It's like with voting.
You didn't vote? Then you have no right to complain!
You voted for the guy who didn't win? Well they weren't elected - you have no right to complain!
You voted for the guy who won? Well then this is what you voted for - you have no right to complain!
Or the answer is: "We'll have severely hampered global productivity. We'll have redistributed more wealth from the hands of the poor and middle class to the rich via political exploitation. We'll have wasted money to use different energy sources now when we could've kept using the same sources far more cheaply, leading to more global wealth, and had a more natural progression (i.e. one not forced by artificial scares) to other energy sources." etc.
Could they have just Man-in-the-Middle'd a whole ton of HTTPS connections? If they get certificates signed by the right authorities and have access to backbone routers, can't they just read HTTPS as if it were not even encrypted?
No, you can have a monopoly without it being illegal to have competitors. If you're the first person to produce a new kind of product then you have a monopoly on that product until someone else joins the market.
If the USPS made money before the ridiculous pension fund thing came into play, then a private company would also make money charging the same rate for all mail. Maybe they would do it that way. Or you'd have some companies doing urban-only, some doing rural, etc. Besides why is it such a big deal for rural mail to cost more, if it would get to that? it'd be something to factor in to the cost of living in a rural area.
The only reason it has a monopoly is because it's illegal for anybody besides the USPS to deliver first class mail. Raise the legal restriction and you can bet that FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc., will rush in to fill the gap.
No, far more practical than ideology. I suspect they are wrecking the USPS because they can make money that way. They can use the money supposedly being saved for the pension scheme today, or borrow more money using the pension scheme as collateral.
Why this need be regulated? Just pay people to send your packages. If they are charging too much then find someone who is doing it for cheaper. If nobody is doing it for cheaper, and it is possible to do it for cheaper, then someone will start doing it because there will be profit motive.
Constantly protecting and promoting innovation! Why, without patents, there's no way Apple would be going out on a limb to develop such advanced technology as needing one type of access method for some functionality and another type of access method for others! And if anyone should dare to steal this brilliant idea, or to develop the same exact one by accident because it is bleeding obvious, then let them be sued into oblivion for unfair whatevery. This will surely help us consumers by giving us less choice and higher prices.
Oh that is extremely misleading. To be honest though I did some mental math and I thought, really, out of the entirety of all programs written in Python, there's only one defect per 200,000 lines of code? Unlikely. Now it all makes sense. My world view has been repaired by your astute observations. If only you had not posted AC so I could direct merit and praise to the appropriate username and so your karma would increase thus assuring you a better rebirth in a heavenly realm wherein you could hopefully meet the Buddha of programming AKA Guido van Rossum and follow his blessings to the nirvana wherein no programmer ever has to code again!
Well. The whole point of Mega was that not even Mega would know what you are storing on their servers. "The end to end encryption means that Mega pretty much can't narc on you, no matter how much pressure it's under. It won't know what you're storing on its servers, by design." gizmodo. Thus there's a reasonable expectation that Mega cannot find out what you are storing on its servers. Now it turns out there is a ridiculously easy way for Mega to find out what you're storing there: all Mega has to do is run some JavaScript on your computer. Which it does anyway.
I suppose either way you'd have to trust that the website is only uploading encrypted stuff to Mega and not the file itself. But now it turns out even if they're doing that, they can still decrypt your stuff. And also any website on the internet.
Well I suppose that the JS client could also have just sent the keys it generated to Mega as soon as it generated them.
Ok, basically there's no way this security model can work. I just feel a bit foolish now. But I'm glad TFA made me think about it for the two minutes it took to figure out that there's no real expectation of security here. Other articles (like that gizmodo one) painted quite the misleading picture.
This would be a good time for you to realize that the person you replied to in this post is b4dc0d3r whereas the person who made the save-3-sodas-a-day-for-college comment was ShanghaiBill.
Oh my. There's just so many fallacies in your post. I just have to go through it and point them all out now.
So you just don't tell them you hate them to their face. How noble of you.
No, he said they are undeserving of handouts, not that he hates them. There are other reasons to think someone is undeserving of a handout than hating them. For example, you can observe that when a particular person in a rough financial situation comes into some unexpected money, they immediately spend it instead of saving it and investing it. You might even like the person. But that would be a good reason to think that giving them a hand out would not help them.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but public education was an idea that came from the working class. It was fought by the elite class for decades, despite popular support. Labor unions repeatedly shutting down factories and killing profits was what eventually created the federal mandate that public education be available in all states. After that, it was a fight to get blacks and minorities into schools, necessitating the national guard coming out to forcibly open the doors of schools in the South and allow them in. And now, higher education is being rapidly priced into extinction, and it is disproportionately affecting the working class.
So when you say "they don't really understand", consider the possibility that it's not because they can't understand, but lack access to resources that would allow them to.
