Cable is an example of what? I didn't say that monopolies don't exist (if you recall). I said they don't last. If the cable company was justified in shelling out the costs to achieve such a high "cable density" as you put it, then with time as more technological solutions become available, it is inevitable that market entry will be available to someone at a lower cost. The only way that cost of market entry can be kept up is if there is something which keeps those costs from falling down despite cheaper technical solutions. If power lines weren't so regulated, we'd have a content delivery over power lines long time ago. I am not sure why you think that narrowing a solution to one technology somehow proves any point. It's the service that matters. Both TV programming and the internet service are offered through other technologies now. Oh, and the "tacit" collusion as you called it is even less effective than actual collusion. Costs always decrease because cheaper methods are developed. This allows providers to decrease prices to compete (again, unless some entity stands in their way of decreasing prices). They don't do it to be nice. They do it because they like steak.
This isn't true, you know. Ever heard of the concept of a natural monopoly?
Yes. I also happen to know that the sky is blue and how to tie my shoes. "Ever heard of it..."... Geez! It's a myth. The same was said about Internet Registry before multiple registrars were allowed to form and compete.
If a cable company has no legally granted monopoly, what's preventing other methods of content deliver and information exchange from competing in the area? Power company is still regulated, right? So no ethernet over power lines because it's not profitable or because it must get a regulatory approval? Oh, and digging up ground still requires permits, right? That's local regulatory barrier. This isn't a monopoly keeping competition off the market by using its monopoly power. It's regulatory barriers that are keeping competition from coming in -- not market place forces. Do you know that in many parts of Africa cell phones appeared where no land lines ever existed? Cost of digging up dirt doesn't always have to be paid in order to create a content delivery system.
OPEC doesn't have a monopoly. US, Canada and Mexico are not in it. And US, Canada and Mexico combined produce more oil than OPEC. For all the talk, only 40% of the oil used in US is imported from outside the country. Although I should admit that it's been about 5 years since I checked this number.
Well, it's not "Ok" for TSA to do it. I did mention in the gp that I thought that TSA's mode of operation was stupid. But the restrictions on government's actions ARE inasmuch as it is the law of the land. If you accept the premise that the law of the seas is a more adequate paradigm for handling air travel (due to air travel being more similar to open-sea travel than to travel on land), then whatever authority is in charge is allowed to exceed the limits set for the authorities on land. If you attempt to cross an ocean on a boat, you can bet that both the coast guard and the navy will claim the right to search your boat. And they most likely can do it without a warrant. Applying the same standard to air travel would mean that 4th amendment protections don't apply there, either.
the water company can't decide not to serve you. they can't ban you. this is essentially the same
Except that utility company have monopolies only because those monopolies are granted by law. Monopolies don't persist if there are no laws to protect them.
If you study how to create physical things (circuits, engines, airplanes, cars, bridges, chemical refineries, etc.) and you never build one of industrial quality of at least 10-15 year ago, you wasted your time. Computers and computer simulations are tools. Knowing how to use tools is not the same as engineering.
Anything so advanced that it has NEVER been done by an engineer before is not really an engineering endeavor. It falls under applied sciences. Yes, I know that's a tautology. Unfortunately, that's true of anything which describes a middle stage of an iterative process. I suppose a more exact wording of it would be that something which has never been done by an engineer transitions from applied science to engineering only through an effort of an experienced engineer working with an applied scientist. Expecting that a novice engineer can bring about such a transition is naive.
Part of the work of an engineer is dealing with unpredictabilities which make their way into live systems. Emulators don't do that (not in the same way that real life does anyway). You wouldn't expect someone who studies all the nuances of a foreign language, but never practices it, to be a good translator. You shouldn't expect any different from an engineer. And someone who practiced in front of a computer wouldn't be a good translator, either (although he might be in a better position to start practicing with live speakers).
If your engineering school doesn't have labs, facilities and such to actually accommodate engineering lab work, your degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I really mean it, by the way. Sorry if it's overly harsh. But there ARE plenty of good engineering schools in the US. They DO have labs in which engineering students get to build stuff. If you are not graduating from one of those, chances of you actually becoming an engineer after school are miniscule.
