Games that have a specific, real-world interval that is frequently as short as a couple hours seem to easily touch off obsessive-compulsive behavior. Farmville is especially bad because of the amount of crops that have intervals in some multiple of 24 hours. Either someone is obsessive enough to log in exactly on-time (a potential indicator of a problem in and of itself), or the schedule gets bumped out by a few minutes (or more) each time. It eventually shifts enough to force those obsessive people into (what shouldn't be) tough decisions between real life and pixels.
You asked for a serious answer, and I gave you one. That it is something that does not exist in common practice is irrelevant to the point. Take that as you will, as in retrospect this exchange ceased being of any value a couple posts ago.
As I've said before, I'm perfectly aware of current common practice. As a result, stressing that I should wake up is more than a bit arrogant. But you probably knew that when you wrote it.
If you have to fill out an application for something, and pay an arbitrary fee, it is no longer a right.
My point was about legal theory. I am sorry that you don't actually see the point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure how to break it down any further. You are focused on how it will simplify your life, and I can understand that. I could answer your questions again, but we'd be again discussing theory, based on potential and past events. That rarely ever goes well because people have a habit of derailing with quibbles over semantics that have nothing to do with the actual point, so I'm not going to take that path.
I will make one last comment regarding your final statement though. Governments are always looking for new ways to punish people. That's why they tack on new laws that provide additional punishment for things that are already crimes, in order to boost the number of charges. It's why tax stamps and registration are required to sell marijuana, or why it is now possible to be sentenced to prison for the ancillary crime of structuring, even when the structuring is not used to facilitate the hiding of a criminal act like money laundering.
Unfortunately, the problem is so bad now that the disconnect in understanding of legal theory is unlikely to ever get better (at least until the next cycle of major societal change). It can take months or years of research to sift through the webs of any given section of US law in order to get a fairly complete picture of interrelation and context, and that's when one is actually interested in the subject. Of course then there's the problem of keeping up. Creation of job security at its best.
First sentence, fifth paragraph of the story. They want it required for employment.
I understand most people don't actually believe me when told that an SSN is not mandatory for legal employment, and if I still really cared I'd dig up the section of the IRC that is the controlling statute.
I'm not sure it can be explained more simply. Working is still conceptually a right. If tied to an official card that is revocable (they're talking about tying it to a national driver's license), it is no longer conceptually a right.
Yes, much of this deals with theoretical concepts (the definition of rights). You may not agree with the original concept of rights vs powers vs privileges, but if you understand the first two paragraphs of this post then we're on the same page whether you agree with my definition of what constitutes a right or not. If you believe I'm misinformed or lying about being able to work legally without an SSN, then this exchange is irrelevant. Either way, that is the honest answer to your question, so take it as you will.
Actually you don't have to give a number issued by the Federal government. Employers just have to make a reasonable effort to attain it, and file an affidavit to that effect if they are unable to. That's the legal requirement anyway. As for the practical effect, yes, you have to supply it in order to be employed by most people. Most employers are unwilling to risk the wrath of the IRS for doing something that is almost unheard of but completely legal.
There's still at least a token effort to actually keep the law within the authority granted to the Federal government. This would completely end even a pretense of compliance with the 9th and 10th amendments, since the Federal government has no granted authority to regulate intrastate employment in any manner.
That's the root of the problem with the concept. If you have to be licensed in order to work legally, working is not a right. The ramifications of it being possible to revoke the ability to provide for your life through your own labor are staggering, and I truly feel sorry for anyone who is unable to think of even one or two of those ramifications.
If passed, this will be the final nail in the coffin of the 9th and 10th amendments.
At least you put "free marketeers" in parenthesis, since there have been only a handful of free marketeers in any sort of powerful office in the US since the Industrial Revolution. Mostly those who are pointed to as abusing the "free market" were doing no such thing (primarily because there was no free market system in place to abuse). They were using the government as a tool to protect their private interests at the expense of the free market. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which special interest they want to control any given market. Using the term as a pejorative against people who want an actual free, open marketplace just shows people who actually pay attention that you don't care enough about the issue to bother learning about it.
Your argument makes as much sense as saying the Amish love to torture their enemies because the Inquisitors were Christian.
In regard to wages, I'm only familiar with the US. If that doesn't apply in your country that's fine.
I somehow doubt all of the front-line public sector offices have all their work done by private sector employees there, but if you say so then you'd likely know better.
It's easier to sit on your ass all day pushing papers for an inflated check and benefits far in excess of the private sector than it is to have to get a job that requires actual thought and skill, that's why.
