>> Yes, but the problem is that as more and more bybrid and pure alternative fuel cars use the roads, less and less tax money will be available for road upkeep. >> Imagine in 20 years if _every_ car were 100% electric (won't happen, I know). That would be a _huge_ drop in taxes earned through gasoline sales. >> Basically this is an early change over to a system that will work regardless of fuel source.
Your mom will work regardless of fuel source.
Mileage tracking is onerous and has obvious privacy implications. There's a lot of other ways to tax for road upkeep: per vehicle, per driver... or just keep it on gas because the externalities of gas consumption (I would argue) exceeds the externalities of driving on roads.
Zune is not on the Windows mobile store because the Zune project leader doesn't know how to get in contact with the WinMo team. I think that came across pretty clear in TFA.
>> I called AOL's support, and after several rounds of phone-tree hell, got a tech who told me flat out "We don't do that. Good luck!" >> >> I ended up writing a script that parsed the XML-like output of their "print" function. Print to screen, save to file, parse with Perl. It hoses up the contact lists, which are included and just end up creating duplicates. They don't output as lists at all.
At first you kind of feel that Google has pulled a reach-around on copyright law and you feel that this is unfair. Then... after a while, you realize how ridiculous copyright is and that makes you feel good again.
I see this settlement as excellent evidence for copyright reform.
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is never use facebook.
>> >> >> One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
>> >> I have never heard this argument against ones ability to commit hypocrisy. This is interesting, although I do not support it because of believe in free speech.
>> So, your position is that newspapers do not represent free speech because the writers publish their names.
That is correct. Several important political publications have been made under pseudonyms, for example the Federalist Papers. More generally, some selfish people may desire to prevent free speech which brings light to their actions, their actions could include intimidation or violence. Their induced chilling effect may be be subverted by pseudonymous publication. See [[anonymous tip lines]], [[whistleblower]], and [[witness protection program]].
>> >> >> Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
>> >> This statement assumes that freedom of religion is a bad thing.
>> So, your position is that religions are anti-social organizations who would have their freedom taken away if the majority of people knew what was going on.
Close. My position is that some religions choose not to live at peace with other religions.
>> >> >> The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
>> >> This statement assumes that all social behavior is moral or in the best interests of ones peers. If true, this statement essentially states that society has reached a point of maximum harmony and should never be changed.
>> So, you believe in protecting the right of amoral individuals to engage in vicious, pre-meditated anti-social behavior such as murder from obscurity, and you believe in protecting the right of groups of conspirators to act against the interests of their peers from obscurity.
>> Not only that, but you believe this because you feel that these groups are the sole source of social change, and are the only thing that will lead us towards greater harmony, and therefore must be protected.
This does not logically follow from my statement. Try this: I think it is possible that there is an opportunity to change society for the better. To make such a change, somebody must speak out against the status quo. It is impossible to speak about the "best interests of their peers" in an absolutist sense, unless you subscribe to a literal reading of some of the more popular religious texts. Therefore, some other people, perhaps a majority may be hurt by such a bringing to light. See also [[social security]], [[interest group]], [[democracy]] and [[republic]].
Also, yes I do believe in protecting the right of "amoral individuals" since criminal justice is not 100% accurate. Please see [[http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Bayesian_inference]] and [[salem witch trials]].
>> One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
I have never heard this argument against ones ability to commit hypocrisy. This is interesting, although I do not support it because of believe in free speech.
>> Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
This statement assumes that freedom of religion is a bad thing.
>> The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
This statement assumes that all social behavior is moral or in the best interests of ones peers. If true, this statement essentially states that society has reached a point of maximum harmony and should never be changed.
This wont affect me, but one problem the new implementation has is that it encourages applications to save in their own proprietary format or with a proprietary file extension.
>> Add in all the books ever written, music and news papers published, what are we looking at? 50 PB for a full copy? Obviously you'd need redundant storage placed on various continents, and you'd expect to replace the hardware every once in a while, but what is our entire cultural history worth to us as a civilization? A billion dollars a year? Two? Keep in mind, it shouldn't just be the US or the EU funding this, it should be everyone.
>> Make it a requirement for companies that if they want copyrights on their works, they have to submit it unencumbered to the storage facility. That way there can be no excuses from the companies, that they don't have $work in production any more, as it'd be easy to sell access to a particular work. And if they can't submit it for whatever reason? Copyright expires on that particular work. That'd certainly get their asses in gear to get their entire back catalogue digitized.
