It also works today with MVNOs for cellular service, and in the internet-based television with services like Netflix, Amazon, Sling, and Hulu (definitely interested in where their new live TV service goes).
It probably won't stop. Facebook is a company; it exists to make money, and advertisements seem to be much more acceptable to most Internet users than requiring direct payment.
It's ok if someone doesn't like that they got hooked on freebies and now Facebook wants to cash in. It's also ok to dump Facebook. The choice is completely on the end-user; nevertheless I suspect that griping and complaining, followed by acceptance, will be the typical response.
SUBJECT: Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software
to release at least 20 percent of new custom-developed code as Open Source Software (OSS) for three years
develop an open source software policy that, together with the Digital Services Playbook, will support improved access to custom software code developed for the Federal government
and several other instances of the term.
Also, under the first heading "Objectives" it clearly speaks to sharing code with the public as well:
Establish requirements for releasing custom-developed source code, including securing the rights necessary to make some custom-developed code releasable to the public as OSS under this policy's new pilot program;
NetMarketShare is an independent site. In fact, its methodology shows lower percentages of Windows 10 usage than other sites such as StatCounter (which currently shows Windows 10 global market share at 24.2%).
Also these are global stats, but regional uptake information can be interesting. Europe and North America show slightly higher rates of adoption than the average, and Oceania shows a much more usage (Windows 10 has surpassed Windows 7). To balance, Asia and South America show somewhat lower adoption rates, and Africa has much lower usage.
That money is circulating, being used by other people for other purposes.
But it's not circulating here, which means it's not being used by people here for purposes here. So effectively, our society here gets none of the benefit. And because the taxes aren't being paid here, that pile of cash doesn't contribute to our infrastructure, our military, our social programs, our education and research, or any of the many other government-backed programs that you and I have to pay into every time we clock in at work or buy a toothbrush.
Ever heard of foreign tax havens? That huge pile of cash deposits doesn't circulate here. It is effectively equivalent to your "Scrooge McDuck" scenario (without even exploring the tax avoidance issue).
I already specified the type of company I was talking about:
companies that effectively control their market even if they aren't technically the only company in that market
I'm not going to argue over whether a "monopoly" is technically when only one company exists in their market. You are trying to deflect from the point, which is that the behaviors of such a company can be scrutinized by a regulating authority in order to gain the most common and economic good.
Yes, corporations are hoarding. American businesses were hoarding around $2 trillion as of the time this article was written: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01...
And when it isn't in an active investment of their own, its in a bank account earning interest.
A measly amount of interest, not enough to even beat inflation. Comparatively, it's not much of an investment.
How many non-government sponsored monopolies do you see around you?
Plenty (particularly if you include include companies that effectively control their market even if they aren't technically the only company in that market). You've been on Slashdot for some time, I'm incredibly surprised that you don't seem to know this.
Money hoarding? You believe in the Scrooge McDuck model of rich folks?
Some rich folks? Absolutely. And it's not just people, but also corporations.
Mind you I'm not saying that a rainy day fund is bad... to the contrary, it brings the kind of stability which can help the overall economy particularly in a depression. But hoarding too much can be just as detrimental, delaying recovery and growth of the economy.
It's not broken because of greed, it works because of greed, or more accurately because people behave in a way that is in their own self interest.
Indeed, that is the theory behind capitalism. But like most economic theories, people find ways to exploit the system to their advantage that don't necessarily provide as much benefit to the commons.
Examples: 1) A large monopoly can control most or all of the supply as to manipulate the supply/demand curve. 2) A rich person helps stimulate the economy (trickle-down economics) except when they hoard money, which effectively takes it out of the economy. 3) Corrupt politicians can be bought to change the dynamics of the market via legislation.
You say nobody has figured out how to do better, but it's pretty easy to see how all of those examples can be made better. Respectively: 1) increased scrutiny over businesses that constitute the majority of their market, 2) incentivizing positive economic activity like spending over hoarding, and 3) cracking down on corruption and promotion of anti-lobbying bills.
I was thinking the same thing. If I calculate it correctly, that means it only takes a group of about 1.2 million people to have a 50% chance of having a single doppelganger pair.
It's a dumb premise anyway. The Olympians get "paid" in medal bonuses and sponsorships. Obviously if they refuse to participate, they no longer get "paid" in those ways.
Slashdot Mirror
It also works today with MVNOs for cellular service, and in the internet-based television with services like Netflix, Amazon, Sling, and Hulu (definitely interested in where their new live TV service goes).
You are doing what to an Apple product? No!!!
The proper way to handle this is to pre-grate your wrists prior to using the magical device. The Apple Watch 2 is rumored to have it built-in.
I assume this is what code.gov will be for.
Now you've gone from fudging the truth to flat out lying.
It probably won't stop. Facebook is a company; it exists to make money, and advertisements seem to be much more acceptable to most Internet users than requiring direct payment.