On the one hand, I think Visa should have every right to deny service and access to their private network. It's their network. You shouldn't have any more rights to access it than you have rights to access my own home network. On the hand, I think it's absurd that we are going after someone who is clearly engaged in a journalist effort simply because we don't like how much information he was able to obtain. All attempts to label him anything but a journalist are disingenuous. The only reasonable solution I can come with would not be on his side. He should come to the US and sue here. Of course, he'd be forced to stand trial. As well he should. And we would all benefit from his victory in court. The principle that a journalist has a right to publish anything he knows apparently needs to be reaffirmed in the current day and age.
To me, the law of the land has always meant the law of _this_land
The phrase has come to mean that in modern parlance because so little of our transportation involves the seas. But more importantly, the US Constitution declares itself to be the "supreme law of the land." At the time of the writing of that legal document, the phrase had a very specific well-understood legal meaning. The meaning was "the law of the land as opposed to the law of the seas."
The laws of the seas? Not sure I know what those would be
Look up "admiralty law" (sometimes also known as "maritime law").
instead of pro-environment, which is also pro-human.
I disagree.
Slippery-slope fallacy is fallacious.
If I believe the has already been crossed, it's not a slipper slope argument then. Now we are just arguing semantics. You want to call ecofascism "fluffy bunnies." I want to call it ecofascism.
You are not free to walk without an ID. Not effectively, anyway. I live in NJ (I figured I had to mention before all the Arizona cracks) and I assure you that if a cop asks you for an id, you will not get away with simply stating your name and address. I've tried it. I was put in a 3-hour administrative hold until the cop searched my wallet and wrote a full report which required 2 subsequent court appearances. I was NOT driving. I did not do anything which would require any form of identification. Cops DO have a right to demand that you identify yourself (SCOTUS has ruled on it). Generally, it means that you should be able to give enough information for the cop to know who you are. But most cops will demand that you actually PROVE that you are who you say you are. You might win at trial if you get ticketed for a trumped up charge which really amount to "didn't present an id", but if you try to sue the cops for arresting in the 1st place, you'll lose. And rights which have no way of being enforced are defunct.
Ok, but I am not so sure that traveling in an isolated space with 100 strangers without any of them having been checked for danger is an "essential" liberty. The law of the land is called by that name so as to distinguish it from the laws of the sea. And laws of the sea were more restrictive for very much the same reason: at sea people traveled in enclosed space with a group of others completely isolated from the rest of the civilization. I still insist that it's the stupidity of TSA's mode of operation that is the problem -- not the concept of having extra checks put on the air travel itself.
Jokes aren't funny if you know what they communicate ahead of time. Every joke has to have an element of surprise. Therefore, it has to communicate an idea or a view which was previously unknown to the listener (even if it's based on the facts which were known to the listener). Physical response of laughter is only a side effect of anxiety relief. Plenty of people enjoy humor physically laughing. It is most certainly a form of communication. Porn which doesn't arouse simply doesn't work as porn. Try watching a fetish video of a fetish which you don't have. You won't be aroused. Even though you will see something that you probably didn't see before, you won't think that it carries any kind of educational value. That's because no idea will have actually been communicated to you. And yet plenty of people watch the same "kind" of porn (everyone has heard of someone with a nurse porn fetish). This isn't because they like to be reminded of the details of some communication. It's because the same porn creates the same effect on repeated views. Ideas simply don't do that. Nor do jokes. No one laughs at the same joke every time they hear it.
No, we are not a Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany harassed (to use a euphemism) with a purpose. We harass arbitrarily. It's the stupidity of the institutions of power that are tearing us apart -- not the power of the institutions of power.
I am not "really" trying to defend him. I don't know him nor do I care. I am only interested in the abstract notion of where the plagiarism line gets crossed. Certainly, if was asked to list other projects he derived from, he'd have to list them. Copyright terms of open source license have nothing to do with plagiarism. They are only related to IP rights. The guys work WAS, however, original. If his program beat others, then his work was ahead of the work of others. (even if it was derived from the work of others). He may have violated the terms of the contest, but it wasn't plagiarism.