I would argue that not all works are worth saving, in appeal to public benefit.
>> USA already has other public options: public schools and USPS Priority Mail over private schools and UPS 3 Day Select.
Oh, that is great news, please call my local school district to inform them! They thought they were only funded by local government, but your sig implies that they are entitled to funding from the federal government.
>> All I see nowadays is price, price, price. Price is everything. All encompassing, all considering and the sole and only consideration in nigh every walk of life. Companies are gouging their businesses in order to save pennies whilst their products stagnate or regress. Consumers care not for long term value or even short term utility as price is the first and last arbiter in their purchase decisions.
What brand toothbrush do you own? Did you seek recommendations from other before buying it? Are you aware of its features? If not, your purchasing decision should be based on the assumption that it is a low quality, replaceable, and commoditized. See [[Gresham law]].
>> ISPs in the US seek to redefine broadband because they want their packages to be treated like commodities; like wheat and coffee beans. You don't care where the bean comes from, they're all the same. So you buy the cheapest one. If all internet connection packages are "broadband", can you guess what people are going to do? ISPs aren't the only industry that wants to do this, or indeed that is doing it.
This is the opposite of what Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want. They want to maintain what they currently have. However, this is threatened by the idea some people have that "broadband adoption" in the US is low. E.g. if politicians get the whiff that the market is not providing enough broadband, they will legislate. Combine this with the fact that tier 1 and tier 2 service providers do not want stimulus funding (source: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=180976) and the result is that the incumbents want the standards lowered so that they are not threatened.
>> You might as well add a few hundred thousand a year for the people who need to maintain this hardware and also someone to get up in the middle of the night when their pager goes off because something just went wrong and you want 24/7 storage time.
>> We don't pay premiums because we're stupid. We pay premiums so we can relax and concentrate on what we need to concentrate on.
Or... you could just buy ten of them and use the left over $1m for electricity costs and an admin that doesn't sleep
We need alternate implementations of the twitter API. And these social devices... that's a good thing.
If your TV can tweet every program you watch, then it could instead tweet to your own server at 192.168.0.x - this is useful information. This is a simple protocol and its widespread adoption could be useful in home automation and monitoring.
>> That means that if a cell phone company, for instance, claims that their contract allows them to give your number to telemarketers, that clause is unenforceable unless the writer of the contract can show, via an impartial third party poll, that common people understand the contract to permit that right.
>> I think the problem is that private care is too efficient. If the contract says you can't throw pre-existing conditions to the curb then I'm all for it. Its really impossible to use capitalism with a health care system because in order to make the most profit you have to deny people healt hcare and that, as we see, does not not work that well.
Imagine buying a 10-year health care policy with large upfront cost and penalties to cancel. Would this align your interest (being healthy) with theirs (less cost)?
>> Imagine you would a private military, police force, fire department. They'd only go out and help when there is a profit to be made. A lot of crime and houses burn down simply because its not cost effective to stop everything.
I just did (for fire dept. and some police and military functions): no 25-year work life with _ridiculous_ pension, less nepotism, more meritocracy, and covered by a SLA with teeth.
>> Software that automatically changes menus or frequently-used options around as a "favor" to the user was bad UI practice five years ago in Windows and Office, and it's bad UI practice today in Firefox. Unfortunately, it's such a clever bad idea that it'll never go away.
This is different. You can't select a menu item that isn't there; but you can always get to a url by typing it fully.
Firefox can use all the data it wants for the bar but it must be more helpful than the obvious URL-only search. Otherwise, Darwin Osbourne will bite its head off like a bat.
Slashdot Mirror
The libertarian solution is to oppose this law and then let the mechanics reverse engineer it.
Then the hacker would put it on TPB.
>> Yes, but the problem is that as more and more bybrid and pure alternative fuel cars use the roads, less and less tax money will be available for road upkeep.
>> Imagine in 20 years if _every_ car were 100% electric (won't happen, I know). That would be a _huge_ drop in taxes earned through gasoline sales.
>> Basically this is an early change over to a system that will work regardless of fuel source.
Your mom will work regardless of fuel source.
Mileage tracking is onerous and has obvious privacy implications. There's a lot of other ways to tax for road upkeep: per vehicle, per driver... or just keep it on gas because the externalities of gas consumption (I would argue) exceeds the externalities of driving on roads.
