But on the other side of things, it guarantees that America's biotechnology industry will stagnate and China's will boom.
It's just a consequence of the Free Market, so that's ok right?
*nix based systems have multiple levels of ownership on a per file basis. If a file is owned and locked down by a user, it takes a superuser account to access it. This means that, when security practice is followed properly, protected files cannot be altered in any way except when they are supposed to be.
UAC (in Vista) was supposed to work like this (users are users until elevation is required, then they can be superusers at the touch of a button) but it does it so badly (by locking the whole screen, giving ambiguous messages, etc) that it doesn't actually work for most users.
Besides, if you're a windows admin and you're not even aware of unix permissions, how can we expect the end user to understand the difference? Some education is required.
In this case though, the real story is that Telstra basically told the government they weren't going to bother with a FTTN network if they didn't get funding for it, and then made a token effort in the selection process. If Telstra don't make a new fiber network, it won't be because the government mandates it; They'll just be focusing on mobile and wireless stuff instead.
Besides, i think it's pretty obvious that laws forbidding Telstra from building a network are pure speculation on the part of the poster. I really hope so anyway.
They haven't been specifically forbidden. They're just not going to be in the running for this particular lot of government funding.
Telstra won't build their own network because they don't want to have to spend their own money on it. They have been given a free ride and are complaining now that they have to actually do some work.
Well, i don't disagree with that.. but that's not how the system is supposed to work.. at least, not while you call it a 'free market'. I've never understood why bribery in congress is illegal, but lobbying is not.
But you didn't prove anything. You gave examples that seem to support your argument, but you've barely scraped the surface of the potential interactions here. Let me clarify: You made a assertion that governments inherently cause monopolies. All i have to do to disprove this statement is cite an example of a government that has not.
Now answer me, what is wrong with my understanding of the term "natural monopoly" when applied to say, a telephone company? Or a power or water company?
I don't think so. You made the claim, the burden of proof rests on you.
The thing that causes monopolies in a free market is consolidation due to economic hardship, bad business decisions, predatory business tactics, or limited market. Natural Monopolies arise wherever a company can provide infrastructure to a captive audience. That has nothing to do with the government, unless the government is actively encouraging it or trying to stop it. Prove me wrong.
What i also didn't mention before (an associated gripe) is that i live in Australia, but the takedown note came from the ESA in Washington DC. Thanks to our free trade agreement, American laws can now apparently be enforced in Australia. And that is what's going on with Australia recently.
I was sorely tempted, but i understand why they do it. They're a small ISP, and the legal costs of a 'test case' against the movie and music studios (like the one iiNet are being pushed into) would likely bankrupt them. What they do is push liability on to the user by making the user state that they have ceased (or were never involved in) the activity in question.
The whole process only took 5 minutes, and wasn't too painful, but i'm unimpressed by laws that treat consumers as criminals and attempt to make common carriers enforce laws on them. It defeats the purpose of them being common carriers.
I'm saying that it's a false positive.. they associated my ip with a torrent, sent a takedown notice to my isp, who then demanded that i cease distributing a torrent that i was never connected to.
The game in question was Oblivion, and, ironically, it is not currently installed on my machine due to a recent reinstall of windows.
Let me be more explicit then. I wasn't connected to a torrent. I had no need to be, because i didn't need to download the software, because i have it on a cd which i foolishly paid real cash money for.
Sorry for being short, but i'm not sure how you could work out that i meant from my original post without seeing the implications that i hadn't done what i was accused of. If it's not clear after a reread, then i apologise. I still think my GP post should be marked redundant though.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but Discordians don't tend to lie to themselves about their religion being a joke.
I do all my work in the browser or in programs and there's no change there.
I'm going to posit that you don't understand for fairly obvious reasons.
http://0x10c.com/
Not yet released, but looks quite cool.
While your statement isn't invalid, everything being a publicity stunt to stroke personal egos sounds a little like business as usual.
It's the 'not holding them accountable' part we excel at :(
You mean A=>B != B=>A.
== equal
=> implies (causal)
Holy shit, you're right.
If there's no such thing as 'diplomatic immnunity' in the US and never has been...
But on the other side of things, it guarantees that America's biotechnology industry will stagnate and China's will boom. It's just a consequence of the Free Market, so that's ok right?
