trickle down isn't pixie dust. It doesn't make everyone rich. It's not supposed to. But, there is a reason that even our poor in the US are much better off than many average citizens in 3rd world countires. That's because trickle down, DOES indeed trickle down. It's called 'Trickle' for a reason. It's better than having the government attempt to plan who gets what, there's just too many variables for that. Everything the government plans for our money has a two fold negative effect: A) something always comes up that was unintended and negative, and B) it reduces the incentive for someone to become successful (i.e. rich and taxable) on their own if there is nothing but additional burden incurred in crossing the line. Don't even bring up Paris Hilton or her ilk, because they aren't anywhere near good representatives. Most people who have money earned it, despite what 'pro-socialists' or 'redistribute the wealth' fans would say, they did not inherit it. Of the wealthy in the US (according to a Wall Street Journal survey,) 69% earned it without inheritance, and 6% solely inherited it, and 25% or so say they've a combination of the two. Source
The deregulation of electricity production was accompanied by a re-regulation (on a massive scale) of the distribution to keep up with laws passed about 'Right of Ways.' So no, the price of electricity during 'deregulation' was actually not even anywhere near the market forces. The producers couldn't actually respond to supply and demand, and thus they ran into a bit of the same thing you saw in the gas shortage in the late 70's. It wasn't profitable to produce as much as the demand required because it cost too damned much to transport. So they didn't, and you saw shortages. Sound familiar?
Just like it's totally unfair for the auto-manufacturers to BUNDLE TIRES with their cars. I mean, what about the tire salesman? These auto manufacturers are unfairly piggy backing their 'inflated tires' on the success of their engine. Ridiculous. Where's Barack Obama when you need him.
Obviously the fact that basically EVERYONE missed this points out how few people are commenting on the article vice on how much they hate Microsoft. No this isn't Flaimbait, it's true. Why else would someone overlook the fact that it's NOT a patent, never WAS a patent, and that it's in fact a fucking TRADEMARK? HUGE difference. you can use the idea, just not the name. Nothing to see here, move along.
Well, I don't have a 'full prescription' just a general idea. Also, the resources required, specifically the Super Computer to select the fit ones, is not something I have laying around. And in the meantime, I have other jobs and a family to worry about, but doing something like this would be a fulfillment of a million of my dreams of course. One of these days I do want to work with more neural network things, I just haven't had time to actually work it out yet. I'd love to though.
lol, you're right. Don't even get me started on the "creator of the human race thing" if they were 100% responsible for human action then that means mass murderers and serial rapists are off the hook.
Brute force algorithms are very useful, just not as 'the solution.' You can use them to select evolutionary fitness out of epochs of genetic move selecting neural network beasties. Then eventually the evolved nerual based creatures will be great at selecting moves, even if you spawn different 'species' of them for each type of move. It'll most certainly be possible to kick the crap out of human beings when you do it like we do, except speed up the evolution by millions of years per year.
or a kickass neural net needs to be trained to recognize moves on the fly and respond. if you're talking about brute force optimization problems with minima and maxima based heuristics then yes, it might be nice to have a new algorithm or giant super computer, but if you're doing it a totally different way, that might not be true. Like with evolved neural networks that play GO, whose fitness per epoch is evaluated by a super computer crunching raw numbers like this, THEN you might have something that ends up being genuinely smarter than we are at this, in the same way that we are.
Ease up there killer, I was just playing around. I just find it amusing to notice how people's own situation affects their opinions, and especially their words. It's only natural that it should work like that, I"m not saying anything you need to be defensive about, unless you like to use slashdot as a job interview;)
ok yes you're right about that I confused the documents mentioning 'inalienble' however I think i noted that we used the amendment process for the 4th, which means that it's supposed to stand unless otherwise amended, no matter what laws or case law comes up. perhaps I shouldn't post when I'm tired
That's right. Besides the fact that the mention in the constitution of 'inalienable rights' means they're not up for debate, ever (the use of the word inalienable directly implies they're not supposed to be within the scope of the government to legislate against, or interpret out of existence with case law.) Though wiretapping isn't directly mentioned. However, it may follow from liberty, or even in some off the wall way the pursuit of happiness. If you want to amend the constitution though, you can do that... they've got a whole process written just for that! (What are the odds?) Wait! They already did that! it says you can't in the 4th amendment. What a country.
