This is a huge problem, and I think it's a good idea to legislate this (depending on the precise text of the bill) due to the positive externalities involved. I wrote a blog post making this argument:
Agreed, and this group as much as any should understand that just because the product is made of bits and can be distributed virtually free, it should not be free of cost.
Just like any good software company, the NYTimes should be thinking about their price strategy in a more complex way than cost plus. And I'm sure they are.
It's not about distribution. Much like ordering a book from Amazon, buying software, or going to see a movie, distribution is typically not the most relevant cost.
I think the NYTimes is one of the best bargains out there, and lucky for those who don't pay the benefits spillover to other journalism, especially the blog/twitter world.
Mr. Stucchio isn't the first one to present this type of argument which is explicit in that people are choosing to be poor. That probably doesn't feel right to most of us, and that's because it's ridiculous. Jamming a complex social problem into a simple economic model may be fun and even valuable at times, but only if you don't buy your own BS wholesale.
I'm admittedly struggling to understand how he's drawing this conclusion, as I think he's equating utility with expenditures? If so, this is completely wrong. Your first few thousands of dollars are used for things like food, shelter, and basic healthcare, and they generate massive utility. It isn't constant.
But I also take issue with the first assumption, that each hour of leisure time provides constant utility. Is that true? Does a poor person get more marginal value from that last hour of "leisure time" on the streets? What about poor people who go to bed hungry, are they doing that because they're rationally basking in all these extra hours of leisure time?
There are many reasons people are poor, but people choosing to be poor as an economically rational decision sounds crazy, and that's because it is. Just measure the happiness of the non-working poor vs. people making 30k, and I think you can put this one to rest.
Your first few thousands of dollars are used for things like food, shelter, and basic healthcare, and they generate massive utility. It isn't constant.
This is irrelevant. As long as utility is monotonic (more consumption => more utility), the conclusion holds.
But I also take issue with the first assumption, that each hour of leisure time provides constant utility.
The blog post only assumes utility is monotonic in leisure (i.e., more leisure => more utility).
...measure the happiness...
How do you reliably do that? The only thing I'm aware of which comes remotely close to this is revealed preferences.
That is not correct. You are looking for the intersection of marginal utility of the dollars earned through work, and the marginal cost (in utility) of giving up leisure (while hungry and cold, perhaps). You are arguing that the marginal utility of those dollars earned through work are lower than the utility of that final hour of leisure.
But both of those utility functions have sharp curves, and those first dollars generate huge utility (food, shelter, etc.), while the negative utility is very modest when you've already used 167 of 168 hours that week on leisure.
But both of those utility functions have sharp curves, and those first dollars generate huge utility (food, shelter, etc.)...
The first dollars of consumption (which pay for food and shelter) have high utility. The first dollars of earned income do not increase your consumption. Work or don't work, you won't be hungry and cold either way.
Or are you trying to assert that people gain huge utility by working for no material gains?
You haven't answered any of the main counterpoints people have been raising to your rant so far. Trying to distract us with academic gobbledygook really isn't helping your case.
Faulty frame. Try it with other basic infrastructure: "The more money I think I can make by owning ROAD infrastructure, the more I will invest to build it now."
I do not see the flaw. The statement in quotes, while a simplification, is correct if a private company is making the decision. If a government is making the decision (typical with roads, not with broadband), there are a ton of other factors, although in an ideal world they would also try to do a similar NPV calculation. In any case, the government doesn't own broadband.
Okay, what are they? And I mean cons from the POV of users (and hosts are users too in this sense) not from the POV of an unnecessary commercial organisation overlaid (overlain?) on the infrastructure.
I'm not being snarky here, I'd really like to think a new thought.
(To be fair, or just contrary, I kinda feel that all the porn and ads might due with a little reduced service, but I'm not megalomaniacal enough to think that I should get to decide for everyone else..)
Not only is the slide from 2008, but it also says it requires "close access methods" and "remote installation will be pursued for a future release." In other words, they need physical access to your device. If we think that the NSA can't compromise a device after gaining physical access, well then I think we should be scared about the competence of the NSA.
I don't have the patience to watch Appelbaum's hour long talk, but unless he has something far more impressive than these documents then he's just another activist who will willfully mislead in order to advance his cause.
>I don't have the patience to watch Appelbaum's hour long talk, but unless he has something far more impressive than these documents then he's just another activist who will willfully mislead in order to advance his cause.
The fact that you cherry picked a obvious example, and even downplayed its singificance -- plus fact that you were quick to call him an "activist" (nay, "another activist", how their pesky multitudes annoy you), tells more about you than about him or the talk.
Much of Jacob's presentation echoes many of the articles he (and others) had published in Der Spiegel earlier that day, going into a little more into the technical aspects (to the extent they are known and/or can be inferred.) While you may skip out the talk, at least look over the articles. While Jacob's style may rub you wrong, the issues are there regardless, and impatience is hardly a justifiable excuse.
On another note, if you are aware of Jacob misleading on any matter, it would be nice pointing that out directly. He is an activist that has done everything from helping with on-the-ground infrastructure deployments in war-torn areas, working on and advocating for Tor, speaking in front of the EU council… Casting doubt on his integrity without highlighting relevant facts is a way of distracting from the actual issues under discussion.
Close access includes the assembly line, and that would be the preferred option for an intelligence organ seeking access to a consumer device - it scales well. Given the logistics of the electronics industry, there are many potential vectors to introduce the exploit unilaterally, though working cooperatively with Korean or Taiwanese agencies is possible given shared interests and those country's roles in component manufacturing. Of course with their own chip design arm, going directly through Apple is a more obvious choice.
Hope you didn't have that phone shipped to you, because apparently the NSA is cool with slicing open your new package before conveniently reshipping it.
I have no idea how accurate the 60 Minutes story was, but this article is woefully unconvincing. Calling your rebuttal "the definitive facts" is childish.
My favorite line is: "There are as many red flags surrounding the BIOS Plot as there are in all of China." Who writes this?
This article paints SV with too broad a brush, but this is a big problem. There is a tendency here to oversimplify really complex problems. That's a good thing when you need to take a leap of faith and start a company to tackle those problems, but a bad thing when you lack empathy for less fortunate people around you.
Guess what, most of these people have struggles that we can't begin to understand. A lot are dealing with mental health issues that are more debilitating than anything you or I will ever have to deal with. I live on Market St., and I'm as guilty as anyone of becoming numb to the homeless living there. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that anyone can grab a Rails tutorial and become a six-figure engineer within a few years just because we've seen it done.
It's disappointing to read all this negativity around the drone delivery story. Who knows if this will happen as soon as they claim, but it is a cool idea with a lot of genuinely interesting implications.
The fact that Amazon is trying to generate good PR is a tangental story in my opinion, and I wonder if investing in a drone delivery program just to show it off would be the most cost effective way to get good press.
I am also very unimpressed with the challenges that Mr. Ball identified. He probably had fun fashioning himself as some kind of technology muckraker, but please go after uninspired technology instead of taking easy shots at interesting and bold ideas.
http://andrewro.in/post/75915934983/forcing-antitheft-techno...