It is also effective in oligarchies, guilds or any environment of high level of cooperation and coordination among any industry leader considered to large to fail.
The first emphasized phrase is talking about monopolies - or rather, of cartels colluding to create effective monopolies - which is covered under antitrust in much the same way as a single-company monopoly is. The second emphasized phrase is meaningless outside of government bail-outs - if a company is "too big to fail", the only entity that can do anything about it when it starts failing is the government.
I'm not arguing over blanket deregulation - although I think there are industries, or sectors of industries, that are terrible over-regulated at the moment; both in negative ways (regulatory restrictions) and positive (regulatory bail-outs, exemptions, grants, etc). I'm arguing that, in a competitive (ie. non-monopolistic) marketplace, free speech does not need to be enforced.
If a significant number of people that refuse to patronise companies that restrict their speech, then an unserved market segment comes into existence. One of their competitors - or a new entrant into the market - will address that segment. It's money just waiting to be taken by anyone willing to cater to them. Contrariwise, if people don't care about free speech, then they don't get it. It's democracy in action.
Sadly, the only reason Comcast could get away with that is because it's in a monopoly position. If there was actual competition in the telco space, anyone who cared about that issue could kick them to the curb - and nobody's free speech would be impinged. Hopefully, enough people would care, and the telco would go under.
We only really need to care about government censorship, because that's the only sort that we can't just avoid (and kill off in the process). That also extends to government-endorsed monopolies.
I think you might be conflating two books; in Snow Crash, there was still definitely physical currency. A memo was forwarded around the US Government, instructing not to use US Currency as toilet paper, and YT pays drug dealers for Snow Crash in physical Kong Bucks.
Examples? Had a quick look, but didn't see any examples of Google suing for patent violation. All I could find were articles about Google being sued, or Google suing to overturn other companies' patents.
Isn't that the case for anyone who owns a copyright? They can publish books, but anyone else who tries it gets slapped down? One law for the copyright holders, one law for everyone else...
Google was essentially trying to bulk-buy limited distribution rights. The problem with this is that the vendor (the Author's Guild) doesn't actually represent all those rights holders.
But still necessary. If you want change, you need to change the system. Preventing companies from taking up defensive patents just means they're more likely to get sued. The problem's not with Google's behaviour, it's with the system that requires that behaviour.
Well of course not; we're never really certain about designs until they're put into practice, and frequently not even then.
What I was arguing about was the GPs assertion that reactor design is only driven by our mistakes; that after this disaster we'll design for cooling failure, but not before. That's incorrect - we've designed (or attempted to design) for precisely this sort of disaster for decades. Our designs may not be perfect, but they show an awareness of the problem driven by something other than hindsight.
The thing is, even prior to this disaster we had designs that would have safeguarded against it (Pebble Bed Reactors aren't new). It just cost too much to tear down the old ones and build nice safe ones. Well, now we have a nice, big example to point to of why fiscal conservativeness is not always the most effective long-term strategy.
And Americans are US citizens, while Indians* are not. The US government should be looking out for its citizens, not Indian citizens; that's what the Indian government is for.
* apart from migrants who've naturalized, which is no what what this article is about
I guess it depends. In many societies, there was a glut of unmarried women - men having a much higher mortality rate due to general risk-taking behaviour, and of course, war. The mortality rates changed post-marriage, when women's mortality rates jumped due to childbirth.
I'm not a US resident myself, but when I got married in Australia, I had to sign a statutory declaration prior to the wedding itself. It wasn't requested by the church, it was required by the state. I assume that it's similar in the US.
Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.
And monogamy has a long history outside of Judeo-Christian writings. In general, societies enforced monogamy because otherwise men would marry a whole bunch of women, have a whole bunch of kids with them, be unable to support them, kick the mothers out, and carry on with the younger girls. You could argue that with mandated child support, and women in the workforce we've outgrown the need for that, but ask any single parent and they'll tell you it's much harder solo.
You really should actually investigate things instead of just dumping everything on the scapegoat of the moment.
