Why do so many fools cling to the myth of regulation fixing things? Here, I gave an example of a heavily regulated industry, the banking industry that just so happens to have all the characteristics which you allege come from "unregulated markets" such as collusion, squeezing of smaller players, oligopolies.
Because the banks convinced Congress to repeal the part of Glass-Steagal that kept investment and commercial banking separate. As it turns out, that was a bad idea because it lead to massive consolidation in the banking industry and the growth of too-big-to-fail banks.
Clearly, if the cure isn't working,then we need more of it.
The banking industry has been engaging in outright fraud. Do you think less regulation or better regulation is going to fix the problem?
- a whole insurance industry will spring up around it (think malpractice insurance)..
If insurers get involved, they will set up their own rules and regulations to require good coding practices. Why? Because they sure as shit do not want to pay out.
Also, who you sue because a bug in an open source program with a lot of contributes?
The law could include an exception for OSS/Libre software
or against a big corporation that put in legalese that they aren't responsible for any damage or problem that could happen for using it (that is most commercial software licenses)?
I think the idea is that the law would nullify any such clauses in contracts or TOSes.
I bet if someone poked through the legal code, we could come up with a decent list of information that's already been declared sensitive in one way or another. That's probably a good place to start.
There's no end to it; once you open the door a good lawyer can can convince a jury anything.
The law defines "sensitive." That's how you prevent lawyers from arguing whatever they want.
Ben Gurion airport handles 12~13 million passengers per year JFK International* in New York handled ~47 million passengers last year.
Atlanta International handled ~92 million passengers last year and they are #1 airport in the world. Naked racism aside, El Al's security methods are not trivial to scale up 5x. Especially not in old airports like JFK/Newark/LaGuardia which were built in the 30s/40s/50s and do not have space
The same crap that cheap lawn chairs of made of, 1 year exposed to the elements and it crumbles into powder... why do we need million year plastics to hold beer cans?
Plastics are a cocktail of chemicals. One of the most important ingredients are UV stabilizers. This single ingredient more or less dictates the functional lifespan of any plastic that is exposed to sunlight. Once that UV stabilizer is consumed, UV will break down the plastic until its structural integrity fails.
The industry is working on "biodegradable" plastic, but the term comes with so many asterisks that it's almost meaningless. In the short term, petroleum based plastics do not biodegrade, they degrade. "Biodegradable" petroleum plastics just degrade faster.
After that, it's up to the micro-organisms in the environment to break the plastic down. And if the plastic is in a non-ideal environment, it'll hang around longer. Land fills are especially bad environments for plastics to degrade in.
/Bioplastics are a while nother story and, while better for the environment, are not a mature technology yet
Proper safety procedure lowers the risks of mining hazardous materials (where do you think things like arsenic and mercury come from? Somebody has to extract and purify them...), and make the risks tolerable - at least as tolerable as coal mining, your only practical alternative
Coal mining isn't as safe as you'd think Here are the headlines from an NPR series on black lung As Mine Protections Fail, Black Lung Cases Surge Black-Lung Rule Loopholes Leave Miners Vulnerable Black Lung: Why Respirators Are Not A Solution Surface Coal Miners At Risk For Black Lung Federal Mine Agency Considering Tougher Response On Black Lung Republican Lawmakers Seek To Block Funding On Black Lung Regulation
And this has been going on since the late 90s. Apparently mining Uranium is safer than mining for coal.
Added to that is the fact that free to play is generally cheaper to produce and distribute, able to cannibalise existing assets and avoid the costs of getting boxes on shelves. Whilst this does make the creation of new games easier, Guillemot was keen to point out that it's not a magic recipe - games must still be tailored to fit the audience's needs.
"We also take content which we've developed in the past, graphics etc, and we can make cheaper games and improve them over time. What's very important is that we change the content and make it a better fit to the customer as time goes on."
Does this sound to anyone else, like he's advocating cookie cutter games that are bulked up with updates after their release? Sounds to me like they're aiming for a shit game rate of 105%
From the perspective of the Framers of the Constitution calling someone a "member of the press" would be like us calling someone a "member of the Internet".
And 224 years later, our interpretation of the Constitution is slightly different. I know, shocking, but true. Which is to say, that talking about the Consitution, without 224 years of context, is meaningless.
