"Of course, it's awfully easy to take the position that other people's shit should be taken away from the them and handed to me. I just see something morally repugnant about that."
You don't want to clean up other people's shit? I can't disagree with you there. Maybe the neoliberals are onto something and I should switch teams. I don't want to clean up other people's shit either.
If they have to hide the information in their interfaces between their hardware and software drivers, then their IP in their hardware or their software isn't all that great.
I don't even care about their software drivers. Just give me access to their framebuffer and/or how to drive the hardware and I'll buy your hardware.
Not everything works like google ads. I agree -- you're going to get shitty results when you use an ad-supported model.
Believe it or not some people pay regular price for their hardware and software and don't like to be ad-subsidized. That's one reason I don't buy a Dell -- the same reason I don't use google to find out where to buy stuff. Believe it or not you get better service if you pay for the data rather than let an advertiser pay for it. Think Consumer Reports. The advertising model's fundamentally broken. Is TV good? no. Cable used to be good because you paid for it -- then they got ads too.
Everybody on/. is always complaining about vendors getting close to their news sites. Wake up people. It's the nature of advertising.
It's very difficult to make ads useful. One technique I've not seen yet: if you can let the viewer of the ad determine whether or not the ad was actually worthwhile, and not by clicking -- by surveying them after they've seen whether or not the information was useful. If it's unuseful, charge the advertiser and give the money back to the viewer. I'd rather they pay me for wasting my time than having the service pay them because I clicked a misleading lead-in. Maybe also if the ad texts were actually vetted, I might use any google ad, but I never have -- I have no reason to.
> >... it's not that difficult to integrate them into a digital form.
> You are kidding right? Neither do they know nor do they care where you can get food. You can view their ads online already but it just doesn't work. Secretaries of State?
My occupation is the processing of spatial data on compute clusters. Many of my co-workers used to be spatial data converters for the major spatial data vendors. Here in the US, you can get corporate records from some office of the state or county. You can't serve food in any state I'm aware of and not be on file with the state or county for health and sanitation reasons.
I also was secretary of a state political party and the spatial database manager for them. I got most of my records from the secretary of state and county elections officials. I had written programs that would take every county and merge them into a single database.
I'm not kidding -- it's not that hard, even with government data.
> > On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals.
> Of course they would. If they don't lock out their competitors they aren't good business people.
My point was that they couldn't because the market wouldn't let them. Note:
1) every existing application that has POIs doesn't prefer one particular food choice.
2) if they could lock out food choices they would have tried already.
Where I work, it's also our policy to be vendor-neutral. We go to great lengths to do that. Why? Because if we did, the other vendors wouldn't let us use their data.
Things like CityPoint data and the other many review sites are the web-2.0 way of finding store hours. Companies won't need to webify themselves anymore -- the rabble will webify them whether they like it or not if their roast beef really is good, that is, if the data vendors don't already have people walking the streets or using video camera trucks to get this data. Have you seen the TeleAtlas cars with gobs of cameras on them? Look at NAVTEQ's website and they talk about how some of their data collection methods involve going out on foot.
That's why I said "one" and not "you" since it sounded like you were merely trying to represent somebody else. But in any case, we need to fix the roots of the problem with things like atheism (and the promotion of skepticism), tolerance, rationalism, diplomacy, and measured responses, not try to patch our defenses with exponential costs that partially block one attack vector, leading to an arms race of vector defenses an workarounds.
Actually the point of interest data vendors try to capture data universally. They don't just do RESTAURANT/FASTFOOD and skip the rest.
Think of it this way: Yellow Pages companies and Secretaries of State (and local health/sanitation departments) should have a pretty good idea of where you can get food -- it's not that difficult to integrate them into a digital form.
They'd otherwise have to go directly to the fast food chains and cull their franchise records. I'm sure some do this for completeness, but it's definitely not the only way they collect data.
On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals. I don't think the market would ever settle for this given how easy the data is to get already.
