Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:43am
Winners and losers
we have to figure out a way to diminish the power of Wall Street's short-term focus, and how to incentivize companies to understand what investing for the long run means.
The "average" investor needs to speak up. Those of us with 401k plans, IRAs, and pensions - which is nearly everyone these days. We are the majority of the market. Yet we're not heard from, because that kind of investing isn't "sexy" - it doesn't make headlines and it doesn't make instant millionaires.
The stock market has become divorced from its original purpose - a source for capital for companies, and steady wealth building for everyone else. Instead we have high-frequency and algorithmic trading - computers doing battle with other computers. We have day traders gambling on short term pops. We have stock "analysts" with hidden agendas. Instead of the markets being a cooperative rivalry, they are cut-throat bloodbaths where only the most skilled or ruthless operators come out with more than they put in.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:17am
The party line
This is just one Microsoft product sticking to the party line.
Microsoft has been claiming for years that using open source software, such as Linux, is a gamble - a gamble of being sued for patent infringement. And Microsoft should know - they're the ones that claim (although will never show evidence) that they have (ridiculously over-broad) patents (on obvious ideas).
So of course they're labeling FSF's website as falling into the gambling category.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 11:03am
Re: Re:
Bet the trolls start saying that Heph now works for TD.
On a serious note, we've actually been through all this before during the 90s and the fight over export controls on encryption. The government couldn't prevent the use of encryption then, and has much less of a chance now - nearly everything you do online now depends on it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 6:41am
Death to Pennies
Yeah, I'm one of those people who want to get rid of pennies.
It costs much more to produce pennies than they are worth (similar for nickels). This is low-hanging fruit if you want to cut government spending and waste.
As mentioned, the US Mint used to produce half-cent coins. When they stopped producing them, the buying power of the half-cent was considerably more than today's penny. Commerce didn't grind to a halt.
Australia and New Zealand have stopped producing them, saving millions. Canada is about to do so as well. Their economies aren't suffering as a result.
If you want to keep them, fine, we can disagree. But please just admit you want to keep them for sentimental reasons and not because they are somehow necessary to the economy.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Jun 2012 @ 6:07am
Re: Re:
The idea behind a life term for the justices is so that once appointed, they are not beholden to any party or interest group. Also, the general spectrum of activist/ strict-constructionist that judges fall into doesn't quite align to the liberal/conservative views of the parties. There is something else going on than simple corruption or party allegiance.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 21 Jun 2012 @ 12:57pm
Re:
There's an ad on the right with audio that only plays on mouseover, and a banner on the bottom that has recently gotten larger (and was said yesterday they were working with company for a close or minimize button). Neither of these I find even slightly annoying (I generally run Chrome with no adblock).
If you're getting more than those, you might want to check your browser or system for something else that is generating them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 20 Jun 2012 @ 2:22pm
Re:
"In summary, issuing citations to 'ride cheats' is actually costing the port authority more money each year than just accepting the $618 million gain."
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:45pm
Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
Why can I disagree, with my same unending, uninformed, infuriating, boring statement for hours? It's simple: It's stealing. I'm simplistic because I'm right. You're wrong. It's stealing.
I can see you've thought a lot about it and your intellectual minds have cut you off from your heart-- cut you off from what's deep in your gut... a simple precious moment of human decency.
Audrey:
Ok, you want simple? You want emotional, gut-level arguments? I can play.
Copyright is stealing. It is the stealing of precious knowledge and culture and locking it up for the exploitation of those rich or ruthless enough. Copying is freedom from the shackles of exploitation. Copying is the civil disobedience that will free our minds.
Copyright is theft. That is simplistic, and I'm right. Take your copyright soul-sucking exploitation. I don't want it, and am proud of it. "Neener" that.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:53pm
Re: Re: Re: The Problem is Figuring Out Which ISP
Excerpt from chapter 2:
"The hard part comes when you have to find some legitimate or at least semi-legitimate company that has it's own properly-registered Autonomous System Number (ASN) and who is willing and able to announce routes to your shiny new IP address block."
