That's not because of speech; it's because of consequences. You repeatedly tell some gay faggot he's a gay deepthroating faggot giving everyone AIDS and he has severe emotional issues because you're an asshole? LAWSUIT FOR HARASSMENT! You make up a bunch of shit about a dude having sex with 11-year-old girls? LAWSUIT FOR FUCKING UP HIS SOCIAL LIFE! You scream into a crowd and cause panic and rioting? CHARGES FOR CAUSING PERSONAL DAMAGE, PROPERTY DAMAGE, AND CIVIL UNREST!

Lawsuits come from standing; criminal charges come from criminal intent, such as hiring someone to murder people.

Competition works as thus: supplying the first units of a thing requires less labor (less cost) than supplying further units, unless you have an advantage (a more productive mine, local access to materials, better processes); you can inflate your prices to some point below what the next guy can charge. If it costs you $100/unit to build, and the next guy spends $150/unit, you can raise your prices as high as $150/unit; you can keep your prices as low as $100/unit to undercut and weaken the competition; you cannot go below $100/unit, and your competition cannot go below $150/unit, without taking losses and risking business failure.

Whenever I explain wealth, people tell me I'm full of shit because reducing costs doesn't reduce price to consumers. They then turn around and argue something magical about competition driving prices down.

Thing is he bought generic domain names, and has a right to own them. He's had it for 15 years. They're claiming that's just fine, and that he could sell it to them, but didn't; then, when it expired and he renewed, they claimed he doesn't have the right to RETAIN his property (we treat domains as property, because we consider the purchase of lease as ownership, not licensing: YOU CAN SELL YOUR DOMAINS TO OTHER PEOPLE).

In effect, if you own a domain, and another company thinks they have a claim to it that does not predate your ownership, all they have to do is wait for renewal. When it comes time for your domain to expire, renewing it is treated as buying it new. If you owned Windows.com 5 years before Microsoft made Windows, Microsoft couldn't do shit; if you renewed it when it expired 8 years later, Microsoft could treat you exactly like you just registered Windows.com that day, claiming you maliciously started infringing on their trademark, even if you weren't infringing before due to prior ownership. Renewal is new ownership.

It's a bullshit approach. The plaintiff is suing because they've come up with a name, found someone else owns the name, and don't want to buy the property.

That's exactly what it means, you thick titanium plank. It means you can say Obama is a cock-sucking negro ape and the thought police won't come to your house for speaking ill of the president! It means you can say Bush staged 9/11 and not have black helicopters show up to abduct you from work! That's the whole point of freedom: to exempt you from certain consequences of certain actions!

Your argument was that some stupid intern you hired might not be able to figure out how to use an encryption key, so the process should be simple; then it was that keys and documents get lost, and you should be a good enough admin to know wtf you're doing; now it's that you have the whole process memorized, being the veteran resident expert on the business's particular system and having designed it from the ground up.

Let's refresh your memory:

As well,

In the last decade, we've moved on to virtualization, infrastructure as a service, and document stores like MongoDB. Last decade, when you were doing this shit, you probably had huge SQL relational databases, which are like collections of giant CSV files with indexes; those databases were a step forward from LDAP, a form of hierarchical database, basically a giant file system with tiny files; while document stores are basically giant collections of XML- or JSON-like data, with indexes. Routers are now ASAs, with 10 MICROSECOND switching while deep-packet-inspecting 26 gigabytes of data per second, thanks to using ASIC logic instead of general-purpose CPUs; switches operate on layer 3, analyzing IP headers, because why not blur the line between what is a fucking switch and what is a router?

Not to say that old skill sets don't found new skill sets, but we have managed to get rather dated here rather quickly. I've compensated largely by constantly collecting more information and keeping a broad knowledge base, rather than staying current in a single technology. Everything from financial systems to devops, from back-ups to system programming, has some level of competence on my skill sheet--some of them are very low levels of competence, some (like Unix administration) are such high levels of competence that I'm over-invested, to the point that I can use awk to impressive but wholly-unnecessary effect.

I branched out into project management because this is just too much crap to use effectively any other way, which is why I have comments on long-term planning, and particularly on risk management. Losing an encryption key is one of the most minor risks I can imagine, and every scenario you suggest is patently ridiculous. Twenty-year-old back-ups? A process that hasn't changed while the data center around it has undergone disruptive transformations? Keys owned by employees, rather than static in the back-up system and transferred off-site over key exchange protocols? People overwrite tapes every year in a cycle; your back-up process would not work if not updated to keep up with your data center's needs; and any such stupidity as poor encryption key handling would be projected early in the process, or else you're completely incompetent and likely won't have working back-ups anyway.

Wu claims Google's first informational result is a "search result", rather than differentiating between content and information searches. Google isn't providing its own result first; it's providing an answer to a semantic question.

There are three types of searches: Official contact (what is the home page of Microsoft?); research (find me a bunch of information about lions); and simple information (what time is it in Brazil?). Google often gives any simple query related to a particular entity an Official Contact result first (e.g. searching for Windows 10 will give you the Microsoft page for Windows 10 first), and starts with a Simple Information result if the search looks informational (e.g. what is the national animal of Scotland?).

Wu fails to differentiate, instead seeing a search engine as a research platform: if you ask for any topic, you are asking for a library of writings on the topic, rather than trying to find a specific and utterly small piece of information.

Never mind that; Timothy has learned to not end a sentence in a preposition. Maybe he'll learn to correctly use the serial comma in lists of three or more items! Quick, set up a class so he can teach the other editors English!

