>... And baby seals and pet whales killed, of course....
>... (and those pooooooooor baby seals)....
I realize those statements were probably tongue in cheek, but you've mentioned a pet (no pun intended) peeve of mine.
"Baby seals and pet whales" are about poaching; energy savings is about pollution (and oil and money). They are completely different topics and shouldn't be confused. If you confuse the two, you confound the issue which does no one any good.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Until I saw this news item, I had never realized how brilliant Google's business model is.
It is in the service provider's (AT&T, etc.) best interest to charge you as much as they can for as little service as possible. The final content provider's (Slashdot, etc.) only get revenue if they can convince you to go to their site instead of other sites. But Google doesn't have to compete; they get payed more when more people go more places (and thus see more ads) regardless of where those places are. So they want the web browsing experience to be as pleasant as possible to encourage more people to use it more often. Since they own so much market share that it is easier to double the size of the pie than it is to double the percentage of it they have.
The thought of an advertising company's interests aligning with the customer's interests seems dissonant, but in this case they've made it work.
> This type of no tolerance = no intelligence policy...
Wait, you mean all those zero-tolerance(*) laws are bad things?
Oh, I get it! No tolerance = bad; zero tolerance = good. I guess I'm going to have to brush up on my newspeak.
(*) New York (Drinking and Driving) www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/zero-tol.htm California (Guns in Schools) www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp etc., etc., etc.
I am a recent graduate of KU. They pay around $75 or $150 per semester for the network connection. (I don't remember the exact figure.) Far worse than the money is that if you live in the dorms, there are no other Internet options. (Well maybe dial-up, but you roommates wouldn't be to happy about you tying up the phone.)
This is just the latest in ResNet's abuse of students. They have consistently treated students as either the enemy to be assaulted or their employee to be ordered around. They have yet to learn that students are their customers.
They've blocked outgoing port 25. They say it is intended to block spam, but it prevented me from using my departmental or work e-mail accounts. They won't let you on the network unless you run their setup program that fiddles with who knows what configurations in your system (unless I can look at the source it is a security risk). Finish that all up with a little bit of traffic shaping and we have a monopoly abusing it's powers. They claim all these are necessary, but their ISP friends in the real seem to manage without such draconian measures.
I love the school and the campus, but I'm glad I don't have to deal with ResNet any more.
Mod parent up! I did the exhaustive search once(*), and this is the best strategy. At worst it is a draw and the psychology makes it likely you'll win.
(*) The search tree small enough to do by hand if you exploit symmetry.
Also, heh, please read some actual history, if you think the sword was anywhere _near_ the most common weapon. The sword was an expensive weapon of the elites. _The_ most common weapon by far was the _spear_, and more soldiers went into battle holding one than everything else combined. From the greek phalanx to the medieval pike formations, _that_ was the number one weapon.
Insulting my knowledge of history isn't productive, especially because I have read quite a bit of it. I know this is Slashdot, but we should really be debating ideas not attacking people. (If you felt that I attacked you instead of your idea, then I apologize for that. That was not my intent.)
In that vein, you are probably right about the spear being more common than the sword, but most spears are still close range weapons (some are for thrown but those are a minority (at least in western civilization)).
I was under the impression that you were claiming that ranged weapons were the enabler for the invention and continued practice of warfare. But now you say they were only needed for the invention. I still don't think the evidence conclusively supports that. Coincidence doesn't imply causation. It is possible that ranged weapons had to be invented because humans began hunting more dangerous prey, other humans, and a strong group think could easily develop in tribal societies (if you have a tribal leader or shaman this is especially easy (I don't know much about pre-history; only history)).
If ranged weapons were what allowed warfare because of their anonymizing aspect, then we would expect ranged weapons to be the primary weapon in most battles. But for the greater part of history this isn't the case. It was the sword (not the arrow) that was the most common weapon in history. The arrow was a weapon that required specialized training and was only used for specialized tasks (e.g. softening up the enemy before the main battle).
After all the saying is about "dying by the sword", not "dying by the arrow".
But under U.S. law you can't claim statutory damages for copyright infringement unless you had previously registered the work that is being infringed. If you haven't registered your work, you have to show actual damages which can be quite hard. Since these students probably didn't register their papers (I think it costs money to do that, at least the postage), they are going to have a hard time winning this case unless they can show actual damages. Which is the point I think the the GP was trying to make.
Um... Hydrogen isn't a renewable energy source. It is an energy storage mechanism. So we'll probably burn coal to make Hydrogen that we can than use to power our cars. (Hydro and wind don't yet scale up well enough, and most people are scared of nuclear.) Coal plants generally burn cleaner than gas cars due to efficiencies of scale so it's still a net win, but people need to stop thinking that Hydrogen fixes all our energy problems.
This probably wouldn't work. First of all, the pedophilia rate is highest among married men. So if anything celibacy helps keep priests on the strait and narrow. Secondly, our appetite most pleasures increases the more we indulge that appetite. Forcing inmates to go on sex binges would more than likely lead to their brain becoming dependant on the hormones that are released by sex. In short, it would get them physically addicted even if they became psychologically adverse to it.
Your use of the term "rival" is incorrect. In economics a rival good is one where one person's use or consumption limits other's ability to use or consume that good. Information is one of the best examples of a non-rival good. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalrous) Information is also naturally a non-excludable good (thus the patron model for artists in ages past), though some laws such as trade secret, patent or copyright laws may make it de jure an excludable good.
The technology is moving faster than you might think. Quantum Cryptography is already a commercial product sold by a couple of different companies such as MagiQ. The really cool part is that QC is good enough now days to be run over existing commercial fiber-optics. So the infrastructure is already in place. Just buy a couple of end-points and rent some fiber from the Telco and your on your way.
