Property rights are not, and never have been, absolute rights. I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to. Why not? Provided you're not violating their absolute property rights by poisioning or irradiating them, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to store whatever you like in your backyard pool. Your example that being forced to install sheilding is a sign of absolute property rights doesn't hold up against the history of how property rights have been asserted. In the our radioactive sludge pool owner would say, "No one has any right to force me to install any sort of a radioactive shielding. If they want sheilding, then can put it on their own house. What they want to do with their property is fine by me, but no one can tell me what to do with my property."
Or to put it more poeticly, "It's all mine, so fuck you."
That is the absolute position. Absolute rights say the individual trumps the community.
Your argument that somehow my example was an argument for absolute rights is absurd, because the sludge owner is being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. What you've shown is that no right is an absolute, because inevitably they hit up against one another, and thus they are constrained by competing interests.
While I absolutely hate your circuit switch analogy for TCP, since regardless that the conversation can be considered a stream, it is still packet switched no matter how you look at. I do see your point on common carrier status. "Common carrier" isn't my words. "Common carrier" has been the ISP's claim to prevent being held responsible for everything from being the isp that minors used to look at porn to linking to usenet groups that someone posted child porn in. Of course it's been something that they're keen to embrace and distance themselves from depending on the situation, but the common carrier defense has been around for at least 15 years.
1. Court issued writs and warrants do not requestion permission! You are compelled to comply. There is nothing optional about them.
2. Property rights are not, and never have been, absolute rights. I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to.
3. Comcast is a government blessed monopoly in many cases. Therefore, their behavior is even more limited since they must "act in the public interest."
4. Comcast likes to enjoy the legal protections of being a "common carrier" (i.e a dumb pipe). This behavior shows that they are not a dumb pipe at all. Once a provider starts manipulating the traffic flowing across their network, they lose common carrier status, and are now responsible for ALL the traffic on their network.
5. They are forging packets. This is a computer crime. ("knowingly cause[] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer", where "damage is "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information." and "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value.") While you may not be able to say that any one computer was "damaged" in excess of $5,000, the entire network was affected, and that is certainly more than $5,000.
6. They are deciptively advertising their serves as "unlimited" when it clearly is "limited."
7. While not related here, you should know, that just because a legal "agreement" says something, doesn't make it legal. Case in point: The indemnity clause at ski resorts that say "If our ski lift collapses, you can't sue." Bullshit. You can, as there is a clear public interest in not having deathtrap ski lifts.
I find it odd that you would disagree with the pervasiveness of swearing. Simply walk down any city street and eavesdrop on the conversations. You'll find someone swearing in no time.
There's a big difference between not swearing and getting all up in arms and your feelings hurt when someone swears, even when it is not directed at you. If you get your feelings hurt when someone says to you, "You know what Rozz? I think Jimmy is a fucking idiot." then you are a supersentive weaking that should stay home. Of course you don't agree with that statement. No one wants to consider themselves supersenstive weakings, but often one's perceptions of himself does not match that truth.
So in conclusion, while you don't have to be a pig, you don't have to say "Oh no the pigs! The pigs!" cause that's a personal problem. Deal with it.
His response has remained with me all these years:
if you have a "corporate environment", then you've already lost the battle. likewise, if anyone ever refers to you or anyone you work with as "professional", then the coolness has left the building.
It doesn't hurt the atmostphere becase, like it or not, swearing is pervasive in today's society. It's just background that most people don't even notice.
You're example of someone feeling bad because they heard someone swear ("Oh my freakin' ears!" as Todd Flanders said) is completely meaningless, because that's a personal problem of "Todd Flanders." If he's that emotionally fragile he should stay home, since: 1) The comments aren't directed at him; 2) Why should he even care in the first place if someone swears? He should grow up and ignore it like the rest of society. Build up some psychological calluses and move on.
And about the "professional" comment: (I also suspect that you at least agree with whoever tagged the article "unprofessional") I always think of this quote from JWZ regarding swearing and Netscape's Really Bad Attitude mailing list:
"If anyone ever refers to you or anyone you work with as 'professional', then the coolness has left the building."
Well the real trick is converting the electricity to microwaves, then converting it back to electricity effieciently isn't it? And why microwaves anyway? They suffer from rain fade. So when it rains, you'll lose power? Everyone loves to be wet and in the dark.
No. The problem with Star Trek Babies is that it's Star Trek Babies. It's unoriginal, and features every freakin' character from the original series. It's pure nostalgia remake.
And what the hell is up with prequels? Sadly, I suspect it's because Star Wars made some that made money, so that's what's hip now. ("Prequels are the new sequels baby!")
For an in-universe gripe: how the hell is it even possible to have a story with everyone together in the past on the same ship?