So, in total, I think your comment highly unlikely.
Corporate Personhood is even a newer concept than limited liability in the history of ideas.
Anyways, you seem to be completely missing the point.
Those who advocate revocability of corporate charters want an effective punishment process that will destroy the company, which has nothing to do with _personal_ liability. It has everything to do with the liability of the _corporation_.
Pardon me if that's not obvious, but I hope this response clears up any confusion you or anybody else may have.
Or do you? (And I don't mean a high fee diversified mutual fund.)
And even if you do (say, via a low fee index fund of index funds), would the small monetary benefit recompense your enriching the boards of directors that swindle the shareholders the other half of the time?
For the dim-witted, my point is that even if you own shares, all corporations have to deal with other corporations, too, so they're not much better off flouting ethical normals just to benefit their generally unaware shareholders. It's just corporate anarchy.
Note also that having a great number of shareholders doesn't always help because those are likely all mutual fund shares where you have a plutocrat managing the fund anyways, so mutual fund investing doesn't really assist the machinations of self-correction that "the 'scientific' divine hand" supposedly provides.
"Helping the shareholders" is really just code for enriching the executives.
Just like any other representative system, those who do the representing always take a mighty big chunk out for themselves.
So no, he was referring to the majority of those who do own shares. All the small investors get well screwed too.
Sales taxes take a larger percentage of *income* from lower income persons than higher income persons, generally, and even if you include the lower amount of sales taxed items that the poor pay for -- as a percentage of income -- it is still more than the rich person pays. Remember that high income earners most likely spend more of their money on things that aren't taxed as sales. Luxury taxes are what I think you instead want to promote.
And in this discussion, we're really talking about use taxes or consumption taxes, since it's the use or consumption of an item that we are trying to offset -- in this case road use on an indirect measure (fuel). We really should be taxing by weight of the vehicle times the road, since increased efficiencies will be promoted and it actually reflects the amount of damage put on the roadway (it can be curved higher for higher weights since higher weights actually cause more damage per weight than lower weight vehicles -- the damage isn't linear).
So, Remember that Regressivity/Progressivity of a tax system is defined by percentage of income.
I have mod points and was about to mark your post as down because it was not related to the post you are replying to directly, however, I thought a comment of clarification was in order, since what you say is true out of context.
I believe you may be helping readers confound "break even" in unadjusted and adjusted dollars. Instead, people need to compare adjusted dollars to adjusted dollars for both the insurance company and the person who is considering taking out a policy. The original poster surely meant to compare adjusted to adjusted dollars, so their point is still valid.
Note that the consumer can direct their own investing (which may be with another large institutional investor, or may not) on their own.
Standing alone, your comment is correct if you are meaning to correct people who don't understand interest, but in context, I hope nobody gets the idea that your comment invalidated the original poster's comment.
I've looked over the post you replied to and your post and I can't see where any "validation" is happening, nor can I find a use of "~a -> b". I'll try to gleam something out of this post though, but they might be straw arguments since you didn't actually make a complete argument for me to work from.
Proving that something is not valid is actually quite easy since there are only a few ways to make something valid. An exhaustive search of valid methods is pretty trivial.
Plus, "Wikipedia being *not* useful for reference citations", therefore "other things are useful" is not the argument, it's in fact this:
(hidden assumption: "reference citations must be from places that have a validation process to be useful") "Wikipedia is not useful for reference citations", because "Wikipedia has no validation process". "Wikipedia is not useful for reference citations", so "it's not identical to something that is useful for reference citations."
And a separate point:
"Other things are useful for reference citations", because "they have a validation process".
Try disagreeing with those logical methods and the assumption, not something you just made up because you couldn't follow the argument.
Citizendium relies on anybody to edit it. It relies upon expert "editors", not authors. Authors can freely contribute in a fashion similar to wikipedia. Claim validation of authors is done by the expert "editors" after the authors have done wiki-style editing of the document. When the "editors" of that subject area approve, then it is considered an approved article and is the first version shown, which can be cited in an academic work.