Zune is not on the Windows mobile store because the Zune project leader doesn't know how to get in contact with the WinMo team. I think that came across pretty clear in TFA.
Please read the gave a response link.
No amount of astroturf can cure the ridiculousification of messages in TFA.
>> I called AOL's support, and after several rounds of phone-tree hell, got a tech who told me flat out "We don't do that. Good luck!"
>>
>> I ended up writing a script that parsed the XML-like output of their "print" function. Print to screen, save to file, parse with Perl. It hoses up the contact lists, which are included and just end up creating duplicates. They don't output as lists at all.
Link please and/or fulltext.
if they leaked the code for their iPhone App (so we can easily VOIP over 3G)... then yes, there would be a great reason to use skype.
At first you kind of feel that Google has pulled a reach-around on copyright law and you feel that this is unfair. Then... after a while, you realize how ridiculous copyright is and that makes you feel good again.
I see this settlement as excellent evidence for copyright reform.
>> Now if Facebook doesn't pay up, a leaked copy of its source code will appear all over teh interwebs.
Again? Where did the last copy go?
He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is never use facebook.
>> >> >> One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
>> >> I have never heard this argument against ones ability to commit hypocrisy. This is interesting, although I do not support it because of believe in free speech.
>> So, your position is that newspapers do not represent free speech because the writers publish their names.
That is correct. Several important political publications have been made under pseudonyms, for example the Federalist Papers. More generally, some selfish people may desire to prevent free speech which brings light to their actions, their actions could include intimidation or violence. Their induced chilling effect may be be subverted by pseudonymous publication. See [[anonymous tip lines]], [[whistleblower]], and [[witness protection program]].
>> >> >> Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
>> >> This statement assumes that freedom of religion is a bad thing.
>> So, your position is that religions are anti-social organizations who would have their freedom taken away if the majority of people knew what was going on.
Close. My position is that some religions choose not to live at peace with other religions.
>> >> >> The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
>> >> This statement assumes that all social behavior is moral or in the best interests of ones peers. If true, this statement essentially states that society has reached a point of maximum harmony and should never be changed.
>> So, you believe in protecting the right of amoral individuals to engage in vicious, pre-meditated anti-social behavior such as murder from obscurity, and you believe in protecting the right of groups of conspirators to act against the interests of their peers from obscurity.
>> Not only that, but you believe this because you feel that these groups are the sole source of social change, and are the only thing that will lead us towards greater harmony, and therefore must be protected.
This does not logically follow from my statement. Try this: I think it is possible that there is an opportunity to change society for the better. To make such a change, somebody must speak out against the status quo. It is impossible to speak about the "best interests of their peers" in an absolutist sense, unless you subscribe to a literal reading of some of the more popular religious texts. Therefore, some other people, perhaps a majority may be hurt by such a bringing to light. See also [[social security]], [[interest group]], [[democracy]] and [[republic]].
Also, yes I do believe in protecting the right of "amoral individuals" since criminal justice is not 100% accurate. Please see [[http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Bayesian_inference]] and [[salem witch trials]].
I will take your post at face value.
>> One is where the facts are embarrassing because of hypocrisy. That scenario is alleviated by loss of anonymity and increased transparency.
I have never heard this argument against ones ability to commit hypocrisy. This is interesting, although I do not support it because of believe in free speech.
>> Another is where the person is engaged in anti-social behavior because they are in a reactionary state and need assistance because they are going off the rails in isolation. That scenario is also alleviated by the loss of anonymity. People will get the help they need to be happy and self-reliant if society at large is aware that they need it.
This statement assumes that freedom of religion is a bad thing.
>> The third scenario is when people are engaged in premeditated anti-social behavior because they are amoral and vicious or involved in a conspiracy against the best interests of their peers for ideological reasons. Those people belong in the ground, and we should not be protecting their obscurity.
This statement assumes that all social behavior is moral or in the best interests of ones peers. If true, this statement essentially states that society has reached a point of maximum harmony and should never be changed.
This wont affect me, but one problem the new implementation has is that it encourages applications to save in their own proprietary format or with a proprietary file extension.
When will there be a non-violent protest of a publisher selling copies of Disney's first perpetual-copyright short to much fanfare?
>> Add in all the books ever written, music and news papers published, what are we looking at? 50 PB for a full copy? Obviously you'd need redundant storage placed on various continents, and you'd expect to replace the hardware every once in a while, but what is our entire cultural history worth to us as a civilization? A billion dollars a year? Two? Keep in mind, it shouldn't just be the US or the EU funding this, it should be everyone.
