And yet no statement from the Democrats. Ubiquitous monitoring fits Obama's Socialist agenda perfectly.
(1) Where is the statement from the other Republicans?
(2) Ubiquitous monitoring has nothing to do with Socialism. Please learn what terms mean before using them.
(3) Why would any Democrats comment? The bill is not written. It has not been submitted. All that exists is a posturing statement from Chaffetz that his first bill will be on this issue.
Oh, and your "true Republican"? That remains to be seen. The guy has a very, very short political history, and he got his start as a Democrat (working on Dukakis's campaign). He then fled the sinking ship and declared himself a Republican after Dukakis lost. He may be a "true Republican" or he may be an opportunist... I don't know. It remains to be seen.
So -- learn to write clearly, for your own protection.
Not just for legal protection, either. It's a waste of time to re-explain things, or deal with misunderstandings. In business, I try to write in short sentences to make it easier on the people reading my memos and emails. I constantly remind myself "staccato" -- it helps:)
Maybe we don't need tin-foil sports coats to go with our tin-foil hats
Who needed a tinfoil sportcoat? I don't care if they see a fuzzy outline of my moobs at the airport.
A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...
Well, I use one, and ever since I started using a whole roll of tinfoil, I get lots of extra attention from the ladies. I'm not about to stop using it just because they might stop scanning my nads at the airport.
Bennett, I'm sure you have some nice insight into things, but you've got to change your writing style if you want to communicate your ideas effectively to more people.
Your sentences are too long, with too many interwoven clauses. If you need to write a 60-word sentence with twelve clauses, you'd probably benefit from reorganizing your thoughts. This makes it easier for people to follow what you're writing.
You could also consider the utility of lists. They work very well for clear communication when many concepts are being discussed.
In short, Hemingway is a poor model for clear writing, especially when writing non-fiction. Please consider reading newspaper editorials and magazine articles for some insight into how to communicate ideas easily and effectively. You may also want to consider taking a business writing class, or joining an online writing group -- writing groups are great for getting critiques on style.
Final note: I'm by no means the best writer in the world. I hope you take this post as I've intended it, as helpful advice to make it easier for you to communicate your ideas.
According to the Austrians true monopolies only arise if government mandated or protected.
According to Rothbard, monopolies rise in natural unregulated markets, but they are not true monopolies, as they will be eventually succeeded by another monopoly. That is, only a monopoly enforced by law will not eventually fall to competition.
Rothbard (and von Mises) ascribed the excess profits generated by these monopolies to be the reward for innovation, etc -- but that is a copout.
Those excess profits represent inefficient allocation of resources; it is rent-seeking on natural barriers to entry.
Monopolies are the natural consequence of unregulated markets, since there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
is a non sequitur; the conclusion is not following from the premise in any way I can see.
Well, the post wasn't written for your pleasure, it was in response to the parent -- we've had a long dialogue on the topic over the years.
By chance, do you have any formal education in economics? Or are you self-taught? Because the mathematical underpinnings of that statement are pretty well established; unregulated non-ideal markets with barriers to entry tend to serial monopoly in mature markets. This is a product of the fact that mature markets tend towards minimal profitability, coupled with the barriers to entry, which make any new venture unprofitable by default.
I've missed your ideological diatribes against anything smacking of non-anarchical systems.
Today, we have public funding across the board, regulations that restrict competition, and people afraid of seeing 500 internet lines over their house (note, they won't).
That's right, they'll see one or none. Because no one is going to build out the infrastructure if they can't be assured they'll have a near-captive market.
It's the natural barriers to entry that make monopolies in telecom exist. It's the regulation of monopolies in telecom that should prevent those monopolies from abusing their position.
Competition is not the natural consequence on unregulated markets. Monopolies are the natural consequence of unregulated markets, since there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
Even the Austrian school of economic theory recognizes the need for intervention to keep monopolies from limiting the efficient allocation of resources, and that monopolies are the natural result of largely imperfect markets (like this one, where the huge *natural* barrier to entry makes it so).
