There is too much profit potential in regulatory power for neutrality ever to emerge from the political process. If something 'neutral' happens, it will be organically -- perhaps partly through migration to completely unregulated channels (darknets, anonymized and encrypted subnets, etc.).
My dream environment = perfect representation of data in flexible/dynamic objects in a programming language, disconnected or connected to databases with nearly identical, flexible and dynamic data model representation, with a powerful query language (SQL-like), the scalability of the new generation of shared-nothing architectures, simple connectivity options (simple sockets all the way up to REST) and the reliability of a relational database's ACID properties.
Amen. Your storage layer shouldn't dictate your usage patterns; quite the opposite, actually. But domain entities seldom conform to a single usage pattern -- there's one set of them in OLTP, and OLAP, and another for use in realtime incides, etc. Having to have myriad representations of an object just to accommodate different persistence patterns is wasteful.
I was going to suggest something similar: remove their physical footprint from that bizarre regime's jurisdiction & put a 'Sorry' page up in place of Google.fr. (French users could go to another French-language-centric Google incarnation, and Google could still index France-specific results from elsewhere.)
Often when something is banned from the marketplace and its replacement is significantly more expensive, you will find the people who profit from the added cost were among those lobbying for the ban, if not drafting it.
I haven't dug into the details behind this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if utility or manufacturing patents are involved in the price increase.
Wait, who gave the EPA the authority to ban drugs?
I don't know the nuances of the limits to their authority, honestly. But if a bureaucratic agency 'bans' something they don't have the authority to take out of the marketplace, what can they do to manufacturers, distributors and retailers who continue to make and move the product?
It seems that producers think they have to launch lawsuits when a bureaucracy oversteps its authority. Why not but the onus back on the bureaucracy to stop them?
They imagined it, they were fully aware of the possibility and propensity for rulers to abuse their powers and collude against the best interests of the governed, and they tried to put two crucial things in place to prevent it: Checks and balances, and limitations of powers.
Once we demanded that politicians have the authority to fix things, we also gave them the power to rig things. There's no way around that. If your ability to remain employed depends on the generosity of donors, and the generosity of donors depends on how beneficial you are to them, the system you erect will naturally pull towards oligarchy.
Imagine if we crowdsourced legislation titles. Put an untitled bill out for public review for 90 days, at the end of which the most-voted-up suggestion goes on the masthead. I wonder what well-known bills would be called now if it was done that way...
Well, the "conservatiod" platform does generally include minimizing the tax burden. Perhaps it would be a fallacy if the subject were, say, Republiciods, some of whom do indeed engage in crony capitalism and corporate subsidization.
Took the words out right of my mouth. Given a similar "destruction upon not-guilty" provision (or better yet, no submission to database prior to conviction), the practice seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Being in the business of owning patent portfolios and not doing anything with them should be 100% non-viable.
If you added an exception for the original inventor, you might be onto something. There's a well established business model around inventing something worthwhile and monetizing it through licencing deals. However, if you're not business savvy, it can take an inordinately long time to navigate through the myriad decisions needed to get an invention made.
If you could limit damages anyone else could collect for infringement -- by tying them to actual manufacturing under the patent, whether by the patentholder or by a licensee -- it could achieve the objective you're going for, without threatening the business model that fosters a lot of the innovation we see.
Yeah, it's definitely better for private atmospheres. Although in *my* office it's not a problem; I work for a startup with a one-big-room office, and everyone wears headphones all day anyway.
Unless key prediction gets *much* better than what I've seen on my phone, it seems that I'd quickly learn to ignore any hints given by the keyboard since more times than not, it would be wrong.
I shared your opinion until recently, so I was surprised to see how much better prediction has gotten with alternative keyboards on my Android device. SwiftKey is all about prediction, and it learns quite quickly. It has a decent training set right out of the box, but a week later it's night & day.
Swype isn't as sophisticated as SwiftKey with next-word prediction, but the idea of tracing in lieu of keystrokes is great. The first beta was almost unusable, but after trying beta 2, I switched and I'll probably never go back to key-tapping.
