It would be so much better. More taxis, cheaper rates, being able to order taxis from your iPhones... but given that the going rate to buy a medallion is over a million dollars nowadays (based on my convo w/ a taxi driver who had done just that recently), there's a ton of interest against that. If only, if only.
I'm afraid you failed the super-secret ultra-high intelligence IQ test. You got the initial test, so that puts you at 120 or so, but the planted answer contained another hidden message which indicated that you shouldn't point out the secret message in the first one or you'll look average. You need an IQ of at least 170 to get it though so it's ok.
This is what happens when companies are allowed to run rough shod over the populace and competition into that market is arbitrarily restricted by the government.
Perhaps I missed it, but, uh, did this actually happen? Look at the video of one of the supposed-attackers after-the-supposed-fact.
a) Why is the supposed knife he is holding blurred out?
b) Why does he look so damn calm?
c) Why is nobody else freaking out? An old lady just walks right in front of the guy who supposedly just murdered a guy and still has blood on his hands. Two young girls go up to him and try talking to him. Is that a reasonable thing to do with a still-bleeding corpse on the ground not a few feet away from the guy who just killed him?
Um. Kim's actual twitter message was "Google, Facebook, Twitter, I ask you for help. We are all in the same DMCA boat. Use my patent for free. But please help funding my defense." That's not really threatening to sue, that's asking for help. Yellow journalism much?
Would you care to be more specific? I was referring to this argument here, mentioned in that very article (I'll admit it wasn't my original idea, but then again almost nobody has any original ideas when politics is concerned):
Libertarians and classical liberals often cite the tragedy of the commons as an example of what happens when Lockean property rights to homestead resources are prohibited by a government. These people argue that the solution to the tragedy of the commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, privatizing it. In 1940 Ludwig von Mises wrote concerning the problem:
If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.
Oh I thought you were saying that people don't act in their own self-interest, so we need regulation to ensure that people do (act in their own self-interest). I see now that you also mentioned that people don't act in *others'* self-interest, so we need regulation to ensure that people don't act in a way detrimental to *others'* self-interest. Two different arguments, yes?
About the former, my question still stands. Why would the government know better than a particular person what is in that particular person's best interest for them to do?
About the latter, I agree with some obvious things like murder. Murder should be.. um.. disincentivized. The question is, where do you draw the line? It's a far cry from murder to "you shouldn't be allowed to build an apartment here, this area is for commercial zoning only". I think the line should be in a different place than you do. I don't know what the best would be, but a good starting point is property rights & the right to your own body - thus theft & rape & assault & murder should be 'regulated', though I dislike using that term because it conflates obvious heinous crimes like rape with something that someone decided shouldn't be done (like paying somebody $6/hour instead of $7/hour).
I agree, people can be irrational - sometimes predictably so. But then that applies to the people who make the laws, and the people who enforce them, also, does it not? The question is, why would one group of people (the regulators) be better at deciding what another group of people should do (those who are being regulated)? I could see an argument that those regulators would specialize in making laws, but then you additionally have to trust that they are not acting in their self-interest, but rather, the self-interest of those they are regulating... and that is certainly not a given. More often than not it's just a large corporation lobbying for the law to be changed in their favor (and to their competitors'/customers' detriments). Why do you think our tax code is so convoluted?
To put it differently: you're advocating that politicians should have control over how common resources are managed. How much do people complain about politicians, again?
Yea there is always that option - use force to ensure that the commons is not destroyed. This is not a cure-all, though. Now instead of having the owners of the land deriving direct benefit from the land and thus protecting the property out of self-interest, you have a third party who is protecting the property but not deriving direct benefit from it, and are thus protecting it "for the good of the people"... but the latter are far more corruptible are they not?
That is, it's not the people making the short-term decisions that are incompetent - they're acting in their own rational (albeit greedy) self-interest - it's the people who put them into a position of power without tying the results of their actions to their compensation that are incompetent in this scenario.
Just because those projects began with government money does not mean they wouldn't have been produced without it. It's like saying there would be no roads if the government didn't build them. Yes, there would be, because roads are useful, so people would get together and build them.
Well, if you own a fishery, it's not really in your interest to kill all the fish, is it? That would destroy your source of income. Rather it makes more sense to ensure you will have fish for a long time to come. Problems arise when:
a) tragedy of the commons - nobody owns the fishery, thus nobody is responsible, thus it's in each person's best interest to take as much as they can from the fishery, and then it gets destroyed, or
b) the people who own the fishery are incompetent.
