if our inherent right to vote does not come with an obvious need for protections such as anonymity, can our constitution protect us indefinitely?
I won't defend US copyright pursuits, but at least here you can share an open wifi with people if you want without some judge (and the lawmakers) treating you like a criminal or an idiot who deserves a fine.
I'd still like to fine France for being a dumb ass country for thinking that sharing internet access with neighbors should be illegal.
I agree, too. I don't mean to brag, but I've been an expert of both for a very long time, and honestly cannot trust anyone who appears to be a "Windows or Microsoft" fan. These people tend to buy into a monolithic Microsoft is all we need mentality, puppets of Microsoft marketing instead of intelligent and objective people. On the other hand, I highly respect Windows experts, or, better yet, people with Windows expertise in addition to other skills.
No matter which OS a person prefers:
- they need to be inclined to continuously learn, and that includes learning other operating systems
- and their reasons for preferring one over another had better have very objective intelligent articulation, such as contrasting technical differences (e.g., file system options and capabilities) or "vendor lock-in" and the long-term economic impact. you cannot do this unless you can expertly contrast the various operating systems.
So, if a person is only an expert in just Windows, with no experience outside it, to counter this very clear potential limitation, they need to demonstrate an inclination and abiltiy to learn *nix, understand hardware, networking, etc,...
The discovery process of the NEED for rounded corners might have been innovative, and certainly demonstrated how rounded corners can solve a major problem; but, this doesn't show that the concept of rounded corners itself was innovative. Do you think the conversation went like this:
Innovator: "if we make the corners of the windows round..."
Manager: "round? what's that?"
Innovator: "it is not square. you know. it would not have a point."
Manager: "if it has no point, then what's the point."
Innovator: "well, round corners are less likely to crack"
Manager: "yeah, but what are round corners."
Innovator: "well, your dog's hips have round corners. There's no shart point or tip."
Manager: "Oh. OK. So, you are saying that if we shape windows like dogs' hips, the windows will be stronger?"
Innovator: "Yes."
Manager: "Are dog's hips stronger because they have round corners?"
I'd really like to see better HTML 5 games, so start there. HTML is pretty easy to begin. Then Javascript. Then CSS. Then you can get into all the new kool stuff like WebGL, which you'll need to create games with it.
This will permit you to create games that can be run on just about any computer and OS, and possibly a large breadth of devices, such as tablets or large screen phones.
This is tricky, because we certainly don't want our personal fun use of drones to be criminalized in any law, but we do want clear restrains on government and other forms of invasion of privacy.
The question I have is, if you're sitting on 3000 acres of land, you can probably use a jamming device without impacting your neighbor's cable reception. So, what type of jamming would impact a drone?
The point about CO2 being exhaled is that it is (a) a natural part of our atmosphere, (b) not only needed by plant life, but increased CO2 increases plant production rates (Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions, though this assumes no change in climate and no limitation on other nutrients), which, consequently, reduces CO2 in the atmosphere and increases oxygen needed by mammals and (c) it is abundant in our atmosphere.
This means that in contrast to CFCs you have a lot more debate around it by people who do not represent industry and are not lobbyists. People are not "kindergarten level" for questioning it when someone describes such a highly abundant and necessary part of our life support system to be in the same category as a comparatively low volume made non-essential industrial chemical.
That is not to say that, like just about any political debate with economic consequences, you do not have industrial and other interests lobbying or trying to influence public opinion. But, clearly, there are MANY people who are a lot more concerned about the potential benefits and costs of legislative attempts to reduce it than there were when CFCs reduction was debated.
No one debates that things have been warmer than average over the past decade or so, thus accounting for a preponderance of evidence that things are a bit warmer than before. The question is whether or not this is a normal warming cycle that occurs periodically over thousands of years, or whether it is unusual. We know historically that there are cycles spanning over 100 years because there is feedback that can cause a trend to continue for a long time before there is a reversal.
