What an irony that they decided to mass mail when they've warned their employees not to do so. What they should have done if they were concerned about their load [which evidently they should have] was to warn their employees in blocks, perhaps 10% at a time with space between to take care of the massive response... However, judging by the nature of their work [it is the state department after all] I don't believe it unreasonable that there could be events in their future requiring such mass mailings again and having the whole system crash under the load would be no doubt very bad in emergencies.
Excluding trade, there cannot be net savings in an economy.
provide proof supportive of your conjecture.
How is wealth destroyed?
the answer is in your next sentence:
It is transferred from one person to another
bingo. it's a stealth tax on those who save [rather than spend their capital irresponsibly] and a subsidy for loans. Now you contend that transferring wealth from one person to another can't destroy wealth, I beg to differ- the transfer of wealth from an efficient source of production to one that isn't will no doubt decrease efficiency, the transfer of wealth from a profitable enterprise to one that has since run its self into the ground no doubt destroys wealth wouldn't you say so? the cheaper the loans the more likely it is that bad loans will be made... take a look at the current home financial bubble that has just collapsed as a fantastic example of how wealth can be destroyed by bad loans made possible through artificially low interest rates. more loans doesn't equal a better economy, after al bad loans don't create anything.
the "stuff" in the economy remains the same and the productive capacity remains the same.
how do you figure? how does eroding currency out beneath people's feet, encouraging more but not intelligent lending do anything other than destroy wealth????
As for the biology metaphor, if you want to think of the economy as a body; then deflation is a heart attack and Keynesianism is chest compressions.
oh really? what happens to businesses in a deflationary event? as currency becomes stronger, businesses tend toward savings rather than funding less productive activities, they cut costs through several different means or die off. people adjust their spending toward that which they require rather than that which they want but do not need. it's a good thing to shed that which is not as efficient. it is not a good thing to expect constant, never ending growth when resources, trade and lack of saved capital does not allow. it is not a good thing to freak out every time the market adjusts its self as it did in 2007. deflationary events are normal and neccessary! you can't just keep pumping inflation based expect capital into a system and expect those deflationary events to go away! it's the result of people realizing housing prices were ridiculously out of balance and selling like they should have. it's the result of banks making stupid irresponsible loans that lost them billions and not having the capital and being a lot more selective about whom gets the loans they do give out. what did the government do? bailed the banks out. where did the money comes from? other banks. who is paying for it? you and i. it isn't free money, it's coming from somewhere and keynesian economics rests on the belief that by bailing out these banks we can make more money from these loans than what it takes to pay the debt down. but the first problem is that these banks made those stupid decisions that got us here in the first place, handing them money isn't going to be spent well... the second is that you're effectively taking money from one bank that could be used to loan and transferring it to a different bank in order to make it so that that bank could make a loan... wtf? why exactly does it make sense to take moeny from a bank that actually has money left and transfer it to idiots that lost theirs by making a ton of bad loans????? why is it that a very sick bank deserves to live while banks that didn't make stupid loans are then bought out by the idiots that destroyed their capital? what reason do these banks have to alter their behavior if they know that there is always going to be a safety net there to protect them in case they screw up again like they have *at the beginning of the depression *at the savings and loan bailout *now *the future??? ther
keynesian economics postulates that you can drag a country out of a depression through spending, in order to discourage "idle money", the idea is to keep money circulating rather than "horded." The problem is that money is representative of work already done, things already produced. BY using government intervention to stimulate demand, you aren't stimulating production, you're causing inflation. That is of course the idea- prices increase enough to make producing that product worth while... it is of course wrong. the more expensive something is the less of it is consumed. the cheaper something is to produce, the lower the price and more that is consumed. production creates its own demand in an otherwise efficient system. Now on to the hypothysis that intervention on the part of the state can help things along- how is this theoretically done? *jobs through government projects- to do what? *adjust inflation rates... higher rates to control inflation, lower to make the cost of loans artificially low... the problem is that interest rates are representative of the risk of the borrower- higher rates discourage all but near emergency loans, low rates encourage less productive tasks be financed through loans. why don't the feds lower the rates all the time to encourage the creation of wealth through investment/expansion via loans all the time? 1) deflation is the "enemy" it encourages saving and discourages wasteful spending 2) it causes excessive inflation, the large increase in the supply of money devalues it, destroying wealth. The economy is in a state of equilibrium, always- and like chemistry tipping the balance to one side [supply or demand] will shift back toward equilibrium whether it be a crash [like the one we're in right now, the market shedding idiots' money from malinvestment] which reminds me, how are those stimulus checks workign for the economy? not so well. turns out that subsidizing businesses doesn't help the economy after all, who would have thought. but really, if you think of the economy much like a chemical or biological system, it becomes much clearer why keynesian economics fails. you can't debase the cellular currency [ATP] and expect a happier, more productive cell. a cell can't increase demand its way out of starving to death, it can produce its way out though. the easier it is to produce something the more of it is made and if it's too difficult to create a supply, it doesn't matter how much demand there is- there isn't going to be any more widgets because of it. likewise, a cell can't be forced to replicate its self without fault nor can an economy be made better off by forcing things to be built when no one is otherwise bothing to do so- the reason is that people acting mostly in their own self interest, thus using resources to increase their wealth in a relatively efficient manner, government on the other hand has no such incentive. there is little in the way of correction if the government makes the bad decision which it so very often does, most manifest in the former soviet union... failure is paid through higher taxes, in the private sector failure is paid through the collapse of that inefficient business to be replaced by another more efficent one. artificial selection worked for biology the last 4 billion years, it's working in economics as well. which is a very big example of how an economy whether it be human created or biological is capable of regulating its self and generally why screwing with the system does not benefit the system in the long run.
Carter's administration. Window fallacy. Japan's failed attempt to spend its way out of recession. You can not create anything without saving something. If a business makes no profit there is no money to expand no matter what "demand" exists. THe same is true of personal economics, people make money from saving their money not from spending everything they have. Now lets assume that everyone saves but doesn't invest- what occurs? consumption decreases, prices fall until consumption rises [cheaper gas sells better you know] it regulates its self. When government attemptz to remove capital from one area to feed another the result is usually a negative one. Take a look at the (former) soviet union which Keynes felt to comment on Keynesian economics' positive results while the reality was that the soviet economy was crippled. The simple fact is that people generally tend to wish to improve their own situation with whatever means available. Investing, saving, curbing wasteful consumption etc. Inevitably having left over capital was responsible for the advancement of civilization since peopel could expand and do more things, creagte more food, research etc.
that's true but remember that it was the FCC that caused all of this in the first place, not the market. After all, most companies don't collude in order to p--- off their customers... The FCC auctioned the bandwidth to the highest bidder, demanded that everything be broadcast in digital by a specified date and proceded to use *taxpayer money* to fund all of it. All of this began with government intervention were it wasn't needed and now the result is that a whole truckload of old people as you said, are going to lose their major source of entertainment. However, it is not their job to do any of this. None whatsoever, nor was it theirs to demand everything changes by a certain date, they've over stepped their authority entirely. I sympathize with those in poverty thus I donate time and money to assist them, I don't however demand that other people's money be used to subsidize projects like this. That's stealing and stealing is wrong no matter who does it or why. Same thing with stadiums or any other source of entertainment, the feds shouldn't be doing anything other than maintaining national defense and keeping one person from whacking the other over the head and that means no subsidizing entertainment.
well, on top of the fact that you barely have enough money to feed yourself
oh for f---s sake! who in their right mind believes that TV is right up there with not starving to death??? This is exactly why a lot of people stay in poverty, they can not comprehend that spending their money as quickly as they possibly can on non-essentials is keeping people in poverty!!
It's a tad more complex than just text ads however I do think you are correct in questioning exactly how much these at least partially ad based companies are worth, especially when ad blocking software is on the rise. The dot com bust occured because companies were based on shaky business sustained by buzz and capital that *didn't actually exist* in that they weren't creating anything... sometimes I wonder if that is also the case with these ad based companies... Who knows- maybe they've figuVred out how to live off of ads like TV does, but I severely doubt it. I'll give it a good year
You're talking about the same government that is more than happy to redistrbute wealth from one class of citizens to another to appease the masses. Given a choice between satisfying the population's need for "protect me from the ter'rists" legislation and having the economy take a hit due to the crippling of security which do you think is most likely?
it would be quite better if the resisdents of the UK did boot these scumbags out on their arse but I bet like the US at least a third of them are foolish enough to give their government that kind of power... the "only terrorists are against this massive spying" rhetoric is far too prevelant for the average joe to successfully fight this nonsense and the politicians who suggested this nonsense.
from their point of view it is, in the US and presumably the UK the constitution would say otherwise but since when do any of them bother following their constitutions? They can get away with this nonsense because not enough people are fighting it and too many people think "well only terrorists and other criminals should be afraid." The thing to keep in mind is that once you can justify unconstitutional acts against criminals there isn't too much standing between that position and "lets violate everyone's civil rights."
so it seems that 1984 only got the year wrong after all. unfortunately the fear and paranoia in the public's mind is only going to fuel more of this ridiculous nonsense.
well if you're going to make that argument, there's the public domain which is by your definition "the most free of all." However, as was explained by the poster responding to yours before mine, some restrictions are neccessary for freedom to be meaningful. An anarchy is indeed "freer" than a libertarian government but only because anarchy does not protect the right against being killed, robbed etc. just as the GPL protects the endusers' rights by the golden rule- give others the same rights you've been given. The freedom to murder in an anarchy is a meaningless "right" as is the freedom to restrict another user's ability to use the same code you have.
you're saying that the first developers on that code are end users but the people who use that code and software after them [Mac for example] are not and that is a mistake. Mac as an example is based largely on BSD'ed code- it can not be altered nor improved by anyone other than Apple- they are in effect much freer to do with that code than you. You are *not free* to build upon that code as Apple has done, if Apple's code has a flaw you can not fix it, you can not alter its behavior- it belongs to them the same as if it were MS's proprietary code, this is no more freedom than anarchy is, the original developer's ability to alter certain code and then *restrict* anyone else's use of that code is not freedom for anyone other than the first to touch that BSD'ed code, for everyone else it is indistinguishable from proprietary code.
Freedom is the right to be left alone, and the obligation to leave others alone,
if I give you the ability to do *anything* with my code and you turn around and tell your end users *you can't do all that much* who exactly is the one that is free here?
unless there is voluntary association between all relevant parties.
it's voluntary, no one's holding a gun to your head telling you that you must use the code, the only thing is that if you choose to use that code and distribute it to others, you can't turn around and weaken their ability to do the same as you. keeping the code in house without distributing it O.T.O.H you can do whatever you like with it.
yes i've used it, and KDE 4.2... the menu is broken [on 4.1 and 4.2 menu editing doesn't work properly], misc little annoyances mostly to do with the removal of certain customizations... plasmoids... pretty but why is it that I can't use the original desktop layout? nothing to whine about but it seems to me that KDE4 tried to herd people into a new way to use the desktop for no good reason. No matter, the menu bug is what annoyed me, I build my desktop for efficiency and I tell you that having menu entries very nearly randomly placed is annoying after lanching programs a few hundred times... I chose KDE3.5 over other desktop environments because it was the most customizable [without going into the text files dang it] and had a few neat things to make the desktop a nice place to be, now it's KDE4 trying to be very pretty [which is nice but I'd rather it be efficient and hideous than where it is now] Even the KDE devs admit that it still isn't there yet [a bit of functionality was restored with the 4.1 and 4.2 releases however] What was done with KDE4 I think was a mistake. trying to rewrite from the ground up with the Qt4.x should have been the first step with each new release adding functionality *not removing it* I'm sorry to say that it isn't just me that took issue with the KDE4 trunk, a lot of people don't like where KDE is going and for [I believe] good reason.
that and broken/less functional extensions, some buggy, broken and others that the creators don't bother to update, not mozilla's fault but still, most of the reason a lot of us geeks use FF is due to the extensions it has... Oh and on a completely unrelated note, the KDE3.5.x branch isn't even in the ubuntu repos any more, though there are unofficial repos for the branch [sorry but KDE4 although pretty, is otherwise crippled] here is the repo for KDE 3.5.x Ibex in case anyone wanted it:
http://ppa.launchpad.net/kb9vqf/ubuntu [total of two one for each main and source] although something of note is boxee and songbird which are pretty new [boxee being in alpha] both are worth a look.
why on earth would you continue to use an untrustworthy company's product if there is any competition whatsoever? why would a company stay in business making profit if people abandon them for more trustworthy companies? If a company wants to make as much money as possible [profit] and being untrustworthy undermines that profit base, why would they be able to continue? the only situation where things could not improve in this manner is with a monopoly, private or public monoplies have no incentive to improve, they get cash either way... all monopolies become inefficient, yes all of them, even this benevelant government you speak of... it's a trust that it does not deserve.
given enough competition I trust that if any of them prove themselves unworthy of trust that it's still a better system than any of our governments could design and no I really don't trust a governmental monopoly over competitive private industry especially when our little government has been caught spying on its own people.
Plus, then you know for sure that someone is checking on the security of the certificates because that's 50% of their job.
Don't be so sure: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;50110485 they [at least the UK] seem to be fairly adept at losing things, if they screw up big time you still pay for it.. when a company screws up bad enough at least people might have a chance to look elsewhere- no, I think the solution here is to make use of that horrible trait of human nature- greed, well at least enlightened self interest that is... let people deliver a headshot to these companies in court everytime there's a major screw up and things will improve... I think in this case we shouuld be careful with how much power we give the feds, it may seem like a great idea at the time, a lot of things do but idiots like Bush make it very clear that the less power we give these twits the better.
Your trust of government is simply astonishing after what the Bush administration has been up to for the last eight years especially considering all those slashdot stories concerning fumbling incompetence on the part of certain governments... The problem wish computer security isn't private industry, it's that there are few direct consequences for companies that produce faulty security systems, banks with shoddy security etc.- legally granted limited liability is a problem, Once they find their own heads on the chopping block after a security flaw is found they'd be a lot more keen on solving the problem.
spoiler tag- images stay on the site and you have to actually click the link to view the photo- moms get to share their breastfeeding photos and nobody gets "offended" unless they go out of their way to do so...
Slashdot Mirror
that would be true if we had in fact designed them, as it turns out they were evolved in a process called test tube evolution [creative name..]
What an irony that they decided to mass mail when they've warned their employees not to do so. What they should have done if they were concerned about their load [which evidently they should have] was to warn their employees in blocks, perhaps 10% at a time with space between to take care of the massive response... However, judging by the nature of their work [it is the state department after all] I don't believe it unreasonable that there could be events in their future requiring such mass mailings again and having the whole system crash under the load would be no doubt very bad in emergencies.
provide proof supportive of your conjecture.
the answer is in your next sentence:
bingo. it's a stealth tax on those who save [rather than spend their capital irresponsibly] and a subsidy for loans.
Now you contend that transferring wealth from one person to another can't destroy wealth, I beg to differ- the transfer of wealth from an efficient source of production to one that isn't will no doubt decrease efficiency, the transfer of wealth from a profitable enterprise to one that has since run its self into the ground no doubt destroys wealth wouldn't you say so? the cheaper the loans the more likely it is that bad loans will be made... take a look at the current home financial bubble that has just collapsed as a fantastic example of how wealth can be destroyed by bad loans made possible through artificially low interest rates. more loans doesn't equal a better economy, after al bad loans don't create anything.
how do you figure? how does eroding currency out beneath people's feet, encouraging more but not intelligent lending do anything other than destroy wealth????
oh really? what happens to businesses in a deflationary event? as currency becomes stronger, businesses tend toward savings rather than funding less productive activities, they cut costs through several different means or die off. people adjust their spending toward that which they require rather than that which they want but do not need. it's a good thing to shed that which is not as efficient. it is not a good thing to expect constant, never ending growth when resources, trade and lack of saved capital does not allow. it is not a good thing to freak out every time the market adjusts its self as it did in 2007. deflationary events are normal and neccessary! you can't just keep pumping inflation based expect capital into a system and expect those deflationary events to go away! it's the result of people realizing housing prices were ridiculously out of balance and selling like they should have. it's the result of banks making stupid irresponsible loans that lost them billions and not having the capital and being a lot more selective about whom gets the loans they do give out. what did the government do? bailed the banks out. where did the money comes from? other banks. who is paying for it? you and i. it isn't free money, it's coming from somewhere and keynesian economics rests on the belief that by bailing out these banks we can make more money from these loans than what it takes to pay the debt down. but the first problem is that these banks made those stupid decisions that got us here in the first place, handing them money isn't going to be spent well... the second is that you're effectively taking money from one bank that could be used to loan and transferring it to a different bank in order to make it so that that bank could make a loan... wtf? why exactly does it make sense to take moeny from a bank that actually has money left and transfer it to idiots that lost theirs by making a ton of bad loans????? why is it that a very sick bank deserves to live while banks that didn't make stupid loans are then bought out by the idiots that destroyed their capital? what reason do these banks have to alter their behavior if they know that there is always going to be a safety net there to protect them in case they screw up again like they have *at the beginning of the depression *at the savings and loan bailout *now *the future??? ther
keynesian economics postulates that you can drag a country out of a depression through spending, in order to discourage "idle money", the idea is to keep money circulating rather than "horded." The problem is that money is representative of work already done, things already produced. BY using government intervention to stimulate demand, you aren't stimulating production, you're causing inflation. That is of course the idea- prices increase enough to make producing that product worth while... it is of course wrong. the more expensive something is the less of it is consumed. the cheaper something is to produce, the lower the price and more that is consumed. production creates its own demand in an otherwise efficient system. Now on to the hypothysis that intervention on the part of the state can help things along- how is this theoretically done? *jobs through government projects- to do what? *adjust inflation rates... higher rates to control inflation, lower to make the cost of loans artificially low... the problem is that interest rates are representative of the risk of the borrower- higher rates discourage all but near emergency loans, low rates encourage less productive tasks be financed through loans. why don't the feds lower the rates all the time to encourage the creation of wealth through investment/expansion via loans all the time? 1) deflation is the "enemy" it encourages saving and discourages wasteful spending 2) it causes excessive inflation, the large increase in the supply of money devalues it, destroying wealth. The economy is in a state of equilibrium, always- and like chemistry tipping the balance to one side [supply or demand] will shift back toward equilibrium whether it be a crash [like the one we're in right now, the market shedding idiots' money from malinvestment] which reminds me, how are those stimulus checks workign for the economy? not so well. turns out that subsidizing businesses doesn't help the economy after all, who would have thought. but really, if you think of the economy much like a chemical or biological system, it becomes much clearer why keynesian economics fails. you can't debase the cellular currency [ATP] and expect a happier, more productive cell. a cell can't increase demand its way out of starving to death, it can produce its way out though. the easier it is to produce something the more of it is made and if it's too difficult to create a supply, it doesn't matter how much demand there is- there isn't going to be any more widgets because of it. likewise, a cell can't be forced to replicate its self without fault nor can an economy be made better off by forcing things to be built when no one is otherwise bothing to do so- the reason is that people acting mostly in their own self interest, thus using resources to increase their wealth in a relatively efficient manner, government on the other hand has no such incentive. there is little in the way of correction if the government makes the bad decision which it so very often does, most manifest in the former soviet union... failure is paid through higher taxes, in the private sector failure is paid through the collapse of that inefficient business to be replaced by another more efficent one. artificial selection worked for biology the last 4 billion years, it's working in economics as well. which is a very big example of how an economy whether it be human created or biological is capable of regulating its self and generally why screwing with the system does not benefit the system in the long run.
Carter's administration. Window fallacy. Japan's failed attempt to spend its way out of recession. You can not create anything without saving something. If a business makes no profit there is no money to expand no matter what "demand" exists. THe same is true of personal economics, people make money from saving their money not from spending everything they have. Now lets assume that everyone saves but doesn't invest- what occurs? consumption decreases, prices fall until consumption rises [cheaper gas sells better you know] it regulates its self. When government attemptz to remove capital from one area to feed another the result is usually a negative one. Take a look at the (former) soviet union which Keynes felt to comment on Keynesian economics' positive results while the reality was that the soviet economy was crippled. The simple fact is that people generally tend to wish to improve their own situation with whatever means available. Investing, saving, curbing wasteful consumption etc. Inevitably having left over capital was responsible for the advancement of civilization since peopel could expand and do more things, creagte more food, research etc.
that's true but remember that it was the FCC that caused all of this in the first place, not the market. After all, most companies don't collude in order to p--- off their customers... The FCC auctioned the bandwidth to the highest bidder, demanded that everything be broadcast in digital by a specified date and proceded to use *taxpayer money* to fund all of it. All of this began with government intervention were it wasn't needed and now the result is that a whole truckload of old people as you said, are going to lose their major source of entertainment. However, it is not their job to do any of this. None whatsoever, nor was it theirs to demand everything changes by a certain date, they've over stepped their authority entirely. I sympathize with those in poverty thus I donate time and money to assist them, I don't however demand that other people's money be used to subsidize projects like this. That's stealing and stealing is wrong no matter who does it or why. Same thing with stadiums or any other source of entertainment, the feds shouldn't be doing anything other than maintaining national defense and keeping one person from whacking the other over the head and that means no subsidizing entertainment.
*Go outside* brainwashing foiled.
oh for f---s sake! who in their right mind believes that TV is right up there with not starving to death??? This is exactly why a lot of people stay in poverty, they can not comprehend that spending their money as quickly as they possibly can on non-essentials is keeping people in poverty!!
It's a tad more complex than just text ads however I do think you are correct in questioning exactly how much these at least partially ad based companies are worth, especially when ad blocking software is on the rise. The dot com bust occured because companies were based on shaky business sustained by buzz and capital that *didn't actually exist* in that they weren't creating anything... sometimes I wonder if that is also the case with these ad based companies... Who knows- maybe they've figuVred out how to live off of ads like TV does, but I severely doubt it. I'll give it a good year
You're talking about the same government that is more than happy to redistrbute wealth from one class of citizens to another to appease the masses. Given a choice between satisfying the population's need for "protect me from the ter'rists" legislation and having the economy take a hit due to the crippling of security which do you think is most likely?
it would be quite better if the resisdents of the UK did boot these scumbags out on their arse but I bet like the US at least a third of them are foolish enough to give their government that kind of power... the "only terrorists are against this massive spying" rhetoric is far too prevelant for the average joe to successfully fight this nonsense and the politicians who suggested this nonsense.
kin a manner of speaking... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk_constitution
from their point of view it is, in the US and presumably the UK the constitution would say otherwise but since when do any of them bother following their constitutions? They can get away with this nonsense because not enough people are fighting it and too many people think "well only terrorists and other criminals should be afraid." The thing to keep in mind is that once you can justify unconstitutional acts against criminals there isn't too much standing between that position and "lets violate everyone's civil rights."
so it seems that 1984 only got the year wrong after all. unfortunately the fear and paranoia in the public's mind is only going to fuel more of this ridiculous nonsense.
well if you're going to make that argument, there's the public domain which is by your definition "the most free of all." However, as was explained by the poster responding to yours before mine, some restrictions are neccessary for freedom to be meaningful. An anarchy is indeed "freer" than a libertarian government but only because anarchy does not protect the right against being killed, robbed etc. just as the GPL protects the endusers' rights by the golden rule- give others the same rights you've been given. The freedom to murder in an anarchy is a meaningless "right" as is the freedom to restrict another user's ability to use the same code you have.
you're saying that the first developers on that code are end users but the people who use that code and software after them [Mac for example] are not and that is a mistake. Mac as an example is based largely on BSD'ed code- it can not be altered nor improved by anyone other than Apple- they are in effect much freer to do with that code than you. You are *not free* to build upon that code as Apple has done, if Apple's code has a flaw you can not fix it, you can not alter its behavior- it belongs to them the same as if it were MS's proprietary code, this is no more freedom than anarchy is, the original developer's ability to alter certain code and then *restrict* anyone else's use of that code is not freedom for anyone other than the first to touch that BSD'ed code, for everyone else it is indistinguishable from proprietary code.
if I give you the ability to do *anything* with my code and you turn around and tell your end users *you can't do all that much* who exactly is the one that is free here?
it's voluntary, no one's holding a gun to your head telling you that you must use the code, the only thing is that if you choose to use that code and distribute it to others, you can't turn around and weaken their ability to do the same as you. keeping the code in house without distributing it O.T.O.H you can do whatever you like with it.
Qt4 has been released under GPLv3, Qt has been under the GPL since 2005, that's four years it's been free.
yes i've used it, and KDE 4.2... the menu is broken [on 4.1 and 4.2 menu editing doesn't work properly], misc little annoyances mostly to do with the removal of certain customizations... plasmoids... pretty but why is it that I can't use the original desktop layout? nothing to whine about but it seems to me that KDE4 tried to herd people into a new way to use the desktop for no good reason. No matter, the menu bug is what annoyed me, I build my desktop for efficiency and I tell you that having menu entries very nearly randomly placed is annoying after lanching programs a few hundred times... I chose KDE3.5 over other desktop environments because it was the most customizable [without going into the text files dang it] and had a few neat things to make the desktop a nice place to be, now it's KDE4 trying to be very pretty [which is nice but I'd rather it be efficient and hideous than where it is now] Even the KDE devs admit that it still isn't there yet [a bit of functionality was restored with the 4.1 and 4.2 releases however] What was done with KDE4 I think was a mistake. trying to rewrite from the ground up with the Qt4.x should have been the first step with each new release adding functionality *not removing it*
I'm sorry to say that it isn't just me that took issue with the KDE4 trunk, a lot of people don't like where KDE is going and for [I believe] good reason.
that and broken/less functional extensions, some buggy, broken and others that the creators don't bother to update, not mozilla's fault but still, most of the reason a lot of us geeks use FF is due to the extensions it has... Oh and on a completely unrelated note, the KDE3.5.x branch isn't even in the ubuntu repos any more, though there are unofficial repos for the branch [sorry but KDE4 although pretty, is otherwise crippled] here is the repo for KDE 3.5.x Ibex in case anyone wanted it:
http://ppa.launchpad.net/kb9vqf/ubuntu [total of two one for each main and source] although something of note is boxee and songbird which are pretty new [boxee being in alpha] both are worth a look.
why on earth would you continue to use an untrustworthy company's product if there is any competition whatsoever? why would a company stay in business making profit if people abandon them for more trustworthy companies? If a company wants to make as much money as possible [profit] and being untrustworthy undermines that profit base, why would they be able to continue? the only situation where things could not improve in this manner is with a monopoly, private or public monoplies have no incentive to improve, they get cash either way... all monopolies become inefficient, yes all of them, even this benevelant government you speak of... it's a trust that it does not deserve.
given enough competition I trust that if any of them prove themselves unworthy of trust that it's still a better system than any of our governments could design and no I really don't trust a governmental monopoly over competitive private industry especially when our little government has been caught spying on its own people.
Don't be so sure:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;50110485 they [at least the UK] seem to be fairly adept at losing things, if they screw up big time you still pay for it.. when a company screws up bad enough at least people might have a chance to look elsewhere- no, I think the solution here is to make use of that horrible trait of human nature- greed, well at least enlightened self interest that is... let people deliver a headshot to these companies in court everytime there's a major screw up and things will improve... I think in this case we shouuld be careful with how much power we give the feds, it may seem like a great idea at the time, a lot of things do but idiots like Bush make it very clear that the less power we give these twits the better.
Your trust of government is simply astonishing after what the Bush administration has been up to for the last eight years especially considering all those slashdot stories concerning fumbling incompetence on the part of certain governments... The problem wish computer security isn't private industry, it's that there are few direct consequences for companies that produce faulty security systems, banks with shoddy security etc.- legally granted limited liability is a problem, Once they find their own heads on the chopping block after a security flaw is found they'd be a lot more keen on solving the problem.
spoiler tag- images stay on the site and you have to actually click the link to view the photo- moms get to share their breastfeeding photos and nobody gets "offended" unless they go out of their way to do so...