Agreed -- he's not "giving them a taste of their own medicine". Their own medicine is "it's okay to treat some packets differently". His bicycle is throttling everyone *the same*, with no discrimination, which is 100% consistent with net neutrality!
(Not all malicious ISP practices violate NN. For example, throttling everyone to 1 KB/sec doesn't.)
I thought I'd add to the choir of voices in the same position.
In short, political beliefs on this are:
- Carbon tax shift is a great idea, so long as it's a *shift* and not "we end up with both". - Anything else is mindless posturing that will do little if anything but most likely make the problem worse -- there are major Jevons effects from e.g. efficiency standards.
Lifestyle is:
- Live in small downtown apartment, using mostly public transit and the occasional cab or rental. - No energy usage for cooling (weather is such that "opening the window" does the trick), virtually none for heating (steam radiator). - No lawn (obviously).
So, not only did he dodge the hard questions (about the difficulty of getting money out of politics without silencing people who want to spread a message), he did it in the least accessible way!
And that, my friends, is why CAFE[1] standards are a stupid way of reducing emissions.
Just figure out what the social cost of the emissions is, charge that much through a tax, and let everyone decide on their own whether that trip, or that vehicle, is still worth it.
Not equitable enough? Rebate everyone an equal share of the money raised this way, which protects from consumption losses at low income levels while preserving the incentive to cut back.
Going to complain about "lol wuts the point of collecting it all to refund it"? I guess you missed the fact that emissions are harmful.
[1] Corporate Average Fuel Economy i.e. cars you sell must on average be this fuel efficient.
Perhaps, but you don't get that defense when you start talking about "Our company ROCKS on [racial] diversity!... but how much it rocks in that regard is a 'trade secret', yeah, that's it."
For one, more plants would just spring up. Even if part of the buyout was "you may never go into coal again," someone else may. The economic structure of energy is why coal is still king, and buying out the current players won't change that.
I think the point is that, if you were to buy out the existing coal industry, there would be no more *financially invested* stakeholders in (US) coal, and thus no one who'd strongly want to fight a coincident ban.
No, it's stupid. If I want to buy a hot dog in New York, why should that matter to a guy who wants to buy a newspaper in Los Angeles? Why does my financial transaction have to be intertwined with his while we both queue up on the same blockchain?
That's not unique to cryptocurrencies with blockchains. Any private digital currency (including and especially those used in MMORPGs) has to deal with the same problem, of making sure that transactions are ordered correctly, that money is still available in an account, etc. In that sense, they all have the problem of the network having to know about both transactions.
It even affects the real-world clearing of bank transactions, which is why people always complain about the lag between when they get their money and when they can spend it, which exists (in part) because of the interdependence of all the accounts.
One solution, of course, is to perform the accounting via bearer notes, aka physical paper/coin money. The holding of the note validates the availability that unit of money, and that there is no "lock" on it.
But even then, you have to worry about someone spending money while they still have a lien from a third party.
Tell that the the families of passengers on Flight MH370."
Oy gevalt! This again? When minimizing risk, you have to invest where you get the best returns in lives saved. Obviously, in retrospect, after an accident, you'll wish you had spent infinity on having more safety, but that's the wrong way to think about it.
You should instead:
1) figure out how much you're willing to spend per statistical life saved
2) deploy safety measures up to that point
It's not always going to make sense to keep throwing on all kinds of safety equipment simply to handle every black swan event you can think of -- remember, they do log airplane location remotely and continuously; it's just that that still wasn't enough in this case.
You might as well advocate that planes start giving everyone a parachute, without realizing it makes flight so unaffordable as to push people to less safe modes of transportation.
Comments like these promote a worse understanding of the issues.
But it's *not* critical to the performance of the job they're *actually* trying to.
Think about it: can they still hobnob, cut backroom deals, wield enormous power, and keep that power? Yep, they're doing that just fine. Tech ignorance isn't holding them back from that at all!
The topic is "does relying on an IDE make you a bad programmer". And I say yes by analogy to the carpenter situation: *relying* on a powersaw -- being able to cut wood only that way -- makes you a bad carpenter.