The key difference is that your opinion on industrial espionage being okay is irrelevant to legal proceedings, as it is typically illegal to engage in industrial espionage the US. So, while you may not agree that it should be illegal, the judge was still correct to rule on the side of how the law is written rather than how certain people believe the law should be written.
By all means, try to get things changed so that nobody can be punished for soliciting theft of secret information and then selling it. Until you're successful, don't expect judges to rule in a way you would find favorable.
You know how much more money you can make being bilingual, especially in languages from radically different parts of the world?
Most people who are smart don't do things to make other people think they're smart. They do them because they're fun, interesting, challenging, career-building, and/or personally fulfilling. They get the same joy out of it that you do fucking beautiful girls while stoned out of your mind.
The translating computer you have? Built by smart people who didn't waste their lives wasted and in bed.
It's the creating stock tips, telling your clients the information then trying to keep the information you have given your clients secret by going after people who have done nothing wrong. It's the way they are publishing their results and the way in which they try to keep tha information secret that bothers me.
Did you read the same article I did? The ruling doesn't keep the information secret after distribution to research firms' clients. It prevents third party publication until after the firms have had a reasonable chance to transmit it to their clients.
The poor, poor people who "have done nothing wrong." Basing a business solely on paying people to knowingly and willfully violate confidentiality agreements in order to obtain trade secrets is industrial espionage. Nothing wrong with that, right?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1839.html In-depth analysis is not something readily knowable by people in general. It takes a lot of man-hours to compile and distill market data into actionable information. That is the final piece to qualify the analysis as a trade secret.
Given a comparison between it and discrete component for any one of those uses and it doesn't measure up. In the beginning, it was divergent in that it was designed to do complex calculations that were difficult (and now some that would be impossible for all practical purposes) to perform using current tools. Further development was driven by the leveraged power of persistent two-way network connections, something also divergent from existing technologies. The convergence of a PC has been a result of that leveraged power coupled with the ability to do many things easily, though not nearly so well as using devices dedicated to a specific task.
Also, the statement was that technologies diverge for the most part. Yes, there are examples that run counter to the vast majority of things, even if this one isn't really one of those examples.
Flashcards are great for learning Chinese or Japanese characters. There are also many characters, or parts thereof, that have a mnemonic relationship to the idea that they are used to impart. I can't think of any decent books offhand, but they're out there.
Inside information by its very nature isn't doesn't support long-term gains, whether a person is caught or not. It is information that needs to be acted on within a short time frame and requires the liquidation of the position after the publication of the information which causes the price swing. I can't think of a single instance where inside information would be useful in a long term stock position, but that's not to say they don't exist. I'd be interested to hear a theory on the long-term use of inside information. Note, I don't mean the serial use of inside tips over a long period of time, which would all also be short-term gains reaped repeatedly over a long period of time.
Figuring out something nobody else realized does not equal market manipulation in any but the most twisted definitions, so you've provided a false "choice" of less information vs manipulation.
The ruling was about preventing business competitors from publishing data that was leaked in violation of privacy agreements, one of the "solutions" you provided in the second sentence above. You offer a solution and then oppose a ruling that upholds the legality of the solution. Inconsistent much?
The efficient market hypothesis is a joke. To get perfect efficiency and instantaneous market reaction you need perfect and instantaneous cause/effect analysis and instant action based on that analysis. That doesn't exist (and can only exist in theory currently), so the efficient market hypothesis does not actually work.
I'm glad you agree information is good for the market in general. If the court ruled against those who produce research for money, a large source of market information analysis would disappear.
While I doubt your post was intended to agree with me, it nonetheless supports the contention that the court ruled correctly in protecting firms who spend time and money to analyze publicly available data and making it available to the public shortly after making it available to those who actually pay to have it produced.
Don't pretend you have the right to data you didn't pay to have produced the second it is available just because it's "unfair" that someone gets an advantage by actually doing work for themselves and their clients.
This is not a case of insider trading, it is aggregation and analysis of publicly available information being used to facilitate smarter trading amongst their clients. Most of those clients are long-term investors, and insider information is almost exclusively used for short-term gains. While there may be overlap in legal and illegal activity among firms and clients, there isn't really a case to be made that this is an example of that sort of thing.
Yes, there is a lot of scummy behavior on Wall Street. It helps to not be confused as to what terms like "insider trading" actually mean when discussing it though, because it detracts from actual meaningful discussion.
What have you done to make your views heard outside of Slashdot?
Significantly more than the average person. My posting on Slashdot amounts to little more than a diversion.
