From my understanding (and I'm probably oversimplifying), you wouldn't need any kind of arbiter of the criticality of data to make net neutrality work. It would be such that claiming your data is critical wouldn't help you unless it really was. Basically, there would be a tradeoff between latency and overall transfer rate. Yes, you could claim you needed very low latency, but at a cost of the data transfer rate. Presumably, emergency services would adapt with highly-compressed communication, as they have always done, so that they can get through immediately and consistently.
I think - my opinion only - that 1984 carries serious social messages and concerns that star wars does not.
You're kidding, right?
You're saying no one ever compared Star Wars to another "evil empire"? No one ever saw the empire as "big government"? No one ever compared any defense program to "Star Wars"? No one ever saw the parallels to "if you're not with us..."? No one every compared the movie to the Iraq War? No one ever compared Lieberman to Palpatine?
Try again.
To the extent that people are undecided, but familiar with 1984, the video may evoke some discomfort that leans them away from her.
No. It asserts without evidence that Hillary is a bad guy. It would equally arouse concerns, regardless of who you put in the video. You think it wouldn't have caught on if Bush had been in it?
And the statements aren't even that scary -- they're the opposite. "I don't want people who already agree with me"? Okay, sure, if you already except that everything Hillary says is a lie, sure, but the point of ad is to persuade people who, ironically, don't already agree with you.
I'm going to sit down tonight and make the zapping-Luke video. I want a personal apology from everyone who linked the Vote Different ad, if it catches on.
I essentially agree, as long as people understand that war is not a necessary result of use of natural resource existing in a foreign country, but a result of political corruption. Also, the beneficiaries are the ones directly buying/obtaining the underpriced resource, not the end consumer, who still pays based on the global market price of that resource and taxes.
I wonder how many scientists' significant others have received nano-Valentines on Feb 14th?"
Many -- it's an old trick.
"Honey, for Valentine's, I made you a really beautiful, tiny guitar. The frame is from one piece! Here, take a look. Oh, wait, we need your laboratory-grade nano-scale microscope for this. You don't have one? Ah, crap, then we can't see it! Oh well, tough break, maybe we'll get a chance some other time."
Show of hands: who actually believes that it is impossible for people in Country A to buy a natural resource in Country B unless Country A has a military presence in B or has defeated it in a war?
Alright, you with your hands up: explain Singapore, Japan, South Africa, China, and Switzerland.
Absolutely false. The GPL source code obligation can be met by providing an offer to deliver source code on physical media, and the distributor is allowed to charge reasonable distribution costs.
Right, like I clarified in 2). I'm sorry, I should have said "must be somewhere available at roughly distribution costs", but I was trying to be succinct, and the point I was making in 1) was just about how yes you can charge, and give a conceivable example.
1) The code must be *somewhere* freely available. Profiting off people's ignorance of where to get it for free, is fine. For example, selling Firefox in a regular software box at Best Buy for $35 + sales tax would be within the GPL, as long as you can download it somewhere for free.
2) If you're charging for the source code you have to provide, it has to be somewhere close to distribution costs.
Well, still there are two significant differences (IMHO, improvements) that my idea makes:
1) It empowers (hate that word) the consumer (hate that word) to see as many options as they can handle. At Service Merchandise, it was like, "Oh, this catalog has a toaster with a clock on it. Hm, should I get it?" In my idea, the goal would be, "Hm, a toaster with a clock, what a neat idea. Let me google 'toaster with clock' and find the best toaster/clock hybrid out there."
2) S/M made money on inventory volume, my idea does not. S/M's goal is to get you to buy as much stuff as possible, whereas in my idea, you're just renting access to the store, so they wouldn't be afraid to say, "Nah, you don't really need this."
I guess those 2 differences fall under the same concept, that my idea is for a place where you "find yourself" (for lack of a better term). You're there to figure out what you need and where to get it, without the impersonality of browsing the internet (which bothers people to varying degrees), rather than to hear self-serving statements about why you should buy it.
That's why it lends itself so well to mutualization: each person can give good advice in different areas, and your advice would be worth more than the amount that would have to be charged to users to make it work. You would work 16 hrs a month (for example) in the computer/electronics section as your fee for membership, which allows you to get good advice on e.g. buying ironing equipment.
That's similar, but what I suggested differs in that:
1) It wouldn't actually sell anything except at a markup *higher* than retail. 2) Its profitability isn't based on how much inventory it sells (except insofar as they e.g. charged you for net access to buy while you're there). 3) It doesn't have a large on-site warehouse. 4) It has actual merchandise in the showroom (the purpose is so you can directly experience the item).
