This doesn't quite add up. Omeprazole is already on the market. So if it can actually help. people will be able to go out and buy it. Even if the greedy corporate overlords (to adopt your description) were to prevent it from getting approved for this purpose, the drug would still be available on the market and doctors are allowed to prescribe off-label uses. That being said, I tried to Google Omeprazole as a potential solution for Type I diabetes and found nothing. So I don't think that the issue is industry overlords but rather that Omeprazole is unlikely to heal the pancreas.
I remember this saga pretty well. McVoy was pissed that Tridgell wrote an interoperability tool, so he pulled the license for all open source use including the Linux Kernel. This is the type of thing that RMS often warns us about. Don't use closed-source software to build open-source software. And don't use closed-source software in mission-critical applications. I don't think you can get a better example than this.
Is it rising organically or is big money being spent to make it appear organic. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell the two apart. In the US conservatives are traditionally richer than their liberal counterparts. Makes me think maybe I should change political affiliations when I put it that way.
And more importantly, if I were a holder of US debt (which I used to hold but don't anymore, but not because of any fear of default), I'd sure prefer the printing presses to default. Many economists believe that, due to the slack in the US economy, printing money would have little to no downside. That isn't true for every economy or every situation, but in the US right now, it may be a viable option. Google "Helicopter money"
What if he inserted the key into the lock, verified that it opened the door, locked the door again, and dropped the key off at the police station? That seems to be a better analogy. Of course if he got caught testing the key, he'd have a tough time pleading his case that he was going to turn it over to the police.
Had he actually used the information to alter the outcome of the election, the same government office would be on public record denying that any breach had occurred and, therefore, would have to forego charging him. You shouldn't attack production systems. If you do, bad things will happen. Unfortunately, valid test targets are often not provided creating a moral dilemma. Those caught up in such a situation at least deserve or sympathy.
The way to tell whether an argument about a business makes sense is to substitute what the business does with baby-torturing. If the argument still holds it's valid. If not, throw it away as propaganda.
So your argument is to let the consumers of baby-torturing services decide how baby-torturing should be regulated in the city of Austin?
How are these "ride-sharing" services not taxis? I don't see any difference between them and electronically-hailed cab services such as FlyWheel. So in what way are they different?
Fair enough. In fact it's a basic economic tenet that all taxes/subsidies are incident on the consumer in the medium-term. However, taxing a product harms both the producers and consumers and subsidizing the product helps both the producers and consumers. If fossil fuels were neither taxed nor subsidized, consumption would go down. If you don't think this is true, read any argument out there about why producers don't want taxes on their products!
I think the answer is yes. You frame that as a bad thing and got modded up. I'm not sure why. Not everything that people advocate for has to be in their own self-interest. Of course in this case, pumping up the price of his product may be to his benefit. People love to talk about electric cars really being coal cars but if CO2 were priced accurately, electricity wouldn't be generated by coal and burning fossil fuels in a vehicle would be cost prohibitive.
The primary subsidy is in the form of externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Most businesses have to pay for waste disposal, but fossil fuel companies are allowed to create as much air pollution as they want and not have to pay the fair cost.
No what is being said is that not every bug is a defect that can lead to third-parties being able to decrypt the phone. You're right that there may be more exploits out there. However, both the severity of the defects and the ease with which they can be exploited have been going asymptotically to zero so it's reasonable to believe that we may be at least getting very close to zero. I
It's not an inefficient allocation at all. The rides go to the people who get the most value out of them. Yes, it means that the margins go up for Uber and the drivers, but the allocation is still efficient. An inefficient allocation would be if the price stayed the same and a random function was used to decide who got to ride.
What I believe you are calling inefficient is the fact that both supply and demand are often very inelastic. If a bunch of people need rides, they can't just stop needing a ride. They need to get home at some point. Sure, some people will see a 10x surge price and decide to walk many miles. Others may choose to hitchhike.
Even if drivers could get alerted to a surge in demand and quickly slide down fire poles into their waiting vehicles, it may be that supply just can't ramp up quickly enough. There are only so many drivers. If they are all working at the time, short-term supply can't go up at all.
Whenever supply or demand is inelastic, small changes in either one can produce wild swings in prices. In this case, both are inelastic so the surges tend to be huge. But it's not an inefficient allocation.
OTOH the market is indicative that the market is not well-supplied which is the problem Uber is trying to solve.
Uber taxi drivers make more during high-demand periods even without surge pricing because there is less waiting between fares. You drop off one customer and pick up the next almost immediately. Just knowing that it's a high-demand time will get some drivers into their cars. If that's not enough, there can be a surge price but a much smaller one which is still an improvement.
This is wrong thinking when it come to safety. People generally under value proper safety measures. Therefore, the least safe provider can offer lower prices and put the safer providers out of business. At that point, there is no safe choice and this is terribly problematic for a functioning society. Hence we must regulate a minimum safety level. The taxi industry is a terrible failure and not a good example of this. On the other hand, look how safe commercial aviation is in this country.