The protections of the free press are extended to all citizens... if they can jump enough hurdles to show that they are engaging in the activities of the press. There have been plenty of court cases wrangling over extending the title "journalist" to bloggers and other non-accreddited journalists and AFAIK, none of them have gone to the Supreme Court. When one does, our 224 year old understanding of the Constitution will change a little more.
Saying that it's ok to use the government to limit speech is evil, whether it's commercial speech or not.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this. There are decades of Supreme Court precedents defining exactly what tests should be used to determine if any specific limitation on commercial speech is valid. Limitations on commercial speech started out as a basic attempt to stop fraud i.e. people lying about products. The limitations then expanded to protect the public, like limitations on tobacco or alcohol advertising.
If you're arguing from ideology, good night and good luck. If you have a legitimate point to make, I'd open to an exchange of ideas.
They sure went to a lot of trouble for a fake product. Registering their website in 1997, going to conferences in 2012. That's the kind of trolling that takes planning and dedication
In the 50s, the military paid for development of similar technology, but the power:weight ratio and range just wasn't there with 50s engine technology. TFA mentions that they're staying under 15ft for safety reasons, not because it requires the ground effect to operate.
The idea for this basic design was thought up in the 40s and the only reason it was abandoned in the 50s/60s was because the military decided to put their money behind conventional helicopters.
They were caught knowingly purchasing stolen goods but got off on the technicality of being part of the "press". It is not supposed to be a license to get out of jail.
Actually, being a member of the press is supposed to help you stay out of jail. Even judges think so, otherwise we'd be locking up every journalist that published classified documents.
I think your understanding of the First Amendment needs refreshing.
... it's that so many times ad-serving networks end up being compromised and send ads that end up installing malware on your computer: if sites ran their own SIMPLE ads (plain images, served by their own website, no flash/iframe/... crap) there would be a lot less problems.
Not everyone has the time or inclination to go hustle companies for advertising dollars. If it was easy, then we wouldn't need middlemen.
There's also the issue of measuring ads served, which is why middlemen serve the adverts, handle fraud, and vouch for the # served.
It doesn't have to be evil to be bad. Instead of binary good or evil questions, we should be asking if it's in the public interest and whether or not the benefits outweight the negatives.
Don't forget that advertising is commercial speech, which can be limited.
AcnePwner was downloaded 3,300 times at a cost of 99 cents in the Android Marketplace. There were about 11,600 downloads of AcneApp from the iTunes store, which cost $1.99.
According to the settlement, Koby Brown and Gregory W. Pearson of DermApps are required to pay $14,294, and Andrew N. Finkle of Acne Pwner must pay $1,700.
$2,800 sales revenue - $1,700 fine = $1,100 profit $16,158 sales revenue - $14,294 fine = $1,864 profit
Not the most profitable fraud. They should have gone into finance.
It's hard being a Republican in Politics, because you have to talk in code so much of the tme, instead of publicly advocating the ideas and policies you believe/support, since they are deeply unpopular with the greater public.
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
First of all, the Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written with British common law as its foundation. You may be surprised to know this, but disorderly conduct has never been acceptable, whether you are free speechifying or not.
Second, the whole "exactly as written" idea has already been shot, burned, and its ashes scattered at sea. As a society, we've modified the Constitution's meaning a thousand different ways, in a thousand different contexts. The United States is something of an outlier for Constitutionally governed countries. The average age of a Constitution is 17 years. "The median lifespan is only eight years, while the mode is a miniscule one year."
Slashdot Mirror
Why do so many fools cling to the myth of regulation fixing things? Here, I gave an example of a heavily regulated industry, the banking industry that just so happens to have all the characteristics which you allege come from "unregulated markets" such as collusion, squeezing of smaller players, oligopolies.
Because the banks convinced Congress to repeal the part of Glass-Steagal that kept investment and commercial banking separate.
As it turns out, that was a bad idea because it lead to massive consolidation in the banking industry and the growth of too-big-to-fail banks.
Clearly, if the cure isn't working,then we need more of it.
The banking industry has been engaging in outright fraud.
Do you think less regulation or better regulation is going to fix the problem?
Less space than a nomad.
Lame.
Am I the only one to think, how many modern servers does the city of Seattle really need?
By my calculations, the city of Seattle needs exactly two electrical buses worth of modern servers.
They share nothing in common with their production counterparts. Even the body is a big fake fiberglass costume.
NASCAR just moved from carburated engines to fuel injection, so they've finally got that in common with production cars.
/But still no speedometer.
