"You comment he was waiting for the police, but neglect to mention the fact he was waiting for them with a shotgun in his hands."
Even if this were true (it isn't), I don't find this shocking. If an unknown armed gang attempt a home invasion of my household I would also grab my shotgun to try defend my life and family. What would you do? Let armed robbers kill you? There is no way for an innocent home-owner to tell the difference, on a split second, between a home invasion by robbers and a police raid (which is why police raids for non-violent offenses are wrong and immoral; innocent people keep dying). You put it in bold, like we're supposed to find it shocking. In spite of being "peaceful" NZ does have a culture of gun rights.
I'd love to see the viewer support multi-monitor display and synchronization. I have a three-HD-screen setup here.. that would be an awesome way to navigate such datasets, and should in theory not be difficult to add.
OK, sorry - it sounded like you were implying that there is something inherently 'funny' or 'bad' about buying guns designed to kill people.. but I re-read it and can see that isn't necessarily the correct interpretation.
Also, even aside from his personal billions in income, he would still remain the owner of a company with tens of billions in the bank no matter how low the stock sinks. Holy fucking "DUH". Do you even know the basics of how shares work? They RAISE CAPITAL for the company - i.e. money in the company's bank account, so to speak. After an IPO, that amount of cash basically remains identical regardless of the stock price (though it does help provide a stock price floor, but that is not relevant to the argument.)
You do know that when you start a comment with "You realize", it's supposed to imply that you're about to correct someone by supplying reasoned facts and analysis, and not that you're about to advertise your own embarrassingly ignorant idiocy by spouting bullshit that could be checked by three seconds of Googling? Here we go, let me Google that for you: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/business/la-fi-tn-facebook-zuckerberg-shares-20120522
"Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday completed the transaction of the 30.2 million shares he sold in Facebook's IPO Friday.
The shares he disposed of sold for $37.58 a piece, bringing him a cool $1.1 billion. But despite all that money, the Facebook CEO will be spending most of it to cover taxes, according to a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Perhaps you should read what people actually write, instead of just making things up. Where did I say I'm outraged that anyone made bad investment decisions? Or did you just make things up?
However, if had more brains instead of just letting shit fly out of your mouth, you would also realize that there are legitimate reasons to be outraged in this case, because the day of the IPO, so-called "technical troubles" plagued the trading platform that had the effect that thousands of mom and pop type investors who tried to sell in order to minimize the losses had their trades blocked, delayed, or 'lost'. In case you haven't fucking noticed, there is a major fucking lawsuit over this.
Do we have any evidence that Timothy is actually a real person? Maybe he's a fictitious arch-editor created by the actual editors, under which they post more flamebait-like material to drum up discussion.
Zuckerberg doesn't actually have to pay that money back, no matter how low the stock falls. He made billions by luring thousands of unsuspecting investors (including home 'mom and pop' type investors) into buying his overvalued bubble stock. I don't see how that's a "big problem" for him, the "big problem" is for all those people who gambled substantial proportions of their life savings on Zuckerberg's 'Dot Com v2' scam, and will never get their money back. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, will remain incredibly wealthy no matter what happens.
I thought it was fucking obvious that the "false dichotomy" was not intended as a claim to truth but as a valid pedagogical thought experiment involving mentally contrasting two distinct possibilities. Actually, I would be surprised if this wasn't patently obvious to 99% of other readers too, who aren't just trolling for some "mistake" to point out to inflate their own ego. Or is "reading comprehension" really that hard?
One for self-defense.
Do you think cops should be forced to carry guns designed for small game, or should cops carry guns designed to protect them from human criminals? How about our troops?
Actually, many guns are designed to kill people, but I don't think that's something to be embarrassed about. I think it's actually a good thing if potential rape victims have a means of defending themselves and helping rid our gene pool of rapists. I think it's a good thing if potential murder victims have a means of defending themselves and helping rid our gene pool of murderers. I have a daughter and I think it's a good thing if she will at least have some potential to help defend herself if some would-be rapist or murderer attacks her and drags her into a back alley someday. These are very, very good things... let's not be shy or embarrassed about the virtue of innocent people defending themselves from vicious attackers. Actually, what kind of sick twisted person even thinks you should be ashamed of having the means to defend yourself from a murderer or rapist? Murderers, rapists, and gun control advocates.
10 out of 10 rapists prefer their victims unarmed. 10 out of 10 murders prefer their victims unarmed.
