Given that I'm not a homeowner and I'd like to buy soon, I'd consider a large crash in real estate values a boon.
Sure, it'd be a boon as far as RE prices go, but uh, the depth of the crash that we're talking about in this scenario could wipe out a substantial portion of our economy. I'd love to be able to buy some dirt cheap real estate too, but not if the cost is millions unemployed and severe recession. That's just me though.
Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES DEDICATED TO ACTING WITH SOME COMMON SENSE? I'm not sure why people think we need to pass a law to deal with every problem we have, especially when many of the problems have been born from the laws we've passed or more specifically, born from the way we continue to vote like idiots, for the same two parties, over and over again, hoping next time it's going to get better.
I figure we should bring back tarriffs. If a country has shitty labor or environmental laws, slap a tarriff on their products to make them just as expensive as their American counterparts. But I'm not an economist, so maybe I'm missing something important.
I'm not really an economist, but I play one on the internet. No really, I've never had formal education, but I've spent the last several years studying global trade and economics on my own time. So I guess you could say I say the following as a somewhat informed laymen(and many people will no doubt disagree)
Tariffs are a not a good idea, given where we are now. We are actually at a very worrisome point that most are blissfully unaware of. Inflation has been picking up and economic growth has been slowing down. The way the Fed fights inflation is to raise interest rates, but if we raise interest rates now, barring some unforeseen good fortune, we would most likely end up in a recession, with some very real reasons to fear a depression. One of those real reasons to fear, is that higher interest rates, translated into a stronger currency, could accelerate the offshoring of jobs even further. All the globalist cheerleading bullshit on here aside, the world better give a shit if the US economy goes down, because it will be felt around the world.
The answer IMHO, is that our currency needs to devalue further. A devaluation of our currency would lead to higher prices for our goods, BUT, it would also make our labor more cost competitive. I'm all for higher prices if it means the good of our country's economy. But unfortunately, as greed got us to where we are now, I fear that our individual greed will cause us to go the route of protectionism, rather than take our licks like men, so to speak, and accept higher prices for the greater good.
Of course, China needs to float their currency in order for this to really work, and they seem to be dragging their heels on this. This is a good short term strategy on their part, they are essentially expanding at the expense of our economy, but the long term repercussions for them could be bad.
No. They could cause serious irreperable harm to US companies if they tried that.
The big thing that needs to happen to address this situation without taking the risk that protectionist measures represent, is that our currency needs to devalue in relation to other currencies.
What if every country only bought items that had been produced within its borders? We could all feel a smug satisfaction in destroying the global economy (both ours and theirs) in at least having something "Made in America."
Do you understand what a conundrum is? Do you have any theories on why I closed my post with that comment about it being a conundrum? Google "Define: conundrum" if you don't have a clue. Thanks.
What exactly are you complaining about? That I, an American, spoke as an American, on a story regarding the IT labor market in America? Am I missing something here?
Let's take your logic a little further. Why limit ourselves to "made in the USA"?
Well first of all, don't speak of taking my logic a little further, when you clearly didn't understand my point.
That's not very local, why not only buy things made in your state, in your city, your neighborhood, your own farm? Our greed is very much the reason we do not do any of those. It is also an acceptable reason NOT to buy "made in USA."
Right. Before I deal with any of the other stuff you posted, I'd like to know why you thought I added at the end of my first post, that bit about the conundrum? I'd really like to hear what you thought I meant by that. Thanks.
It's great that you realize that, but it doesn't matter. Good luck finding American leaders willing to espouse personal responsibility-it clearly isn't something this country is looking for. Americans much prefer leaving all the hard choices to someone else, and unless you're quoting nonsense from a book of fairy tales, telling Americans that they actually have to make an effort to deal with a problem is a sure-fire way to get tuned out.
I don't worry about "American leaders willing to espouse personal responsibility". To blame American leaders is to take responsibility out of the hands of we the people, the clowns who voted them into office. IMO, that's where the shirking of responsibility begins. When we the people stopped taking responsibility for what the leaders do in our name. Leaders are only ever a reflection of we the people's sincere or insincere efforts to govern ourselves.
I've been modded up and down the spectrum for speaking my mind here and elsewhere, I quite frankly don't give a damn if people tune me out or not. I still believe in personal responsibility. That responsibility entails me speaking my opinion without regard for winning popularity contests. You want to change things, you change things. If you think something needs to be said, then YOU SAY IT. Don't fall into the trap thinking that everyone has to agree with you in order for you to change things. You change yourself, and it will have a ripple effect. If you don't change yourself, then what the hell is the point of complaining?