Even with the best of intentions, basically ALL alternative energy sources are wishful thinking at present. I don't say that means we shouldn't think about them, and work toward implementing them, but we cannot forget about keeping ourselves going in the meantime until the years of research, investment, and construction that go into completely cycling our power supply come about. We cannot afford to sit around twiddling our thumbs saying 'the age of fossil fuels is dead because we have some better ideas.' at least not until these better ideas as actually generating power, and not just in a lab somewhere or in an article linked to from slashdot.
In what context? Seeing it? Thinking about it? Wearing it? Sitting in a room colored with it? Or merely identifying yourself as one who drives a red car? Sounds like bullshit to me.
I'm in the same boat with you. I'm a.Net dude for windows, but it's a huge gear shift to go to C++ or C again when I jump back to linux, so I'd like to have the 'same platform' (even if that requires quotation marks) on both OS's if I could as well.
I have the same problem with python. Semantic indentation. It's a genuinely dumb idea in my opinion. Other than that, sometimes you need static type checking and compiled (not interpreted) code sometimes you don't. Indentation aside if you want higher performance between these two you'd go for a compiled tongue. If you want something quick to write, and are ok with it being a bit slower running (and have already figured out when to hit the tab key,) then perhaps python is your beast. I don't think that C# qualifies as 'elegant' though unless your comparing it to C++, by which most languages are elegant.:D
People decrying the mono port of winforms aren't obviously in the target audience of developers. Those of us who are, (winforms developers for windows) are very happy that mono is making this leap. I'd think the Linux Zealots(tm) should be happy about this seeing as how there is one more way now in which the friction caused by moving from windows to linux has been greatly reduced. Unless of course, they just LOVE being in an exclusive club where the guy with the most technical skills invested in using his operating system on a daily basis wins.
I have no religion. Not even Ayn Rand. I just liked the book, and I can relate to a bunch of it. But if my liking of a book somehow excuses your thoughtfulness, then well I'm happy to have helped you out.
I'd agree with you that unnecessary laws aren't harmless and that the GP's conclusions don't logically follow from his arguments.
But, I still don't trust that we have the experts necessary in the government to enforce this correctly and it may still end up hampering invesetments.
If I'm an investor, I'd be less likely to put my money into a company constructing infrastructure resources that aren't in their power to control, especially when it's known up front that the benefit of the resources might not actually come back as strong in kind to the company who actually ponies up to build it. I might just look elsewhere to put my money. (Similarly, you'd be less likely to put your money in a bank that has a zero percent interest rate, solely for the convenience of using ATM machines.) Like maybe I'd buy stock in Microsoft, who's going to be able to excercise the necessary discretion to get a return for the cash.
Investors drive the economy. They drive it before consumers have a chance to vote for the products and services with their dollars by providing capital to create and improve the choices for consumers. They're the enablers of it all. The benefit to society as a whole is a side effect of investors serving their own interests. You cannot legislate your way around this, no matter how sad (or mad) it makes you to think about this truth.
Well, I'm still inclined to point toward the private sector for guidance on issues of consumer demand vs service provided. Traffic is a math problem and so is supply and demand. If you screw up the math, in either case, someone's head will roll. That being said, I'd most definitely be more receptive to an NGO ruling on it rather than seeing some statute written by some guys who have no more idea of what the internet is than my secretary. (I mean, she'd hear me talking about it all day long, but that doesn't make her 'understand' it.) If the businesses screw over their customers (don't deliver what is actually required in their services) then they will eventually lose their market share, or profit margin. Either of which resonate all the way up through investors. The trouble with this, and any limited space infrastructure systems, is that sometimes it just takes too damned long to get the message to the right people in time to keep things moving along. So in that respect I do see some room for (very careful) regulation in principle. I don't know that it could be done effectively in practice though, in light of enforcement and jurisdiction problems.
or if they'd actually roll out the upgrades they've already promised to roll out in exchange for tax breaks (verizon). I don't wholly disagree with you on this, but I think it's hard to 'enact' a middle ground, and that the government obviously sucks and controlling their holdings already. All we need now is to place a support call for a service interruption to the USDepartmentOfInternet who says they'll send a technician out to your house between the 12th and the 5th.
