I think he means "known" in the sense of "documented in the literature". Chess becomes boring when improvement just means looking up another strategy in a book, and when your opponent can beat you not through being more intelligent or creative or practiced than you, but just because he's spent more time reading than you.
Really? I'm pretty sure there's been people doing this the whole time I've been here. In fact, there was a bit of a running gag for several years of people posting "frosty piss" instead of "first post" in the middle of the last decade.
Local monopolies are generally required to build out to the unprofitable areas as a condition of that monopoly.
Like a local public sector monopoly would.
For instance when time Warner increased their internet speeds in my area they had to replace lines to do so.
Like a local public sector monopoly would.
.They were not allowed to only offer this in the business or rich areas, They had to replace lines and make it available in the entire franchise area.
Like a local public sector monopoly would.
That's why it's not just a no competition equivalent.
I never said it was. The world over, public sector utilities have generally proven pretty good at delivering universal coverage, and the lack of competition alone is hardly reason to criticise, particularly if the alternative is one with lack of competition and often unending "delays" in the delivery of the promised universal coverage.
In fact, from a point of view of competition, public utilities are better, as they don't even need to be monopolies to survive. How so? Because they can make a loss that is filled from general taxation, so the "best" customers (well-off people in densely populated areas) can be cherry-picked by private corporations (this happened with the entrance of cable TV companies into the telephone market in a lot of countries) and the universal service continues. Private monopolies can't allow competition, because there would be nothing to fill the shortfall.
The only problem with this is that what has happened time and again is that governments declare a loss-making utility as a "disaster", and say that the only cure is privatisation, which results in degradation of service as the newly-privatised body invests only where profit is likely. The government is then forced to subsidise universal service anyway, but somehow this ceases to be seen as a "loss".
It's a short-sighted, naïve view of economics, because infrastructure is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The economic impact of the telephone wasn't limited to the pennies-per-minute of a phone call -- it stimulated trade, information exchange and new efficiencies in working; the internet does the same thing, but several orders of magnitude greater. Isn't it stupid that the only place you can reliably do remote working from is a big city? Isn't it a waste that the only people who can use Netflix reliably are the same people who already have access to cable TV?
The internet as national infrastructure would generate huge amounts of indirect wealth, but the private market is (naturally) only concerned with direct revenue. Therefore, private internet doesn't serve the needs of a country.
Netflix was more than willing to provide all those ISPs with CDN hosting so that all the content could have been served from within the ISPs own datacenters.
And the ISPs were willing to lease real estate in their datacenters at a typical rate for colo real estate.
But it comes back to the fact that the ISPs were, are and will continue to be being paid by customers for the data being transferred. If is the ISP's responsibility to get that data to the users, and it is for them to balance how best to do that. If hosting the servers is cheaper for them than shifting the packets, then they should host and take the hit. If it isn't, they shouldn't. In this instance, "typical rates" don't come into it, as it's to the ISP's benefit. Paying a "typical rate" would only be fair if it's exclusively to the data provider's benefit, eg by getting a leg up on rivals (ie. preferential treatment).
Your unregulated libertarian fantasy violates the property rights of the backyard owners, which means you're not working from a consistently libertarian fantasy.
In other words, a strawman.
Is it a strawman though?
For one thing, isn't the core fallacy of libertarianism that they try to reconcile respecting property rights with lack of government intervention, when the concept of "property" is only enforceable either by governments or by force of arms?
For another, for there to be a completely open and free market in cabling, there would have to be limitless capacity, and there certainly isn't. Put too many cable voids below the roads and you'll be undermining the foundations of your streets, so you'd have to find somewhere else to put them, and back yards are the only space you've got left.
I have no problem with public owned ISPs. The issue is with public funding backed up by taxes competing with private funding requiring profit. If the universal coverage is funded by taxes then the private company is at a major disadvantage.
That is the reason local monopolies are given. The company is the only one in the area but they must provide universal coverage within that area at set prices.
Taxpayer-funded internet = bad, because competition = 0.
Local monopolies = good, despite competition = 0.
I hope you can see why I'm not really convinced that your logic is 100% consistent.