People who live in dangerous areas are more likely to carry guns (to defend themselves). People who live in more dangerous areas are more likely to be attacked in the first place.
I thought slashdot was supposed to be filled with science-minded people, and yet you can't even figure out something so basic here?
I obviously wasn't claiming that stringing a cable to your neighbor is exactly equivalent to an ISP setup, that's why I called it a "thought experiment", in order to grasp why broadband is different to water and energy. The ratio of the capex to install the line between you and your neighbor, and the cost of maxing it out (a tiny, tiny amount of electricity, perhaps 1W) is simply MASSIVE. My point was also that if OP had even the faintest introduction to "econ 101", as he so arrogantly derided others for, he would understand this already, as these are BASICS. The 'support and maintenance costs' for your cable would be that every now and then you'll have to replace the cable e.g. if someone mowing the lawn clips it. These same principles apply on every level in the broadband supply chain too. Stringing a fiber cable under the ocean costs a fortune, perhaps a billion $ or so for a decent installation. But the cost of transmitting and receiving the light pales into nothingness compared to that cost. The main costs are of maintaining the line e.g. sending out ships if it breaks or replacing repeaters etc., and things like marketing. Investors seek to recover capex over some period of time. Covering a city with a shiny new telecoms network isn't easy or cheap, sure, but with water and energy you are transmitting 'something', it has to come from a dam or water treatment plant or coal must be dug from a mine, these things are extremely expensive, while with telecoms you are transmitting signals, which cost almost nothing to generate or transport.
As for whether or not it should be a government utility, if you ask me, that's a moral argument. Personally I am neither a socialist nor a communist, it's not clear to me that there is any valid argument why the state should be granted an exclusive right to monopolise the telecomms market at the expense of human liberty.
What are the costs of scaling this up to cover the infrastructure needed to handle an entire neighborhood, city, or state? What are the costs of supporting it, both in terms of technicians and people manning phone lines?
I already sort of covered that with: "Capital once-off costs are proportional to infrastructure size, while maintenance is a variable cost" though perhaps you didn't understand the terminology, these are standard finance terms (support/technicians etc. are 'maintenance costs' that are proportional to the number of users, that is basically the definition of 'variable costs', while capital costs are inherently once-off or 'now and again', i.e. the cost of 'covering the city' - you only need to pay it once anyway). The reason I didn't expand further on that is because my point is that those will *at worst* be comparable to the actual utilities ANYWAY, and are otherwise better for the reasons I mentioned - there is little "consumption" in the true sense of the word - as well as other reasons such as some types of broadband infrastructure not even requiring cable installation e.g. 3G.
Like every utility, customers are eventually going to be paying fees that relate to their usage of the resource./p>
Quick thought experiment for you. What's the cost of stringing a Gigabit ethernet cable between you and your neighbor with a couple of switches on each end. Now, what's the monthly cost of maxing out transfer on that cable, 24/7? And what "resource" are you "consuming" when you do this? A miniscule amount of energy, that's all. Water and energy have a marginal unit cost of production that is far more proportional to the consumption of that resource. E.g. you use ten times as much energy, and ten times as much coal has to be mined and burned. Use only 1/10th of your ethernet cable, and the cost is approximately the same as maxing it out. Capital once-off costs are proportional to infrastructure size, while maintenance is a variable cost. "Duh" - I don't think you've ever come close to "econ 101", as these are basics. That doesn't mean bandwidth provision should be free, of course, but it does mean that the business models are different to utilities. You've just made the fallacy of hasty generalization. Oh it resembles a "utility" therefore it should be charged like a "utility". Or do you have vested interests in this game?
Blah blah blah. Yeah, you have an "inalienable" right to free speech, as long as you perform it in a designated "free speech zone", an atrocity no other western democracy have stomached so far. I guess the rest of us should take note.
You know there are organizations like the Institute for Justice that actively fight for the protection of free speech. They are small, and poorly funded. Perhaps if the average American spent half as much as they spend on things like video games and HD TVs, on funding the fight for liberty, you might be having more successes rolling back the encroachments on liberty. Or do you expect that liberty will happen all by itself with no effort.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't really be serious. You can't tell the difference between a private company and a government? Really? That's a difficult question for you?
"You comment he was waiting for the police, but neglect to mention the fact he was waiting for them with a shotgun in his hands."
