Greed! Monopoly! Regulation! These are fun words to say.
The weird thing is, pharmaceutical companies don't make money consistently more than car companies, food companies, electronics companies, software companies, or any other kind of company. They simply aren't making the ton of money we'd like to complain about. This makes sense, because if drug research, development, and production DID make more money than doing something else, then Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos would invest their money into new pharmaceutical companies, so that they would make a ton more money. Those new companies would be competition for the old, tending to reduce prices.
In fact, when you think about who has a billion dollars to invest, who makes a ton of money, the big names that make crazy money are Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos - it's the computer technology people making crazy money. *We* are the greedy bastards.:â'O
* Like some technology companies, drug companies have bad years, when they spend $2 billion on R&D and nothing gets approved, and good years when they have a hit. Over time, their total returns are similar to other industries with similar volatility, and risk-adjusted returns are inline with the overall economy.
> So the question stands, how is possessing this illegal?
It's not.
> Has bitcoin been declared the first illegal virtual substance?
No.
The ruling is that operating a business of providing money transfer services using Bitcoin to do it qualifies as one of these:
--- provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems money orders, travelers' checks, and *other similar instruments* or any other person who engages as a business in the *transmission of funds* ---
In other words, the ruling is that Bitcoin is one of the following three things: A: "other similar instruments" (similar to money orders or travelers' checks) B: A way to accomplish "transmission of funds" C: Can be in the same category as the listed examples - it can be used for a money transfer service.
Running a money transfer business, in some situations, requires registration. The ruling is that the defendant ran a money transfer business, using Bitcoins to do it.
Actually written laws in the US normally include a "Definitions" section. Different laws in different states can and do use different definitions. In these case, neither actually used the term "money", so it's two completely different words being defined, of course the definitions are different.
The summary refers to a case in which a judge ruled that Bitcoin did not meet the requirements of one specific Florida law. The Florida law refers to "monetary instruments" and defines it as follows:
âoeMonetary instrumentsâ means coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, travelersâ(TM) checks, personal checks, bank checks, money orders, investment securities in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery, and negotiable instruments in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.
Bitcoin is not "coin or currency of the United States or of any other country", it's not a money order, etc.
The federal law in the new case says: ---- provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems money orders, travelersâ(TM) checks, and other similar instruments or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds ----
Note all of the ORs- only ONE need be true. If it's "money transmitting", it qualifies, OR if it's "other similar instruments". That's a difference between the federal law and the Florida law, the Florida law doesn't say "other similar instruments". Bitcoin may well be a "other similar instrument".
* The Florida law does mention "negotiable instruments", but those are elsewhere defined as documents ordering the payment of a *specific sum of money*. Bitcoins don't order the payment of a specific sum of money, unless perhaps you first define Bitcoin as money, but that's circular.
> It's not a big deal, so you should give in to me.
It's not so much "giving in to you" as rolling my eyes at you. I know, make them send a self-addressed, stamped envelope too, that'll fix the greedy bastards. â--"Ìâ--" You have some strong opinions, undiluted by any understanding of facts. That, by itself, is nothing bad. I once knew no facts at all! I didn't even know mybown name. When people gave me the facts, I -learned-. One can choose to learn, or one can choose to stubbornly defend ignorance against the full assault of knowledge.
Btw, care to cite where ANYONE, much less me, objected to burning a PGA? Pretty sure I never did.
The exact numbers vary by source, but all sources agree that Cisco's market share in ISPs, in core, and in enterprise are all about three times as much as Juniper.
I agree there are perfectly reasonable and legitimate reasons to sell a patent, and for the buyer to license it.
The few companies who file the vast majority of patent suits (the trolls) are characterized by attempting to retroactively license questionable patents and engaging in various forms of generally predatory conduct in so doing. This combination of factors has a siginificant subjective element, you know when someone is being a slimeball even though you can't establish a rigorous definition of "slimeball".
Because it's tough to define "patent troll" in a rigorous way that excludes legitimate licensing, I think it's helpful to look at the actual behavior of the four problem companies, their actual business models, and figure out how to go after the four existing trolls. That doesn't require a rigorous, legalistic definition of "trolling", you simply figure out how to stop those four specific entities.
