Indeed. The problem as I see it is that someone, somewhere, somehow got the idea of net neutrality tangled up with the "fairness doctrine," which really was anything but fair.
It doesn't help that net neutrality as a concept has just started to come to public attention around the same time that Democrats are trying to re-introduce the "fairness doctrine" to wield against their supposed foes, conservatives in "talk radio."
I don't know who's red herring it's supposed to be, either: is it supposed to distract conservative soap box'rs and rope-a-dope them into expending energy making themselves look like fools? Or is it supposed to take advantage of genuine wariness about the "fairness doctrine" as it was applied and prevent net neutrality from taking hold?
If they allow flash on the iPhone, then it doesn't matter to you if you can remove it. The iPhone will cease to be a sustainable island of no-flash and become just another crippled piece of overpriced jewelry.
Only a company like apple can create a device with numbers enough to be able to have a chance at resisting the flash market. Smaller companies simply cannot afford to lose the "free developers" that come with the mediocritizing effect of "cross platform" "compatibility."
I've always wondered about that "in loco parentis" construction. What about a situation where the parents specifically are allowing their children to do something that is not and would not normally be illegal, or even unreasonable, like the aforementioned newsletter?
I'm wondering if maybe this hasn't really been tested yet as many of the schools arguing "in loco parentis" are actually doing things on behalf of the parents rather than in spite of.
Ironically, CDMA is the technically better standard, since GSM under the hood (at the time) was actually TDMA, a modulation/channel sharing technique known to have significant sideband emission due to the frequent switching. (also CDMA tends to fail gracefully, by steadily increasing the error rate as the channel becomes fuller, rather than simply dropping calls.)
Getting issued a name is a death sentence. Better to never have a name and just get thrown around the corridors a bit to show how dangerous the battle is.
If you are found to have filed the patent in bad faith (i.e. knowing that there was prior art) then this becomes wilful abuse of the patent system and the fine goes up to $100,000.
The problem with this one is that it discourages looking for prior art: People will notice that if you look for it, and find it, then you can't file, but if you don't look for it, then you can file and put the onus (except for the $10k in your previous point) on the PTO to find the prior art.
I'm not sure what a good solution would be. The goal is good: self-select inventions that aren't patentable so that the PTO can concentrate only on the ones that have merit, or seem like they have merit.
Stop-losses are a way for people with regular jobs to mitigate the risk of being in the market, so by having "no sympathy" for people doing their darndest hold on to their value is akin to saying they shouldn't have even been in the market in the first place.
Which brings us to the other problem. If you're not in the market (i.e. have your wealth invested in equity rather than in financial instruments) then you're going to be robbed by the Fed as it allows inflation to destroy your wealth at a rate that is convenient for the government. You can't even win by buying bonds: the returns are lower, there's still the risk of default, and if enough people relied on them, the Fed would just allow inflation to destroy their value as well.
So, please tell us, what course of action wouldn't result in your utter contempt?
This is a job for the executive branch. Actually.. maybe it's a job for *nobody* since it's likely that it was just automated trading triggers all got..triggered.. for some reason.
That suggests that the trading companies need to do failure analysis, not that the government needs to step in and do...something...
Yeah, but with jellybeans, the officials don't even have the shaky pretense of "at least we found drugs" to lean on. That's gotta make it harder to manufacture the ambiguity they need to attempt to garner public sympathy.
If you're worried about that kind of collapse, then yes, gold would go to zero, too. What can you do with gold other than look at it? You think you're going to arrange a deal with the typical large industries that actually put gold to a useful purpose? After a massive currency collapse? Good luck!
Baskets of metals are ok as a hedge, though all bets are off in a real crisis, and there is so much more out there you could be involved in that doesn't involve getting ripped off by a sketchy company with cheesy ads.
the Dow was at 6500, and has almost doubled value in about a year, it was rising too fast considering that the recovery still really hasn't come
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the state of the stock market represents the wealth of the nation.
In fact, ideally (i.e. if it really is efficient) it would represent the value in dollars of the wealth of the nation, which is a quite different state of things. The market absolutely can increase in "price" without the underlying wealth increasing -- in such a case the increase in price represents a decline in the value of the dollars themselves. I.e. inflation.
Oh, phew. After skimming the title of the summary (which, I think, still puts me ahead of most slashdotters), I was initially afraid that CMS stood for "CMS made simple"
Everything I've ever said that was not 100% correct, or was hurtful or insensitive, or revelatory of adverse intentions, was a joke. You're stupid for not getting it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah, no. No cable company would offer a service for $89.99.
What they'd do is offer a Unlimited* Video+ service for $24.99**
*Please see restrictions in subscriber agreement. Bandwidth caps or overage charges may apply.
**for subscribers to our connectivity enhancement package ($39.99***)
***discounted price requires modem rental ($14.65), hardware firewall rental ($19.95), and security subscription ($12.95)
****Quoted price does not include additional fees to cover costs of doing business and "regulatory compliance."
Indeed. The problem as I see it is that someone, somewhere, somehow got the idea of net neutrality tangled up with the "fairness doctrine," which really was anything but fair.
It doesn't help that net neutrality as a concept has just started to come to public attention around the same time that Democrats are trying to re-introduce the "fairness doctrine" to wield against their supposed foes, conservatives in "talk radio."