Would you pay 'cover' to get into a retail store? Would you pay a sales person even if you didn't buy something. ie... the bookstore or shoestore could lower their prices and compete with amazon if you paid $20 dollars at the door just to get into the store. There'd be no incentive to buy online as the price in the store would be the same. You could still avoid going into the store, and just buy online directly, and save money, but you lose out on the chance to browse etc.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Imagine a store that, for $20 (or $40, or $100, or whatever, I don't know the amount to make this profitable, so that's a guess), you could go in and browse a bunch of merchandise, have *genuinely neutral salespeople* (since you already paid them, right?) make suggestions, and then when you're ready to buy, they would have computers set up so you can go find the best price online and buy it. Of course, they'd allow for the possibility that some people are impatient, and so if you *really* wanted to, you could buy their current stock at a large markup, but the idea would be you're just going there to get informed.
You could also possibly set it up as a non-profit co-op where you buy a club membership that gives you the right to enter, and then it would be exempt from taxation of profits. Or a mutual where you agree to work some hours in a department you're knowledgeable about. Sort of like a brick-and-mortar Slashdot.
But WalMart still sets their own prices. They may sell for eight cents over or twelve cents under their costs, but that is WalMart's call. The worry here is that WalMart would be forced to sell, say, a shirt at $14.98 even if they want to sell it for $6.92, or a mower for $149.99 even if they wanted to price it at $105.96.
So? Who the fuck cares? This is *Wal-Mart* you're talking about, ya know. They can't always call the shots. Let 'em suffer.
Substitute the name of your favorite local mom-n-pop for 'WalMart.'
WHAT???? A mom-n-pop being forced to sell above a price floor??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! [/public's mentality]
You know, I make this exact argument about scrapping most anti-discrimination labor law ("Aren't employers going to be reluctant to make job openings well-known if every applicant is a potential major lawsuit, thus making it hard to shop around for jobs?") and no one listens.
I don't think you understand. With genuinely creative works, you can say, "hey, this aspect about it was good", *even if* it looked "easy". But on this one, you can't even say what about it is good. All it is, is swapping out a villian in one video with someone you want to diss. It's just, "See that bad guy? Well, um, Hillary... is a bad guy... too. Yeah."
I completely agree with you that a lot of people trivialize genuine creativity. But when you ask, "Why didn't people do this before?" I have to say, people did do "this" before, if "this" is taken to mean "swapping out one villan for someone you dislike". The question is, what set does "this" refer to, for which the Hillary ad is first?
And what makes it good, in a way that Hillary zapping Luke isn't?
As supply increases, price decreases. There is not even the real-world parallel of "location, location, and location" to uphold property value in Second Life because of teleportation.
Well, not quite true: it helps to have e.g. a lot of merchants together in one place, as it's a pain to teleport 30 times to look at everyone's goods. So new merchants are going to want to be where the merchants already are. Although I agree you can't use the whole "They ain't makin' any more land" line here, as LL certainly can do that.
Still, I have to ask, WTF? Don't people play SL to get away from assholes who add no value but take your money... such as real estate agents?
-- now that they're on record as ignoring their constituents, the voters are free to toss them on their little white asses next time they're up for re-election.
Unless, of course, they decide that the voters "didn't understand" the ballots because the voters aren't "detail-oriented enough", and just stay in office, like they just did with the marijuana decision...
Did it ever occur to you that this is no one thing everyone wants or likes? Does everyone watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, have a (cell)phone? No. Each person has there own preference to how they get information and communicate with others and the world.
I think the difference regarding "just not liking the internet" is that the internet is (by now) several orders of magnitude more informative and, in general, useful, than the other media. It really puts the others to shame in terms ow how much depth you can get. In contrast, TV/radio/newspapers are a lot closer. Refusing to use the internet seems to be more of a conscious choice to remain in ignorance.
Back when people told me they didn't watch TV, I wouldn't assume they weren't informed, because there were enough similar outlets. Or if someone told me they didn't use a cell phone, I can see legitimate reasons -- hey, having to wait a little longer to talk to someone isn't a big deal for most people.
Maybe I'm not pinning down the exact reason that's bothersome about it, but those come to mind.
Windows is the safest OS, it's just that it has to tolerate being on unsecure networks, usage by mouth-breathers, and its overwhelming attractiveness as a target for criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
From my understanding (and I'm probably oversimplifying), you wouldn't need any kind of arbiter of the criticality of data to make net neutrality work. It would be such that claiming your data is critical wouldn't help you unless it really was. Basically, there would be a tradeoff between latency and overall transfer rate. Yes, you could claim you needed very low latency, but at a cost of the data transfer rate. Presumably, emergency services would adapt with highly-compressed communication, as they have always done, so that they can get through immediately and consistently.
I don't think you understand. Drawing obscure symbols to finish off a boss *fundamentally* changes the game, it's like a completely new experience.