Check out the numbers. A rate increase of 60%-80% in the required areas during highest demand does in fact increase the number of drivers willing to serve that area. That makes perfect sense - I have a full time job, so I wouldn't normally drive for Uber, but I thought about driving just a few hours per week during peak demand.
Since a higher rate gets more drivers offering rides in an area with lots of people wanting rides, it means more people get rides. When there are more people wanting rides than there are drivers, fewer drivers actually means some people aren't served. That may not play well with the ideology you wish for, but it's fact. It's not a "false dilemma", it's a very factual one. Not a fiction imagined by Marx, but real numbers.
"exorbitance" you say. We're not talking about rates going up 10X. Not even doubling. If the typical market-negotiated value of a certain trip is $20 during a time of low demand, I'd say that $35 is about what I'd expect if I wanted a part-time driver to drop what they are doing and drive toward danger to come get me. It seems quite reasonable to me.
*Designed*. Where the Constitution is the design document. Laws made by representatives of the citizens, open, fair trials, etc.
Since then, various administrations have stretched the Constitutional language considerably. The current administration declared that *because* the elected Congress declined to pass the change to immigration law that the executive wanted, that therefore authorized the executive to rewrite the law.
Still, the government has public hearings, open bidding for contracts, etc. Uber doesn't hold public hearings before they adjust their policies.
> As there are many levels of checks that are needed to be done, before you release it. Because while the flaw is really bad, causing all the customers to have their firewall brick from a bad patch is worse. However with Cisco a problem in deployment can bring down the entire economy.
Yeah Cisco equipment basically run the internet backbones, as well as the internal networks of most major companies. At Cisco you don't release a new firmware quickly and hope it's okay; you make damn sure it's not going going to brick or otherwise seriously mess up before you release it.
> one of the shipboard currency substitutes was the otherwise useless saltwater squid that they would sometimes catch.
There are many possible explanations, and that is probably the least likely. Probably most likely is that it comes from 'quid pro quo' (trade one thing for another).
A substitute currency is far more likely to be something like cigarettes/tobacco or rum which has some value to many members of the group. If you catch "otherwise worthless" squid from time to time, why on earth would you give trade good rum to get another worthless squid? There are two requirements for currency. It must a) a medium of exchange and b) a store of value. In prison (or on a ship), I can get cigarettes from you today and use them to buy soups next week. If I get squid from you today, next week I have... well I've long since thrown that rotting squid overboard.
Mechanical devices should be an easy target. Let's start there.
Gears and levers already exist and are already capable of doing the operations they can be assembled to do. Fixed!
Next up, let's invalidate all of the "X, but with Y" patents. Travel was already possible without airplanes, therefore airplanes were not novel. Fixed!
That's two huge classes of patents made invalid by very simple, very irrefutable logic. Tackle those first, and you'll take the funding away from the trolls and they won't be able to fight.
Ftfy.
Just because gears exist doesn't mean it's impossible to invent a something new which uses gears in a useful new way. Just because computers exist doesn't mean it's impossible to invent something new which uses computers in a useful new way.
Further, it's obvious that the exact same device can be made of steel or aluminum. Switching from one metal to anothet doesn't make it a different device. Less obvious is that anything which can be built into software by a compiler can also be built as hardware. The most popular programming language of all time is C. Most often a C program is compiled as software, but C can also be burned as hardware. The exact same source code, the exact same definition of same machine, expressed as either physical devices or expressed on spinning rust. The distinction you wish to make between hardware and software simply doesn't exist.
There is one fact which is rarely pointed out when discussing patent trolls, but I think it's important.
Over 80% of all patent suits are filed by just four trolls. Obviously some patent litigation has to do with legitimate disputes, so those four trolls do probably 95% of the trolling. If you put those four out business, that takes care of 95% of the problem. It also shows other potential trolls that trolls end up broke.
The people behind this initiative don't just yip yap about patents on Slashdot for a few minutes, they are professionals who have actually fought these trolls. They understand the problem better than you or I do. If they think this approach will help put the four major trolls out of business, they're probably right.
> you find other means to deal with the situation up to and including the national guard.
