Everyone says musicians should be making their money from concerts. Ok.
An important point in this debate is that thanks to the accounting chicanery that goes on in the recording industry concerts are in fact about the only thing that musicians signed with major labels get paid to do. For a first-hand account, I suggest this bit: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
How long would it take then, for your slippery slope to play out? In telephone service, it's had 75 years. In Internet service, it's had the entire history of the Internet since before it was the Internet.
I don't understand how the existence of past regulation refutes my opposition to all regulation. Can you clarify?
I never said it did. I said it refuted your argument that net neutrality leads to governments forcing the favoring of one form of network traffic over another. If you want to oppose all government regulation because you believe in libertarianism, be my guest. I'm just saying that this particular argument is incorrect.
So is this a better way of expressing your argument? Net neutrality is government regulation of ISPs, and government regulation of ISPs causes abusive government regulation of ISPs.
If so, it's just as flawed, because ISPs and telecommunications have been under heavy government regulation under the FCC and DTIA since at least 1950. Net neutrality is the introduction of a new rule, but it's not like you can just start putting up telephone lines on public land or charging more for service in Peoria than New York City.
So the second step has had its conditions met, but the abusive regulation hasn't happened. Ergo, your argument doesn't hold.
This isn't net neutrality at all. This is a government agency requiring the exact opposite of net neutrality, namely the favoring of one kind of content over another. By the looks of things you're conflating "net neutrality" with "any government regulation of the Internet".
Does the Cuban model respect the patents on the pills?
Their health care system is geared towards reducing the need for pills: general practitioners in Cuba focus a lot of their efforts on preventative care, and also receive extensive training in herbal, nutritional, and behavioral solutions to health problems. This was started in large part out of necessity: Cuba simply can't afford a lot of pills, and hasn't had significant access to US goods since 1959.
So whether they respect the patent isn't really important, because they can't get the pill to copy in the first place. The reason the Cuban system is particularly relevant to discussions of Latin American health care is that many countries (notably Bolivia, Venezuela, and Brazil) have all made efforts to copy Cuba's methods.
Also, since we're talking about drugs here, the phrase "first hit is free" comes readily to mind.
Another factor here is that drug companies want Latin America in particular to develop medical systems dependent on their drugs, rather than trying to replicate the Cuban model which doesn't rely on US drug companies and still manages to get pretty good results. It's sort of like what Intel and MS did to the OLPC project.
It sounds like your subject line isn't quite right: what you actually meant to say was "lack of enforcement of US hospital procedures are also to blame", since we can guess (by the nurses' behavior) that hospital policy is to scrub, it just wasn't being enforced.
Actually, in my opinion the "gated community" metaphor fits perfectly: providing the illusion of security for a substantial sum without providing any actual benefit. It's not even giving up freedoms in return for safety, it's giving up freedoms in return for the illusion of safety.
Actually, when Kucinich was asked that exact question, his response which was not totally dissimilar to yours ("I saw something flying that I couldn't identify, and have no idea what it was") was still treated as a statement that he believed in extraterrestrials visiting Earth.
Yes, they do exist in the US. I'm talking about folks like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul: They very definitely stand for something, and don't compromise their principles. They're usually dismissed and ridiculed by "news" organizations.
For instance, no one would have asked Hillary Clinton during a debate if she'd seen a UFO. There's no good way to answer a question like that: if you say "no" all sorts of political hacks will try to prove that you did, and if you say "yes" you're treated like some sort of nut.
Recognition is good, but only if it turns into something more tangible in the reasonably near future, like:
- raises and/or bonuses
- good parking spaces and/or offices
- promotions
- professional development opportunities
If someone has a good idea, and makes it happen, make it worth their while to repeat that effort.
Especially when the claim is as ridiculous as this one.
There's a reason relational databases took over the world of databases: They provide a good combination of flexibility and structure to efficiently represent data. Which is what databases are supposed to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Real programmers use butterflies.
Everyone says musicians should be making their money from concerts. Ok.
An important point in this debate is that thanks to the accounting chicanery that goes on in the recording industry concerts are in fact about the only thing that musicians signed with major labels get paid to do. For a first-hand account, I suggest this bit:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
... if a cop pulls you over, you should pull over instead of fleeing.
To quote Chris Rock, "If the cops have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass-kicking with them."
My collective wisdom is that "crowdsourcing" is a stupid word, and I cringe every time I see it.
I disagree: It's not the word that's stupid, it's the people using the word.
How long would it take then, for your slippery slope to play out? In telephone service, it's had 75 years. In Internet service, it's had the entire history of the Internet since before it was the Internet.
