> regardless of whether they have a student in the school system
There's such a thing as lowering the barrier to input too much.
We all pay for public schools because it benefits all of us to have an educated population. It matters to all of us that kids coming out of school are able to contribute to society, are smart enough to think critically, and are motivated enough to be good people who make their communities better for their presence.
Parents should absolutely be able to contribute input, but so should professional educators, so should professors and scientists and engineers and business leaders and so should everybody else. You filter the input by understanding why different input may be good or bad for accomplishing the goal, by selecting someone to figure that out. But you don't just block the input entirely.
The EPA wants to delay enforcement of a regulation they wrote, correct? If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency? I'm confused.
"Follow the procedures and make it happen" is the right answer. Likely the EPA didn't. A regulation is not like an internal company policy--it can only be created and enforced in ways that are authorized by law. The short version is that if an administrative agency exceeds the scope of its Congressional grant of authority, acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner, fails to follow the legal rulemaking process, or takes action which otherwise is contrary to law, then people who are harmed can take them to court. That's a big part of how the federal government works, although the regulatory process is so under-taught in our schools that probably most of the country doesn't really know it exists.
People can also apply to courts to force agencies and government officials to do their job, although it's rare to do so explicitly.
Working enough is far less important than working intelligently, unless your boss is an idiot, in which case you have to be intelligent enough to recognize you have to work "enough" even if you otherwise wouldn't need to.
Edge is the only browser that Netflix supports for 1080p (and even 4K streaming with certain processors). All other browsers are stuck at 720p or less for Netflix. It's an artificial limitation created by Netflix for piracy protection, but until I set up another device (perhaps an Amazon Fire TV) that can do as well or better for Netflix, I'll stick with Edge.
I find 720p is fine and Chrome has the major advantage of plugins that control video speed, which I haven't run into for edge yet. Watching videos at 1.1x or 1.2x speed you never notice the difference and save substantial time, for example.
It's not just about filling the newsfeed, it's about capitalizing on the brand to expand the company into other profitable markets. A subscription-based video content service, for example, including compelling original content. Perhaps some solid work on modern education and making various learning opportunities scalable and effective. A solid services recommendation system (which they've worked on but it doesn't seem to be there yet).
There are lots of markets out there, but if they want a return on capital, they will have to innovate.
How much do they charge compared to the market? I knew a vet in the poor town in a rich county. He helped many very poor pet owners and knew every trick to keep bills down and I bet their animals were less obese.
I mean, in EVERY other forum, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to ridicule and rant against white guys....it is never discrimination if it's against a white guy.
Maybe the non-white guys are using the wrong text editor?
A supermarket left open but unstaffed all day with no security would suffer amazing amounts of loss. But whose fault would this be?
[emphasis mine]
The people who stole the stuff. It's ALWAYS the fault of the person who stole the stuff. 100% of the time. If I don't lock my door and people clean out my house that makes me an idiot, but the person that cleaned it out is still the guilty party. (The insurance company may exercise their "idiot clause" and not reimburse me for my stuff because of my negligence. But that's not relevant to the conversation, the thief is still a thief, and should get the appropriate punishment if caught.)
It's very common for more than one person to be at fault in a situation. The person who stole the stuff is criminally liable, but the person who left the door unlocked is still negligent. Both are at fault.
Fair use is based on a multi-factor test. It is evaluated by a court in the context of a lawsuit.
Even if you win, it will cost you a minimum of around $50K+ to defend if the copyright owner claims it isn't fair use and sues you. It will cost more if you lose.
Is it really a covert technology when it's publicized? I've heard about these installations for years. Even the Summary talks about an article last year in Forbes.
This isn't secret surveillance, it's highly targeted mass surveillance--it only triggers on a very particular thing that involves a high degree of risk to the public. Save your big brother complaints for things like actual internet surveillance, overreaching electronic searches, or better yet for things like reform around the existing big-brother-esque things that cause massive damage to the economy every day. (E.g. bad uses of criminal records or credit reports)
It's too late. You've already shown your true colors, this is just pandering to keep customers.
No, this is about BATNA.
