If they are right then they are instant Billionaires, if the process really worked they would be commercializing it and completely destabilizing OPEC. I'll believe it when I see it and the world will be rejoicing. And if the middle east countries will finally have nuclear power, then neither the US or the Arab countries will have reason for saber rattling in the region over oil. They will have to come up with some other excuse instead.
Ever the more reason to never give up Firewire until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. But why does everything with firewire have to cost an extra $30 or so?
I have this amazing new tech for you. It is called "condoms".
Two words: Compliance and Consent. Those are two things that are too often lacking in children who are having sex. Genetic problems aside, of course, which, despite people saying things like "not as bad as once thought", they are there - go and see for yourself the effect inbreeding/incest has on a population over several generations (eg: 100 years).
I don't see many adults being "emotionally experienced" either.
Adults cope. As for children, there is plenty to read up on to see what the problems are.
First, deliver the proofs. Scientific, not anecdotal. Not all the proof can be equally 'scientific' because the ideal scientific process itself would have to be 'unethical' in many of these circumstances (unless you could do a computer simulation of reality). But, for example, underaged sex does have a correlation with increased sexually transmitted infection with increased incidence of infertility, etc. etc. Eg: this recent abstract and MANY others. It's unlikely to change, either, because compliance with medication and condoms is poor already, and poorer still with decreasing age.
All of the things I mentioned have scientific evidence to support them. But no, not all of the evidence is a randomized double blinded case-control trial! Most of it is epidemiological.
I am only this short of invoking Godwin's.
I know full well that this process of reasoning can lead to full blown Nazism/eugenics/badness. I am just arguing that, without moderation, society gravitates towards this kind of stuff, because superficially it makes sense.
I know everyone shuns religion nowadays (often for good reason), but people are deceiving themselves (and doomed to relive the past) if they think society will be any more enlightened or less brutal without it, or without some kind of replacement to promote compassion and moderation.
Do you think there is an absolute moral right and wrong? I think there is, but not because of a God (whether there is one or not). Things that threaten the survival of the species will tend to be prohibited by a society (if it has enough insight), but even if they are not prohibited, they are wrong because they threaten the species. It's just my opinion, so I'll leave it at that. Religion adds another layer of moral reasoning that, by and large, appears to be arbitrary.
In either case, who are we on the outside to say it's wrong?
And who are we on the outside to deny ourselves the right to say it's wrong? There is a misplaced pride in society and a misplaced humility. We should all be proud of the truth, not of ourselves. So we should have the courage to say what we think, even to other societies, but mindful that we are not better or worse than they are.
Who are we to deny them the right to decide right and wrong for themselves?
Indeed. But we can always talk. It's a totally different think to invade.
Few, of course, want to continue this thought and forbid haemophiliacs [wikipedia.org] to procreate. It's an irrational, inconsequent thing, you know.
It's why society will continue to oscillate between eugenics/interventionism/social conservatism and hurt-no-one/social liberalism.
So often I hear staff in my department say "these imbeciles shouldn't have a license to have babies", out of sheer frustration at.. well.. imbeciles. But it could just as well be any group. It's just one logical (and not irrational) 'solution' to disease and perceived inferiority. Compassion is its antithesis, whose logic is a little more subtle I would say.
Finally, let me be the first to ask: If the people of Yemen feel that the dangers inherent in homosexuality justify the death penalty, then who are we to say out of hand, this is a bad thing ?
Not wanting to defend the grandparent poster too much, but 'who are we' is 'a powerful nation with nukes'. But we are not more intelligent than those in Yemen and believing ourselves to be morally superior to them is based mostly on arbitrary measures.
My approach is to ask 'is banning access to child pornography going to prevent harm to children'? We don't really know, actually, because it may well push the crime further underground and make the creators of the pornography harder to catch.
I think the flaw in the thinking (in France and elsewhere) is the assumption that 'thinking bad is equal to doing bad', which has Christian origins. This is what is behind the basis of criminalizing activity which is materially victimless. There is the argument that if you kill off the market, there won't be incentive to produce the pornography, but this has been proven wrong before.
If sexuality is good, then why forbid it between family members or children?
This would appear to apply to a society that had absolutely no religious basis. A truly atheist society, perhaps.
But on the contrary, even an atheist society is likely to ban things which threaten the species. Incest / inbreeding causes serious genetic problems. Pregnancy in prematurity causes serious physical problems. Sexual experience in the emotionally inexperienced causes serious psychosocial problems.
So, as such, they are just as likely to be banned in an atheist society than in any other.
It's not just that we, as a society, believe them to be wrong, but we as a civilization have proof that these behaviours cause problems that we, as a society, just don't want to have.
Guys, I put forward an opinion and I'm glad so many people commented (and disagreed).