Actually, concubinage isn't really that different from marriage. The difference was just that concubines, unlike wives, didn't bring a dowry into the relationship. Most societies that permitted multiple concubines also permitted multiple wives. It was just easier to attract multiple concubines, as they were generally poorer women who lacked the options available to dowered girls.
Yeah, the cable TV company also doesn't sell you bandwidth. I know a lot of US companies provide ostensibly "unlimited" plans, but the rest of the world tends to have ISPs that charge you on the basis of how much bandwidth you consume. Even the US is shifting that way, from what I read on slashdot.
If suddenly its users can't browse porn, the ISP loses money (its selling less GB). Cable TV and ISPs have different setups. I think the problem, rather than worrying about a theoretical "slippery slope", is better addressed by ensuring that internet access is unfiltered. I mean, the situation you describe can be done with or without a.xxx domain - and is. I know plenty of ISPs that offer free, kid-safe filtering opt-in on their connections (although it's a best-effort, not a guarantee, obviously).
And no, it's not "where". You're being told what arbitrary designation you're allowed to apply to your forum -.com vs.xxx. "Locations" on the web are just analogies. It's not like a geographical location in meatspace. It's just a mapping of characters to IP addresses.
Uh-huh, because race and wanting to put up a pornographic website is an oranges to oranges comparison, right? Maybe you should sue ICANN over.mil and racial discrimination?
I see. You'd rather see bulk-buying restricted to large companies, who add their own markup and then hock it off to consumers. Groupon et al do nothing more than cut out the middle-man, a concept that the internet has applied succesfully to everything from music production to news reporting.
Slashdot Mirror
It is also effective in oligarchies, guilds or any environment of high level of cooperation and coordination among any industry leader considered to large to fail.
The first emphasized phrase is talking about monopolies - or rather, of cartels colluding to create effective monopolies - which is covered under antitrust in much the same way as a single-company monopoly is. The second emphasized phrase is meaningless outside of government bail-outs - if a company is "too big to fail", the only entity that can do anything about it when it starts failing is the government.
I'm not arguing over blanket deregulation - although I think there are industries, or sectors of industries, that are terrible over-regulated at the moment; both in negative ways (regulatory restrictions) and positive (regulatory bail-outs, exemptions, grants, etc). I'm arguing that, in a competitive (ie. non-monopolistic) marketplace, free speech does not need to be enforced.
If a significant number of people that refuse to patronise companies that restrict their speech, then an unserved market segment comes into existence. One of their competitors - or a new entrant into the market - will address that segment. It's money just waiting to be taken by anyone willing to cater to them. Contrariwise, if people don't care about free speech, then they don't get it. It's democracy in action.
Yes, because advocating killing off corporations by oxygen starvation is sucking their cock. Truly you have a dazzling intellect.
Sadly, the only reason Comcast could get away with that is because it's in a monopoly position. If there was actual competition in the telco space, anyone who cared about that issue could kick them to the curb - and nobody's free speech would be impinged. Hopefully, enough people would care, and the telco would go under.
We only really need to care about government censorship, because that's the only sort that we can't just avoid (and kill off in the process). That also extends to government-endorsed monopolies.
I think you might be conflating two books; in Snow Crash, there was still definitely physical currency. A memo was forwarded around the US Government, instructing not to use US Currency as toilet paper, and YT pays drug dealers for Snow Crash in physical Kong Bucks.
Examples? Had a quick look, but didn't see any examples of Google suing for patent violation. All I could find were articles about Google being sued, or Google suing to overturn other companies' patents.
Isn't that the case for anyone who owns a copyright? They can publish books, but anyone else who tries it gets slapped down? One law for the copyright holders, one law for everyone else...
Google was essentially trying to bulk-buy limited distribution rights. The problem with this is that the vendor (the Author's Guild) doesn't actually represent all those rights holders.
But still necessary. If you want change, you need to change the system. Preventing companies from taking up defensive patents just means they're more likely to get sued. The problem's not with Google's behaviour, it's with the system that requires that behaviour.
Strawman. Nobody ever claimed it was altruistic. OP claimed it was defensive.