I think smarter keyboards will be a short-lived phase though; voice recognition is really coming of age the past few years, and when it works it's far more efficient than even the most accurate predictive keyboard. (Well, unless it predicts your whole next paragraph, I guess...)
Scope creep. They were originally only supposed to have it take over the US. Then marketing said going global right out of the gate was more critical than time-to-market. (Something about opening strong & pre-empting competition, I think.)
How do "massive corporations" and "the wealthy" even factor into this? Are massive corporations blockading school entrances, or are the wealthy kidnapping teachers en-masse? This is where the concept of Rights has gotten unhinged from reality. Rights prevent the state and others from doing things to you. Rights cannot compel someone to do something thing for you.
If someone has a right to "an education or healthcare or a basic standard of living," then others -- many others -- have an obligation to provide it to him. You can only ensure this obligation is met by being prepared to violate those others' right to self-determination (embodied in, e.g., freedom of association, property, and choice of occupation). Once self-determination is out the window, all other rights are meaningless, subject to the whim of politicians.
The UN long ago forgot that products and services cannot be "rights" in a society that's free of officially sanctioned theft and compulsory labor. The concept of "rights" has become so silly with these people that a nation can seriously propose such lunacy as this: UN document would give ``Mother Earth`` same rights as humans. They've become little more than a very expense three-ring circus who has no authority whatsoever on the subject.
You can try to universally provision a good or service free of charge, but you will bring it into a state of scarcity in the process.
Government monopoly on wholesale to ensure equal service delivery across all communities.
I would suggest government offering of privately-managed wholesale wiring towers and tunnels... no monopoly, and no government owned/controlled wires (at least not if you want any chance at privacy, open content, and long term economic efficiency). These would run to the community; communities and those that serve them would be at their discretion to close the gap to the neighborhoods and dwellings (perhaps on the condition that they facilitate no barriers to any provider who wishes to lease wiring space in those local segments).
The offering could have three rates per unit of capacity rented: a base rate when you provide service equally across your entire serving area, a discount for bringing service to unserved and under-served areas, and a surcharge for the percentage of the population you do not offer service to within the larger of a) the region bounded by the outermost points of your service area, or b) the entirety of all counties in which you offer any service.
By collectivizing the biggest barrier to entry -- the initial infrastructure buildout -- and not collectivizing the ownership of the lines, you could probably get the best mix of benefits that the two sectors could offer. The goal is to catalyze new competition in as many markets as possible; do that, and the bandwidth and price problems will get solved better than by any strategy involving monopolies or a select few 'licensed' providers (with ever-increasing bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles in front of new would-be entrants).
I think you seriously hit on the raw material for a new amendment there. We could keep politicians of all stripes from infringing constitutional rights for political ends with a simple rule, that stripping any of an individual's rights by due process requires that you do so for all forfeitable rights. There, mister congresscritter... you're no longer able to selectively attack rights you wish weren't rights in the first place.
There are probably edge cases where this would be undesirable, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Hmmm... seems every one of my guesses at the statistics was 180 degrees off. Literally, every one of them.;) A 2005 misleading press release (called "States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death") by the Violence Prevention Center did conclude that "More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury. It's a simple equation." Unfortunately, their pronouncements on the five-state statistics only prove that you can make a small subset of a dataset say the opposite of what the whole dataset says.
If you merge all that together, it shows a mildly negative correlation between per-capita gun ownership and gun homicide (-0.2612653943), and similarly between gun ownership and robberies with firearms (-0.2144191759) [varies depending on the years you compare & whether you include Puerto Rico, etc.]
[Vermont...] Filled with and run by the far-left but it has the most Libertarian-esque gun laws in the United States. Perfectly legal there to buy a handgun, stick it into a holster and walk out of the store with it. No license required for the act of purchasing or carrying.
What, are they nuts? Who would want to live in a place where barroom brawls give way to deluges of bullets? Or where would-be minor road rage incidents end up in cars full of corpses? The violent crime rate there must be through the roof!