Netflix is big enough that they can get the deals they want, generally. But any negotiation is shaped in part by each side's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). Net Neutrality gives Netflix a better BATNA. This lets them get a better deal. And that saves them money. Which helps their bottom line at the expense of Telecom's bottom line.
What's more, mature competitors to Netflix (Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple, and even individual streaming channels like HBO) are big enough that killing net neutrality is unlikely to drive them out of the market.
Water is Wet, the Sky is Blue, and Maxwell's Laws are Prettier than You.
This is a very serious matter--yet another reason electronic security matters and with major geopolitical implications. But it's also incredibly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
Great post, you got my mod points. Do you happen to know NewYorkCountryLawyer? Used to make a lot of similarly helpful posts hearabouts.
Thank you.
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Beckerman, although I have seen him on slashdot in the past. We are both admitted in New York (I am admitted in New York and in Washington State), but there are a lot of lawyers in New York.
Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.
For most crimes, the reason that you did a thing matters. The classic example is where you accidentally take the wrong laptop instead of deliberately taking someone else's laptop. In most jurisdictions you didn't commit a crime if you didn't intend to take someone else's laptop. Your mistake of fact (your belief that it was your laptop) negates an element of the crime: intent.
On the other hand, for murder, the whole "malice aforethought" or "premeditation" idea is really watered down. It can be premeditated murder even if it's a split-second decision, for example. Although in some jurisdictions you were traditionally excused a little bit if you caught the person in bed with your spouse before that happens. (I.e. voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.) (There are several types of homicide and the details vary a lot.)
There's also the point that there is definitely a significant moral divide between people who care about WHY someone did something harmful, and people who only care that it was done. Your position is absolutely valid, but there's plenty of room to disagree and there isn't a consensus about what the result should be. So we leave it to the legislature and courts, as a terrible way to decide the answer that's better than all of the other ways of deciding the answer.:)
the first amendment only prevents the government from censoring free speech. It doesn't compel them to provide one w/ a listening board. Neither Trump, nor anyone, is obligated to allow people who they deem annoying to keep trolling them
The First Amendment puts limits on how the government may limit access to a fully public forum. Check out the case law if you want, but at least take a glance at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If released, how likely is a homicide convict likely to repeat? How much would you be willing to pay to prevent a loved-one from being added to the victim list? $80k seems like a small price to pay if it would prevent another murder.
Any amount sounds like a small amount to pay in theory, but they add up rapidly in fact. Also, $80K might save more lives used another way. Most serious policy decisions either impact the lives or the quality of life of many people.
It's also not just about how likely someone is to reoffend--it's also about punishment (from the "retributivist" side) and about deterrence (which is a part of the "consequentialist" side that also includes the recidivism factor you're identifying.)
We're in the end still talking about watching people play video games. Unless they are WAY more interesting than the average "Let's play" on YouTube, I fail to see the appeal.
Sure, but people enjoy different forms of entertainment, and enough people enjoy this that it is now a business model.
And while it may be more interesting than the *average* let's play on youtube, a lot of it is a streaming sport. Having your own personal stream as well as contractually playing on the team stream for a certain time each day is normal.
Depends mostly on their parents' income and how much of it they let them squander.
Not entirely, though. Kids grow up, and they continue to game as adults, and will likely continue to watch some eSports. eSports also sell games in a serious way.
It's also a business, and while you still have some fly-by-night operations and problems, it's definitely beginning to grow up. Professional players are beginning to realize they shouldn't just trust whatever deal they are offered will be fair, for example. At least some of them are.
We must stop the impending automobile revolution. It worry that many buggy whip manufacturing jobs may disappear. In addition, they startle the horses.
It's like that, but will be bigger than that. This is the beginning of the long anti-robot prejudice and protectionism that will be a standard political talking point of the next two centuries.
The Silmarillion is worth a read if you have enough imagination to fill in some of the visual details yourself; it is in a sort of abstract epic writing style one level more removed from the writing in LOTR, so many people have trouble with it, but there are beautiful moments in it if you can read it. For example, it opens with a description of music sung by beings of great power at the beginning of time, and also of the discord that the great enemy tries to sing into the music.
And there are high hosts of elves, and fights of elven-kings, and brave acts of love.