You can blame repubs, dems, the evolutionists, creationists, etc... But our own individual greed have all contributed to this problem. When was the last time anyone cared about looking for anything "made in the USA"? If we as individuals don't feel compelled to buy products from our own nation, on what grounds do we expect corporations to hire more expensive US labor? Especially when doing so, would put them at a price disadvantage when selling to us US consumers, who, surprise surprise, pay more attention to price than anything else? If they did that, they'd go under, thanks to us.
By modding conservative posts as a troll, you admit that you are afraid of the truth.
NO, what they are admitting is they don't believe in open discourse. Just because someone mods you down for your opinion, doesn't mean your opinion is the truth.
considering there is no unbiased proof (yes, speculation and people pushing an overly biased agenda don't count) that the 2006 election was stolen
Since when have "conservatives" been concerned about having unbiased proof and been against people pushing an overly biased agenda? Need you be reminded about the WMDs in Iraq, believed with no unbiased proof because people with an overly biased agenda simply claimed it?
No system is perfect and there is always room for improvement, but there is a line between constructive comments and conspiracy theories.
Do you consider the whole "Axis of Evil" claim constructive comments? Do you consider claims that liberals are trying to destroy the country constructive comments or conspiracy theories? Do you consider the implication that those who disagree with the ones pushing an overly biased agenda in washington are unpatriotic and/or traitors? Because even if you answer reasonably to any of these questions, so-called "conservatives have been very unreasonable with regards to these issues for the last several years.
The war on terror isn't about being effective, it's about making people feel like we're doing something
I disagree. It's about keeping enough people scared long enough to completely change what it means to be "free" in America. The government wants these changes and keeping us scared is the only way they can get them. Anyone can say tinfoil hat or whatever, but the evidence is so overwhelming that the powers that be want this, that I simply can not understand how anyone could not see it.
You listen to all the people backing the freedom stealing actions taken in the name of WOT and they are almost all cowards in that all their best arguments are nothing more than appeals to give up what were once cherished american rights and freedoms in the name of easing their fears. Then they have the nerve to play like they're the brave ones.
The fact that these cowards call themselves "patriots" and back actions taken to the point where it is now the EU and not the US complaining about too much information being collected about individuals speaks volumes about what continues to be wrong with the cowards thinking.
If scientists specializing in clausology are able to determine the exact mechanism by which the Claus Man is able to deliver all those gifts in a single night, we will have a solution to the world's energy problems.
That is the promise that study of Clausology holds out to all of mankind and people here are scoffing at it? I think they're astroturfers here on behalf of the oil industry...
Or to use the doctor analogy... If you were drifting off into unconciousness and through some absurd set of circumstances, you had a choice of the doctor that was going to treat you, would you prefer a doc who did "off the record" treatment of gunshot wounds for criminals(which would likely meant he used his skills illegally), or would you prefer a "legitimate" doc who has never actually removed a gunshot wound yet but has never used his skills illegally? I know who I'd prefer.
But that's one fringe case. All things being equal, I would lean towards the guy without the shady background as I'm sure most would.
Right, when I typed that, I envisioned kids building their "cash stash" instead of heading to the music store. At least that was common for my friends and I back when I was a bigger music consume, we didn't use the bank much. I consider $s in a savings account as in motion.
It's worth noting that this is again another question of whether or not the money is as advantageous to the economy sitting in the bank as opposed to being spent. You putting money in the bank has a different effect throughout the economy/supply chain than when you spend it on something else. Ironically(ironic because I made that comment about savings without thinking about the bank) at this point in time, I personally think the nation would actually be better off slowing down frivolous spending a little, and building up savings IN THE BANK. But that's another topic.
I am NOT supporting the industry's study here, but there is a flaw in this: It's important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said.
This doesn't really prove anything. Let's just consider what these dollars that "stay in the economy" anyway actually means:
1) The dollars "stay in the economy" but are saved. This doesn't seem likely in today's economy, but it is still a possibility in some cases. Dollars that aren't moving within the economy aren't as useful to economic growth as dollars that do.
2) The dollars are spent on something else. This seems most likely, BUT, this doesn't mean that the economic benefts of the dollars spent on other things, are the same. Money spent on taco bell has a different effect on the economy than money spent on music, and money spent on music as a different effect than money spent on software, etc...
I remember at least one president who didn't get this. His name was George Bush Sr. He once said something really stupid, something like "I don't care if Americans are making potato chips or microchips..." Every American should care, because there is vast difference in the economic benefits between a potato chip economy and a microchip economy.
That being said, I would trust this report backed by the music industry as much as I'd trust a report backed by the tabacco industry that claimed some benefit from tabacco. I'm ONLY taking issue with this one argument. It is a fallacy, sort of a "broken window" in reverse.