Of course, you may be perfectly fine with serial monopoly, but in that case you must be unfamiliar with the sunk costs involved in serial monopolies, which represent inefficient allocation of resources.
We've been over this before, I'm just not sure if you recall the discussion.
I'm not normally one to make a slippery slope argument, but I think it's apt here.
First there's some intelligence sharing, because, you know, those satellites have some time where they aren't being used by the military.
Then it's other materiel... maybe some trucks from the National Guard, or some riot gear.
Then it's "let us borrow a unit for a couple days for security" during an event.
Then it's "why not use the National Guard for regular security".
And eventually the military is doing routine police work.
Hell, NYC uses National Guard troops for regular police security, under the guise of protection from terrorists. How long until their role in law enforcement is expanded?
I think the issue is that in a lot of areas, meth is very commonplace. So combine the ubiquity of meth with the disinhibition of alcohol, and you have a recipe for people trying meth.
I will never vote for that country ruining party and neither should you.
Never again.
They fucked up the country, so don't vote for them ever again.
They fool the gullible with lies and half truths.
Don't get suckered in to voting for them.
I didn't scan the title to your post, so I didn't know what party you were referring to. And a little part of me whispered, "How neat -- an apt commentary on the political system by launching partisan invective that could be aimed at either party" and then I chuckled because I've heard the same invective uttered about both major parties in the US.
And then I read the subject of your post and realized you're spewing meaningless invective at the Republican Party, and while I agree with you, there was absolutely nothing of meaning included in your post.
It would also be technically possible to write in phone-home software to authenticate the installation. But the hard part would be to prevent the user from modifying the software to exclude the phone-home mechanism... not sure if modification can be prevented in a subsidiary license under the GPL.
I suppose if the extras offered were valuable enough, and the support needs were high, then you could withhold support for installs where they didn't pay up... but that's a weird model. Why not just charge for support?
He asks, "Does anybody else feel like waving a flag after reading this?"
No. I feel like marching in protest. That didn't make me feel more patriotic. It made me feel more willing to express my frustration with the telcos.
Unless he meant a white flag. In which case I have to say, definitely no. That did not make me want to surrender. Of course, I'm not a telco -- maybe reading that would make them want to surrender -- price-gouging surrender monkeys that they are.
but you don't go from boy scout to raving meth head without some outside motive
Are you an expert on addiction? On the physiological and psychological pathways to addiction?
No? Didn't think so.
Plenty of people have gone from boy scout to raving meth head. Addiction to meth, like addiction to alcohol, often results in comorbidity with other psychological diseases (like chronic depression, different types of schizophrenia, etc). It's a bit of chicken-or-egg problem, but modern research suggests that not only can meth and/or alcohol addiction exacerbate existing pysch disorders, but they can cause disorders in people with no prior history of mental disease.
Anything that screws with your neurotransmitters can screw with your mental health.
When not in use for other things, why not use them to help fight crime? We spent ungodly amounts of money for those things I bet so we might as well get all the use from them we can.
Because we need to maintain a wall of separation between the military and law enforcement. Even if it's expensive to do so.
I wouldn't welcome any more steps towards the US becoming a fascist state.
If that's the case, why doesn't the US just annex MX?
Because then we'll need a new "threat to the American way" to rile up the idiots so they can be politically manipulated -- illegal Mexican immigrants won't be usable for that anymore.
Who would we blame for taking our jobs? Who would we blame for the drug trade? Who would we pay terrible wages to labor in our fields and in our kitchens -- they'd need to be paid a decent wage if we annexed Mexico!
So, does anyone think the US is interested in, say, chinese or russian sattelite images of the US for this purpose?
Yes. But why bother with chinese or russian images, when they can just swap intel with the UK or other close allies?
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that law enforcement is not following the letter of the law and saying "It's not on soil! It's in SPACE!"
