In the absence of government, consumers would have an incentive to "unionize." I have a few ideas on how such a "unionization" would take place and what it would look like, but that's not immediately germaine to the discussion...
Once consumers organized on a larger scale, they could more readily pressure companies to not do abusive things. Laws such as those that force telecoms to permit the transfer of telephone numbers would be unnecessary, as that feature would be negotiated on between consumers and telecoms. Net neutrality could also be negotiated on that scale.
But an expansive government does exist, so rather than developing any kind of organizational cohesion to confront these kinds of issues, consumers turn to the government to answer these kinds of questions. In light of this, is it really that bad for government to impose the kind of regulation that a consumer "union" could pull off? Of course, it's not perfect. You can only guess whether such a union could pull it off, and there's no room for negotiation or compromise. Unlike Congress, there are strong checks against the power of such a "union" such as the fear of partitioning if the costs get too onerous or benefits become unsuitably lopsided within the union.
What surprises me is that the Sony Reader has received so little public attention. I tend to keep up with gadgets and have a personal interest in electronic paper tech, but I didn't even hear about that product until very recently.
That thing is definitely on my wishlist... after the iPhone... and a new laptop... and a DSLR... and a Wii... and an updated video card... and updated ASIC design software... snow tires... Oh, bother.
So you believe DRM doesn't discourage anyone. Why are people so quick to discard their rational integrity in an effort to support their positions? I don't get it.
n the presence of the colloidal PVA-Pt as a catalyst and triethanolamine (TEOA) as a sacrificial electron donor, the photosensitized reduction of water to H2 takes place. [Emphasis mine] Isn't this a problem? How do you restore the triethanolamine without using energy?
Not only is your position tenuous (actually wrong, but nevermind), but it sounds like you haven't even stopped to consider that maybe, regardless of legal obligations, just maybe, you're being a misanthropic jackass.
No seriously, are you trolling now? You made a reference to a carte blanche statement about human nature; what does that have to do with the US specifically? Nothing. It doesn't matter who said it.
Wrong? What do you mean wrong? As far as I can tell, our arguments are in perfect harmony.
All I'm saying that if that's really what you think the GPL is about, then you need to be honest and incorporate a broader provision mandating upgradability of software, rather than pretending you found a loophole by addressing code signing specifically.
Why don't you just cut through the crap and put the following condition in GPL3?
"Using this software on a device that does not allow the owner of the device to make changes to that software is a violation of this license."
Then watch as the cost-per-unit goes up on embedded devices that now need to make their code memory accessible and swappable (or flashable).
It's about scope. There's no getting around it; you're talking about expanding the scope of the GPL to cover hardware accessibility.
Here's a thought problem for you. What would happen if part of the kernel were rewritten in a hardware description language (HDL) for performance reasons? The HDL describes an ASIC, which requires mass-production in multi-million-dollar manufacturing plants to be economically viable.
You see the new GPL as something that elegantly closes a loophole. I see the new GPL as a blatant hack designed to get its grubby fingers on hardware specifications in a very narrow way. I would have more respect for GPL3 if it were more honest about its intentions and included a provision like the quoted statement above, adequately fleshed out to include hardware accessibility standards.
I would respect it, but I still wouldn't use it in most cases.
As a rule of thumb, more adaptable creatures in an environment require more energy than less adaptable creatures, so in order to compete, one would have to optimize energy efficiency against the instability of the environment.
There's more to the story. Human adaptability comes at the expense of highly retarded development in comparison with our ancestors. The existence of an environment that makes delayed development a rewarding scenario is not a given. Neither is the existence of cultivable plants (the basis for mass food production and hence modern civilization) a given.
The point is, the benefits of adaptability are determined by our environment. It's not some kind of intrinsically good thing.
Yes, stars decay, planets burn, and only beings that can escape will continue to survive. But if your metric is only "objective" or "intrinsic" on that level, it's not very impressive, especially since the ultimate heat death of the universe is more pertinent on that level.
The weird truth is that we don't exactly know how SSRIs work. If it were simply a matter of inhibiting serotonin uptake, you'd see the effects of these drugs immediately, but these drugs can take weeks to have an effect. There's some kind of strange long-term change that occurs as a side-effect of inhibiting serotonin uptake.
*sigh* The parent's point was that the law shouldn't discourage safety measures, not (necessarily) that the government should require them. People who enjoy being against things are obnoxious. People who do so out of context are worse.
You can't deny that the 89 is significantly more aerodynamic than the 83.
Re:nobody's going to stop buying SUVs
on
The Hybrid Scooter
·
· Score: 1
From the article:
The risk to drivers of average midsize and large cars is about the same as for the average SUV. [...] Similarly, the risk to drivers of the safest midsize and large car models (Avalon, Camry, and Accord) is about the same as for the safest SUVs (Suburban, Cherokee, and Tahoe).