I didn't say it was "dirty". I didn't say it was vile or evil. But the excuse that you are "learning" from it is lame. Porn's effect is not to teach but to elicit a physical response and you know it. There is very few things one can learn about sex. There are (at most) a few hundred way of doing it. And yet there are literally millions porn videos. They are not there to educate. They are there to titillate. I am not against porn. I am against hypocrisy of pretending that it's a form of speech..
Plagiarism is passing someone else's work as your own. He didn't do that. Putting together something out of components made by others and saying that the end product was made by you does not amount to plagiarism. Oh, and don't attribute disagreement to ignorance unless you know you are talking to someone with less than grade-school education. You'll pump your rage, but you won't convince anyone of anything by doing it.
Putting 2 engines together is original code from where I stand. So point (b) is moot. (see all the posts under the total is bigger than the sum-total of the parts)
Yes, but technological advancements have allowed us to depend on the tribe less. And enabled us to be more productive through use of higher brain functions than through mechanical repetitive labor. The only thing which stands in our way is jealousy of those less able.
Why not go for full necrophilia? Why just light bulbs? Snuffing life out of life is smexy. Let's get people excited about public hangings since it's people that cause all these emissions, right? At which point do we get to call ecofascism by its proper name?
Perception of financial security generally leads to people starting families. Baby booms usually follow economic booms. Remove road blocks to prosperity and people who want to raise children will have more of them.
People who view other people in terms of how much burden they put on society are generally themselves the ones putting the largest burden. They don't know much about much so they can only view individuals in the same terms that farmers view bovine stock. You want to reduce misery in the world? Make sure every sociology major is required to spend his life with indigenous population rather than just a few years of "research." Yes, I am generalizing. No, I won't take it back. I am ok with not having government subsidies for raising children if you are ok with not having government subsidies for high-risk individual behavior (esoteric college majors, unpopular arts, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
Cable is an example of what? I didn't say that monopolies don't exist (if you recall). I said they don't last. If the cable company was justified in shelling out the costs to achieve such a high "cable density" as you put it, then with time as more technological solutions become available, it is inevitable that market entry will be available to someone at a lower cost. The only way that cost of market entry can be kept up is if there is something which keeps those costs from falling down despite cheaper technical solutions. If power lines weren't so regulated, we'd have a content delivery over power lines long time ago. I am not sure why you think that narrowing a solution to one technology somehow proves any point. It's the service that matters. Both TV programming and the internet service are offered through other technologies now. Oh, and the "tacit" collusion as you called it is even less effective than actual collusion. Costs always decrease because cheaper methods are developed. This allows providers to decrease prices to compete (again, unless some entity stands in their way of decreasing prices). They don't do it to be nice. They do it because they like steak.
This isn't true, you know. Ever heard of the concept of a natural monopoly?
Yes. I also happen to know that the sky is blue and how to tie my shoes. "Ever heard of it..."... Geez! It's a myth. The same was said about Internet Registry before multiple registrars were allowed to form and compete.
If a cable company has no legally granted monopoly, what's preventing other methods of content deliver and information exchange from competing in the area? Power company is still regulated, right? So no ethernet over power lines because it's not profitable or because it must get a regulatory approval? Oh, and digging up ground still requires permits, right? That's local regulatory barrier. This isn't a monopoly keeping competition off the market by using its monopoly power. It's regulatory barriers that are keeping competition from coming in -- not market place forces. Do you know that in many parts of Africa cell phones appeared where no land lines ever existed? Cost of digging up dirt doesn't always have to be paid in order to create a content delivery system.
OPEC doesn't have a monopoly. US, Canada and Mexico are not in it. And US, Canada and Mexico combined produce more oil than OPEC. For all the talk, only 40% of the oil used in US is imported from outside the country. Although I should admit that it's been about 5 years since I checked this number.