Well, I'm sure that competent lawyers could convince a judge that the spirit of the law would forbid this as well, even *if* the letter of the law was restricted to "on American soil".
Google Rivers, on the other hand, could record average current speed and all the bends in the river to a genuine geocoded object instead of a dumb jpeg.
Yes, but if they recorded average current speed last year, and I'm checking google, now, wouldn't I need (what would have been then) the average future speed?
Get it? Current/current? Hah.
Seriously, though, flow rates of rivers vary enormously... at best they could give you a range of speeds, and the bends. Although you'd probably need to be deep underwater for them to give you the bends.
Does MS actually think that *anybody* who makes an OS would want to do this (that isnt currently doing it, like themselves and.. anybody else?)?
Probably, yes, they do think so.
How about a linux distro where you get vanilla distro for free, but the distributor charges extra to unlock chocolate sauce and cherries?
I mean, I have no idea if that's even *possible* under whatever licenses are in use now for linux... but I'm sure MS is paranoid that someone else could be making money off of an OS.
Perhaps a middleware behemoth who acquired a mature OS recently might bork the OS so it can't run some product the behemoth offers, unless the user pays extra for the OS? So users could still run a small db on the OS, but if they want to play with the big boys they have to pay like the big boys?
I remember being amazed at what was offered on Google Earth when it first came out. It is always surprising when someone else thinks that a technology can do something that is insanely more complicated than what I was amazed by.
Isn't this a problem we all often encounter at work? Those who do not understand the technology or process do not understand the limits of the technology or the process.
I've a coworker, a "well-seasoned" gentleman, who does not understand internal combustion engines, nor basic chemistry. He insists that it must be possible for them to run on water, and that the oil companies have bought up all the patents from the people who have invented cars that run on water. I tried to explain the nature of endothermic reactions to him (in non-chemistry speak, of course), but he could not be budged.
Or when S&M promises features to a client that can't possibly be delivered on top of the existing project architecture...
I think it's great though, that your Mom's friend thought Google Earth would be able to do that. It makes it easier to convince the stupid users that the BOFH can ruin their life, quite easily. Let them all believe that we have tools at our fingertips to spy on their every move.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Where is the statement from the other Republicans?
(2) Ubiquitous monitoring has nothing to do with Socialism. Please learn what terms mean before using them.
(3) Why would any Democrats comment? The bill is not written. It has not been submitted. All that exists is a posturing statement from Chaffetz that his first bill will be on this issue.
Oh, and your "true Republican"? That remains to be seen. The guy has a very, very short political history, and he got his start as a Democrat (working on Dukakis's campaign). He then fled the sinking ship and declared himself a Republican after Dukakis lost. He may be a "true Republican" or he may be an opportunist... I don't know. It remains to be seen.
You should've kept reading... I use the whole roll of tinfoil to get around that problem, hence the increased attention from the ladies.
Not just for legal protection, either. It's a waste of time to re-explain things, or deal with misunderstandings. In business, I try to write in short sentences to make it easier on the people reading my memos and emails. I constantly remind myself "staccato" -- it helps :)
Who needed a tinfoil sportcoat? I don't care if they see a fuzzy outline of my moobs at the airport.
A tin-foil jockstrap, on the other hand...
Well, I use one, and ever since I started using a whole roll of tinfoil, I get lots of extra attention from the ladies. I'm not about to stop using it just because they might stop scanning my nads at the airport.
Bennett, I'm sure you have some nice insight into things, but you've got to change your writing style if you want to communicate your ideas effectively to more people.
Your sentences are too long, with too many interwoven clauses. If you need to write a 60-word sentence with twelve clauses, you'd probably benefit from reorganizing your thoughts. This makes it easier for people to follow what you're writing.
You could also consider the utility of lists. They work very well for clear communication when many concepts are being discussed.
In short, Hemingway is a poor model for clear writing, especially when writing non-fiction. Please consider reading newspaper editorials and magazine articles for some insight into how to communicate ideas easily and effectively. You may also want to consider taking a business writing class, or joining an online writing group -- writing groups are great for getting critiques on style.