>> Make it a requirement for companies that if they want copyrights on their works, they have to submit it unencumbered to the storage facility. That way there can be no excuses from the companies, that they don't have $work in production any more, as it'd be easy to sell access to a particular work. And if they can't submit it for whatever reason? Copyright expires on that particular work. That'd certainly get their asses in gear to get their entire back catalogue digitized.
I would argue that not all works are worth saving, in appeal to public benefit.
>> Who says you need bother stealing? Just sell nothing [ebay.com]
Is there a way to view your implied "empty box" negative feedback without clicking through 50 pages?
I think that analogy fails for C-corporations.
>> USA already has other public options: public schools and USPS Priority Mail over private schools and UPS 3 Day Select.
Oh, that is great news, please call my local school district to inform them! They thought they were only funded by local government, but your sig implies that they are entitled to funding from the federal government.
Answers.
>> All I see nowadays is price, price, price. Price is everything. All encompassing, all considering and the sole and only consideration in nigh every walk of life. Companies are gouging their businesses in order to save pennies whilst their products stagnate or regress. Consumers care not for long term value or even short term utility as price is the first and last arbiter in their purchase decisions.
What brand toothbrush do you own? Did you seek recommendations from other before buying it? Are you aware of its features? If not, your purchasing decision should be based on the assumption that it is a low quality, replaceable, and commoditized. See [[Gresham law]].
>> ISPs in the US seek to redefine broadband because they want their packages to be treated like commodities; like wheat and coffee beans. You don't care where the bean comes from, they're all the same. So you buy the cheapest one. If all internet connection packages are "broadband", can you guess what people are going to do? ISPs aren't the only industry that wants to do this, or indeed that is doing it.
This is the opposite of what Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want. They want to maintain what they currently have. However, this is threatened by the idea some people have that "broadband adoption" in the US is low. E.g. if politicians get the whiff that the market is not providing enough broadband, they will legislate. Combine this with the fact that tier 1 and tier 2 service providers do not want stimulus funding (source: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=180976) and the result is that the incumbents want the standards lowered so that they are not threatened.
for transparent backgrounds, I reply this:
most browsers are maximized, and transparent looks awkward
>> You might as well add a few hundred thousand a year for the people who need to maintain this hardware and also someone to get up in the middle of the night when their pager goes off because something just went wrong and you want 24/7 storage time.
>> We don't pay premiums because we're stupid. We pay premiums so we can relax and concentrate on what we need to concentrate on.
Or... you could just buy ten of them and use the left over $1m for electricity costs and an admin that doesn't sleep
We need alternate implementations of the twitter API. And these social devices... that's a good thing.
If your TV can tweet every program you watch, then it could instead tweet to your own server at 192.168.0.x - this is useful information. This is a simple protocol and its widespread adoption could be useful in home automation and monitoring.
>> That means that if a cell phone company, for instance, claims that their contract allows them to give your number to telemarketers, that clause is unenforceable unless the writer of the contract can show, via an impartial third party poll, that common people understand the contract to permit that right.
So... ban thinking and reading?
Ha! And now, taxation sees the free market as damage and routes around it.
(-1 sigreply)
>> I think the problem is that private care is too efficient. If the contract says you can't throw pre-existing conditions to the curb then I'm all for it. Its really impossible to use capitalism with a health care system because in order to make the most profit you have to deny people healt hcare and that, as we see, does not not work that well.
Imagine buying a 10-year health care policy with large upfront cost and penalties to cancel. Would this align your interest (being healthy) with theirs (less cost)?
>> Imagine you would a private military, police force, fire department. They'd only go out and help when there is a profit to be made. A lot of crime and houses burn down simply because its not cost effective to stop everything.
I just did (for fire dept. and some police and military functions): no 25-year work life with _ridiculous_ pension, less nepotism, more meritocracy, and covered by a SLA with teeth.
>> Software that automatically changes menus or frequently-used options around as a "favor" to the user was bad UI practice five years ago in Windows and Office, and it's bad UI practice today in Firefox. Unfortunately, it's such a clever bad idea that it'll never go away.
This is different. You can't select a menu item that isn't there; but you can always get to a url by typing it fully.
Firefox can use all the data it wants for the bar but it must be more helpful than the obvious URL-only search. Otherwise, Darwin Osbourne will bite its head off like a bat.