If your understanding of cutting wood has atrophied to "uh, flick the switch and push the wood into the blade", then yeah, it has worsened your expertise as a carpenter -- because you've lost the understanding that would allow you to cut wood with a plain ol' handsaw and are forced to backlog until the real experts can replace it when it breaks.
Just because it's a retarded idea, doesn't mean an engineer hasn't tried it on a production design.
It's just that the downside of this design choice is a lot more obvious now that we know a condition in which you absolutely do not what a computer between your brakes and your wheels.
Agree in principle, but I'm not sure this fails that standard to the extent that it's relevant for science to work. Sure, a human may not directly understand the entire proof. However, like with the Four Color Theorem, they can verify:
- A proof checker would catch errors if there were any, and has failed to. - The thing it purports to prove is in fact (a representation) of the theorem the submitter claims to have proven. - The proof generator generates only valid steps.
Could there be errors in the process? Sure. But it's definitely something that humans can do science with.
If the law says to cart $oppressed_group to the internment camps, then stopping it is a crime and people who work as guards for the camps are gonna oppose attempts to stop it.
Back in the day, car dealerships were the good guy underdogs, and car manufacturers were pretty much the devil.
You mean, a writer with a particular worldview convinced you that there was a time where smaller businesses held a relatively benevolent position compared to upstream larger businesses.
Does that argument also prove how gas station owners were pro-consumer good guys against oil companies?
Why didn't competition between auto-makers hold down prices, and how did middlemen help with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed -- he's not "giving them a taste of their own medicine". Their own medicine is "it's okay to treat some packets differently". His bicycle is throttling everyone *the same*, with no discrimination, which is 100% consistent with net neutrality!
(Not all malicious ISP practices violate NN. For example, throttling everyone to 1 KB/sec doesn't.)
I thought I'd add to the choir of voices in the same position.
In short, political beliefs on this are:
- Carbon tax shift is a great idea, so long as it's a *shift* and not "we end up with both".
- Anything else is mindless posturing that will do little if anything but most likely make the problem worse -- there are major Jevons effects from e.g. efficiency standards.
Lifestyle is:
- Live in small downtown apartment, using mostly public transit and the occasional cab or rental.
- No energy usage for cooling (weather is such that "opening the window" does the trick), virtually none for heating (steam radiator).
- No lawn (obviously).
What does your wife think about posting her medical problems to the internet with your real name?
So, not only did he dodge the hard questions (about the difficulty of getting money out of politics without silencing people who want to spread a message), he did it in the least accessible way!
Transcript?
Imagine being the marketing team that had to make car dealers seem like a good thing to have!
You could say all of the above about contraction of STDs.
TIme for a national public STD registry?
So you're saying you disagree with the part of the ruling that said he could keep the clothed photos?
And that, my friends, is why CAFE[1] standards are a stupid way of reducing emissions.
Just figure out what the social cost of the emissions is, charge that much through a tax, and let everyone decide on their own whether that trip, or that vehicle, is still worth it.
Not equitable enough? Rebate everyone an equal share of the money raised this way, which protects from consumption losses at low income levels while preserving the incentive to cut back.
Going to complain about "lol wuts the point of collecting it all to refund it"? I guess you missed the fact that emissions are harmful.
[1] Corporate Average Fuel Economy i.e. cars you sell must on average be this fuel efficient.
Perhaps, but you don't get that defense when you start talking about "Our company ROCKS on [racial] diversity! ... but how much it rocks in that regard is a 'trade secret', yeah, that's it."
Maintain two separate vehicles in order to drive every day? Great, that's definitely better for the environment!
Yep -- kids are just *rarin'* to read the classics, and the they mostly fall in love with reading the moment you allow them to browse one.
That was sarcasm.
If Gates can improve school productivity as much as he improved software productivity, yes, that would be a great improvement.
I know that Window's is not the best operating system (to put it mildly). And English is not the best language.
For one, more plants would just spring up. Even if part of the buyout was "you may never go into coal again," someone else may. The economic structure of energy is why coal is still king, and buying out the current players won't change that.