My view, for what it's worth, is that where monopoly is the only practical solution, that monopoly should not be an enterprise for private profit. Furthermore, the state/city-subsidised public utility company is a perfectly legitimate political decision for the public sector to take. Tax-payer owned infrastructure that is subsidised for vulnerable groups can be a public good, and there's no reason the subsidy for expensive-to-connect parts of the catchment area should be applied to the bills of people in the cheap-to-connect areas rather than general taxation. It's not like the budget for sidewalks is included as a special sales tax on shoes.
I think that the actual cable to your house should be part of infrastructure, much like public roads. And you get to pick who drives on that road to give you service.
It's a bit more like having public railways, public trains, public drivers, public ticket inspectors etc etc etc, and private ticket sellers. Internet cables aren't like power cables -- there's some huge power station out there pumping electricity into the system on your behalf, and you can get that delivered on someone else's wire, but the ISP isn't a supplier of packets, just a relayer, and if they don't own the infrastructure, what value are they offering? Technical support? If the network was free, I could pay someone else for support calls, without him having to be my ISP.
From my understanding Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix, they just didn't upgrade the lines between their network and Netflix servers to handle the extra load.
There was a dramatic dip in speed, and I don't believe I've seen any claim that Netflix subscriber numbers spiked suddenly that particular month.
The way to do that is to nationalise natural monopolies (say the internet pipes), and privatize the rest (say, selling bandwidth to customers).
And how does that work? Basically, you end up with people selling something they didn't make, and if they've got no cost in production, the one with the lowest overheads wins. That means economies of scale, and we just end up with monopolies all over again. In the UK, monopoly laws have created a paradox in phone and internet supplies -- when the public phone company was sold off, it was in a monopoly position. It's still in an effective monopoly position for landlines due to its installed userbase, 30 years on. Because they're a monopoly, they're not allowed to attempt to leverage their economies of scale and compete on price. So the anti-monopoly laws are actually granting them obscene profits, and the laws don't benefit the public. If the law was rewritten to benefit the public, it would put other companies out of business. Paradox.
Ah, no. As a lot of Libertarians have pointed out, there are piss poor countries that are rich in resources and wealthy nations with no natural resources.
It boils down to economic freedom.
Or maybe just "freedom". The US gained independence from the colonial powers about a century-and-a-half earlier than the colonies outside of the Americas, and half a century before its American neighbours to the south, so it's had a long time to get itself stable.
It also avoided the difficulties of transition due to having relative continuity of power-structures -- in the USA as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the white colonial elite formed an effective majority, so there was no period of minority white rule post-independence, which led to ongoing unrest in many Latin American and African countries, and eventually various rebellions, uprisings and coups. (You had your civil war, true, but that didn't lead to any major political upheavals.)
On the other hand, if the private companies are going to cherry-pick the neighbourhoods they feel are worth investing in, then they shouldn't be protected from a council-owned public service, if that public service is going to offer universal coverage.
the remaining rules still impose on ISPs the fundamental attributes of traditional common-carrier regulation.
The fundamental attributes of traditional common-carrier regulation include not holding the carrier responsible for the content of the messages. ISPs already benefit from that. Once they start prioritising certain traffic for commercial profit, aren't they kind of responsible for the traffic...?
Cash payments, while really nice for the drivers, would open them up to attack.
Autorickshaws are a type of mini-taxi common in India. They are already cash-based operations.
The summary says:
there seems to be no specific reason why the three-wheeled carriers should be exempt from Uber's online-only payment policy,
...but as they're typically metered anyway rather than fixed price, there's a very good reason -- Uber are moving into an established market sector, not creating a new one. They're effectively trying to be "central dispatch" to a bunch of existing self-employed taxi drivers.
The difference is that C is a very low-level language -- it has even been suggested only half-jokingly that C is just portable assembly language. It is inherently insecure because it allows the coder to do pretty much anything the underlying computer can do. It's a case of trading flexibility against other features.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he means "known" in the sense of "documented in the literature". Chess becomes boring when improvement just means looking up another strategy in a book, and when your opponent can beat you not through being more intelligent or creative or practiced than you, but just because he's spent more time reading than you.
the only game that can defeat a computer is the game of love..
I don't know... I can beat a computer at Whack-A-Mole if I've got a big enough hammer....
Really? I'm pretty sure there's been people doing this the whole time I've been here. In fact, there was a bit of a running gag for several years of people posting "frosty piss" instead of "first post" in the middle of the last decade.
EXTRA! News Titles Ambiguous Cowards Note
AC also objects to contracted subhead text, study finds.
