If the 'state' has any interests other than the will of the people as expressed by popular vote, then it hasn't been architected properly. If any of those interests are specific and localized enough that a judge could conceivably gain anything by finding against the defendant, then 'not architected properly' is a gross understatement.
If you provide a good / service, and state ahead of time that you require compensation for using the service / consuming the good, then yes, you are certainly entitled to be paid for it. it's how every economy in the world works.
This only works for goods and services where the creator is actually able to exclude others from using. You can't go on TV, tell the entire world a hilarious joke you made up, and then reasonably expect that no one will tell the joke to their friends afterwards... even if you stipulated beforehand that they mustn't.
Some swimmers care about having the supervision of a lifeguard, having some pool staff they can complain to or ask questions of if the diving board is malfunctioning, and being able to bring their office lunch party there without having to implicate their workplace in a crime. Those people will pay.
And many of the people in the pool at night are unable to use it in the day for a variety of reasons, so they were never a potential income source for the pool owner in the first place.
My fear is that he isn't as good at guaranteeing the security of his own plane as he says he is, kind of like his OS.
When you're operating a machine with the potential to kill lots of other people, you have to do better than "don't worry about it, I got this." You have to jump through some hoops to demonstrate that you're doing it safely to everyone else's standards, you can't just 'know' it's safe. Just like in math class. Show your work.
NASA should hire people with surprising bodies and/or opinions to jump out and reveal/explain them, providing a needed distraction at the critical moment.
There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.
You might be suffering from sampling bias. When the TSA's efforts are successful, are you likely to hear about it? think: Heroic passenger saves planemates from certain death is a juicier headline than Ornery gate guard asks many questions and deters a shifty-looking guy who might or might not have ended up trying something
Actually, there are lots of rules about what kind of potentially dangerous items you're allowed to have in your private car, regardless of any guarantee you can give that the items aren't dangerous in your specific situation. Cars are so ubiquitous and the regulation so streamlined now that it's easy to forget: you need special government permission to operate one in public.
Ok, and how exactly does one get into international airspace, from an airport in a sovereign nation? You just take off and suddenly there you are, in open air without any population centers in sight?
What kind of laptop were you able to get for $350 in 2000, that was capable of running a 2-years-old operating system smoothly? You sure weren't shopping where i shopped.
Exactly this. Why the crap should the state be depending on owned, licensed IP, particularly for subjects which are old enough and broad enough to have an actual body of work in the public domain?
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
Private institutions breed greed, cartels and perverse incentives and can never lead to a decision-making process which would choose a net gain for society over a greater gain for itself.
Yes, both of these sentences are moronic oversimplifications.
Slashdot Mirror
If the 'state' has any interests other than the will of the people as expressed by popular vote, then it hasn't been architected properly. If any of those interests are specific and localized enough that a judge could conceivably gain anything by finding against the defendant, then 'not architected properly' is a gross understatement.
If you provide a good / service, and state ahead of time that you require compensation for using the service / consuming the good, then yes, you are certainly entitled to be paid for it. it's how every economy in the world works.
This only works for goods and services where the creator is actually able to exclude others from using. You can't go on TV, tell the entire world a hilarious joke you made up, and then reasonably expect that no one will tell the joke to their friends afterwards... even if you stipulated beforehand that they mustn't.
Hyperbole.
Some swimmers care about having the supervision of a lifeguard, having some pool staff they can complain to or ask questions of if the diving board is malfunctioning, and being able to bring their office lunch party there without having to implicate their workplace in a crime. Those people will pay.
And many of the people in the pool at night are unable to use it in the day for a variety of reasons, so they were never a potential income source for the pool owner in the first place.
And parallel to your own reasoning, do you think an open liquor bottle in a car poses a threat to anybody if the driver isn't having any?
No, in this case the threat is nil. The point isn't just to be safe, it's to be provably safe. That means overdoing it sometimes.
See above.
My fear is that he isn't as good at guaranteeing the security of his own plane as he says he is, kind of like his OS.
When you're operating a machine with the potential to kill lots of other people, you have to do better than "don't worry about it, I got this." You have to jump through some hoops to demonstrate that you're doing it safely to everyone else's standards, you can't just 'know' it's safe. Just like in math class. Show your work.
Yeah, that's how I remember it too. I don't remember there being any new notebook computers available under eight or nine hundo.
NASA should hire people with surprising bodies and/or opinions to jump out and reveal/explain them, providing a needed distraction at the critical moment.
There are more cases of passengers stopping lunatics on planes than there are of TSA stopping lunatics from getting on planes.
You might be suffering from sampling bias. When the TSA's efforts are successful, are you likely to hear about it?
think: Heroic passenger saves planemates from certain death
is a juicier headline than
Ornery gate guard asks many questions and deters a shifty-looking guy who might or might not have ended up trying something
Actually, there are lots of rules about what kind of potentially dangerous items you're allowed to have in your private car, regardless of any guarantee you can give that the items aren't dangerous in your specific situation. Cars are so ubiquitous and the regulation so streamlined now that it's easy to forget: you need special government permission to operate one in public.
Ok, and how exactly does one get into international airspace, from an airport in a sovereign nation? You just take off and suddenly there you are, in open air without any population centers in sight?
No, there are rules about what you can do on the public highways.
And remind me, whose airways was Steve planning on running his private plane through?
How about "two dollar-seconds per megabit?" Money times time is a concrete enough dimension for you, right?
Aaaaaal heeere only ruuuuuuuuuns at threeeeeeeee decaheeeeeeeertz.
WHAAAAAAAAT?
What kind of laptop were you able to get for $350 in 2000, that was capable of running a 2-years-old operating system smoothly? You sure weren't shopping where i shopped.
I read your sig as:
"There are one.
One... kinds of people."
They don't come locked down and castrated
Then how can an "expiration date" feature possibly exist?
And their business model would be so effective today, too.
What happens when it becomes possible to jailbreak a popular e-reader and circumvent the 'expiration date' feature of the DRM?
Suing libraries, I'll bet.
Exactly this. Why the crap should the state be depending on owned, licensed IP, particularly for subjects which are old enough and broad enough to have an actual body of work in the public domain?
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
Private institutions breed greed, cartels and perverse incentives and can never lead to a decision-making process which would choose a net gain for society over a greater gain for itself.
Yes, both of these sentences are moronic oversimplifications.
Collegiate textbooks cost around $100
Already a lost cause. See above.
And by the way, how the HELL have you let him live 18 months without making him a Slashdot account?
Because the big businesses which we do have, depend for their continued profitability upon an uneven playing field.
This isn't to say that big businesses can't be competitive in principle.
It's just to say that ours, aren't.