masterzora

This is confusing to me. Unless there's something nobody told me (always possible!) the only "punishment" they'd institute would be removing your vouching privileges. Not making use of the vouch feature out of fear you won't be able to use that feature seems entirely paradoxical. It's similarly paradoxical to say "I value my ability to participate too much to actually participate" unless I've simply missed some part where they say "we'll take away your submitting/commenting ability."

The weird part is that I knew about looking up the potion letters for Prince of Persia but didn't connect the dots for way too long.

My purpose was not to argue for a conclusion. I haven't even fully decided where I stand on a lot of the relevant topics. My purpose was merely to illustrate that this rant was full of mistaken and misleading information and doesn't represent a good source to inform oneself.

I'm going to apply Hanlon's razor here and assume misunderstandings but a lot of this post/rant is exceptionally misleading or even outright incorrect. A full point-by-point response would be more time-consuming than I'd like and more space-consuming than is really appropriate as a comment here. Instead, I've got already-too-long responses to a few of the points and I leave it to the reader to investigate further before cementing any opinions one way or the other.

Nor will I bother you with the other 100 applications for the other 100 TLDs, which are probably similar but I haven’t read all of them because it’s a Friday night and I have plans, so don’t shoot me if it turns out some of them are more evil than others.

At least he admits he hasn't read most of them but it's disingenuous to take a sample of 1 from 101 as representative and even more disingenuous to insinuate that any of the applications deviating from this sample are likely to fall into the "more evil" category.

Actually clicking through even some of the applications listed to "Charleston Road Registry Inc." we see a number of applications--including the ones for .zip [1], .day [2], and .inc [3] among others--proposing SLD registration be publicly available rather than strictly internally. And some of this--like .zip and .day--are proposed to be completely open while others--like .inc--are proposed to be restricted to relevant entities. Other applications--perhaps most notably, .youtube [4]--propose that the public not be able to directly register names but may be able to make use of vanity domains to link to content hosted in that TLD. These applications are also not all active. At least 29--including the mocked .blog--have already been withdrawn.

It’s sort of like how North Korea promotes choice because what if some people want to choose a totalitarian regime.

This is how the rant responds to the quote "Today, most Internet users have only one practical choice when it comes to how their TLDs are managed: a completely unrestricted model environment in which any registrant can register any name for any purpose and use it as they see fit."

It's unfortunate that this quote was taken out of context, however. Reading even just a few sentences further we see the actual meaning of the quote: restricted TLDs such as .edu, .mil, and .gov have proven useful alongside (rather than instead of) the unrestricted TLDs and users (both in the sense of those registering domains and those visiting sites and using services) may benefit from the option of relevant restricted TLDs. For example, the .inc application proposal includes a plan to require registrars to ensure that only corporations are eligible to register .inc domains in much the same way that .edu is only available for accredited US institutions. How much benefit there may be for such restrictions is certainly up for debate it certainly seems a far cry from the "North Korea" comment.

That Google should be allowed to close TLDs because nobody will notice anyway:

This is the rant's ridiculous response to the quote "Because of the strong user bias toward domains within .com, today a generic .com domain name (e.g., jewelry.com or book.com) is likely to produce more traffic and to be more valuable for a business than a generic TLD." out of context, this quote could mean almost anything but in-context it's not about open or closed nor about whether anybody will notice. Rather, it is specifically in regards to the notion owning the .foo TLD would be a significant competitive advantage over owning the foo.com domain or whatever.

"Closed generic TLD". Who even knows what those words mean anyway?

This is perhaps my favourite part of the rant. It mocks the letter for trying to discuss the meaning--or lack thereof--of the term "closed generic" and seems to suggest grabbing a dictionary. Even setting aside that the dictionary doesn't give us appropriately rigorous definitions of these things, the author seems to be missing the fact that this letter didn't spring out of nowhere. In fact, the letter is a comment on an ICANN request for comments on the topic [5] in which ICANN specifically requested comments "in regard to proposed objective criteria for classifying certain applications as 'closed generic' TLDs". If it were anywhere near as simple as grabbing a dictionary ICANN would have done that in the first place and commentary on the difficulty of rigorously and objectively defining the terms was perfectly in line with the requested discussion.