Final note: I'm by no means the best writer in the world. I hope you take this post as I've intended it, as helpful advice to make it easier for you to communicate your ideas.
According to Rothbard, monopolies rise in natural unregulated markets, but they are not true monopolies, as they will be eventually succeeded by another monopoly. That is, only a monopoly enforced by law will not eventually fall to competition.
Rothbard (and von Mises) ascribed the excess profits generated by these monopolies to be the reward for innovation, etc -- but that is a copout.
Those excess profits represent inefficient allocation of resources; it is rent-seeking on natural barriers to entry.
Well, the post wasn't written for your pleasure, it was in response to the parent -- we've had a long dialogue on the topic over the years.
By chance, do you have any formal education in economics? Or are you self-taught? Because the mathematical underpinnings of that statement are pretty well established; unregulated non-ideal markets with barriers to entry tend to serial monopoly in mature markets. This is a product of the fact that mature markets tend towards minimal profitability, coupled with the barriers to entry, which make any new venture unprofitable by default.
I was going to add sharks, but the parent did specify "natural predators".
Sharks with FLBs are decidedly unnatural.
Also, I don't believe that homo sapiens is naturally an aquatic creature.
Unless you're talking about the dreaded landshark, but I simply don't believe they exist.
Wait, someone's knocking at the door. [pause] I didn't order any pizza.
Aaaagh!
Except in times of declared emergency, it is not allowed to be used for law enforcement.
I've missed your ideological diatribes against anything smacking of non-anarchical systems.
That's right, they'll see one or none. Because no one is going to build out the infrastructure if they can't be assured they'll have a near-captive market.
It's the natural barriers to entry that make monopolies in telecom exist. It's the regulation of monopolies in telecom that should prevent those monopolies from abusing their position.
Competition is not the natural consequence on unregulated markets. Monopolies are the natural consequence of unregulated markets, since there is no such thing as an ideal free market.
Even the Austrian school of economic theory recognizes the need for intervention to keep monopolies from limiting the efficient allocation of resources, and that monopolies are the natural result of largely imperfect markets (like this one, where the huge *natural* barrier to entry makes it so).
Of course, you may be perfectly fine with serial monopoly, but in that case you must be unfamiliar with the sunk costs involved in serial monopolies, which represent inefficient allocation of resources.
We've been over this before, I'm just not sure if you recall the discussion.
I'm not normally one to make a slippery slope argument, but I think it's apt here.
First there's some intelligence sharing, because, you know, those satellites have some time where they aren't being used by the military.
Then it's other materiel... maybe some trucks from the National Guard, or some riot gear.
Then it's "let us borrow a unit for a couple days for security" during an event.
Then it's "why not use the National Guard for regular security".
And eventually the military is doing routine police work.
Hell, NYC uses National Guard troops for regular police security, under the guise of protection from terrorists. How long until their role in law enforcement is expanded?
That's pretty optimistic, don't you think? Do you *really* think that it would be the top-level management that would see lower income?
Thanks for clarifying.
I think the issue is that in a lot of areas, meth is very commonplace. So combine the ubiquity of meth with the disinhibition of alcohol, and you have a recipe for people trying meth.
yes, but the generic term "waving a flag" is used to denote patriotism. At least that's how it's used in the US, generally...
(this offer null and void outside the US)
Well, itself and wolves. And tigers. And lions.
And don't forget bears. Definitely bears.
I think we should build giant ethical bear robots. That would scare the SHIT out of our enemies.
I didn't scan the title to your post, so I didn't know what party you were referring to. And a little part of me whispered, "How neat -- an apt commentary on the political system by launching partisan invective that could be aimed at either party" and then I chuckled because I've heard the same invective uttered about both major parties in the US.
:(
And then I read the subject of your post and realized you're spewing meaningless invective at the Republican Party, and while I agree with you, there was absolutely nothing of meaning included in your post.
