Its just that they call it by another name, "The Stock Market". The best part is its not even rigged in favor of the house!
In poker, the money is mostly traded between the players. The losers pay the winner. The house takes a rake on each pot to pay for the dealer and facilities, and usually the small blind to pay for jackpots.
Compare this to the stock market where the losers pay the winners, and the trading house takes a rake, I mean "sales fee", on each sale. I'd say that the stock market is rigged for the house to the same extent that poker is.
btw - What are the odds that Trump wants a piece of this action?
Not only because it's gambling we're talking about and we all know how bad humans are at figuring odds,
Some are, some aren't. Some are good enough that they succeed as full-time professionals. Some are so bad that they might as well just toss the money on the table and walk away. But it is entertainment, and those who want to do it should be allowed.
Some people are terrible at controlling their consumption of alcohol. Do we ban alcohol to protect them from themselves, meanwhile denying it to those who have no problem? Been there, done that, failed.
but they're also hinting in the blurb that it involves further exploiting the already exploited.
I don't see that in "the blurb". Where is the exploitation?
I'm going to GUESS that you mean the reference to the American Indians. Other than using an old name, how does this say he's exploiting them? I see that as saying that he's using the same laws that allow gambling operations run by Native Americans.
In case you weren't aware, these gambling operations are a huge source of revenue for the Native American community. They rake in money and get a lot of jobs for their people. One local tribe that has a thriving casino also has a section set aside showing the benefits that come to the tribe from that casino.
No, casino operation is not a way that Native Americans are being exploited.
You used ad hominem, which is not "a shorthand" for anything but insult, Mr. Weasel. And you are the best at it. See, I can use "a shorthand", too. Productive, yes? Moves the discussion right along, keeps a civil tone and happiness for all involved, yes?
I thought you'd understand that we're not comparing football teams here.
Except for the fact that the original comment in this thread was about two sports teams competing, I'd agree.
I believe that currently every ISP has to build their own stadium, no sharing allowed.
You also believe that ad hominem is "a shorthand" to make a point. ISPs don't have "stadiums", and sharing depends on the distribution medium and contractual agreements. It is not prohibited by law. I'd say that if you build something for your use, you do have some say in whether other people can come in and use it for their profit. Can I "share" your garage so I can run my auto repair business without having to build my own? Can I get the government to force you to share with me? Cool.
I've looked at history, and the harm done by monopolies is never offset by the benefits.
I didn't say it did, but I'll point out that "the harm" is in the eye of the beholder. For example, while the "harm" of the AT&T monopoly on LD was higher prices (which you only paid if you made a lot of LD phone calls, so wasn't a universal harm) the benefit of having one place to call when your phone service (even LD) failed was very large. I can remember after divestiture trying to get a problem fixed and the local carrier claimed it was the LD company problem, the LD company claimed it was the local carrier, and it never really got fixed. Pre? Call "the phone company" and it was their problem.
You claimed it didn't happen. I pointed out that it did. Whether it is fast or slow depends on the perceived benefit of funding it. If there isn't much problem with "the monopoly", then there isn't much impetus to fund technological solutions and they are slow to come about. The fact that you claim they aren't "fast enough" contradicts your claim about the harm. If there is a market, because there are people who think they are being harmed and want a better solution, then someone will work on the problem.
I've been over this a million times with libertarians
Libertarians are a monopoly that needs a technology solution?
Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
Will the camera be able to detect the radar jammer I have that tells the car it is about to hit a brick wall?
With all the ads for "brake assist" cars where they stop all by themselves when about to hit something or someone, I'm truly surprised I haven't see DIY projects for such a jammer. Imagine the fun on a superhighway when someone ahead of you points it back towards your car and it decides to stop right now in the middle of the highway. Or stands on the street corner on a busy city street with one of these.
Back in the day when the AI in the car was human, and radar detectors were ubiquitous, it was a real hoot to have a simple 9V battery, switch, and old microwave door sensor. You could see someone zip past you doing 20 over, push the button, and watch his taillights come on. You'd pass him, then ten minutes later the process would repeat.
Surely there are people who have reverse engineered the signals that are being used to control the brake assist systems and come up with a modern "brake light tester".
Only the law and corporate morality (the cost of being found out) stop them from colluding to keep prices high.