I think the point is that, if you were to buy out the existing coal industry, there would be no more *financially invested* stakeholders in (US) coal, and thus no one who'd strongly want to fight a coincident ban.
No, it's stupid. If I want to buy a hot dog in New York, why should that matter to a guy who wants to buy a newspaper in Los Angeles? Why does my financial transaction have to be intertwined with his while we both queue up on the same blockchain?
That's not unique to cryptocurrencies with blockchains. Any private digital currency (including and especially those used in MMORPGs) has to deal with the same problem, of making sure that transactions are ordered correctly, that money is still available in an account, etc. In that sense, they all have the problem of the network having to know about both transactions.
It even affects the real-world clearing of bank transactions, which is why people always complain about the lag between when they get their money and when they can spend it, which exists (in part) because of the interdependence of all the accounts.
One solution, of course, is to perform the accounting via bearer notes, aka physical paper/coin money. The holding of the note validates the availability that unit of money, and that there is no "lock" on it.
But even then, you have to worry about someone spending money while they still have a lien from a third party.
Fine, as long as we don't make it a *general* policy to adopt Steve Ballmer's jargon.
Tell that the the families of passengers on Flight MH370."
Oy gevalt! This again? When minimizing risk, you have to invest where you get the best returns in lives saved. Obviously, in retrospect, after an accident, you'll wish you had spent infinity on having more safety, but that's the wrong way to think about it.
You should instead:
1) figure out how much you're willing to spend per statistical life saved
2) deploy safety measures up to that point
It's not always going to make sense to keep throwing on all kinds of safety equipment simply to handle every black swan event you can think of -- remember, they do log airplane location remotely and continuously; it's just that that still wasn't enough in this case.
You might as well advocate that planes start giving everyone a parachute, without realizing it makes flight so unaffordable as to push people to less safe modes of transportation.
Comments like these promote a worse understanding of the issues.
But it's *not* critical to the performance of the job they're *actually* trying to.
Think about it: can they still hobnob, cut backroom deals, wield enormous power, and keep that power? Yep, they're doing that just fine. Tech ignorance isn't holding them back from that at all!
So, like PayPal then?
The topic is "does relying on an IDE make you a bad programmer". And I say yes by analogy to the carpenter situation: *relying* on a powersaw -- being able to cut wood only that way -- makes you a bad carpenter.
If your understanding of cutting wood has atrophied to "uh, flick the switch and push the wood into the blade", then yeah, it has worsened your expertise as a carpenter -- because you've lost the understanding that would allow you to cut wood with a plain ol' handsaw and are forced to backlog until the real experts can replace it when it breaks.
Just because it's a retarded idea, doesn't mean an engineer hasn't tried it on a production design.
It's just that the downside of this design choice is a lot more obvious now that we know a condition in which you absolutely do not what a computer between your brakes and your wheels.
Agree in principle, but I'm not sure this fails that standard to the extent that it's relevant for science to work. Sure, a human may not directly understand the entire proof. However, like with the Four Color Theorem, they can verify:
- A proof checker would catch errors if there were any, and has failed to.
- The thing it purports to prove is in fact (a representation) of the theorem the submitter claims to have proven.
- The proof generator generates only valid steps.
Could there be errors in the process? Sure. But it's definitely something that humans can do science with.
If the law says to cart $oppressed_group to the internment camps, then stopping it is a crime and people who work as guards for the camps are gonna oppose attempts to stop it.
See, I can pretend to be insightful too!
Back in the day, car dealerships were the good guy underdogs, and car manufacturers were pretty much the devil.
You mean, a writer with a particular worldview convinced you that there was a time where smaller businesses held a relatively benevolent position compared to upstream larger businesses.
Does that argument also prove how gas station owners were pro-consumer good guys against oil companies?
Why didn't competition between auto-makers hold down prices, and how did middlemen help with that?
Well, why didn't he test the mortar against every every brick he'd be using in the wall before he put it up?
Er, I guess bricklayers don't have some of the luxuries programmers do ...