Wikipedia's "everything's ok as long as it's sourced" is extremely unuseful. Frequently I see the most useless "contributions" by fringe elements that have been sourced back to some nutjob publication that happens to have an url.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! has one reference to some criticism document that makes no sense to anybody who knows anything about logic, yet when it gets removed (there really are much better criticisms than the one posted) it gets re-added by the nutjob who put it in in the first place. That's not a validation process, that's an artifact of having no way to prevent useless contributions.
And the grandparent wasn't a WikiTroll? I had mod-points but decided to post instead of moderate.
Do people really believe that "anybody can edit" and "accurate information suitable for reference" are one and the same?
Look at the question the grandparent asked -- it exposes a hidden assumption that liberal editing and accuracy are identical.
Citizendium still allows liberal editing, but on top of it they have a peer-review system in place to approve snapshots of articles. They aren't mutually exclusive. However, Wikipedia has a policy of not having any process to gain any modicum of authority.
Citizendium has its issues too, like that it hasn't fully articulated its desire to have authoritative processes in concrete terms that aren't couched in Larry Sanger's own degree-oriented biases, but at least it's trying.
My whole point was that the Encyclopedia of Life has a reason of existence outside of the no-holds-barred lack of authority that Wikipedia provides.
References and Echo Chambers are entirely two different things.
For making that distinction, I'm modded as a troll. Whatever./., echo away.
Slashdot Mirror
"Of course, it's awfully easy to take the position that other people's shit should be taken away from the them and handed to me. I just see something morally repugnant about that."
You don't want to clean up other people's shit? I can't disagree with you there. Maybe the neoliberals are onto something and I should switch teams. I don't want to clean up other people's shit either.
Frankly, I'm just not buying this excuse.
If they have to hide the information in their interfaces between their hardware and software drivers, then their IP in their hardware or their software isn't all that great.
I don't even care about their software drivers. Just give me access to their framebuffer and/or how to drive the hardware and I'll buy your hardware.
Don't and I won't. That's a market reality.
or tortoiseSVN
davfs
Oops, I meant citysearch.
Not everything works like google ads. I agree -- you're going to get shitty results when you use an ad-supported model.
/. is always complaining about vendors getting close to their news sites. Wake up people. It's the nature of advertising.
Believe it or not some people pay regular price for their hardware and software and don't like to be ad-subsidized. That's one reason I don't buy a Dell -- the same reason I don't use google to find out where to buy stuff. Believe it or not you get better service if you pay for the data rather than let an advertiser pay for it. Think Consumer Reports. The advertising model's fundamentally broken. Is TV good? no. Cable used to be good because you paid for it -- then they got ads too.
Everybody on
It's very difficult to make ads useful. One technique I've not seen yet: if you can let the viewer of the ad determine whether or not the ad was actually worthwhile, and not by clicking -- by surveying them after they've seen whether or not the information was useful. If it's unuseful, charge the advertiser and give the money back to the viewer. I'd rather they pay me for wasting my time than having the service pay them because I clicked a misleading lead-in. Maybe also if the ad texts were actually vetted, I might use any google ad, but I never have -- I have no reason to.
> > ... it's not that difficult to integrate them into a digital form.
> You are kidding right? Neither do they know nor do they care where you can get food. You can view their ads online already but it just doesn't work. Secretaries of State?
My occupation is the processing of spatial data on compute clusters. Many of my co-workers used to be spatial data converters for the major spatial data vendors. Here in the US, you can get corporate records from some office of the state or county. You can't serve food in any state I'm aware of and not be on file with the state or county for health and sanitation reasons.
I also was secretary of a state political party and the spatial database manager for them. I got most of my records from the secretary of state and county elections officials. I had written programs that would take every county and merge them into a single database.
I'm not kidding -- it's not that hard, even with government data.
> > On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals.