Regardless of whether or not people are causing it, it is likely that the earth will have its own chain of cause and effect events that will at some point reverse it, considering that there is evidence that these cycles do occur, and do eventually turn the other way, although the time span could be 100+ years before that happens. It is also unclear that we can realistically return to carbon contribution levels of 1000 years ago even if we had all the will power in the world when you consider population growth and the double edged sword of the correlation between economic growth or recessions and joblessness and our willingness to pay more for our energy needs. Currently, cleaner energy costs more.
Really? You're going to compare CFCs to carbon dioxide? You honestly cannot see the difference?
Just out of curiosity, if all living mammals exhaled CFCs, just how long do you think the ozone would last? How many times in that past million years has CFCs been higher in our atmosphere than this past century?
There is a reason we had little political problem reducing CFCs, and thus have a healing ozone.
You're so right. Every 150 years we should panic and declare the end of the world. I'm so glad scientists like you help the rest of us understand the math.
Stamp the # of living roaches you throw in there on metal, and compare to the number that are there when you open it. Hopefully, you won't be restoring them after a successful global extermination.
I love XBMC, and use it a lot as my primary PC driven media platform. The phone could be a way to display it on an LED in the bathroom, my next room to conquer.
The scenario you're describing is usually only common when there are HIGH BARRIERS TO ENTRY, which, more often than not, are CREATED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
An example are regulations requiring gas stations to replace tanks and clean out any dirt when they close down. This created high barriers to entry, back then estimated at $100k just to close and sell a gas station's property. This lead to the big gas sellers like BP and Shell to consolidate by buying up all those mom and pop stations that could no longer remain in business. As a result of these regulations, we now have few vendors of gas, and we've seen how slowly prices move down when oil prices drop because of it.
Contrast that to Amazon, where the barriers to entry are very low (anyone can sell online), and what you really have is a gas station market BEFORE government regulation, which provides better prices overall.
To put it differently, a few consolidating entities can only raise prices to very profitable levels if they can keep new entrants from joining the market. On Amazon, barriers to entry are no where near that high. New entrants will always be trying to join in. And, in a free market, nothing attracts new entrants quite like high profits. Thus, even high profits in the short term are viewed as a way to bring prices down by increasing competition as new entrants join to obtain a piece of those profits, so long as barriers to entry are not high.
How easily do your coworkers accept and absorb new technology?
Very rarely, and only when it is 10+ years old and they've spent the past 6 years resisting it.
Are most IT environments like this, where people refuse to learn anything about new technology they don't like, or did I just get stuck with a batch of stubborn case-screws?"
No, they vary a lot. I always recommend that people contract for at least 2 years trying to work at 3-4 places to learn just how different they all are, and find out what you like the most. Big or small companies? Startups or fortune 500s?
Humility goes a long way at making friends, and limiting the damage when you appear to step on toes. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." It is tempting to think of yourself as better than others. Overcome that temptation. It won't eliminate jelousy, but it will help to put more people on your side when it rises.
I have a question for you:
Have you tried installing Linux on all the machines to see if that makes your co-workers happy?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's an idea: THE PRIVACY CAR. Yes, a car with no GPS, no Internet connection, invisible to radar, a license plate that cannot be read by a camera, no RFID tags in the wheels or anywhere elase, and tinted windows.
We need to start pumping more carbon dioxide into the universe!
You don't 'turn on' a cable.
you've never had your cable turned on?
The problem here is you are proposing new government regulations to correct the damage of previous ones. The truth is that competition is restricted by government, notably localities, who do not want unlimited wires in their neighborhoods. Wireless space, likewise, is limited by FCC licenses. Both are government imposed limits that help to create local monopolies and oligopolies in general. Your assertion that these are natural monopolies is not true. In fact, a natural monopoly is very rare today. Nearly all monopolies today are the consequence of laws and regulations. I do not consider such monopolies to be "natural"
Bitcoin does potetially weaken the power of central banks and governments, transfering it back to the people, the way it was for thousands of years. Is it an outright threat? Only if your goal is to control people through virtual currency, and maintain the power to transfer wealth from the people to the government without the people being able to oppose it by printing money.
