"'If electricity were flowing in a constant way, most people's bodies would likely adapt, but with all the interference from modern devices, the resulting fields are too variable for people to get used to.'"
Call this science? what a load of bollocks. This is what you get when you need to print a newspaper every day.
1. It's incredibly easy to copy digital media. 2. It's done privately. 3. It harms no one directly and immediately.
No law in the world will stop this people downloading digital media, unless the power of the police is extended to the point that the download behaviour of every individual is monitored.
Unfortunately and utterly unbeliveably and to my utter, inexpressible disgust and revulsion, the law has in fact taken that step, with the new European Data Retention Act.
This is properly tantamount to a voluntary tax upon bilinguals. The State is asking these people to spend their time translating for free; the tax is the money these people do not make since they cannot spend this time working.
I think it's indecent, given that the current overall real tax rate on individuals is 50%.
The State should pay for the services it requires. Why is it asking for people to pay more tax, voluntarily?
I find it disturbing that I do not trust the State enough to place my data with a third party provider for fear of my privacy potentially being violated.
Of course, my data is unimportant and the State has no interest in me; but *as such* it should be the case that my data isn't even *potentially* accessable to the State - and yet I rather suspect that it is.
As such, I am actually now being suppressed by the State; the State behaves in such a way that I, to preserve my privacy, have to protect myself.
The State is way, way too big for its own good; it's destroying now the freedoms it was created to protect.
> While the chances of hearing from alien worlds is depressing small ("Rare Earth"), > still the thought that a few private individuals will know first should give us > pause.
It seems to me this is a venture like any other. You put your money where your mouth is, you take a risk, and if it pays off, you get a reward. Smart investors look for low risk, high reward; this particular investment I think is high risk, high reward. Fair's fair and good luck to them!
It's plainly self-harmful to Skype to make such a deal, since it opens up their market to competitors; they've made themselves weak on AMD platforms.
Unfortunately, Skype lacks real competition, so they can do this.
They need a viable competitor; right now the market isn't free, because people lack choice of provider, so the provider can get away with stuff like this.
> So, mensa master, your stunningly brilliant conclusion is that a company engaging in bait and switch > tactics (which, is what this is, if you offer unlimited, you simply cannot "throttle") on an grand > scale is completely fine, as long as the customer can terminate their contract without repercussions.
Your question is invalid since it assumes their behaviour is bait and switch.
NF initially offered a given service for a given price. They then changed that service and/or that price.
Your current opinion is that NF were deliberately deceptive. Others will disagree. Still more will not hold an opinion, since they cannot know with the information they have available.
I aver it is impossible to specify a hard and fast rule which defines such a change in service is normal business or deliberately deceptive behaviour.
Who are you and I to assert for a given company that their change in service stems from deliberate, preplanned deceit rather than an over-optimistic initial assessment of the market?
Moreover, how can we say that a change in service IS deceit, even when the original intent was to obtain a large body of customers and then reduce their quality of service?
In fact, in this particular case with NF, their behaviour in not bait-and-switch, since they decided to mislead their customers by not informing them of the changes to their service. This is wrong, but it is not bait-and-switch; how can it be, when the customer does not know of the change? my OP was misdirected, since I was unaware that NF hid the details of their changes.
If NF had in fact been open about the changes to their service, then we would have to consider that people who subscribed to NF's initial service did so because they wished to do so and that people who then unsubscribe from NF's new service do so because they are not satisfied with what is offered.
Accordingly, the people who remain with the NF service, assuming they are well-informed, do so *from their free choice*. They remain satisfied; who are we to say they are wrong?
> > As long as a contract is well understood by both parties and voluntarilty entered into, it's fine.
> I don't suppose you RTFA and discovered that they denied it for months after they'd been doing it and > only changed the terms of service after a lawsuit was actually filed, which they offered $2.5 million to > settle?
Obviously not.
Such behaviour is in violation of the free market; it is entirely unethical.
The change to their service is fine. Their deception of their customers is not.
> > It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you > > could *not* leave
> first of all, shame on you for defending such abusive business practices.
