Jurisdiction and liability can't be signed away, but privacy absolutely can. In fact you can give it away for free, just make your your private information public, and bang! You're there.
If all online services did not leave tracking cookies/spyware/etc on your computer, would you be ok with all of the other data accumulation and trading that happened?
We keep assuming that it's our data. I'm not so sure it is.
Consider a different situation:
A woman has a baby. He grows up to be a famous actor. He doesn't want his birthday published because he believes there is age discrimination in Hollywood. His mom wants to write an autobiography. They each have a valid claim that the date in question is their own personal data.
If I google erectile dysfunction treatment, I think "My request for Google to bring me information on ED is my data," but Google thinks "That request I received for info about ED is my data." Obviously Google winds up with a freakishly gigantic amount of data, so our assumption seems natural, but I'm not 100% sure it's reasonable. Every search is transaction with at least two parties.
I hate and fear the data gathering. That's why I don't have a Facebook account, or Snapchat, Instagram, Pinterest, etc. I do search using Google, though, and I shop on Amazon sometimes, so I guess I don't hate it as much as I tell myself I do.
Well, I never said any part of the left is immune to this, so, thanks for overreacting. I said this particular bill was designed to pander to the Republicans in the base (although re-reading it I could have more accurately said "the conservative base.")
You want to know something funny? I was absolutely right! It was! Hahaha!
And you were so triggered you had to reply with some bluster about how that wasn't what it was, at all! And then accuse me of partisan bias! Haha! You're hilarious. I love it!
Thanks. I was in a bummed mood because of that shitshow around Linus Tech Tips, but your smug derpiness actually made me giggle.
Legalizing sex work between consenting adults will go farther to reduce it.
Yes, and if you say to most conservatives you can actually watch their blood pressure go up. Laws against prostitution are universally about controlling women's sexuality. 100%.
It seems like companies would be rushing to set up shop in a state with super low taxes. Is the problem high corporate taxes, or a lack of skilled workforce, or poor government services (infrastructure and the like), or what?
I also looked at about 30. I noticed that in almost every case the left eye was larger then the right. Also, the center two upper incisors were very different sizes in about half of the images.
Equilibrium is when disparate forces in a market reach a balance point, not when 'competitors' refuse to compete. The cereal problem you mentioned was a classic case of refusing to compete. FTC watched those guys for YEARS trying to catch them communicating.
An example of an equilibrium is when prices go low enough that it becomes uneconomical for some participants to stay in the market if prices go any lower, but there is also not enough profit in the market to entice any new entrant (who faces barriers to entry), so prices and market participants stabilize. This is usually a sign of strong competition.
The diagnostic symptom of a cartel (either communicating or not) is sellers making economic profits (as opposed to accounting profits) for a sustained period of time. Economic profits are profits after deducting opportunity costs. If it's more than one company, you are looking at a cartel. If it's only one company, you're looking at a monopoly.
The problem is that the barriers to entry are too low to ever let them really get groovy with the predatory pricing. Especially if they can't kill Lyft. Killing Lyft would bring close FTC scrutiny, so they might not even try.
I think the limiting factors on monopoly profits (in an unregulated market) are the size of the barriers to entry and the amount of money the customers have.
Clearly, the customers can afford much higher prices. They've been paying higher prices to taxi services for years.
Barriers to entry for a ridesharing service trying to compete with a monopoly provider (either Uber of Lyft, whichever wins) don't seem that high to me. They have to put together an app and then advertise the shit out of it. That seems doable in the age of venture capital.
Also, we don't live in an unregulated economy. The FTC considers a company to be a monopoly if they serve (I think?) 70% of their market Then they get extra scrutiny and prohibitions on anti-competitive behavior.
For these reasons, I agree that we are unlikely to see a true monopoly. I don't think Uber can kill Lyft. I think we wind up with a Microsoft/Apple situation, where the two companies differentiate by culture, and price follows. Many drivers already prefer Lyft because Lyft riders are more likely to tip than Uber riders.
Actually most rideshare drivers have both the Uber and Lyft apps running at the same time. When they accept a ping on one app they set the other to offline until the ride is complete so they can protect their acceptance rate. There is actually another app, called Mystro, that manages this process for you. It also allows the driver to set various preferences and automatically prioritize certain rides over others. Mystro is supposedly working to incorporate other gig services like Door Dash, Postmates, and Uber Eats.
An IPO is the sale of newly created shares to the public. That's why the company makes money around an IPO: They are selling brand-new, freshly-created shares. Getting a bank to run the IPO, and crossing all of the i's and dotting all of the t's costs money and is apparently kind of a PITA.
This is conversion from closely-held to public. It changes the rules regarding sales of existing stock to outsiders. The current stock owners will now be able to sell their existing shares to anyone on an exchange. This means early investors get to cash out and move on to the next thing. Of course, it also means they have greater transparency requirements and increased reporting requirements to the SEC. This makes for larger auditing obligations. All of this increases the cost of doing business somewhat, but it seems like they are dong fine and can easily afford it.