Think of all the R&D that goes into programming something like an OS
Yes, software is labour intensive. Generating software costs money, yes. Marketing costs money, yes. It's all very expensive, yep. I am not saying there should be no way to recover costs for making software, but I am questioning the conventional method. Why has Microsoft put itself in the path of blame for all the botnets, viruses, whatever that are lurking all over the place? By selling the software for money in the first place it is, IMHO, liable for all the defects that persist out there. Instead, if they sold support for a time (eg: if Windows cost $200, and the estimated shelf life is 5 years, charge $40/year for support including software updates), then people would consider that quite reasonable. After all, that's easily how much Linux professional support costs. Those people who don't pay for support and get pwned are nobody's idiot but their own. In many respects that is the defacto status of XP now that it's gradually going out of print.
But people who say "Linux vendors are making money off the blood sweat and tears of people who did it all for nothing" are wrong. They are, by and large, providing a service contract for the software. They support the product for money. Sure, there's free support for home mum's and dads and do-it-yourselfers, (eg: Ubuntu) but we know that isn't where Canonical is hoping to get their $$.
From elsewhere:
Do you know that distributing boxed software was a major determinant in their marketshare..?
Well from what I understand, getting Windows as a box set bundled with OEM computers or on PC-shop and even supermarket shelves has been a major determinant in its spread, along with piracy. Open source software is spreading because of the Internet. Microsoft also uses the Internet to spread its licenses without shipping as many physical boxes.
And elsewhere:
That's just kinda ass-backwards...give people crappy software for free...and then charge them for support to fix it...
The various Linux vendors don't see it that way. And just because Microsoft's product cost them a heap of money to make (crap though it is) doesn't mean it should have cost that much. They deserve to sink for producing a dud product, just as any other enterprise would. If Windows was so fantastic, for all its bugs (nobody pretends software is perfect), people would want it on their PC's over anything else, and many do. But instead of going around with a gang of lawyers and frightening the market they depend on, they could just work with the psychology of people out there. People are used to paying for services such as telephone, or mail redirection or some other thing they need. If they are using their computer for anything that they consider to be serious, then nobody will argue with getting support for the product to ensure that it is reliable and safe.
The current situation which leaves most people somehow incriminated (eg: because the freakin OEM windows that came with someone's laptop won't validate.. WTF! so instead they install a friend's XP pro corporate edition that at least works) is broken. No wonder piracy is rife when they set the deal up this way.
That's not what he was saying and you know it. Shut up.
Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value before the internet, when distribution was costly and the major determinant of market spread was the company's investment in stamping CD's, packaging and delivery. But now the price of shipping software is close to zero. Is this reflected in the price of Microsoft licenses?
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy. They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy).
The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
I just went ahead and installed Linux. Saved thousands in mac hardware premiums, plus I could still use my old Windows software until I got used to the free alternatives.
Really, that's who they should be going after. The people selling pirated software. Exactly, nobody should ever be made to pay for such defective software like that from Microsoft.
In other words, glass-house-dwellers, throw no stones... You make a good point but consider that the UK has not been immune to the trend to restrict the rights of citizens. This proposed legislation just proves that, once the precedent of imprisonment without charge is set, the temptation to stretch and grow this new tool of social control is too great for most.
I'm pretty sure if I stuck some sand out in space, it'll still be sand in a year. Tom Cruise: They're sand gates. Don't you see? This is a deliberate ploy to lure the aliens into our solar system, man. Once they go through the gates, then pow! we close the gates and snap! we got em.. bang! Wow! Pshhhhhhh! Ping! Wow... Solar, man.
it can always be called an "accident" due to a "mechanical failure" They'd just call it that even if people saw a missile hit it and even if debris of the plane was strewn over an otherwise impossible distance.
Why don't they just do away with pilots altogether and have everything remote controlled from the ground like the Reapers used by the military? Because at the moment [cost of replacing pilot & aircraft]*[likelihood of failure] is less than [cost of replacing RC unit & aircraft]*[likelihood of failure]
you'd be letting us Americans make our stupid mistakes alone, instead of happily copying us. I never implied you had any say in the matter, nor that we had any say in the matter. Since when has ANY of this really followed a democratic process. Since when has this ever been on the plate during an election process?
Am I missing out on something here, you're responding to a post that seem to be calling Windows an insecure operating system by saying that the author was hired by microsoft. I think he was referring to Windows being classified as 'consumer grade'. It could be argued it doesn't even qualify as that.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: Compliance and Consent. Those are two things that are too often lacking in children who are having sex. Genetic problems aside, of course, which, despite people saying things like "not as bad as once thought", they are there - go and see for yourself the effect inbreeding/incest has on a population over several generations (eg: 100 years).
I don't see many adults being "emotionally experienced" either.Adults cope. As for children, there is plenty to read up on to see what the problems are.
All of the things I mentioned have scientific evidence to support them. But no, not all of the evidence is a randomized double blinded case-control trial! Most of it is epidemiological.
I am only this short of invoking Godwin's.I know full well that this process of reasoning can lead to full blown Nazism/eugenics/badness. I am just arguing that, without moderation, society gravitates towards this kind of stuff, because superficially it makes sense.