So, uh, I'd say you're misreading the article.
What's more, a lot of the make-up of the SUV risk is from roll-overs, suggesting that while the risk is equal, SUV owners have more control of their risk. Perception of control is a huge factor in safety decisions.
Re:Editorial Oversight != Truth (i.e. FOX News)
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 1
I understand your point about editorial integrity, but I hope you're not trying to give FOX News a pass just because their explicit news hour isn't partisan. It's not as if the "commentary," as you describe it, doesn't attempt to provide new information to listeners.
Well, the argument goes that, unlike a government, a consumer could opt out of a free market consumer union. Granted, it would be stupid to do so, as doing so would probably greatly limit where you could shop and so forth, but in principle, people could create a new union without risk of violence. Further, a free market consumer union could have as much or as little bureaucracy as necessary to meet the needs of such a union, instead of a one-size-fits-all congress. Furthermore, nobody would bring up the question of what the role of a consumer union is. If the consumers want it, they demand it, and they leave smart people in charge of making concessions to corporations where it's ultimately in their best interest.
For that to really work, you need coordination on the consumer side. In the absence of government solutions, consumers would develop something that could be best described as a consumer union. These unions would throw around their weight to ensure that blatantly abusive measures would not be rewarded. They would also be responsible for things like making sure cell phone providers allow consumers to keep their phone numbers.
But we don't have consumer unions, because people think they can turn to their government. That's the real chicken and the egg problem. Until consumer unions are formed, we are justified and even morally obligated to use government to perform the services that free market consumer unions would provide.
Harmful recessive allele frequencies do slowly decay over time. There are some harmful recessive genes that have positive effects in a heterozygous subject. These alleles are found in higher frequencies in populations where the positive effect is most beneficial. For example, being homozygous for sickle cell anemia decreases the likelihood of dying from malaria.
Yeah, but what's the substitute for conveying that concept?
If I were to refer to such a statement as a case of tragic, humorous synchronicity, I'm sure someone would jam a steel spork up my ass. "Irony" will do.
I've run IntelliJ on multiple boxes, and I have to say that its responsiveness is overhyped. The lack of responsiveness of widgets (and accompanying gray paneling) during any load and the crawling pace of real-time error checking, especially with style-checks enabled, makes me want to tear my eyes out. That said, it's a wonderfully designed application.
But there's a tragic humor there that "coincidence" and "synchronicity" fail to connote. You can't really hate on people for expanding the English language to accommodate such a simple and common mental concept.
Slashdot Mirror
In the absence of government, consumers would have an incentive to "unionize." I have a few ideas on how such a "unionization" would take place and what it would look like, but that's not immediately germaine to the discussion...
Once consumers organized on a larger scale, they could more readily pressure companies to not do abusive things. Laws such as those that force telecoms to permit the transfer of telephone numbers would be unnecessary, as that feature would be negotiated on between consumers and telecoms. Net neutrality could also be negotiated on that scale.
But an expansive government does exist, so rather than developing any kind of organizational cohesion to confront these kinds of issues, consumers turn to the government to answer these kinds of questions. In light of this, is it really that bad for government to impose the kind of regulation that a consumer "union" could pull off? Of course, it's not perfect. You can only guess whether such a union could pull it off, and there's no room for negotiation or compromise. Unlike Congress, there are strong checks against the power of such a "union" such as the fear of partitioning if the costs get too onerous or benefits become unsuitably lopsided within the union.
What surprises me is that the Sony Reader has received so little public attention. I tend to keep up with gadgets and have a personal interest in electronic paper tech, but I didn't even hear about that product until very recently.
That thing is definitely on my wishlist... after the iPhone... and a new laptop... and a DSLR... and a Wii... and an updated video card... and updated ASIC design software... snow tires... Oh, bother.
So you believe DRM doesn't discourage anyone. Why are people so quick to discard their rational integrity in an effort to support their positions? I don't get it.
You've Just Committed the Genetic Logical Fallacy
No, he didn't.
n the presence of the colloidal PVA-Pt as a catalyst and triethanolamine (TEOA) as a sacrificial electron donor, the photosensitized reduction of water to H2 takes place. [Emphasis mine]
Isn't this a problem? How do you restore the triethanolamine without using energy?
Not only is your position tenuous (actually wrong, but nevermind), but it sounds like you haven't even stopped to consider that maybe, regardless of legal obligations, just maybe, you're being a misanthropic jackass.
No seriously, are you trolling now? You made a reference to a carte blanche statement about human nature; what does that have to do with the US specifically? Nothing. It doesn't matter who said it.
Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that was Plato. Do I win the prize?
I'm tired of hearing people assert things that are purely the product of some imagined, desirable social framework. Take your truthiness and shove it.
Wrong? What do you mean wrong? As far as I can tell, our arguments are in perfect harmony.
