If a terrorist wanted to kill people they are certainly not limited to planes. It's not even the target to have the largest impact.
In fact the stated goal of at least some terrorist organizations is to push America into collapse through security spending. I don't think that will actually work, but we are certainly spending massive amounts of money that does no good at all.
The level of security needed at an airport is roughly the security needed at a mall. Maybe a bit more.
"the legitimate government interest is the safety of air travel"
Except it's been shown over and over again that these tactics do not improve safety. Additionally this does not allow for the government to overstep it's constitutional bounds.
"the safety of it's citizens"
What we are protecting against here is such a small blip on the things people are in danger of as to not even provoke more than a very minimal response. We had this fixed with public awareness that hijacking was no longer a sit a wait situation and reinforced cockpit doors.
"maintaining of the capacity to safely and confidently fly aircraft and citizens from point to point (including all over the world"
The TSA procedures do not do this in the least bit. Once again even if they were effective (which they're not) that does not grant the government the ability to step beyond their constitutional bounds. Still the deaths from terrorism barely show up over the average death per year from aircraft related accidents.
So well just search you before you get in your car. After all far more people are killed each year by vehicles, you'll be driving on public roads, and you really have no right to car travel.
You have it backwards. The constitution doesn't grant us a right to air travel (or any other right for that matter) it limits what the government can do. The government is prohibited by the constitution from search and seizures without at least probable cause.
The government cannot simply ignore the constitution because you buy a plane ticket. (well they can, but they are not supposed to, and we should be able to get this rolled back).
I'm guessing if Sony is reaching out to him he has the talent and portfolio to get a job just about anywhere he wants, which is the point. People with that kind of skill won't want to pick Sony.
The paywall will be so full of holes and ways around that most people won't even notice it's there. However the fact that it exists will get some people to subscribe for various reasons (I'm sure mostly guilt).
There will probably be a small dip in readership, but I doubt it will be really noticeable in the long slow demise of the paper.
The NYT will be able to claim 'the paywall works!' publicly, while to the advertisers they'll show that traffic really hasn't gone down much even if they didn't get many subscribers.
I really don't think you have a clue what you're talking about here. Yes IPv6 would have enough addresses for every device, but that doesn't mean each device get's an IP address and it certainly doesn't mean VPN, IP tunneling, and the myriad other technical networking configurations go away because they have real uses outside conservation of IP addresses.
Or maybe if, as a provider, I advertised XmB/sec speeds! I would be sure that my infrastructure had sufficient bandwidth to allow that speed per user.
Or if we actually had honest providers they might say XmB/sec max speed, YmB/sec expected during peak times. They could even offer speed tiers, pay some more for more max speed and/or more speed at peak times (Businesses often pay for QOS).
The problem is they are limiting the number of bits when that has no bearing on the problem.
The difference is between layout costs and marginal costs.
It doesn't cost more between me reading email and me watching youtube. There is no marginal cost difference.
There is a layout cost and a maintenance cost but those costs don't go up according to usage. If overall usage goes up there may need to be a layout cost, but that is the providers choice (better service vs cheaper cost)
If we actually had competition in the broadband space we wouldn't even be talking about this.
I will say I hadn't considered the time 'spent' being entertained by pirated materials. It's maybe sorta possible that time could be considered 'wasted' and a potential loss to the economy. It's certainly an interesting thought game.
Although I think in order for that to work out it would have to be the case that more productive use of their time would have ensued.
On the flip side if you can say more productive use of that time would have ensued you might be able to argue the entire entertainment industry is a drain on the economy. :)
BTW I also love steam. It would say, in general, it's digital done right!
It is categorically impossible for piracy to remove value from the economy as it is a creation (duplication) of things.
A fire that burns down homes, the cave in of a mine, the explosion of an oil well. These things can remove value from an economy as they either destroy scarce resources or or force the application of scarce resources to get back to a previous state.
It's theoretically possible that piracy could completely wipe out the entertainment industry (although there is zero evidence that is happening), but that doesn't remove value from the economy. Resources that would have gone towards that industry didn't disappear they go elsewhere.
It's not that they can't be normal. It precisely that they are normal and have a special position that allows them to grant privilege.
We should recognize that government folks are not any special breed of people and construct the system in a transparent way so that the incentives help keep people honest.
Yes, because the internet has destroyed the ability for locals to communicate with the outside world. The costs of producing content clearly shut all but the most wealthy out of the conversation.
Not to mention how much more reliable hearsay reporters are to hearsay bloggers. If only there were some way the people actually involved could produce content.
I suppose we'll just have to push on with what we have.