- a whole insurance industry will spring up around it (think malpractice insurance)..
If insurers get involved, they will set up their own rules and regulations to require good coding practices.
Why? Because they sure as shit do not want to pay out.
Also, who you sue because a bug in an open source program with a lot of contributes?
The law could include an exception for OSS/Libre software
or against a big corporation that put in legalese that they aren't responsible for any damage or problem that could happen for using it (that is most commercial software licenses)?
I think the idea is that the law would nullify any such clauses in contracts or TOSes.
So how do you define "sensitive"?
I bet if someone poked through the legal code, we could come up with a decent list of information that's already been declared sensitive in one way or another.
That's probably a good place to start.
There's no end to it; once you open the door a good lawyer can can convince a jury anything.
The law defines "sensitive." That's how you prevent lawyers from arguing whatever they want.
Ben Gurion airport handles 12~13 million passengers per year
JFK International* in New York handled ~47 million passengers last year.
Atlanta International handled ~92 million passengers last year and they are #1 airport in the world.
Naked racism aside, El Al's security methods are not trivial to scale up 5x.
Especially not in old airports like JFK/Newark/LaGuardia which were built in the 30s/40s/50s and do not have space
*Adding Newark and LaGuardia gives you #2 traffic in the world and the #1 most crowded airspace. /I don't include London's network of airports because they're very spread out compared to NY // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_busiest_city_airport_systems_by_passenger_traffic
The safety of the passengers are the pilot's responsibility.
"Upset" or "uncomfortable" is not "unsafe"
The same crap that cheap lawn chairs of made of, 1 year exposed to the elements and it crumbles into powder ... why do we need million year plastics to hold beer cans?
Plastics are a cocktail of chemicals.
One of the most important ingredients are UV stabilizers.
This single ingredient more or less dictates the functional lifespan of any plastic that is exposed to sunlight.
Once that UV stabilizer is consumed, UV will break down the plastic until its structural integrity fails.
The industry is working on "biodegradable" plastic, but the term comes with so many asterisks that it's almost meaningless.
In the short term, petroleum based plastics do not biodegrade, they degrade.
"Biodegradable" petroleum plastics just degrade faster.
After that, it's up to the micro-organisms in the environment to break the plastic down.
And if the plastic is in a non-ideal environment, it'll hang around longer.
Land fills are especially bad environments for plastics to degrade in.
/Bioplastics are a while nother story and, while better for the environment, are not a mature technology yet
Proper safety procedure lowers the risks of mining hazardous materials (where do you think things like arsenic and mercury come from? Somebody has to extract and purify them...), and make the risks tolerable - at least as tolerable as coal mining, your only practical alternative
Coal mining isn't as safe as you'd think
Here are the headlines from an NPR series on black lung
As Mine Protections Fail, Black Lung Cases Surge
Black-Lung Rule Loopholes Leave Miners Vulnerable
Black Lung: Why Respirators Are Not A Solution
Surface Coal Miners At Risk For Black Lung
Federal Mine Agency Considering Tougher Response On Black Lung
Republican Lawmakers Seek To Block Funding On Black Lung Regulation
And this has been going on since the late 90s.
Apparently mining Uranium is safer than mining for coal.
Added to that is the fact that free to play is generally cheaper to produce and distribute, able to cannibalise existing assets and avoid the costs of getting boxes on shelves. Whilst this does make the creation of new games easier, Guillemot was keen to point out that it's not a magic recipe - games must still be tailored to fit the audience's needs.
"We also take content which we've developed in the past, graphics etc, and we can make cheaper games and improve them over time. What's very important is that we change the content and make it a better fit to the customer as time goes on."
Does this sound to anyone else, like he's advocating cookie cutter games that are bulked up with updates after their release?
Sounds to me like they're aiming for a shit game rate of 105%
From the perspective of the Framers of the Constitution calling someone a "member of the press" would be like us calling someone a "member of the Internet".
And 224 years later, our interpretation of the Constitution is slightly different. I know, shocking, but true.
Which is to say, that talking about the Consitution, without 224 years of context, is meaningless.
The protections of the free press are extended to all citizens... if they can jump enough hurdles to show that they are engaging in the activities of the press.
There have been plenty of court cases wrangling over extending the title "journalist" to bloggers and other non-accreddited journalists and AFAIK, none of them have gone to the Supreme Court. When one does, our 224 year old understanding of the Constitution will change a little more.
