This example does not relate to your argument that regulation is the opposite of innovation.
You seem to think that by citing examples of evil regulatory bodies, that means all regulatory bodies are evil. And if all regulatory bodies are evil, then all regulation must be evil. And since innovation is good, then innovation is the opposite of evil.
I said I wanted to promote free software. I want to do this because I dislike Microsoft. Same thing.
The open source community will do much better when those attitudes are eliminated. I want to promote free software because I believe in the principles of it. Not because I hate the other guy.
If you think you can just wave your hands and have a law requiring "neutral search results" you've got a lot to learn about politics.
Fortunately, I do not think that.
...Unless Microsoft helped pay the way...
Again with Microsoft. This isn't about Microsoft. It's not about your dislike of SCO. Stick with the points.
Branded uniforms are usually only applied to externally-facing positions. It is unusual to wear a uniform if you only provide helpdesk services within the company. But when I have had to do that, I didn't find it that stifling. Especially if you have some say in the design. But... it does seem like overkill.
Perhaps you can suggest an alternative - like a special pin or badge or pocket protector (jk about that last one). That might make management happy without forcing entire uniforms. With uniforms comes the usual complaints about who replaces them if they get torn or worn-out, and having to create a policy for it. It is usually a headache for the company.
No, regulation is the opposite of innovation. The plan here is to regulate to enforce neutrality.
Restating your premise again does not make it true.
In my example, I most certainly did remove Microsoft because I don't like them. That was the point of my proposed engine, to search for things that I like and not show things I don't like.
That's not what you said in your post. You said:
Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software.
You have changed your argument.
Are you suggesting that google took a bribe? Did they remove "foundem" because they didn't like them?
No. The authors of the article are morons railing against Google because Google did the right thing.
so do you think he'd be happy with a plan that ignored his complaint?
Probably not. But my goal is not to make the author of the article happy. You seem to think that because I disagree with you, I must agree with the article. There are more than 2 sides to this issue.
The courts do not have the capacity to handle every single regulation. They are already excessively burdened.
True, but they could handle this one. Or the FCC could handle it.
Every crappy website with a low ranking will file a suit against google seeking Discovery to find evidence of why their site wasn't given a "fair" rank.
Not likely. If they were to try, they would first have to pay for a lawyer to file that suit, then prove harm, then get past the motion to dismiss. Those sites would suffer themselves. Technically, they could try doing that now and claim violations of the Sherman Antitrust act or assert that Google is a monopoly. They aren't doing that now, so they won't do it then.
Yeah, but the injunction was against the entire site, not merely the libelous statements. Would it be fair to shut down all of Slashdot because of one libelous post? Also, if this is a copyright issue, then a DMCA notice is sufficient to have the document removed. No need to take down the entire site.
Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo. Innovation is about changing the status quo.
You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation. Since those two words are not opposites, the problem you describe does not exist.
Fortunately, proponents of neutrality are not defining "neutral" in the way you describe. No licensing is required, no license boards would be necessary.
Take your example search engine. Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher? Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it? In your example, you did not. So no one would sue you. If they tried, it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence. All you did was index information based on a well-defined set of criteria. That's completely neutral.
Another thing I'd like to point-out: Not all laws require a special regulatory board. Most laws have no body that enforces them other than the courts. Individuals sue, and judges make the decision. Neutrality laws are the same way - nobody has to affirm that you are neutral. You are neutral until someone can bring a court case proving you are not.
If anyone wants actual security on a phone, the phones should encrypt end-to-end so that the carrier doesn't know the phone call. The difficulty here is getting a certificate system in place. But there are several viable solutions to that.
That wouldn't work with existing file systems that assume the drive does this. That's like deciding to remove the checksums from TCP and IP because a few protocols provide their own checksums. Might work in specialized cases. Probably just adds risk though for no benefit.