I think most definitions of NN don't prohibit true QOS-based prioritization. NN is aimed at participant-based prioritization, which is all about market plays. QOS management is not a market play. Selling fast lanes to content providers and providing free prioritization or free bandwidth to in-house or partnered content providers are market plays (both potentially immensely profitable.)
Honestly, I can get pretty pissy about government overreach, but this isn't that.
The war on drugs was doomed to failure from inception because they were trying to legislate a morality that most Americans are ambivalent about or are actively in disagreement with. Over half of all Americans are (or were willing to be temporarily) on the illegal side of that war: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ...
Consequently, the LEAs wound up in a game of whack-a-mole, where they arrest a dealer and a new one pops up in his place before he gets arraigned. And, as an ex-con, I'm here to tell you that they are good at arresting dealers. I met a lot of drug dealers inside. Of course, for a lot of cops, this is just job security, so they don't really mind.
NN is different because the number of offenders is vastly smaller and the violations are exponentially harder to hide (this is the problem with crimes that actually have victims). Additionally, because the network operators' money is actually already in the banking system, they have much more to lose.
As to whether we fare better behind NN regulation or NN law, I don't know. Legislation is probably less prone to abuse, but it is also much slower to respond to changing market conditions.
I have no opinion about the source of the orbital circularity, but the synchronous rotation and revolution of the moon are a predictable result of tidal force between the two bodies. It's the same force driving the moon farther from the Earth every year. Same reason mercury keeps the same face to the sun. Tides.
If the conversation doesn't mean enough to you to log in to a website, why does it mean enough to me to tell my story? Or, tell it AGAIN, really, because I've told it a couple of times on Slashdot.
Every time I post under my username, I give people an opportunity to mod me down and troll me. Not too much of a risk, right? But somehow it's still too much of a risk for you.
For me? I think the quality of the conversation goes up when people have an identity attached to their contributions, even a pseudonym. And I come to Slashdot for the comments, the meaningful exchange of ideas. So I encourage people to log in.
Storytime is not hard. Not after one question, not after a hundred questions. I'll tell ya almost anything you want to know about going to prison. Like I said, log in, and we'll talk about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it seems we're not that good at overcoming simple, sound-bite messaging. For too much of the American electorate, 'simple sells.'
Jurisdiction and liability can't be signed away, but privacy absolutely can. In fact you can give it away for free, just make your your private information public, and bang! You're there.
Serious question.
If all online services did not leave tracking cookies/spyware/etc on your computer, would you be ok with all of the other data accumulation and trading that happened?
We keep assuming that it's our data. I'm not so sure it is.
Consider a different situation:
A woman has a baby. He grows up to be a famous actor. He doesn't want his birthday published because he believes there is age discrimination in Hollywood. His mom wants to write an autobiography. They each have a valid claim that the date in question is their own personal data.
If I google erectile dysfunction treatment, I think "My request for Google to bring me information on ED is my data," but Google thinks "That request I received for info about ED is my data." Obviously Google winds up with a freakishly gigantic amount of data, so our assumption seems natural, but I'm not 100% sure it's reasonable. Every search is transaction with at least two parties.
I hate and fear the data gathering. That's why I don't have a Facebook account, or Snapchat, Instagram, Pinterest, etc. I do search using Google, though, and I shop on Amazon sometimes, so I guess I don't hate it as much as I tell myself I do.
Well, I never said any part of the left is immune to this, so, thanks for overreacting. I said this particular bill was designed to pander to the Republicans in the base (although re-reading it I could have more accurately said "the conservative base.")
You want to know something funny? I was absolutely right! It was! Hahaha!
And you were so triggered you had to reply with some bluster about how that wasn't what it was, at all! And then accuse me of partisan bias! Haha! You're hilarious. I love it!
Thanks. I was in a bummed mood because of that shitshow around Linus Tech Tips, but your smug derpiness actually made me giggle.
Legalizing sex work between consenting adults will go farther to reduce it.
Yes, and if you say to most conservatives you can actually watch their blood pressure go up. Laws against prostitution are universally about controlling women's sexuality. 100%.
It seems like companies would be rushing to set up shop in a state with super low taxes. Is the problem high corporate taxes, or a lack of skilled workforce, or poor government services (infrastructure and the like), or what?
This bill is unlikely to ever pass. It looks like a bill to pander to the Republican base.
Literally nobody has voted for this yet. Or against it. Nobody.
Dear Universe,
Please let this happen. Please.
I also looked at about 30. I noticed that in almost every case the left eye was larger then the right. Also, the center two upper incisors were very different sizes in about half of the images.
So... that was weird. I guess.
Equilibrium is when disparate forces in a market reach a balance point, not when 'competitors' refuse to compete. The cereal problem you mentioned was a classic case of refusing to compete. FTC watched those guys for YEARS trying to catch them communicating.