The National Guard was ordered deployed to Louisiana on Friday, August 26, 2005. On September 1st, five days later, they arrived at the Super Dome. On September 3rd and 4th, they evacuated the people waiting in the Super Dome.
Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $20 than wait five to seven days for a ride out.
The US government is designed to be *fair*. It is not designed to be *fast*. Uber is fast.
> resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society
How exactly is denying people the option of getting a ride better than giving them the option to get a ride for $40? Those are the two choices - you either have a bunch of additional drivers work due to the higher pay, or you have them not work. Or would you FORCE people to drive toward the dangerous area, if you were king of world?
Let's consider what riders would prefer. Would riders prefer to not have a ride at all (because drivers stay home or drive in safer places), or would they rather pay a rate high enough to get a driver to come? We know that riders would prefer a higher rate than no ride at all, because they did in fact choose pay that rate, when they could have chosen to not get the ride.
> are essentially unbreakable, even using quantum computers
The Enigma was "unbreakable", until it was broken. DES was unbreakable, until it was broken. MD5 was unbreakable, until it was broken. RSA was "unbreakable" last year. Not so much this year.
There are some new algorithms which haven't quite been completely broken just yet. Well, unless the new algorithm is used by someone who -also- allows an older algorithm, im which case the service using the new algorithm is vulnerable to DROWN.
I wasn't familiar with doctornerdlove, but I was curious what you were talking about so I just read two of his posts. I was generally nodding in agreement with those two.
The first one I read was his post about being nervous that you'll be awkward, a self-fullfilling prophecy:
I don't disgaree with what he says; I will add a specific instruction, a process, for how to avoid it. Whenever I was in line, at the grocery store or whatever, I would make conversation with whomever was behind me, in front of me, and the cashier. 90% of the time it wasn't a lady I was attracted to. Maybe it's a grandma 30 years older than me, maybe a couple of frat guys, firefighters getting groceries for the fire station, whatever. There was much less nervousness complimenting granny's necklace or joking around with frat guys than the same approach with an attractive lady. After 30 days of talking to six people per day, I had struck up conversations with 180 strangers. This was fun in itself; waiting in line is less boring when grandma is telling you about the time she met Elvis. Eventually I was in line behind a lady who looked mildly attractive, and I did exactly the same thing I had done 180 times before. What's there to be nervous about - I do this all day, every day.
The only difference when she's attractive is the closing line, and I know I won't be awkward with that because I know ahead of time exactly what I'll say "I have to get going, but I'd really like to continue this conversation. This week is pretty busy for me, but I think I can take an hour to go to lunch Wednesday or Thursday. Are you free for a quick lunch later this week?"
* After going to lunch with over 100 women, I chose the best one and married her, so I don't flirt much anymore. Now I occassionally apply the principles in other ways.
Okay, so whatever you used to do in the first ten seconds approach didn't work. Four suggestions for the first ten seconds:
Make a joke. Not a wholly inappropriate joke.
In a store, ask "is that a good ice cream?", or whatever she's buying. (Though buying ice cream at or other frozen desserts at night tends to correlate with being receptive to converstation).
If she's not alone, initially include the less attractive lady or the male member of group in the first 10 seconds. When saying hi to a pair of ladies, it would be rude to ignore one. For a group, you want the male's tacit approval to strike up a converstation with the ladies of the group.
> Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're not entirely happy with yourself here. It's very difficult to get someone to like you if you don't like yourself.
Absolutely. Actually he's a pretty cool guy, he's funny and has some good common sense. If he was reminded of *that* just before he struck up a conversation with a lady, his tone and manner might convey that, reading between the lines she might get the impression that he's a an interesting, fun guy to talk to. If he's thinking "I'm fat, ugly, and women don't like me", that'll also come through. Whether he says it or not, she'll hear it loud and clear - and probably believe it.
I totally agree. I did what Amijojo suggested for years, and I had a lot of girl-friends (friends who were girls).
Later, I started spending about 25 seconds on friendly before switching to flirty, than curious, then busy but curious. That worked. *I* am nothing special, but I eventually found an *approach* which really works.
The basic pattern is: Friendly: make a joke or two.