Hah. You've actually proven why public education has failed in this respect. Public education has been around for a long time. If poor people today can't understand the concept of investment, and they are the ones that have been going to public schools, then clearly public education has failed in teaching the value of investment. I went to public schools and I didn't learn shit about investment the entire time there.
But handing money to CEOs "too big to fail" and banks so corrupt they put the entire economy in the drink for over a decade is? Why do you feel that it is more likely that hundreds of millions of Americans are lazy than that a few thousand of them are greedy?
Similar to the first point, he never said that handing money to CEOs "too big to fail" is the answer. You are attacking a point he did not make. You are talking to yourself. This does not make you look sensible. It makes you look like you have something to prove about your own preconceived notions and are not willing to be reasonable.
It's going to be so ridiculously cheap compared to halting the economic progress of the world by trying to cut CO2 emissions by the large amount that the climate change scientists recommend. On the order of millions of dollars instead of hundreds of billions of dollars. Literally you just lift a hose into the atmosphere with helium balloons and pump abundant gases through it. It's certainly a sustainable expense.
What about the solution in Super Freakonomics? It's well-documented that the earth cooled significantly for a few years following a giant volcanic eruption. We have the technology to easily pump those same gases into the same part of the atmosphere. This is an actual cause & effect thing. It would also be ridiculously cheap - just a few million dollars - thus very doable. This would lead to global cooling.
But nobody is even talking about it because what the political environmentalists really care about is more government control, not the environment per se. Before accusing me of tinfoil-hat-ism, take a look at all the proposed solutions, and see if any of them involve less government control. Here's two easy ones that aren't talked about:
1) eliminate taxi licenses. Right now, a taxi can drive someone from NY to NJ, but they can't pick up anyone in NJ to drive them back to NY because the license doesn't allow it. So they have to make an empty trip back for no reason.
2) reduce our military presence in Iraq. Right now this consumes ridiculous amounts of fuel per day.
New tech startup called Snowshoe has an interesting take on this. Basically it's a fingerprint that already works on all existing touchscreens. Doesn't require any battery power. I saw their 5-minute pitch from the latest TechStars, seemed interesting!
Slashdot Mirror
It's like with voting.
You didn't vote? Then you have no right to complain!
You voted for the guy who didn't win? Well they weren't elected - you have no right to complain!
You voted for the guy who won? Well then this is what you voted for - you have no right to complain!
Or the answer is: "We'll have severely hampered global productivity. We'll have redistributed more wealth from the hands of the poor and middle class to the rich via political exploitation. We'll have wasted money to use different energy sources now when we could've kept using the same sources far more cheaply, leading to more global wealth, and had a more natural progression (i.e. one not forced by artificial scares) to other energy sources." etc.
One of my favorites: Valse Brillante in A Minor.
Could they have just Man-in-the-Middle'd a whole ton of HTTPS connections? If they get certificates signed by the right authorities and have access to backbone routers, can't they just read HTTPS as if it were not even encrypted?
No, you can have a monopoly without it being illegal to have competitors. If you're the first person to produce a new kind of product then you have a monopoly on that product until someone else joins the market.
If the USPS made money before the ridiculous pension fund thing came into play, then a private company would also make money charging the same rate for all mail. Maybe they would do it that way. Or you'd have some companies doing urban-only, some doing rural, etc. Besides why is it such a big deal for rural mail to cost more, if it would get to that? it'd be something to factor in to the cost of living in a rural area.
The only reason it has a monopoly is because it's illegal for anybody besides the USPS to deliver first class mail. Raise the legal restriction and you can bet that FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc., will rush in to fill the gap.
No, far more practical than ideology. I suspect they are wrecking the USPS because they can make money that way. They can use the money supposedly being saved for the pension scheme today, or borrow more money using the pension scheme as collateral.
Aye, my point was to remove that government-enforced monopoly (the only kind of monopoly that ever lasts). Aren't monopolies supposed to be bad?
Aye, my point was to have this not be a government agency. Or at least make it legal for private companies to compete in this market.
Why this need be regulated? Just pay people to send your packages. If they are charging too much then find someone who is doing it for cheaper. If nobody is doing it for cheaper, and it is possible to do it for cheaper, then someone will start doing it because there will be profit motive.
I must be doing great - I click on the site and get a "No data received" message!
Constantly protecting and promoting innovation! Why, without patents, there's no way Apple would be going out on a limb to develop such advanced technology as needing one type of access method for some functionality and another type of access method for others! And if anyone should dare to steal this brilliant idea, or to develop the same exact one by accident because it is bleeding obvious, then let them be sued into oblivion for unfair whatevery. This will surely help us consumers by giving us less choice and higher prices.