Even if this were true (it isn't), I don't find this shocking. If an unknown armed gang attempt a home invasion of my household I would also grab my shotgun to try defend my life and family. What would you do? Let armed robbers kill you? There is no way for an innocent home-owner to tell the difference, on a split second, between a home invasion by robbers and a police raid (which is why police raids for non-violent offenses are wrong and immoral; innocent people keep dying). You put it in bold, like we're supposed to find it shocking. In spite of being "peaceful" NZ does have a culture of gun rights.
I'd love to see the viewer support multi-monitor display and synchronization. I have a three-HD-screen setup here .. that would be an awesome way to navigate such datasets, and should in theory not be difficult to add.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3009633&cid=40793757
OK, sorry - it sounded like you were implying that there is something inherently 'funny' or 'bad' about buying guns designed to kill people .. but I re-read it and can see that isn't necessarily the correct interpretation.
Hmm, my conspiracy theory quickly got modded down - very suspicious, confirms that I'm onto something here ..
Also, even aside from his personal billions in income, he would still remain the owner of a company with tens of billions in the bank no matter how low the stock sinks. Holy fucking "DUH". Do you even know the basics of how shares work? They RAISE CAPITAL for the company - i.e. money in the company's bank account, so to speak. After an IPO, that amount of cash basically remains identical regardless of the stock price (though it does help provide a stock price floor, but that is not relevant to the argument.)
You do know that when you start a comment with "You realize", it's supposed to imply that you're about to correct someone by supplying reasoned facts and analysis, and not that you're about to advertise your own embarrassingly ignorant idiocy by spouting bullshit that could be checked by three seconds of Googling? Here we go, let me Google that for you: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/business/la-fi-tn-facebook-zuckerberg-shares-20120522 "Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday completed the transaction of the 30.2 million shares he sold in Facebook's IPO Friday. The shares he disposed of sold for $37.58 a piece, bringing him a cool $1.1 billion. But despite all that money, the Facebook CEO will be spending most of it to cover taxes, according to a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Here are some facts for your ignorant ass: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-22/facebook-investor-sues-nasdaq-over-delays-in-offering.html
Perhaps you should read what people actually write, instead of just making things up. Where did I say I'm outraged that anyone made bad investment decisions? Or did you just make things up?
However, if had more brains instead of just letting shit fly out of your mouth, you would also realize that there are legitimate reasons to be outraged in this case, because the day of the IPO, so-called "technical troubles" plagued the trading platform that had the effect that thousands of mom and pop type investors who tried to sell in order to minimize the losses had their trades blocked, delayed, or 'lost'. In case you haven't fucking noticed, there is a major fucking lawsuit over this.
Do we have any evidence that Timothy is actually a real person? Maybe he's a fictitious arch-editor created by the actual editors, under which they post more flamebait-like material to drum up discussion.
Zuckerberg doesn't actually have to pay that money back, no matter how low the stock falls. He made billions by luring thousands of unsuspecting investors (including home 'mom and pop' type investors) into buying his overvalued bubble stock. I don't see how that's a "big problem" for him, the "big problem" is for all those people who gambled substantial proportions of their life savings on Zuckerberg's 'Dot Com v2' scam, and will never get their money back. Zuckerberg, on the other hand, will remain incredibly wealthy no matter what happens.
Sigh, so many logical fallacies it's hard to know where to begin.
Let me guess, you were one of those giving out the wedgies? If so, then yes, maybe you should be nervous ...
I thought it was fucking obvious that the "false dichotomy" was not intended as a claim to truth but as a valid pedagogical thought experiment involving mentally contrasting two distinct possibilities. Actually, I would be surprised if this wasn't patently obvious to 99% of other readers too, who aren't just trolling for some "mistake" to point out to inflate their own ego. Or is "reading comprehension" really that hard?
One for self-defense. Do you think cops should be forced to carry guns designed for small game, or should cops carry guns designed to protect them from human criminals? How about our troops?
*murdERers
Actually, many guns are designed to kill people, but I don't think that's something to be embarrassed about. I think it's actually a good thing if potential rape victims have a means of defending themselves and helping rid our gene pool of rapists. I think it's a good thing if potential murder victims have a means of defending themselves and helping rid our gene pool of murderers. I have a daughter and I think it's a good thing if she will at least have some potential to help defend herself if some would-be rapist or murderer attacks her and drags her into a back alley someday. These are very, very good things ... let's not be shy or embarrassed about the virtue of innocent people defending themselves from vicious attackers. Actually, what kind of sick twisted person even thinks you should be ashamed of having the means to defend yourself from a murderer or rapist? Murderers, rapists, and gun control advocates.