> Of course they would. If they don't lock out their competitors they aren't good business people.
My point was that they couldn't because the market wouldn't let them. Note:
1) every existing application that has POIs doesn't prefer one particular food choice.
2) if they could lock out food choices they would have tried already.
Where I work, it's also our policy to be vendor-neutral. We go to great lengths to do that. Why? Because if we did, the other vendors wouldn't let us use their data.
Things like CityPoint data and the other many review sites are the web-2.0 way of finding store hours. Companies won't need to webify themselves anymore -- the rabble will webify them whether they like it or not if their roast beef really is good, that is, if the data vendors don't already have people walking the streets or using video camera trucks to get this data. Have you seen the TeleAtlas cars with gobs of cameras on them? Look at NAVTEQ's website and they talk about how some of their data collection methods involve going out on foot.
That's why I said "one" and not "you" since it sounded like you were merely trying to represent somebody else. But in any case, we need to fix the roots of the problem with things like atheism (and the promotion of skepticism), tolerance, rationalism, diplomacy, and measured responses, not try to patch our defenses with exponential costs that partially block one attack vector, leading to an arms race of vector defenses an workarounds.
Actually the point of interest data vendors try to capture data universally. They don't just do RESTAURANT/FASTFOOD and skip the rest.
Think of it this way: Yellow Pages companies and Secretaries of State (and local health/sanitation departments) should have a pretty good idea of where you can get food -- it's not that difficult to integrate them into a digital form.
They'd otherwise have to go directly to the fast food chains and cull their franchise records. I'm sure some do this for completeness, but it's definitely not the only way they collect data.
On the other hand you might think fast food chains might lock out other places with exclusive deals. I don't think the market would ever settle for this given how easy the data is to get already.
So, in total, I think your comment highly unlikely.
do I have to add anymore than just the question?
Please see my reply above in the same thread... you're confusing limited corporate liability (personhood) with corporate limited personal liability.
7 03351
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243791&cid=19
oligarchy counts, but I like to be a bit more specific.
Corporate Personhood is even a newer concept than limited liability in the history of ideas.
Anyways, you seem to be completely missing the point.
Those who advocate revocability of corporate charters want an effective punishment process that will destroy the company, which has nothing to do with _personal_ liability. It has everything to do with the liability of the _corporation_.
Pardon me if that's not obvious, but I hope this response clears up any confusion you or anybody else may have.
informative
But you don't own shares in every corporation.
Or do you? (And I don't mean a high fee diversified mutual fund.)
And even if you do (say, via a low fee index fund of index funds), would the small monetary benefit recompense your enriching the boards of directors that swindle the shareholders the other half of the time?
For the dim-witted, my point is that even if you own shares, all corporations have to deal with other corporations, too, so they're not much better off flouting ethical normals just to benefit their generally unaware shareholders. It's just corporate anarchy.
Note also that having a great number of shareholders doesn't always help because those are likely all mutual fund shares where you have a plutocrat managing the fund anyways, so mutual fund investing doesn't really assist the machinations of self-correction that "the 'scientific' divine hand" supposedly provides.
"Helping the shareholders" is really just code for enriching the executives.
Just like any other representative system, those who do the representing always take a mighty big chunk out for themselves.
So no, he was referring to the majority of those who do own shares. All the small investors get well screwed too.
Which ethnicity of indentured servants will be used to outsource repairing the robots to provide the food for all the Caucasian liberal arts grads?!?
He seemed perfectly fine letting people talk about secret military matters on their insecured wireless crackberries.
Sales taxes take a larger percentage of *income* from lower income persons than higher income persons, generally, and even if you include the lower amount of sales taxed items that the poor pay for -- as a percentage of income -- it is still more than the rich person pays. Remember that high income earners most likely spend more of their money on things that aren't taxed as sales. Luxury taxes are what I think you instead want to promote.