Curious: Ask about her, some special jewelry she's wearing or whatever. Note *be* curious, don't *pretend* to be curious. Ask how her day is going and actually listen to the answer. From there find something you'd wouldn't mind listening to her talk about for 5 minutes - maybe you find out she's writing a dissertation or a book. That could be interesting.
Busy: Glance at your watch, tell an incoming caller you'll call them back, or even better get interrupted by a passerby (or two) saying hi.
Busy but curious: "I have to get going because some people are waiting on me, but I'd really like to talk to you some more. I'd like to hear more about (topic you discovered). This is a pretty busy week for me, but I think I can get away for an hour at lunch, maybe Wednesday or Thursday. Do you have an hour to grab some lunch later this week?"
The wording of the last bit is quoted because there are a lot of aspects to why those exact words are chosen, in that order. I stated twice that the proposed lunch is an hour, she's not committing to a long evening of a potentially bad date. Also, I only have an hour; I'm a bust man, with important things going on. Busy enough that I have to leave now, I'm breaking off the conversation. That is, there's no worry that I'll become an annoyance whom she'll have trouble getting rid of - if she's not interested, there are other people already waiting for me, probably because those other people like being around me, because I'm a likable guy.
Is this a bit manipulative? Maybe, though I do try to actually mean what I say, to be interested in what she says as opposed to being fake, pretending. Some guys use their money to attract women, other guys use their muscles, I used my brain. If that's bad, so be it.
Obviously you're joking, but your comment reminded me of something. If you're ugly, broke, and can write quicksort in at least two languages, you can get laid all the time. I'm ugly, I was broke. I couldn't get girls.
Then I learned *how* to meet women. I RTFM about what really attracts most women, not just in the first 10 seconds but in conversation. I was amazed to find that I could *learn* how to get dates, that my face and my bank weren't the crucial factors. If you can learn how to write quicksort, you can learn how to get dates. I dated a *lot* of women, until I found my one-in-a-million.
One day I may finish writing my book "Dating for Nerds" or whatever I call it.
You can come up with different numbers depending on how you want to calculate each, but the two are roughly equal. Very roughly.
You said "private funded charities (including religions)". The summary says religious *organizations* $9 billion, and religious *people* are almost twice as likely to engage in charity, often at the behest of their religious leaders or texts. So we can guesstimate that "religion" is responsible for roughly $18 billion or so. A reasonable guess would be that non-religious private charity is about the same, another $18 billion. So around $36 billion total.
TANF, commonly called "welfare", is the main federal and state program. It's $17 billion per year. So private charity is about double what "welfare" spends. The government also has other programs other than "welfare", so taxpayer "charity" will be somewhere close to $36 billion, depending on what all you want to count.
That's all very rough and you could purposely swing the numbers either way by choosing what to include and what to exclude, but it gives us a general idea.
What exactly are you smoking? I copy-pasted the exact text of the statute. The commas are exactly the same as the original statutory text: https://www.nysenate.gov/legis...
> Please provide more details, because I do not believe it works the way you do.
Then as I said, try it. Try making an SMTP (mail sending, TCP port 25) connection to any mail server, Gmail, Yahoo, or Slashdot.org, using your home internet connection. Every mail server obviously ACCEPTS mail at the server, but you probably won't be able to connect? Gmail and Yahoo aren't denying you, so why can't you make any connection on port 25? Because YOUR ISP knows that your connection is a consumer connection, not a mail server, and therefore shouldn't generally be sending mail directly. You must connect to their mail relay and probably authenticate. Again, if you don't believe me, try it. (Or read Networking for Dummies Part 2).
Try sending any packet at all with a source address of 1.2.3.4. You won't get anywhere because your ISP will block those packets. Your ISP, and only your ISP, knows that you aren't allowed to route for 100.2.3.4. Neither the recipient nor anyone else can possibly know whether you're permitted to route that network, so only your ISP can stop it. Seriously, if you don't believe me, try it.
Slashdot Mirror
Greed! Monopoly! Regulation! These are fun words to say.
The weird thing is, pharmaceutical companies don't make money consistently more than car companies, food companies, electronics companies, software companies, or any other kind of company. They simply aren't making the ton of money we'd like to complain about. This makes sense, because if drug research, development, and production DID make more money than doing something else, then Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos would invest their money into new pharmaceutical companies, so that they would make a ton more money. Those new companies would be competition for the old, tending to reduce prices.