You are alleging malice here. Who is the Denver Broncos, e.g., colluding with when they set their ticket prices? It's not like their customers are going to run off and buy Green Bay Packer tickets because they are cheaper. Green Bay and Denver don't have to get together to decide that they need to keep both prices high, they just both look at ticket sales and see that they have a product that the demand supports a high price for.
It's a BS argument, of course, but I think a lot of them really believe it.
When you look at history, you would.
When cable companies actually did have government-granted monopolies, eventually the technology for satellite video distribution was improved to create competition. That competition still exists. In fact, it has gotten more intense using Internet streaming video services.
Even though cable television systems had pre-built infrastructure that they could leverage into ISP service, other companies using other delivery systems came into existence to compete.
Even before the AT&T divestiture and long distance breakup, technology came into play to allow multiple other long distance services to operate. MCI, Sprint, and a plethora of other LD services sprang up to compete.
The electric company monopoly on providing electrons to the people has fallen to technological advances that allow other providers to sell their electricity to the consumer.
These are all examples of natural monopolies that have fallen to technology. Why wouldn't you believe it?
The fact that Wills don't get recorded and sent out to the involved parties automatically means that we haven't progressed beyond the 1700s.
No, that means that we still value, even just a bit, the privacy and the intentions of the person who writes the will, instead of micromanaging the process.
If the author of a will wishes to tell everyone in the will about it, he can already do that. If he wishes to avoid hurt feelings and arguments amongst the beneficiaries by not telling them ahead of time, he can do that, too.
Who someone tells about being in a will is a right that belongs to the individual, not the state. The state has no overriding compelling interest to mandate it, nor any excuse to tax the living to pay for a failure to act upon the part of the dead.
This is a case where bringing in a bit of modern technology, like recording documents, would save a lot of time and trouble with the added benefit of giving lawyers the shaft.
Now I know you're kidding. Any law that mandates the creation of a will, official recording, and dissemination to all beneficiaries, will be written by lawyers and will thus mandate the use of lawyers to accomplish. By "the shaft" I can only assume you mean "lots of money".
Wondering why they call it a marriage license... I mean... if it is not going to expire...
"License" does not imply "expire". In the US, pilot's licenses do not expire. The FCC General Radio Telephone Operator permit (a license) does not expire, nor does, IIRC, the commercial General Radio Operators License (GROL).
in my Business Law class much time was spent on the significance of offers and counteroffers actually being sent to be admissible and enforceable.
This was not an offer or counteroffer. Those need to be communicated to be enforceable because there is an expectation on the part of the recipient created by receiving that offer. If it is not sent, there is no expectation, and thus no breach of implied contract.
The act of mailing/sending puts a "finished" stamp on the communication that makes it one's official communication.
A will is not an 'official communication'. It is valid when it is written, even if the beneficiaries are never told about it before the death. Where you write it is irrelevant. I could write it on the back of an envelope and store it away in a safety deposit box where nobody else has ever seen it, it is still valid.
If this could stand, a person could go back and reference past auto-saved versions of a document.
No, because this was the last version. When you have different previous versions, they become invalid when the current version is created. Yes, you can 'reference' them, but they are meaningless since they were preempted by the last version.
There has to be a marker that says "The version is complete" and a draft document simply doesn't have that.
There is no document that post-dates it; therefore it is the final version.
I guess the take-away from this is that you don't write wills that you don't intend to be used.
Hey, when I tell a waiter that "this knife is dirty, I want another", I sure as heck expect him to be snappy in getting me a clean one. That makes him a blade runner, too.
"As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city," That is as close to an outright lie as you can get.. Rural populations get confused easily.
Yeah, us hicks in the sticks is just dumb fucks soaking it up at the public trough.
Your bias is clear and unshakable, so I'll just stop trying to educate you.
If you have a government-granted monopoly in cable service
The only reason it is a monopoly is because nobody else has applied for a franchise.
If you don't want a public utilities commission overseeing your operations, then you must give up the government-granted monopoly.
They can't give up what they don't have, and they can't force other companies to come compete with them.
Nobody would claim that Walmart is a government-granted monopoly, but if nobody chooses to compete against them in a market there is no way to force anyone to.
costs for package delivery are twice as expensive in the sticks.
