The US Constitution is what charters the US Government, and so binds it for everything it does. What part of "make no law" do we not understand? And if Congress has no law authorizing the action, the executive branch can't act, except take the census which the Constitution authorizes without any act of Congress.
Otherwise, look what happens: The US can't spy on its own citizens, but Britain can spy on US citizens, so let's go ask the British government for what data they have on our target citizen!
A good pair of headphones and analog signal generator says I can hear a difference.
The Nyquist limit, if you weren't familiar, takes energy out of waveforms, canceling it out if you're lucky, but usually turning it into a lower frequency. Try it yourself, generate a sine wave sweep from 1kHz to 22kHz and take a listen to all the noise that appears even at two octaves below the limit.
Two octaves below the Nyquist limit of a CD is about 5.5kHz, as you very kindly point out, which I would call rather audible.
The process of making a high-quality recording involves adding an analog low-pass filter before ADC, or making a high-quality recording (192kHz sample rate) and applying a low-pass filter before downsampling, so as to make sure the high-band signals don't show up as lower-frequency noise (though still rather high pitched, commonly like someone forgot to disable their snare drum). It is audible, and it does make a difference.
48kHz (98kHz sample rate) is only one octave higher than 24kHz (48kHz sample rate). I most certainly can hear that difference.
And even if we couldn't hear it, audio engineers still need it. Even one octave below the Nyquist limit, you can still lose up to 30% of your original signal.
Of course every state "accepts some limitations" on weapons -- armed people are a threat to tyrannical governments and states in general, and this fact is entirely a result of one's self-preservation, whether good or not. (And a tyrannical government is most certainly not good.)
We won the American Revolution because the general population was armed as well as or better than the British military. The Second Amendment isn't there for hunting, it exists explicitly to protect your right to shoot at the government.
Suddenly, you logical extreme doesn't sound so illogical. (And it was always sounded logical, perhaps you mean "reasonable"?) Most people don't have nuclear weapons because they're nearly impossible to manufacture. But suppose you could 3D print a bomb or machine gun, mass killings are virtually always a losing proposition for organized crime - instead, it's typically a sole actor or very small group. These people are going to cause chaos with whatever they can get their hands on, laws be damned. Are we going to ban kitchen knives and fertilizer too, now?
Well then answer my question: Where is the "correct" number?
None of these politicians even bothered to ask an economist. There is no correct number, they would say. The city council picked a number out of thin air that would get them political support, but not so high that there would be rioting from businesses (though that comes awfully darn close).
Of course, it doesn't work at $15, or any other price. Sure, it helps those who manage to keep their jobs, but everyone else... well... http://reason.com/blog/2014/05...
The parent was suggesting that Cox could just eat the costs because they profit elsewhere.
It's the same thing. You can't actually do that, because you're taking marginal losses. In socialism the phenomenon is well understood by economists, fewer people seem to understand it's relevance to massive corporations and that they can fail for the same reason. It's bad for the owning entity, and it's bad for the public at large because you're wasting scarce, valuable resources.
I didn't understand the "public ownership" part because that doesn't really make sense. And "public ownership" is something of a contradiction of terms within economics anyways.
There's this thing in economics called marginal profit. If the cost of deploying service to another customer would exceed the revenue, that means you're taking scarce, valuable resources, and making them less valuable. That's a bad thing.
A lack of price signals and economic calculation like this is why socialism and communism always, always fails. All "socialist" societies today have some form of price system for this reason.
If DRM is really impossible to implement in F/OSS software, without closed source or the threat of political force... Then what's the worry?
It seems like the worst-case scenario is media providers get a false sense of security and start providing content without silly plugins that actually ARE closed and non-accessible (under the threat of legal action).
They were never suggesting a boycott, the organizer is an avid Nintendo fan who literally has bought every single first-party 3DS title. They just thought the game would find a better audience this way.
I seriously doubt the AGPL is legally enforceable. It's a copyright license (so you can still use the software), not a "conveyance license", not to mention the output of a computer program isn't copyrightable.
By definition scarce means limited, and there is a limited amount of food, therefore food is scarce. The fact we throw some of it away is irrelevant - food that is thrown away is not food that most people want to consume, and so for our purposes isn't food at all. If food weren't scarce, we wouldn't have to pay money for it. Air would be an example of a good that's not scarce (unless you're, say, underwater). Certain "Free" newspapers may or may not be scarce, depending on who you are.
A "need" is typically an informal term meaning the highest-ranked want at any given time. I eventually will "need" food, though right now I do not need food, since I just ate.
Even in the layman's terms, "need" is generally conditional. "IF I am going to get this job, I need to do an interview" or "IF I am going to live for another year, I need to eat/get an operation/etc". So we still need to think in terms of cost/benefit, even if that benefit is extending one's life by some period of time.