In fact, when you think about who has a billion dollars to invest, who makes a ton of money, the big names that make crazy money are Apple, Google, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Jeff Bezos - it's the computer technology people making crazy money. *We* are the greedy bastards. :â'O
* Like some technology companies, drug companies have bad years, when they spend $2 billion on R&D and nothing gets approved, and good years when they have a hit. Over time, their total returns are similar to other industries with similar volatility, and risk-adjusted returns are inline with the overall economy.
> So the question stands, how is possessing this illegal?
It's not.
> Has bitcoin been declared the first illegal virtual substance?
No.
The ruling is that operating a business of providing money transfer services using Bitcoin to do it qualifies as one of these:
---
provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems money orders, travelers' checks, and *other similar instruments* or any other person who engages as a business in the *transmission of funds*
---
In other words, the ruling is that Bitcoin is one of the following three things:
A: "other similar instruments" (similar to money orders or travelers' checks)
B: A way to accomplish "transmission of funds"
C: Can be in the same category as the listed examples - it can be used for a money transfer service.
Running a money transfer business, in some situations, requires registration. The ruling is that the defendant ran a money transfer business, using Bitcoins to do it.
Actually written laws in the US normally include a "Definitions" section. Different laws in different states can and do use different definitions. In these case, neither actually used the term "money", so it's two completely different words being defined, of course the definitions are different.
The summary refers to a case in which a judge ruled that Bitcoin did not meet the requirements of one specific Florida law. The Florida law refers to "monetary instruments" and defines it as follows:
âoeMonetary instrumentsâ means coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, travelersâ(TM) checks, personal checks, bank checks, money orders, investment securities in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery, and negotiable instruments in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.
Bitcoin is not "coin or currency of the United States or of any other country", it's not a money order, etc.
The federal law in the new case says:
----
provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems money orders, travelersâ(TM) checks, and other similar instruments or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds
----
Note all of the ORs- only ONE need be true. If it's "money transmitting", it qualifies, OR if it's "other similar instruments". That's a difference between the federal law and the Florida law, the Florida law doesn't say "other similar instruments". Bitcoin may well be a "other similar instrument".
* The Florida law does mention "negotiable instruments", but those are elsewhere defined as documents ordering the payment of a *specific sum of money*. Bitcoins don't order the payment of a specific sum of money, unless perhaps you first define Bitcoin as money, but that's circular.
> It's not a big deal, so you should give in to me.
It's not so much "giving in to you" as rolling my eyes at you.
I know, make them send a self-addressed, stamped envelope too, that'll fix the greedy bastards. â--"Ìâ--" You have some strong opinions, undiluted by any understanding of facts. That, by itself, is nothing bad. I once knew no facts at all! I didn't even know mybown name. When people gave me the facts, I -learned-. One can choose to learn, or one can choose to stubbornly defend ignorance against the full assault of knowledge.
Btw, care to cite where ANYONE, much less me, objected to burning a PGA? Pretty sure I never did.
> Not worth the cost to build and store it in the USPTO? Then its not worthy of government force backed patent protection.
A *PGA costs several dollars. The patent process costs several thousand dollars. Burning a PGA wouldn't change the cost of the patent at all.
The exact numbers vary by source, but all sources agree that Cisco's market share in ISPs, in core, and in enterprise are all about three times as much as Juniper.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr...
I agree there are perfectly reasonable and legitimate reasons to sell a patent, and for the buyer to license it.
The few companies who file the vast majority of patent suits (the trolls) are characterized by attempting to retroactively license questionable patents and engaging in various forms of generally predatory conduct in so doing. This combination of factors has a siginificant subjective element, you know when someone is being a slimeball even though you can't establish a rigorous definition of "slimeball".
Because it's tough to define "patent troll" in a rigorous way that excludes legitimate licensing, I think it's helpful to look at the actual behavior of the four problem companies, their actual business models, and figure out how to go after the four existing trolls. That doesn't require a rigorous, legalistic definition of "trolling", you simply figure out how to stop those four specific entities.