I don't understand how the existence of past regulation refutes my opposition to all regulation. Can you clarify?
I never said it did. I said it refuted your argument that net neutrality leads to governments forcing the favoring of one form of network traffic over another. If you want to oppose all government regulation because you believe in libertarianism, be my guest. I'm just saying that this particular argument is incorrect.
So is this a better way of expressing your argument?
Net neutrality is government regulation of ISPs, and government regulation of ISPs causes abusive government regulation of ISPs.
If so, it's just as flawed, because ISPs and telecommunications have been under heavy government regulation under the FCC and DTIA since at least 1950. Net neutrality is the introduction of a new rule, but it's not like you can just start putting up telephone lines on public land or charging more for service in Peoria than New York City.
So the second step has had its conditions met, but the abusive regulation hasn't happened. Ergo, your argument doesn't hold.
This isn't net neutrality at all. This is a government agency requiring the exact opposite of net neutrality, namely the favoring of one kind of content over another. By the looks of things you're conflating "net neutrality" with "any government regulation of the Internet".
He more than had a "couple of goes at it": on his second attempt he succeeded in traveling from Morocco to Barbados.
Does the Cuban model respect the patents on the pills?
Their health care system is geared towards reducing the need for pills: general practitioners in Cuba focus a lot of their efforts on preventative care, and also receive extensive training in herbal, nutritional, and behavioral solutions to health problems. This was started in large part out of necessity: Cuba simply can't afford a lot of pills, and hasn't had significant access to US goods since 1959.
So whether they respect the patent isn't really important, because they can't get the pill to copy in the first place. The reason the Cuban system is particularly relevant to discussions of Latin American health care is that many countries (notably Bolivia, Venezuela, and Brazil) have all made efforts to copy Cuba's methods.
Also, since we're talking about drugs here, the phrase "first hit is free" comes readily to mind.
Another factor here is that drug companies want Latin America in particular to develop medical systems dependent on their drugs, rather than trying to replicate the Cuban model which doesn't rely on US drug companies and still manages to get pretty good results. It's sort of like what Intel and MS did to the OLPC project.
I'm thinking the appropriate response while watching it would be "Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!"
Why is it that I always think of this whenever I hear that line?
(No, it isn't Rick Astley)
with enough good wealth
Where did this requirement come in that the wealth had to be good? We support our own, even if their name is Madoff or Lay.
It sounds like your subject line isn't quite right: what you actually meant to say was "lack of enforcement of US hospital procedures are also to blame", since we can guess (by the nurses' behavior) that hospital policy is to scrub, it just wasn't being enforced.
Actually, in my opinion the "gated community" metaphor fits perfectly: providing the illusion of security for a substantial sum without providing any actual benefit. It's not even giving up freedoms in return for safety, it's giving up freedoms in return for the illusion of safety.
I"m also not thrilled with a committee deciding if I'm too old to get a particular treatment.
What if instead of a committee you have an insurance company who is looking for every excuse not to pay a claim make the same decision?
Or a really powerful Jedi. For all you Robot Chicken fans out there.
Actually, when Kucinich was asked that exact question, his response which was not totally dissimilar to yours ("I saw something flying that I couldn't identify, and have no idea what it was") was still treated as a statement that he believed in extraterrestrials visiting Earth.
Is there a single politician who won't be bought?
Yes, they do exist in the US. I'm talking about folks like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul: They very definitely stand for something, and don't compromise their principles. They're usually dismissed and ridiculed by "news" organizations.
For instance, no one would have asked Hillary Clinton during a debate if she'd seen a UFO. There's no good way to answer a question like that: if you say "no" all sorts of political hacks will try to prove that you did, and if you say "yes" you're treated like some sort of nut.
1) Pay "workers" for each suggestion.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will lead to workers submitting huge numbers of relatively worthless suggestions.
Recognition is good, but only if it turns into something more tangible in the reasonably near future, like:
- raises and/or bonuses
- good parking spaces and/or offices
- promotions
- professional development opportunities
If someone has a good idea, and makes it happen, make it worth their while to repeat that effort.
Especially when the claim is as ridiculous as this one.
There's a reason relational databases took over the world of databases: They provide a good combination of flexibility and structure to efficiently represent data. Which is what databases are supposed to do.
Did I sound convincing?
No but the public has been desensitized enough by bad acting they're used to seeing in MPAA movies that they'll believe it.
Whoa!
I wouldn't worry about it: we've used the word "Belgium" on this distinguished web forum on many occasions.