WAIT... you mean monetization of the user isn't the primary purpose of a 'game'?
*nix based systems have multiple levels of ownership on a per file basis. If a file is owned and locked down by a user, it takes a superuser account to access it. This means that, when security practice is followed properly, protected files cannot be altered in any way except when they are supposed to be.
UAC (in Vista) was supposed to work like this (users are users until elevation is required, then they can be superusers at the touch of a button) but it does it so badly (by locking the whole screen, giving ambiguous messages, etc) that it doesn't actually work for most users.
Besides, if you're a windows admin and you're not even aware of unix permissions, how can we expect the end user to understand the difference? Some education is required.
Oh if only they weren't so stubborn. Things like this and this wouldn't exist.
They've gotten over protesting dinosaurs, and have now decided that they're obviously evidence for creationism.
Sad thing is that they all probably genuinely believe that they're trying to help people.
Point taken and noted ;)
In this case though, the real story is that Telstra basically told the government they weren't going to bother with a FTTN network if they didn't get funding for it, and then made a token effort in the selection process. If Telstra don't make a new fiber network, it won't be because the government mandates it; They'll just be focusing on mobile and wireless stuff instead.
Besides, i think it's pretty obvious that laws forbidding Telstra from building a network are pure speculation on the part of the poster. I really hope so anyway.
Yes, may. As opposed to have.
Turns out that speculation about the future doesn't directly influence fact in the present, no matter how hopeful it is.
They haven't been specifically forbidden. They're just not going to be in the running for this particular lot of government funding.
Telstra won't build their own network because they don't want to have to spend their own money on it. They have been given a free ride and are complaining now that they have to actually do some work.
We've already established that governments can create monopolies.. that's not the point of contention.
Well, i don't disagree with that.. but that's not how the system is supposed to work.. at least, not while you call it a 'free market'. I've never understood why bribery in congress is illegal, but lobbying is not.
I have to what? do i have to draw some kind of venn diagram for you?
Also, you might wanna read this
But you didn't prove anything. You gave examples that seem to support your argument, but you've barely scraped the surface of the potential interactions here. Let me clarify: You made a assertion that governments inherently cause monopolies. All i have to do to disprove this statement is cite an example of a government that has not.
Now answer me, what is wrong with my understanding of the term "natural monopoly" when applied to say, a telephone company? Or a power or water company?
I don't think so. You made the claim, the burden of proof rests on you.
The thing that causes monopolies in a free market is consolidation due to economic hardship, bad business decisions, predatory business tactics, or limited market. Natural Monopolies arise wherever a company can provide infrastructure to a captive audience. That has nothing to do with the government, unless the government is actively encouraging it or trying to stop it. Prove me wrong.
No problem.
What i also didn't mention before (an associated gripe) is that i live in Australia, but the takedown note came from the ESA in Washington DC. Thanks to our free trade agreement, American laws can now apparently be enforced in Australia. And that is what's going on with Australia recently.
I was sorely tempted, but i understand why they do it. They're a small ISP, and the legal costs of a 'test case' against the movie and music studios (like the one iiNet are being pushed into) would likely bankrupt them. What they do is push liability on to the user by making the user state that they have ceased (or were never involved in) the activity in question.
The whole process only took 5 minutes, and wasn't too painful, but i'm unimpressed by laws that treat consumers as criminals and attempt to make common carriers enforce laws on them. It defeats the purpose of them being common carriers.
I'm saying that it's a false positive.. they associated my ip with a torrent, sent a takedown notice to my isp, who then demanded that i cease distributing a torrent that i was never connected to.
The game in question was Oblivion, and, ironically, it is not currently installed on my machine due to a recent reinstall of windows.
Let me be more explicit then. I wasn't connected to a torrent. I had no need to be, because i didn't need to download the software, because i have it on a cd which i foolishly paid real cash money for.
Sorry for being short, but i'm not sure how you could work out that i meant from my original post without seeing the implications that i hadn't done what i was accused of. If it's not clear after a reread, then i apologise. I still think my GP post should be marked redundant though.
Obviously, i wasn't downloading it, because i didn't need to because i own it.
Somebody please mark this post as redundant.