Well, it's not "Ok" for TSA to do it. I did mention in the gp that I thought that TSA's mode of operation was stupid. But the restrictions on government's actions ARE inasmuch as it is the law of the land. If you accept the premise that the law of the seas is a more adequate paradigm for handling air travel (due to air travel being more similar to open-sea travel than to travel on land), then whatever authority is in charge is allowed to exceed the limits set for the authorities on land. If you attempt to cross an ocean on a boat, you can bet that both the coast guard and the navy will claim the right to search your boat. And they most likely can do it without a warrant. Applying the same standard to air travel would mean that 4th amendment protections don't apply there, either.
Oh, but you can't just "buy" judges in America. You have to make a donation to SOB's favorite charity: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/education/23newark.html
the water company can't decide not to serve you. they can't ban you. this is essentially the same
Except that utility company have monopolies only because those monopolies are granted by law. Monopolies don't persist if there are no laws to protect them.
If you study how to create physical things (circuits, engines, airplanes, cars, bridges, chemical refineries, etc.) and you never build one of industrial quality of at least 10-15 year ago, you wasted your time. Computers and computer simulations are tools. Knowing how to use tools is not the same as engineering.
Anything so advanced that it has NEVER been done by an engineer before is not really an engineering endeavor. It falls under applied sciences. Yes, I know that's a tautology. Unfortunately, that's true of anything which describes a middle stage of an iterative process. I suppose a more exact wording of it would be that something which has never been done by an engineer transitions from applied science to engineering only through an effort of an experienced engineer working with an applied scientist. Expecting that a novice engineer can bring about such a transition is naive.
Part of the work of an engineer is dealing with unpredictabilities which make their way into live systems. Emulators don't do that (not in the same way that real life does anyway). You wouldn't expect someone who studies all the nuances of a foreign language, but never practices it, to be a good translator. You shouldn't expect any different from an engineer. And someone who practiced in front of a computer wouldn't be a good translator, either (although he might be in a better position to start practicing with live speakers).
If your engineering school doesn't have labs, facilities and such to actually accommodate engineering lab work, your degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I really mean it, by the way. Sorry if it's overly harsh. But there ARE plenty of good engineering schools in the US. They DO have labs in which engineering students get to build stuff. If you are not graduating from one of those, chances of you actually becoming an engineer after school are miniscule.
On the one hand, I think Visa should have every right to deny service and access to their private network. It's their network. You shouldn't have any more rights to access it than you have rights to access my own home network. On the hand, I think it's absurd that we are going after someone who is clearly engaged in a journalist effort simply because we don't like how much information he was able to obtain. All attempts to label him anything but a journalist are disingenuous. The only reasonable solution I can come with would not be on his side. He should come to the US and sue here. Of course, he'd be forced to stand trial. As well he should. And we would all benefit from his victory in court. The principle that a journalist has a right to publish anything he knows apparently needs to be reaffirmed in the current day and age.
To me, the law of the land has always meant the law of _this_land
The phrase has come to mean that in modern parlance because so little of our transportation involves the seas. But more importantly, the US Constitution declares itself to be the "supreme law of the land." At the time of the writing of that legal document, the phrase had a very specific well-understood legal meaning. The meaning was "the law of the land as opposed to the law of the seas."
The laws of the seas? Not sure I know what those would be
Look up "admiralty law" (sometimes also known as "maritime law").
instead of pro-environment, which is also pro-human.
I disagree.
Slippery-slope fallacy is fallacious.
If I believe the has already been crossed, it's not a slipper slope argument then. Now we are just arguing semantics. You want to call ecofascism "fluffy bunnies." I want to call it ecofascism.
You are not free to walk without an ID. Not effectively, anyway. I live in NJ (I figured I had to mention before all the Arizona cracks) and I assure you that if a cop asks you for an id, you will not get away with simply stating your name and address. I've tried it. I was put in a 3-hour administrative hold until the cop searched my wallet and wrote a full report which required 2 subsequent court appearances. I was NOT driving. I did not do anything which would require any form of identification. Cops DO have a right to demand that you identify yourself (SCOTUS has ruled on it). Generally, it means that you should be able to give enough information for the cop to know who you are. But most cops will demand that you actually PROVE that you are who you say you are. You might win at trial if you get ticketed for a trumped up charge which really amount to "didn't present an id", but if you try to sue the cops for arresting in the 1st place, you'll lose. And rights which have no way of being enforced are defunct.