That is exactly what I'm saying. An IP address does you no good at all unless someone will route to it - and thus cannot be completely anonymous.
Yes, tracking spam and malware through shell companies, uncooperative ISPs, and fraudulent and out-of-date entries in lookups is a serious pain in the ass. But all that traffic has to pass between networks that have agreements with each other to do exactly that.
Also, that page needs some kind of overview or introduction - it just kinda feels like a random grouping of unrelated facts/events. Give me a plot, man!
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:34pm
Re: Re: Re: The Problem is Figuring Out Which ISP
As it stands now many ARIN, RIPENIC, etc. whois records are out of date.
Yep - and I'm willing to bet real money those are IPv4 blocks. My point is this will be no different under IPv6. Thanks for giving me an example that proves it.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 4:25pm
Re: boys will be boys
the simple point that you can't admit to is that piracy is illegal and morally unethical, no matter how much you twist it with broken logic.
No one here disagrees that copyright infringement is illegal. There is disagreement, however, even among the Techdirt community, about whether it is unethical, and whether a creator (or the corporation that funded the creator) should have monopoly control over an infinitely copyable creation. Some at Techdirt think copyright is ok, some think it is good idea and just current laws are out-of-whack, and some of us think it needs to be scrapped altogether.
You can be a "simple minded girl" all you want, but the Techdirt community is not simple, I am not simple, and my ideas about copyrights are not either.
In general I see that copyrights and patents are wrong. Why? Imagine this. In the near future someone has created a Star Trek style replicator. It can create food at no cost, anywhere in the world. This would obviously threaten the profits of Monsanto. Are the profits of one company a good enough reason to stop this new invention from feeding the world? What if we add in all the other agri-business companies? Add thousands of farmers who can't adapt to grow specialty foods for people who want "the real thing"? Do all those companies and people deserve some kind of protection against something wonderful? The answer to me is obviously not. Now, food isn't exactly the same as knowledge, ideas, culture, and entertainment - but it is only a matter of degrees if food became as infinitely copyable as ideas and content already are. We have a wonderful invention, the Internet, that can provide all those things at little to no cost to nearly everyone on the planet. How can it be wrong to use it to do so, just because of some companies and artists who can't adapt and see reality?
Hi, Audrey, my name is Josh. My position is that it is unethical and immoral to deny people something when it costs nothing to provide it to them. I would like to see your justification for why denying the world access to knowledge, ideas, content, and culture is ethical.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 2:55pm
Re: The Problem is Figuring Out Which ISP
the issue is ISP anonymity.
That makes no sense at all.
If an ISP wants its traffic to be routable, it can't be anonymous. IPv6 isn't going to change anything in this respect. ISPs still need to buy bandwidth from larger ISPs, all the way up to the Tier 1 providers.
ARIN hands out address blocks to ISPs under IPv4. They'll do the same under IPv6. That ISP is then responsible for keeping records of what addresses they give to their customers - exactly the same as now. I don't see how IPv6 changes anything in regard to finding out what ISP is responsible for what IP address.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 6:36am
Re:
if you sue and loose you pay the other sides legal fees.
That would just lead to even more non-disclosure settlements for millions of dollars - funneling more and more money to the trolls so they can buy more bogus patents and encourage more companies to settle...
Nuke the patent system from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
On the post: The Short-Sightedness Of Wall Street When It Comes To Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Winners and losers
The "average" investor needs to speak up. Those of us with 401k plans, IRAs, and pensions - which is nearly everyone these days. We are the majority of the market. Yet we're not heard from, because that kind of investing isn't "sexy" - it doesn't make headlines and it doesn't make instant millionaires.