Additionally, there are only two routes to changing something: convincing or coercing. We're not yet at the point of armed conflict (for the most part) to rectify the abuses of government in the US. So, for those who oppose the way the government works now are left with talk. Those who support and control the legislative process get to use both with relative impunity.
So, your response seems either ill-conceived or was a means to attempt to discredit based on an implied failure on my part to take unspecified actions to change the thoroughly broken government in the US. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
That would be great if law enforcement who abused access to large government databases were punished... ever.
Oh wait, government databases are lost or compromised and all we get is "Oops, we'll be sure to never let that happen again."
Saying "Punish those who violate the law" is like saying "Hold government accountable when they overreach their Constitutionally-limited powers." Yeah, great in theory, but there are those of us who actually live in the real world and are aware that it only slows the abuses down by 20 years or so, until they can be ingrained into the next generation.
Then Apple should build their own engine or buy someone else's. If you have actual technology for sale that is covered by a valid patent, you should be able to choose to whom you sell and for what price. You should be able to negotiate deals with anyone who wants to buy it, including negotiating for access to other things you might want. A patent provides legally protected leverage in an industry for a limited (theoretically) time, and just like freedom to associate or not with whom you choose, you should be able to sell or not based on whatever arbitrary criteria you want to set. There are all sorts of instances when companies set different rates based on who is buying and what sort of negotiating power each party has.
That this is an item protected under patent should make absolutely no difference.
Hell, that should be one of the benefits of patents: being able to control, in any manner you desire, the sale of your idea for a limited time.
It was probably done with the intent to prevent EMI from picking piecemeal through Pink Floyd's albums and throwing them onto a compilation, "Best of," or "Hits from the XX's" album, in which case it actually is about artistic integrity. It just so happens that it also prevents EMI from breaking the album apart and selling songs individually now that it is possible.
When the contract was signed, it was not possible to market and sell songs individually (with the exception of singles, which account for an insignificant fraction of record sales), so claiming that's the reason is complete nonsense. Look at the issue from the perspective of the time period during which the contract was signed.
Yes, I made assumptions about what happened, though not necessarily any more likely to be out of line than the assumptions made by the OP. Whether and what actually happened aside, the argument put forward by the person I was replying to (He made mistake X, therefore is highly likely to make other discharge-worthy mistakes) is still completely unwarranted.
For the rest of what you said, I completely agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Games that have a specific, real-world interval that is frequently as short as a couple hours seem to easily touch off obsessive-compulsive behavior. Farmville is especially bad because of the amount of crops that have intervals in some multiple of 24 hours. Either someone is obsessive enough to log in exactly on-time (a potential indicator of a problem in and of itself), or the schedule gets bumped out by a few minutes (or more) each time. It eventually shifts enough to force those obsessive people into (what shouldn't be) tough decisions between real life and pixels.
You asked for a serious answer, and I gave you one. That it is something that does not exist in common practice is irrelevant to the point. Take that as you will, as in retrospect this exchange ceased being of any value a couple posts ago.
As I've said before, I'm perfectly aware of current common practice. As a result, stressing that I should wake up is more than a bit arrogant. But you probably knew that when you wrote it.
If you have to fill out an application for something, and pay an arbitrary fee, it is no longer a right.
My point was about legal theory. I am sorry that you don't actually see the point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure how to break it down any further. You are focused on how it will simplify your life, and I can understand that. I could answer your questions again, but we'd be again discussing theory, based on potential and past events. That rarely ever goes well because people have a habit of derailing with quibbles over semantics that have nothing to do with the actual point, so I'm not going to take that path.
I will make one last comment regarding your final statement though. Governments are always looking for new ways to punish people. That's why they tack on new laws that provide additional punishment for things that are already crimes, in order to boost the number of charges. It's why tax stamps and registration are required to sell marijuana, or why it is now possible to be sentenced to prison for the ancillary crime of structuring, even when the structuring is not used to facilitate the hiding of a criminal act like money laundering.
Unfortunately, the problem is so bad now that the disconnect in understanding of legal theory is unlikely to ever get better (at least until the next cycle of major societal change). It can take months or years of research to sift through the webs of any given section of US law in order to get a fairly complete picture of interrelation and context, and that's when one is actually interested in the subject. Of course then there's the problem of keeping up. Creation of job security at its best.
First sentence, fifth paragraph of the story. They want it required for employment.
I understand most people don't actually believe me when told that an SSN is not mandatory for legal employment, and if I still really cared I'd dig up the section of the IRC that is the controlling statute.