Check out the numbers. A rate increase of 60%-80% in the required areas during highest demand does in fact increase the number of drivers willing to serve that area. That makes perfect sense - I have a full time job, so I wouldn't normally drive for Uber, but I thought about driving just a few hours per week during peak demand.
Since a higher rate gets more drivers offering rides in an area with lots of people wanting rides, it means more people get rides. When there are more people wanting rides than there are drivers, fewer drivers actually means some people aren't served. That may not play well with the ideology you wish for, but it's fact. It's not a "false dilemma", it's a very factual one. Not a fiction imagined by Marx, but real numbers.
"exorbitance" you say. We're not talking about rates going up 10X. Not even doubling. If the typical market-negotiated value of a certain trip is $20 during a time of low demand, I'd say that $35 is about what I'd expect if I wanted a part-time driver to drop what they are doing and drive toward danger to come get me. It seems quite reasonable to me.
*Designed*. Where the Constitution is the design document. Laws made by representatives of the citizens, open, fair trials, etc.
Since then, various administrations have stretched the Constitutional language considerably. The current administration declared that *because* the elected Congress declined to pass the change to immigration law that the executive wanted, that therefore authorized the executive to rewrite the law.
Still, the government has public hearings, open bidding for contracts, etc. Uber doesn't hold public hearings before they adjust their policies.
> As there are many levels of checks that are needed to be done, before you release it. Because while the flaw is really bad, causing all the customers to have their firewall brick from a bad patch is worse. However with Cisco a problem in deployment can bring down the entire economy.
Yeah Cisco equipment basically run the internet backbones, as well as the internal networks of most major companies. At Cisco you don't release a new firmware quickly and hope it's okay; you make damn sure it's not going going to brick or otherwise seriously mess up before you release it.
> one of the shipboard currency substitutes was the otherwise useless saltwater squid that they would sometimes catch.
There are many possible explanations, and that is probably the least likely. Probably most likely is that it comes from 'quid pro quo' (trade one thing for another).
A substitute currency is far more likely to be something like cigarettes/tobacco or rum which has some value to many members of the group. If you catch "otherwise worthless" squid from time to time, why on earth would you give trade good rum to get another worthless squid? There are two requirements for currency. It must a) a medium of exchange and b) a store of value. In prison (or on a ship), I can get cigarettes from you today and use them to buy soups next week. If I get squid from you today, next week I have ... well I've long since thrown that rotting squid overboard.
Mechanical devices should be an easy target. Let's start there.
Gears and levers already exist and are already capable of doing the operations they can be assembled to do. Fixed!
Next up, let's invalidate all of the "X, but with Y" patents. Travel was already possible without airplanes, therefore airplanes were not novel. Fixed!
That's two huge classes of patents made invalid by very simple, very irrefutable logic. Tackle those first, and you'll take the funding away from the trolls and they won't be able to fight.
Ftfy.
Just because gears exist doesn't mean it's impossible to invent a something new which uses gears in a useful new way. Just because computers exist doesn't mean it's impossible to invent something new which uses computers in a useful new way.
Further, it's obvious that the exact same device can be made of steel or aluminum. Switching from one metal to anothet doesn't make it a different device. Less obvious is that anything which can be built into software by a compiler can also be built as hardware. The most popular programming language of all time is C. Most often a C program is compiled as software, but C can also be burned as hardware. The exact same source code, the exact same definition of same machine, expressed as either physical devices or expressed on spinning rust. The distinction you wish to make between hardware and software simply doesn't exist.
There is one fact which is rarely pointed out when discussing patent trolls, but I think it's important.
Over 80% of all patent suits are filed by just four trolls.
Obviously some patent litigation has to do with legitimate disputes, so those four trolls do probably 95% of the trolling. If you put those four out business, that takes care of 95% of the problem. It also shows other potential trolls that trolls end up broke.
The people behind this initiative don't just yip yap about patents on Slashdot for a few minutes, they are professionals who have actually fought these trolls. They understand the problem better than you or I do. If they think this approach will help put the four major trolls out of business, they're probably right.
> you find other means to deal with the situation up to and including the national guard.