As I said before, these are only a few of the problems with the rant and there are a number of others throughout. You're obviously free to reach your own conclusions but I really hope that you're informed by pretty much any source other than this rant before you do.

[1] https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications... [2] https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications... [3] https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications... [4] https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications... [5] https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/closed-generic-2013-02...

1. seanp2k2 expressed doubt that a $600,000 fine would dissuade a company with a quarter net income of $192,000,000.

2. dsjoerg points out that in the context of what is dissuasive to a company net income is not particularly relevant. Rather, whether or not punitive action is persuasive depends on whether the gains are considered worth more than the losses from the punishment.

This is the context of the thread: how much of a cost does it take for Marriott to be dissuaded?

So when you say "Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered." you have to remember that this is in context of whether it's enough to convince Marriott to stop causing willful radio interference.

And when people were telling you "that Marriott does not have evil plans", they weren't speaking as to the morals of Marriott's actions. They were saying that Marriott's motives for their actions are the profits those actions generate and not some context-less desire to just be evil or to block wi-fi for the sake of blocking wi-fi.

And nobody said that Marriott "don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interference." The closest is Vivtek's statement that the company wouldn't take well to an officer making it "his or her quixotic personal vendetta". A joint petition for a favourable interpretation is a relatively low-cost, low-commitment action and doesn't speak to the company having any desire to turn it into a vendetta or throw a significant portion of their income at trying to retrieve a small chunk of their income.

Basically, you replied to dsjoerg by saying that net income's relevance is that it represents the ability to fight an issue and the thread since them has been people trying to point out that it wouldn't be in Marriott's best interest to put significant resources in fighting it and so net income remains largely irrelevant. Your replies, meanwhile, seem to come out of left field, apparently discussing moral and legal viewpoints but not the actual topic of whether punitive action is persuasive to Marriott. This is why schrodinger said you were missing the point and the fact that you seem to be having a different discussion from the rest of the thread is the reason PhasmaFelis asked what you think others are disagreeing with. No one is actively disagreeing that blocking wi-fi to sell wi-fi is evil or illegal, nor are they actively agreeing. They're having a different discussion entirely.

So? Why does that matter? From my perspective, before I was born and after I die are equivalent on account of me not being able to have a perspective. 13.8 billion years of the universe where I didn't exist wasn't horrible before so I don't see why it will be so horrible in 60 or 80 more years when I don't exist again.

Second, I think you already realise that your analogy is only analogous in that there's a multi-billion dollar company and a much smaller company are both involved.

For example, AB InBev makes up half of the US beer sales with Budweiser and Bud Light being the top two US beers and the Budweiser family is the best selling worldwide. On the other hand, while Valve doesn't release many numbers, it's estimated that Steam has a strong majority of the PC game digital distribution market and Origin's market share is, obviously, lagging far behind.

Also, it doesn't take into account the vast difference between Origin and Budweiser. Origin exists to sell you other products and you have to use the service in order for this to happen. It is difficult to overcome the initial user inertia to get them to join and install the service and to keep it running on their system so that things can be further pushed on them. Once this inertia is overcome there is very little extra resistance to using the service to purchase games. This inertia is also increased because the market of people who would use a DRM-full digital distribution service is not at rest but is rather largely moving along happily with another service. By offering a significant discount on popular games if you start using their service they could convince people to get and run Origin giving them that initial hook.

Further, the Humble Bundle was creating an opportunity to have a significant effect on their user numbers. At 50,000,000 users in July, even if only half of the bundle purchasers were new Origin users, that's an extra 2% of people using their service, and they created positive exposure to many more that may have also joined or may be more inclined to join in the future.