Baby Kirk: Dude! When I get my own ship, you guys are so going to be my crew! All except Spock: Yeah! Spock: Highly illogical. We will have our own careers and serve wherever Starfleet deems us most useful. Baby McCoy: Cram a sock in your vulcan mouth Spock! All except Spock: HA! HA! HA! *freeze frame mid laugh. roll credits. Green light two sequels and a prequel.*
Fuck Star Trek. Give me something new. (Ironically, Galactica actually works.)
Secondary Note for Star Trek Fans: An 'Athletic Contest' is an event in which multiple participants compete under a set of rules designed to compare the relative motor skills and/or strength/endurance possessed by the participants, although many athletic contests also include a strategy component. See Kalifee in TOS: Amok Time.
That is true. The God of The Gaps, as Carl Sagan put it, is a very weak god indeed. But that doesn't mean that many people have that weak and irrational faith. Look at how many "literalists" (which truthfully, don't actually believe in the "literal word," because they (rightfully) point out that certain passages are metaphoric.) there are?
I was raised Catholic as well, and it is much more mature faith. It's come a long way from excommunicating Galileo and running the Inquisition. 'Less we forget the Jesuits.
Well that's a false situation. The ticket scalpers buy all the tickets in less than a minute, thus creating a "sell out," but how many of those tickets actuall make their way to the concert goers? Now if all ofthem do, then demand is really there at the inflated price. Of course if the scalpers have excess inventory, then the concert really didn't sell out now did it?
Of course, I did buy $120 Nine Inch Nails tickets from a scalper on the Fragile tour. List price? I believe $40.
I sell the ticket I bought, I'm a "scalper" and a criminal. If a "ticket reseller" sells the ticket, it's legal. The difference? They paid protection money to the government.
Fuck that shit. And fuck the resellers for swiping all the tickets in seconds.
I'm also sure that someone will say the helmet strengthens their faith, as it makes them just have to redouble their efforts to maintain their delusion. What delusion? What delusion would be left? If in fact what we've got is a *repeatable* divine cellphone, then anybody can "experience God", or what the religious have always called God- thus God becomes a *fact*, not a delusion. Let me explain myself then. In this case, the god fan would claim that the helmet isn't "a divine cellphone" (i.e. creates a legitimate divine experience), but rather is some sort of "inauthentic" divine experience, but their divine experiences are "authentic." (e.g. "The helmet didn't make you feel god. The helmet only made you think you felt god.") All talk of brainwaves and such is just secular, materialist, anti-god, liberal, know-nothing science hogwash, and no amount of "facts" or " a repeatable experimental results" will convience them that they're not feeling the love of god when they spinning around until their dizzy while hyperventalating.
Holding on to a belief that flies in the face of logic, and fact, and reason is what faith is all about. In fact, that's it's "virtue."
Of course I realized when I was 10 that was bullshit.
I'm sure that someone will prove why the helmet proves the existence of God, as this helmet is really just a divine cellphone.
I'm also sure that someone will say the helmet strengthens their faith, as it makes them just have to redouble their efforts to maintain their delusion.
Don't you think it's in the best interest of the consumer to help keep satellite radio alive? Or are you satisfied with the shit on regular shitty radio? I'm only for the merger because it will eventually force terrestrial radio to be less shitty. You're placing a value judgement on satelite radio (that is is somehow "less shitty") that is running counter to the what the free market has decided. Even if satelite radio is "less shitty" the market has decided that it is not worth the premium to pay for. That's the only metric of any consequence. The fact that there is insufficient demand for satelite radio for the sector to be profitable demonstrates that terrestrial radio is at an acceptable level of "shittyness."
You may be a fan of satelite radio, but you're in the distinct minority. Well, more preceisely very few are as big of fans as you.
By rejecting the merger, the FCC will inevitably be propping up terrestrial radio, by keeping their competition weak. Terrestrial radio may be having problems because of competition from prerecorded music and talk, but the fact the still kicked sateliltes ass. Mostly because very few want to pay for something they can get for free.
What's holding prices down is their competition: terrestrial radio.
Well actually it's two things. It's the compeititon within the sector, and the fact that terrestrial radio is free.
1. It wouldn't be a "so called monopoly" it would be a monopoly. There would be only one company in the satelite radio sector. That is the very definition of a monopoly.
1a. Yes, satelite radio competes with other free services. They fact that they are having problems charging for what others are giving away for free, is shocking. They can't compete because they can't convince people to pay for something they're getting for free. It's a structural problem with their buisness model, and they deserve to go out of buisness. This "loss" of choice is specious, because it's an option that demonstorably no one is taking. It's like arguing that removing rusty nails and broken glass burritos from a menu is a loss of choice. Technically that's true, but not all choices are equal.
