Shareholders are leeches and people like you are disgusting. Taking a bit less profit so that there'd be people who could afford to buy these sorts of things would grow the economy substantially
Average profit margins for corporations are about 7%; part of these are used for new investments, and the rest that actually provides a return to shareholders is taxed by federal and state government again. Investors are lucky to get a few percent profit on their investment. Lower that any further and it's not worth investing at all anymore, at which point you also don't get any jobs anymore.
but that's soshulizm.
No, it's not. It becomes socialism when ignorant people like you take over the government and turn the country into Venezuela.
That's neither how capitalism is supposed to work, nor is it how it works. Profit is a few percent on average: that's what corporations and shareholders actually get.
Collectively, the mob of Bitcoin users is no less greedy than the people who make up the established financial system.
The people "who make up the established financial system" are the people who profit massively from banking regulations and who hate free markets.
The difference is, the established system has to play by the rule of law
Yes, a corrupt law, designed to benefit politicians and their cronies in the financial system.
Bitcoin presently, does not.
Sadly, that's not true: Bitcoin is quite traceable and fairly easy to regulate. But people will keep trying and technology will improve.
It took a while for technology to start taking down the traditional media and the politicians they were in bed with. Banking and the politicians they are in bed with is next.
Bitcoin is being used to perpetuate the same shit which lead to banking regulations back in ye olden days.
i think a return to free markets is rather the point.
but for legitimate purposes, it's still a far bigger hassle than just using cash, your debit/credit card, Western Union, or PayPal.
All of those charge an arm and a leg, in particular for international transactions and currency exchanges. Bitcoin and similar currencies have the potential to reduce the kind of highway robbery financial institutions engage in. Of course, that's why their shills (hi there) hate it so much.
you dumb, brainwashed and over-propagandised yanks need to stop blaming government for fucking everything
Well, it's not surprising that that would be the opinion of someone whose entire education and media consumption has been controlled by government.
It's digital fucking tulips - something that has little or no actual value
Bitcoins are great for what they are intended to be: a medium of exchange, a more convenient way of transacting business than barter. You don't keep wealth around in cash in any currency because it's stupid: cash is not an investment.
This is what post-net-neutrality world is going to look like
If by "post net neutrality world" you mean a world post introduction of "net neutrality", then you're right: after all, the FCC taking control of the Internet is the first step towards imposing more arbitrary rules and taxes.
EU countries impose massive tax burdens relative to the rest of the world.
Actually, EU corporate taxes are generally lower than US corporate taxes. That's why US corporations keep their money overseas.
Excessive taxation, especially for how EU countries spend the money, is unjust.
European tax systems tend to me more fair: the European middle class, which receives most of the benefits from taxation, pays considerably higher taxes than the US middle class; that is, they pay what they use and balance their budgets.
The US middle class still deludes itself into believing that they can continue to get free stuff by taxing the wealthy and running up a massive debt.
Entrenched internet businesses like Netflix are lobbying against the changes because they won't like paying rent to the ISPs any more than the rest of us.
I have no doubt that you and most of the rest of Slashdot nerds want cheap Netflix streaming. But you don't represent "the rest of us", you represent a group of people with special interests.
Crony capitalism at it's purest.
Indeed, that is what net neutrality is.
Gives a bad name to the whole ideology.
"Capitalism" and "crony capitalism" are left wing terms intended to obfuscate and confuse people, often conflating "capitalism" with "business friendly". Just like other insulting terms, free market advocates have simply tried to own the term.
"The ideology" itself is classical free market liberalism. It has no place for cronyism or unjustified market interventions. American Democrats have become the antithesis of classical free market liberals (or any form of liberals for that matter).
It's harder politically being much closer to socialism.
Oh, it's harder politically alright, but not because it's "much closer to socialism" (it isn't). It's harder politically because both Silicon Valley mega corps and the ISPs hate it.
At the root of the problem is that local governments restrict who can operate as an ISP, for all sorts of reasons, some political, some nefarious. Imposing federal wire sharing laws is simply a fix to address that problem. Net neutrality isn't a consolation price, it's something that cements both the ISP and the Silicon Valley monopolists even harder into place.
We've had the "source code" (protocols) for a lot of forensic techniques that later turned out to be crap. We don't need the source code; nobody can tell from source code whether a forensic procedure actually works reliably. To determine that, you simply need to perform double blind testing and run a large number of control experiments with every forensic test. That's true for all forensic tests, not just TrueAllele.
Either way, you pay for the transit of data, so if youtube doesn't charge you, your isp does. Your ISP can easily elect (and frequently does) to have caps that mitigate bandwidth hogs. Youtube is not, for example, advantaged in cost over a cable companies situation
But streaming costs are not the same. By forcing companies to charge the same amount regardless of source, you're forcing them to subsidize one source from other sources.
The idea that the internet is some amorphous cloud that ISPs just plug into and suck data from indiscriminately is a fiction. The Internet is a complex transportation network with highly variable costs. Trying to impose costs that depend only on data volume is like trying to force trucking companies to charge only by the ton, regardless of origin, destination, delivery guarantees, or cargo type. Ton for ton, shipping caviar from Alaska to Florida is going to be more expensive than shipping scrap metal from Sacremento to Atlanta. Shipping groceries from a local warehouse to my home is going to be cheaper than shipping them from across the country.