I don't see a better way that doesn't eventually lead to the death of investment in net infrastructure. See my response below (so I don't completely repeat myself) here
People might be tempted to say that we should then have the government take over and do it all, but even in cases where the government does take over, you still have traffic laws (see roads, vehicle restrictions, tolls, and HOV lanes.)
so, then, what's the incentive to own the wire then if you cannot use it for your own purposes? I understand there are externalities involved, like you can only fit so many wires on a telephone pole, but the wires still don't run themselves. Owning wire somehow encumbers you to serve whatever thing someone decides to put on it?
Even government owned roads have restrictions on the types of vehicles that can ride on them. Let's not even mention those that can only be traveled with a certain number of passengers (HOV lanes.) These are even certified public utilities, yet they have rules in place governing traffic for the very same reasons that businesses might want to regulate their own wire space.
Amen. I'd buy you a drink. The best way to get what you want is to make sure that you make it more financially advantageous, especially from non-regulatory pressure, for the corporations to see things your way. I agree with you, and I'd expand a bit more...
Legislation on issues such as this would only allow for one more possible point of corruption for the big interests who want to break the rules. I'm not sure which government has jurisdiction over 'the internet' anyway. Does it only apply to your customers if you're an american company? Or only your customers? Are your customers anyone who pays you money, or anyone that does business with anyone who pays you money? What if they're outside the US? What exactly are they going to regulate anyway... traffic between any two hosts? Traffic on a particular network? Is that network considered to be of a subnet as defined by an IP Mask? Perhaps of an ownership block? Maybe it's a trail of routes. Even if we are unfortunate enough to have the government step in and force people to act more communist, the law has to be enforcible and there has to be a method of clearly showing tort anyway in court. It also has to appear in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. That last bit might be the hardest part of the whole idea to swallow.
For Net-Neutrality to have some kind of effect, you have to show that some party violated some rule, and that some body of enforcement has jurisdiction over the issue. If you can't answer every one of these questions about every incident then you can just only point and cry foul every time someone snuffs a packet out. As if our legal system wasn't muddy enough already. Next thing you know it'll be illegal to have personal and corporate firewalls.
Slashdot Mirror
trickle down isn't pixie dust. It doesn't make everyone rich. It's not supposed to. But, there is a reason that even our poor in the US are much better off than many average citizens in 3rd world countires. That's because trickle down, DOES indeed trickle down. It's called 'Trickle' for a reason. It's better than having the government attempt to plan who gets what, there's just too many variables for that. Everything the government plans for our money has a two fold negative effect: A) something always comes up that was unintended and negative, and B) it reduces the incentive for someone to become successful (i.e. rich and taxable) on their own if there is nothing but additional burden incurred in crossing the line. Don't even bring up Paris Hilton or her ilk, because they aren't anywhere near good representatives. Most people who have money earned it, despite what 'pro-socialists' or 'redistribute the wealth' fans would say, they did not inherit it. Of the wealthy in the US (according to a Wall Street Journal survey,) 69% earned it without inheritance, and 6% solely inherited it, and 25% or so say they've a combination of the two. Source
The deregulation of electricity production was accompanied by a re-regulation (on a massive scale) of the distribution to keep up with laws passed about 'Right of Ways.' So no, the price of electricity during 'deregulation' was actually not even anywhere near the market forces. The producers couldn't actually respond to supply and demand, and thus they ran into a bit of the same thing you saw in the gas shortage in the late 70's. It wasn't profitable to produce as much as the demand required because it cost too damned much to transport. So they didn't, and you saw shortages. Sound familiar?
Just like it's totally unfair for the auto-manufacturers to BUNDLE TIRES with their cars. I mean, what about the tire salesman? These auto manufacturers are unfairly piggy backing their 'inflated tires' on the success of their engine. Ridiculous. Where's Barack Obama when you need him.
Obviously the fact that basically EVERYONE missed this points out how few people are commenting on the article vice on how much they hate Microsoft. No this isn't Flaimbait, it's true. Why else would someone overlook the fact that it's NOT a patent, never WAS a patent, and that it's in fact a fucking TRADEMARK? HUGE difference. you can use the idea, just not the name. Nothing to see here, move along.
Natalie Portman. (obligatory reference.)
That it was my fault. What a relief. I had nothing to do with my lazy, ineffective behavior in college. Halelujiah.