Before I played command and conquer, I would have found the concept of global domination repugnant. Now I can't stop plotting. I've ordered major offenses in two foreign countries, and I've been eyeballing two others. I have found though, that in real life, it's not as easy as it is in C&C, so I'm thinking if I can't turn things around soon, I'll probably sue the makers of C&C.
You have a very valid point, but I think there are two things I should offer here that I didn't elaborate on... First, I think beyond simply me as an individual getting older and wiser is that there are just far more hobbies now that compete for the disposable income of young people. FAR FAR FAR more people game now for example. When my generation was in high school, the most popular system was the 8 bit nintendo and it was not generally socially acceptable among most in my peer group to talk about gaming. In my experience, you had your "gaming friends", and you kept them seperate from your "mainstream" friends, because they were nerds and you were a closet nerd. LOL. Insert slashback mountain joke here...
Anyway, my second point is related to the first... Before my generation, you graduated high school and what did you continue to do for entertainment? Music and pop media. Unless you were truly hardcore, computers were in banks, you know? Sure, there were arcades, and they had popularity to a degree, but I don't think it ever really competed for the disposable income of kids the way games have.
This would be interesting to see... A comparison of the growth of the home video game industry(including PCs) during the time of the alleged "file sharing" hitting CD sales. Because honestly, offhand if I recall the marketing crap I've seen thrown around about changing gamer demographics, it was about '96 that they began talking about the gaming segment as 18-34. My gut tells me you will find something statistically signifigant there.
Not just gaming either... A lot of what were relatively small hobby groups when I was in high school, are now pretty mainstream, or at least were for a long time in the 90s. RC cars, planes, computers, anime, etc... In fact, the more I think about it, the more unthinkable it is to me that the growth of other markets that consume disposable income couldn't have an impact on music sales. I mean in high school, and part of college, the one thing everyone had in common was love of music. Concerts were a huge deal. My high school age nephews listen to music, but I've never seen them go to a concert and even if you count all their mp3s, they still don't have music libraries matching what me and most of my friends had built. They're much more inclined to go to a card tournament or an anime convention than a music concert.
I mean seriously, I remember the exact year I stopped buying the same quantity of CDs... It was 1994. Yes, my computer had something to do with it, but it wasn't file sharing. It was I found myself spending most of my disposable cash on computer upgrades and games for the next 2 years. Seriously. I still bought CDs, but my guess would be I had cut down by about 90 percent.
Then about 1996, I moved in with my girlfriend, and the focus of my life completely changed. Again, still bought CDs, it's just music slowly fell down the list of important things to do with my money in my life. You end up living together, then you get engaged, buy furniture, get married, buy a house, start a family, etc... I personally just never found myself back in that stage where it seemed like a good idea to toss massive amounts of my disposable income on music.
Sorry for the delay of my reply. I actually did try to reply shortly after you posted, but my browser crashed after I had typed quite a bit...
Anyway, rather than continue this conversation on a point by point basis, I'm just going to cover a few things:
After you posted that bit about free software, I went out and studied the FSF movement, and I can honestly say, I fall into the open source camp, not the FSF camp. While I respect your ideals and opinions(a good deal), I have serious economic concerns regarding the radical change in the view of software(and really, IP in general) that you and the FSF advocate. It is not that I think we should continue to have crappy copyright law(and I do agree with you on the brokenness and outdatedness of our copyright law) in the name of economic gain. It is that too rapid or radical a switch at this point, could have disasterous effects on the world economy. I'm not saying this because of any FUD I've read, I'm saying this based on my last few years in studying the global economy and global trade.
At the risk of igniting a trade or economics debate(not my intent), I just want outline why I say this, so you won't chalk this up into just some troll spouting FUD. When we began the integration of the economies of the world, manufacturing was picked up by the poorer countries based on our experience that while we would lose manufacturing jobs in some sectors, the selling our IP would make up for the losses. This would naturally, though not painlessly and certainly not overnight, move the economies towards balanced trade. Of course, I say this pushing aside the concept of imperialism that has reared its ugly head again.
Now that we have opened our markets to so many, to take away IP as it has **EVOLVED** to be, could deal a devastating blow to not only our economy, but to every economy that ours is intermingled with. I could say more and go into more detail, but I think this will serve at least to explain my general concern.