Secure screw bits are a $20 bucks for an entire set (Made in China) of all the designs.
The only "secure" screw head is one that is custom made for you.
Otherwise, you should be using breakaway heads or one-way screws.
Saying that it's ok to use the government to limit speech is evil, whether it's commercial speech or not.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this.
There are decades of Supreme Court precedents defining exactly what tests should be used to determine if any specific limitation on commercial speech is valid.
Limitations on commercial speech started out as a basic attempt to stop fraud i.e. people lying about products.
The limitations then expanded to protect the public, like limitations on tobacco or alcohol advertising.
If you're arguing from ideology, good night and good luck.
If you have a legitimate point to make, I'd open to an exchange of ideas.
They sure went to a lot of trouble for a fake product.
Registering their website in 1997, going to conferences in 2012.
That's the kind of trolling that takes planning and dedication
Future Vertical Lift Aircraft Design Conference 2012 (PDF)
3:30 PM - 4:00 PM Thrust Augmentation & Control of Ducted-Fan VTOL Air-Vehicles -- Mark De Roche, Aerofex Corporation
In the 50s, the military paid for development of similar technology, but the power:weight ratio and range just wasn't there with 50s engine technology.
TFA mentions that they're staying under 15ft for safety reasons, not because it requires the ground effect to operate.
The idea for this basic design was thought up in the 40s and the only reason it was abandoned in the 50s/60s was because the military decided to put their money behind conventional helicopters.
They were caught knowingly purchasing stolen goods but got off on the technicality of being part of the "press". It is not supposed to be a license to get out of jail.
Actually, being a member of the press is supposed to help you stay out of jail.
Even judges think so, otherwise we'd be locking up every journalist that published classified documents.
I think your understanding of the First Amendment needs refreshing.
All life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light would be bad.
I would have gone with "stubbing my toe is bad," but that works too :p
... it's that so many times ad-serving networks end up being compromised and send ads that end up installing malware on your computer: if sites ran their own SIMPLE ads (plain images, served by their own website, no flash/iframe/... crap) there would be a lot less problems.
Not everyone has the time or inclination to go hustle companies for advertising dollars.
If it was easy, then we wouldn't need middlemen.
There's also the issue of measuring ads served, which is why middlemen serve the adverts, handle fraud, and vouch for the # served.
I'm not sure advertising is "evil,"
It doesn't have to be evil to be bad.
Instead of binary good or evil questions, we should be asking if it's in the public interest
and whether or not the benefits outweight the negatives.
Don't forget that advertising is commercial speech, which can be limited.
AcnePwner was downloaded 3,300 times at a cost of 99 cents in the Android Marketplace.
There were about 11,600 downloads of AcneApp from the iTunes store, which cost $1.99.
According to the settlement, Koby Brown and Gregory W. Pearson of DermApps are required to pay $14,294,
and Andrew N. Finkle of Acne Pwner must pay $1,700.
$2,800 sales revenue - $1,700 fine = $1,100 profit
$16,158 sales revenue - $14,294 fine = $1,864 profit
Not the most profitable fraud.
They should have gone into finance.
3. "I meant to say 'forcible rape.' You know, like Paul Ryan believes."
Huckabee got him to admit this on air at about 2:15 (without the Paul Ryan part)
It's hard being a Republican in Politics, because you have to talk in code so much of the tme,
instead of publicly advocating the ideas and policies you believe/support, since they are deeply unpopular with the greater public.
Once you're in the military, you're never really out until you turn 60.
You graduate down a slope of Reserve statuses
Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, and the Retired Reserve
Really getting out of the military is harder than leaving the Church of Scientology.
If you don't like the 1st amendment, then call a convention and repeal the goddamn thing. But do it legally. But while it remains on the books, you are obligated to enforce it exactly as written without exception. And nowhere in the constitution are there any exceptions.
First of all, the Constitution wasn't written in a vacuum.
It was written with British common law as its foundation.
You may be surprised to know this, but disorderly conduct has never been acceptable, whether you are free speechifying or not.
Second, the whole "exactly as written" idea has already been shot, burned, and its ashes scattered at sea.
As a society, we've modified the Constitution's meaning a thousand different ways, in a thousand different contexts.
The United States is something of an outlier for Constitutionally governed countries.
The average age of a Constitution is 17 years.
"The median lifespan is only eight years, while the mode is a miniscule one year."