It would be the opposite, the ISPs selecting the 3 or 4 'deodorant' brands that succeed, startups have even less of a hope of competing.
Net neutrality has been in effect for more than a dozen years, an eternity in Internet time. Far from leading to more diversity, the companies that are lobbying for net neutrality have become near monopolists in their respective markets under these rules. That's why these companies are lobbying for them. And under the same rules, ISPs have also consolidated to the point where there are only a few providers in each market. This is the predictable effect of net neutrality.
Yes, ISPs can arbitrarily select products to offer and deny to their customers. That's how middlemen in a free market work. It's what leads to market differentiation, competition, and an end of monopolies. That's why we have not just one generic supermarket, but dollar stores, Walmarts, Korean convenience stores, Whole Foods, and Draegers serving the same market.
The problem here is in a micro scale, a plan can look like it's good for the consumer. In the macro scale, it means the customer is denied a competitor that may ultimately deliver a better experience.
The problem here is that you are thinking like a typical central planner: you think you know better than markets and consumers what products should be offered, you want to use laws to impose your vision, and you don't care if people get hurt in the process because you are firmly convinced that "in the macro scale" people are better off. Of course, what you're really doing isn't creating products that work well "in the macro scale" (you have no idea what Average American in Anytown actually wants), what you are really doing is using the law to subsidize the kinds of products you like, and you simply assume that everybody else must like the same things.
Hint: The winner is Verizon et al, and the loser is nearly everyone else
Hint: imposing net neutrality ensures that Google, Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, and a few other big companies that are lobbying for this will be permanently enshrined as near monopolies in their respective markets. That's why these corporations are lobbying for net neutrality.
The idea that a handful of gigantic, wealthy corporations are lobbying to impose regulations that will help others compete with them, as you argue, is ludicrous.
Somehow I don't think India's stance on net neutrality contributes to the high overall level of corruption in their government, or any of the other things you mentioned.
That's because you are buying into Google et al.'s lobbying bullshit and don't recognize "net neutrality" for what it is: rent seeking, regulatory overreach, and the groundwork for future government restrictions on speech on the Internet.
Do you seriously want to argue that putting the organization that gave us prohibitions on seven dirty words in charge of the Internet is a good idea?
India gets it right where an Indian origin American doesn't.
India is a poverty stricken, extremely corrupt, socialist-leaning country. Those three attributes are related.
Of course, socialist-leaning Americans would think "India gets it right" when India promotes policies that agree with their ideologies, but the results speak for themselves.
India's telecom regulator has made recommendations to ensure an open internet in the country and prevent any discrimination in internet access in a long-awaited report (PDF), after debating the issue of net neutrality for more than a year.
I can't think of a better recommendation for repealing net neutrality.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell whether you are a bad advocate for free markets or merely a leftist agent provocateur. Either way: knock it off.
Average profit margins for corporations are about 7%; part of these are used for new investments, and the rest that actually provides a return to shareholders is taxed by federal and state government again. Investors are lucky to get a few percent profit on their investment. Lower that any further and it's not worth investing at all anymore, at which point you also don't get any jobs anymore.
No, it's not. It becomes socialism when ignorant people like you take over the government and turn the country into Venezuela.
That's neither how capitalism is supposed to work, nor is it how it works. Profit is a few percent on average: that's what corporations and shareholders actually get.
They don't charge for coffee, they charge for location.
The people "who make up the established financial system" are the people who profit massively from banking regulations and who hate free markets.
Yes, a corrupt law, designed to benefit politicians and their cronies in the financial system.
Sadly, that's not true: Bitcoin is quite traceable and fairly easy to regulate. But people will keep trying and technology will improve.
It took a while for technology to start taking down the traditional media and the politicians they were in bed with. Banking and the politicians they are in bed with is next.
i think a return to free markets is rather the point.
If you're a big Democratic donor, "it" is not criminal, for pretty much any value of "it".
All of those charge an arm and a leg, in particular for international transactions and currency exchanges. Bitcoin and similar currencies have the potential to reduce the kind of highway robbery financial institutions engage in. Of course, that's why their shills (hi there) hate it so much.
Well, it's not surprising that that would be the opinion of someone whose entire education and media consumption has been controlled by government.
Bitcoins are great for what they are intended to be: a medium of exchange, a more convenient way of transacting business than barter. You don't keep wealth around in cash in any currency because it's stupid: cash is not an investment.
If by "post net neutrality world" you mean a world post introduction of "net neutrality", then you're right: after all, the FCC taking control of the Internet is the first step towards imposing more arbitrary rules and taxes.
Actually, EU corporate taxes are generally lower than US corporate taxes. That's why US corporations keep their money overseas.
European tax systems tend to me more fair: the European middle class, which receives most of the benefits from taxation, pays considerably higher taxes than the US middle class; that is, they pay what they use and balance their budgets.
