Sure, but that's a straw man. People aren't just sitting around taking. Since people aren't just sitting around taking, the whole rest of your argument is invalid.
E.g., substantial food stamp payments go to people who have minimum-wage jobs. Government employees do work in exchange for what they are paid. Government retirees did work in exchange for what they are now being paid. So this idea that they are "sitting around taking" is just bollocks.
Yes, actually it does. If money isn't being spent, it doesn't buy work, and because it doesn't buy work, that work isn't done. It is the amount of work that is done (or, more correctly, the amount of value that is produced) that is the measure of an economy. So money not circulating fails to cause economic activity, and as a consequence the economy shrinks. Money is just numbers if it's sitting in a bank account. It's only when it's in motion that it creates value.
BTW, when you start out a rejoinder in an argument by saying "utter nonsense," this is a useful indication that whatever follows will be as advertised. You might want to consider that when you're engaging in debate with people who don't already agree with you.
This is a widely held belief about inflation that is true in some cases and not in others. It's frustrating that people feel the need to oversimplify to the point of meaninglessness. The world is not a computer program.
When a substantial portion of the money supply is out of circulation, printing money taxes that out of circulation money and gets it back into circulation, which can grow the economy. So while the effect you describe exists, it is not the only effect that must be accounted for. When the bulk of money in the economy is not circulating, the economy shrinks, and that's at least as damaging as the value of money shrinking.
Actually we can. The problem with your reasoning is that it presumes that money is given in exchange for work of equal value, but of course the very basis of business is that you pay less than what the work is worth, and the difference is your profit. So this notion of a 1:1 connection between money and value is simply mistaken, and not only that, it's impossible in a capitalist society. In a society where the disparity between pay and profit is as large as it is in ours, it's nonsensical to talk about money this way. Granted, I'm only pulling one thread out of the tangle here, but hopefully it's illustrative.
...the more star systems will slip through your fingers!
Seriously, if this is true, it's a pretty good illustration of why tin-pot dictators throwing the book and the kitchen sink at whistleblowers are a far more serious security threat than the whistleblowers themselves.
I am a programmer, and I find working with other programmers nearby to be very valuable. Having randoms wander into the office is not so good, but there's a good synergy to over-the-cube-wall conversation when you are coding in a team. Having worked from home for the past decade, this is the primary thing that I miss. The commute, not so much...:)
It would be absolutely awesome of Samtrans or Muni provided a service similar to what the Google buses provide, but they don't, and they have actively worked to avoid doing so. So the activists really have no leg to stand on here. They should be trying to fix public transit in the bay area, not prevent people from working around its brokenness.
Actually if your TLS implementation is solid, there is no way for the ISP to do this to you. They don't have access to the keys. They can prevent you from using HTTPS, but if they do you will stop using them, because you won't be able to do online shopping or online banking, or even log in to Facebook.
Also, TLS and HTTP are "IETF crap." Whereas the document Weinstein is up in arms about is not—it's a document that's been proposed as work in the IETF by a couple of people, but it is not work the IETF has adopted.
Did you read the draft? He's articulated quite accurately what's being proposed. Maybe that's not what the authors intend to be proposing, but that's what the document currently does in fact propose. (I say "authors" because the IETF has not adopted this work, so it's not accurate to say that the IETF is doing this work—the IETF is explicitly not doing this work at the moment.)
What proxy would you trust with your banking details? Because this spec will let them see your private conversations with third parties including banks. Weinstein is correct to be worried about this proposal. However, this is not an IETF document. The IETF isn't trying to do anything here. This is a document some people have floated in the IETF. As written, I don't see it getting traction, because it's in violation of existing IETF policy.
That's what the draft says. But it's NOT A BLOODY IETF STANDARD. It's an individual submission to the IETF. The IETF isn't working on this. Some IETF participants are. The IETF has a formal policy excluding work on lawful intercept technology or even allowing for it in our protocol specifications.
My Nexus 5 has excellent build quality. Motorola was deliberately locking bootloaders—this was common knowledge four years ago. Verizon is a poor choice of provider, precisely because they have such draconian policies about handsets.