And in this discussion, we're really talking about use taxes or consumption taxes, since it's the use or consumption of an item that we are trying to offset -- in this case road use on an indirect measure (fuel). We really should be taxing by weight of the vehicle times the road, since increased efficiencies will be promoted and it actually reflects the amount of damage put on the roadway (it can be curved higher for higher weights since higher weights actually cause more damage per weight than lower weight vehicles -- the damage isn't linear).
So, Remember that Regressivity/Progressivity of a tax system is defined by percentage of income.
I have mod points and was about to mark your post as down because it was not related to the post you are replying to directly, however, I thought a comment of clarification was in order, since what you say is true out of context.
I believe you may be helping readers confound "break even" in unadjusted and adjusted dollars. Instead, people need to compare adjusted dollars to adjusted dollars for both the insurance company and the person who is considering taking out a policy. The original poster surely meant to compare adjusted to adjusted dollars, so their point is still valid.
Note that the consumer can direct their own investing (which may be with another large institutional investor, or may not) on their own.
Standing alone, your comment is correct if you are meaning to correct people who don't understand interest, but in context, I hope nobody gets the idea that your comment invalidated the original poster's comment.
64-bit will be overkill on embedded systems for a long time coming...
Thank Saint IGNUcious I won't have to deal with that monstrosity in the future.
That would be a true characterization if they are using the GNU/Linux operating system. TFA says they are simply using Linux.
I've looked over the post you replied to and your post and I can't see where any "validation" is happening, nor can I find a use of "~a -> b". I'll try to gleam something out of this post though, but they might be straw arguments since you didn't actually make a complete argument for me to work from.
Proving that something is not valid is actually quite easy since there are only a few ways to make something valid. An exhaustive search of valid methods is pretty trivial.
Plus, "Wikipedia being *not* useful for reference citations", therefore "other things are useful" is not the argument, it's in fact this:
(hidden assumption: "reference citations must be from places that have a validation process to be useful")
"Wikipedia is not useful for reference citations", because "Wikipedia has no validation process".
"Wikipedia is not useful for reference citations", so "it's not identical to something that is useful for reference citations."
And a separate point:
"Other things are useful for reference citations", because "they have a validation process".
Try disagreeing with those logical methods and the assumption, not something you just made up because you couldn't follow the argument.
Citizendium relies on anybody to edit it. It relies upon expert "editors", not authors. Authors can freely contribute in a fashion similar to wikipedia. Claim validation of authors is done by the expert "editors" after the authors have done wiki-style editing of the document. When the "editors" of that subject area approve, then it is considered an approved article and is the first version shown, which can be cited in an academic work.
Wikipedia's "everything's ok as long as it's sourced" is extremely unuseful. Frequently I see the most useless "contributions" by fringe elements that have been sourced back to some nutjob publication that happens to have an url.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! has one reference to some criticism document that makes no sense to anybody who knows anything about logic, yet when it gets removed (there really are much better criticisms than the one posted) it gets re-added by the nutjob who put it in in the first place. That's not a validation process, that's an artifact of having no way to prevent useless contributions.
And the grandparent wasn't a WikiTroll? I had mod-points but decided to post instead of moderate.
/., echo away.
Do people really believe that "anybody can edit" and "accurate information suitable for reference" are one and the same?
Look at the question the grandparent asked -- it exposes a hidden assumption that liberal editing and accuracy are identical.
Citizendium still allows liberal editing, but on top of it they have a peer-review system in place to approve snapshots of articles. They aren't mutually exclusive. However, Wikipedia has a policy of not having any process to gain any modicum of authority.
Citizendium has its issues too, like that it hasn't fully articulated its desire to have authoritative processes in concrete terms that aren't couched in Larry Sanger's own degree-oriented biases, but at least it's trying.
My whole point was that the Encyclopedia of Life has a reason of existence outside of the no-holds-barred lack of authority that Wikipedia provides.
References and Echo Chambers are entirely two different things.
For making that distinction, I'm modded as a troll. Whatever.