Frankly, I'm disappointed.
It would also be technically possible to write in phone-home software to authenticate the installation. But the hard part would be to prevent the user from modifying the software to exclude the phone-home mechanism... not sure if modification can be prevented in a subsidiary license under the GPL.
I suppose if the extras offered were valuable enough, and the support needs were high, then you could withhold support for installs where they didn't pay up... but that's a weird model. Why not just charge for support?
No. I feel like marching in protest. That didn't make me feel more patriotic. It made me feel more willing to express my frustration with the telcos.
Unless he meant a white flag. In which case I have to say, definitely no. That did not make me want to surrender. Of course, I'm not a telco -- maybe reading that would make them want to surrender -- price-gouging surrender monkeys that they are.
Are you an expert on addiction? On the physiological and psychological pathways to addiction?
No? Didn't think so.
Plenty of people have gone from boy scout to raving meth head. Addiction to meth, like addiction to alcohol, often results in comorbidity with other psychological diseases (like chronic depression, different types of schizophrenia, etc). It's a bit of chicken-or-egg problem, but modern research suggests that not only can meth and/or alcohol addiction exacerbate existing pysch disorders, but they can cause disorders in people with no prior history of mental disease.
Anything that screws with your neurotransmitters can screw with your mental health.
Because we need to maintain a wall of separation between the military and law enforcement. Even if it's expensive to do so.
I wouldn't welcome any more steps towards the US becoming a fascist state.
Because then we'll need a new "threat to the American way" to rile up the idiots so they can be politically manipulated -- illegal Mexican immigrants won't be usable for that anymore.
Who would we blame for taking our jobs? Who would we blame for the drug trade? Who would we pay terrible wages to labor in our fields and in our kitchens -- they'd need to be paid a decent wage if we annexed Mexico!
Yes. But why bother with chinese or russian images, when they can just swap intel with the UK or other close allies?
Well, I'm sure that competent lawyers could convince a judge that the spirit of the law would forbid this as well, even *if* the letter of the law was restricted to "on American soil".
Yes, but if they recorded average current speed last year, and I'm checking google, now, wouldn't I need (what would have been then) the average future speed?
Get it? Current/current? Hah.
Seriously, though, flow rates of rivers vary enormously... at best they could give you a range of speeds, and the bends. Although you'd probably need to be deep underwater for them to give you the bends.
Get it? Bends/bends? Hah.
OK, I'm done now. Sorry.
Probably, yes, they do think so.
How about a linux distro where you get vanilla distro for free, but the distributor charges extra to unlock chocolate sauce and cherries?
I mean, I have no idea if that's even *possible* under whatever licenses are in use now for linux... but I'm sure MS is paranoid that someone else could be making money off of an OS.
Perhaps a middleware behemoth who acquired a mature OS recently might bork the OS so it can't run some product the behemoth offers, unless the user pays extra for the OS? So users could still run a small db on the OS, but if they want to play with the big boys they have to pay like the big boys?
Hell, there are examples of prior art all over the place. Plenty of old shareware, for example. Pay $x to have levels or features unlocked.
Of course, I DNRTFA, or the patent, so there's probably a ton of reasons that wouldn't apply as prior art.
Isn't this a problem we all often encounter at work? Those who do not understand the technology or process do not understand the limits of the technology or the process.
I've a coworker, a "well-seasoned" gentleman, who does not understand internal combustion engines, nor basic chemistry. He insists that it must be possible for them to run on water, and that the oil companies have bought up all the patents from the people who have invented cars that run on water. I tried to explain the nature of endothermic reactions to him (in non-chemistry speak, of course), but he could not be budged.
Or when S&M promises features to a client that can't possibly be delivered on top of the existing project architecture...
I think it's great though, that your Mom's friend thought Google Earth would be able to do that. It makes it easier to convince the stupid users that the BOFH can ruin their life, quite easily. Let them all believe that we have tools at our fingertips to spy on their every move.