What you're saying is that you want open, but you aren't willing to punish vendors who give you closed. That's your prerogative, but complaining about it here isn't going to change anything. If you want open, that has to be your priority, because it is _very_ hard to get. And yes, you will pay extra for it. It absolutely sucks that this is the case, but it is a fact of life, and the cell phone manufacturers and providers frankly could give a fuck if we don't like it, because the "we" who don't like it isn't voting with our feet.
BTW, to all the nice folks who modded my previous post "flamebait," I guess that's your prerogative, but that really isn't what I'm trying to do here. And it doesn't look like bondsbw thinks I am either, or he would either have flamed me, rather than responding seriously, or ignored me. But whatever. Slashdot moderation, etc.
Yeah, whatever, I can never keep the various euphemisms straight, but the point is that you wanted to be able to install your own firmware, and you bought a phone made by a manufacturer that didn't want you to do that, when you could have bought a phone from a manufacturer who was happy to let you do that. Effectively, you rewarded Motorola for screwing you over. My reason for asking is that I honestly don't get why people who want to mod their phones buy phones that the manufacturer doesn't intend to allow you to mod. Even if you can get around it, why bother? If we reward manufacturers who allow us to mod our phones, and carriers that will let us use those phones, the market will punish manufacturers and carriers who don't, to everybody's benefit. It really saddens me to see people shooting themselves in the foot like this, because it's not just your foot you're shooting.
Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted? And why are you blaming Google? I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but seriously, I don't get it. I don't buy iPhones because they are a closed system. I don't buy locked Android phones because they are hard to update. What led you to decide to buy a locked phone when unlocked phones were readily available?
As for the App issue, it's actually extensively rebutted in the comments to the article. Bottom line: Ars Technica clickbait.
Hurricane Irene trashed half the bridges in Vermont two years ago, washed entire houses off their foundations, and washed away many miles of road. By the time the ski season started, all the roads had been rebuilt, sometimes involving adding sixteen feet tall fill for miles. The bridges hadn't been rebuilt, but we'd put in temporary bridges so traffic could pass. The big problem was and remains housing, but local government has done a lot to ameliorate the situation.
There was a pretty good article recently about the fiasco in Atlanta; apparently part of the problem there is that there are so many different local governments who don't coordinate with each other that it's very difficult to address problems caused by weather.
None of that negates the point that ice all over the roads is damned hard to deal with if you don't have enough sand trucks and salt piles. But we have that problem in Vermont too, and a big part of every town's budget and the state's budget is allocated to dealing with it when winter comes. Cold weather happens in the South too, and it can be planned for, but doing it costs money. I suspect that's the biggest part of the problem. In Vermont, we have no choice—these events happen _every_ winter, so elected officials who don't plan for it aren't around the following winter. In Atlanta, the feedback loop is much weaker.
It's a great idea, as long as a willful failure to reproduce the results doesn't qualify as "not reproducible." And of course, it also means that a lot of work that is not being done now will have to be done—there's been a push in the sciences to do a better job of publishing code used to arrive at results, but this is by no means a complete success at this juncture. So the effect of this at present would probably be to prevent the EPA making any rules at all. And of course, I'm sure the Republicans have no intention of increasing science funding to account for the additional work that will be required, and the studies that will have to be re-done, and the code that will have to be rewritten.
So yes, this could be a good thing; nevertheless, I smell a rat.
Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.
The bottom line is that no rule can make government work better. For government to work better, the people implementing the rules have to be smart and have good intentions, and there has to be criticism. If you just pass a rule, but don't hire the right people, it's garbage in, garbage out. And we are the hiring manager, much though we might wish to pretend that it's "the corporations" or "the libruls" or whatever. The buck has to stop here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but that's a straw man. People aren't just sitting around taking. Since people aren't just sitting around taking, the whole rest of your argument is invalid.
E.g., substantial food stamp payments go to people who have minimum-wage jobs. Government employees do work in exchange for what they are paid. Government retirees did work in exchange for what they are now being paid. So this idea that they are "sitting around taking" is just bollocks.