2. Your hypothetical prices are absurd. XM is $10/mo. A 500% increase is beyond absurd, and it doesn't dignify a response.
3. If they don't merge, and they both fail, it's because the market spoke and they provided a service no one wanted. It happens all the time. That's the invisible hand. Who cares? But they won't fail simultaneously. Companies never do. Sirius will fail first, and if their customers really want satelite radio, they'll migrate to XM, and if the sector is viable, then XM will survive. That's the invisible hand.
The FCC and FTC has no buisness in helping prop up any failing sector. Their only purpose is to maintain competition in the sector.
4. The fact that the sports channels are split evenly between the services is a sign of good competition in the sector. Neither dominates enough to sweep the other up. This is a Good Thing(tm) for the market. It's a sign of equilibrium. This holds prices down.
California should just take over.ca or.cr and declare independence. The flag already reads "California Republic," and it's not like Canada or Costa Rica will notice. Well... not Costa Rica anyway.;)
Slashdot Mirror
From Valve: "'Some of these users have subsequently purchased a legal copy"
Of course the original copy was also legally purchased as well. It's just that some consumers balk at differential pricing.
Or to put it more poeticly, "It's all mine, so fuck you."
That is the absolute position. Absolute rights say the individual trumps the community.
Your argument that somehow my example was an argument for absolute rights is absurd, because the sludge owner is being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. What you've shown is that no right is an absolute, because inevitably they hit up against one another, and thus they are constrained by competing interests.
1. Court issued writs and warrants do not requestion permission! You are compelled to comply. There is nothing optional about them.
2. Property rights are not, and never have been, absolute rights. I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to.
3. Comcast is a government blessed monopoly in many cases. Therefore, their behavior is even more limited since they must "act in the public interest."
4. Comcast likes to enjoy the legal protections of being a "common carrier" (i.e a dumb pipe). This behavior shows that they are not a dumb pipe at all. Once a provider starts manipulating the traffic flowing across their network, they lose common carrier status, and are now responsible for ALL the traffic on their network.
5. They are forging packets. This is a computer crime. ("knowingly cause[] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer", where "damage is "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information." and "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value.") While you may not be able to say that any one computer was "damaged" in excess of $5,000, the entire network was affected, and that is certainly more than $5,000.
6. They are deciptively advertising their serves as "unlimited" when it clearly is "limited."
7. While not related here, you should know, that just because a legal "agreement" says something, doesn't make it legal. Case in point: The indemnity clause at ski resorts that say "If our ski lift collapses, you can't sue." Bullshit. You can, as there is a clear public interest in not having deathtrap ski lifts.
(+ 1 'funny)
I find it odd that you would disagree with the pervasiveness of swearing. Simply walk down any city street and eavesdrop on the conversations. You'll find someone swearing in no time.
There's a big difference between not swearing and getting all up in arms and your feelings hurt when someone swears, even when it is not directed at you. If you get your feelings hurt when someone says to you, "You know what Rozz? I think Jimmy is a fucking idiot." then you are a supersentive weaking that should stay home. Of course you don't agree with that statement. No one wants to consider themselves supersenstive weakings, but often one's perceptions of himself does not match that truth.
So in conclusion, while you don't have to be a pig, you don't have to say "Oh no the pigs! The pigs!" cause that's a personal problem. Deal with it.
His response has remained with me all these years:
It doesn't hurt the atmostphere becase, like it or not, swearing is pervasive in today's society. It's just background that most people don't even notice.
You're example of someone feeling bad because they heard someone swear ("Oh my freakin' ears!" as Todd Flanders said) is completely meaningless, because that's a personal problem of "Todd Flanders." If he's that emotionally fragile he should stay home, since: 1) The comments aren't directed at him; 2) Why should he even care in the first place if someone swears? He should grow up and ignore it like the rest of society. Build up some psychological calluses and move on.
And about the "professional" comment: (I also suspect that you at least agree with whoever tagged the article "unprofessional") I always think of this quote from JWZ regarding swearing and Netscape's Really Bad Attitude mailing list:
"If anyone ever refers to you or anyone you work with as 'professional', then the coolness has left the building."
Well the real trick is converting the electricity to microwaves, then converting it back to electricity effieciently isn't it? And why microwaves anyway? They suffer from rain fade. So when it rains, you'll lose power? Everyone loves to be wet and in the dark.
Just close your eyes and use your hand like you always do. ;)
No. The problem with Star Trek Babies is that it's Star Trek Babies. It's unoriginal, and features every freakin' character from the original series. It's pure nostalgia remake.