It's amazing that an illegal taxi service can get as large as Uber. I never would have predicted it being possible. I'm going to start a similar service where people can practice medicine without a license.
No. But surges are not completely random and unpredictable. Even if each customer has random unpredictable demand, the number of riders is large enough that the random aspect will produce a pretty even distribution. Demand suddenly spikes because of some event. Many of those events can be predicted. The two given examples are rain and a Beyonce concert. For other spikes, the cause isn't necessarily known but it does exist.
Surge pricing happens because Q cannot increase quickly enough to meet a rise in demand. The extra money goes to Uber and the drivers so it's not a middle-man capturing it. If you have a sharp rise in demand and neither supply nor price can surge, you get an inefficient allocation. It's better to have supply rise than to have price rise which I think is your point. But it's not right to say that the rise in price just "goes to some middleman."
That's an interesting twist (congratulations on your +4, but what it likely proves is that people pirate to save money. They're not going to pay (even a donation) unless the money is pried from their fingers. What the various *AAs know that the average/. poster doesn't is that pop culture icons are worshiped like deities and people will forego food in order to hear the latest Kanye West and Taylor Swift.
Of course this got modded into oblivion but the assertion on/. is that people turn to piracy for reasons other than being cheap. The fact that only $9 per day gets donated runs counter to this argument. If it truly were due to other reasons (content not available locally, et cetera), the donations would be much higher. I'm sure there *are* people out there who pirate for non-monetary reasons (there's an exception to every rule) but I surmise that the vast majority simply do it because they want content for free.
Yes and certain types of investigation require a warrant. That's to protect people from harassment. The issue is that Tor use makes it impossible to know the correct jurisdiction to get such warrant. That's why its a Catch-22 that has just been resolved by saying that, in such a case, a majistrate judge can approve a warrant for a machine with an unknown physical location. They still have to meet all other criteria for the warrant.
This seems to be the only reasonable outcome although I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will have a heyday with it. If somebody has effectively disguised the physical location of their machine, there's no way to know which jurisdiction should issue the warrant. This creates a Catch-22 situation that is untenable.
The only reason to consider this problematic is if you are of the belief that those with a certain level of technical skill should be exempt from the law.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't quite add up. Omeprazole is already on the market. So if it can actually help. people will be able to go out and buy it. Even if the greedy corporate overlords (to adopt your description) were to prevent it from getting approved for this purpose, the drug would still be available on the market and doctors are allowed to prescribe off-label uses. That being said, I tried to Google Omeprazole as a potential solution for Type I diabetes and found nothing. So I don't think that the issue is industry overlords but rather that Omeprazole is unlikely to heal the pancreas.
I'll just assume that they meant to mod me insightful but they have a bug in their closed-source browser that the vendor won't fix! :)
I remember this saga pretty well. McVoy was pissed that Tridgell wrote an interoperability tool, so he pulled the license for all open source use including the Linux Kernel. This is the type of thing that RMS often warns us about. Don't use closed-source software to build open-source software. And don't use closed-source software in mission-critical applications. I don't think you can get a better example than this.
Is it rising organically or is big money being spent to make it appear organic. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell the two apart. In the US conservatives are traditionally richer than their liberal counterparts. Makes me think maybe I should change political affiliations when I put it that way.
And more importantly, if I were a holder of US debt (which I used to hold but don't anymore, but not because of any fear of default), I'd sure prefer the printing presses to default. Many economists believe that, due to the slack in the US economy, printing money would have little to no downside. That isn't true for every economy or every situation, but in the US right now, it may be a viable option. Google "Helicopter money"
What if he inserted the key into the lock, verified that it opened the door, locked the door again, and dropped the key off at the police station? That seems to be a better analogy. Of course if he got caught testing the key, he'd have a tough time pleading his case that he was going to turn it over to the police.
Had he actually used the information to alter the outcome of the election, the same government office would be on public record denying that any breach had occurred and, therefore, would have to forego charging him. You shouldn't attack production systems. If you do, bad things will happen. Unfortunately, valid test targets are often not provided creating a moral dilemma. Those caught up in such a situation at least deserve or sympathy.
The way to tell whether an argument about a business makes sense is to substitute what the business does with baby-torturing. If the argument still holds it's valid. If not, throw it away as propaganda. So your argument is to let the consumers of baby-torturing services decide how baby-torturing should be regulated in the city of Austin?
How are these "ride-sharing" services not taxis? I don't see any difference between them and electronically-hailed cab services such as FlyWheel. So in what way are they different?
Fair enough. In fact it's a basic economic tenet that all taxes/subsidies are incident on the consumer in the medium-term. However, taxing a product harms both the producers and consumers and subsidizing the product helps both the producers and consumers. If fossil fuels were neither taxed nor subsidized, consumption would go down. If you don't think this is true, read any argument out there about why producers don't want taxes on their products!