And, finally, I don't think HB was attempting to get EA market share at all. EA was trying to increase Origin market share; Humble Bundle was trying to grow their own service and make some money. (People keep saying the Origin Bundle was "all for charity" or whatever, but don't forget that sending a portion of the money to Humble Bundle was an option that I'm sure some people chose, if only by default.) Again, I don't fault HB for this but it is a noteworthy difference from their prior operations.

I don't mean to say anybody should feel bad about buying it--I don't think they should feel bad even if EA had gotten all the profits--but backing EA's attempt to get market share does feel like a major shift for Humble Bundle.

This would be much more meaningful if you hadn't already stated that you took it down because you already got the information you wanted.

The main similarity to the Origin bundle was that only DRM-full copies were available and, again, this was definitely a departure.

On the other hand, while THQ was technically a AAA developer/publisher as well, by that point it was largely an in-name-only sort of deal. The THQ bundle was (or at least looked to be; I don't know if there's a definite official word on it) a last ditch effort to save a well-liked company from bankruptcy. Maybe trying to prop up a large company is not quite in the same vein as trying to support a tiny company but I personally felt like the spirit was mostly intact.

The Origin bundle, on the other hand, was a different beast. EA is a large, stable company and has a strong reputation for being anti-consumer. They also only provided DRM-full games in the Bundle but most of the games were only available on a service used by fewer people. And, for that matter, that seemed to be the entire point of the bundle: actually get people to use Origin. As much as I hate to say this phrase, the Origin bundle definitely felt like the HB guys selling out.

Submitting every bundle that's offered, however, is just annoying. They have a mailing list for a that.

Clearly how? You are correct that I am not sufficiently interested in order to go through the additional hassle of Origin. I have in the past been very interested in some games but did not want to add on the hassle of Origin and so I never got them. That's pretty much the same case as here.

Steam has some pretty shitty policies as well, like the fact that you can no longer log in on multiple computers.

It does but I don't find that relevant at all. For one, I have no need to log into multiple computers anyway. But for the more general case of Steam policies, I have found them a sufficient tradeoff for value. My issue with Origin is not strictly their policies but the fact that I already have Steam running with >500 games in my library and I don't want to be running Origin on top of that. It's unnecessary hassle and it's wasteful of resources.

If I got my buy-in on Origin first, odds are I'd be saying things the other way around.

I already own the games that register on Steam that are interesting. I would only be interested in the games that don't register on Steam, but I do not want to use Origin.

That's a really silly idea. Context is as much a part of art as the actual piece itself.

The actual equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, where the p is momentum. And, unsurprisingly, the old "p=mv" isn't the whole story, either. The (magnitude of the) momentum of a photon is given by h/λ where h is Planck's constant and λ, of course, is the wavelength.

As such, at no point is it necessary for light to have mass and it is believed that, in fact, photons are entirely and truly massless. Relativistic mass--which some take to mean photons actually gain mass--is a confusing and misleading concept that doesn't really have a whole lot to do with actual mass and doesn't really help explain anything.

"Effective mass"--which is more related to stopping photons, but not really related to the Einstein equation you gave--also doesn't really mean the photon gains mass but it does mean that interactions within the crystal give effects similar to if the photon had mass.

The book is pretty explicit about them being vampires including distinctly vampiric traits (nocturnal, traditional vampire weaknesses, killing them with stakes through the heart.

The film of the same title, however, rides the line pretty close, coming closer to vampires with the original ending. Their weakness to sunlight and their intelligence are clearly more vampiric, but it doesn't really do much more than that.

Either way, though, Matheson's influence on zombie fiction certainly makes the vampires look more zombie-ish from a modern perspective and can probably be uncontroversially explained at least as a stepping stone from between vampires and zombies.

It's ludicrous.

My assumption is some combination of #4 and #5, really.

Get labelled a “Failure” and it can ruin your life. As a pedagogical methodology, embracing failure is the last thing these kids need.

So rather than telling these kids that failure isn't a bad thing and that they can learn from failing and grow we should continue telling them that failing sucks and makes you a failure? Or, if not telling them, at least letting them keep the mindset? And that's supposed to be the better alternative? How does that work?