"Package delivery" is not infrastructure. Roads and electricity and water are infrastructure. A dirt road costs a lot less than a four lane city street. Above-ground wires cost less both in hardware and in easement costs. Water is not an infrastructure cost at all in the sticks.
There is article after article after article, all indicating that costs per person are MASSIVLY higher in the sticks and the communities and their people are a net economic drain.
As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city, I know the opposite is true. But but but city folks subsidize things like phone service. Say that again after you learn that we had to pay to install the phone wire from the closest aggregation point to our demarc and I'll laugh at you.
The sticks are a huge albatrosses on American society
We'll stop sending you the food that is grown "in the sticks" and let all you city folks live off your community gardens, then, shall we? Or will you survive on Soylent Green?
You can force companies to come and compete by 1) forcing any isp that used public funds to lay cable/fiber to allow competition
Since the franchise is not exclusive, this is already true.
2) remove laws banning government installations and allow cities to install cable/fiber and then allow competition.
These laws were made by elected representatives. Your issue is not with the ISPs.
Basically just remove the monopolies that currently exist.
The monopolies that currently exist are not legal ones but economic. Your step 1 does not solve the economic issues, and step 2 does so at the expense of the taxpayer.
I live in an area with millions of people the vast majority of which have exactly 1 choice of high speed internet, Comcast. That should Never have happened.
Comcast was never granted a monopoly as an ISP, so if it is one today then it wasn't for legal reasons. What is stopping a competitor? The cost. Solving the cost issue should not require the taxpayers footing the bill.
They simply are not economically viable due to a lack of economics of scale for their infrastructure.
Their infrastructure is also a lot cheaper to install and maintain. It is a good exchange.
If anything, I'd have said that the cities are going to go away as the high cost of infrastructure maintenance and increasing demands of larger populations will cause the system to crash.
This statement is simply false, it is a regulated public utility.
clearly you did not bother to RTFM
The entire story is about Comcast trying to fight a requirement put upon it by the public regulation during a franchise (regulatory) renewal, which it would not have to do were it already unregulated. Who didn't RTFM?
As in municipalities can't build their own infrastructure, nor is anyone else allowed to compete.
Exclusive franchises have been illegal in the US for almost two decades.
Can't let the socialists win by breaking up monopolies
The only way to force competition in a market is to force a second company to come provide service. You can break Comcast up into 1000 tiny cable companies, but that won't change the costs of a second company entering any of those markets.
And there is no monopoly on ISPs. Never has been. The only pre-existingd dejure monopoly situation was cable -- not the Internet. When you talk about paying triple for 1/4 the speed, you're talking the already non-monopoly ISP business.
T-Mobile USA's $3 per month pay-as-you-go plan includes 30 minutes or texts per month,
So they don't charge per text for the first thirty. Solution: if you have such a limited plan, don't sign up for a service that uses texts as a means of communicating. "I choose limited" means you've chosen limited.
Some home ISPs' pricing plan provides a landline at negligible or no extra charge: Internet with TV and Internet with voice cost about the same as Internet alone.
I hate to tell you, but VoIP is not "landline".
a mobile phone on a sub-$10/mo pay-as-you-go plan for urgent calls,
Yes, you can find "nickle and dime you to death" plans, but choosing poorly is still a choice.
For example, an article about the recent Las Vegas shooting would have links embedded that explain what bump stocks are and why they need to be banned.
Yes, modern media would completely ignore any arguments why banning them would not solve the problem. Just tell us they should be banned and we'll pick up the baton and lead the chorus.
This is good journalism
Presenting one side of a constitutional argument is always "good journalism" -- for one side of the argument.
Minus that bump stocks haven't been banned yet, I fail to see any problem here.
Slashdot Mirror
Its just that they call it by another name, "The Stock Market". The best part is its not even rigged in favor of the house!
In poker, the money is mostly traded between the players. The losers pay the winner. The house takes a rake on each pot to pay for the dealer and facilities, and usually the small blind to pay for jackpots.
Compare this to the stock market where the losers pay the winners, and the trading house takes a rake, I mean "sales fee", on each sale. I'd say that the stock market is rigged for the house to the same extent that poker is.
btw - What are the odds that Trump wants a piece of this action?