It's ok if someone doesn't like that they got hooked on freebies and now Facebook wants to cash in. It's also ok to dump Facebook. The choice is completely on the end-user; nevertheless I suspect that griping and complaining, followed by acceptance, will be the typical response.
From the first link (PDF):
SUBJECT: Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software
to release at least 20 percent of new custom-developed code as Open Source Software (OSS) for three years
develop an open source software policy that, together with the Digital Services Playbook, will support improved access to custom software code developed for the Federal government
and several other instances of the term.
Also, under the first heading "Objectives" it clearly speaks to sharing code with the public as well:
Establish requirements for releasing custom-developed source code, including securing the rights necessary to make some custom-developed code releasable to the public as OSS under this policy's new pilot program;
Did you even try?
OEM licenses and Office 365 services.
And Microsoft plans to charge a monthly fee for this?
Nope.
I'm all for hindering stupid people.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this:
Under the Proposed Rule, this would be accomplished without compensation to the creators or licensees of the copyrighted programming
Wouldn't end users would still pay for the programming?
I don't think this qualifies as competing.
NetMarketShare is an independent site. In fact, its methodology shows lower percentages of Windows 10 usage than other sites such as StatCounter (which currently shows Windows 10 global market share at 24.2%).
Also these are global stats, but regional uptake information can be interesting. Europe and North America show slightly higher rates of adoption than the average, and Oceania shows a much more usage (Windows 10 has surpassed Windows 7). To balance, Asia and South America show somewhat lower adoption rates, and Africa has much lower usage.
The sad thing is, some people probably do get paid by LOC.
To quote you:
That money is circulating, being used by other people for other purposes.
But it's not circulating here, which means it's not being used by people here for purposes here. So effectively, our society here gets none of the benefit. And because the taxes aren't being paid here, that pile of cash doesn't contribute to our infrastructure, our military, our social programs, our education and research, or any of the many other government-backed programs that you and I have to pay into every time we clock in at work or buy a toothbrush.
Ever heard of foreign tax havens? That huge pile of cash deposits doesn't circulate here. It is effectively equivalent to your "Scrooge McDuck" scenario (without even exploring the tax avoidance issue).
I already specified the type of company I was talking about:
companies that effectively control their market even if they aren't technically the only company in that market
I'm not going to argue over whether a "monopoly" is technically when only one company exists in their market. You are trying to deflect from the point, which is that the behaviors of such a company can be scrutinized by a regulating authority in order to gain the most common and economic good.
Yes, corporations are hoarding. American businesses were hoarding around $2 trillion as of the time this article was written: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01...
And when it isn't in an active investment of their own, its in a bank account earning interest.
A measly amount of interest, not enough to even beat inflation. Comparatively, it's not much of an investment.
Just one?
Microsoft, in the desktop operating system market.
How many non-government sponsored monopolies do you see around you?
Plenty (particularly if you include include companies that effectively control their market even if they aren't technically the only company in that market). You've been on Slashdot for some time, I'm incredibly surprised that you don't seem to know this.
Money hoarding? You believe in the Scrooge McDuck model of rich folks?
Some rich folks? Absolutely. And it's not just people, but also corporations.
Mind you I'm not saying that a rainy day fund is bad... to the contrary, it brings the kind of stability which can help the overall economy particularly in a depression. But hoarding too much can be just as detrimental, delaying recovery and growth of the economy.
It's not broken because of greed, it works because of greed, or more accurately because people behave in a way that is in their own self interest.
Indeed, that is the theory behind capitalism. But like most economic theories, people find ways to exploit the system to their advantage that don't necessarily provide as much benefit to the commons.
Examples: 1) A large monopoly can control most or all of the supply as to manipulate the supply/demand curve. 2) A rich person helps stimulate the economy (trickle-down economics) except when they hoard money, which effectively takes it out of the economy. 3) Corrupt politicians can be bought to change the dynamics of the market via legislation.
You say nobody has figured out how to do better, but it's pretty easy to see how all of those examples can be made better. Respectively: 1) increased scrutiny over businesses that constitute the majority of their market, 2) incentivizing positive economic activity like spending over hoarding, and 3) cracking down on corruption and promotion of anti-lobbying bills.
I was thinking the same thing. If I calculate it correctly, that means it only takes a group of about 1.2 million people to have a 50% chance of having a single doppelganger pair.
To clarify, my home service is slow but does NOT have caps.
The problem is, I would just use cellular if it did not have the caps.
At least you guys have a home option that is both fast and essentially unlimited.
My home internet service sucks. My LTE cellular data service is twice as fast (and 15x upload).
So 10Gbps is great and all, but what I really want is for my cellular plan to have much higher caps so that I can ditch the landline service.
It's heartbreaking that this is news. I also don't like it, and I also don't have a plan to fix it, but you don't see me quoted in the news.
It's a dumb premise anyway. The Olympians get "paid" in medal bonuses and sponsorships. Obviously if they refuse to participate, they no longer get "paid" in those ways.
What's actually different?