I'll admit I haven't looked this up for myself, but Vermont's homicide rate surely has to dwarf that of more civilized states with sensible restrictions on deadly weapons. People may mock DC for its violence, but it wasn't that long ago that they enacted gun control legislation. With most of the rest of the country's gun laws going in the opposite direction since then, you know DC's violent crime rate is going to be well below the rising national average before long. Maybe then people will come to their senses?
I don't understand why people can't leave the shooting of criminals to the police, who are much better trained and more effective at it. Why the rush to vigilantism? We have law enforcement for a reason. The untrained masses probably shoot 100 innocent people for every criminal they stop or deter. I've heard something like that for every one citizen who stops a crime with a gun, several thousand have their guns turned against them. It's sad that people get so wrapped up in being trigger-happy that they can't stop, acquire some facts, and think things through. If they would educate themselves and make decisions based on fact instead of emotion - instead of trying to be a bunch of Rambos -- this would be a much safer country.
The FCC, at the very least, has intentions of standing up for the consumer. In practice though, they hardly ever get it right.
Well, thankfully, the FCC created all those rules that gave us mobile data access in the first place. It wasn't so long ago that all I had was a big beige brick phone that didn't even text, so I'm grateful that they finally required phone manufacturers to make smartphones, and cellular providers to sell them and support them with data networks. If it weren't for that, how I would I be able to watch cats that hiccup and fart at the same time while I'm on the train, or alert everyone who knows me to the fact that I'm grabbing dinner at Jack in the Box again, in realtime?
Whether the FCC gets it right or not isn't important. What matters is that the decisions are made by people who have our Best Interests at heart, not people who are just going to make money off us. I mean seriously, why be protected from bad decisions when we could be protected from profit-generating ones?
Slashdot Mirror
+1
Sensationalistic, inaccurate, or self-contradictory, pick any two.
There is too much profit potential in regulatory power for neutrality ever to emerge from the political process. If something 'neutral' happens, it will be organically -- perhaps partly through migration to completely unregulated channels (darknets, anonymized and encrypted subnets, etc.).
My dream environment = perfect representation of data in flexible/dynamic objects in a programming language, disconnected or connected to databases with nearly identical, flexible and dynamic data model representation, with a powerful query language (SQL-like), the scalability of the new generation of shared-nothing architectures, simple connectivity options (simple sockets all the way up to REST) and the reliability of a relational database's ACID properties.
Amen. Your storage layer shouldn't dictate your usage patterns; quite the opposite, actually. But domain entities seldom conform to a single usage pattern -- there's one set of them in OLTP, and OLAP, and another for use in realtime incides, etc. Having to have myriad representations of an object just to accommodate different persistence patterns is wasteful.
#whatcouldpossiblygowrong
I was going to suggest something similar: remove their physical footprint from that bizarre regime's jurisdiction & put a 'Sorry' page up in place of Google.fr. (French users could go to another French-language-centric Google incarnation, and Google could still index France-specific results from elsewhere.)
Often when something is banned from the marketplace and its replacement is significantly more expensive, you will find the people who profit from the added cost were among those lobbying for the ban, if not drafting it.
I haven't dug into the details behind this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if utility or manufacturing patents are involved in the price increase.
Wait, who gave the EPA the authority to ban drugs?
I don't know the nuances of the limits to their authority, honestly. But if a bureaucratic agency 'bans' something they don't have the authority to take out of the marketplace, what can they do to manufacturers, distributors and retailers who continue to make and move the product?
It seems that producers think they have to launch lawsuits when a bureaucracy oversteps its authority. Why not but the onus back on the bureaucracy to stop them?
They imagined it, they were fully aware of the possibility and propensity for rulers to abuse their powers and collude against the best interests of the governed, and they tried to put two crucial things in place to prevent it: Checks and balances, and limitations of powers.
Once we demanded that politicians have the authority to fix things, we also gave them the power to rig things. There's no way around that. If your ability to remain employed depends on the generosity of donors, and the generosity of donors depends on how beneficial you are to them, the system you erect will naturally pull towards oligarchy.