Beren and Luthien is one of the classic grand love stories of high fantasy. I hope this version is a good one, but whether it is or isn't you should still check out the other one.
Apart from the fine, the Commission will tell Google to stop its alleged anti-competitive practices but it is not clear what measures it will order the company to adopt to ensure that rivals get equal treatment in internet shopping results.
It's Google's product , it's not some public resource that Google manages for the good of society. Why shouldn't Google leverage their own product which exists solely to generate profit for Google? There is always Bing.
It's something called "abuse of market power" and it's anticompetitive. It's basically where an organization uses its existing market power in a way which prevents other producers from competing or limits their competition in a way which hurts consumers. It's one of those places where unfettered capitalism hurts the consumer and is anticompetitive, hence the need for some regulation.
For example, if Google always shows Android tablets first first and hides apple or windows tablets someone would otherwise consider buying from her search results, that harms marketplace competition and hurts the customer.
The bigger controversy with antitrust type actions is the frequency with which they are used by countries to tax foreign businesses. I believe there is something of a double standard in many countries where foreign companies fundamentally are penalized for not being local. They may also be engaging in anticompetitive activity, but would a local company be held to the same standard?
Would some people be completely unproductive with their "extra" free time? Absolutely. Problems we have with our current welfare system would be exacerbated greatly. People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce. Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
...
Even assuming all that were true, it wouldn't necessarily make it a bad idea. The question is what effect it has in the aggregate. For just one or two examples, consider that there is a HUGE percentage of poor people who have to spend so much of their time navigating badly designed and underfunded social aid systems that they find it very difficult to find new jobs or keep their jobs. If someone has housing, it makes it much easier for them to get a job. So while there may be negative effects from this, there are also potential positive effects from a universal basic income. Which is why it should be studied until we understand it better.
Slashdot Mirror
> regardless of whether they have a student in the school system
There's such a thing as lowering the barrier to input too much.
We all pay for public schools because it benefits all of us to have an educated population. It matters to all of us that kids coming out of school are able to contribute to society, are smart enough to think critically, and are motivated enough to be good people who make their communities better for their presence.
Parents should absolutely be able to contribute input, but so should professional educators, so should professors and scientists and engineers and business leaders and so should everybody else. You filter the input by understanding why different input may be good or bad for accomplishing the goal, by selecting someone to figure that out. But you don't just block the input entirely.
The EPA wants to delay enforcement of a regulation they wrote, correct? If the EPA wants to delay enforcement then would not that be within their authority as an executive agency? I'm confused.
"Follow the procedures and make it happen" is the right answer. Likely the EPA didn't. A regulation is not like an internal company policy--it can only be created and enforced in ways that are authorized by law. The short version is that if an administrative agency exceeds the scope of its Congressional grant of authority, acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner, fails to follow the legal rulemaking process, or takes action which otherwise is contrary to law, then people who are harmed can take them to court. That's a big part of how the federal government works, although the regulatory process is so under-taught in our schools that probably most of the country doesn't really know it exists.
People can also apply to courts to force agencies and government officials to do their job, although it's rare to do so explicitly.
Working enough is far less important than working intelligently, unless your boss is an idiot, in which case you have to be intelligent enough to recognize you have to work "enough" even if you otherwise wouldn't need to.
Edge is the only browser that Netflix supports for 1080p (and even 4K streaming with certain processors). All other browsers are stuck at 720p or less for Netflix. It's an artificial limitation created by Netflix for piracy protection, but until I set up another device (perhaps an Amazon Fire TV) that can do as well or better for Netflix, I'll stick with Edge.
I find 720p is fine and Chrome has the major advantage of plugins that control video speed, which I haven't run into for edge yet. Watching videos at 1.1x or 1.2x speed you never notice the difference and save substantial time, for example.
It's not just about filling the newsfeed, it's about capitalizing on the brand to expand the company into other profitable markets. A subscription-based video content service, for example, including compelling original content. Perhaps some solid work on modern education and making various learning opportunities scalable and effective. A solid services recommendation system (which they've worked on but it doesn't seem to be there yet).
There are lots of markets out there, but if they want a return on capital, they will have to innovate.