Yes, actually it does. If money isn't being spent, it doesn't buy work, and because it doesn't buy work, that work isn't done. It is the amount of work that is done (or, more correctly, the amount of value that is produced) that is the measure of an economy. So money not circulating fails to cause economic activity, and as a consequence the economy shrinks. Money is just numbers if it's sitting in a bank account. It's only when it's in motion that it creates value.
BTW, when you start out a rejoinder in an argument by saying "utter nonsense," this is a useful indication that whatever follows will be as advertised. You might want to consider that when you're engaging in debate with people who don't already agree with you.
This is a widely held belief about inflation that is true in some cases and not in others. It's frustrating that people feel the need to oversimplify to the point of meaninglessness. The world is not a computer program.
When a substantial portion of the money supply is out of circulation, printing money taxes that out of circulation money and gets it back into circulation, which can grow the economy. So while the effect you describe exists, it is not the only effect that must be accounted for. When the bulk of money in the economy is not circulating, the economy shrinks, and that's at least as damaging as the value of money shrinking.
Actually we can. The problem with your reasoning is that it presumes that money is given in exchange for work of equal value, but of course the very basis of business is that you pay less than what the work is worth, and the difference is your profit. So this notion of a 1:1 connection between money and value is simply mistaken, and not only that, it's impossible in a capitalist society. In a society where the disparity between pay and profit is as large as it is in ours, it's nonsensical to talk about money this way. Granted, I'm only pulling one thread out of the tangle here, but hopefully it's illustrative.
You say "the real reason" as if there could only ever be one reason for doing something...
Damn, you're right. Too bad /. doesn't let me edit out my mistakes. Anyway, Tarkin's dead, so he's not going to complain.
...the more star systems will slip through your fingers!
Seriously, if this is true, it's a pretty good illustration of why tin-pot dictators throwing the book and the kitchen sink at whistleblowers are a far more serious security threat than the whistleblowers themselves.
That's what slashdot is for.
Hm, brings new meaning to the term "pair programming."
I am a programmer, and I find working with other programmers nearby to be very valuable. Having randoms wander into the office is not so good, but there's a good synergy to over-the-cube-wall conversation when you are coding in a team. Having worked from home for the past decade, this is the primary thing that I miss. The commute, not so much... :)
It would be absolutely awesome of Samtrans or Muni provided a service similar to what the Google buses provide, but they don't, and they have actively worked to avoid doing so. So the activists really have no leg to stand on here. They should be trying to fix public transit in the bay area, not prevent people from working around its brokenness.
Actually if your TLS implementation is solid, there is no way for the ISP to do this to you. They don't have access to the keys. They can prevent you from using HTTPS, but if they do you will stop using them, because you won't be able to do online shopping or online banking, or even log in to Facebook.
Also, TLS and HTTP are "IETF crap." Whereas the document Weinstein is up in arms about is not—it's a document that's been proposed as work in the IETF by a couple of people, but it is not work the IETF has adopted.
Did you read the draft? He's articulated quite accurately what's being proposed. Maybe that's not what the authors intend to be proposing, but that's what the document currently does in fact propose. (I say "authors" because the IETF has not adopted this work, so it's not accurate to say that the IETF is doing this work—the IETF is explicitly not doing this work at the moment.)
What proxy would you trust with your banking details? Because this spec will let them see your private conversations with third parties including banks. Weinstein is correct to be worried about this proposal. However, this is not an IETF document. The IETF isn't trying to do anything here. This is a document some people have floated in the IETF. As written, I don't see it getting traction, because it's in violation of existing IETF policy.
That's what the draft says. But it's NOT A BLOODY IETF STANDARD. It's an individual submission to the IETF. The IETF isn't working on this. Some IETF participants are. The IETF has a formal policy excluding work on lawful intercept technology or even allowing for it in our protocol specifications.
To paraphrase, "people allow themselves to be misinformed, and suffer as a consequence." I agree. That's why I'm engaging in zealotry! :)
My Nexus 5 has excellent build quality. Motorola was deliberately locking bootloaders—this was common knowledge four years ago. Verizon is a poor choice of provider, precisely because they have such draconian policies about handsets.
