Off topic, but related: I have some keybase invites available, and I'm sure others do as well. Contact info in my profile if anyone would like one.
242 karma · joined June 2, 2010
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jonafato; my proof: https://keybase.io/jonafato/sigs/0nj0parv3VYKXIAOc86v2t0KJCxmdd-0B-vx1_ogRTc ]
(I'm not affiliated with the site, I just check it periodically and thought it might be of use here.)
[0] https://github.com/nvie/pip-tools#example-usage-for-pip-comp...
[1] http://nvie.com/posts/better-package-management/
[2] https://www.jonafato.com/2015/12/15/Rethinking-requirements-...
There are many examples of organizations created to support open source software: the DSF (https://www.djangoproject.com/foundation/), the ASF (https://www.apache.org/foundation/), and the GNOME Foundation (http://www.gnome.org/foundation/) are a few prominent ones. Are you sure you need this level of formality at this point, though? This carries a certain amount of overhead, and if you mean 501(c)(3) when you say "non-profit", it's a long process that may not go well (http://blogs.gnome.org/jnelson/2014/06/30/the-new-501c3-and-...).
It sounds like you're talking about a relatively new project with a small number of contributors. Would it be possible instead to make an arrangement with the core developer(s) to support the project financially? You may be able to structure this as a normal contractor agreement or via services such as Gratipay (https://gratipay.com/, formerly gittip) or BountySource (https://www.bountysource.com/). This would allow you to contribute while deferring the overhead of an organization until there are more people and resources involved.
Registration info: http://pygotham.org/registration/information
Scholarship application (for those who would like to attend but cannot afford a ticket): https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PYFBd-vFKu_UguO9yeCYKMiI7I1...
Talk schedule: http://pygotham.org/talks/schedule
The way the statement is worded, I feel that many would read it as "A recent survey found that 76 percent of consumers regularly check online reviews before buying" even if that's not how it's written. A better statement would make the breakdown of regular vs. occasional checkers clear.
That said, single word comments don't add much to the conversation. As stated, and if the survey is to be believed, the line is factually correct even if it is misleading. I'm not sure if "bullshit" refers to how you interpreted the statement or the results of the survey. Without clarifying your objection, though, it will likely be ignored by most.
[1] http://searchengineland.com/study-72-of-consumers-trust-onli...
Edit: added link to the survey
The airline would not have the right to charge the "thief" because the airline is not the victim. The only people able to charge the polluter (sticking with my other analogy) are those who paid for access to the network or someone representing them. They wouldn't do this because 1) it's kind of a ridiculous thing to do, and 2) the damages are far smaller than the cost of taking action.
The sensible way to do this (if stopping the practice outright was impractical) would be to grant some authority (the airline) the power to issue citations related to the pollution. It's then carried out similarly to regulating noise pollution. This is problematic, of course, because it requires identifying offenders. If we can identify offenders, we can simply stop the offense, so issuing any kind of ticket no longer makes sense.
This brings me back to a point I made above: the airlines will stop this practice. It's solvable, profitable, and generally beneficial to those who want it enough to pay.
- Access costs $10
- Total bandwidth available is 5Mbps
- 10 users purchase access for an average of .5Mbps per user
If 10 more users pay for service, the original 10 are getting half of what they used to for the same price. In response to this (see other comments about "gouging"), airlines raise the prices of access. This act preserves some minimum level of service for those who are willing to pay.
If, instead of the scenario above, the second 10 users go on to use the service without paying, the first are "cheated" out of being able to get their minimum acceptable level of service even if they would choose to pay a higher price. When this happens, prices can be set arbitrarily high without having the intended effect of reducing the strain on the network.
Based on this logic, I disagree with your analogy to file sharing, but I also agree with you that this is not theft. It's more akin to pollution than anything else. If one chooses to smoke in a bar that doesn't allow smoking, everyone else suffers. In the same vein, if I access this service without paying, all of the paying users really do get less than they're purchasing.
The airlines are left with two choices here:
1) Plug the hole so this is no longer possible. This is the path they'll choose because it's profitable and it satisfies the already-paying users.
2) Open it up for everyone. This is impractical. If you've ever used Wi-Fi on a Bolt or Mega bus, you know that it can be painfully slow. There's no incentive for the provider to upgrade, because they can't profit by doing so.
This isn't really about taking from the big, bad corporations. It's about taking from your neighbor. It would be great if we had in-air broadband, but until that day, we'll have to find some way to regulate the use of a limited resource to prevent it from becoming over-saturated.
-----
Edit: formatting, clarity.
"David Kaczynski had once admired and emulated his elder brother, but had later decided to leave the survivalist lifestyle behind.[74] He had received assurances from the FBI that he would remain anonymous and that his brother would not learn who had turned him in, but his identity was leaked to CBS News in early April 1996."
You only learn from encountering situations in which learning is necessary. I think the smarter person encounters these learning experiences more quickly, but people don't instantly become great at something.
I'm not so into this kind of thing, so I don't want to join up and take someone's spot and wind up not using it.
Based solely on the tagline, it sounds like foursquare. The graphics remind me of board games though, leaving me questioning my previous conclusion and thus mystified.