Of course. The only problem I have with that is that the assumptions, are of such wide a scope, that they can never be perfectly met in reality.
For example, lets look at the assumptions of the BS model, and you'll see that most can't be satisfied. To satisfy the fee less, risk-free borrowing and lending, and unlimited restrictions on buying and selling, you need to apply some logic and theories, which themselves only hold up in specific situations.
Saying 'it has predictive power in the proper set of circumstances' while true, leaves most of these theories with little predictive power, in reality.
It was when I was working with some postgrad econ students trying to do some money market and goods market modelling that I realized there was a self-validating nature of a lot of the theories. Where all they needed to do was take certain axioms, throw in a little ceteris paribus magic, and you've got a self-validating theory.
With the right axioms, everything can be true, and yet incorrect.
I studied economics at university, the only thing I learnt was how little predictive power the theories have, and how they use certain axioms to ensure their rightness, regardless of the outcome. The one thing I liked were the philosophical aspects of economics, such as the Austrian School, except they don't teach those much, as they have little to no predictive power.
I pay a LOT of money to pirate. Probably more than the books cost. I also probably spend more on movies, TV, and possibly books, than you and your girlfriend put together. So that's not it.
There's many reasons why, they've been discussed in every pirating thread on Slashdot, ad nauseam.
So from the sounds of it, you think waiting a week is reasonable.
How about waiting a month? How about waiting a couple of months? How about waiting a year?
Before pirating in Australia, it used to be a regular thing to have to wait up to a year, before you'd get the latest movies and TV. Even then, we'd only get a small fraction of what was in the US.
Right now if you wanted to make money off of killing someone and harvesting their organs, you'd also have to "make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor" the only difference I can see is hiding the money, however you'd have to do that in either system, as it's going to look pretty weird if the money is going to a different person.
Everything you're describing can happen in the current system.
But they are currently worth more than 10s of thousands of dollars, because people can't sell legitimately.
Making it legal, would mean the price would drop, and the very crime would likely be harder to pull off, and attract less of a reward.
Since this crime is rare now, I'd be surprised if it didn't become even rarer, unless somehow everybody's ethics go out the window, and kill a person somehow becomes moral.
I'd have thought that such a "distortion", which would just be relativistic differences, and as such would be somewhat constant or predictable. At the very least, over time they should be able to, estimate the amount of "distortion", which would likely mean they would get more and more accurate over time, as they improve this prediction algorithm. Additionally, if more satellites are added to the field, and perhaps if the protocol also better supported geographically fixed transmitters, you could further eliminate these problems.
I don't believe it isn't priced badly, especially given what new infrastructure on this scale costs.
Lets assume it was priced under the operating cost of the old infrastructure. Why would they move to a more competitive system which will reduce their profits in the long run? Even if it were inevitable, why would they miss out on maximizing the return on their current infrastructure, before moving to the new stuff? Why wouldn't they hold out as much as possible, regardless of how favourable the contract was, as it would only give them more negotiating power (to a point)?
For this to be a successful bit of infrastructure the government needs the NBN to reach a point where they are self sustaining in a reasonable amount of time. This means that the large ISPs had to sign contracts to move people away from ADSL. To combat this, the ISPs seem to be pushing their customers to move to cable, they are trying to keep customers on their old telephony infrastructure, and are holding out on negotiating some things with the NBN Co.
In essence, they are using their market power to push back on the NBN, to try get the most favourable contracts possible, while locking their customers into old infrastructure technology, which means the NBN may take a lot longer to become a viable project.
"...you'd still need to keep the copper running for non-subscribers"
There aren't supposed to be any non-subscribers, as all telephone, internet, and eventually television, is supposed to run over fiber.
"Seems like a reasonable trade-off if they are taking the savings and using the capital to accelerate the roll-out of fibre internet."
They aren't. They are doing this, if anything, to hamper the roll-out of the fiber. It's also good to remember, that this company (Telstra) was essentially given this infrastructure by the government, as it was previously Australia's telecom monopoly. Now they use that infrastructure as a weapon. The NBN Co (the people rolling out the fiber) are a completely separate entity.
"Even if you put a fibre-based POTS system in every exchange..."
You don't need this, as VoIP has been around for a fair while now, and many ISP's bundle their internet with VoIP. Most modern routers have ports for it, so it's not a problem. They aren't self powered, but most people have mobile phones which work fine most of the time, and many people have wireless home phones which also don't work when the power goes out. I'm sure that if this was a real problem, more solutions for self-powered would come up.