Oh that is extremely misleading. To be honest though I did some mental math and I thought, really, out of the entirety of all programs written in Python, there's only one defect per 200,000 lines of code? Unlikely. Now it all makes sense. My world view has been repaired by your astute observations. If only you had not posted AC so I could direct merit and praise to the appropriate username and so your karma would increase thus assuring you a better rebirth in a heavenly realm wherein you could hopefully meet the Buddha of programming AKA Guido van Rossum and follow his blessings to the nirvana wherein no programmer ever has to code again!
Your hero is someone so caught up in their own self-righteousness that they didn't realize they were talking to somebody else?
Well. The whole point of Mega was that not even Mega would know what you are storing on their servers. "The end to end encryption means that Mega pretty much can't narc on you, no matter how much pressure it's under. It won't know what you're storing on its servers, by design." gizmodo. Thus there's a reasonable expectation that Mega cannot find out what you are storing on its servers. Now it turns out there is a ridiculously easy way for Mega to find out what you're storing there: all Mega has to do is run some JavaScript on your computer. Which it does anyway.
I suppose either way you'd have to trust that the website is only uploading encrypted stuff to Mega and not the file itself. But now it turns out even if they're doing that, they can still decrypt your stuff. And also any website on the internet.
Well I suppose that the JS client could also have just sent the keys it generated to Mega as soon as it generated them.
Ok, basically there's no way this security model can work. I just feel a bit foolish now. But I'm glad TFA made me think about it for the two minutes it took to figure out that there's no real expectation of security here. Other articles (like that gizmodo one) painted quite the misleading picture.
Time for me to destroy my webcam and make sure no device on my computer has a microphone.
This would be a good time for you to realize that the person you replied to in this post is b4dc0d3r whereas the person who made the save-3-sodas-a-day-for-college comment was ShanghaiBill.
So you just don't tell them you hate them to their face. How noble of you.
No, he said they are undeserving of handouts, not that he hates them. There are other reasons to think someone is undeserving of a handout than hating them. For example, you can observe that when a particular person in a rough financial situation comes into some unexpected money, they immediately spend it instead of saving it and investing it. You might even like the person. But that would be a good reason to think that giving them a hand out would not help them.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but public education was an idea that came from the working class. It was fought by the elite class for decades, despite popular support. Labor unions repeatedly shutting down factories and killing profits was what eventually created the federal mandate that public education be available in all states. After that, it was a fight to get blacks and minorities into schools, necessitating the national guard coming out to forcibly open the doors of schools in the South and allow them in. And now, higher education is being rapidly priced into extinction, and it is disproportionately affecting the working class.
So when you say "they don't really understand", consider the possibility that it's not because they can't understand, but lack access to resources that would allow them to.
Hah. You've actually proven why public education has failed in this respect. Public education has been around for a long time. If poor people today can't understand the concept of investment, and they are the ones that have been going to public schools, then clearly public education has failed in teaching the value of investment. I went to public schools and I didn't learn shit about investment the entire time there.
But handing money to CEOs "too big to fail" and banks so corrupt they put the entire economy in the drink for over a decade is? Why do you feel that it is more likely that hundreds of millions of Americans are lazy than that a few thousand of them are greedy?
Similar to the first point, he never said that handing money to CEOs "too big to fail" is the answer. You are attacking a point he did not make. You are talking to yourself. This does not make you look sensible. It makes you look like you have something to prove about your own preconceived notions and are not willing to be reasonable.
It's going to be so ridiculously cheap compared to halting the economic progress of the world by trying to cut CO2 emissions by the large amount that the climate change scientists recommend. On the order of millions of dollars instead of hundreds of billions of dollars. Literally you just lift a hose into the atmosphere with helium balloons and pump abundant gases through it. It's certainly a sustainable expense.
The article says sulfur dioxide. But whatever, we can pump dust up there too.
Apologies, here is a link on the SuperFreakonomics chapter for those interested.
What about the solution in Super Freakonomics? It's well-documented that the earth cooled significantly for a few years following a giant volcanic eruption. We have the technology to easily pump those same gases into the same part of the atmosphere. This is an actual cause & effect thing. It would also be ridiculously cheap - just a few million dollars - thus very doable. This would lead to global cooling.
But nobody is even talking about it because what the political environmentalists really care about is more government control, not the environment per se. Before accusing me of tinfoil-hat-ism, take a look at all the proposed solutions, and see if any of them involve less government control. Here's two easy ones that aren't talked about:
1) eliminate taxi licenses. Right now, a taxi can drive someone from NY to NJ, but they can't pick up anyone in NJ to drive them back to NY because the license doesn't allow it. So they have to make an empty trip back for no reason.
2) reduce our military presence in Iraq. Right now this consumes ridiculous amounts of fuel per day.
We can always program backdoors into the driverless cars to have them cause an accident when an important person needs an organ.
These would be some good reasons for a privatized road system.
New tech startup called Snowshoe has an interesting take on this. Basically it's a fingerprint that already works on all existing touchscreens. Doesn't require any battery power. I saw their 5-minute pitch from the latest TechStars, seemed interesting!