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re: Re: Re:
If a terrorist wanted to kill people they are certainly not limited to planes. It's not even the target to have the largest impact.
In fact the stated goal of at least some terrorist organizations is to push America into collapse through security spending. I don't think that will actually work, but we are certainly spending massive amounts of money that does no good at all.
The level of security needed at an airport is roughly the security needed at a mall. Maybe a bit more.
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re:
Except it's been shown over and over again that these tactics do not improve safety. Additionally this does not allow for the government to overstep it's constitutional bounds.
"the safety of it's citizens"
What we are protecting against here is such a small blip on the things people are in danger of as to not even provoke more than a very minimal response. We had this fixed with public awareness that hijacking was no longer a sit a wait situation and reinforced cockpit doors.
"maintaining of the capacity to safely and confidently fly aircraft and citizens from point to point (including all over the world"
The TSA procedures do not do this in the least bit. Once again even if they were effective (which they're not) that does not grant the government the ability to step beyond their constitutional bounds. Still the deaths from terrorism barely show up over the average death per year from aircraft related accidents.
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re: Re: Re: Required to travel?
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Says They Could Strip Search Every Airline Passenger If They Wanted To
Re:
The government cannot simply ignore the constitution because you buy a plane ticket. (well they can, but they are not supposed to, and we should be able to get this rolled back).
On the post: Court Rejects Google Book Scanning Settlement With The Authors Guild
Re:
On the post: Top Hacker Rejects Job Offer From Sony Over PS3 Jailbreak Legal Strategy
Re:
On the post: NYTimes Columnists Telling Readers How To Get Around The Paywall
And that's why this will be a 'success'.
There will probably be a small dip in readership, but I doubt it will be really noticeable in the long slow demise of the paper.
The NYT will be able to claim 'the paywall works!' publicly, while to the advertisers they'll show that traffic really hasn't gone down much even if they didn't get many subscribers.
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Paul Vixie Explains Why COICA Is A Really Dumb Idea
OpenNIC
It already mirrors the primary DNS. It already has additional top level domains (pirate is not one of them, but free is).
It already work, has domain registration (of course not for .com/.edu/...)
You can start using it now.
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Economics
Or if we actually had honest providers they might say XmB/sec max speed, YmB/sec expected during peak times. They could even offer speed tiers, pay some more for more max speed and/or more speed at peak times (Businesses often pay for QOS).
The problem is they are limiting the number of bits when that has no bearing on the problem.
On the post: Fantasy Island, Time Warner Style: You WANT To Pay More For Broadband
Re: Re: Re: Economics
The difference is between layout costs and marginal costs.
It doesn't cost more between me reading email and me watching youtube. There is no marginal cost difference.
There is a layout cost and a maintenance cost but those costs don't go up according to usage. If overall usage goes up there may need to be a layout cost, but that is the providers choice (better service vs cheaper cost)
If we actually had competition in the broadband space we wouldn't even be talking about this.
On the post: Author Of Ridiculous 'Piracy' Report Defends Conclusions, Ignores Questions About Methodology
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Author Of Ridiculous 'Piracy' Report Defends Conclusions, Ignores Questions About Methodology
Re: Re:
Although I think in order for that to work out it would have to be the case that more productive use of their time would have ensued.
On the flip side if you can say more productive use of that time would have ensued you might be able to argue the entire entertainment industry is a drain on the economy. :)
BTW I also love steam. It would say, in general, it's digital done right!
On the post: Author Of Ridiculous 'Piracy' Report Defends Conclusions, Ignores Questions About Methodology
It is categorically impossible for piracy to remove value from the economy as it is a creation (duplication) of things.
A fire that burns down homes, the cave in of a mine, the explosion of an oil well. These things can remove value from an economy as they either destroy scarce resources or or force the application of scarce resources to get back to a previous state.
It's theoretically possible that piracy could completely wipe out the entertainment industry (although there is zero evidence that is happening), but that doesn't remove value from the economy. Resources that would have gone towards that industry didn't disappear they go elsewhere.
On the post: Does Hollywood Deserve Its Own Patriot Act?
Re: Re: #3 AC Re: Close the revolving door
We should recognize that government folks are not any special breed of people and construct the system in a transparent way so that the incentives help keep people honest.
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*snif
Oh... You were serious?!
On the post: It Took The NY Times 14 Months And $40 Million Dollars To Build The World's Stupidest Paywall?
Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention how much more reliable hearsay reporters are to hearsay bloggers. If only there were some way the people actually involved could produce content.
I suppose we'll just have to push on with what we have.
Next >>