I think the answer is yes. You frame that as a bad thing and got modded up. I'm not sure why. Not everything that people advocate for has to be in their own self-interest. Of course in this case, pumping up the price of his product may be to his benefit. People love to talk about electric cars really being coal cars but if CO2 were priced accurately, electricity wouldn't be generated by coal and burning fossil fuels in a vehicle would be cost prohibitive.
The primary subsidy is in the form of externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Most businesses have to pay for waste disposal, but fossil fuel companies are allowed to create as much air pollution as they want and not have to pay the fair cost.
No what is being said is that not every bug is a defect that can lead to third-parties being able to decrypt the phone. You're right that there may be more exploits out there. However, both the severity of the defects and the ease with which they can be exploited have been going asymptotically to zero so it's reasonable to believe that we may be at least getting very close to zero. I
It's not an inefficient allocation at all. The rides go to the people who get the most value out of them. Yes, it means that the margins go up for Uber and the drivers, but the allocation is still efficient. An inefficient allocation would be if the price stayed the same and a random function was used to decide who got to ride. What I believe you are calling inefficient is the fact that both supply and demand are often very inelastic. If a bunch of people need rides, they can't just stop needing a ride. They need to get home at some point. Sure, some people will see a 10x surge price and decide to walk many miles. Others may choose to hitchhike. Even if drivers could get alerted to a surge in demand and quickly slide down fire poles into their waiting vehicles, it may be that supply just can't ramp up quickly enough. There are only so many drivers. If they are all working at the time, short-term supply can't go up at all. Whenever supply or demand is inelastic, small changes in either one can produce wild swings in prices. In this case, both are inelastic so the surges tend to be huge. But it's not an inefficient allocation. OTOH the market is indicative that the market is not well-supplied which is the problem Uber is trying to solve.
Maybe Palin could be his amazing VP candidate.
Uber taxi drivers make more during high-demand periods even without surge pricing because there is less waiting between fares. You drop off one customer and pick up the next almost immediately. Just knowing that it's a high-demand time will get some drivers into their cars. If that's not enough, there can be a surge price but a much smaller one which is still an improvement.
This is wrong thinking when it come to safety. People generally under value proper safety measures. Therefore, the least safe provider can offer lower prices and put the safer providers out of business. At that point, there is no safe choice and this is terribly problematic for a functioning society. Hence we must regulate a minimum safety level. The taxi industry is a terrible failure and not a good example of this. On the other hand, look how safe commercial aviation is in this country.
It's amazing that an illegal taxi service can get as large as Uber. I never would have predicted it being possible. I'm going to start a similar service where people can practice medicine without a license.
No. But surges are not completely random and unpredictable. Even if each customer has random unpredictable demand, the number of riders is large enough that the random aspect will produce a pretty even distribution. Demand suddenly spikes because of some event. Many of those events can be predicted. The two given examples are rain and a Beyonce concert. For other spikes, the cause isn't necessarily known but it does exist.
Surge pricing happens because Q cannot increase quickly enough to meet a rise in demand. The extra money goes to Uber and the drivers so it's not a middle-man capturing it. If you have a sharp rise in demand and neither supply nor price can surge, you get an inefficient allocation. It's better to have supply rise than to have price rise which I think is your point. But it's not right to say that the rise in price just "goes to some middleman."
That's an interesting twist (congratulations on your +4, but what it likely proves is that people pirate to save money. They're not going to pay (even a donation) unless the money is pried from their fingers. What the various *AAs know that the average /. poster doesn't is that pop culture icons are worshiped like deities and people will forego food in order to hear the latest Kanye West and Taylor Swift.
Of course this got modded into oblivion but the assertion on /. is that people turn to piracy for reasons other than being cheap. The fact that only $9 per day gets donated runs counter to this argument. If it truly were due to other reasons (content not available locally, et cetera), the donations would be much higher. I'm sure there *are* people out there who pirate for non-monetary reasons (there's an exception to every rule) but I surmise that the vast majority simply do it because they want content for free.
I can't find any articles linking the two, but it certainly seems that this rule change was adopted in response to the Playpen case.
Yes and certain types of investigation require a warrant. That's to protect people from harassment. The issue is that Tor use makes it impossible to know the correct jurisdiction to get such warrant. That's why its a Catch-22 that has just been resolved by saying that, in such a case, a majistrate judge can approve a warrant for a machine with an unknown physical location. They still have to meet all other criteria for the warrant.
This seems to be the only reasonable outcome although I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will have a heyday with it. If somebody has effectively disguised the physical location of their machine, there's no way to know which jurisdiction should issue the warrant. This creates a Catch-22 situation that is untenable. The only reason to consider this problematic is if you are of the belief that those with a certain level of technical skill should be exempt from the law.