Now one thing I want to apologize for is this: You'll notice that I specifically said registration should be decentralised, and in private hands
I did not notice that, I read right past that. I've been fighting a flu for over a week now so my head isn't the clearest. Even so, in private hands, my concerns remain, especially with regards to creating a system that favors the rich with regards to access to copyright. I am really dead set against that. In addition to having a society that has safety nets for the poor, I strongly believe in having a society that provides as many opportunities for the poor as possible. I believe copyright and IP in general is one of those areas where, with some reform of the system, the playing field can be leveled and the "little guy" can have equal opportunity. On that note:
An alternative might be to simply require that copyright in the work be asserted to take effect
I would back this one hundred percent.
Before I close this, I'd just like to say that just because intellectual property is a relatively new concept(as we understand it now anyway), that doesn't mean that it's entirely a bad one. Seperation of church and state is a relatively new concept, one I would not like to see disappear.:) I'm not saying it's as important as seperation of church and state, I just think when we consider concepts like that and before we make judgement calls on them, that we should seriously consider, without giving into FUD, the real impacts that doing away with the concept could have. I say this in general, I do believe you've considered it to one degree or another(I've been really thinking this stuff since this conversation started). To be fair to you, it seems clear to me that you think the concept needs to be altered, as opposed to doing away with entirely, based on you wanting to see copyright altered. On that I agree, I just disagree, at this point in time, with what degree it should be altered.
Thanks for this conversation. You've expanded my understanding on a lot of things in this exchange and I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me.
An 80-core chip with RAM attached directly to the processor chip, as TFA discusses, is going to have an advantage in transferring data between cores, and plus it'll probably be a lot smaller. Than 40 dual core (or 20 quad core) chips.
It would quite likely be cheaper and consume less power.
I have to wonder if these people have actually ever sat down and asked themselves if these scientists(western scientists of course) who live in the west, were raised in the west, and who probably would have extremely difficult lives given their outspokenness under say, an Islamic government, or many of the eastern government/society types for that matter... I just have to wonder if they've ever asked themselves what they think these scientists hope to achieve by collapsing the west?
If you ask me, the corporations who have subverted our political system by turning the representatives of the people into representatives of corporations and special interest, pose a signifigant threat to western civilization. A threat that people like that person you quote rarely if ever takes into account(unless of course the corporation can be somehow by some stretch of the imagination be associated with the "left").
The organisation does things on consensus and uses democratic methods to break progress barriers. That is assuming if what I've read about them is correct.
Honestly what more do you fucking want???? How much more open and transparent does the process need to be?
Well, let me be blunt... What the fuck are you talking about? I stated fairly clearly why I said what I said. I stated my original response was based on my misunderstanding of the intent of the first poster. I thought I made it perfectly clear that my concern was FSF and their supporters don't take the dipshitted attitude of "you don't like it shut up" approach to discussing these things. Further, I also thought I made it clear that I recognized that I had misunderstood the previous poster and now felt that that wasn't the case. So again, what the fuck are you talking about and why are you asking me this question?
But please have some sense of history before you go spouting off nonsense.
That's my whole point. It doesn't matter how badly people here who hate what we're doing want to make it sound like we've created the whole concept of using governments to secure advantage for trade in foreign markets, we didn't create that. That's been going on for far longer than we've been a country.
What's really the difference between trying to force a country to have a certain type of government, and annexing it as part of your territory to be governed by your government? The former is not exactly the later, but the later definetly qualifies as the former, and that's been going on for what? A couple thousand years at least?
I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why?
Let me give you an answer that I was seriously given in a casual discussion... "most of them are liberals." Yes, someone actually said that to me.
Have we lost faith in the scientific process? Do we disbelieve that it is possible to make hypotheses and discover through investigation the nature of our reality?
No, people have lost faith in people being honest. Some do actually not believe that the scientific method is useful, but in my opinion, most have had a serious break down of faith in those who don't share their opinions, to tell them anything without having an ulterior motive. While I personally don't have distrust of the people saying global warming is happening, I am aware of this level of skepticism in myself in regards to other things.
And another thing, how have we come to such a situation where these anti-evolutionist climate change deniers congregate to/.? Not only do their numbers seem to be increasing, but I see people after all this time still engaging their mindless trolls!
Writing off other people as trolls when they are saying what they sincerely believe keeps the animosity and the distrust alive. Granted, having the same debate over and over again is pointless.
You're right, I was confused by the FSF Europe which has strong democratic elements.
So knowing that, I would have said "Is that free as in speech?", but now I believe I misunderstood the tone and meaning of the poster I was replying to.
My whole meaning is this... If FSF and their supporters begin to take the attitude "You don't like it then shut up", then that's total crap. Don't give me that attitude and then talk to me about "free as in speech". But again, this was based on what I believe was my misunderstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that I'm not a homeowner and I'd like to buy soon, I'd consider a large crash in real estate values a boon.
