Comment Re:Now thats incentive (Score 4, Insightful) 564
To stay alive for the next 30 years.
How about "the same old story for the last 100 years"?
To stay alive for the next 30 years.
How about "the same old story for the last 100 years"?
The problem is that
A problem is that... you mean. There are others.
Like for example the fact that these download snoopers so far have not shown to have legal status to be enforcing anything. Like the fact that most of these "investigators" don't have anything that qualifies as legal evidence. Like the fact that they have been shown to be breaking the same laws they accuse others of breaking (you can't break the law to enforce the law). Like the fact that cutting off Internet service based on thin evidence of non-criminal wrongdoing is probably illegal.
Oh, yes, there are MANY problems with this whole scheme. And a lot of it could be solved TOMORROW by the FCC choosing to regulate ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.
I'm not sure Javascript is literally Turing complete, because it can't simulate an infinite tape. I think its expressive power is, technically speaking, that of a linear bounded automaton (LBA). Which is subtly less powerful than a Turing machine.
Anyone who lives for this topic want to weigh in?
I used it in my PhD thesis work. It was a productive language, just not a fun one.
For fun, I still get the biggest kick out of pure functional languages. It's nice to see that job advertisements for them seem to be on the uptick.
It works for Boeing, too. They just move out of state. Other parts of the country with lower costs can use the jobs.
It wasn't "costs", per se, it was taxes. Granted, taxes are a cost but let's be specific about this.
Boeing, being one of the largest employers in the State, demanded ever more "tax breaks". State legislators finally had enough and told them NO. (This was a rather public series of events.) Boeing said "If you don't, we'll move our headquarters somewhere else." The State said (in effect): "Bye-bye! Say hello to whichever state is more willing to sell political influence for dollars."
And it didn't work out quite as well as Boeing thought it would. Now its manufacturing facilities are far apart, and they have A LOT more shipping costs. And... they lose some product once in a while.
Before it cost Boing too much...(excuse the mock name) The Clark Fork River is really swift there as you can see in the picture.. Wonder if any fish will be flying first class?
Complete bullshit. It didn't "cost Boeing too much." They moved their headquarters and some of their manufacturing out of Washington State, because State legislators got sick and tired of their incessant demands for more tax loopholes, and told them no.
If they can't afford to pay taxes like everybody other goddamned business in the state, let them do business elsewhere. That seems like a pretty damned fair policy to me.
This is America. This is how the legal system has always worked.
NO, IT ISN'T.
Prior to DMCA, copyright law worked the same way as most other areas of law: in order to make somebody stop doing something, you had to show they were actually doing something wrong.
DMCA takedown provisions made it so that anybody -- almost ANYBODY -- can "claim" a copyright infringement without ANY evidence, and force other people to remove their "speech" from public view, until they give evidence that it's NOT infringing.
That is directly contrary to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Now, they're guilty -- to the extent that they can be punished -- unless they demonstrate they are innocent, and no court even has to be involved.
No, that's not America.
You are making the error in assuming that Economics or Finance is a science.
No, I agree with you to some extent, but my original comment was misunderstood a couple of different ways.
I wasn't suggesting that it had anything to do with political or economic science. Rather, that science can be unduly influenced by economic or political pressure.
I do agree that there are many economic models, some of which claim to be empirical and others not, etc. But one thing we do know is that by and large Adam Smith's "invisible hand" can and does work, if allowed to do so. (Presuming that appropriate antitrust regulation and enforcement exists, of course.)
As the money dries up you'll see more of them burning out and running themselves into the ground through sleepless nights in the lab than you will see them trying to thin the competition.
I don't dispute this, but don't forget there are things like... grants. And too much science lately seems to be more interested in chasing those grants than is healthy.
Beg to differ. go to retraction watch.com.
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding was, but you aren't "differing" with me, you are agreeing with me.
Who doesn't? I always thought it was the norm to plot the overthrow of your wife/boss/unions/government. Just as long as you don't implement it.
Some years ago, I was told there was some "law" against saying you were going to kill the President. I don't know if that's actually true, but it doesn't sound in line with other law about this kind of thing.
Freedom, in the land of the just.
And you can blame every bit of it on the DMCA.
This is a great example of how the takedown process established by DMCA is inherently abusive. Lots of perfectly legitimate information is taken down with no proof of anything, just because some copyright troll wants to say so.
That ain't America.
The biggest difference is that science accepts it's lumps and corrects them.
Yes but...
Science has bigger problems correcting them, and takes much longer to do so, when political and financial pressure tempt people to look the other way. Scientists are people too.
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.