And what the hell is up with prequels? Sadly, I suspect it's because Star Wars made some that made money, so that's what's hip now. ("Prequels are the new sequels baby!")
For an in-universe gripe: how the hell is it even possible to have a story with everyone together in the past on the same ship?
Baby Kirk: Dude! When I get my own ship, you guys are so going to be my crew!
All except Spock: Yeah!
Spock: Highly illogical. We will have our own careers and serve wherever Starfleet deems us most useful.
Baby McCoy: Cram a sock in your vulcan mouth Spock!
All except Spock: HA! HA! HA!
*freeze frame mid laugh. roll credits. Green light two sequels and a prequel.*
Fuck Star Trek. Give me something new. (Ironically, Galactica actually works.)
When I heard the guy from Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead was going to play Scotty, I immediately thought of Nick Frost.
Nick Frost would have been great.
Yeah, no one can play a Scotsman like that Canadian James Doohan huh?
That is true. The God of The Gaps, as Carl Sagan put it, is a very weak god indeed. But that doesn't mean that many people have that weak and irrational faith. Look at how many "literalists" (which truthfully, don't actually believe in the "literal word," because they (rightfully) point out that certain passages are metaphoric.) there are?
I was raised Catholic as well, and it is much more mature faith. It's come a long way from excommunicating Galileo and running the Inquisition. 'Less we forget the Jesuits.
Well that's a false situation. The ticket scalpers buy all the tickets in less than a minute, thus creating a "sell out," but how many of those tickets actuall make their way to the concert goers? Now if all ofthem do, then demand is really there at the inflated price. Of course if the scalpers have excess inventory, then the concert really didn't sell out now did it?
Of course, I did buy $120 Nine Inch Nails tickets from a scalper on the Fragile tour. List price? I believe $40.
I sell the ticket I bought, I'm a "scalper" and a criminal. If a "ticket reseller" sells the ticket, it's legal. The difference? They paid protection money to the government.
Fuck that shit. And fuck the resellers for swiping all the tickets in seconds.
Holding on to a belief that flies in the face of logic, and fact, and reason is what faith is all about. In fact, that's it's "virtue."
Of course I realized when I was 10 that was bullshit.
I'm sure that someone will prove why the helmet proves the existence of God, as this helmet is really just a divine cellphone.
I'm also sure that someone will say the helmet strengthens their faith, as it makes them just have to redouble their efforts to maintain their delusion.
GWB?
You may be a fan of satelite radio, but you're in the distinct minority. Well, more preceisely very few are as big of fans as you. By rejecting the merger, the FCC will inevitably be propping up terrestrial radio, by keeping their competition weak. Terrestrial radio may be having problems because of competition from prerecorded music and talk, but the fact the still kicked sateliltes ass. Mostly because very few want to pay for something they can get for free. What's holding prices down is their competition: terrestrial radio. Well actually it's two things. It's the compeititon within the sector, and the fact that terrestrial radio is free.
We don't need off shore gambling. We've got Indian tribes. And anyway, we're now our own country (again).
1. It wouldn't be a "so called monopoly" it would be a monopoly. There would be only one company in the satelite radio sector. That is the very definition of a monopoly.
1a. Yes, satelite radio competes with other free services. They fact that they are having problems charging for what others are giving away for free, is shocking. They can't compete because they can't convince people to pay for something they're getting for free. It's a structural problem with their buisness model, and they deserve to go out of buisness. This "loss" of choice is specious, because it's an option that demonstorably no one is taking. It's like arguing that removing rusty nails and broken glass burritos from a menu is a loss of choice. Technically that's true, but not all choices are equal.
2. Your hypothetical prices are absurd. XM is $10/mo. A 500% increase is beyond absurd, and it doesn't dignify a response.
3. If they don't merge, and they both fail, it's because the market spoke and they provided a service no one wanted. It happens all the time. That's the invisible hand. Who cares? But they won't fail simultaneously. Companies never do. Sirius will fail first, and if their customers really want satelite radio, they'll migrate to XM, and if the sector is viable, then XM will survive. That's the invisible hand.
The FCC and FTC has no buisness in helping prop up any failing sector. Their only purpose is to maintain competition in the sector.
4. The fact that the sports channels are split evenly between the services is a sign of good competition in the sector. Neither dominates enough to sweep the other up. This is a Good Thing(tm) for the market. It's a sign of equilibrium. This holds prices down.
California should just take over .ca or .cr and declare independence. The flag already reads "California Republic," and it's not like Canada or Costa Rica will notice. Well... not Costa Rica anyway. ;)
And let's not forget that an XM-Sirius merger would reduce the number of satelite radio providers in the US from 2 to 1.
W00t! Monopolies offer choice!
You can do that? Shit! Someone tell Boston!