What's shameful about it? what's wrong with changing the service you offer or the price you charge?
I concur that there is an ethical obligation upon NF to be up front about what they're doing and making sure customers are informed. That follows naturally from the mandate that contracts must be well-informed - if NF make changes and do not inform customers, they are in violation of the free market, since their customers are not in fact being offered a free choice since they have been willfully uninformed.
As long as a contract is well understood by both parties and voluntarilty entered into, it's fine.
NF have discovered they can't operate an entirely flat-rate service and have modified their behaviour accordingly.
One could argue that customers originally signed up to a contract which has been unilaterially modified; but I would expect the T&C to allow them in that circumstance to terminate their contract without prejudice.
NF can offer a certain service for a certain cost. Either you like it or you don't. No one forces you to buy. If they change what they offer (for better or for worse, although one wouldn't anticipate customers terminating contracts after a service improvement) then you can leave the contract.
It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you could *not* leave.
> You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to > moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly.
You're taking my comment too literally.
I'm thinking of centralised, computerized State survillience in general and the lack of meaningful public discourse caused by television.
...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.
Yeah, I could have done without seeing this story.
The fate of the crew was just awful.
Being gratitously reminded of it is not appreciated.
Invalid association
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Someone big says something big will stop soon.
Something big begins to slow down.
Invalid conclusion: the two are associated.
Useful thought: maybe it would have slowed down by itself.
(I think spam must eventually tail off, because it operates on the basis of effort vs profit; as spam increases, I suspect the value of an individual spam decreases; it's not a stable system. In the end, the volume of spam should therefore level off, entirely without outside intervention.)
It's a dangerous fad, I think ultimately brought on by the entertainment power of TV; children can be so involved in TV it's hard to get them to focus on education, so the idea arrives that if the TV can be used for education...
However, entertainment is fundamentally antagonistic to education.
Everything education is, entertainment is not.
Neil Postman wrote about this in "Amusing Ourselves to Death", a book which inspired Roger Waters epochial album, "Amused to Death"; a recommended read and a recommended listen.
The problem is that the deadly cost of using oil and gas is globally distributed.
It is one of the roles of the State to ensure the people who ought to bear a cost *do* bear a cost.
In this case, carbon taxes would be the solution.
However, this requires willpower on the part of the State.
When this is lacking, the people who ought to bear a cost do not and as such the fuel they are using is cheaper than it ought to be and so has a competitive advantage in the market.
>> Now it's just a distraction. The Mac is a niche market and always will be and >> Firefox isn't a real threat to IE - nothing is, or can be, because IE is >> bundled with Windows.
> With a nick like "Toby The Economist" you should know better than to say > things like that.
Really?:-)
> As long as the cost (virtually nil) of getting an alternate browser is > exceeded by the benfit, then it is a "threat".
This is not true, because the vast majority of users do not know how to install a new browser on their PC. In fact, Firefox could even *give* people money to install - it still wouldn't help when users don't know HOW to install.
Your assumption is that the economic factor is the primary factor in deciding market share. This is not the case.
> MS is LOSING market share WRT web browsing. Your comments simply don't reflect > reality.
FF is up to about 10% market share and has been holding steady. All the people who know how to install a new browser have done so. IE dominates the market with approximately an 85% share.
Now it's just a distraction. The Mac is a niche market and always will be and Firefox isn't a real threat to IE - nothing is, or can be, because IE is bundled with Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I have come to the view - and I'm quite serious - that EVERY piece of legislation which is passed "in the public good" does the exact opposite.
It harms the public good, but greatly benefits a very small number of individuals.
"'If electricity were flowing in a constant way, most people's bodies would likely adapt, but with all the interference from modern devices, the resulting fields are too variable for people to get used to.'"
Call this science? what a load of bollocks. This is what you get when you need to print a newspaper every day.
Facts;
1. It's incredibly easy to copy digital media.
2. It's done privately.
3. It harms no one directly and immediately.
No law in the world will stop this people downloading digital media, unless the power of the police is extended to the point that the download behaviour of every individual is monitored.