Ok, but I am not so sure that traveling in an isolated space with 100 strangers without any of them having been checked for danger is an "essential" liberty. The law of the land is called by that name so as to distinguish it from the laws of the sea. And laws of the sea were more restrictive for very much the same reason: at sea people traveled in enclosed space with a group of others completely isolated from the rest of the civilization. I still insist that it's the stupidity of TSA's mode of operation that is the problem -- not the concept of having extra checks put on the air travel itself.
Jokes aren't funny if you know what they communicate ahead of time. Every joke has to have an element of surprise. Therefore, it has to communicate an idea or a view which was previously unknown to the listener (even if it's based on the facts which were known to the listener). Physical response of laughter is only a side effect of anxiety relief. Plenty of people enjoy humor physically laughing. It is most certainly a form of communication. Porn which doesn't arouse simply doesn't work as porn. Try watching a fetish video of a fetish which you don't have. You won't be aroused. Even though you will see something that you probably didn't see before, you won't think that it carries any kind of educational value. That's because no idea will have actually been communicated to you. And yet plenty of people watch the same "kind" of porn (everyone has heard of someone with a nurse porn fetish). This isn't because they like to be reminded of the details of some communication. It's because the same porn creates the same effect on repeated views. Ideas simply don't do that. Nor do jokes. No one laughs at the same joke every time they hear it.
No, we are not a Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany harassed (to use a euphemism) with a purpose. We harass arbitrarily. It's the stupidity of the institutions of power that are tearing us apart -- not the power of the institutions of power.
I am not "really" trying to defend him. I don't know him nor do I care. I am only interested in the abstract notion of where the plagiarism line gets crossed. Certainly, if was asked to list other projects he derived from, he'd have to list them. Copyright terms of open source license have nothing to do with plagiarism. They are only related to IP rights. The guys work WAS, however, original. If his program beat others, then his work was ahead of the work of others. (even if it was derived from the work of others). He may have violated the terms of the contest, but it wasn't plagiarism.
I didn't say it was "dirty". I didn't say it was vile or evil. But the excuse that you are "learning" from it is lame. Porn's effect is not to teach but to elicit a physical response and you know it. There is very few things one can learn about sex. There are (at most) a few hundred way of doing it. And yet there are literally millions porn videos. They are not there to educate. They are there to titillate. I am not against porn. I am against hypocrisy of pretending that it's a form of speech..
Plagiarism is passing someone else's work as your own. He didn't do that. Putting together something out of components made by others and saying that the end product was made by you does not amount to plagiarism. Oh, and don't attribute disagreement to ignorance unless you know you are talking to someone with less than grade-school education. You'll pump your rage, but you won't convince anyone of anything by doing it.
Putting 2 engines together is original code from where I stand. So point (b) is moot. (see all the posts under the total is bigger than the sum-total of the parts)
Yes, but technological advancements have allowed us to depend on the tribe less. And enabled us to be more productive through use of higher brain functions than through mechanical repetitive labor. The only thing which stands in our way is jealousy of those less able.
Why not go for full necrophilia? Why just light bulbs? Snuffing life out of life is smexy. Let's get people excited about public hangings since it's people that cause all these emissions, right? At which point do we get to call ecofascism by its proper name?
Perception of financial security generally leads to people starting families. Baby booms usually follow economic booms. Remove road blocks to prosperity and people who want to raise children will have more of them.
People who view other people in terms of how much burden they put on society are generally themselves the ones putting the largest burden. They don't know much about much so they can only view individuals in the same terms that farmers view bovine stock. You want to reduce misery in the world? Make sure every sociology major is required to spend his life with indigenous population rather than just a few years of "research." Yes, I am generalizing. No, I won't take it back. I am ok with not having government subsidies for raising children if you are ok with not having government subsidies for high-risk individual behavior (esoteric college majors, unpopular arts, etc.)
"they" are the large families. cause i doubt (and I am taking an educated guess there) that the guy with uid>2mil has one himself.
anything else "they" can do so that "we" can have our priorities satisfied?