Well, I don't have a 'full prescription' just a general idea. Also, the resources required, specifically the Super Computer to select the fit ones, is not something I have laying around. And in the meantime, I have other jobs and a family to worry about, but doing something like this would be a fulfillment of a million of my dreams of course. One of these days I do want to work with more neural network things, I just haven't had time to actually work it out yet. I'd love to though.
lol, you're right. Don't even get me started on the "creator of the human race thing" if they were 100% responsible for human action then that means mass murderers and serial rapists are off the hook.
Brute force algorithms are very useful, just not as 'the solution.' You can use them to select evolutionary fitness out of epochs of genetic move selecting neural network beasties. Then eventually the evolved nerual based creatures will be great at selecting moves, even if you spawn different 'species' of them for each type of move. It'll most certainly be possible to kick the crap out of human beings when you do it like we do, except speed up the evolution by millions of years per year.
or a kickass neural net needs to be trained to recognize moves on the fly and respond. if you're talking about brute force optimization problems with minima and maxima based heuristics then yes, it might be nice to have a new algorithm or giant super computer, but if you're doing it a totally different way, that might not be true. Like with evolved neural networks that play GO, whose fitness per epoch is evaluated by a super computer crunching raw numbers like this, THEN you might have something that ends up being genuinely smarter than we are at this, in the same way that we are.
Ease up there killer, I was just playing around. I just find it amusing to notice how people's own situation affects their opinions, and especially their words. It's only natural that it should work like that, I"m not saying anything you need to be defensive about, unless you like to use slashdot as a job interview ;)
haha, I take it that means you do Javascript then.
I like how you used the += operator so the code is much more efficient and readable.
ok yes you're right about that I confused the documents mentioning 'inalienble' however I think i noted that we used the amendment process for the 4th, which means that it's supposed to stand unless otherwise amended, no matter what laws or case law comes up. perhaps I shouldn't post when I'm tired
That's right. Besides the fact that the mention in the constitution of 'inalienable rights' means they're not up for debate, ever (the use of the word inalienable directly implies they're not supposed to be within the scope of the government to legislate against, or interpret out of existence with case law.) Though wiretapping isn't directly mentioned. However, it may follow from liberty, or even in some off the wall way the pursuit of happiness. If you want to amend the constitution though, you can do that... they've got a whole process written just for that! (What are the odds?) Wait! They already did that! it says you can't in the 4th amendment. What a country.
....makes the whole idea wishful thinking...
Even with the best of intentions, basically ALL alternative energy sources are wishful thinking at present. I don't say that means we shouldn't think about them, and work toward implementing them, but we cannot forget about keeping ourselves going in the meantime until the years of research, investment, and construction that go into completely cycling our power supply come about. We cannot afford to sit around twiddling our thumbs saying 'the age of fossil fuels is dead because we have some better ideas.' at least not until these better ideas as actually generating power, and not just in a lab somewhere or in an article linked to from slashdot.
finally someone that makes sense! people just don't understand the fact that you can't get something for free ;)
In what context? Seeing it? Thinking about it? Wearing it? Sitting in a room colored with it? Or merely identifying yourself as one who drives a red car? Sounds like bullshit to me.
I'm in the same boat with you. I'm a .Net dude for windows, but it's a huge gear shift to go to C++ or C again when I jump back to linux, so I'd like to have the 'same platform' (even if that requires quotation marks) on both OS's if I could as well.
I have the same problem with python. Semantic indentation. It's a genuinely dumb idea in my opinion. Other than that, sometimes you need static type checking and compiled (not interpreted) code sometimes you don't. Indentation aside if you want higher performance between these two you'd go for a compiled tongue. If you want something quick to write, and are ok with it being a bit slower running (and have already figured out when to hit the tab key,) then perhaps python is your beast. I don't think that C# qualifies as 'elegant' though unless your comparing it to C++, by which most languages are elegant. :D
People decrying the mono port of winforms aren't obviously in the target audience of developers. Those of us who are, (winforms developers for windows) are very happy that mono is making this leap. I'd think the Linux Zealots(tm) should be happy about this seeing as how there is one more way now in which the friction caused by moving from windows to linux has been greatly reduced. Unless of course, they just LOVE being in an exclusive club where the guy with the most technical skills invested in using his operating system on a daily basis wins.
I have no religion. Not even Ayn Rand. I just liked the book, and I can relate to a bunch of it. But if my liking of a book somehow excuses your thoughtfulness, then well I'm happy to have helped you out.