The US middle class still deludes itself into believing that they can continue to get free stuff by taxing the wealthy and running up a massive debt.
Ah, appeal to authority! The foundation of all science!
(That was sarcasm in case you didn't notice.)
Gasoline is already highly taxed.
THEREFORE... looking at the source code doesn't give you the information we need, namely whether we can trust the procedure.
The information we need we get by double blind testing, namely an estimate of the error rates of the procedure in practice.
I have no doubt that you and most of the rest of Slashdot nerds want cheap Netflix streaming. But you don't represent "the rest of us", you represent a group of people with special interests.
Indeed, that is what net neutrality is.
"Capitalism" and "crony capitalism" are left wing terms intended to obfuscate and confuse people, often conflating "capitalism" with "business friendly". Just like other insulting terms, free market advocates have simply tried to own the term.
"The ideology" itself is classical free market liberalism. It has no place for cronyism or unjustified market interventions. American Democrats have become the antithesis of classical free market liberals (or any form of liberals for that matter).
In practice, you can also work for your Bitcoin. There aren't a lot of jobs yet that pay in Bitcoin, but more will likely be coming:
https://www.google.com/search?...
And, yeah, this will likely be used a lot by people wanting to avoid income tax. Why should people in Italy, Germany, and France have all the fun?
So, "the weak points" are not the "exchanges", they are businesses that deliver.
There are plenty of products and delivery options that do not involve giving out your physical address.
You do work, you get paid in Bitcoin.
You spend Bitcoin at a store, you get products.
Where exactly is "currency" involved, other than Bitcoin itself?
Incorrect. If you earn bitcoin and spend bitcoin, you never need to exchange anything.
Oh, it's harder politically alright, but not because it's "much closer to socialism" (it isn't). It's harder politically because both Silicon Valley mega corps and the ISPs hate it.
At the root of the problem is that local governments restrict who can operate as an ISP, for all sorts of reasons, some political, some nefarious. Imposing federal wire sharing laws is simply a fix to address that problem. Net neutrality isn't a consolation price, it's something that cements both the ISP and the Silicon Valley monopolists even harder into place.
We've had the "source code" (protocols) for a lot of forensic techniques that later turned out to be crap. We don't need the source code; nobody can tell from source code whether a forensic procedure actually works reliably. To determine that, you simply need to perform double blind testing and run a large number of control experiments with every forensic test. That's true for all forensic tests, not just TrueAllele.
So let's advocate for that, then.
But streaming costs are not the same. By forcing companies to charge the same amount regardless of source, you're forcing them to subsidize one source from other sources.
The idea that the internet is some amorphous cloud that ISPs just plug into and suck data from indiscriminately is a fiction. The Internet is a complex transportation network with highly variable costs. Trying to impose costs that depend only on data volume is like trying to force trucking companies to charge only by the ton, regardless of origin, destination, delivery guarantees, or cargo type. Ton for ton, shipping caviar from Alaska to Florida is going to be more expensive than shipping scrap metal from Sacremento to Atlanta. Shipping groceries from a local warehouse to my home is going to be cheaper than shipping them from across the country.
Net neutrality has been in effect for more than a dozen years, an eternity in Internet time. Far from leading to more diversity, the companies that are lobbying for net neutrality have become near monopolists in their respective markets under these rules. That's why these companies are lobbying for them. And under the same rules, ISPs have also consolidated to the point where there are only a few providers in each market. This is the predictable effect of net neutrality.
Yes, ISPs can arbitrarily select products to offer and deny to their customers. That's how middlemen in a free market work. It's what leads to market differentiation, competition, and an end of monopolies. That's why we have not just one generic supermarket, but dollar stores, Walmarts, Korean convenience stores, Whole Foods, and Draegers serving the same market.
The problem here is that you are thinking like a typical central planner: you think you know better than markets and consumers what products should be offered, you want to use laws to impose your vision, and you don't care if people get hurt in the process because you are firmly convinced that "in the macro scale" people are better off. Of course, what you're really doing isn't creating products that work well "in the macro scale" (you have no idea what Average American in Anytown actually wants), what you are really doing is using the law to subsidize the kinds of products you like, and you simply assume that everybody else must like the same things.
Hint: imposing net neutrality ensures that Google, Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, and a few other big companies that are lobbying for this will be permanently enshrined as near monopolies in their respective markets. That's why these corporations are lobbying for net neutrality.
The idea that a handful of gigantic, wealthy corporations are lobbying to impose regulations that will help others compete with them, as you argue, is ludicrous.
That's because you are buying into Google et al.'s lobbying bullshit and don't recognize "net neutrality" for what it is: rent seeking, regulatory overreach, and the groundwork for future government restrictions on speech on the Internet.
Do you seriously want to argue that putting the organization that gave us prohibitions on seven dirty words in charge of the Internet is a good idea?
India is a poverty stricken, extremely corrupt, socialist-leaning country. Those three attributes are related.
Of course, socialist-leaning Americans would think "India gets it right" when India promotes policies that agree with their ideologies, but the results speak for themselves.
I can't think of a better recommendation for repealing net neutrality.