Why was I modded Troll for agreeing with the parent and expanding on the point? Read the article the guy linked to - it really is quite sad. Notice nobody replied angrily or in disagreement.
I taught my brother a bit using KPL, but looks like it has been replaced with Phrogram To me, it was like what I could do in BASIC years old - a few lines of code to draw some cool shapes then animate them. Very minimal meta-programming (importing libraries, using statements, make scripts, etc.) I actually was using it and feeling kinda jealous, like "why can't I be this productive in real languages?" It was a heck of a lot of fun too.
lol. Yet another site that confuses "Republican" with "Christian." Christians have nothing against Marxism or environmentalism. Christians are not capitalists. This reviewer probably claims to be a Christian but can't tell Jesus from George Bush.
Agreed. I've been using NTFS-3G on OS X for many years and I have had no problems. Not for trivial matters either: The NTFS drive is my primary storage, with only OS and apps on the Mac partition. Also, I'm not sure the submitters comment about NTFS on Linux is correct at all: I've used Linux distros (Knoopix maybe?) that had full NTFS write capability out-of-the box. I don't think it is taboo any longer.
It always saddens me when I read about something that is the epitome of high-tech, then they can't do something basic like like put a slide show into a web page. They need to hire a 13-year-old kid to do their web site because clearly NASA engineers aren't capable.
SRSLY: It's a WMV in an embed tag. Who came up with that?
I agree that this article is alarmist, but your arguments are invalid.
what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops? Most of these guys don't know their asses from their coffee cups, how do they know how an entire species of trees will react to climate change?
I suspect that the Royal Botanical Gardens knows more than you do about the effect of global warming on coffee crops. Asking "how do they know" is not an argument that they do not know. It is an argument showing that you do not know.
That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events;
In Palm Springs, there is an Aerial Tram that takes you up to the mountains. It's breathtakingly beautiful. I was listening to the recording of the tour guide telling you to take a deep breath of the clean mountain air. Next to the speaker, is one of those signs saying that something around you can cause cancer. Totally ironic that one of the the cleanest places on the planet isn't considered safe. That law went way too far.
Oh, and the signs are everywhere because of cleaning solutions. If you DON'T see a sign, be concerned - they probably aren't cleaning the place.
there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]
That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one. There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese. There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer. And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.
Only over VOIP. IMHO, if they put a cell phone in a DS years ago, Nintendo would own the smartphone market. The processor sucks, but it already had a thriving homebrew community back when Apple was just promising an SDK. Same thing probably for the PSP. Sony missed their chance too.
That makes a great quotation, but it isn't true. "Money is the root of all evil" has a bit of truth to it. But money is not the opposite of truth, that's just silly.
Global warming.
Irrelevant. It's a stretch to even try to tie that to anything you said.
He wishes it to be pure math and nothing else.
Ultimately, the problem is that it isn't "just pure math." There's this whole world out there that he wants to pretend it doesn't exist. If he really felt that is was "pure math" then he would have proven the conjecture and told no one, and died happy. But in reality, he has to eat and sleep and respirate just like everyone else. And that requires an economic system that creates a standard of living that makes it possible for people to even spend time on pure math.
Slashdot Mirror
This example does not relate to your argument that regulation is the opposite of innovation.
You seem to think that by citing examples of evil regulatory bodies, that means all regulatory bodies are evil. And if all regulatory bodies are evil, then all regulation must be evil. And since innovation is good, then innovation is the opposite of evil.
I said I wanted to promote free software. I want to do this because I dislike Microsoft. Same thing.
The open source community will do much better when those attitudes are eliminated. I want to promote free software because I believe in the principles of it. Not because I hate the other guy.
If you think you can just wave your hands and have a law requiring "neutral search results" you've got a lot to learn about politics.
Fortunately, I do not think that.
...Unless Microsoft helped pay the way...
Again with Microsoft. This isn't about Microsoft. It's not about your dislike of SCO. Stick with the points.