How much do they charge compared to the market? I knew a vet in the poor town in a rich county. He helped many very poor pet owners and knew every trick to keep bills down and I bet their animals were less obese.
Hey....why not give us white guys this one, eh?
I mean, in EVERY other forum, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to ridicule and rant against white guys....it is never discrimination if it's against a white guy.
Maybe the non-white guys are using the wrong text editor?
A supermarket left open but unstaffed all day with no security would suffer amazing amounts of loss. But whose fault would this be?
[emphasis mine]
The people who stole the stuff. It's ALWAYS the fault of the person who stole the stuff. 100% of the time. If I don't lock my door and people clean out my house that makes me an idiot, but the person that cleaned it out is still the guilty party. (The insurance company may exercise their "idiot clause" and not reimburse me for my stuff because of my negligence. But that's not relevant to the conversation, the thief is still a thief, and should get the appropriate punishment if caught.)
It's very common for more than one person to be at fault in a situation. The person who stole the stuff is criminally liable, but the person who left the door unlocked is still negligent. Both are at fault.
I'd cover 2% of that and I'm sure 50 other people would step up to do the same.
OK. So set up a nonprofit or a coop to to provide fair use defense and/or IP insurance.
Fair use is based on a multi-factor test. It is evaluated by a court in the context of a lawsuit.
Even if you win, it will cost you a minimum of around $50K+ to defend if the copyright owner claims it isn't fair use and sues you. It will cost more if you lose.
Is it really a covert technology when it's publicized? I've heard about these installations for years. Even the Summary talks about an article last year in Forbes.
This isn't secret surveillance, it's highly targeted mass surveillance--it only triggers on a very particular thing that involves a high degree of risk to the public. Save your big brother complaints for things like actual internet surveillance, overreaching electronic searches, or better yet for things like reform around the existing big-brother-esque things that cause massive damage to the economy every day. (E.g. bad uses of criminal records or credit reports)
And stuck with 128K ISDN because these a-hole politicians can't get their act together.
No way I'm paying any tax until they fix my fucking broadband.
Where are you in Seattle that you are stuck with 128K ISDN?
It's too late. You've already shown your true colors, this is just pandering to keep customers.
No, this is about BATNA.
Netflix is big enough that they can get the deals they want, generally. But any negotiation is shaped in part by each side's BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). Net Neutrality gives Netflix a better BATNA. This lets them get a better deal. And that saves them money. Which helps their bottom line at the expense of Telecom's bottom line.
What's more, mature competitors to Netflix (Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple, and even individual streaming channels like HBO) are big enough that killing net neutrality is unlikely to drive them out of the market.
Water is Wet, the Sky is Blue, and Maxwell's Laws are Prettier than You.
This is a very serious matter--yet another reason electronic security matters and with major geopolitical implications. But it's also incredibly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
Great post, you got my mod points. Do you happen to know NewYorkCountryLawyer? Used to make a lot of similarly helpful posts hearabouts.
Thank you.
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Beckerman, although I have seen him on slashdot in the past. We are both admitted in New York (I am admitted in New York and in Washington State), but there are a lot of lawyers in New York.
Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.
For most crimes, the reason that you did a thing matters. The classic example is where you accidentally take the wrong laptop instead of deliberately taking someone else's laptop. In most jurisdictions you didn't commit a crime if you didn't intend to take someone else's laptop. Your mistake of fact (your belief that it was your laptop) negates an element of the crime: intent.
On the other hand, for murder, the whole "malice aforethought" or "premeditation" idea is really watered down. It can be premeditated murder even if it's a split-second decision, for example. Although in some jurisdictions you were traditionally excused a little bit if you caught the person in bed with your spouse before that happens. (I.e. voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.) (There are several types of homicide and the details vary a lot.)
There's also the point that there is definitely a significant moral divide between people who care about WHY someone did something harmful, and people who only care that it was done. Your position is absolutely valid, but there's plenty of room to disagree and there isn't a consensus about what the result should be. So we leave it to the legislature and courts, as a terrible way to decide the answer that's better than all of the other ways of deciding the answer. :)
the first amendment only prevents the government from censoring free speech. It doesn't compel them to provide one w/ a listening board. Neither Trump, nor anyone, is obligated to allow people who they deem annoying to keep trolling them
The First Amendment puts limits on how the government may limit access to a fully public forum. Check out the case law if you want, but at least take a glance at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If released, how likely is a homicide convict likely to repeat? How much would you be willing to pay to prevent a loved-one from being added to the victim list? $80k seems like a small price to pay if it would prevent another murder.