Zero. But nice try at making this a Trump rant.
Not only because it's gambling we're talking about and we all know how bad humans are at figuring odds,
Some are, some aren't. Some are good enough that they succeed as full-time professionals. Some are so bad that they might as well just toss the money on the table and walk away. But it is entertainment, and those who want to do it should be allowed.
Some people are terrible at controlling their consumption of alcohol. Do we ban alcohol to protect them from themselves, meanwhile denying it to those who have no problem? Been there, done that, failed.
but they're also hinting in the blurb that it involves further exploiting the already exploited.
I don't see that in "the blurb". Where is the exploitation? I'm going to GUESS that you mean the reference to the American Indians. Other than using an old name, how does this say he's exploiting them? I see that as saying that he's using the same laws that allow gambling operations run by Native Americans.
In case you weren't aware, these gambling operations are a huge source of revenue for the Native American community. They rake in money and get a lot of jobs for their people. One local tribe that has a thriving casino also has a section set aside showing the benefits that come to the tribe from that casino.
No, casino operation is not a way that Native Americans are being exploited.
I used a shorthand
You used ad hominem, which is not "a shorthand" for anything but insult, Mr. Weasel. And you are the best at it. See, I can use "a shorthand", too. Productive, yes? Moves the discussion right along, keeps a civil tone and happiness for all involved, yes?
I thought you'd understand that we're not comparing football teams here.
Except for the fact that the original comment in this thread was about two sports teams competing, I'd agree.
I believe that currently every ISP has to build their own stadium, no sharing allowed.
You also believe that ad hominem is "a shorthand" to make a point. ISPs don't have "stadiums", and sharing depends on the distribution medium and contractual agreements. It is not prohibited by law. I'd say that if you build something for your use, you do have some say in whether other people can come in and use it for their profit. Can I "share" your garage so I can run my auto repair business without having to build my own? Can I get the government to force you to share with me? Cool.
I've looked at history, and the harm done by monopolies is never offset by the benefits.
I didn't say it did, but I'll point out that "the harm" is in the eye of the beholder. For example, while the "harm" of the AT&T monopoly on LD was higher prices (which you only paid if you made a lot of LD phone calls, so wasn't a universal harm) the benefit of having one place to call when your phone service (even LD) failed was very large. I can remember after divestiture trying to get a problem fixed and the local carrier claimed it was the LD company problem, the LD company claimed it was the local carrier, and it never really got fixed. Pre? Call "the phone company" and it was their problem.
Technological change doesn't happen quickly enough
You claimed it didn't happen. I pointed out that it did. Whether it is fast or slow depends on the perceived benefit of funding it. If there isn't much problem with "the monopoly", then there isn't much impetus to fund technological solutions and they are slow to come about. The fact that you claim they aren't "fast enough" contradicts your claim about the harm. If there is a market, because there are people who think they are being harmed and want a better solution, then someone will work on the problem.
I've been over this a million times with libertarians
Libertarians are a monopoly that needs a technology solution?
Ad hominem is such a great debate technique. I take it the answer is "nobody".
Ok. Just be aware that those cars will have camera footage of your actions...
Will the camera be able to detect the radar jammer I have that tells the car it is about to hit a brick wall?
With all the ads for "brake assist" cars where they stop all by themselves when about to hit something or someone, I'm truly surprised I haven't see DIY projects for such a jammer. Imagine the fun on a superhighway when someone ahead of you points it back towards your car and it decides to stop right now in the middle of the highway. Or stands on the street corner on a busy city street with one of these.
Back in the day when the AI in the car was human, and radar detectors were ubiquitous, it was a real hoot to have a simple 9V battery, switch, and old microwave door sensor. You could see someone zip past you doing 20 over, push the button, and watch his taillights come on. You'd pass him, then ten minutes later the process would repeat.
Surely there are people who have reverse engineered the signals that are being used to control the brake assist systems and come up with a modern "brake light tester".
Only the law and corporate morality (the cost of being found out) stop them from colluding to keep prices high.
You are alleging malice here. Who is the Denver Broncos, e.g., colluding with when they set their ticket prices? It's not like their customers are going to run off and buy Green Bay Packer tickets because they are cheaper. Green Bay and Denver don't have to get together to decide that they need to keep both prices high, they just both look at ticket sales and see that they have a product that the demand supports a high price for.
