Comment Re:The US Government can overrule anything (Score 1) 173
--
JimFive
There is no reason that a single
Sure there is. For one thing, a sandbox by its very nature must always impose some overhead, which is anathema to systems programmers. Another paradox is that when you're building the layers in your system, something has to be at the bottom, and that can't be sandboxed.
You're conflating the language with the runtime environment. There is nothing that prevents you from compiling C code to target Machine Language, or JVM Bytecode, or
--
JimFive
Better yet, try driving in the left lane on a road that isnt limited access, a speed limit something around 35mph, and see how many people completely lose their minds despite the fact that what youre doing is entirely legal.
No, it isn't legal. Look up Impeding Traffic. You aren't allowed to impede the normal flow of traffic, even if that traffic is violating the law.
--
JimFive
why can't a provider pay for a similar "bigger pipe" TO the ISP?
Well they could, but the provider doesn't have a pipe to the ISP, the provider has a pipe to their own ISP (Let's call it BackBone) and the consumer ISP also has a pipe to BackBone. The provider and the consumer ISP are both paying for their own pipe and the Customer is is paying the consumer ISP for access to that pipe. In this diagram there is no business relationship between e.g. NetFlix and Comcast and any effort by Comcast to get NetFlix to pay is basically extortion (nice user base you got there, be a pity if something happened to it). It might also be fraud as the Comcast customers are paying for a connection to the broader internet, not just those entities that Comcast "likes".
If NetFlix wants a faster pipe to Comcast customers they could certainly negotiate with Comcast to by a direct connection into the Comcast network and cut out BackBone.
None of this is meant to imply that Comcast can't do traffic shaping on their network, but that shaping should be part of improving the customer experience, not blackmailing content providers.
--
JimFive
more and more people will realize they don't need to own a car when they can just as easily rent one on demand just by pulling out a smartphone
And then they realize that everyone needs cars at the same time. Rush hour doesn't go away just because cars are autonomous.
Autonomous rental cars are going to need to be cleaned, or at least inspected, after every use because no one wants a car that smells like someone else's cigarettes--or vomit.
There are reasons that owning a car is cheaper than renting a car for most people. Those reasons don't disappear with autonomous cars. The cost discrepancy might go down, but if I have to rent a car to and from work every day and to the store once a week and on the weekends to visit the parents or go to the beach, I might as well buy a car.
What autonomous cars might do is decrease the need for every household to have 2 or more cars.
--
JimFive
If we had no free will we would have no need for Governments, armies, laws, etc.. The people in power positions would simply change reality so that we did their bidding without any manipulations.
No, they wouldn't because they wouldn't have free will either. If we have no free will then the world that we see is exactly the world that would exist because this is what we have in that deterministic universe. You can never say "If we had no free will then <something would be different>". If the world is deterministic then this is the world that is determined.
--
JimFive
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the whole FREEDOM thing pertain to the citizens specifically?
Ok, you're wrong. The mentions of citizen in the constitution revolve around jurisdiction of the courts and eligibility for office. The Bill of Rights doesn't mention citizens at all and the mentions of citizens in the remaining amendments are related to voting rights. Even the 14th amendment says
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added]
Which makes it clear that the word person is not limited to citizens. In addition, as others have mentioned, the constitution enumerates (an incomplete list of) rights but does not grant them.
--
JimFive
Now these new companies are coming in and saying essentially, "The rules don't apply to us because we're special.
I think it is important to emphasize this. And also to recognize that these are NOT "ride-sharing services", they are taxis. Ride Sharing would not have dedicated drivers taking people places, it would have people going places offering space in a car.
--
JimFive
Why don't we just get the govt (state and feds) OUT of the marriage business?
Marriage is a religious thing.
Well, no, marriage has been about property rights and inheritance for a lot longer than it has been religious.
And IMHO, why should someone get a tax break if they are married or in some type of civil union?
Because along with the benefits of marriage come the responsibilities of marriage. You are agreeing to support the other person for, ideally, the rest of your lives. You are easing the burden on society and society rewards that by giving you a tax break.
By the way, the tax break for being married really only occurs when one person makes a decent amount of money and the other person earns very little. In that case, you are (basically) taxed as if you each made the average which generally puts you into a lower tax bracket. If you both make the same amount of money, or both make a lot of money (even if disparate) then their is no benefit and sometimes a increase in taxes (due to deduction limits) over begin single.
--
JimFive
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.