Branded uniforms are usually only applied to externally-facing positions. It is unusual to wear a uniform if you only provide helpdesk services within the company. But when I have had to do that, I didn't find it that stifling. Especially if you have some say in the design. But... it does seem like overkill.
Perhaps you can suggest an alternative - like a special pin or badge or pocket protector (jk about that last one). That might make management happy without forcing entire uniforms. With uniforms comes the usual complaints about who replaces them if they get torn or worn-out, and having to create a policy for it. It is usually a headache for the company.
No, regulation is the opposite of innovation. The plan here is to regulate to enforce neutrality.
Restating your premise again does not make it true.
In my example, I most certainly did remove Microsoft because I don't like them. That was the point of my proposed engine, to search for things that I like and not show things I don't like.
That's not what you said in your post. You said:
Supposed if I wanted to develop a search engine to promote free and open source software.
You have changed your argument.
Are you suggesting that google took a bribe? Did they remove "foundem" because they didn't like them?
No. The authors of the article are morons railing against Google because Google did the right thing.
so do you think he'd be happy with a plan that ignored his complaint?
Probably not. But my goal is not to make the author of the article happy. You seem to think that because I disagree with you, I must agree with the article. There are more than 2 sides to this issue.
The courts do not have the capacity to handle every single regulation. They are already excessively burdened.
True, but they could handle this one. Or the FCC could handle it.
Every crappy website with a low ranking will file a suit against google seeking Discovery to find evidence of why their site wasn't given a "fair" rank.
Not likely. If they were to try, they would first have to pay for a lawyer to file that suit, then prove harm, then get past the motion to dismiss. Those sites would suffer themselves. Technically, they could try doing that now and claim violations of the Sherman Antitrust act or assert that Google is a monopoly. They aren't doing that now, so they won't do it then.
Yeah, but the injunction was against the entire site, not merely the libelous statements. Would it be fair to shut down all of Slashdot because of one libelous post? Also, if this is a copyright issue, then a DMCA notice is sufficient to have the document removed. No need to take down the entire site.
Licensing boards exist to maintain the status quo. Innovation is about changing the status quo.
You have built a straw-man by trying to define neutrality as the opposite of innovation. Since those two words are not opposites, the problem you describe does not exist.
Fortunately, proponents of neutrality are not defining "neutral" in the way you describe. No licensing is required, no license boards would be necessary.
Take your example search engine. Did you take bribes from companies to get their rankings higher? Did you artificially remove something from your search engine because you didn't like it? In your example, you did not. So no one would sue you. If they tried, it would never make it to court since there would be no evidence. All you did was index information based on a well-defined set of criteria. That's completely neutral.
Another thing I'd like to point-out: Not all laws require a special regulatory board. Most laws have no body that enforces them other than the courts. Individuals sue, and judges make the decision. Neutrality laws are the same way - nobody has to affirm that you are neutral. You are neutral until someone can bring a court case proving you are not.
If anyone wants actual security on a phone, the phones should encrypt end-to-end so that the carrier doesn't know the phone call. The difficulty here is getting a certificate system in place. But there are several viable solutions to that.
Plus, even if it used the magnetic compass, software updates could tell the software how to compensate.
That wouldn't work with existing file systems that assume the drive does this. That's like deciding to remove the checksums from TCP and IP because a few protocols provide their own checksums. Might work in specialized cases. Probably just adds risk though for no benefit.
Why was I modded Troll for agreeing with the parent and expanding on the point? Read the article the guy linked to - it really is quite sad. Notice nobody replied angrily or in disagreement.
I taught my brother a bit using KPL, but looks like it has been replaced with Phrogram To me, it was like what I could do in BASIC years old - a few lines of code to draw some cool shapes then animate them. Very minimal meta-programming (importing libraries, using statements, make scripts, etc.) I actually was using it and feeling kinda jealous, like "why can't I be this productive in real languages?" It was a heck of a lot of fun too.
lol. Yet another site that confuses "Republican" with "Christian." Christians have nothing against Marxism or environmentalism. Christians are not capitalists. This reviewer probably claims to be a Christian but can't tell Jesus from George Bush.