Slashdot Mirror
> ... And baby seals and pet whales killed, of course ....
... (and those pooooooooor baby seals) ....
>
I realize those statements were probably tongue in cheek, but you've mentioned a pet (no pun intended) peeve of mine.
"Baby seals and pet whales" are about poaching; energy savings is about pollution (and oil and money). They are completely different topics and shouldn't be confused. If you confuse the two, you confound the issue which does no one any good.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Until I saw this news item, I had never realized how brilliant Google's business model is.
It is in the service provider's (AT&T, etc.) best interest to charge you as much as they can for as little service as possible. The final content provider's (Slashdot, etc.) only get revenue if they can convince you to go to their site instead of other sites. But Google doesn't have to compete; they get payed more when more people go more places (and thus see more ads) regardless of where those places are. So they want the web browsing experience to be as pleasant as possible to encourage more people to use it more often. Since they own so much market share that it is easier to double the size of the pie than it is to double the percentage of it they have.
The thought of an advertising company's interests aligning with the customer's interests seems dissonant, but in this case they've made it work.
One word: Slavery.
More words: If morality is relative, then we can't say that slavery in the US was wrong. After all, the people practicing it thought it was right.
> This type of no tolerance = no intelligence policy ...
Wait, you mean all those zero-tolerance(*) laws are bad things?
Oh, I get it! No tolerance = bad; zero tolerance = good. I guess I'm going to have to brush up on my newspeak.
(*) New York (Drinking and Driving) www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/zero-tol.htm
California (Guns in Schools) www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp
etc., etc., etc.
I am a recent graduate of KU. They pay around $75 or $150 per semester for the network connection. (I don't remember the exact figure.) Far worse than the money is that if you live in the dorms, there are no other Internet options. (Well maybe dial-up, but you roommates wouldn't be to happy about you tying up the phone.)
This is just the latest in ResNet's abuse of students. They have consistently treated students as either the enemy to be assaulted or their employee to be ordered around. They have yet to learn that students are their customers.
They've blocked outgoing port 25. They say it is intended to block spam, but it prevented me from using my departmental or work e-mail accounts. They won't let you on the network unless you run their setup program that fiddles with who knows what configurations in your system (unless I can look at the source it is a security risk). Finish that all up with a little bit of traffic shaping and we have a monopoly abusing it's powers. They claim all these are necessary, but their ISP friends in the real seem to manage without such draconian measures.
I love the school and the campus, but I'm glad I don't have to deal with ResNet any more.
Mod parent up! I did the exhaustive search once(*), and this is the best strategy. At worst it is a draw and the psychology makes it likely you'll win.
(*) The search tree small enough to do by hand if you exploit symmetry.
Insulting my knowledge of history isn't productive, especially because I have read quite a bit of it. I know this is Slashdot, but we should really be debating ideas not attacking people. (If you felt that I attacked you instead of your idea, then I apologize for that. That was not my intent.)
In that vein, you are probably right about the spear being more common than the sword, but most spears are still close range weapons (some are for thrown but those are a minority (at least in western civilization)).
I was under the impression that you were claiming that ranged weapons were the enabler for the invention and continued practice of warfare. But now you say they were only needed for the invention. I still don't think the evidence conclusively supports that. Coincidence doesn't imply causation. It is possible that ranged weapons had to be invented because humans began hunting more dangerous prey, other humans, and a strong group think could easily develop in tribal societies (if you have a tribal leader or shaman this is especially easy (I don't know much about pre-history; only history)).
A nice theory, but it doesn't fit history.
If ranged weapons were what allowed warfare because of their anonymizing aspect, then we would expect ranged weapons to be the primary weapon in most battles. But for the greater part of history this isn't the case. It was the sword (not the arrow) that was the most common weapon in history. The arrow was a weapon that required specialized training and was only used for specialized tasks (e.g. softening up the enemy before the main battle).
After all the saying is about "dying by the sword", not "dying by the arrow".
But under U.S. law you can't claim statutory damages for copyright infringement unless you had previously registered the work that is being infringed. If you haven't registered your work, you have to show actual damages which can be quite hard. Since these students probably didn't register their papers (I think it costs money to do that, at least the postage), they are going to have a hard time winning this case unless they can show actual damages. Which is the point I think the the GP was trying to make.
--
"That's not a misspelling; that's creativity."
Um ... Hydrogen isn't a renewable energy source. It is an energy storage mechanism. So we'll probably burn coal to make Hydrogen that we can than use to power our cars. (Hydro and wind don't yet scale up well enough, and most people are scared of nuclear.) Coal plants generally burn cleaner than gas cars due to efficiencies of scale so it's still a net win, but people need to stop thinking that Hydrogen fixes all our energy problems.
This probably wouldn't work. First of all, the pedophilia rate is highest among married men. So if anything celibacy helps keep priests on the strait and narrow. Secondly, our appetite most pleasures increases the more we indulge that appetite. Forcing inmates to go on sex binges would more than likely lead to their brain becoming dependant on the hormones that are released by sex. In short, it would get them physically addicted even if they became psychologically adverse to it.
Your use of the term "rival" is incorrect. In economics a rival good is one where one person's use or consumption limits other's ability to use or consume that good. Information is one of the best examples of a non-rival good. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalrous) Information is also naturally a non-excludable good (thus the patron model for artists in ages past), though some laws such as trade secret, patent or copyright laws may make it de jure an excludable good.
The technology is moving faster than you might think. Quantum Cryptography is already a commercial product sold by a couple of different companies such as MagiQ. The really cool part is that QC is good enough now days to be run over existing commercial fiber-optics. So the infrastructure is already in place. Just buy a couple of end-points and rent some fiber from the Telco and your on your way.