Sure, it'd be a boon as far as RE prices go, but uh, the depth of the crash that we're talking about in this scenario could wipe out a substantial portion of our economy. I'd love to be able to buy some dirt cheap real estate too, but not if the cost is millions unemployed and severe recession. That's just me though.
Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES DEDICATED TO ACTING WITH SOME COMMON SENSE? I'm not sure why people think we need to pass a law to deal with every problem we have, especially when many of the problems have been born from the laws we've passed or more specifically, born from the way we continue to vote like idiots, for the same two parties, over and over again, hoping next time it's going to get better.
/end rant
I figure we should bring back tarriffs. If a country has shitty labor or environmental laws, slap a tarriff on their products to make them just as expensive as their American counterparts. But I'm not an economist, so maybe I'm missing something important.
I'm not really an economist, but I play one on the internet. No really, I've never had formal education, but I've spent the last several years studying global trade and economics on my own time. So I guess you could say I say the following as a somewhat informed laymen(and many people will no doubt disagree)
Tariffs are a not a good idea, given where we are now. We are actually at a very worrisome point that most are blissfully unaware of. Inflation has been picking up and economic growth has been slowing down. The way the Fed fights inflation is to raise interest rates, but if we raise interest rates now, barring some unforeseen good fortune, we would most likely end up in a recession, with some very real reasons to fear a depression. One of those real reasons to fear, is that higher interest rates, translated into a stronger currency, could accelerate the offshoring of jobs even further. All the globalist cheerleading bullshit on here aside, the world better give a shit if the US economy goes down, because it will be felt around the world.
The answer IMHO, is that our currency needs to devalue further. A devaluation of our currency would lead to higher prices for our goods, BUT, it would also make our labor more cost competitive. I'm all for higher prices if it means the good of our country's economy. But unfortunately, as greed got us to where we are now, I fear that our individual greed will cause us to go the route of protectionism, rather than take our licks like men, so to speak, and accept higher prices for the greater good.
Of course, China needs to float their currency in order for this to really work, and they seem to be dragging their heels on this. This is a good short term strategy on their part, they are essentially expanding at the expense of our economy, but the long term repercussions for them could be bad.
No. They could cause serious irreperable harm to US companies if they tried that.
The big thing that needs to happen to address this situation without taking the risk that protectionist measures represent, is that our currency needs to devalue in relation to other currencies.
Your post reeks of xenophobia.
And yours reaks of PC knee jerking.
What if every country only bought items that had been produced within its borders? We could all feel a smug satisfaction in destroying the global economy (both ours and theirs) in at least having something "Made in America."
Do you understand what a conundrum is? Do you have any theories on why I closed my post with that comment about it being a conundrum? Google "Define: conundrum" if you don't have a clue. Thanks.
What exactly are you complaining about? That I, an American, spoke as an American, on a story regarding the IT labor market in America? Am I missing something here?
Let's take your logic a little further. Why limit ourselves to "made in the USA"?
Well first of all, don't speak of taking my logic a little further, when you clearly didn't understand my point.
That's not very local, why not only buy things made in your state, in your city, your neighborhood, your own farm? Our greed is very much the reason we do not do any of those. It is also an acceptable reason NOT to buy "made in USA."
Right. Before I deal with any of the other stuff you posted, I'd like to know why you thought I added at the end of my first post, that bit about the conundrum? I'd really like to hear what you thought I meant by that. Thanks.
It's great that you realize that, but it doesn't matter. Good luck finding American leaders willing to espouse personal responsibility-it clearly isn't something this country is looking for. Americans much prefer leaving all the hard choices to someone else, and unless you're quoting nonsense from a book of fairy tales, telling Americans that they actually have to make an effort to deal with a problem is a sure-fire way to get tuned out.
I don't worry about "American leaders willing to espouse personal responsibility". To blame American leaders is to take responsibility out of the hands of we the people, the clowns who voted them into office. IMO, that's where the shirking of responsibility begins. When we the people stopped taking responsibility for what the leaders do in our name. Leaders are only ever a reflection of we the people's sincere or insincere efforts to govern ourselves.
I've been modded up and down the spectrum for speaking my mind here and elsewhere, I quite frankly don't give a damn if people tune me out or not. I still believe in personal responsibility. That responsibility entails me speaking my opinion without regard for winning popularity contests. You want to change things, you change things. If you think something needs to be said, then YOU SAY IT. Don't fall into the trap thinking that everyone has to agree with you in order for you to change things. You change yourself, and it will have a ripple effect. If you don't change yourself, then what the hell is the point of complaining?