10 out of 10 rapists prefer their victims unarmed. 10 out of 10 murders prefer their victims unarmed.
People who live in dangerous areas are more likely to carry guns (to defend themselves). People who live in more dangerous areas are more likely to be attacked in the first place. I thought slashdot was supposed to be filled with science-minded people, and yet you can't even figure out something so basic here?
Because luckily, having no gun in the first place makes it impossible for an armed attacker to enter your home.
Didn't you hear about the massive epidemic of 3-year olds opening gun safes?
I obviously wasn't claiming that stringing a cable to your neighbor is exactly equivalent to an ISP setup, that's why I called it a "thought experiment", in order to grasp why broadband is different to water and energy. The ratio of the capex to install the line between you and your neighbor, and the cost of maxing it out (a tiny, tiny amount of electricity, perhaps 1W) is simply MASSIVE. My point was also that if OP had even the faintest introduction to "econ 101", as he so arrogantly derided others for, he would understand this already, as these are BASICS. The 'support and maintenance costs' for your cable would be that every now and then you'll have to replace the cable e.g. if someone mowing the lawn clips it. These same principles apply on every level in the broadband supply chain too. Stringing a fiber cable under the ocean costs a fortune, perhaps a billion $ or so for a decent installation. But the cost of transmitting and receiving the light pales into nothingness compared to that cost. The main costs are of maintaining the line e.g. sending out ships if it breaks or replacing repeaters etc., and things like marketing. Investors seek to recover capex over some period of time. Covering a city with a shiny new telecoms network isn't easy or cheap, sure, but with water and energy you are transmitting 'something', it has to come from a dam or water treatment plant or coal must be dug from a mine, these things are extremely expensive, while with telecoms you are transmitting signals, which cost almost nothing to generate or transport. As for whether or not it should be a government utility, if you ask me, that's a moral argument. Personally I am neither a socialist nor a communist, it's not clear to me that there is any valid argument why the state should be granted an exclusive right to monopolise the telecomms market at the expense of human liberty.
What are the costs of scaling this up to cover the infrastructure needed to handle an entire neighborhood, city, or state? What are the costs of supporting it, both in terms of technicians and people manning phone lines?
I already sort of covered that with: "Capital once-off costs are proportional to infrastructure size, while maintenance is a variable cost" though perhaps you didn't understand the terminology, these are standard finance terms (support/technicians etc. are 'maintenance costs' that are proportional to the number of users, that is basically the definition of 'variable costs', while capital costs are inherently once-off or 'now and again', i.e. the cost of 'covering the city' - you only need to pay it once anyway). The reason I didn't expand further on that is because my point is that those will *at worst* be comparable to the actual utilities ANYWAY, and are otherwise better for the reasons I mentioned - there is little "consumption" in the true sense of the word - as well as other reasons such as some types of broadband infrastructure not even requiring cable installation e.g. 3G.
Like every utility, customers are eventually going to be paying fees that relate to their usage of the resource./p>
Quick thought experiment for you. What's the cost of stringing a Gigabit ethernet cable between you and your neighbor with a couple of switches on each end. Now, what's the monthly cost of maxing out transfer on that cable, 24/7? And what "resource" are you "consuming" when you do this? A miniscule amount of energy, that's all. Water and energy have a marginal unit cost of production that is far more proportional to the consumption of that resource. E.g. you use ten times as much energy, and ten times as much coal has to be mined and burned. Use only 1/10th of your ethernet cable, and the cost is approximately the same as maxing it out. Capital once-off costs are proportional to infrastructure size, while maintenance is a variable cost. "Duh" - I don't think you've ever come close to "econ 101", as these are basics. That doesn't mean bandwidth provision should be free, of course, but it does mean that the business models are different to utilities. You've just made the fallacy of hasty generalization. Oh it resembles a "utility" therefore it should be charged like a "utility". Or do you have vested interests in this game?
Blah blah blah. Yeah, you have an "inalienable" right to free speech, as long as you perform it in a designated "free speech zone", an atrocity no other western democracy have stomached so far. I guess the rest of us should take note.
You know there are organizations like the Institute for Justice that actively fight for the protection of free speech. They are small, and poorly funded. Perhaps if the average American spent half as much as they spend on things like video games and HD TVs, on funding the fight for liberty, you might be having more successes rolling back the encroachments on liberty. Or do you expect that liberty will happen all by itself with no effort.