Unfortunately and utterly unbeliveably and to my utter, inexpressible disgust and revulsion, the law has in fact taken that step, with the new European Data Retention Act.
Welcome to the Police State.
> but, in general, this sort of basic scientific research is *exactly* the sort of
> thing the government should be doing.
The inherent nature of the State is that it screws up what it does. State run enterprise is bloated, inefficient, expensive and a political football.
Medicare, Medicaid, spending bills, the FDA...
Research would go exactly the same way if the Government took it over.
This is properly tantamount to a voluntary tax upon bilinguals. The State is asking these people to spend their time translating for free; the tax is the money these people do not make since they cannot spend this time working.
I think it's indecent, given that the current overall real tax rate on individuals is 50%.
The State should pay for the services it requires. Why is it asking for people to pay more tax, voluntarily?
I find it disturbing that I do not trust the State enough to place my data with a third party provider for fear of my privacy potentially being violated.
Of course, my data is unimportant and the State has no interest in me; but *as such* it should be the case that my data isn't even *potentially* accessable to the State - and yet I rather suspect that it is.
As such, I am actually now being suppressed by the State; the State behaves in such a way that I, to preserve my privacy, have to protect myself.
The State is way, way too big for its own good; it's destroying now the freedoms it was created to protect.
> While the chances of hearing from alien worlds is depressing small ("Rare Earth"),
> still the thought that a few private individuals will know first should give us
> pause.
It seems to me this is a venture like any other. You put your money where your mouth is, you take a risk, and if it pays off, you get a reward. Smart investors look for low risk, high reward; this particular investment I think is high risk, high reward. Fair's fair and good luck to them!
It's plainly self-harmful to Skype to make such a deal, since it opens up their market to competitors; they've made themselves weak on AMD platforms.
Unfortunately, Skype lacks real competition, so they can do this.
They need a viable competitor; right now the market isn't free, because people lack choice of provider, so the provider can get away with stuff like this.
> So, mensa master, your stunningly brilliant conclusion is that a company engaging in bait and switch
> tactics (which, is what this is, if you offer unlimited, you simply cannot "throttle") on an grand
> scale is completely fine, as long as the customer can terminate their contract without repercussions.
Your question is invalid since it assumes their behaviour is bait and switch.
NF initially offered a given service for a given price. They then changed that service and/or that price.
Your current opinion is that NF were deliberately deceptive. Others will disagree. Still more will not hold an opinion, since they cannot know with the information they have available.
I aver it is impossible to specify a hard and fast rule which defines such a change in service is normal business or deliberately deceptive behaviour.
Who are you and I to assert for a given company that their change in service stems from deliberate, preplanned deceit rather than an over-optimistic initial assessment of the market?
Moreover, how can we say that a change in service IS deceit, even when the original intent was to obtain a large body of customers and then reduce their quality of service?
In fact, in this particular case with NF, their behaviour in not bait-and-switch, since they decided to mislead their customers by not informing them of the changes to their service. This is wrong, but it is not bait-and-switch; how can it be, when the customer does not know of the change? my OP was misdirected, since I was unaware that NF hid the details of their changes.
If NF had in fact been open about the changes to their service, then we would have to consider that people who subscribed to NF's initial service did so because they wished to do so and that people who then unsubscribe from NF's new service do so because they are not satisfied with what is offered.
Accordingly, the people who remain with the NF service, assuming they are well-informed, do so *from their free choice*. They remain satisfied; who are we to say they are wrong?
> > As long as a contract is well understood by both parties and voluntarilty entered into, it's fine.
> I don't suppose you RTFA and discovered that they denied it for months after they'd been doing it and
> only changed the terms of service after a lawsuit was actually filed, which they offered $2.5 million to
> settle?
Obviously not.
Such behaviour is in violation of the free market; it is entirely unethical.
The change to their service is fine. Their deception of their customers is not.
> > It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you
> > could *not* leave
> first of all, shame on you for defending such abusive business practices.
What's shameful about it? what's wrong with changing the service you offer or the price you charge?