All I'm saying that if that's really what you think the GPL is about, then you need to be honest and incorporate a broader provision mandating upgradability of software, rather than pretending you found a loophole by addressing code signing specifically.
Why don't you just cut through the crap and put the following condition in GPL3?
"Using this software on a device that does not allow the owner of the device to make changes to that software is a violation of this license."
Then watch as the cost-per-unit goes up on embedded devices that now need to make their code memory accessible and swappable (or flashable).
It's about scope. There's no getting around it; you're talking about expanding the scope of the GPL to cover hardware accessibility.
Here's a thought problem for you. What would happen if part of the kernel were rewritten in a hardware description language (HDL) for performance reasons? The HDL describes an ASIC, which requires mass-production in multi-million-dollar manufacturing plants to be economically viable.
You see the new GPL as something that elegantly closes a loophole. I see the new GPL as a blatant hack designed to get its grubby fingers on hardware specifications in a very narrow way. I would have more respect for GPL3 if it were more honest about its intentions and included a provision like the quoted statement above, adequately fleshed out to include hardware accessibility standards.
I would respect it, but I still wouldn't use it in most cases.
It's called horizontal gene transfer, and it's more common than you think.
As a rule of thumb, more adaptable creatures in an environment require more energy than less adaptable creatures, so in order to compete, one would have to optimize energy efficiency against the instability of the environment.
There's more to the story. Human adaptability comes at the expense of highly retarded development in comparison with our ancestors. The existence of an environment that makes delayed development a rewarding scenario is not a given. Neither is the existence of cultivable plants (the basis for mass food production and hence modern civilization) a given.
The point is, the benefits of adaptability are determined by our environment. It's not some kind of intrinsically good thing.
Yes, stars decay, planets burn, and only beings that can escape will continue to survive. But if your metric is only "objective" or "intrinsic" on that level, it's not very impressive, especially since the ultimate heat death of the universe is more pertinent on that level.
It's a moot point anyways, since the major infringement with P2P isn't possession of copyrighted data, but active distribution.
The weird truth is that we don't exactly know how SSRIs work. If it were simply a matter of inhibiting serotonin uptake, you'd see the effects of these drugs immediately, but these drugs can take weeks to have an effect. There's some kind of strange long-term change that occurs as a side-effect of inhibiting serotonin uptake.
*sigh* The parent's point was that the law shouldn't discourage safety measures, not (necessarily) that the government should require them. People who enjoy being against things are obnoxious. People who do so out of context are worse.
You can't deny that the 89 is significantly more aerodynamic than the 83.
So, uh, I'd say you're misreading the article.
What's more, a lot of the make-up of the SUV risk is from roll-overs, suggesting that while the risk is equal, SUV owners have more control of their risk. Perception of control is a huge factor in safety decisions.
I understand your point about editorial integrity, but I hope you're not trying to give FOX News a pass just because their explicit news hour isn't partisan. It's not as if the "commentary," as you describe it, doesn't attempt to provide new information to listeners.
Well, the argument goes that, unlike a government, a consumer could opt out of a free market consumer union. Granted, it would be stupid to do so, as doing so would probably greatly limit where you could shop and so forth, but in principle, people could create a new union without risk of violence. Further, a free market consumer union could have as much or as little bureaucracy as necessary to meet the needs of such a union, instead of a one-size-fits-all congress. Furthermore, nobody would bring up the question of what the role of a consumer union is. If the consumers want it, they demand it, and they leave smart people in charge of making concessions to corporations where it's ultimately in their best interest.
For that to really work, you need coordination on the consumer side. In the absence of government solutions, consumers would develop something that could be best described as a consumer union. These unions would throw around their weight to ensure that blatantly abusive measures would not be rewarded. They would also be responsible for things like making sure cell phone providers allow consumers to keep their phone numbers.
But we don't have consumer unions, because people think they can turn to their government. That's the real chicken and the egg problem. Until consumer unions are formed, we are justified and even morally obligated to use government to perform the services that free market consumer unions would provide.
Harmful recessive allele frequencies do slowly decay over time. There are some harmful recessive genes that have positive effects in a heterozygous subject. These alleles are found in higher frequencies in populations where the positive effect is most beneficial. For example, being homozygous for sickle cell anemia decreases the likelihood of dying from malaria.
Yeah, but what's the substitute for conveying that concept?
If I were to refer to such a statement as a case of tragic, humorous synchronicity, I'm sure someone would jam a steel spork up my ass. "Irony" will do.
I've run IntelliJ on multiple boxes, and I have to say that its responsiveness is overhyped. The lack of responsiveness of widgets (and accompanying gray paneling) during any load and the crawling pace of real-time error checking, especially with style-checks enabled, makes me want to tear my eyes out. That said, it's a wonderfully designed application.
But there's a tragic humor there that "coincidence" and "synchronicity" fail to connote. You can't really hate on people for expanding the English language to accommodate such a simple and common mental concept.