I'm not sure it can be explained more simply. Working is still conceptually a right. If tied to an official card that is revocable (they're talking about tying it to a national driver's license), it is no longer conceptually a right.
Yes, much of this deals with theoretical concepts (the definition of rights). You may not agree with the original concept of rights vs powers vs privileges, but if you understand the first two paragraphs of this post then we're on the same page whether you agree with my definition of what constitutes a right or not. If you believe I'm misinformed or lying about being able to work legally without an SSN, then this exchange is irrelevant. Either way, that is the honest answer to your question, so take it as you will.
Actually you don't have to give a number issued by the Federal government. Employers just have to make a reasonable effort to attain it, and file an affidavit to that effect if they are unable to. That's the legal requirement anyway. As for the practical effect, yes, you have to supply it in order to be employed by most people. Most employers are unwilling to risk the wrath of the IRS for doing something that is almost unheard of but completely legal.
There's still at least a token effort to actually keep the law within the authority granted to the Federal government. This would completely end even a pretense of compliance with the 9th and 10th amendments, since the Federal government has no granted authority to regulate intrastate employment in any manner.
That's the root of the problem with the concept. If you have to be licensed in order to work legally, working is not a right. The ramifications of it being possible to revoke the ability to provide for your life through your own labor are staggering, and I truly feel sorry for anyone who is unable to think of even one or two of those ramifications.
If passed, this will be the final nail in the coffin of the 9th and 10th amendments.
At least you put "free marketeers" in parenthesis, since there have been only a handful of free marketeers in any sort of powerful office in the US since the Industrial Revolution. Mostly those who are pointed to as abusing the "free market" were doing no such thing (primarily because there was no free market system in place to abuse). They were using the government as a tool to protect their private interests at the expense of the free market. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is which special interest they want to control any given market. Using the term as a pejorative against people who want an actual free, open marketplace just shows people who actually pay attention that you don't care enough about the issue to bother learning about it.
Your argument makes as much sense as saying the Amish love to torture their enemies because the Inquisitors were Christian.
In regard to wages, I'm only familiar with the US. If that doesn't apply in your country that's fine.
I somehow doubt all of the front-line public sector offices have all their work done by private sector employees there, but if you say so then you'd likely know better.
It's easier to sit on your ass all day pushing papers for an inflated check and benefits far in excess of the private sector than it is to have to get a job that requires actual thought and skill, that's why.
My apologies for misinterpreting. I was limiting my comments to the merits of the ruling, not what is preferable in a better world.
The key difference is that your opinion on industrial espionage being okay is irrelevant to legal proceedings, as it is typically illegal to engage in industrial espionage the US. So, while you may not agree that it should be illegal, the judge was still correct to rule on the side of how the law is written rather than how certain people believe the law should be written.
By all means, try to get things changed so that nobody can be punished for soliciting theft of secret information and then selling it. Until you're successful, don't expect judges to rule in a way you would find favorable.
Someone sure is bitter.
You know how much more money you can make being bilingual, especially in languages from radically different parts of the world?
Most people who are smart don't do things to make other people think they're smart. They do them because they're fun, interesting, challenging, career-building, and/or personally fulfilling. They get the same joy out of it that you do fucking beautiful girls while stoned out of your mind.
The translating computer you have? Built by smart people who didn't waste their lives wasted and in bed.
Did you read the same article I did? The ruling doesn't keep the information secret after distribution to research firms' clients. It prevents third party publication until after the firms have had a reasonable chance to transmit it to their clients.
The poor, poor people who "have done nothing wrong." Basing a business solely on paying people to knowingly and willfully violate confidentiality agreements in order to obtain trade secrets is industrial espionage. Nothing wrong with that, right?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1839.html
In-depth analysis is not something readily knowable by people in general. It takes a lot of man-hours to compile and distill market data into actionable information. That is the final piece to qualify the analysis as a trade secret.
Given a comparison between it and discrete component for any one of those uses and it doesn't measure up. In the beginning, it was divergent in that it was designed to do complex calculations that were difficult (and now some that would be impossible for all practical purposes) to perform using current tools. Further development was driven by the leveraged power of persistent two-way network connections, something also divergent from existing technologies. The convergence of a PC has been a result of that leveraged power coupled with the ability to do many things easily, though not nearly so well as using devices dedicated to a specific task.
Also, the statement was that technologies diverge for the most part. Yes, there are examples that run counter to the vast majority of things, even if this one isn't really one of those examples.
Flashcards are great for learning Chinese or Japanese characters. There are also many characters, or parts thereof, that have a mnemonic relationship to the idea that they are used to impart. I can't think of any decent books offhand, but they're out there.