In South Australia the transit services all use Google now, and it's really accurate. I'm at uni, so I'm using it all the time, and I've never had a problem. I have friends who have done more serious bus based travel, with multiple transfers, and they've had no problem. It's made their route planning a lot easier, and they can now minimize their wait times.
I've had nothing but good experiences with the whole system.
Since you obviously want me to respond to your point, I will.
The op said...
"...they're probably selling it...where do I purchase the marketing grenade? They're not telling. That's where the real money is."
So, no. It's not like like the OP thinks. He believes this is a product, that some company is selling. It isn't.
More so...
"So what you're saying is that they are marketing something and now Slashdot is helping them."
This only holds if you consider anything where someone attempts to communicate anything to anyone else, as marketing. That could be correct in a technical definition of the term, however it would be wrong in the casual definition of the term which is synonymous with "commercial advertising".
If you think "Yes, this advertises the gallery/artist/idea", then you'd be correct, and every single piece of art in history, has been "marketing". Additionally, every single academic paper, would also be "marketing".
It's not marketing, like you'd think. If you RTFA...
"The Transparency Grenade was created in January 2012 by Julian Oliver for the Studio Weise7 exhibition at Labor 8, Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, curated by Transmediale 2012 Director, Kristoffer Gansing."
And on their webpage you get more information...
"The Studio Weise7 exhibition brings together a series of works that frame a volatile interrogation of our increased dependence on machines, computer networks, databases and digital automation. The works consist of curious devices, software and circuitry, each representing a unique, critical engagement with the challenges of our "techno-political condition". In doing so, they serve as triggers for discourse, code for study and tools for deployment."
So this device is them attempting to market an idea, and their art, rather than a product.
Every time the government tries to help me, I end up getting fucked. Sure they give me a reach around, but it just isn't worth it.
I wish they'd stop trying to help me, because while they are well intentioned, the outcome is destroying my life.
BRB, just need to walk through another full body scanner, and possibly be groped by a stranger. I should say "hopefully BRB" as my government might throw a black bag over my head, and whisk me off to some third world country for a good ol' torturing, to keep us safe (Disclaimer: Actual amount of safety may vary).
I love this reference. When ever "a decrease in government" or "small government" or "no government" is brought up, the local idiot yells out "Somalia" or some war torn country, which has MANY different governments, but because of the different factions fighting for control over the rest leaves it with an ambiguous governance, people label it an anarchist nation in the strongly defined sense.
Instead, you're using it to mean "little governance" or "chaotic governance" or "lawlessness", etc. While this is a common definition, it's not the definition the other people are using when they propose anarchy. You're essentially arguing over completely different things, using the same word, which leads both of you to be confused.
Until there actually isn't any government (many different types/ambiguous governance is still government), such that at least ONE of these anarchist ideologies is satisfied, then there isn't an anarchist nation in this sense.
If you use the looser definition of anarchy, then there are many places in the world, such as those referenced by Milton Friedman in Free to Choose, which would qualify as being an anarchistic nation, though they do actually have some forms of government.
So please, stop repeating the same stupid thing. At the very least, you need to qualify your response.
Yeah, you've got a point. The US should figure out some way to fire them from their submarines, drop them from their planes, and similar! I don't know why they haven't thought about this before?
It is impossible to say either way, everyone is both prudent and reckless with their money, such that we can't say which way they would go. However, given there's already Virgin Galactic, and every second day we read articles about other people doing the same, we can see it's going in a positive direction. Additionally, the more spending these people make, increases the likelihood that this industry will gain momentum, and it could be the start of a dramatic change for us in space.
Unfortunately, you cannot look at it rationally, as there is no rational position which isn't confounded with bias.
We don't know where it will go, but hopefully it will be somewhere awesome.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. The only problem I have with that is that the assumptions, are of such wide a scope, that they can never be perfectly met in reality.
For example, lets look at the assumptions of the BS model, and you'll see that most can't be satisfied. To satisfy the fee less, risk-free borrowing and lending, and unlimited restrictions on buying and selling, you need to apply some logic and theories, which themselves only hold up in specific situations.
Saying 'it has predictive power in the proper set of circumstances' while true, leaves most of these theories with little predictive power, in reality.