Ideally there would be a way to solve b) before the environment gets destroyed, but doing it by removing ownership/giving ownership to a disinterested party leads to a), which sucks too.
True. Subtyping makes it less straightforward. If you really need to have the variable typed as the superclass, then you can specify it explicitly. But when you don't then it saves a lot of time - both thinking, typing, and reading - to have `var`, I think.
Non-superfluous doesn't necessarily mean not precise or not well-defined. It means using context clues more than explicit declarations where the context gives you everything you need to know.
For example, 'var' in C# was brilliant, IMO, and I am upset that Java doesn't have one. `var x =...` gives you 100% of the information you need to know what the type of `x` is, because the language is statically typed so the right-hand side has a statically determinable type. It also saves a ton of needless typing. Which looks better:
var intNames = new HashMap();
or:
HashMap intNames = new HashMap();
Is the former any less precise than the latter?
Speaking of superfluous, having to insert <br> in my post here is superfluous. Stackoverflow does a brilliant job of formatting my question, answer, or comment well without needing such markup. And it's not any less precise. It's just more concise.
5% actually makes a huge difference. "Latency matters. Amazon found every 100ms of latency cost them 1% in sales. Google found an extra.5 seconds in search page generation time dropped traffic by 20%." [link]. These statistics would not be true if the average Joe would not notice them. He notices, he just wouldn't phrase it as "this site was 100ms slower than usual so I didn't buy from it."
narcc is of course referring to the fact that JavaScript does not have classes. That there are so many frameworks that attempt to mimic classes in JavaScript certainly doesn't make this an easier to understand fact.
The best is when you don't need to annotate the types, but you have type safety anyway, like Haskell. Unfortunately you can't have perfect type inference and subtyping in the same type system...
The advantage of not having static types, though, is that it is a heck of a lot faster to program, as well as much easier to extend. You just have to be able to keep the design in your head.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be so much better. More taxis, cheaper rates, being able to order taxis from your iPhones... but given that the going rate to buy a medallion is over a million dollars nowadays (based on my convo w/ a taxi driver who had done just that recently), there's a ton of interest against that. If only, if only.
I'm afraid you failed the super-secret ultra-high intelligence IQ test. You got the initial test, so that puts you at 120 or so, but the planted answer contained another hidden message which indicated that you shouldn't point out the secret message in the first one or you'll look average. You need an IQ of at least 170 to get it though so it's ok.
Oh true. I blame the article for not posting a more relevant link & twitter for being hard to use.
This is what happens when companies are allowed to run rough shod over the populace and competition into that market is arbitrarily restricted by the government.
FTFY
Perhaps I missed it, but, uh, did this actually happen? Look at the video of one of the supposed-attackers after-the-supposed-fact.
a) Why is the supposed knife he is holding blurred out?
b) Why does he look so damn calm?
c) Why is nobody else freaking out? An old lady just walks right in front of the guy who supposedly just murdered a guy and still has blood on his hands. Two young girls go up to him and try talking to him. Is that a reasonable thing to do with a still-bleeding corpse on the ground not a few feet away from the guy who just killed him?
I'm just left thinking 'wtf?'
Um. Kim's actual twitter message was "Google, Facebook, Twitter, I ask you for help. We are all in the same DMCA boat. Use my patent for free. But please help funding my defense." That's not really threatening to sue, that's asking for help. Yellow journalism much?
Libertarians and classical liberals often cite the tragedy of the commons as an example of what happens when Lockean property rights to homestead resources are prohibited by a government. These people argue that the solution to the tragedy of the commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, privatizing it. In 1940 Ludwig von Mises wrote concerning the problem:
If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting. Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation. For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output. They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation. In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds.
Oh I thought you were saying that people don't act in their own self-interest, so we need regulation to ensure that people do (act in their own self-interest). I see now that you also mentioned that people don't act in *others'* self-interest, so we need regulation to ensure that people don't act in a way detrimental to *others'* self-interest. Two different arguments, yes?
About the former, my question still stands. Why would the government know better than a particular person what is in that particular person's best interest for them to do?