What you're saying is that you want open, but you aren't willing to punish vendors who give you closed. That's your prerogative, but complaining about it here isn't going to change anything. If you want open, that has to be your priority, because it is _very_ hard to get. And yes, you will pay extra for it. It absolutely sucks that this is the case, but it is a fact of life, and the cell phone manufacturers and providers frankly could give a fuck if we don't like it, because the "we" who don't like it isn't voting with our feet.
BTW, to all the nice folks who modded my previous post "flamebait," I guess that's your prerogative, but that really isn't what I'm trying to do here. And it doesn't look like bondsbw thinks I am either, or he would either have flamed me, rather than responding seriously, or ignored me. But whatever. Slashdot moderation, etc.
Yeah, whatever, I can never keep the various euphemisms straight, but the point is that you wanted to be able to install your own firmware, and you bought a phone made by a manufacturer that didn't want you to do that, when you could have bought a phone from a manufacturer who was happy to let you do that. Effectively, you rewarded Motorola for screwing you over. My reason for asking is that I honestly don't get why people who want to mod their phones buy phones that the manufacturer doesn't intend to allow you to mod. Even if you can get around it, why bother? If we reward manufacturers who allow us to mod our phones, and carriers that will let us use those phones, the market will punish manufacturers and carriers who don't, to everybody's benefit. It really saddens me to see people shooting themselves in the foot like this, because it's not just your foot you're shooting.
Jolla? You know you wanna. :)
That really sucks—sorry!
Why'd you buy a phone that couldn't be rooted? And why are you blaming Google? I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but seriously, I don't get it. I don't buy iPhones because they are a closed system. I don't buy locked Android phones because they are hard to update. What led you to decide to buy a locked phone when unlocked phones were readily available?
As for the App issue, it's actually extensively rebutted in the comments to the article. Bottom line: Ars Technica clickbait.
New York City uses garbage trucks as snowplows. There are ways of making it work.
Hurricane Irene trashed half the bridges in Vermont two years ago, washed entire houses off their foundations, and washed away many miles of road. By the time the ski season started, all the roads had been rebuilt, sometimes involving adding sixteen feet tall fill for miles. The bridges hadn't been rebuilt, but we'd put in temporary bridges so traffic could pass. The big problem was and remains housing, but local government has done a lot to ameliorate the situation.
There was a pretty good article recently about the fiasco in Atlanta; apparently part of the problem there is that there are so many different local governments who don't coordinate with each other that it's very difficult to address problems caused by weather.
None of that negates the point that ice all over the roads is damned hard to deal with if you don't have enough sand trucks and salt piles. But we have that problem in Vermont too, and a big part of every town's budget and the state's budget is allocated to dealing with it when winter comes. Cold weather happens in the South too, and it can be planned for, but doing it costs money. I suspect that's the biggest part of the problem. In Vermont, we have no choice—these events happen _every_ winter, so elected officials who don't plan for it aren't around the following winter. In Atlanta, the feedback loop is much weaker.
It's a great idea, as long as a willful failure to reproduce the results doesn't qualify as "not reproducible." And of course, it also means that a lot of work that is not being done now will have to be done—there's been a push in the sciences to do a better job of publishing code used to arrive at results, but this is by no means a complete success at this juncture. So the effect of this at present would probably be to prevent the EPA making any rules at all. And of course, I'm sure the Republicans have no intention of increasing science funding to account for the additional work that will be required, and the studies that will have to be re-done, and the code that will have to be rewritten.
So yes, this could be a good thing; nevertheless, I smell a rat.
Also, this throws the precautionary principle out the window: until something is proven harmful, it can't be regulated. History shows that things often aren't obviously harmful until widely deployed, even though it was obvious to people who thought about it early on that there was likely to be a problem. That sort of hypothesis would argue for study first, then use product. But this rule would require use product, then study.
The bottom line is that no rule can make government work better. For government to work better, the people implementing the rules have to be smart and have good intentions, and there has to be criticism. If you just pass a rule, but don't hire the right people, it's garbage in, garbage out. And we are the hiring manager, much though we might wish to pretend that it's "the corporations" or "the libruls" or whatever. The buck has to stop here.
Yours doesn't? Why does your town hate mother earth?