I, too, used to think climategate showed all those things. I read article after article about them and how it's all over for AGW, etc. However, when taken in context, those emails actually refer to something totally other than what they were made out to refer to. I highly recommend you check out this video and this one wherein potholer54 takes an in-depth and impartial look into climategate and reveals what it actually shows... as a spoiler, it doesn't reveal that there's a giant AGW conspiracy amongst all the climate scientists in the world.
Everybody is fucked up in one way or another. The great lie of society is that there is such a thing as normal. Yet this is impossible. It is each person's task - given to him by nobody other than himself - to do the best he can so as to make his way through this fucked-up-ness and figure out why it is so endemic and how he can help himself and others around him out of it. You clearly value your own life as you avoid alcohol because it would harm you. This is a good trait! Use it well. Life gets better the more you work at improving it - this is the joy of being an intelligent animal.
Yep exactly, and they would have had far more incentives to do just that if they weren't guaranteed to have extremely limited competition in any given area.
No it's an awful idea because it leads to not having competition which leads to horrible shitty-ass internet service. Why do you think Time Warner and Comcast are so universally hated?
So was that post enough to turn the tide so people started modding these down, or are the powers-that-be modding these down to make it look like that post was enough?
The Beta killed my children. It was awful. I hope it doesn't kill the rest of my children cause I actually have more but the Beta only killed a few of them.
Thank you for your concerns! I am not sure if you read my post. My dear son - and also my daughter - they both died! The Slashdot Beta was clearly at fault! It was confirmed scientifically by autopsy and also by investigation of the suicide note my dear son left.
Please, I want no other children to get hurt by the Beta. If even this has small chance of working - it will be worth it.
Yesterday, I had a child. My dear son. Today I found him dead. He left a suicide note: "The only reason for my death is Slashdot Beta."
Also I had a daughter a few days ago. But then I also found her dead. This time she had been murdered. The autopsy came back: She had been mauled by Slashdot Beta.
This must end!! Think of the children! Kill the Beta!
Bring back common carrier status and most of this stupidity goes away. Also, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, many companies make deals and carve up cities. Yes, this is bad. Frankly, it IS impractical to run multiple lines everywhere. We had this exact same issue with phone lines, we fixed them, and it's only due to the shenanigans of these large companies that we're having these exact same problems again.
It's not impractical, it gives consumers choices and it allows competition. As I understand it, there wasn't any problem with prices or quality of service before they "fixed" the issue by allowing only one carrier to build lines. Further, there was no economic reasoning at the time to think that service would improve by banning competition and only allowing one carrier to build lines. And what happened when you banned competition? Guess what, the guy that was left with the monopoly started abusing his power. Surprise, surprise! Instead of making arbitrary regulations that then require regulations piled on top of it to bring it back to a semblance of sanity, just don't impose the regulation in the first place - which in the telephone case was not allowing multiple lines everywhere.
Regulate. Make them common carriers (which they used to be until we deregulated them, and magically we started having problems. )
It is false that removing a regulation always leads to a better result. That's because you have a complex framework of regulations, and by removing any one piece, it's not always easy to predict what'll happen, or it is easy but the outcome is bad. Case in point: if the situation is that you have federally insured bank accounts so that banks can go totally belly up yet people are still paid AND you disallow banks from making risky investments, that's relatively stable. If you then remove the risky investment regulation, then you have a recipe for disaster. Yet remove both and you have the sanest alternative of all: banks having to actually be responsible with the money they handle for their clients.
The number one problem here is that these companies took subsidies, built lines, and ACTIVELY lobbied for city policies that hindered competition. This is not a problem of Big Gubmint! This is a problem of NOT regulating enough.
Yeah this is awful. By government I don't mean Big Gubmint only - I mean all those city policies too that hinder competition. Those are the things that should not be in place - see mah point?