I think - my opinion only - that 1984 carries serious social messages and concerns that star wars does not.
You're kidding, right?
You're saying no one ever compared Star Wars to another "evil empire"? No one ever saw the empire as "big government"? No one ever compared any defense program to "Star Wars"? No one ever saw the parallels to "if you're not with us..."? No one every compared the movie to the Iraq War? No one ever compared Lieberman to Palpatine?
Try again.
To the extent that people are undecided, but familiar with 1984, the video may evoke some discomfort that leans them away from her.
No. It asserts without evidence that Hillary is a bad guy. It would equally arouse concerns, regardless of who you put in the video. You think it wouldn't have caught on if Bush had been in it?
And the statements aren't even that scary -- they're the opposite. "I don't want people who already agree with me"? Okay, sure, if you already except that everything Hillary says is a lie, sure, but the point of ad is to persuade people who, ironically, don't already agree with you.
I'm going to sit down tonight and make the zapping-Luke video. I want a personal apology from everyone who linked the Vote Different ad, if it catches on.
I essentially agree, as long as people understand that war is not a necessary result of use of natural resource existing in a foreign country, but a result of political corruption. Also, the beneficiaries are the ones directly buying/obtaining the underpriced resource, not the end consumer, who still pays based on the global market price of that resource and taxes.
I wonder how many scientists' significant others have received nano-Valentines on Feb 14th?"
Many -- it's an old trick.
"Honey, for Valentine's, I made you a really beautiful, tiny guitar. The frame is from one piece! Here, take a look. Oh, wait, we need your laboratory-grade nano-scale microscope for this. You don't have one? Ah, crap, then we can't see it! Oh well, tough break, maybe we'll get a chance some other time."
Show of hands: who actually believes that it is impossible for people in Country A to buy a natural resource in Country B unless Country A has a military presence in B or has defeated it in a war?
Alright, you with your hands up: explain Singapore, Japan, South Africa, China, and Switzerland.
Absolutely false. The GPL source code obligation can be met by providing an offer to deliver source code on physical media, and the distributor is allowed to charge reasonable distribution costs.
Right, like I clarified in 2). I'm sorry, I should have said "must be somewhere available at roughly distribution costs", but I was trying to be succinct, and the point I was making in 1) was just about how yes you can charge, and give a conceivable example.
Yes, but:
1) The code must be *somewhere* freely available. Profiting off people's ignorance of where to get it for free, is fine. For example, selling Firefox in a regular software box at Best Buy for $35 + sales tax would be within the GPL, as long as you can download it somewhere for free.
2) If you're charging for the source code you have to provide, it has to be somewhere close to distribution costs.
You probably think it's uncool because it isn't compatible with firefox for unga bunga linux
It's called Ubuntu, racist.
What if the software just locks you out of your hardware?
-1, Troll Flamebait Off-topic Overrated
Wait, let me salvage this one:
"HP dishonors warranty if you load Linux? That's nothing! I'll dishonor your daughter if she does!"
Well, still there are two significant differences (IMHO, improvements) that my idea makes:
1) It empowers (hate that word) the consumer (hate that word) to see as many options as they can handle. At Service Merchandise, it was like, "Oh, this catalog has a toaster with a clock on it. Hm, should I get it?" In my idea, the goal would be, "Hm, a toaster with a clock, what a neat idea. Let me google 'toaster with clock' and find the best toaster/clock hybrid out there."
2) S/M made money on inventory volume, my idea does not. S/M's goal is to get you to buy as much stuff as possible, whereas in my idea, you're just renting access to the store, so they wouldn't be afraid to say, "Nah, you don't really need this."
I guess those 2 differences fall under the same concept, that my idea is for a place where you "find yourself" (for lack of a better term). You're there to figure out what you need and where to get it, without the impersonality of browsing the internet (which bothers people to varying degrees), rather than to hear self-serving statements about why you should buy it.
That's why it lends itself so well to mutualization: each person can give good advice in different areas, and your advice would be worth more than the amount that would have to be charged to users to make it work. You would work 16 hrs a month (for example) in the computer/electronics section as your fee for membership, which allows you to get good advice on e.g. buying ironing equipment.
That's similar, but what I suggested differs in that:
1) It wouldn't actually sell anything except at a markup *higher* than retail.
2) Its profitability isn't based on how much inventory it sells (except insofar as they e.g. charged you for net access to buy while you're there).
3) It doesn't have a large on-site warehouse.
4) It has actual merchandise in the showroom (the purpose is so you can directly experience the item).