I concur that there is an ethical obligation upon NF to be up front about what they're doing and making sure customers are informed. That follows naturally from the mandate that contracts must be well-informed - if NF make changes and do not inform customers, they are in violation of the free market, since their customers are not in fact being offered a free choice since they have been willfully uninformed.
As long as a contract is well understood by both parties and voluntarilty entered into, it's fine.
NF have discovered they can't operate an entirely flat-rate service and have modified their behaviour accordingly.
One could argue that customers originally signed up to a contract which has been unilaterially modified; but I would expect the T&C to allow them in that circumstance to terminate their contract without prejudice.
NF can offer a certain service for a certain cost. Either you like it or you don't. No one forces you to buy. If they change what they offer (for better or for worse, although one wouldn't anticipate customers terminating contracts after a service improvement) then you can leave the contract.
It would only be ethically wrong if they could change their contract and you could *not* leave.
The original and valid purpose of a patent is to enable people who make investments in research to be compensated for the risk they take.
This - investment, risk, compensation - is the issue.
Whether or not a fence goes around the concept patented is utterly irrelevent.
If a fence test was implemented, all investment into non-physical research would be discouraged.
> You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to
> moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly.
You're taking my comment too literally.
I'm thinking of centralised, computerized State survillience in general and the lack of meaningful public discourse caused by television.
...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.
Yeah, I could have done without seeing this story.
The fate of the crew was just awful.
Being gratitously reminded of it is not appreciated.
Someone big says something big will stop soon.
Something big begins to slow down.
Invalid conclusion: the two are associated.
Useful thought: maybe it would have slowed down by itself.
(I think spam must eventually tail off, because it operates on the basis of effort vs profit; as spam increases, I suspect the value of an individual spam decreases; it's not a stable system. In the end, the volume of spam should therefore level off, entirely without outside intervention.)
Education requires focus and concentration.
Entertainment amuses and distracts.
Education is not and cannot be entertainment.
It's a dangerous fad, I think ultimately brought on by the entertainment power of TV; children can be so involved in TV it's hard to get them to focus on education, so the idea arrives that if the TV can be used for education...
However, entertainment is fundamentally antagonistic to education.
Everything education is, entertainment is not.
Neil Postman wrote about this in "Amusing Ourselves to Death", a book which inspired Roger Waters epochial album, "Amused to Death"; a recommended read and a recommended listen.
If DVD is dead, then I'm an Arcturian megadodo.
The problem is that the deadly cost of using oil and gas is globally distributed.
It is one of the roles of the State to ensure the people who ought to bear a cost *do* bear a cost.
In this case, carbon taxes would be the solution.
However, this requires willpower on the part of the State.
When this is lacking, the people who ought to bear a cost do not and as such the fuel they are using is cheaper than it ought to be and so has a competitive advantage in the market.
> The year 2005 saw large wind power installments come into a price range where they
> are now competitive with traditional grid prices.
Incorrect.
The year 2005 saw oil come into a price range where it competes with wind.
How else is it gonna happen? ;-)
There aren't many big players in the hard disk market.
I'm not that enthusisatic about loosing one of them.
>> Now it's just a distraction. The Mac is a niche market and always will be and
:-)
>> Firefox isn't a real threat to IE - nothing is, or can be, because IE is
>> bundled with Windows.
> With a nick like "Toby The Economist" you should know better than to say
> things like that.
Really?
> As long as the cost (virtually nil) of getting an alternate browser is
> exceeded by the benfit, then it is a "threat".
This is not true, because the vast majority of users do not know how to install a new browser on their PC. In fact, Firefox could even *give* people money to install - it still wouldn't help when users don't know HOW to install.
Your assumption is that the economic factor is the primary factor in deciding market share. This is not the case.
> MS is LOSING market share WRT web browsing. Your comments simply don't reflect
> reality.
FF is up to about 10% market share and has been holding steady. All the people who know how to install a new browser have done so. IE dominates the market with approximately an 85% share.
MS don't need IE on the Mac any more.
It mattered back when IE had real competition.
Now it's just a distraction. The Mac is a niche market and always will be and Firefox isn't a real threat to IE - nothing is, or can be, because IE is bundled with Windows.