The stock market has become divorced from its original purpose - a source for capital for companies, and steady wealth building for everyone else. Instead we have high-frequency and algorithmic trading - computers doing battle with other computers. We have day traders gambling on short term pops. We have stock "analysts" with hidden agendas. Instead of the markets being a cooperative rivalry, they are cut-throat bloodbaths where only the most skilled or ruthless operators come out with more than they put in.
On the post: Microsoft's 'Threat Management Gateway' Blocks Free Software Foundation Donation Page As 'Gambling'
The party line
Microsoft has been claiming for years that using open source software, such as Linux, is a gamble - a gamble of being sued for patent infringement. And Microsoft should know - they're the ones that claim (although will never show evidence) that they have (ridiculously over-broad) patents (on obvious ideas).
So of course they're labeling FSF's website as falling into the gambling category.
On the post: Speech-Via-Algorithm Is Still Speech, And Censoring It Is Still Censorship
Re: Re: Corporations Aren't Human, Either
On the post: Get Ready For The Political Fight Against Encryption
Re: Re:
On a serious note, we've actually been through all this before during the 90s and the fight over export controls on encryption. The government couldn't prevent the use of encryption then, and has much less of a chance now - nearly everything you do online now depends on it.
On the post: DailyDirt: Pocketful Of Useless Coins
Death to Pennies
It costs much more to produce pennies than they are worth (similar for nickels). This is low-hanging fruit if you want to cut government spending and waste.
As mentioned, the US Mint used to produce half-cent coins. When they stopped producing them, the buying power of the half-cent was considerably more than today's penny. Commerce didn't grind to a halt.
Australia and New Zealand have stopped producing them, saving millions. Canada is about to do so as well. Their economies aren't suffering as a result.
If you want to keep them, fine, we can disagree. But please just admit you want to keep them for sentimental reasons and not because they are somehow necessary to the economy.
On the post: New iPhone Connector Port Revealed, Thus Wiping Out Several Generations Of Accessories In One Fell Swoop
Re:
That's why no one uses that old USB connector that came out in 1994! Oh, wait...
Ethernet! That's even older, it was standardized in 1985! No one could possibly still uses that... oh, damn.
On the post: Supreme Court Overrules Fine For Naked Butt On TV; Punts On 1st Amendment Question
Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Overrules Fine For Naked Butt On TV; Punts On 1st Amendment Question
Re:
On the post: Even The Judge Wonders What Oracle Is Up To As It Asks For $0 In Copyright Damages From Google
Re:
You make it sound hard.
On the post: Even The Judge Wonders What Oracle Is Up To As It Asks For $0 In Copyright Damages From Google
Re:
If you're getting more than those, you might want to check your browser or system for something else that is generating them.
On the post: Police Ticketing Informal Rideshare Participants Based On No Law, But To Protect Port Authority Revenue
Re:
FTFY
On the post: Police Ticketing Informal Rideshare Participants Based On No Law, But To Protect Port Authority Revenue
Re: Uh-- where did this come from?
Hey bob, do you see that part in blue that says "giving tickets to people picking up hitchhikers"?
That's called a hyperlink. Commonly referred to just as a link.
Click it.
It magically transports you to the article where the quote is from.
Welcome to the internet, bob. Learn to use it, or look like an idiot. Your choice.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: Re: Re: boys will be boys
I can see you've thought a lot about it and your intellectual minds have cut you off from your heart-- cut you off from what's deep in your gut... a simple precious moment of human decency.
Audrey:
Ok, you want simple? You want emotional, gut-level arguments? I can play.
Copyright is stealing. It is the stealing of precious knowledge and culture and locking it up for the exploitation of those rich or ruthless enough. Copying is freedom from the shackles of exploitation. Copying is the civil disobedience that will free our minds.
Copyright is theft. That is simplistic, and I'm right. Take your copyright soul-sucking exploitation. I don't want it, and am proud of it. "Neener" that.