No, I mean stop doing things that lead to situations like the ones described in this forum thread:
For almost five years now, the neighborhood a quarter of a mile away from me has been able to enjoy cable internet from our local, and only, provider. Meanwhile, I've had to settle for second rate brodband from DirecWAY (now Hughes Net), and now I get my broadband from a local small business that transmits via radio waves. Neither of these alternatives are even half the speed of the cable internet that others enjoy. I may get 1,600 kbps down, while my cousin with cable gets 10,000 kbps down. I called the cable company since our land butts up against the neighborhood that gets cable and they said it would cost around $8,000 to run cable a quarter of a mile. The government makes it so that no other cable competitors can enter the area, and there is no initiative for the current company to get my business unless I drop a ton of money. It's time to start getting some competition into the cable internet industries. It's time to deregulate the industry. It's time to have more than one cable provider in any given area. It's time to end this government enforced anti-competitive activity. Rates will drop, and more people will be able to enjoy truly high-speed internet.
Verizon has just finally won the battle to bring FiOS to my county... the government was kissing Comcast's butt for years and kept making stupid excuses.
I agree with you 100%. It's not really government enforced per-se, it's simply that government has not approved for the opening of the market.
Right now the cable companies enjoy a monopoly in the areas they control, although there are a few areas of overlap. They have achieved and maintained this goal by convincing the FCC that since THEY have sunk all of the money into building and continuously upgrading their systems and infrastructure in their areas that no one else should be allowed to come in an use their infrastructure. So far, this has worked.
This is somewhat true with the phone companies as well. Where I live we have SBC/AT&T, but a few miles away it's Verizon. Now, I can NOT get Verizon as my home service, but I can get MCI or several other smaller providers. That makes no sense at all.
I see what you're saying, but it's still ridiculous that it's allowed to go on. The last rationale I heard for it being this way was that the government didn't want cable running everywhere, but I don't know how true that is.
Admittedly it's a bit apocryphal and I should really do the research before continuing to talk about this stuff.
True. For sure, no way the Republicans are really for a free market in principle. It's generally an excuse to do what they want.
Incidentally the only type of monopoly that survives for any length of time is a government-backed monopoly. I am all for opening up the market so there can actually be competition. Lord knows Time Warner would immediately go out of their business as all their customers switch in one giant, ecstatic sigh of relief.
2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.
and if you could freely choose which ISP you want to connect to, that would be fine. but most of the time, there is ONE choice for internet and so you can't take your business elsewhere! ie, there is no competition and whoever services your area is who you can buy from and that's it.
this is why they don't deserve to control the network traffic. we are forced into a monopoly (effectively) and so this HAS to be a common carrier arrangement.
give us choice in carriers and we can talk about letting them throttle. until then, they dont deserve to be able to control us like that!
You're right, but the better solution isn't to build up extra regulation, it's to remove the barriers to allowing competing firms from entering the market.
How's it crapping all over the free market to oppose... regulation? "A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority." Incidentally they do crap all over the free market when they create laws that were written by lobbyists which favor those people who lobbied over their competition/victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers.
This is assuming that the net neutrality law actually would lead to more fairness in network access. The opposition thinks it would backfire and actually lead to a less-fair state of affairs.
Draw the analogy to trying to stop child pornographers by censoring the internet. Opposition claims (and is right) that that power would be overextended and abused and damage many legitimate uses of the internet. Then the supporting side can say, how could you, with a clear conscience, be against stopping child pornography? Well no sir, we're not against stopping child pornography, it's that this is just not a good way to go about it.
If it were such a waste of money then the price wouldn't be so ridiculously high. Maybe it's not the case that every ad exec who has paid for a superbowl ad is grossly incompetent, but rather, that it's worth the price for what it gives you.
Try getting a good IDE, like PyCharm (which does javascript as well). It gives you pretty good static checks on things like var name and property name typos. Not 100% of course since that's undecidable.
I actually find it quite delightful to work with. They managed to make something with the speed and low-levelness of C, yet with very straightforward reasonable memory management, mostly enforced by convention - so much so that ARC was possible.
True, it's just a lot easier and thus more likely to happen online. I guess. Maybe once I had fraudulent charges without losing my card and I might even be making that up. Twice the bank changed my number for security reasons saying there had been a data preach so perhaps it was preempted a few times.
Slashdot Mirror
I, too, used to think climategate showed all those things. I read article after article about them and how it's all over for AGW, etc. However, when taken in context, those emails actually refer to something totally other than what they were made out to refer to. I highly recommend you check out this video and this one wherein potholer54 takes an in-depth and impartial look into climategate and reveals what it actually shows... as a spoiler, it doesn't reveal that there's a giant AGW conspiracy amongst all the climate scientists in the world.
Everybody is fucked up in one way or another. The great lie of society is that there is such a thing as normal. Yet this is impossible. It is each person's task - given to him by nobody other than himself - to do the best he can so as to make his way through this fucked-up-ness and figure out why it is so endemic and how he can help himself and others around him out of it. You clearly value your own life as you avoid alcohol because it would harm you. This is a good trait! Use it well. Life gets better the more you work at improving it - this is the joy of being an intelligent animal.
Yep exactly, and they would have had far more incentives to do just that if they weren't guaranteed to have extremely limited competition in any given area.
No it's an awful idea because it leads to not having competition which leads to horrible shitty-ass internet service. Why do you think Time Warner and Comcast are so universally hated?
So was that post enough to turn the tide so people started modding these down, or are the powers-that-be modding these down to make it look like that post was enough?
I agree that Beta sucks - good point.
WTF are you talking about? Beta does suck.
The Beta killed my children. It was awful. I hope it doesn't kill the rest of my children cause I actually have more but the Beta only killed a few of them.
Hello sir,
Thank you for your concerns! I am not sure if you read my post. My dear son - and also my daughter - they both died! The Slashdot Beta was clearly at fault! It was confirmed scientifically by autopsy and also by investigation of the suicide note my dear son left.
Please, I want no other children to get hurt by the Beta. If even this has small chance of working - it will be worth it.
Thank you, I hope you understand my urgent pleas!
Yesterday, I had a child. My dear son. Today I found him dead. He left a suicide note: "The only reason for my death is Slashdot Beta."
Also I had a daughter a few days ago. But then I also found her dead. This time she had been murdered. The autopsy came back: She had been mauled by Slashdot Beta.
This must end!! Think of the children! Kill the Beta!
I like it
Bring back common carrier status and most of this stupidity goes away. Also, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, many companies make deals and carve up cities. Yes, this is bad. Frankly, it IS impractical to run multiple lines everywhere. We had this exact same issue with phone lines, we fixed them, and it's only due to the shenanigans of these large companies that we're having these exact same problems again.
It's not impractical, it gives consumers choices and it allows competition. As I understand it, there wasn't any problem with prices or quality of service before they "fixed" the issue by allowing only one carrier to build lines. Further, there was no economic reasoning at the time to think that service would improve by banning competition and only allowing one carrier to build lines. And what happened when you banned competition? Guess what, the guy that was left with the monopoly started abusing his power. Surprise, surprise! Instead of making arbitrary regulations that then require regulations piled on top of it to bring it back to a semblance of sanity, just don't impose the regulation in the first place - which in the telephone case was not allowing multiple lines everywhere.
Regulate. Make them common carriers (which they used to be until we deregulated them, and magically we started having problems. )
It is false that removing a regulation always leads to a better result. That's because you have a complex framework of regulations, and by removing any one piece, it's not always easy to predict what'll happen, or it is easy but the outcome is bad. Case in point: if the situation is that you have federally insured bank accounts so that banks can go totally belly up yet people are still paid AND you disallow banks from making risky investments, that's relatively stable. If you then remove the risky investment regulation, then you have a recipe for disaster. Yet remove both and you have the sanest alternative of all: banks having to actually be responsible with the money they handle for their clients.
The number one problem here is that these companies took subsidies, built lines, and ACTIVELY lobbied for city policies that hindered competition. This is not a problem of Big Gubmint! This is a problem of NOT regulating enough.
Yeah this is awful. By government I don't mean Big Gubmint only - I mean all those city policies too that hinder competition. Those are the things that should not be in place - see mah point?
For almost five years now, the neighborhood a quarter of a mile away from me has been able to enjoy cable internet from our local, and only, provider. Meanwhile, I've had to settle for second rate brodband from DirecWAY (now Hughes Net), and now I get my broadband from a local small business that transmits via radio waves. Neither of these alternatives are even half the speed of the cable internet that others enjoy. I may get 1,600 kbps down, while my cousin with cable gets 10,000 kbps down. I called the cable company since our land butts up against the neighborhood that gets cable and they said it would cost around $8,000 to run cable a quarter of a mile. The government makes it so that no other cable competitors can enter the area, and there is no initiative for the current company to get my business unless I drop a ton of money. It's time to start getting some competition into the cable internet industries. It's time to deregulate the industry. It's time to have more than one cable provider in any given area. It's time to end this government enforced anti-competitive activity. Rates will drop, and more people will be able to enjoy truly high-speed internet.
Verizon has just finally won the battle to bring FiOS to my county ... the government was kissing Comcast's butt for years and kept making stupid excuses.
I agree with you 100%. It's not really government enforced per-se, it's simply that government has not approved for the opening of the market. Right now the cable companies enjoy a monopoly in the areas they control, although there are a few areas of overlap. They have achieved and maintained this goal by convincing the FCC that since THEY have sunk all of the money into building and continuously upgrading their systems and infrastructure in their areas that no one else should be allowed to come in an use their infrastructure. So far, this has worked. This is somewhat true with the phone companies as well. Where I live we have SBC/AT&T, but a few miles away it's Verizon. Now, I can NOT get Verizon as my home service, but I can get MCI or several other smaller providers. That makes no sense at all.
I see what you're saying, but it's still ridiculous that it's allowed to go on. The last rationale I heard for it being this way was that the government didn't want cable running everywhere, but I don't know how true that is.
Admittedly it's a bit apocryphal and I should really do the research before continuing to talk about this stuff.
True. For sure, no way the Republicans are really for a free market in principle. It's generally an excuse to do what they want.
Incidentally the only type of monopoly that survives for any length of time is a government-backed monopoly. I am all for opening up the market so there can actually be competition. Lord knows Time Warner would immediately go out of their business as all their customers switch in one giant, ecstatic sigh of relief.
2) Anti Net Neutrality: The ISP's own their equipment, pay for their bandwidth, and can do what they want with it. If they want to shape network traffic to make overall service better, it's their right. This is usually the business point of view.
and if you could freely choose which ISP you want to connect to, that would be fine. but most of the time, there is ONE choice for internet and so you can't take your business elsewhere! ie, there is no competition and whoever services your area is who you can buy from and that's it.
this is why they don't deserve to control the network traffic. we are forced into a monopoly (effectively) and so this HAS to be a common carrier arrangement.
give us choice in carriers and we can talk about letting them throttle. until then, they dont deserve to be able to control us like that!
You're right, but the better solution isn't to build up extra regulation, it's to remove the barriers to allowing competing firms from entering the market.
How's it crapping all over the free market to oppose ... regulation? "A free market is a market economy in which the forces of supply and demand are not controlled by a government or other authority." Incidentally they do crap all over the free market when they create laws that were written by lobbyists which favor those people who lobbied over their competition/victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers.
This is assuming that the net neutrality law actually would lead to more fairness in network access. The opposition thinks it would backfire and actually lead to a less-fair state of affairs.
Draw the analogy to trying to stop child pornographers by censoring the internet. Opposition claims (and is right) that that power would be overextended and abused and damage many legitimate uses of the internet. Then the supporting side can say, how could you, with a clear conscience, be against stopping child pornography? Well no sir, we're not against stopping child pornography, it's that this is just not a good way to go about it.
The funny thing is, I think in scientific literature, climate change was always the more popular term.
If it were such a waste of money then the price wouldn't be so ridiculously high. Maybe it's not the case that every ad exec who has paid for a superbowl ad is grossly incompetent, but rather, that it's worth the price for what it gives you.
As you say, hindsight is always 20/20
Or 20!20.
Try getting a good IDE, like PyCharm (which does javascript as well). It gives you pretty good static checks on things like var name and property name typos. Not 100% of course since that's undecidable.
I actually find it quite delightful to work with. They managed to make something with the speed and low-levelness of C, yet with very straightforward reasonable memory management, mostly enforced by convention - so much so that ARC was possible.
Shut down businesses comprising millions of dollars worth of economic activity.
I guess it's not such a secret anymore.
True, it's just a lot easier and thus more likely to happen online. I guess. Maybe once I had fraudulent charges without losing my card and I might even be making that up. Twice the bank changed my number for security reasons saying there had been a data preach so perhaps it was preempted a few times.