That's a hack that only works with one app for one purpose. In this modern day, a file over 4GB should not have to be treated as an exception.
I mean, if we were to database all of the word misusages, mispelings, verbing of nouns and nouning of verbs,
It would make my brain go nucular.
Agreed. I've been using NTFS-3G on OS X for many years and I have had no problems. Not for trivial matters either: The NTFS drive is my primary storage, with only OS and apps on the Mac partition. Also, I'm not sure the submitters comment about NTFS on Linux is correct at all: I've used Linux distros (Knoopix maybe?) that had full NTFS write capability out-of-the box. I don't think it is taboo any longer.
No way. Avisynth is a Windows-only product that is tied to Microsoft's APIs. VLC is a cross-platform application.
It always saddens me when I read about something that is the epitome of high-tech, then they can't do something basic like like put a slide show into a web page. They need to hire a 13-year-old kid to do their web site because clearly NASA engineers aren't capable.
SRSLY: It's a WMV in an embed tag. Who came up with that?
Unfortunately, in Massachusetts:
"The law says truth is a defense against libel unless the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the person publishing the statement."
Strange that it doesn't occur to them to change their libel law.
I agree that this article is alarmist, but your arguments are invalid.
what if "global warming" will BENEFIT coffee crops? Most of these guys don't know their asses from their coffee cups, how do they know how an entire species of trees will react to climate change?
I suspect that the Royal Botanical Gardens knows more than you do about the effect of global warming on coffee crops. Asking "how do they know" is not an argument that they do not know. It is an argument showing that you do not know.
That tree survived for millions of years on a planet that faced all kinds of cataclysmic events;
1) Not as far as we know. We have no evidence of the existence of the coffee tree before the 15th century. It might be a relatively new species.
2) Other tree species have died recently
3) Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
4) The human species is capable of some pretty catacylsmic events. Hopefully, we won't create any more of them.
In Palm Springs, there is an Aerial Tram that takes you up to the mountains. It's breathtakingly beautiful. I was listening to the recording of the tour guide telling you to take a deep breath of the clean mountain air. Next to the speaker, is one of those signs saying that something around you can cause cancer. Totally ironic that one of the the cleanest places on the planet isn't considered safe. That law went way too far.
Oh, and the signs are everywhere because of cleaning solutions. If you DON'T see a sign, be concerned - they probably aren't cleaning the place.
Is that the University of Southern California, or the University of Southern Colorado? You should be more specific.
there is no consensus among scientists that they [cause cancer]
That's a trollish statement if I've ever heard one. There's no consensus among scientists that the moon is made of cheese. There's also no consensus amongst scientists that playing video games causes cancer. And there's no consensus that socks are stolen by gnomes during the night.
There's no consensus, because it is false.
Only over VOIP. IMHO, if they put a cell phone in a DS years ago, Nintendo would own the smartphone market. The processor sucks, but it already had a thriving homebrew community back when Apple was just promising an SDK. Same thing probably for the PSP. Sony missed their chance too.
Money and truth are very nearly orthogonal.
That makes a great quotation, but it isn't true. "Money is the root of all evil" has a bit of truth to it. But money is not the opposite of truth, that's just silly.
Global warming.
Irrelevant. It's a stretch to even try to tie that to anything you said.
He wishes it to be pure math and nothing else.
Ultimately, the problem is that it isn't "just pure math." There's this whole world out there that he wants to pretend it doesn't exist. If he really felt that is was "pure math" then he would have proven the conjecture and told no one, and died happy. But in reality, he has to eat and sleep and respirate just like everyone else. And that requires an economic system that creates a standard of living that makes it possible for people to even spend time on pure math.