About the latter, I agree with some obvious things like murder. Murder should be.. um.. disincentivized. The question is, where do you draw the line? It's a far cry from murder to "you shouldn't be allowed to build an apartment here, this area is for commercial zoning only". I think the line should be in a different place than you do. I don't know what the best would be, but a good starting point is property rights & the right to your own body - thus theft & rape & assault & murder should be 'regulated', though I dislike using that term because it conflates obvious heinous crimes like rape with something that someone decided shouldn't be done (like paying somebody $6/hour instead of $7/hour).
+1
I agree, people can be irrational - sometimes predictably so. But then that applies to the people who make the laws, and the people who enforce them, also, does it not? The question is, why would one group of people (the regulators) be better at deciding what another group of people should do (those who are being regulated)? I could see an argument that those regulators would specialize in making laws, but then you additionally have to trust that they are not acting in their self-interest, but rather, the self-interest of those they are regulating... and that is certainly not a given. More often than not it's just a large corporation lobbying for the law to be changed in their favor (and to their competitors'/customers' detriments). Why do you think our tax code is so convoluted?
To put it differently: you're advocating that politicians should have control over how common resources are managed. How much do people complain about politicians, again?
Yea there is always that option - use force to ensure that the commons is not destroyed. This is not a cure-all, though. Now instead of having the owners of the land deriving direct benefit from the land and thus protecting the property out of self-interest, you have a third party who is protecting the property but not deriving direct benefit from it, and are thus protecting it "for the good of the people"... but the latter are far more corruptible are they not?
That is, it's not the people making the short-term decisions that are incompetent - they're acting in their own rational (albeit greedy) self-interest - it's the people who put them into a position of power without tying the results of their actions to their compensation that are incompetent in this scenario.
Yea I never understood why some corporate structures are set up that way. I think that falls into the b) category - incompetence on a larger scale.
Just because those projects began with government money does not mean they wouldn't have been produced without it. It's like saying there would be no roads if the government didn't build them. Yes, there would be, because roads are useful, so people would get together and build them.
Well, if you own a fishery, it's not really in your interest to kill all the fish, is it? That would destroy your source of income. Rather it makes more sense to ensure you will have fish for a long time to come. Problems arise when:
a) tragedy of the commons - nobody owns the fishery, thus nobody is responsible, thus it's in each person's best interest to take as much as they can from the fishery, and then it gets destroyed, or
b) the people who own the fishery are incompetent.
Ideally there would be a way to solve b) before the environment gets destroyed, but doing it by removing ownership/giving ownership to a disinterested party leads to a), which sucks too.
True. Subtyping makes it less straightforward. If you really need to have the variable typed as the superclass, then you can specify it explicitly. But when you don't then it saves a lot of time - both thinking, typing, and reading - to have `var`, I think.
Gordamnit. That should have read:
HashMap<Integer, String> intNames = new HashMap<Integer, String>();
The < is another example of something superfluous.
Non-superfluous doesn't necessarily mean not precise or not well-defined. It means using context clues more than explicit declarations where the context gives you everything you need to know. ...` gives you 100% of the information you need to know what the type of `x` is, because the language is statically typed so the right-hand side has a statically determinable type. It also saves a ton of needless typing. Which looks better:
For example, 'var' in C# was brilliant, IMO, and I am upset that Java doesn't have one. `var x =
var intNames = new HashMap();
or:
HashMap intNames = new HashMap();
Is the former any less precise than the latter?
Speaking of superfluous, having to insert <br> in my post here is superfluous. Stackoverflow does a brilliant job of formatting my question, answer, or comment well without needing such markup. And it's not any less precise. It's just more concise.
5% actually makes a huge difference. "Latency matters. Amazon found every 100ms of latency cost them 1% in sales. Google found an extra .5 seconds in search page generation time dropped traffic by 20%." [link]. These statistics would not be true if the average Joe would not notice them. He notices, he just wouldn't phrase it as "this site was 100ms slower than usual so I didn't buy from it."
For lack of mod points, +1 Funny.
narcc is of course referring to the fact that JavaScript does not have classes. That there are so many frameworks that attempt to mimic classes in JavaScript certainly doesn't make this an easier to understand fact.
The best is when you don't need to annotate the types, but you have type safety anyway, like Haskell. Unfortunately you can't have perfect type inference and subtyping in the same type system... The advantage of not having static types, though, is that it is a heck of a lot faster to program, as well as much easier to extend. You just have to be able to keep the design in your head.
Just think how many jobs that would create! We'd need so many prison managers, wardens, janitors, doctors, etc.
If a backward facing shotgun backfires, wouldn't you hit your target?