Imagine if we crowdsourced legislation titles. Put an untitled bill out for public review for 90 days, at the end of which the most-voted-up suggestion goes on the masthead. I wonder what well-known bills would be called now if it was done that way...
Well, the "conservatiod" platform does generally include minimizing the tax burden. Perhaps it would be a fallacy if the subject were, say, Republiciods, some of whom do indeed engage in crony capitalism and corporate subsidization.
Took the words out right of my mouth. Given a similar "destruction upon not-guilty" provision (or better yet, no submission to database prior to conviction), the practice seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Being in the business of owning patent portfolios and not doing anything with them should be 100% non-viable.
If you added an exception for the original inventor, you might be onto something. There's a well established business model around inventing something worthwhile and monetizing it through licencing deals. However, if you're not business savvy, it can take an inordinately long time to navigate through the myriad decisions needed to get an invention made.
If you could limit damages anyone else could collect for infringement -- by tying them to actual manufacturing under the patent, whether by the patentholder or by a licensee -- it could achieve the objective you're going for, without threatening the business model that fosters a lot of the innovation we see.
Yeah, it's definitely better for private atmospheres. Although in *my* office it's not a problem; I work for a startup with a one-big-room office, and everyone wears headphones all day anyway.
Unless key prediction gets *much* better than what I've seen on my phone, it seems that I'd quickly learn to ignore any hints given by the keyboard since more times than not, it would be wrong.
I shared your opinion until recently, so I was surprised to see how much better prediction has gotten with alternative keyboards on my Android device. SwiftKey is all about prediction, and it learns quite quickly. It has a decent training set right out of the box, but a week later it's night & day.
Swype isn't as sophisticated as SwiftKey with next-word prediction, but the idea of tracing in lieu of keystrokes is great. The first beta was almost unusable, but after trying beta 2, I switched and I'll probably never go back to key-tapping.
I think smarter keyboards will be a short-lived phase though; voice recognition is really coming of age the past few years, and when it works it's far more efficient than even the most accurate predictive keyboard. (Well, unless it predicts your whole next paragraph, I guess...)
Scope creep. They were originally only supposed to have it take over the US. Then marketing said going global right out of the gate was more critical than time-to-market. (Something about opening strong & pre-empting competition, I think.)
How do "massive corporations" and "the wealthy" even factor into this? Are massive corporations blockading school entrances, or are the wealthy kidnapping teachers en-masse? This is where the concept of Rights has gotten unhinged from reality. Rights prevent the state and others from doing things to you. Rights cannot compel someone to do something thing for you.
If someone has a right to "an education or healthcare or a basic standard of living," then others -- many others -- have an obligation to provide it to him. You can only ensure this obligation is met by being prepared to violate those others' right to self-determination (embodied in, e.g., freedom of association, property, and choice of occupation). Once self-determination is out the window, all other rights are meaningless, subject to the whim of politicians.
The UN long ago forgot that products and services cannot be "rights" in a society that's free of officially sanctioned theft and compulsory labor. The concept of "rights" has become so silly with these people that a nation can seriously propose such lunacy as this: UN document would give ``Mother Earth`` same rights as humans. They've become little more than a very expense three-ring circus who has no authority whatsoever on the subject.
You can try to universally provision a good or service free of charge, but you will bring it into a state of scarcity in the process.
Government monopoly on wholesale to ensure equal service delivery across all communities.
I would suggest government offering of privately-managed wholesale wiring towers and tunnels... no monopoly, and no government owned/controlled wires (at least not if you want any chance at privacy, open content, and long term economic efficiency). These would run to the community; communities and those that serve them would be at their discretion to close the gap to the neighborhoods and dwellings (perhaps on the condition that they facilitate no barriers to any provider who wishes to lease wiring space in those local segments).
The offering could have three rates per unit of capacity rented: a base rate when you provide service equally across your entire serving area, a discount for bringing service to unserved and under-served areas, and a surcharge for the percentage of the population you do not offer service to within the larger of a) the region bounded by the outermost points of your service area, or b) the entirety of all counties in which you offer any service.