Would you pay 'cover' to get into a retail store? Would you pay a sales person even if you didn't buy something. ie... the bookstore or shoestore could lower their prices and compete with amazon if you paid $20 dollars at the door just to get into the store. There'd be no incentive to buy online as the price in the store would be the same. You could still avoid going into the store, and just buy online directly, and save money, but you lose out on the chance to browse etc.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Imagine a store that, for $20 (or $40, or $100, or whatever, I don't know the amount to make this profitable, so that's a guess), you could go in and browse a bunch of merchandise, have *genuinely neutral salespeople* (since you already paid them, right?) make suggestions, and then when you're ready to buy, they would have computers set up so you can go find the best price online and buy it. Of course, they'd allow for the possibility that some people are impatient, and so if you *really* wanted to, you could buy their current stock at a large markup, but the idea would be you're just going there to get informed.
You could also possibly set it up as a non-profit co-op where you buy a club membership that gives you the right to enter, and then it would be exempt from taxation of profits. Or a mutual where you agree to work some hours in a department you're knowledgeable about. Sort of like a brick-and-mortar Slashdot.
Is anyone out there trying this?
But WalMart still sets their own prices. They may sell for eight cents over or twelve cents under their costs, but that is WalMart's call. The worry here is that WalMart would be forced to sell, say, a shirt at $14.98 even if they want to sell it for $6.92, or a mower for $149.99 even if they wanted to price it at $105.96.
So? Who the fuck cares? This is *Wal-Mart* you're talking about, ya know. They can't always call the shots. Let 'em suffer.
Substitute the name of your favorite local mom-n-pop for 'WalMart.'
WHAT???? A mom-n-pop being forced to sell above a price floor??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! [/public's mentality]
You know, I make this exact argument about scrapping most anti-discrimination labor law ("Aren't employers going to be reluctant to make job openings well-known if every applicant is a potential major lawsuit, thus making it hard to shop around for jobs?") and no one listens.
I don't think you understand. With genuinely creative works, you can say, "hey, this aspect about it was good", *even if* it looked "easy". But on this one, you can't even say what about it is good. All it is, is swapping out a villian in one video with someone you want to diss. It's just, "See that bad guy? Well, um, Hillary ... is a bad guy ... too. Yeah."
I completely agree with you that a lot of people trivialize genuine creativity. But when you ask, "Why didn't people do this before?" I have to say, people did do "this" before, if "this" is taken to mean "swapping out one villan for someone you dislike". The question is, what set does "this" refer to, for which the Hillary ad is first?
And what makes it good, in a way that Hillary zapping Luke isn't?
How uneducated do you have to be to use the term "jack up" when describing power systems to a technically-literate audience?
But ... but ... what about how you can use it as a rear-view mirror in the latest edition of Ridge Racer?
As supply increases, price decreases. There is not even the real-world parallel of "location, location, and location" to uphold property value in Second Life because of teleportation.
... such as real estate agents?
Well, not quite true: it helps to have e.g. a lot of merchants together in one place, as it's a pain to teleport 30 times to look at everyone's goods. So new merchants are going to want to be where the merchants already are. Although I agree you can't use the whole "They ain't makin' any more land" line here, as LL certainly can do that.
Still, I have to ask, WTF? Don't people play SL to get away from assholes who add no value but take your money
The philosophical concept y'all are looking for is qualia.
-- now that they're on record as ignoring their constituents, the voters are free to toss them on their little white asses next time they're up for re-election.
Unless, of course, they decide that the voters "didn't understand" the ballots because the voters aren't "detail-oriented enough", and just stay in office, like they just did with the marijuana decision...
Did it ever occur to you that this is no one thing everyone wants or likes? Does everyone watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, have a (cell)phone? No. Each person has there own preference to how they get information and communicate with others and the world.
I think the difference regarding "just not liking the internet" is that the internet is (by now) several orders of magnitude more informative and, in general, useful, than the other media. It really puts the others to shame in terms ow how much depth you can get. In contrast, TV/radio/newspapers are a lot closer. Refusing to use the internet seems to be more of a conscious choice to remain in ignorance.
Back when people told me they didn't watch TV, I wouldn't assume they weren't informed, because there were enough similar outlets. Or if someone told me they didn't use a cell phone, I can see legitimate reasons -- hey, having to wait a little longer to talk to someone isn't a big deal for most people.
Maybe I'm not pinning down the exact reason that's bothersome about it, but those come to mind.
What? Not! Cool!
*storms off set*
Link.
Windows is the safest OS, it's just that it has to tolerate being on unsecure networks, usage by mouth-breathers, and its overwhelming attractiveness as a target for criminals.
*please mod insightful, please mod insightful*
You do realize that Bush won the Popular vote in 2004 by three million twelve thousand four hundred ninety-nine
You do realize I revel in hunting down those who feel obligated to spell out large numbers, right?
So watch out. You, and your mentor Malcom Gladwell.