The National Guard was ordered deployed to Louisiana on Friday, August 26, 2005. On September 1st, five days later, they arrived at the Super Dome. On September 3rd and 4th, they evacuated the people waiting in the Super Dome.
Personally, I'd rather pay an extra $20 than wait five to seven days for a ride out.
The US government is designed to be *fair*. It is not designed to be *fast*. Uber is fast.
> resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society
How exactly is denying people the option of getting a ride better than giving them the option to get a ride for $40? Those are the two choices - you either have a bunch of additional drivers work due to the higher pay, or you have them not work. Or would you FORCE people to drive toward the dangerous area, if you were king of world?
Let's consider what riders would prefer. Would riders prefer to not have a ride at all (because drivers stay home or drive in safer places), or would they rather pay a rate high enough to get a driver to come? We know that riders would prefer a higher rate than no ride at all, because they did in fact choose pay that rate, when they could have chosen to not get the ride.
I started an Emacs vs vim comparison test last year.
When Emacs finishes loading I'll post the results.
I probably need to add more RAM in order to really test Emacs, I only have 8 GB.
> are essentially unbreakable, even using quantum computers
The Enigma was "unbreakable", until it was broken.
DES was unbreakable, until it was broken.
MD5 was unbreakable, until it was broken.
RSA was "unbreakable" last year. Not so much this year.
There are some new algorithms which haven't quite been completely broken just yet. Well, unless the new algorithm is used by someone who -also- allows an older algorithm, im which case the service using the new algorithm is vulnerable to DROWN.
I wasn't familiar with doctornerdlove, but I was curious what you were talking about so I just read two of his posts. I was generally nodding in agreement with those two.
The first one I read was his post about being nervous that you'll be awkward, a self-fullfilling prophecy:
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/...
I don't disgaree with what he says; I will add a specific instruction, a process, for how to avoid it. Whenever I was in line, at the grocery store or whatever, I would make conversation with whomever was behind me, in front of me, and the cashier. 90% of the time it wasn't a lady I was attracted to. Maybe it's a grandma 30 years older than me, maybe a couple of frat guys, firefighters getting groceries for the fire station, whatever. There was much less nervousness complimenting granny's necklace or joking around with frat guys than the same approach with an attractive lady. After 30 days of talking to six people per day, I had struck up conversations with 180 strangers. This was fun in itself; waiting in line is less boring when grandma is telling you about the time she met Elvis. Eventually I was in line behind a lady who looked mildly attractive, and I did exactly the same thing I had done 180 times before. What's there to be nervous about - I do this all day, every day.
The only difference when she's attractive is the closing line, and I know I won't be awkward with that because I know ahead of time exactly what I'll say "I have to get going, but I'd really like to continue this conversation. This week is pretty busy for me, but I think I can take an hour to go to lunch Wednesday or Thursday. Are you free for a quick lunch later this week?"
* After going to lunch with over 100 women, I chose the best one and married her, so I don't flirt much anymore. Now I occassionally apply the principles in other ways.
Okay, so whatever you used to do in the first ten seconds approach didn't work. Four suggestions for the first ten seconds:
Make a joke. Not a wholly inappropriate joke.
In a store, ask "is that a good ice cream?", or whatever she's buying. (Though buying ice cream at or other frozen desserts at night tends to correlate with being receptive to converstation).
If she's not alone, initially include the less attractive lady or the male member of group in the first 10 seconds. When saying hi to a pair of ladies, it would be rude to ignore one. For a group, you want the male's tacit approval to strike up a converstation with the ladies of the group.
> Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're not entirely happy with yourself here. It's very difficult to get someone to like you if you don't like yourself.
Absolutely. Actually he's a pretty cool guy, he's funny and has some good common sense. If he was reminded of *that* just before he struck up a conversation with a lady, his tone and manner might convey that, reading between the lines she might get the impression that he's a an interesting, fun guy to talk to. If he's thinking "I'm fat, ugly, and women don't like me", that'll also come through. Whether he says it or not, she'll hear it loud and clear - and probably believe it.
I totally agree. I did what Amijojo suggested for years, and I had a lot of girl-friends (friends who were girls).