You can blame repubs, dems, the evolutionists, creationists, etc... But our own individual greed have all contributed to this problem. When was the last time anyone cared about looking for anything "made in the USA"? If we as individuals don't feel compelled to buy products from our own nation, on what grounds do we expect corporations to hire more expensive US labor? Especially when doing so, would put them at a price disadvantage when selling to us US consumers, who, surprise surprise, pay more attention to price than anything else? If they did that, they'd go under, thanks to us.
Something of a conundrum.
By modding conservative posts as a troll, you admit that you are afraid of the truth.
NO, what they are admitting is they don't believe in open discourse. Just because someone mods you down for your opinion, doesn't mean your opinion is the truth.
considering there is no unbiased proof (yes, speculation and people pushing an overly biased agenda don't count) that the 2006 election was stolen
Since when have "conservatives" been concerned about having unbiased proof and been against people pushing an overly biased agenda? Need you be reminded about the WMDs in Iraq, believed with no unbiased proof because people with an overly biased agenda simply claimed it?
No system is perfect and there is always room for improvement, but there is a line between constructive comments and conspiracy theories.
Do you consider the whole "Axis of Evil" claim constructive comments? Do you consider claims that liberals are trying to destroy the country constructive comments or conspiracy theories? Do you consider the implication that those who disagree with the ones pushing an overly biased agenda in washington are unpatriotic and/or traitors? Because even if you answer reasonably to any of these questions, so-called "conservatives have been very unreasonable with regards to these issues for the last several years.
The war on terror isn't about being effective, it's about making people feel like we're doing something
I disagree. It's about keeping enough people scared long enough to completely change what it means to be "free" in America. The government wants these changes and keeping us scared is the only way they can get them. Anyone can say tinfoil hat or whatever, but the evidence is so overwhelming that the powers that be want this, that I simply can not understand how anyone could not see it.
You listen to all the people backing the freedom stealing actions taken in the name of WOT and they are almost all cowards in that all their best arguments are nothing more than appeals to give up what were once cherished american rights and freedoms in the name of easing their fears. Then they have the nerve to play like they're the brave ones.
The fact that these cowards call themselves "patriots" and back actions taken to the point where it is now the EU and not the US complaining about too much information being collected about individuals speaks volumes about what continues to be wrong with the cowards thinking.
If scientists specializing in clausology are able to determine the exact mechanism by which the Claus Man is able to deliver all those gifts in a single night, we will have a solution to the world's energy problems.
That is the promise that study of Clausology holds out to all of mankind and people here are scoffing at it? I think they're astroturfers here on behalf of the oil industry...
Or to use the doctor analogy... If you were drifting off into unconciousness and through some absurd set of circumstances, you had a choice of the doctor that was going to treat you, would you prefer a doc who did "off the record" treatment of gunshot wounds for criminals(which would likely meant he used his skills illegally), or would you prefer a "legitimate" doc who has never actually removed a gunshot wound yet but has never used his skills illegally? I know who I'd prefer.
But that's one fringe case. All things being equal, I would lean towards the guy without the shady background as I'm sure most would.
Right, when I typed that, I envisioned kids building their "cash stash" instead of heading to the music store. At least that was common for my friends and I back when I was a bigger music consume, we didn't use the bank much. I consider $s in a savings account as in motion.
It's worth noting that this is again another question of whether or not the money is as advantageous to the economy sitting in the bank as opposed to being spent. You putting money in the bank has a different effect throughout the economy/supply chain than when you spend it on something else. Ironically(ironic because I made that comment about savings without thinking about the bank) at this point in time, I personally think the nation would actually be better off slowing down frivolous spending a little, and building up savings IN THE BANK. But that's another topic.
I am NOT supporting the industry's study here, but there is a flaw in this:
It's important to remember, however, that even though piracy prevents money from reaching the movie industry, those dollars probably stay in the economy, one intellectual property expert said.
This doesn't really prove anything. Let's just consider what these dollars that "stay in the economy" anyway actually means:
1) The dollars "stay in the economy" but are saved. This doesn't seem likely in today's economy, but it is still a possibility in some cases. Dollars that aren't moving within the economy aren't as useful to economic growth as dollars that do.
2) The dollars are spent on something else. This seems most likely, BUT, this doesn't mean that the economic benefts of the dollars spent on other things, are the same. Money spent on taco bell has a different effect on the economy than money spent on music, and money spent on music as a different effect than money spent on software, etc...
I remember at least one president who didn't get this. His name was George Bush Sr. He once said something really stupid, something like "I don't care if Americans are making potato chips or microchips..." Every American should care, because there is vast difference in the economic benefits between a potato chip economy and a microchip economy.
That being said, I would trust this report backed by the music industry as much as I'd trust a report backed by the tabacco industry that claimed some benefit from tabacco. I'm ONLY taking issue with this one argument. It is a fallacy, sort of a "broken window" in reverse.