It was when I was working with some postgrad econ students trying to do some money market and goods market modelling that I realized there was a self-validating nature of a lot of the theories. Where all they needed to do was take certain axioms, throw in a little ceteris paribus magic, and you've got a self-validating theory.
With the right axioms, everything can be true, and yet incorrect.
Or as a caricature of a Nobel laureate once said in Dilbert...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJwwAVM1Auc
I studied economics at university, the only thing I learnt was how little predictive power the theories have, and how they use certain axioms to ensure their rightness, regardless of the outcome. The one thing I liked were the philosophical aspects of economics, such as the Austrian School, except they don't teach those much, as they have little to no predictive power.
More seriously - I use my computer for work. Not kids, not watching videos, not games, WORK.
You're posting this on Slashdot, your point is invalid.
I pay a LOT of money to pirate. Probably more than the books cost. I also probably spend more on movies, TV, and possibly books, than you and your girlfriend put together. So that's not it.
There's many reasons why, they've been discussed in every pirating thread on Slashdot, ad nauseam.
So from the sounds of it, you think waiting a week is reasonable.
How about waiting a month?
How about waiting a couple of months?
How about waiting a year?
Before pirating in Australia, it used to be a regular thing to have to wait up to a year, before you'd get the latest movies and TV. Even then, we'd only get a small fraction of what was in the US.
Right now if you wanted to make money off of killing someone and harvesting their organs, you'd also have to "make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor" the only difference I can see is hiding the money, however you'd have to do that in either system, as it's going to look pretty weird if the money is going to a different person.
Everything you're describing can happen in the current system.
But they are currently worth more than 10s of thousands of dollars, because people can't sell legitimately.
Making it legal, would mean the price would drop, and the very crime would likely be harder to pull off, and attract less of a reward.
Since this crime is rare now, I'd be surprised if it didn't become even rarer, unless somehow everybody's ethics go out the window, and kill a person somehow becomes moral.
If there can be whalers on the moon, why can't there be vikings on mars? Tell me that one, Mr. Smart Guy!
Depends on the country, state, hospital, and procedure, etc.
Here's a direct link for everyone
“Secure Password Managers” and “Military-Grade Encryption” on Smartphones: Oh, Really? by Andrey Belenko and Dmitry Sklyarov
Excellent. Thanks for the response. I thought as much.
I'd have thought that such a "distortion", which would just be relativistic differences, and as such would be somewhat constant or predictable. At the very least, over time they should be able to, estimate the amount of "distortion", which would likely mean they would get more and more accurate over time, as they improve this prediction algorithm. Additionally, if more satellites are added to the field, and perhaps if the protocol also better supported geographically fixed transmitters, you could further eliminate these problems.
I don't believe it isn't priced badly, especially given what new infrastructure on this scale costs.
Lets assume it was priced under the operating cost of the old infrastructure. Why would they move to a more competitive system which will reduce their profits in the long run? Even if it were inevitable, why would they miss out on maximizing the return on their current infrastructure, before moving to the new stuff? Why wouldn't they hold out as much as possible, regardless of how favourable the contract was, as it would only give them more negotiating power (to a point)?
The problem isn't as simple as that.
In Romania
I work with some Romanian developers (and I'm Australian), and our infrastructure in this regard, is a LOT better.
For this to be a successful bit of infrastructure the government needs the NBN to reach a point where they are self sustaining in a reasonable amount of time. This means that the large ISPs had to sign contracts to move people away from ADSL. To combat this, the ISPs seem to be pushing their customers to move to cable, they are trying to keep customers on their old telephony infrastructure, and are holding out on negotiating some things with the NBN Co.
In essence, they are using their market power to push back on the NBN, to try get the most favourable contracts possible, while locking their customers into old infrastructure technology, which means the NBN may take a lot longer to become a viable project.
"...you'd still need to keep the copper running for non-subscribers"
There aren't supposed to be any non-subscribers, as all telephone, internet, and eventually television, is supposed to run over fiber.
"Seems like a reasonable trade-off if they are taking the savings and using the capital to accelerate the roll-out of fibre internet."
They aren't. They are doing this, if anything, to hamper the roll-out of the fiber. It's also good to remember, that this company (Telstra) was essentially given this infrastructure by the government, as it was previously Australia's telecom monopoly. Now they use that infrastructure as a weapon. The NBN Co (the people rolling out the fiber) are a completely separate entity.
"Even if you put a fibre-based POTS system in every exchange..."