In the US, maybe. In Japan, their most recent reactor was opened in Dec, 2009 (Tomari-3). It's a PWR.
My point about fiscal conservativeness isn't limited to the nuclear industry, though. It's endemic.
Well of course not; we're never really certain about designs until they're put into practice, and frequently not even then.
What I was arguing about was the GPs assertion that reactor design is only driven by our mistakes; that after this disaster we'll design for cooling failure, but not before. That's incorrect - we've designed (or attempted to design) for precisely this sort of disaster for decades. Our designs may not be perfect, but they show an awareness of the problem driven by something other than hindsight.
Like it's ever stopped us getting games before. Anyway, we should be putting that behind us real soon now.
I thought the trademark was "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows"
The thing is, even prior to this disaster we had designs that would have safeguarded against it (Pebble Bed Reactors aren't new). It just cost too much to tear down the old ones and build nice safe ones. Well, now we have a nice, big example to point to of why fiscal conservativeness is not always the most effective long-term strategy.
And Americans are US citizens, while Indians* are not. The US government should be looking out for its citizens, not Indian citizens; that's what the Indian government is for.
* apart from migrants who've naturalized, which is no what what this article is about
No, it was related to why society would want to discourage it - ie. make it illegal
I guess it depends. In many societies, there was a glut of unmarried women - men having a much higher mortality rate due to general risk-taking behaviour, and of course, war. The mortality rates changed post-marriage, when women's mortality rates jumped due to childbirth.
Well, if you ignore the rest of my post in which I address that, yes.
I'm not a US resident myself, but when I got married in Australia, I had to sign a statutory declaration prior to the wedding itself. It wasn't requested by the church, it was required by the state. I assume that it's similar in the US.
Perjury probably. One of the things you're asked to swear to when you get married is that you're not married to anyone else.
And monogamy has a long history outside of Judeo-Christian writings. In general, societies enforced monogamy because otherwise men would marry a whole bunch of women, have a whole bunch of kids with them, be unable to support them, kick the mothers out, and carry on with the younger girls. You could argue that with mandated child support, and women in the workforce we've outgrown the need for that, but ask any single parent and they'll tell you it's much harder solo.
You really should actually investigate things instead of just dumping everything on the scapegoat of the moment.
Actually, concubinage isn't really that different from marriage. The difference was just that concubines, unlike wives, didn't bring a dowry into the relationship. Most societies that permitted multiple concubines also permitted multiple wives. It was just easier to attract multiple concubines, as they were generally poorer women who lacked the options available to dowered girls.
Yeah, the cable TV company also doesn't sell you bandwidth. I know a lot of US companies provide ostensibly "unlimited" plans, but the rest of the world tends to have ISPs that charge you on the basis of how much bandwidth you consume. Even the US is shifting that way, from what I read on slashdot.
If suddenly its users can't browse porn, the ISP loses money (its selling less GB). Cable TV and ISPs have different setups. I think the problem, rather than worrying about a theoretical "slippery slope", is better addressed by ensuring that internet access is unfiltered. I mean, the situation you describe can be done with or without a .xxx domain - and is. I know plenty of ISPs that offer free, kid-safe filtering opt-in on their connections (although it's a best-effort, not a guarantee, obviously).
Simulated/Animated Violence != Real Violence
Porn = Real Sex
I mean, it's not realistic sex, but it is actual intercourse taking place.
Their TLDs - their forums.
And no, it's not "where". You're being told what arbitrary designation you're allowed to apply to your forum - .com vs .xxx. "Locations" on the web are just analogies. It's not like a geographical location in meatspace. It's just a mapping of characters to IP addresses.
Uh-huh, because race and wanting to put up a pornographic website is an oranges to oranges comparison, right? Maybe you should sue ICANN over .mil and racial discrimination?
I see. You'd rather see bulk-buying restricted to large companies, who add their own markup and then hock it off to consumers. Groupon et al do nothing more than cut out the middle-man, a concept that the internet has applied succesfully to everything from music production to news reporting.