It's a BS argument, of course, but I think a lot of them really believe it.
When you look at history, you would.
When cable companies actually did have government-granted monopolies, eventually the technology for satellite video distribution was improved to create competition. That competition still exists. In fact, it has gotten more intense using Internet streaming video services.
Even though cable television systems had pre-built infrastructure that they could leverage into ISP service, other companies using other delivery systems came into existence to compete.
Even before the AT&T divestiture and long distance breakup, technology came into play to allow multiple other long distance services to operate. MCI, Sprint, and a plethora of other LD services sprang up to compete.
The electric company monopoly on providing electrons to the people has fallen to technological advances that allow other providers to sell their electricity to the consumer.
These are all examples of natural monopolies that have fallen to technology. Why wouldn't you believe it?
The fact that Wills don't get recorded and sent out to the involved parties automatically means that we haven't progressed beyond the 1700s.
No, that means that we still value, even just a bit, the privacy and the intentions of the person who writes the will, instead of micromanaging the process.
If the author of a will wishes to tell everyone in the will about it, he can already do that. If he wishes to avoid hurt feelings and arguments amongst the beneficiaries by not telling them ahead of time, he can do that, too.
Who someone tells about being in a will is a right that belongs to the individual, not the state. The state has no overriding compelling interest to mandate it, nor any excuse to tax the living to pay for a failure to act upon the part of the dead.
This is a case where bringing in a bit of modern technology, like recording documents, would save a lot of time and trouble with the added benefit of giving lawyers the shaft.
Now I know you're kidding. Any law that mandates the creation of a will, official recording, and dissemination to all beneficiaries, will be written by lawyers and will thus mandate the use of lawyers to accomplish. By "the shaft" I can only assume you mean "lots of money".
Wondering why they call it a marriage license... I mean... if it is not going to expire ...
"License" does not imply "expire". In the US, pilot's licenses do not expire. The FCC General Radio Telephone Operator permit (a license) does not expire, nor does, IIRC, the commercial General Radio Operators License (GROL).
Many do, but that's not true of all.
in my Business Law class much time was spent on the significance of offers and counteroffers actually being sent to be admissible and enforceable.
This was not an offer or counteroffer. Those need to be communicated to be enforceable because there is an expectation on the part of the recipient created by receiving that offer. If it is not sent, there is no expectation, and thus no breach of implied contract.
The act of mailing/sending puts a "finished" stamp on the communication that makes it one's official communication.
A will is not an 'official communication'. It is valid when it is written, even if the beneficiaries are never told about it before the death. Where you write it is irrelevant. I could write it on the back of an envelope and store it away in a safety deposit box where nobody else has ever seen it, it is still valid.
If this could stand, a person could go back and reference past auto-saved versions of a document.
No, because this was the last version. When you have different previous versions, they become invalid when the current version is created. Yes, you can 'reference' them, but they are meaningless since they were preempted by the last version.
There has to be a marker that says "The version is complete" and a draft document simply doesn't have that.
There is no document that post-dates it; therefore it is the final version.
I guess the take-away from this is that you don't write wills that you don't intend to be used.
If they see a login screen without having pressed this, they will know it's bogus.
Really? I don't press c-a-d when I click on an unmounted but mapped network drive, and I get a pretty clear request for a username and password.
"No, he's the doctor. Doctor Nourse."
No, me doctor, you Mr. Bertenshaw.
(computers, not waiters).
Hey, when I tell a waiter that "this knife is dirty, I want another", I sure as heck expect him to be snappy in getting me a clean one. That makes him a blade runner, too.
"As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city," That is as close to an outright lie as you can get.. Rural populations get confused easily.
Yeah, us hicks in the sticks is just dumb fucks soaking it up at the public trough.
Your bias is clear and unshakable, so I'll just stop trying to educate you.
If you have a government-granted monopoly in cable service
The only reason it is a monopoly is because nobody else has applied for a franchise.
If you don't want a public utilities commission overseeing your operations, then you must give up the government-granted monopoly.
They can't give up what they don't have, and they can't force other companies to come compete with them.