I'd agree with you that unnecessary laws aren't harmless and that the GP's conclusions don't logically follow from his arguments.
But, I still don't trust that we have the experts necessary in the government to enforce this correctly and it may still end up hampering invesetments.
If I'm an investor, I'd be less likely to put my money into a company constructing infrastructure resources that aren't in their power to control, especially when it's known up front that the benefit of the resources might not actually come back as strong in kind to the company who actually ponies up to build it. I might just look elsewhere to put my money. (Similarly, you'd be less likely to put your money in a bank that has a zero percent interest rate, solely for the convenience of using ATM machines.) Like maybe I'd buy stock in Microsoft, who's going to be able to excercise the necessary discretion to get a return for the cash.
Investors drive the economy. They drive it before consumers have a chance to vote for the products and services with their dollars by providing capital to create and improve the choices for consumers. They're the enablers of it all. The benefit to society as a whole is a side effect of investors serving their own interests. You cannot legislate your way around this, no matter how sad (or mad) it makes you to think about this truth.
Well, I'm still inclined to point toward the private sector for guidance on issues of consumer demand vs service provided. Traffic is a math problem and so is supply and demand. If you screw up the math, in either case, someone's head will roll. That being said, I'd most definitely be more receptive to an NGO ruling on it rather than seeing some statute written by some guys who have no more idea of what the internet is than my secretary. (I mean, she'd hear me talking about it all day long, but that doesn't make her 'understand' it.) If the businesses screw over their customers (don't deliver what is actually required in their services) then they will eventually lose their market share, or profit margin. Either of which resonate all the way up through investors. The trouble with this, and any limited space infrastructure systems, is that sometimes it just takes too damned long to get the message to the right people in time to keep things moving along. So in that respect I do see some room for (very careful) regulation in principle. I don't know that it could be done effectively in practice though, in light of enforcement and jurisdiction problems.
or if they'd actually roll out the upgrades they've already promised to roll out in exchange for tax breaks (verizon). I don't wholly disagree with you on this, but I think it's hard to 'enact' a middle ground, and that the government obviously sucks and controlling their holdings already. All we need now is to place a support call for a service interruption to the USDepartmentOfInternet who says they'll send a technician out to your house between the 12th and the 5th.
I don't see a better way that doesn't eventually lead to the death of investment in net infrastructure. See my response below (so I don't completely repeat myself) here
People might be tempted to say that we should then have the government take over and do it all, but even in cases where the government does take over, you still have traffic laws (see roads, vehicle restrictions, tolls, and HOV lanes.)
so, then, what's the incentive to own the wire then if you cannot use it for your own purposes? I understand there are externalities involved, like you can only fit so many wires on a telephone pole, but the wires still don't run themselves. Owning wire somehow encumbers you to serve whatever thing someone decides to put on it?
Even government owned roads have restrictions on the types of vehicles that can ride on them. Let's not even mention those that can only be traveled with a certain number of passengers (HOV lanes.) These are even certified public utilities, yet they have rules in place governing traffic for the very same reasons that businesses might want to regulate their own wire space.
Amen. I'd buy you a drink. The best way to get what you want is to make sure that you make it more financially advantageous, especially from non-regulatory pressure, for the corporations to see things your way. I agree with you, and I'd expand a bit more...
Legislation on issues such as this would only allow for one more possible point of corruption for the big interests who want to break the rules. I'm not sure which government has jurisdiction over 'the internet' anyway. Does it only apply to your customers if you're an american company? Or only your customers? Are your customers anyone who pays you money, or anyone that does business with anyone who pays you money? What if they're outside the US? What exactly are they going to regulate anyway... traffic between any two hosts? Traffic on a particular network? Is that network considered to be of a subnet as defined by an IP Mask? Perhaps of an ownership block? Maybe it's a trail of routes. Even if we are unfortunate enough to have the government step in and force people to act more communist, the law has to be enforcible and there has to be a method of clearly showing tort anyway in court. It also has to appear in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. That last bit might be the hardest part of the whole idea to swallow.
For Net-Neutrality to have some kind of effect, you have to show that some party violated some rule, and that some body of enforcement has jurisdiction over the issue. If you can't answer every one of these questions about every incident then you can just only point and cry foul every time someone snuffs a packet out. As if our legal system wasn't muddy enough already. Next thing you know it'll be illegal to have personal and corporate firewalls.