I don't know who's red herring it's supposed to be, either: is it supposed to distract conservative soap box'rs and rope-a-dope them into expending energy making themselves look like fools? Or is it supposed to take advantage of genuine wariness about the "fairness doctrine" as it was applied and prevent net neutrality from taking hold?
If they allow flash on the iPhone, then it doesn't matter to you if you can remove it. The iPhone will cease to be a sustainable island of no-flash and become just another crippled piece of overpriced jewelry.
Only a company like apple can create a device with numbers enough to be able to have a chance at resisting the flash market. Smaller companies simply cannot afford to lose the "free developers" that come with the mediocritizing effect of "cross platform" "compatibility."
In my day we managed to carry around weed...I suspect - kids today are a little slower, mentally speaking
Yeah, blame the kids, and not their dope smoking parents....
I've always wondered about that "in loco parentis" construction. What about a situation where the parents specifically are allowing their children to do something that is not and would not normally be illegal, or even unreasonable, like the aforementioned newsletter?
I'm wondering if maybe this hasn't really been tested yet as many of the schools arguing "in loco parentis" are actually doing things on behalf of the parents rather than in spite of.
Ok, but how is that a bad thing?
it already has a hung parliament. No need to get excited though: there is a word of difference between a hung and hanged! ;-)
Either way, what's the down side?
Ironically, CDMA is the technically better standard, since GSM under the hood (at the time) was actually TDMA, a modulation/channel sharing technique known to have significant sideband emission due to the frequent switching. (also CDMA tends to fail gracefully, by steadily increasing the error rate as the channel becomes fuller, rather than simply dropping calls.)
Getting issued a name is a death sentence. Better to never have a name and just get thrown around the corridors a bit to show how dangerous the battle is.
I guess, but aren't most displays just doing native-24 now?
Where did you live that mongolian grill was $55 for nine people? That's like two people where I live...
If you are found to have filed the patent in bad faith (i.e. knowing that there was prior art) then this becomes wilful abuse of the patent system and the fine goes up to $100,000.
The problem with this one is that it discourages looking for prior art: People will notice that if you look for it, and find it, then you can't file, but if you don't look for it, then you can file and put the onus (except for the $10k in your previous point) on the PTO to find the prior art.
I'm not sure what a good solution would be. The goal is good: self-select inventions that aren't patentable so that the PTO can concentrate only on the ones that have merit, or seem like they have merit.
No sympathy??
Stop-losses are a way for people with regular jobs to mitigate the risk of being in the market, so by having "no sympathy" for people doing their darndest hold on to their value is akin to saying they shouldn't have even been in the market in the first place.
Which brings us to the other problem. If you're not in the market (i.e. have your wealth invested in equity rather than in financial instruments) then you're going to be robbed by the Fed as it allows inflation to destroy your wealth at a rate that is convenient for the government. You can't even win by buying bonds: the returns are lower, there's still the risk of default, and if enough people relied on them, the Fed would just allow inflation to destroy their value as well.
So, please tell us, what course of action wouldn't result in your utter contempt?
And when weren't they?
This is a job for the executive branch. Actually.. maybe it's a job for *nobody* since it's likely that it was just automated trading triggers all got..triggered.. for some reason.
That suggests that the trading companies need to do failure analysis, not that the government needs to step in and do...something...
Yeah, but with jellybeans, the officials don't even have the shaky pretense of "at least we found drugs" to lean on. That's gotta make it harder to manufacture the ambiguity they need to attempt to garner public sympathy.
I've see a lot of references to the panopticon here on slashdot, but I'm still scratching my head:
What exactly is so bad about efficiently managing prisons so they require fewer guards for the same level of safety and security?
If you're worried about that kind of collapse, then yes, gold would go to zero, too. What can you do with gold other than look at it? You think you're going to arrange a deal with the typical large industries that actually put gold to a useful purpose? After a massive currency collapse? Good luck!
Baskets of metals are ok as a hedge, though all bets are off in a real crisis, and there is so much more out there you could be involved in that doesn't involve getting ripped off by a sketchy company with cheesy ads.
the Dow was at 6500, and has almost doubled value in about a year, it was rising too fast considering that the recovery still really hasn't come
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the state of the stock market represents the wealth of the nation.
In fact, ideally (i.e. if it really is efficient) it would represent the value in dollars of the wealth of the nation, which is a quite different state of things. The market absolutely can increase in "price" without the underlying wealth increasing -- in such a case the increase in price represents a decline in the value of the dollars themselves. I.e. inflation.
Many of those "satellite" pictures are still actually overflight pictures....
Oh, phew. After skimming the title of the summary (which, I think, still puts me ahead of most slashdotters), I was initially afraid that CMS stood for "CMS made simple"
Dude, it was a joke!
Anyone can play that game:
Everything I've ever said that was not 100% correct, or was hurtful or insensitive, or revelatory of adverse intentions, was a joke. You're stupid for not getting it.
" and could offer scientists more insight into the red planet's make-up"
Mars: the rouge planet!
Yeah, I absolutely hate my cell phone, and miss renting my forty pound land-line handset in their choice of three "stylish" colors...
Why should we have Net Neutrality, when we can't even have Tax Neutrality?