Any amount sounds like a small amount to pay in theory, but they add up rapidly in fact. Also, $80K might save more lives used another way. Most serious policy decisions either impact the lives or the quality of life of many people.
It's also not just about how likely someone is to reoffend--it's also about punishment (from the "retributivist" side) and about deterrence (which is a part of the "consequentialist" side that also includes the recidivism factor you're identifying.)
We're in the end still talking about watching people play video games. Unless they are WAY more interesting than the average "Let's play" on YouTube, I fail to see the appeal.
Sure, but people enjoy different forms of entertainment, and enough people enjoy this that it is now a business model.
And while it may be more interesting than the *average* let's play on youtube, a lot of it is a streaming sport. Having your own personal stream as well as contractually playing on the team stream for a certain time each day is normal.
Depends mostly on their parents' income and how much of it they let them squander.
Not entirely, though. Kids grow up, and they continue to game as adults, and will likely continue to watch some eSports. eSports also sell games in a serious way.
It's also a business, and while you still have some fly-by-night operations and problems, it's definitely beginning to grow up. Professional players are beginning to realize they shouldn't just trust whatever deal they are offered will be fair, for example. At least some of them are.
We must stop the impending automobile revolution. It worry that many buggy whip manufacturing jobs may disappear. In addition, they startle the horses.
It's like that, but will be bigger than that. This is the beginning of the long anti-robot prejudice and protectionism that will be a standard political talking point of the next two centuries.
The Silmarillion is worth a read if you have enough imagination to fill in some of the visual details yourself; it is in a sort of abstract epic writing style one level more removed from the writing in LOTR, so many people have trouble with it, but there are beautiful moments in it if you can read it. For example, it opens with a description of music sung by beings of great power at the beginning of time, and also of the discord that the great enemy tries to sing into the music.
And there are high hosts of elves, and fights of elven-kings, and brave acts of love.
Beren and Luthien is one of the classic grand love stories of high fantasy. I hope this version is a good one, but whether it is or isn't you should still check out the other one.
Apart from the fine, the Commission will tell Google to stop its alleged anti-competitive practices but it is not clear what measures it will order the company to adopt to ensure that rivals get equal treatment in internet shopping results.
It's Google's product , it's not some public resource that Google manages for the good of society. Why shouldn't Google leverage their own product which exists solely to generate profit for Google? There is always Bing.
It's something called "abuse of market power" and it's anticompetitive. It's basically where an organization uses its existing market power in a way which prevents other producers from competing or limits their competition in a way which hurts consumers. It's one of those places where unfettered capitalism hurts the consumer and is anticompetitive, hence the need for some regulation.
For example, if Google always shows Android tablets first first and hides apple or windows tablets someone would otherwise consider buying from her search results, that harms marketplace competition and hurts the customer.
The bigger controversy with antitrust type actions is the frequency with which they are used by countries to tax foreign businesses. I believe there is something of a double standard in many countries where foreign companies fundamentally are penalized for not being local. They may also be engaging in anticompetitive activity, but would a local company be held to the same standard?
yea becouse I'd believe anything coming out of Iran ... not. /. is really stretching here.
Right. I mean, they probably even disregard the scientific method and still fight over things like whether global warming and evolution are real.
Would some people be completely unproductive with their "extra" free time? Absolutely. Problems we have with our current welfare system would be exacerbated greatly. People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce. Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.
...
Even assuming all that were true, it wouldn't necessarily make it a bad idea. The question is what effect it has in the aggregate. For just one or two examples, consider that there is a HUGE percentage of poor people who have to spend so much of their time navigating badly designed and underfunded social aid systems that they find it very difficult to find new jobs or keep their jobs. If someone has housing, it makes it much easier for them to get a job. So while there may be negative effects from this, there are also potential positive effects from a universal basic income. Which is why it should be studied until we understand it better.