Interestingly, while we compare it to western banking, it really undercuts more corrupt regimes that try to boalster their self-inflating currencies by putting up roadblocks to currency trade... e.g., Argentina's heavy restrictions on purchasing US Dollars with pesos in order to continue the wealth transfer to the government through currency inflation money printing. You'd think that western governments would be a bit more supportive of a decentralized virtual currency that helps people in countries like that.
Perhaps people should just tell the ECB it is like a game currency (Linden dollars)...
GPL has power? lol. j/k
This isn't a court of law. This is /. This is a story. Understanding financials here does help to complete the story, particularly since, as he pointed out, any further action requires cost. Right?
I do consider financial impact to be a higher morale ground than "they liked my videos, and found another use for it." So, now that he indicated that he lost the potential for revenue on YouTube (albeit $0.04 if he's lucky), I can sympathize a tad more.
Despite losing potential ad revenue, it is clear that he fired the first shot that brought YouTube's algorithms into it, and, as I understand it, would not of likely of had ANY financial risk if he just let this other organization show off his great videos.
Poster's initial action bringing YouTube into the conflict: "Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed."
The supreme court could rule this as unconstutional. In comparing free speech cases, the supreme court will oppose laws that create a 'chill on free speech'. In fact, this is the most common arguement today for overturning laws to protect free speech rights. Does the constitution mention "chills"? No. It is inherently understood as necessary.
The arguement I'd make is that by publicizing how a voter voted, they create a chill on voting. Because people know that potential employers could one day find how they voted in an online database when they did a search for their name, and might have internalized prejudice when viewing howing the person voted, people will increasingly become afraid to vote for fear it can impact opportunities in the future. This creates a chill on voting. If voting is a constitutional right, then laws that unnecessarily create this chill are unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)
I missed the financial impact in your post. Are you just offended they re-used your works, or is it impacting your sales?
The fundamental problem is that lack of anonymity creates pressure to change one's vote not due to one's personal beliefs, but rather due to pressure from an outcome of what another might think. In the extreme case, we are talking potential retaliation by a regime or political part. This has happened repeatedly through history, and happens today. While the extreme case doesn't appear to apply in the US today, in pre-WW II German, it did. If civilized countries can change quickly to oppress, then how, if our inherent right to vote does not come with an obvious need for protections such as anonymity, can our constitution protect us indefinitely?
Or, we could use politicians who degrade American liberties as objects of a new fart sequestering program.
I won't defend US copyright pursuits, but at least here you can share an open wifi with people if you want without some judge (and the lawmakers) treating you like a criminal or an idiot who deserves a fine.
I'd still like to fine France for being a dumb ass country for thinking that sharing internet access with neighbors should be illegal.
No matter which OS a person prefers:
So, if a person is only an expert in just Windows, with no experience outside it, to counter this very clear potential limitation, they need to demonstrate an inclination and abiltiy to learn *nix, understand hardware, networking, etc,...
Innovator: "if we make the corners of the windows round..."
Manager: "round? what's that?"
Innovator: "it is not square. you know. it would not have a point."
Manager: "if it has no point, then what's the point."
Innovator: "well, round corners are less likely to crack"
Manager: "yeah, but what are round corners."
Innovator: "well, your dog's hips have round corners. There's no shart point or tip."
Manager: "Oh. OK. So, you are saying that if we shape windows like dogs' hips, the windows will be stronger?"
Innovator: "Yes."
Manager: "Are dog's hips stronger because they have round corners?"
Innovator: "I don't know."
I'd really like to see better HTML 5 games, so start there. HTML is pretty easy to begin. Then Javascript. Then CSS. Then you can get into all the new kool stuff like WebGL, which you'll need to create games with it.
This will permit you to create games that can be run on just about any computer and OS, and possibly a large breadth of devices, such as tablets or large screen phones.
This is tricky, because we certainly don't want our personal fun use of drones to be criminalized in any law, but we do want clear restrains on government and other forms of invasion of privacy.
The question I have is, if you're sitting on 3000 acres of land, you can probably use a jamming device without impacting your neighbor's cable reception. So, what type of jamming would impact a drone?