I know... dangerous precedent, isn't it?
That's a false equivalent.
Is it? Is it really?
Local monopolies are generally required to build out to the unprofitable areas as a condition of that monopoly.
Like a local public sector monopoly would.
For instance when time Warner increased their internet speeds in my area they had to replace lines to do so.
Like a local public sector monopoly would.
.They were not allowed to only offer this in the business or rich areas, They had to replace lines and make it available in the entire franchise area.
Like a local public sector monopoly would.
That's why it's not just a no competition equivalent.
I never said it was. The world over, public sector utilities have generally proven pretty good at delivering universal coverage, and the lack of competition alone is hardly reason to criticise, particularly if the alternative is one with lack of competition and often unending "delays" in the delivery of the promised universal coverage.
In fact, from a point of view of competition, public utilities are better, as they don't even need to be monopolies to survive. How so? Because they can make a loss that is filled from general taxation, so the "best" customers (well-off people in densely populated areas) can be cherry-picked by private corporations (this happened with the entrance of cable TV companies into the telephone market in a lot of countries) and the universal service continues. Private monopolies can't allow competition, because there would be nothing to fill the shortfall.
The only problem with this is that what has happened time and again is that governments declare a loss-making utility as a "disaster", and say that the only cure is privatisation, which results in degradation of service as the newly-privatised body invests only where profit is likely. The government is then forced to subsidise universal service anyway, but somehow this ceases to be seen as a "loss".
It's a short-sighted, naïve view of economics, because infrastructure is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The economic impact of the telephone wasn't limited to the pennies-per-minute of a phone call -- it stimulated trade, information exchange and new efficiencies in working; the internet does the same thing, but several orders of magnitude greater. Isn't it stupid that the only place you can reliably do remote working from is a big city? Isn't it a waste that the only people who can use Netflix reliably are the same people who already have access to cable TV?
The internet as national infrastructure would generate huge amounts of indirect wealth, but the private market is (naturally) only concerned with direct revenue. Therefore, private internet doesn't serve the needs of a country.
Netflix was more than willing to provide all those ISPs with CDN hosting so that all the content could have been served from within the ISPs own datacenters.
And the ISPs were willing to lease real estate in their datacenters at a typical rate for colo real estate.
But it comes back to the fact that the ISPs were, are and will continue to be being paid by customers for the data being transferred. If is the ISP's responsibility to get that data to the users, and it is for them to balance how best to do that. If hosting the servers is cheaper for them than shifting the packets, then they should host and take the hit. If it isn't, they shouldn't. In this instance, "typical rates" don't come into it, as it's to the ISP's benefit. Paying a "typical rate" would only be fair if it's exclusively to the data provider's benefit, eg by getting a leg up on rivals (ie. preferential treatment).
Your unregulated libertarian fantasy violates the property rights of the backyard owners, which means you're not working from a consistently libertarian fantasy.
In other words, a strawman.
Is it a strawman though?
For one thing, isn't the core fallacy of libertarianism that they try to reconcile respecting property rights with lack of government intervention, when the concept of "property" is only enforceable either by governments or by force of arms?
For another, for there to be a completely open and free market in cabling, there would have to be limitless capacity, and there certainly isn't. Put too many cable voids below the roads and you'll be undermining the foundations of your streets, so you'd have to find somewhere else to put them, and back yards are the only space you've got left.
I have no problem with public owned ISPs. The issue is with public funding backed up by taxes competing with private funding requiring profit. If the universal coverage is funded by taxes then the private company is at a major disadvantage.
That is the reason local monopolies are given. The company is the only one in the area but they must provide universal coverage within that area at set prices.
Taxpayer-funded internet = bad, because competition = 0.
Local monopolies = good, despite competition = 0.
I hope you can see why I'm not really convinced that your logic is 100% consistent.
My view, for what it's worth, is that where monopoly is the only practical solution, that monopoly should not be an enterprise for private profit. Furthermore, the state/city-subsidised public utility company is a perfectly legitimate political decision for the public sector to take. Tax-payer owned infrastructure that is subsidised for vulnerable groups can be a public good, and there's no reason the subsidy for expensive-to-connect parts of the catchment area should be applied to the bills of people in the cheap-to-connect areas rather than general taxation. It's not like the budget for sidewalks is included as a special sales tax on shoes.