An example of an equilibrium is when prices go low enough that it becomes uneconomical for some participants to stay in the market if prices go any lower, but there is also not enough profit in the market to entice any new entrant (who faces barriers to entry), so prices and market participants stabilize. This is usually a sign of strong competition.
The diagnostic symptom of a cartel (either communicating or not) is sellers making economic profits (as opposed to accounting profits) for a sustained period of time. Economic profits are profits after deducting opportunity costs. If it's more than one company, you are looking at a cartel. If it's only one company, you're looking at a monopoly.
The problem is that the barriers to entry are too low to ever let them really get groovy with the predatory pricing. Especially if they can't kill Lyft. Killing Lyft would bring close FTC scrutiny, so they might not even try.
I think the limiting factors on monopoly profits (in an unregulated market) are the size of the barriers to entry and the amount of money the customers have.
Clearly, the customers can afford much higher prices. They've been paying higher prices to taxi services for years.
Barriers to entry for a ridesharing service trying to compete with a monopoly provider (either Uber of Lyft, whichever wins) don't seem that high to me. They have to put together an app and then advertise the shit out of it. That seems doable in the age of venture capital.
Also, we don't live in an unregulated economy. The FTC considers a company to be a monopoly if they serve (I think?) 70% of their market Then they get extra scrutiny and prohibitions on anti-competitive behavior.
For these reasons, I agree that we are unlikely to see a true monopoly. I don't think Uber can kill Lyft. I think we wind up with a Microsoft/Apple situation, where the two companies differentiate by culture, and price follows. Many drivers already prefer Lyft because Lyft riders are more likely to tip than Uber riders.
Actually most rideshare drivers have both the Uber and Lyft apps running at the same time. When they accept a ping on one app they set the other to offline until the ride is complete so they can protect their acceptance rate. There is actually another app, called Mystro, that manages this process for you. It also allows the driver to set various preferences and automatically prioritize certain rides over others. Mystro is supposedly working to incorporate other gig services like Door Dash, Postmates, and Uber Eats.
lol! You mad, bro?
An IPO is the sale of newly created shares to the public. That's why the company makes money around an IPO: They are selling brand-new, freshly-created shares. Getting a bank to run the IPO, and crossing all of the i's and dotting all of the t's costs money and is apparently kind of a PITA.
This is conversion from closely-held to public. It changes the rules regarding sales of existing stock to outsiders. The current stock owners will now be able to sell their existing shares to anyone on an exchange. This means early investors get to cash out and move on to the next thing. Of course, it also means they have greater transparency requirements and increased reporting requirements to the SEC. This makes for larger auditing obligations. All of this increases the cost of doing business somewhat, but it seems like they are dong fine and can easily afford it.
I think most definitions of NN don't prohibit true QOS-based prioritization. NN is aimed at participant-based prioritization, which is all about market plays. QOS management is not a market play. Selling fast lanes to content providers and providing free prioritization or free bandwidth to in-house or partnered content providers are market plays (both potentially immensely profitable.)
Honestly, I can get pretty pissy about government overreach, but this isn't that.
The war on drugs was doomed to failure from inception because they were trying to legislate a morality that most Americans are ambivalent about or are actively in disagreement with. Over half of all Americans are (or were willing to be temporarily) on the illegal side of that war: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publ...
Consequently, the LEAs wound up in a game of whack-a-mole, where they arrest a dealer and a new one pops up in his place before he gets arraigned. And, as an ex-con, I'm here to tell you that they are good at arresting dealers. I met a lot of drug dealers inside. Of course, for a lot of cops, this is just job security, so they don't really mind.
NN is different because the number of offenders is vastly smaller and the violations are exponentially harder to hide (this is the problem with crimes that actually have victims). Additionally, because the network operators' money is actually already in the banking system, they have much more to lose.
As to whether we fare better behind NN regulation or NN law, I don't know. Legislation is probably less prone to abuse, but it is also much slower to respond to changing market conditions.
I have no opinion about the source of the orbital circularity, but the synchronous rotation and revolution of the moon are a predictable result of tidal force between the two bodies. It's the same force driving the moon farther from the Earth every year. Same reason mercury keeps the same face to the sun. Tides.
The cake is a lie.
It's about wasting time on trolls.
If the conversation doesn't mean enough to you to log in to a website, why does it mean enough to me to tell my story? Or, tell it AGAIN, really, because I've told it a couple of times on Slashdot.
Every time I post under my username, I give people an opportunity to mod me down and troll me. Not too much of a risk, right? But somehow it's still too much of a risk for you.
For me? I think the quality of the conversation goes up when people have an identity attached to their contributions, even a pseudonym. And I come to Slashdot for the comments, the meaningful exchange of ideas. So I encourage people to log in.
Storytime is not hard. Not after one question, not after a hundred questions. I'll tell ya almost anything you want to know about going to prison. Like I said, log in, and we'll talk about it.
Actually, I'm looking for commitment more than bravery.
Funny, coming from a coward. Log in and we'll talk about it.
I wish.
130 months for bank robbery, carjacking, and gun charges.