Later, I started spending about 25 seconds on friendly before switching to flirty, than curious, then busy but curious. That worked. *I* am nothing special, but I eventually found an *approach* which really works.
The basic pattern is:
Friendly: make a joke or two.
Curious: Ask about her, some special jewelry she's wearing or whatever. Note *be* curious, don't *pretend* to be curious. Ask how her day is going and actually listen to the answer. From there find something you'd wouldn't mind listening to her talk about for 5 minutes - maybe you find out she's writing a dissertation or a book. That could be interesting.
Busy: Glance at your watch, tell an incoming caller you'll call them back, or even better get interrupted by a passerby (or two) saying hi.
Busy but curious: "I have to get going because some people are waiting on me, but I'd really like to talk to you some more. I'd like to hear more about (topic you discovered). This is a pretty busy week for me, but I think I can get away for an hour at lunch, maybe Wednesday or Thursday. Do you have an hour to grab some lunch later this week?"
The wording of the last bit is quoted because there are a lot of aspects to why those exact words are chosen, in that order. I stated twice that the proposed lunch is an hour, she's not committing to a long evening of a potentially bad date. Also, I only have an hour; I'm a bust man, with important things going on. Busy enough that I have to leave now, I'm breaking off the conversation. That is, there's no worry that I'll become an annoyance whom she'll have trouble getting rid of - if she's not interested, there are other people already waiting for me, probably because those other people like being around me, because I'm a likable guy.
Is this a bit manipulative? Maybe, though I do try to actually mean what I say, to be interested in what she says as opposed to being fake, pretending. Some guys use their money to attract women, other guys use their muscles, I used my brain. If that's bad, so be it.
> What the ugly and/or poor men should do?
Obviously you're joking, but your comment reminded me of something. If you're ugly, broke, and can write quicksort in at least two languages, you can get laid all the time. I'm ugly, I was broke. I couldn't get girls.
Then I learned *how* to meet women. I RTFM about what really attracts most women, not just in the first 10 seconds but in conversation. I was amazed to find that I could *learn* how to get dates, that my face and my bank weren't the crucial factors. If you can learn how to write quicksort, you can learn how to get dates. I dated a *lot* of women, until I found my one-in-a-million.
One day I may finish writing my book "Dating for Nerds" or whatever I call it.
You can come up with different numbers depending on how you want to calculate each, but the two are roughly equal. Very roughly.
You said "private funded charities (including religions)". The summary says religious *organizations* $9 billion, and religious *people* are almost twice as likely to engage in charity, often at the behest of their religious leaders or texts. So we can guesstimate that "religion" is responsible for roughly $18 billion or so. A reasonable guess would be that non-religious private charity is about the same, another $18 billion. So around $36 billion total.
TANF, commonly called "welfare", is the main federal and state program. It's $17 billion per year. So private charity is about double what "welfare" spends. The government also has other programs other than "welfare", so taxpayer "charity" will be somewhere close to $36 billion, depending on what all you want to count.
That's all very rough and you could purposely swing the numbers either way by choosing what to include and what to exclude, but it gives us a general idea.
What exactly are you smoking? I copy-pasted the exact text of the statute. The commas are exactly the same as the original statutory text:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legis...
See that? Commas. Now let's go eat grandma.
> Please provide more details, because I do not believe it works the way you do.
Then as I said, try it. Try making an SMTP (mail sending, TCP port 25) connection to any mail server, Gmail, Yahoo, or Slashdot.org, using your home internet connection. Every mail server obviously ACCEPTS mail at the server, but you probably won't be able to connect? Gmail and Yahoo aren't denying you, so why can't you make any connection on port 25? Because YOUR ISP knows that your connection is a consumer connection, not a mail server, and therefore shouldn't generally be sending mail directly. You must connect to their mail relay and probably authenticate. Again, if you don't believe me, try it. (Or read Networking for Dummies Part 2).
Try sending any packet at all with a source address of 1.2.3.4. You won't get anywhere because your ISP will block those packets. Your ISP, and only your ISP, knows that you aren't allowed to route for 100.2.3.4. Neither the recipient nor anyone else can possibly know whether you're permitted to route that network, so only your ISP can stop it. Seriously, if you don't believe me, try it.
You might also Google "egress filtering".