Still, flashcards are awesome in this regard.
Inside information by its very nature isn't doesn't support long-term gains, whether a person is caught or not. It is information that needs to be acted on within a short time frame and requires the liquidation of the position after the publication of the information which causes the price swing. I can't think of a single instance where inside information would be useful in a long term stock position, but that's not to say they don't exist. I'd be interested to hear a theory on the long-term use of inside information. Note, I don't mean the serial use of inside tips over a long period of time, which would all also be short-term gains reaped repeatedly over a long period of time.
Figuring out something nobody else realized does not equal market manipulation in any but the most twisted definitions, so you've provided a false "choice" of less information vs manipulation.
The ruling was about preventing business competitors from publishing data that was leaked in violation of privacy agreements, one of the "solutions" you provided in the second sentence above. You offer a solution and then oppose a ruling that upholds the legality of the solution. Inconsistent much?
The efficient market hypothesis is a joke. To get perfect efficiency and instantaneous market reaction you need perfect and instantaneous cause/effect analysis and instant action based on that analysis. That doesn't exist (and can only exist in theory currently), so the efficient market hypothesis does not actually work.
I'm glad you agree information is good for the market in general. If the court ruled against those who produce research for money, a large source of market information analysis would disappear.
While I doubt your post was intended to agree with me, it nonetheless supports the contention that the court ruled correctly in protecting firms who spend time and money to analyze publicly available data and making it available to the public shortly after making it available to those who actually pay to have it produced.
Don't pretend you have the right to data you didn't pay to have produced the second it is available just because it's "unfair" that someone gets an advantage by actually doing work for themselves and their clients.
This is not a case of insider trading, it is aggregation and analysis of publicly available information being used to facilitate smarter trading amongst their clients. Most of those clients are long-term investors, and insider information is almost exclusively used for short-term gains. While there may be overlap in legal and illegal activity among firms and clients, there isn't really a case to be made that this is an example of that sort of thing.
Yes, there is a lot of scummy behavior on Wall Street. It helps to not be confused as to what terms like "insider trading" actually mean when discussing it though, because it detracts from actual meaningful discussion.
Significantly more than the average person. My posting on Slashdot amounts to little more than a diversion.
Additionally, there are only two routes to changing something: convincing or coercing. We're not yet at the point of armed conflict (for the most part) to rectify the abuses of government in the US. So, for those who oppose the way the government works now are left with talk. Those who support and control the legislative process get to use both with relative impunity.
So, your response seems either ill-conceived or was a means to attempt to discredit based on an implied failure on my part to take unspecified actions to change the thoroughly broken government in the US. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
That would be great if law enforcement who abused access to large government databases were punished ... ever.
Oh wait, government databases are lost or compromised and all we get is "Oops, we'll be sure to never let that happen again."
Saying "Punish those who violate the law" is like saying "Hold government accountable when they overreach their Constitutionally-limited powers." Yeah, great in theory, but there are those of us who actually live in the real world and are aware that it only slows the abuses down by 20 years or so, until they can be ingrained into the next generation.
Then Apple should build their own engine or buy someone else's. If you have actual technology for sale that is covered by a valid patent, you should be able to choose to whom you sell and for what price. You should be able to negotiate deals with anyone who wants to buy it, including negotiating for access to other things you might want. A patent provides legally protected leverage in an industry for a limited (theoretically) time, and just like freedom to associate or not with whom you choose, you should be able to sell or not based on whatever arbitrary criteria you want to set. There are all sorts of instances when companies set different rates based on who is buying and what sort of negotiating power each party has.
That this is an item protected under patent should make absolutely no difference.
Hell, that should be one of the benefits of patents: being able to control, in any manner you desire, the sale of your idea for a limited time.
It was probably done with the intent to prevent EMI from picking piecemeal through Pink Floyd's albums and throwing them onto a compilation, "Best of," or "Hits from the XX's" album, in which case it actually is about artistic integrity. It just so happens that it also prevents EMI from breaking the album apart and selling songs individually now that it is possible.
When the contract was signed, it was not possible to market and sell songs individually (with the exception of singles, which account for an insignificant fraction of record sales), so claiming that's the reason is complete nonsense. Look at the issue from the perspective of the time period during which the contract was signed.
Yes, I made assumptions about what happened, though not necessarily any more likely to be out of line than the assumptions made by the OP. Whether and what actually happened aside, the argument put forward by the person I was replying to (He made mistake X, therefore is highly likely to make other discharge-worthy mistakes) is still completely unwarranted.
For the rest of what you said, I completely agree.