If housing prices were significantly lower, there would be a shortage - more people trying to buy than willing to sell. Observe: rent-controlled apartments. And if houses were free, most certainly I would get one... but who's taking on the cost of building it? In reality, there could not possibly be such a thing as a free house ("free" in econ terms), even low-cost or low-income housing would require paperwork, a lottery, or other non-monetary costs on my part. But they are still costs for the sake of our supply and demand curve.
What do you mean by greed? Taking other people's things by force is never appropriate, but that is not greed, that's theft. Getting an idea for something, and taking time to acquire it, build it, or trade for it, is very much good. My "greed" for more free time combined leads me to hiring a landscaper. And so on.
"Scarce" and "Free" are well defined terms within economics, and I don't know what definition you're using, but in economics, houses and food are most certainly "scarce". Scarce means that the supply is limited. There are a finite amount of houses in the world, and a greater number of people who want a house.
Food may be in "abundance", sure, but it is still "scarce". It has a supply curve, a demand curve, and a market price where the two meet.
The same goes for the labor market - the number of people willing to work for free is less than the number of employers who would let such people work, and therefore labor is scarce - and no economist trying to support a minimum wage has given the law of supply and demand a good answer.
A specific law against mislabeling of a product wouldn't be necessary; that would be fraud, a violation of an implicit contract, which has the force of law in any court.
Economists call it a sunk cost - it's a cost that's already been incurred, and cannot be recovered. We should still try and recover whatever benefit there is, even if continuing the behavior into the future is harmful.
Sunk costs: Even if your farm is going to turn a loss this year, you STILL need to sell the corn crop and minimize your losses!
Indeed, I believe in many cases the NSA outright paid off companies to do their bidding (RSA at the very least). But hopefully now, seeing the flee of business away from the US, they should know to care about customer data more.
Also note that shifting the supply curve by $0.04 doesn't imply prices will go up by that much. While the cost virtually always means higher prices, if it's less than or more than four cents is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the particular market.
I should point out that rationalle makes absolutely no sense: It doesn't matter if the data is mine or Twitter's or Verizon's, you still need a warrant to serve to whoever owns the harddrives. Verizon doesn't deserve any less protection than me, a sole proprietor.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Constitution is what charters the US Government, and so binds it for everything it does. What part of "make no law" do we not understand? And if Congress has no law authorizing the action, the executive branch can't act, except take the census which the Constitution authorizes without any act of Congress.
Otherwise, look what happens: The US can't spy on its own citizens, but Britain can spy on US citizens, so let's go ask the British government for what data they have on our target citizen!
A good pair of headphones and analog signal generator says I can hear a difference.
The Nyquist limit, if you weren't familiar, takes energy out of waveforms, canceling it out if you're lucky, but usually turning it into a lower frequency. Try it yourself, generate a sine wave sweep from 1kHz to 22kHz and take a listen to all the noise that appears even at two octaves below the limit.
Two octaves below the Nyquist limit of a CD is about 5.5kHz, as you very kindly point out, which I would call rather audible.
The process of making a high-quality recording involves adding an analog low-pass filter before ADC, or making a high-quality recording (192kHz sample rate) and applying a low-pass filter before downsampling, so as to make sure the high-band signals don't show up as lower-frequency noise (though still rather high pitched, commonly like someone forgot to disable their snare drum). It is audible, and it does make a difference.
48kHz (98kHz sample rate) is only one octave higher than 24kHz (48kHz sample rate). I most certainly can hear that difference.
And even if we couldn't hear it, audio engineers still need it. Even one octave below the Nyquist limit, you can still lose up to 30% of your original signal.
Of course every state "accepts some limitations" on weapons -- armed people are a threat to tyrannical governments and states in general, and this fact is entirely a result of one's self-preservation, whether good or not. (And a tyrannical government is most certainly not good.)
We won the American Revolution because the general population was armed as well as or better than the British military. The Second Amendment isn't there for hunting, it exists explicitly to protect your right to shoot at the government.
Suddenly, you logical extreme doesn't sound so illogical. (And it was always sounded logical, perhaps you mean "reasonable"?) Most people don't have nuclear weapons because they're nearly impossible to manufacture. But suppose you could 3D print a bomb or machine gun, mass killings are virtually always a losing proposition for organized crime - instead, it's typically a sole actor or very small group. These people are going to cause chaos with whatever they can get their hands on, laws be damned. Are we going to ban kitchen knives and fertilizer too, now?
You have a right to say "we should punish people who sell guns." But neither you nor anyone else has a right to actually carry that out.
How do we enforce these laws? Police, prison time, and the threat of violence in general. The very violence you claim to be against.
If you're retired and living off savings, are you better or worse off? All you are doing is helping one class at the expense of another.
Well then answer my question: Where is the "correct" number?
None of these politicians even bothered to ask an economist. There is no correct number, they would say. The city council picked a number out of thin air that would get them political support, but not so high that there would be rioting from businesses (though that comes awfully darn close).
If it works at $15 why wouldn't it work at $100?
Of course, it doesn't work at $15, or any other price. Sure, it helps those who manage to keep their jobs, but everyone else... well... http://reason.com/blog/2014/05...