You're ridiculous. "Oh, I can just walk into a major bank, an insurance company, or a credit card processor, and, with no foreknowledge of their systems, wave my hand and reconstruct their entire data center from back-ups, no planning required!" You'll get a non-working system.

You're one of those people who thinks he's a rockstar developer, a magic sysadmin with the Midas touch. I've watched hundreds of people like you destroy businesses and then walk off smiling to yourself about how you did a perfect job. I have been there, and I have done that; you are a child to me, an artifact from my past whose knowledge and experiences are a subset of mine.

You imagine a lot.

It doesn't by design. Such things are built on top the system. It's like saying that clay earth only bears 1500 pounds per square foot load: this is a fact, just as the stated facts I have given about economics. You add an argument similar to that engineers sometimes design shoddy buildings, or that builders sometimes cut corners; those are also true, and have nothing to do with how much load the earth will bear. The fact remains you can improve your structure to bear 1500 pounds per square foot load without collapsing, and it will still collapse if the earth below it only bears 1200 pounds per square inch; you must improve the earth before the structure.

A great economic leap forward would not bankrupt us; however, a massive switch to automation would cause something akin to the Industrial Revolution, which I've accounted for. The massive unemployment will go beyond the 47% of jobs which we can automate now: with those laborers displaced, the consumer base drops by a good 47%, which means you can sell all your inexpensive goods only to half as many consumers, which has nasty implications. The Information Age unbound struggling markets: businesses couldn't double capacity to manage contracts and invoices by doubling the number of workers; the mistakes went up exponentially, and the feasibility of managing all this information was non-existent until we brought in computers, hence allowing explosive economic growth and rapid creation of jobs to employ the displaced. Mechanization will replace linear labor scaling with machine work, so will simply create a large term of unemployment.

This won't bankrupt the country--far from it--but it will inconvenience many people. I provide a welfare system which doesn't increase in costs when more people are unemployed, and which is stable against all disruptions which don't destroy the economy outright, and which completely eliminates homelessness and hunger; people tell me this is immoral because those dirty poor people should just get a job. 55 million hungry in the United States of America, 600,000 homeless, and 4.8 million homed on HUD vouchers (5.4 million WOULD be homeless), and they tell me it's immoral to provide a welfare solution that costs 98% of what our current costs, but eliminates these problems.

Morality is an excuse to protect your ego from the suffering you inflict on others.

All these products and luxuries costing ever so much are reflective of when shirts used to cost 479 labor-hours (~$3500 today), and then factories and mechanization made them cost $25, and suddenly every beggar could buy himself two shirts.

How retarded are you?

I described economics in a way where you start with people spending $320/year on chairs, and wind up with them spending $320/year on chairs AND CUSHIONS. That's not zero-sum; are you fucking stupid? More shit is coming out of one side without more shit going in the other.

Nobody should bow to any science as a set of rules; sciences are tools. Engineers figure out how to abuse the rules to make interesting things happen.

Correct. You understand my point, I see: we rapidly move total wealth forward, so even the lowest and most abuse face an improving life situation. You argue that we shouldn't abuse the child of Omelas today so that he may be better off--but still abused--tomorrow; I only argue that it is more efficient, which you seem to understand. I find morality silly, but won't argue it in this case; I always attack morality where it leads to conclusions in which people would rather let millions suffer and die than condemn thousands, because you are responsible for that suffering and death by your refusal to stop it.

No, it doesn't. The problem isn't of how much, but how much per unit time; if the question becomes how much, implement complete and total communism, because you have entered a post-scarcity economy and everyone has so much money they can't find any way to spend it all.

We roll the dice you're stumbling over every once in a while. The last bad one was the Industrial Age, where we had 70% unemployment for 60 years; it sucked.

The last good one was the Information Age, where we replaced mostly clerks in offices managing paper document stores so large that an ever-expanding army of clerks couldn't do it--that is, you may hire 2000 clerks to handle 2000 times as many leases and contracts, but your workforce isn't going to handle the workload anyway, and your business is going to collapse under its own weight; the Information Age (computers) solved this by making it POSSIBLE to expand industries that desperately wanted to grow, not by throwing out massive numbers of jobs and then trying to make up new markets. New markets came rapidly because new jobs in existing markets showed up everywhere, and everyone got friggin' rich.

The next one is the automation age; it resembles the industrial revolution more than the information age, and will sharply create a 50%-ish drop in employment in industries which are not hitting walls trying to expand. Those industries are sized for the demand, and won't explosively grow; new jobs won't rapidly appear over night due to automation, and so the turn-over won't magic up so much wealth as to expand the middle class and create new markets out of nothing.

Automation won't do it. The core problem is energy scarcity; we can transmute any material into any other material through energy-expensive processes, so we are capable of using millions of times more energy than we currently produce or consume. A dyson sphere completely enclosing the sun and using modern parabolic reflector sterling engines at 39% efficiency would generate 13,000 TRILLION times as much energy as we use now, and would end us into an unknown post-scarcity economy as you suggest; however, I don't project the specifics being something I can simply describe, and don't attempt to do so. It may not instantly create a utopia; it will create the economic situation prerequisite for a utopia.

As for today, a capitalist solution works. For just a hair below the cost of our current welfare system in America, we can create a capitalist feedback loop that supplies everyone food, shelter, clothing, utilities, clean water, and so forth. Any business participating in the supply side will make billions in pure profit, so somebody will do so; as for the incentive to work, I specify everyone (even Warren Buffet) gets the Dividend payment each month, and so employment carries no risk of losing welfare benefits, nor reduction in benefits, and so a job is always an improvement in your financial situation. Incentive.

Solving poverty wasn't a difficult problem.