Before I played command and conquer, I would have found the concept of global domination repugnant. Now I can't stop plotting. I've ordered major offenses in two foreign countries, and I've been eyeballing two others. I have found though, that in real life, it's not as easy as it is in C&C, so I'm thinking if I can't turn things around soon, I'll probably sue the makers of C&C.
-GWB
You have a very valid point, but I think there are two things I should offer here that I didn't elaborate on... First, I think beyond simply me as an individual getting older and wiser is that there are just far more hobbies now that compete for the disposable income of young people. FAR FAR FAR more people game now for example. When my generation was in high school, the most popular system was the 8 bit nintendo and it was not generally socially acceptable among most in my peer group to talk about gaming. In my experience, you had your "gaming friends", and you kept them seperate from your "mainstream" friends, because they were nerds and you were a closet nerd. LOL. Insert slashback mountain joke here...
Anyway, my second point is related to the first... Before my generation, you graduated high school and what did you continue to do for entertainment? Music and pop media. Unless you were truly hardcore, computers were in banks, you know? Sure, there were arcades, and they had popularity to a degree, but I don't think it ever really competed for the disposable income of kids the way games have.
This would be interesting to see... A comparison of the growth of the home video game industry(including PCs) during the time of the alleged "file sharing" hitting CD sales. Because honestly, offhand if I recall the marketing crap I've seen thrown around about changing gamer demographics, it was about '96 that they began talking about the gaming segment as 18-34. My gut tells me you will find something statistically signifigant there.
Not just gaming either... A lot of what were relatively small hobby groups when I was in high school, are now pretty mainstream, or at least were for a long time in the 90s. RC cars, planes, computers, anime, etc... In fact, the more I think about it, the more unthinkable it is to me that the growth of other markets that consume disposable income couldn't have an impact on music sales. I mean in high school, and part of college, the one thing everyone had in common was love of music. Concerts were a huge deal. My high school age nephews listen to music, but I've never seen them go to a concert and even if you count all their mp3s, they still don't have music libraries matching what me and most of my friends had built. They're much more inclined to go to a card tournament or an anime convention than a music concert.
I mean seriously, I remember the exact year I stopped buying the same quantity of CDs... It was 1994. Yes, my computer had something to do with it, but it wasn't file sharing. It was I found myself spending most of my disposable cash on computer upgrades and games for the next 2 years. Seriously. I still bought CDs, but my guess would be I had cut down by about 90 percent.
Then about 1996, I moved in with my girlfriend, and the focus of my life completely changed. Again, still bought CDs, it's just music slowly fell down the list of important things to do with my money in my life. You end up living together, then you get engaged, buy furniture, get married, buy a house, start a family, etc... I personally just never found myself back in that stage where it seemed like a good idea to toss massive amounts of my disposable income on music.
I can't possibly be the only one can I?
Sorry for the delay of my reply. I actually did try to reply shortly after you posted, but my browser crashed after I had typed quite a bit...
:) I'm not saying it's as important as seperation of church and state, I just think when we consider concepts like that and before we make judgement calls on them, that we should seriously consider, without giving into FUD, the real impacts that doing away with the concept could have. I say this in general, I do believe you've considered it to one degree or another(I've been really thinking this stuff since this conversation started). To be fair to you, it seems clear to me that you think the concept needs to be altered, as opposed to doing away with entirely, based on you wanting to see copyright altered. On that I agree, I just disagree, at this point in time, with what degree it should be altered.
Anyway, rather than continue this conversation on a point by point basis, I'm just going to cover a few things:
After you posted that bit about free software, I went out and studied the FSF movement, and I can honestly say, I fall into the open source camp, not the FSF camp. While I respect your ideals and opinions(a good deal), I have serious economic concerns regarding the radical change in the view of software(and really, IP in general) that you and the FSF advocate. It is not that I think we should continue to have crappy copyright law(and I do agree with you on the brokenness and outdatedness of our copyright law) in the name of economic gain. It is that too rapid or radical a switch at this point, could have disasterous effects on the world economy. I'm not saying this because of any FUD I've read, I'm saying this based on my last few years in studying the global economy and global trade.
At the risk of igniting a trade or economics debate(not my intent), I just want outline why I say this, so you won't chalk this up into just some troll spouting FUD. When we began the integration of the economies of the world, manufacturing was picked up by the poorer countries based on our experience that while we would lose manufacturing jobs in some sectors, the selling our IP would make up for the losses. This would naturally, though not painlessly and certainly not overnight, move the economies towards balanced trade. Of course, I say this pushing aside the concept of imperialism that has reared its ugly head again.