On the post: FBI & DEA Warn That IPv6 May Be Too Damn Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: The Problem is Figuring Out Which ISP
"The hard part comes when you have to find some legitimate or at least semi-legitimate company that has it's own properly-registered Autonomous System Number (ASN) and who is willing and able to announce routes to your shiny new IP address block."
That is exactly what I'm saying. An IP address does you no good at all unless someone will route to it - and thus cannot be completely anonymous.
Yes, tracking spam and malware through shell companies, uncooperative ISPs, and fraudulent and out-of-date entries in lookups is a serious pain in the ass. But all that traffic has to pass between networks that have agreements with each other to do exactly that.
Also, that page needs some kind of overview or introduction - it just kinda feels like a random grouping of unrelated facts/events. Give me a plot, man!
On the post: FBI & DEA Warn That IPv6 May Be Too Damn Anonymous
Re: Re: Re: The Problem is Figuring Out Which ISP
Yep - and I'm willing to bet real money those are IPv4 blocks. My point is this will be no different under IPv6. Thanks for giving me an example that proves it.
On the post: David Lowery Wants A Pony
Re: boys will be boys
No one here disagrees that copyright infringement is illegal. There is disagreement, however, even among the Techdirt community, about whether it is unethical, and whether a creator (or the corporation that funded the creator) should have monopoly control over an infinitely copyable creation. Some at Techdirt think copyright is ok, some think it is good idea and just current laws are out-of-whack, and some of us think it needs to be scrapped altogether.
You can be a "simple minded girl" all you want, but the Techdirt community is not simple, I am not simple, and my ideas about copyrights are not either.
In general I see that copyrights and patents are wrong. Why? Imagine this. In the near future someone has created a Star Trek style replicator. It can create food at no cost, anywhere in the world. This would obviously threaten the profits of Monsanto. Are the profits of one company a good enough reason to stop this new invention from feeding the world? What if we add in all the other agri-business companies? Add thousands of farmers who can't adapt to grow specialty foods for people who want "the real thing"? Do all those companies and people deserve some kind of protection against something wonderful? The answer to me is obviously not. Now, food isn't exactly the same as knowledge, ideas, culture, and entertainment - but it is only a matter of degrees if food became as infinitely copyable as ideas and content already are. We have a wonderful invention, the Internet, that can provide all those things at little to no cost to nearly everyone on the planet. How can it be wrong to use it to do so, just because of some companies and artists who can't adapt and see reality?
Hi, Audrey, my name is Josh. My position is that it is unethical and immoral to deny people something when it costs nothing to provide it to them. I would like to see your justification for why denying the world access to knowledge, ideas, content, and culture is ethical.
On the post: FBI & DEA Warn That IPv6 May Be Too Damn Anonymous
Re: The Problem is Figuring Out Which ISP
That makes no sense at all.
If an ISP wants its traffic to be routable, it can't be anonymous. IPv6 isn't going to change anything in this respect. ISPs still need to buy bandwidth from larger ISPs, all the way up to the Tier 1 providers.
ARIN hands out address blocks to ISPs under IPv4. They'll do the same under IPv6. That ISP is then responsible for keeping records of what addresses they give to their customers - exactly the same as now. I don't see how IPv6 changes anything in regard to finding out what ISP is responsible for what IP address.
On the post: Would We Prefer HTC To Be Making Cool New Products? Or Just Getting More Patents
Re:
That would just lead to even more non-disclosure settlements for millions of dollars - funneling more and more money to the trolls so they can buy more bogus patents and encourage more companies to settle...
Nuke the patent system from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
On the post: Matthew Inman To Charles Carreon: Take Time Off, Stop Saying Crazy Sh*t To Journalists, Calm Down
Re:
Why is that so difficult to understand? We don't hold Mike resposible for your idiotic blather.
On the post: Matthew Inman To Charles Carreon: Take Time Off, Stop Saying Crazy Sh*t To Journalists, Calm Down
Re:
About the only way to guarantee that someone keeps acting irrationally is to tell them that they are acting irrationally straight out.
Next >>