The parent was suggesting that Cox could just eat the costs because they profit elsewhere.
It's the same thing. You can't actually do that, because you're taking marginal losses. In socialism the phenomenon is well understood by economists, fewer people seem to understand it's relevance to massive corporations and that they can fail for the same reason. It's bad for the owning entity, and it's bad for the public at large because you're wasting scarce, valuable resources.
I didn't understand the "public ownership" part because that doesn't really make sense. And "public ownership" is something of a contradiction of terms within economics anyways.
I don't know, what do you mean?
There's this thing in economics called marginal profit. If the cost of deploying service to another customer would exceed the revenue, that means you're taking scarce, valuable resources, and making them less valuable. That's a bad thing.
A lack of price signals and economic calculation like this is why socialism and communism always, always fails. All "socialist" societies today have some form of price system for this reason.
If everything is a chemical, why would they bother using the term?
The only place I've seen someone refer to carbon dioxide as a "chemical" is in chemical equations. Water even less so.
If DRM is really impossible to implement in F/OSS software, without closed source or the threat of political force... Then what's the worry?
It seems like the worst-case scenario is media providers get a false sense of security and start providing content without silly plugins that actually ARE closed and non-accessible (under the threat of legal action).
They were never suggesting a boycott, the organizer is an avid Nintendo fan who literally has bought every single first-party 3DS title. They just thought the game would find a better audience this way.
It was called DNSSEC Stapled Certificates. Was -- Chrome removed it.
See also RFC 6698.
Note you can already do this with SSH keys, where's the implementation for TLS for HTTP?
I seriously doubt the AGPL is legally enforceable. It's a copyright license (so you can still use the software), not a "conveyance license", not to mention the output of a computer program isn't copyrightable.
We had a declaration of war out during WW2. Anywhere else, there's this thing called "due process". You know, innocent until proven guilty and such.
By definition scarce means limited, and there is a limited amount of food, therefore food is scarce. The fact we throw some of it away is irrelevant - food that is thrown away is not food that most people want to consume, and so for our purposes isn't food at all. If food weren't scarce, we wouldn't have to pay money for it. Air would be an example of a good that's not scarce (unless you're, say, underwater). Certain "Free" newspapers may or may not be scarce, depending on who you are.
A "need" is typically an informal term meaning the highest-ranked want at any given time. I eventually will "need" food, though right now I do not need food, since I just ate.
Even in the layman's terms, "need" is generally conditional. "IF I am going to get this job, I need to do an interview" or "IF I am going to live for another year, I need to eat/get an operation/etc". So we still need to think in terms of cost/benefit, even if that benefit is extending one's life by some period of time.
If housing prices were significantly lower, there would be a shortage - more people trying to buy than willing to sell. Observe: rent-controlled apartments. And if houses were free, most certainly I would get one... but who's taking on the cost of building it? In reality, there could not possibly be such a thing as a free house ("free" in econ terms), even low-cost or low-income housing would require paperwork, a lottery, or other non-monetary costs on my part. But they are still costs for the sake of our supply and demand curve.
What do you mean by greed? Taking other people's things by force is never appropriate, but that is not greed, that's theft. Getting an idea for something, and taking time to acquire it, build it, or trade for it, is very much good. My "greed" for more free time combined leads me to hiring a landscaper. And so on.
"Scarce" and "Free" are well defined terms within economics, and I don't know what definition you're using, but in economics, houses and food are most certainly "scarce". Scarce means that the supply is limited. There are a finite amount of houses in the world, and a greater number of people who want a house.
Food may be in "abundance", sure, but it is still "scarce". It has a supply curve, a demand curve, and a market price where the two meet.
The same goes for the labor market - the number of people willing to work for free is less than the number of employers who would let such people work, and therefore labor is scarce - and no economist trying to support a minimum wage has given the law of supply and demand a good answer.
A specific law against mislabeling of a product wouldn't be necessary; that would be fraud, a violation of an implicit contract, which has the force of law in any court.
So lemme get this straight, even if the temperature starts going down, it's still going up (because that's what it was doing before).
Economists call it a sunk cost - it's a cost that's already been incurred, and cannot be recovered. We should still try and recover whatever benefit there is, even if continuing the behavior into the future is harmful.
Sunk costs: Even if your farm is going to turn a loss this year, you STILL need to sell the corn crop and minimize your losses!
Indeed, I believe in many cases the NSA outright paid off companies to do their bidding (RSA at the very least). But hopefully now, seeing the flee of business away from the US, they should know to care about customer data more.
Also note that shifting the supply curve by $0.04 doesn't imply prices will go up by that much. While the cost virtually always means higher prices, if it's less than or more than four cents is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the particular market.
I should point out that rationalle makes absolutely no sense: It doesn't matter if the data is mine or Twitter's or Verizon's, you still need a warrant to serve to whoever owns the harddrives. Verizon doesn't deserve any less protection than me, a sole proprietor.