By collectivizing the biggest barrier to entry -- the initial infrastructure buildout -- and not collectivizing the ownership of the lines, you could probably get the best mix of benefits that the two sectors could offer. The goal is to catalyze new competition in as many markets as possible; do that, and the bandwidth and price problems will get solved better than by any strategy involving monopolies or a select few 'licensed' providers (with ever-increasing bureaucratic and regulatory hurdles in front of new would-be entrants).
I think you seriously hit on the raw material for a new amendment there. We could keep politicians of all stripes from infringing constitutional rights for political ends with a simple rule, that stripping any of an individual's rights by due process requires that you do so for all forfeitable rights. There, mister congresscritter... you're no longer able to selectively attack rights you wish weren't rights in the first place.
There are probably edge cases where this would be undesirable, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
Hmmm... seems every one of my guesses at the statistics was 180 degrees off. Literally, every one of them. ;) A 2005 misleading press release (called "States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death") by the Violence Prevention Center did conclude that "More guns means more gun death and injury. Fewer guns means less gun death and injury. It's a simple equation." Unfortunately, their pronouncements on the five-state statistics only prove that you can make a small subset of a dataset say the opposite of what the whole dataset says.
I grabbed stats for gun ownership rates by state from the Washington Post, and you can get violent crime rates from a variety of sources (e.g. violent crime rates by state for `04 and `05, or gun crimes by state for 2009).
If you merge all that together, it shows a mildly negative correlation between per-capita gun ownership and gun homicide (-0.2612653943), and similarly between gun ownership and robberies with firearms (-0.2144191759) [varies depending on the years you compare & whether you include Puerto Rico, etc.]
[Vermont...] Filled with and run by the far-left but it has the most Libertarian-esque gun laws in the United States. Perfectly legal there to buy a handgun, stick it into a holster and walk out of the store with it. No license required for the act of purchasing or carrying.
What, are they nuts? Who would want to live in a place where barroom brawls give way to deluges of bullets? Or where would-be minor road rage incidents end up in cars full of corpses? The violent crime rate there must be through the roof!
I'll admit I haven't looked this up for myself, but Vermont's homicide rate surely has to dwarf that of more civilized states with sensible restrictions on deadly weapons. People may mock DC for its violence, but it wasn't that long ago that they enacted gun control legislation. With most of the rest of the country's gun laws going in the opposite direction since then, you know DC's violent crime rate is going to be well below the rising national average before long. Maybe then people will come to their senses?
I don't understand why people can't leave the shooting of criminals to the police, who are much better trained and more effective at it. Why the rush to vigilantism? We have law enforcement for a reason. The untrained masses probably shoot 100 innocent people for every criminal they stop or deter. I've heard something like that for every one citizen who stops a crime with a gun, several thousand have their guns turned against them. It's sad that people get so wrapped up in being trigger-happy that they can't stop, acquire some facts, and think things through. If they would educate themselves and make decisions based on fact instead of emotion - instead of trying to be a bunch of Rambos -- this would be a much safer country.
The FCC, at the very least, has intentions of standing up for the consumer. In practice though, they hardly ever get it right.
Well, thankfully, the FCC created all those rules that gave us mobile data access in the first place. It wasn't so long ago that all I had was a big beige brick phone that didn't even text, so I'm grateful that they finally required phone manufacturers to make smartphones, and cellular providers to sell them and support them with data networks. If it weren't for that, how I would I be able to watch cats that hiccup and fart at the same time while I'm on the train, or alert everyone who knows me to the fact that I'm grabbing dinner at Jack in the Box again, in realtime?
Whether the FCC gets it right or not isn't important. What matters is that the decisions are made by people who have our Best Interests at heart, not people who are just going to make money off us. I mean seriously, why be protected from bad decisions when we could be protected from profit-generating ones?
That's the providers' problem to solve. Our bureautators have spoken, and it's law now, by due process of... oh, wait...
I think he was agreeing with you; I missed the "0" the first time I read it...