Nobody would claim that Walmart is a government-granted monopoly, but if nobody chooses to compete against them in a market there is no way to force anyone to.
costs for package delivery are twice as expensive in the sticks.
"Package delivery" is not infrastructure. Roads and electricity and water are infrastructure. A dirt road costs a lot less than a four lane city street. Above-ground wires cost less both in hardware and in easement costs. Water is not an infrastructure cost at all in the sticks.
There is article after article after article, all indicating that costs per person are MASSIVLY higher in the sticks and the communities and their people are a net economic drain.
As someone who lived "in the sticks" and saw a huge amount of my tax dollars going to fund projects in the big city, I know the opposite is true. But but but city folks subsidize things like phone service. Say that again after you learn that we had to pay to install the phone wire from the closest aggregation point to our demarc and I'll laugh at you.
The sticks are a huge albatrosses on American society
We'll stop sending you the food that is grown "in the sticks" and let all you city folks live off your community gardens, then, shall we? Or will you survive on Soylent Green?
You can force companies to come and compete by 1) forcing any isp that used public funds to lay cable/fiber to allow competition
Since the franchise is not exclusive, this is already true.
2) remove laws banning government installations and allow cities to install cable/fiber and then allow competition.
These laws were made by elected representatives. Your issue is not with the ISPs.
Basically just remove the monopolies that currently exist.
The monopolies that currently exist are not legal ones but economic. Your step 1 does not solve the economic issues, and step 2 does so at the expense of the taxpayer.
I live in an area with millions of people the vast majority of which have exactly 1 choice of high speed internet, Comcast. That should Never have happened.
Comcast was never granted a monopoly as an ISP, so if it is one today then it wasn't for legal reasons. What is stopping a competitor? The cost. Solving the cost issue should not require the taxpayers footing the bill.
They simply are not economically viable due to a lack of economics of scale for their infrastructure.
Their infrastructure is also a lot cheaper to install and maintain. It is a good exchange.
If anything, I'd have said that the cities are going to go away as the high cost of infrastructure maintenance and increasing demands of larger populations will cause the system to crash.
This statement is simply false, it is a regulated public utility.
clearly you did not bother to RTFM
The entire story is about Comcast trying to fight a requirement put upon it by the public regulation during a franchise (regulatory) renewal, which it would not have to do were it already unregulated. Who didn't RTFM?
As in municipalities can't build their own infrastructure, nor is anyone else allowed to compete.
Exclusive franchises have been illegal in the US for almost two decades.
Can't let the socialists win by breaking up monopolies
The only way to force competition in a market is to force a second company to come provide service. You can break Comcast up into 1000 tiny cable companies, but that won't change the costs of a second company entering any of those markets.
And there is no monopoly on ISPs. Never has been. The only pre-existingd dejure monopoly situation was cable -- not the Internet. When you talk about paying triple for 1/4 the speed, you're talking the already non-monopoly ISP business.
T-Mobile USA's $3 per month pay-as-you-go plan includes 30 minutes or texts per month,
So they don't charge per text for the first thirty. Solution: if you have such a limited plan, don't sign up for a service that uses texts as a means of communicating. "I choose limited" means you've chosen limited.
Some home ISPs' pricing plan provides a landline at negligible or no extra charge: Internet with TV and Internet with voice cost about the same as Internet alone.
I hate to tell you, but VoIP is not "landline".
a mobile phone on a sub-$10/mo pay-as-you-go plan for urgent calls,
Yes, you can find "nickle and dime you to death" plans, but choosing poorly is still a choice.
Cellular carriers in the United States charge per message for SMS: 10 cents to send and 10 cents to receive.
Most modern US cellphone plans include texts for nothing. I know I haven't had to pay for text messages for at least 10 years, perhaps more.
MMS was a different story until I moved to an unlimited plan.
For example, an article about the recent Las Vegas shooting would have links embedded that explain what bump stocks are and why they need to be banned.
Yes, modern media would completely ignore any arguments why banning them would not solve the problem. Just tell us they should be banned and we'll pick up the baton and lead the chorus.
This is good journalism
Presenting one side of a constitutional argument is always "good journalism" -- for one side of the argument.
Minus that bump stocks haven't been banned yet, I fail to see any problem here.
Hmmm. No, I suspect you wouldn't.