You don't need this, as VoIP has been around for a fair while now, and many ISP's bundle their internet with VoIP. Most modern routers have ports for it, so it's not a problem. They aren't self powered, but most people have mobile phones which work fine most of the time, and many people have wireless home phones which also don't work when the power goes out. I'm sure that if this was a real problem, more solutions for self-powered would come up.
In South Australia the transit services all use Google now, and it's really accurate. I'm at uni, so I'm using it all the time, and I've never had a problem. I have friends who have done more serious bus based travel, with multiple transfers, and they've had no problem. It's made their route planning a lot easier, and they can now minimize their wait times.
I've had nothing but good experiences with the whole system.
Since you obviously want me to respond to your point, I will.
The op said...
"...they're probably selling it...where do I purchase the marketing grenade? They're not telling. That's where the real money is."
So, no. It's not like like the OP thinks. He believes this is a product, that some company is selling. It isn't.
More so...
"So what you're saying is that they are marketing something and now Slashdot is helping them."
This only holds if you consider anything where someone attempts to communicate anything to anyone else, as marketing. That could be correct in a technical definition of the term, however it would be wrong in the casual definition of the term which is synonymous with "commercial advertising".
If you think "Yes, this advertises the gallery/artist/idea", then you'd be correct, and every single piece of art in history, has been "marketing". Additionally, every single academic paper, would also be "marketing".
It's not marketing, like you'd think. If you RTFA...
"The Transparency Grenade was created in January 2012 by Julian Oliver for the Studio Weise7 exhibition at Labor 8, Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, curated by Transmediale 2012 Director, Kristoffer Gansing."
And on their webpage you get more information...
"The Studio Weise7 exhibition brings together a series of works that frame a volatile interrogation of our increased dependence on machines, computer networks, databases and digital automation. The works consist of curious devices, software and circuitry, each representing a unique, critical engagement with the challenges of our "techno-political condition". In doing so, they serve as triggers for discourse, code for study and tools for deployment."
So this device is them attempting to market an idea, and their art, rather than a product.
LOL Mod up! Accurate and relevant!
People need sleep, sleep deprivation, e.g., 36 hours without sleep, is sometimes used as an instrument of torture.
Really? I just asked Dick Cheney and Co. and they said their lawyers found that to be false.
(This is a joke, don't take it seriously)
Every time the government tries to help me, I end up getting fucked. Sure they give me a reach around, but it just isn't worth it.
I wish they'd stop trying to help me, because while they are well intentioned, the outcome is destroying my life.
BRB, just need to walk through another full body scanner, and possibly be groped by a stranger. I should say "hopefully BRB" as my government might throw a black bag over my head, and whisk me off to some third world country for a good ol' torturing, to keep us safe (Disclaimer: Actual amount of safety may vary).
I love this reference. When ever "a decrease in government" or "small government" or "no government" is brought up, the local idiot yells out "Somalia" or some war torn country, which has MANY different governments, but because of the different factions fighting for control over the rest leaves it with an ambiguous governance, people label it an anarchist nation in the strongly defined sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Law
Instead, you're using it to mean "little governance" or "chaotic governance" or "lawlessness", etc. While this is a common definition, it's not the definition the other people are using when they propose anarchy. You're essentially arguing over completely different things, using the same word, which leads both of you to be confused.
Until there actually isn't any government (many different types/ambiguous governance is still government), such that at least ONE of these anarchist ideologies is satisfied, then there isn't an anarchist nation in this sense.
If you use the looser definition of anarchy, then there are many places in the world, such as those referenced by Milton Friedman in Free to Choose, which would qualify as being an anarchistic nation, though they do actually have some forms of government.
So please, stop repeating the same stupid thing. At the very least, you need to qualify your response.
Yeah, you've got a point. The US should figure out some way to fire them from their submarines, drop them from their planes, and similar! I don't know why they haven't thought about this before?
... but this time use your brain.
NO!
It is impossible to say either way, everyone is both prudent and reckless with their money, such that we can't say which way they would go. However, given there's already Virgin Galactic, and every second day we read articles about other people doing the same, we can see it's going in a positive direction. Additionally, the more spending these people make, increases the likelihood that this industry will gain momentum, and it could be the start of a dramatic change for us in space.
Unfortunately, you cannot look at it rationally, as there is no rational position which isn't confounded with bias.
We don't know where it will go, but hopefully it will be somewhere awesome.