There's a huge opportunity for improvement by applying programming ideas to the legislative process (version control, "parsing" the laws to find duplicate code, conflicts, etc. -- legalese seems a lot more like a programming language than regular English, by the way)... The hard part would be getting the lawyers to care.
How is the ISP supposed to know the difference between "streaming" and "downloading to a mobile device to watch later (as fast as possible because I'm trying to get out the door)?" Moreover, why would we want the ISP to know the difference?
I've been making the same kind of argument here on Slashdot for years now; it's nice to see someone else doing so.
I'm not sure calling it a "hoax" helps the argument's case though: the concept of [copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets] is real enough; it's just the attempt to conflate it with actual property that is a lie.
The law of supply and demand, combined with the fact that supply is not infinite.
The former is a universal truth and the latter is a physical fact. Neither will change no matter how much someone of any particular political ideology wants it to.
I'm not sure if a situation has actually occurred yet where a manufacturer actually declined to honor a warranty claim on faulty hardware due to the presence of "non-branded" software and got sued for it, though.
Your argument fails because you conflate the need to trust a tool with the need to trust a person. I need to be able to trust my tools because I'm using them, but I do not need to trust you because I'm not using you.
Now, if you're talking about a slave, then I agree it's a problem if the slave has privacy. But despite it being quite perfectly capitalist, it's been well established that slavery is a bad idea.
If you're really worried about that, wouldn't a good workaround be to carry a faraday cage with you? For example, an opaque anti-static bag would be helpful (at least according to some random blog post I just read).
I couldn't care less whether I can "trust" the cell tower. What I care about is ensuring that the code running on the radio's processor can't eavesdrop on the code that's running on the phone's main processor (or any of the other devices attached to it).
We don't charge higher rates because the medicine is expensive, we charge higher rates because of all the GODDAMNED USELESS INSURANCE MIDDLEMEN that countries with universal healthcare DON'T HAVE!
Umm... all of those except pensions are mandatory in the USA.
Health? Barely, and only recently.
Accident? Nope. Maybe on an employer level -- assuming your employer isn't shady.
Pension? Nope (which you agreed -- otherwise I'd argue that Social Security sort of counts).
Unemployment? Not if you're an "independent contractor," because employers in your industry refuse to hire W-2s (but treat you as if you were one, minus all the benefits and protections)...
What would I do? Only require insurance companies to adhere to federal guidelines for plans to be put on the exchange. Allow non-exchange policies to qualify for the individual mandate (or better yet, get rid of the individual mandate).
In other words, throw out the law? Gee, that's helpful...
We all know that GPUs can speed up a lot of operations but developers don't want to put in the work because not everyone has them.
That, and the fact that programming for GPUs now is analogous to having to choose between different processor- and language-specific floating-point libraries.
Blue Cross had a plan that they liked. Blue Cross had a plan the customer liked. Both were happy. Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep it"... Knowing that the law would require the plan to be changed to meet the requirement.
No. Blue Cross could have kept the plan, but they had to keep it exactly. Including not raising premiums. Blue Cross wanted to raise premiums, so they chose to cancel the plan.
What would you have the government do otherwise? Force Blue Cross to keep offering a product against their will?
So what you're saying is, you wish the government would force private companies to continue offering a product against their will? 'Cause that's what "being allowed to keep your plan" would really mean.
I bet you also argued that the individual mandate infringed your rights, but completely fail to see the hypocrisy inherent in that.
There are plenty of south American countries who would love to host the games.
You get your wish: Rio is hosting the next summer games.
(I'm not entirely sure there's any city in South America large, snowy and mountainous enough to be suited to host the winter games... they mostly seem to be too warm or too flat. Santiago, Chile seems like the only one that might qualify.)
Slashdot Mirror
There's a huge opportunity for improvement by applying programming ideas to the legislative process (version control, "parsing" the laws to find duplicate code, conflicts, etc. -- legalese seems a lot more like a programming language than regular English, by the way)... The hard part would be getting the lawyers to care.
Also, you're doing it wrong.
How is the ISP supposed to know the difference between "streaming" and "downloading to a mobile device to watch later (as fast as possible because I'm trying to get out the door)?" Moreover, why would we want the ISP to know the difference?
In general.
He used the correct pronoun multiple times, you know. It was obvious from context that he was being intentionally figurative.
Private property keeps the monastery itself from being taken over by others.
Allowing the "Intellectual Property [sic]" proponents to frame the debate just makes it that much easier for them to win.
I've been making the same kind of argument here on Slashdot for years now; it's nice to see someone else doing so.
I'm not sure calling it a "hoax" helps the argument's case though: the concept of [copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets] is real enough; it's just the attempt to conflate it with actual property that is a lie.
Well, it's possible that every other way is even worse...
The law of supply and demand, combined with the fact that supply is not infinite.
The former is a universal truth and the latter is a physical fact. Neither will change no matter how much someone of any particular political ideology wants it to.
Just because the manufacturer says so, doesn't make it true: "Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty."
I'm not sure if a situation has actually occurred yet where a manufacturer actually declined to honor a warranty claim on faulty hardware due to the presence of "non-branded" software and got sued for it, though.
Other than that, I agree with you wholeheartedly!
Your argument fails because you conflate the need to trust a tool with the need to trust a person. I need to be able to trust my tools because I'm using them, but I do not need to trust you because I'm not using you.
Now, if you're talking about a slave, then I agree it's a problem if the slave has privacy. But despite it being quite perfectly capitalist, it's been well established that slavery is a bad idea.
If you're really worried about that, wouldn't a good workaround be to carry a faraday cage with you? For example, an opaque anti-static bag would be helpful (at least according to some random blog post I just read).
I couldn't care less whether I can "trust" the cell tower. What I care about is ensuring that the code running on the radio's processor can't eavesdrop on the code that's running on the phone's main processor (or any of the other devices attached to it).
We don't charge higher rates because the medicine is expensive, we charge higher rates because of all the GODDAMNED USELESS INSURANCE MIDDLEMEN that countries with universal healthcare DON'T HAVE!
Health? Barely, and only recently.
Accident? Nope. Maybe on an employer level -- assuming your employer isn't shady.
Pension? Nope (which you agreed -- otherwise I'd argue that Social Security sort of counts).
Unemployment? Not if you're an "independent contractor," because employers in your industry refuse to hire W-2s (but treat you as if you were one, minus all the benefits and protections)...
In other words, throw out the law? Gee, that's helpful...
That, and the fact that programming for GPUs now is analogous to having to choose between different processor- and language-specific floating-point libraries.
How is that the government's fault?
I think he's saying that if the drive has only been on the market for a couple of months, the wear-and-tear failures haven't had time to happen yet.
No. Blue Cross could have kept the plan, but they had to keep it exactly. Including not raising premiums. Blue Cross wanted to raise premiums, so they chose to cancel the plan.
What would you have the government do otherwise? Force Blue Cross to keep offering a product against their will?
So what you're saying is, you wish the government would force private companies to continue offering a product against their will? 'Cause that's what "being allowed to keep your plan" would really mean.
I bet you also argued that the individual mandate infringed your rights, but completely fail to see the hypocrisy inherent in that.
You get your wish: Rio is hosting the next summer games.
(I'm not entirely sure there's any city in South America large, snowy and mountainous enough to be suited to host the winter games... they mostly seem to be too warm or too flat. Santiago, Chile seems like the only one that might qualify.)
Let's also keep in mind that this is what copyright was supposed to be for in the first place!
Withstand a tsunami? Easily. Not so sure about a typhoon, though...
Wind turbines are proven and barges are proven, so put a wind turbine on a barge and you're done.