The fact is that Netflix goes with the cheapest ISP they can
Ah, so you're saying that the problem is market economics? Will market liberalism save us from market economics?
Some of us appreciated it highly.
You mean you appreciate it when you're high? "Woah, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude... it's, like, so biiiiiiiiiiig."
Erm... what? I've lived in four different European countries and do not recognise this "euro model" you speak of.
I think that the actual cable to your house should be part of infrastructure, much like public roads. And you get to pick who drives on that road to give you service.
It's a bit more like having public railways, public trains, public drivers, public ticket inspectors etc etc etc, and private ticket sellers. Internet cables aren't like power cables -- there's some huge power station out there pumping electricity into the system on your behalf, and you can get that delivered on someone else's wire, but the ISP isn't a supplier of packets, just a relayer, and if they don't own the infrastructure, what value are they offering? Technical support? If the network was free, I could pay someone else for support calls, without him having to be my ISP.
From my understanding Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix, they just didn't upgrade the lines between their network and Netflix servers to handle the extra load.
There was a dramatic dip in speed, and I don't believe I've seen any claim that Netflix subscriber numbers spiked suddenly that particular month.
The way to do that is to nationalise natural monopolies (say the internet pipes), and privatize the rest (say, selling bandwidth to customers).
And how does that work? Basically, you end up with people selling something they didn't make, and if they've got no cost in production, the one with the lowest overheads wins. That means economies of scale, and we just end up with monopolies all over again. In the UK, monopoly laws have created a paradox in phone and internet supplies -- when the public phone company was sold off, it was in a monopoly position. It's still in an effective monopoly position for landlines due to its installed userbase, 30 years on. Because they're a monopoly, they're not allowed to attempt to leverage their economies of scale and compete on price. So the anti-monopoly laws are actually granting them obscene profits, and the laws don't benefit the public. If the law was rewritten to benefit the public, it would put other companies out of business. Paradox.
Ah, no. As a lot of Libertarians have pointed out, there are piss poor countries that are rich in resources and wealthy nations with no natural resources. It boils down to economic freedom.
Or maybe just "freedom". The US gained independence from the colonial powers about a century-and-a-half earlier than the colonies outside of the Americas, and half a century before its American neighbours to the south, so it's had a long time to get itself stable.
It also avoided the difficulties of transition due to having relative continuity of power-structures -- in the USA as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the white colonial elite formed an effective majority, so there was no period of minority white rule post-independence, which led to ongoing unrest in many Latin American and African countries, and eventually various rebellions, uprisings and coups. (You had your civil war, true, but that didn't lead to any major political upheavals.)
On the other hand, if the private companies are going to cherry-pick the neighbourhoods they feel are worth investing in, then they shouldn't be protected from a council-owned public service, if that public service is going to offer universal coverage.
the remaining rules still impose on ISPs the fundamental attributes of traditional common-carrier regulation.
The fundamental attributes of traditional common-carrier regulation include not holding the carrier responsible for the content of the messages. ISPs already benefit from that. Once they start prioritising certain traffic for commercial profit, aren't they kind of responsible for the traffic...?
Cash payments, while really nice for the drivers, would open them up to attack.
Autorickshaws are a type of mini-taxi common in India. They are already cash-based operations.
The summary says:
there seems to be no specific reason why the three-wheeled carriers should be exempt from Uber's online-only payment policy,
...but as they're typically metered anyway rather than fixed price, there's a very good reason -- Uber are moving into an established market sector, not creating a new one. They're effectively trying to be "central dispatch" to a bunch of existing self-employed taxi drivers.
Notice that Netherlanders from outside Holland and North Holland aren't as tall as Hollanders... and these other states are above sea level. QED.
Sorry, I should have said it is no inherently security.
The difference is that C is a very low-level language -- it has even been suggested only half-jokingly that C is just portable assembly language. It is inherently insecure because it allows the coder to do pretty much anything the underlying computer can do. It's a case of trading flexibility against other features.
Exclamation points are used to denote macros. Why do you think println in Rust is implemented as a macro? It should be rather obvious.
Why should the coder care whether println is implemented as a macro or a procedure?
Should sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?
Alternative question: when there are hundreds of opensource developers out there, what criteria do you suggest should be given publicity?
I'm not sure it does anything -- the original article was published on Wednesday. Also, there's no video....