Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:innovation thwarted (Score 1) 105

by SuperKendall (#48435499) Attached to: Aereo Files For Bankruptcy

They were taking OTA signals and retransmitting them across the internet for profit without paying the broadcaster a dime.

I could do that myself legally (I do so all the time, recording over the air signals and replaying them later on other devices), so why couldn't I pay someone to put an antenna somewhere for me?

The key was they really did have one antenna per customer, so it was exactly that - an antenna rental.

So why do YOU see anything wrong with that?

Comment: Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score 1) 418

by argStyopa (#48434573) Attached to: Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

I think the "world police" argument is self-defeating.

First, nobody - even the most ardent interventionist - has ever asserted that the US should send its military to (some godforsaken shithole (GSFH)) because "we're the World Police!".
Suggesting such is prima facie untrue. The only people that even use the term are ironically usually the political left who, if they had their druthers, WOULD enable just such a thing likely under UN auspices. So it's not even the "world police" thing that bothers them, it's that we're pursuing our own interests, because they're presumably too stupid to recognize that every other state on the planet is doing the same thing to the best of their ability. So their real argument isn't that we're acting like "world police" so much as a basic argument against our own success....and that devolves, folks, to simple self-loathing.

US involvement in GFSHs is based on US interests, full stop. Setting aside the public pap of WMDs, it's clear that we went to war in Iraq to protect OIL, because after air, and water, and food, oil's pretty much the most fucking important substance on the planet.

Now, we can argue priorities, cost/benefit, direct self-interests vs enlightened longterm self interest, etc all day long. I might even agree with you on some points, despite our likely opposite political dogma.

But the crux of geopolitics is that EITHER:
- you pursue naked Realpolitik, and act ONLY in your self-interest, or
- you pursue a humanitarian policy of trying to "do good" where you can.

What the naive don't seem to understand is that you don't get to "not play". It's not a choice. If millions are being slaughtered in Rwanda, action OR INACTION is making a statement about US interests, values, and cost/benefit calculations, upon which then other states will plan their expectations about our behavior.

And FWIW, the second policy pole listed above? It's far, far more blood and treasure, intervention, and judgemental side-picking, 'warmongering scumbaggery' than the former.

Basically: grow the fuck up. The world's more complicated than you apparently understand.

Comment: Re:Externalities (Score 1) 208

by ThosLives (#48434515) Attached to: Lessons Learned From Google's Green Energy Bust

If A and B have to decide whether to make a transaction, while C will be harmed if the transaction happens but has no say in whether it happens, that's an externality and market forces do not account for it under any economic model I've ever heard of.

Except with the environment, it's a little murky, because A, B, and C are all affected (perhaps not equally or at the same time, I'll admit). So it's not a "pure" externality at least.

...pretty much all economists agree that a carbon price is the most market-efficient way of doing that...

But what price do you pick? There's no "free market" way to do this. Cap-and-trade will result in a free market price for the available credits or whatever, except the amount of credits is arbitrary. If there was a way for the "market" to determine the available credits, that would be one thing - but there isn't; it's all done by decree. (Kind of a reverse externality if you will - groups A and B decide that this is the level of emissions that's allowed, C's opinion or needs be damned.)

That said, yes, an artificial price on emissions may result in people reducing consumption of those things that emit, depending on the elasticity of demand for those things.

Comment: I imagine not (Score 1) 115

by Sycraft-fu (#48434371) Attached to: Microsoft Rolls Out Robot Security Guards

However the problem is that it can presumably notify security that you've done that. Given that they'll have full video of it, and know where the unit was, the chances of you getting caught are pretty high.

These aren't the kind of thing that would work well on their own out in the middle of nowhere but on a campus like MS's with human backup I imagine they are pretty effective. Rolling security cameras basically.

Comment: Re:What's it good for? (Score 1) 187

by argStyopa (#48434367) Attached to: Russia May Be Planning National Space Station To Replace ISS

As a sense of scale:

The US public spent $7.4 billion on HALLOWEEN in 2013, including $350 million for PET COSTUMES. (

Next Friday, on "Black Friday" US consumers will spend ~$40 billion on stuff that they & others don't need, but (mostly) want.

Comment: Normal /. (Score 1) 220

by YrWrstNtmr (#48429967) Attached to: Does Being First Still Matter In America?
Yes, the US sucks. It has always sucked. It will continue to suck long into the future, until it eventually just goes away.

Every thread on /. quickly devolves into how the US does worse than everywhere else.
We could have a discussion about starvation in North Korea, and how people are boiling grass and bark for 'soup', and some of you geniuses would proudly proclaim that the quality of bark from US trees has less nutritional value. And garner mod points for it.

This 'used' to be a place for semi-rational discussion. Oh well.
Dice is but one of the reasons.

Comment: Re:"Getting whiter" (Score 1) 453

by argStyopa (#48429897) Attached to: As Amazon Grows In Seattle, Pay Equity For Women Declines

First, it's astonishingly pedantic to lecture someone on being "obtuse", and then go into the 'there is no such thing as race' bullshit. We all know what we are talking about, and if you don't, then you're the one being obtuse.

Secondly, isn't it fairly racist to imply that mono ethnic cities aren't "interesting, creative and vigorous"? That's pretty superficial.

Finally, you may have a delightful postmodern hipster view of ports, but most of them across history have been dangerous places that decent people avoided, for good reason.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell