I find it interesting that people feel compelled to tack an "IANAL" on shaky legal advice, but people don't bother putting "IANAP"s on shaky physics advice...
If this was a settlement, doesn't that mean it doesn't actually set any legal precedents? (IANAL)
Re:Fewer manual labor jobs != more unemployment
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
This state is true at face value but when you consider that the GDP is not being distributed uniformly what you really get is "the GDP per capita is greater then a year ago so some people are much better off and most people are worse off".
Do you have any evidence to back that? It certainly seems to me that if you look at, say, the bottom n%, economically, of the US, and compare them to the bottom n% of a third world country, the poor in this country are still better off.
When GDP increases, yes, the income of the poor does not increase AS MUCH as the income of the rich, but that certainly does not mean that their income DECREASES! Maybe relatively speaking, their income decreases as compared to the rich, but income is not something that's purely relative, as although the cost of some goods increases as income increases, the cost of many goods is rather fixed.
For instance, the vast majority of people in the US, including many who are technically "below the poverty line", still have enough money not only to eat, but also to own a used car, a refrigerator, etc. Compare that to people in a poorer country who may have enough to eat, since the price of food is cheaper there, but certainly wouldn't have many electronics and such.
Re:Fewer manual labor jobs != more unemployment
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 1
As long as natural resources are limited the amount of money theoretically available is finite therefore a zero sum game.
We're confusing realms here. In the realm of the Universe, yes, of course, by the law of conservation of energy, everything is zero sum. HOWEVER, in the realm of the economy of the human race, wealth is being injected from the environment, outside the system.
Wealth of Universe == Zero-sum Wealth of Humanity != Zero-sum
What I was arguing was that when one person gets richer, that wealth need not come at the expense of another person, but rather it can come at the expense of natural resources.
Fewer manual labor jobs != more unemployment
on
RMS On eBooks
·
· Score: 2
So what will happen to Capitalism when when the 10% of the population who owns the means of production needs to empoly only another 10% to produce all the goods that the society needs. What will the 80% left over do. My Guess is those 80% will start a revolution and some violent redistribution of wealth will occur.
What you're assuming is that this is a zero-sum game where the total wealth of society stays constant, and that is NOT the case. Yes, industrialization took jobs away from people, but it was more efficient and thus increased the overall standard of living for everyone in the long run. Those 80% you're talking about won't have nothing to do. Rather, with all that production, they'll be able to do more interesting things, like be artistic or do research or other non-blue-collar jobs.
I'm not saying there aren't any problems with capitalism, by any means; I think that the short term problems of unemployment and the distribution of wealth are important problems, but I'm just saying that while we should work toward closing the wealth gap, the weathy getting weathier does NOT necessarily mean the poor are getting poorer.
Absolutely untrue. All you need is a Windows/Mac skin for these products. WinAmp has many, many OS skins, including Windows and MacOS, and there is a "classic" Navigator 4.0 skin available for Mozilla. It may be a bit convoluted, but it works.
But, as I've mentioned several times, these skins only SUPERFICIALLY look like the original interface, and don't act exactly correctly, and when it comes to UI, it's the little things that really count.
People can indeed choose a generic Netscape theme which looks like the same ol' Netscape they're used to using. That's what skins are all about really -choice.
Correction: It SUPERFICIALLY looks like the same ol' Netscape.. but it's NOT. The widgets don't work the same way; the scroll bar is still non-standard, etc.
I mean, when I use a scrollbar, I expect it to work like it does in the other apps!
What I don't understand is why the people complaining about evil themes don't create a theme which *looks just like standard widgets* and then get people shipping themable applications to use that as their default...
The reason is that a look-alike theme isn't enough, because it will only be SUPERFICIALLY similar. Devil's in the details, and when I can't use all my favorite Mac key combinations to edit text in Mozilla or when the menus don't act just right, it's incredibly annoying, because I expect the interface to be consistent. There's a REASON why there are system-wide widgets, and the OS developer doesn't just say, "Here's what your widgets should roughly look like.. just make something that sorta works like it."
If unpopular nodes get pushed out, doesn't that run contrary to the "free speech" dictum? Unpopular now means "kill the niggers", but 40 years ago, unpopular meant "I have a dream...". Popularity is a poor substitute for personal decision.
I completely agree. The most popular data is not necessarily the only important data. The First Amendment is all about the rights of the minority, and deleting little-used data is violating the spirit of free speech. I think that is an important issue.
From the developer's point, it's easier to either use standard widgets or themable ones. Mixing both widget libraries is not something funny, and you'll have your code full of unnecessary switches or if/else-if/else.
Yes, I know that, but since when has writing applications been about the developer? Shouldn't it be for the user?! Whatever is good for the USER is what should get implmented.
But people using programs like WinAmp and Mozilla have no choice! They can't even use a normal Windows or Mac interface if they want to, let alone having it as the default.
I think the way to do things is to have the default look use the standard OS widgets, then have the option of using skins if you really want to.
Maybe people who are used to UI inconsistency are fine with the Mozilla interface, but as a Mac user, I expect my applications to FEEL like Mac applications. I don't even mind if the buttons and text fields look different, but they need to feel consistent, and the UI in Mozilla does not.
The Buttons are tolerable, but the way Mozilla ignores my text-highlight-color setting, the way its popup menus work and feel, the ugly use of Helvetica in the interface instead of optimized-for-screen Geneva, etc., really bug me.
I've always been a huge Netscape supporter since I've always liked the page rendering "feel" of Netscape better than IE, but if this is where Mozilla is going, I'll have to switch to IE. I understand the ease of cross-platform development brought on by XUL, but it is not, to me, worth the crappy interface.
Come on, many of the people who started the revolution were rabble-rousers. They enjoyed conflict. Hmm, kinda sound like Slashdotters. But just because they were extreme doesn't mean their views are wrong.
You seem to misinterpret his point. This whole point was that these people were miscreants of their time and extreme, but that we treat them as heros now. He AGREES with you. No need to argue!:)
Actually, I posted too soon. I agree that people spouting anecdotes are pretty worthless, but I do NOT agree that there is ample evidence that violence in the media leads to violent behavior. The studies I've looked at (admittedly only a couple) don't seem to be very conclusive at all.
I think it's worth investigating, but I don't think there's much good evidence either way yet.
Remember all those people who said that the Amazon boycott is worthless because it won't affect them one bit?
This has shown that they DID have an effect, not as a way to hurt Amazon, but as a way of voicing protest.. enough to really get Amazon's attention.
We expected to make Amazon back down from one issue. We didn't get that, but we got something better: We have, apparently, gotten Amazon to actually COME TO OUR SIDE of the issue. Someone with as much potential clout as Bezos is exactly what we need in this fight.
Now if only we could get someone to reduce copyright lifespans...
You're not being forced to do anything. You voluntarily signed yourself into the social contract of the world. By entering into this contract, you get the benefits, but you also are expected to hold up your end of the bargain. If you DON'T want to pay for medical research, you can always wander off to Antarctica, found your own little country, and cut off all links to the outside world.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it interesting that people feel compelled to tack an "IANAL" on shaky legal advice, but people don't bother putting "IANAP"s on shaky physics advice...
Wouldn't that just make people title the files "DrDr3" or something?
If this was a settlement, doesn't that mean it doesn't actually set any legal precedents? (IANAL)
Do you have any evidence to back that? It certainly seems to me that if you look at, say, the bottom n%, economically, of the US, and compare them to the bottom n% of a third world country, the poor in this country are still better off.
When GDP increases, yes, the income of the poor does not increase AS MUCH as the income of the rich, but that certainly does not mean that their income DECREASES! Maybe relatively speaking, their income decreases as compared to the rich, but income is not something that's purely relative, as although the cost of some goods increases as income increases, the cost of many goods is rather fixed.
For instance, the vast majority of people in the US, including many who are technically "below the poverty line", still have enough money not only to eat, but also to own a used car, a refrigerator, etc. Compare that to people in a poorer country who may have enough to eat, since the price of food is cheaper there, but certainly wouldn't have many electronics and such.
We're confusing realms here. In the realm of the Universe, yes, of course, by the law of conservation of energy, everything is zero sum. HOWEVER, in the realm of the economy of the human race, wealth is being injected from the environment, outside the system.
Wealth of Universe == Zero-sum
Wealth of Humanity != Zero-sum
What I was arguing was that when one person gets richer, that wealth need not come at the expense of another person, but rather it can come at the expense of natural resources.
What you're assuming is that this is a zero-sum game where the total wealth of society stays constant, and that is NOT the case. Yes, industrialization took jobs away from people, but it was more efficient and thus increased the overall standard of living for everyone in the long run. Those 80% you're talking about won't have nothing to do. Rather, with all that production, they'll be able to do more interesting things, like be artistic or do research or other non-blue-collar jobs.
I'm not saying there aren't any problems with capitalism, by any means; I think that the short term problems of unemployment and the distribution of wealth are important problems, but I'm just saying that while we should work toward closing the wealth gap, the weathy getting weathier does NOT necessarily mean the poor are getting poorer.
I'm thinking it's just a reporting error, and they just mean that they want people to pass the word via email.
Yeah, it was "Richard Rank" of the "Conservative Coalition". :)
I don't completely agree with it, but it's very sensible, and it's a viewpoint not often enough expressed around h ere.
But, as I've mentioned several times, these skins only SUPERFICIALLY look like the original interface, and don't act exactly correctly, and when it comes to UI, it's the little things that really count.
My favorite (invented by a friend): "Hey, baby, what's your cosine?"
Correction: It SUPERFICIALLY looks like the same ol' Netscape.. but it's NOT. The widgets don't work the same way; the scroll bar is still non-standard, etc.
I mean, when I use a scrollbar, I expect it to work like it does in the other apps!
I completely agree. The most popular data is not necessarily the only important data. The First Amendment is all about the rights of the minority, and deleting little-used data is violating the spirit of free speech. I think that is an important issue.
Yes, I know that, but since when has writing applications been about the developer? Shouldn't it be for the user?! Whatever is good for the USER is what should get implmented.
But people using programs like WinAmp and Mozilla have no choice! They can't even use a normal Windows or Mac interface if they want to, let alone having it as the default.
I think the way to do things is to have the default look use the standard OS widgets, then have the option of using skins if you really want to.
Maybe people who are used to UI inconsistency are fine with the Mozilla interface, but as a Mac user, I expect my applications to FEEL like Mac applications. I don't even mind if the buttons and text fields look different, but they need to feel consistent, and the UI in Mozilla does not.
The Buttons are tolerable, but the way Mozilla ignores my text-highlight-color setting, the way its popup menus work and feel, the ugly use of Helvetica in the interface instead of optimized-for-screen Geneva, etc., really bug me.
I've always been a huge Netscape supporter since I've always liked the page rendering "feel" of Netscape better than IE, but if this is where Mozilla is going, I'll have to switch to IE. I understand the ease of cross-platform development brought on by XUL, but it is not, to me, worth the crappy interface.
Come on, many of the people who started the revolution were rabble-rousers. They enjoyed conflict. Hmm, kinda sound like Slashdotters. But just because they were extreme doesn't mean their views are wrong.
:)
You seem to misinterpret his point. This whole point was that these people were miscreants of their time and extreme, but that we treat them as heros now. He AGREES with you. No need to argue!
Actually, I posted too soon. I agree that people spouting anecdotes are pretty worthless, but I do NOT agree that there is ample evidence that violence in the media leads to violent behavior. The studies I've looked at (admittedly only a couple) don't seem to be very conclusive at all.
I think it's worth investigating, but I don't think there's much good evidence either way yet.
I think the parent of this comment is very sensible.
Why isn't THIS story being put on the main /. page? It's a conspiracy!
Remember all those people who said that the Amazon boycott is worthless because it won't affect them one bit?
This has shown that they DID have an effect, not as a way to hurt Amazon, but as a way of voicing protest.. enough to really get Amazon's attention.
We expected to make Amazon back down from one issue. We didn't get that, but we got something better: We have, apparently, gotten Amazon to actually COME TO OUR SIDE of the issue. Someone with as much potential clout as Bezos is exactly what we need in this fight.
Now if only we could get someone to reduce copyright lifespans...
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/03/05/2327247&cid=264
I kinda doubt they hooked up a bunch of little white balls to the actress's eyelids to do that...
(Then again, I might be wrong..)
You're not being forced to do anything.
You voluntarily signed yourself into the social contract of the world.
By entering into this contract, you get the benefits, but you also are expected to hold up your end of the bargain.
If you DON'T want to pay for medical research, you can always wander off to Antarctica, found your own little country, and cut off all links to the outside world.