The point about CO2 being exhaled is that it is (a) a natural part of our atmosphere, (b) not only needed by plant life, but increased CO2 increases plant production rates (Plants can grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1,000 ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions, though this assumes no change in climate and no limitation on other nutrients), which, consequently, reduces CO2 in the atmosphere and increases oxygen needed by mammals and (c) it is abundant in our atmosphere.
This means that in contrast to CFCs you have a lot more debate around it by people who do not represent industry and are not lobbyists. People are not "kindergarten level" for questioning it when someone describes such a highly abundant and necessary part of our life support system to be in the same category as a comparatively low volume made non-essential industrial chemical.
That is not to say that, like just about any political debate with economic consequences, you do not have industrial and other interests lobbying or trying to influence public opinion. But, clearly, there are MANY people who are a lot more concerned about the potential benefits and costs of legislative attempts to reduce it than there were when CFCs reduction was debated.
No one debates that things have been warmer than average over the past decade or so, thus accounting for a preponderance of evidence that things are a bit warmer than before. The question is whether or not this is a normal warming cycle that occurs periodically over thousands of years, or whether it is unusual. We know historically that there are cycles spanning over 100 years because there is feedback that can cause a trend to continue for a long time before there is a reversal.
Regardless of whether or not people are causing it, it is likely that the earth will have its own chain of cause and effect events that will at some point reverse it, considering that there is evidence that these cycles do occur, and do eventually turn the other way, although the time span could be 100+ years before that happens. It is also unclear that we can realistically return to carbon contribution levels of 1000 years ago even if we had all the will power in the world when you consider population growth and the double edged sword of the correlation between economic growth or recessions and joblessness and our willingness to pay more for our energy needs. Currently, cleaner energy costs more.
Really? You're going to compare CFCs to carbon dioxide? You honestly cannot see the difference? Just out of curiosity, if all living mammals exhaled CFCs, just how long do you think the ozone would last? How many times in that past million years has CFCs been higher in our atmosphere than this past century? There is a reason we had little political problem reducing CFCs, and thus have a healing ozone.
You're so right. Every 150 years we should panic and declare the end of the world. I'm so glad scientists like you help the rest of us understand the math.
Stamp the # of living roaches you throw in there on metal, and compare to the number that are there when you open it. Hopefully, you won't be restoring them after a successful global extermination.
I love XBMC, and use it a lot as my primary PC driven media platform. The phone could be a way to display it on an LED in the bathroom, my next room to conquer.
The scenario you're describing is usually only common when there are HIGH BARRIERS TO ENTRY, which, more often than not, are CREATED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
An example are regulations requiring gas stations to replace tanks and clean out any dirt when they close down. This created high barriers to entry, back then estimated at $100k just to close and sell a gas station's property. This lead to the big gas sellers like BP and Shell to consolidate by buying up all those mom and pop stations that could no longer remain in business. As a result of these regulations, we now have few vendors of gas, and we've seen how slowly prices move down when oil prices drop because of it.
Contrast that to Amazon, where the barriers to entry are very low (anyone can sell online), and what you really have is a gas station market BEFORE government regulation, which provides better prices overall.
To put it differently, a few consolidating entities can only raise prices to very profitable levels if they can keep new entrants from joining the market. On Amazon, barriers to entry are no where near that high. New entrants will always be trying to join in. And, in a free market, nothing attracts new entrants quite like high profits. Thus, even high profits in the short term are viewed as a way to bring prices down by increasing competition as new entrants join to obtain a piece of those profits, so long as barriers to entry are not high.
45
Very rarely, and only when it is 10+ years old and they've spent the past 6 years resisting it.
No, they vary a lot. I always recommend that people contract for at least 2 years trying to work at 3-4 places to learn just how different they all are, and find out what you like the most. Big or small companies? Startups or fortune 500s?
Humility goes a long way at making friends, and limiting the damage when you appear to step on toes. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." It is tempting to think of yourself as better than others. Overcome that temptation. It won't eliminate jelousy, but it will help to put more people on your side when it rises.
I have a question for you:
Have you tried installing Linux on all the machines to see if that makes your co-workers happy?