Now that we have opened our markets to so many, to take away IP as it has **EVOLVED** to be, could deal a devastating blow to not only our economy, but to every economy that ours is intermingled with. I could say more and go into more detail, but I think this will serve at least to explain my general concern.
Now one thing I want to apologize for is this:
You'll notice that I specifically said registration should be decentralised, and in private hands
I did not notice that, I read right past that. I've been fighting a flu for over a week now so my head isn't the clearest. Even so, in private hands, my concerns remain, especially with regards to creating a system that favors the rich with regards to access to copyright. I am really dead set against that. In addition to having a society that has safety nets for the poor, I strongly believe in having a society that provides as many opportunities for the poor as possible. I believe copyright and IP in general is one of those areas where, with some reform of the system, the playing field can be leveled and the "little guy" can have equal opportunity. On that note:
An alternative might be to simply require that copyright in the work be asserted to take effect
I would back this one hundred percent.
Before I close this, I'd just like to say that just because intellectual property is a relatively new concept(as we understand it now anyway), that doesn't mean that it's entirely a bad one. Seperation of church and state is a relatively new concept, one I would not like to see disappear.
Thanks for this conversation. You've expanded my understanding on a lot of things in this exchange and I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me.
An 80-core chip with RAM attached directly to the processor chip, as TFA discusses, is going to have an advantage in transferring data between cores, and plus it'll probably be a lot smaller. Than 40 dual core (or 20 quad core) chips.
It would quite likely be cheaper and consume less power.
... of what I said above.
I have to wonder if these people have actually ever sat down and asked themselves if these scientists(western scientists of course) who live in the west, were raised in the west, and who probably would have extremely difficult lives given their outspokenness under say, an Islamic government, or many of the eastern government/society types for that matter... I just have to wonder if they've ever asked themselves what they think these scientists hope to achieve by collapsing the west?
If you ask me, the corporations who have subverted our political system by turning the representatives of the people into representatives of corporations and special interest, pose a signifigant threat to western civilization. A threat that people like that person you quote rarely if ever takes into account(unless of course the corporation can be somehow by some stretch of the imagination be associated with the "left").
What do you mean "strong democratic elements"?
The organisation does things on consensus and uses democratic methods to break progress barriers. That is assuming if what I've read about them is correct.
Honestly what more do you fucking want???? How much more open and transparent does the process need to be?
Well, let me be blunt... What the fuck are you talking about? I stated fairly clearly why I said what I said. I stated my original response was based on my misunderstanding of the intent of the first poster. I thought I made it perfectly clear that my concern was FSF and their supporters don't take the dipshitted attitude of "you don't like it shut up" approach to discussing these things. Further, I also thought I made it clear that I recognized that I had misunderstood the previous poster and now felt that that wasn't the case. So again, what the fuck are you talking about and why are you asking me this question?
But please have some sense of history before you go spouting off nonsense.
That's my whole point. It doesn't matter how badly people here who hate what we're doing want to make it sound like we've created the whole concept of using governments to secure advantage for trade in foreign markets, we didn't create that. That's been going on for far longer than we've been a country.
What's really the difference between trying to force a country to have a certain type of government, and annexing it as part of your territory to be governed by your government? The former is not exactly the later, but the later definetly qualifies as the former, and that's been going on for what? A couple thousand years at least?
I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why?
/.? Not only do their numbers seem to be increasing, but I see people after all this time still engaging their mindless trolls!
Let me give you an answer that I was seriously given in a casual discussion... "most of them are liberals." Yes, someone actually said that to me.
Have we lost faith in the scientific process? Do we disbelieve that it is possible to make hypotheses and discover through investigation the nature of our reality?
No, people have lost faith in people being honest. Some do actually not believe that the scientific method is useful, but in my opinion, most have had a serious break down of faith in those who don't share their opinions, to tell them anything without having an ulterior motive. While I personally don't have distrust of the people saying global warming is happening, I am aware of this level of skepticism in myself in regards to other things.
And another thing, how have we come to such a situation where these anti-evolutionist climate change deniers congregate to
Writing off other people as trolls when they are saying what they sincerely believe keeps the animosity and the distrust alive. Granted, having the same debate over and over again is pointless.
You're right, I was confused by the FSF Europe which has strong democratic elements. So knowing that, I would have said "Is that free as in speech?", but now I believe I misunderstood the tone and meaning of the poster I was replying to.
My whole meaning is this... If FSF and their supporters begin to take the attitude "You don't like it then shut up", then that's total crap. Don't give me that attitude and then talk to me about "free as in speech". But again, this was based on what I believe was my misunderstanding.