I know everyone shuns religion nowadays (often for good reason), but people are deceiving themselves (and doomed to relive the past) if they think society will be any more enlightened or less brutal without it, or without some kind of replacement to promote compassion and moderation.
And who are we on the outside to deny ourselves the right to say it's wrong? There is a misplaced pride in society and a misplaced humility. We should all be proud of the truth, not of ourselves. So we should have the courage to say what we think, even to other societies, but mindful that we are not better or worse than they are.
Who are we to deny them the right to decide right and wrong for themselves?Indeed. But we can always talk. It's a totally different think to invade.
It's why society will continue to oscillate between eugenics/interventionism/social conservatism and hurt-no-one/social liberalism.
So often I hear staff in my department say "these imbeciles shouldn't have a license to have babies", out of sheer frustration at.. well.. imbeciles. But it could just as well be any group. It's just one logical (and not irrational) 'solution' to disease and perceived inferiority. Compassion is its antithesis, whose logic is a little more subtle I would say.
Finally, let me be the first to ask: If the people of Yemen feel that the dangers inherent in homosexuality justify the death penalty, then who are we to say out of hand, this is a bad thing ?Not wanting to defend the grandparent poster too much, but 'who are we' is 'a powerful nation with nukes'. But we are not more intelligent than those in Yemen and believing ourselves to be morally superior to them is based mostly on arbitrary measures.
My approach is to ask 'is banning access to child pornography going to prevent harm to children'? We don't really know, actually, because it may well push the crime further underground and make the creators of the pornography harder to catch.
I think the flaw in the thinking (in France and elsewhere) is the assumption that 'thinking bad is equal to doing bad', which has Christian origins. This is what is behind the basis of criminalizing activity which is materially victimless. There is the argument that if you kill off the market, there won't be incentive to produce the pornography, but this has been proven wrong before.
This would appear to apply to a society that had absolutely no religious basis. A truly atheist society, perhaps.
But on the contrary, even an atheist society is likely to ban things which threaten the species. Incest / inbreeding causes serious genetic problems. Pregnancy in prematurity causes serious physical problems. Sexual experience in the emotionally inexperienced causes serious psychosocial problems.
So, as such, they are just as likely to be banned in an atheist society than in any other.
It's not just that we, as a society, believe them to be wrong, but we as a civilization have proof that these behaviours cause problems that we, as a society, just don't want to have.
Guys, I put forward an opinion and I'm glad so many people commented (and disagreed).
Think of all the R&D that goes into programming something like an OSYes, software is labour intensive. Generating software costs money, yes. Marketing costs money, yes. It's all very expensive, yep. I am not saying there should be no way to recover costs for making software, but I am questioning the conventional method. Why has Microsoft put itself in the path of blame for all the botnets, viruses, whatever that are lurking all over the place? By selling the software for money in the first place it is, IMHO, liable for all the defects that persist out there. Instead, if they sold support for a time (eg: if Windows cost $200, and the estimated shelf life is 5 years, charge $40/year for support including software updates), then people would consider that quite reasonable. After all, that's easily how much Linux professional support costs. Those people who don't pay for support and get pwned are nobody's idiot but their own. In many respects that is the defacto status of XP now that it's gradually going out of print.
But people who say "Linux vendors are making money off the blood sweat and tears of people who did it all for nothing" are wrong. They are, by and large, providing a service contract for the software. They support the product for money. Sure, there's free support for home mum's and dads and do-it-yourselfers, (eg: Ubuntu) but we know that isn't where Canonical is hoping to get their $$.
From elsewhere:
Do you know that distributing boxed software was a major determinant in their marketshare..?Well from what I understand, getting Windows as a box set bundled with OEM computers or on PC-shop and even supermarket shelves has been a major determinant in its spread, along with piracy. Open source software is spreading because of the Internet. Microsoft also uses the Internet to spread its licenses without shipping as many physical boxes.
And elsewhere:
That's just kinda ass-backwards...give people crappy software for free...and then charge them for support to fix it...The various Linux vendors don't see it that way. And just because Microsoft's product cost them a heap of money to make (crap though it is) doesn't mean it should have cost that much. They deserve to sink for producing a dud product, just as any other enterprise would. If Windows was so fantastic, for all its bugs (nobody pretends software is perfect), people would want it on their PC's over anything else, and many do. But instead of going around with a gang of lawyers and frightening the market they depend on, they could just work with the psychology of people out there. People are used to paying for services such as telephone, or mail redirection or some other thing they need. If they are using their computer for anything that they consider to be serious, then nobody will argue with getting support for the product to ensure that it is reliable and safe.
The current situation which leaves most people somehow incriminated (eg: because the freakin OEM windows that came with someone's laptop won't validate.. WTF! so instead they install a friend's XP pro corporate edition that at least works) is broken. No wonder piracy is rife when they set the deal up this way.
Yeah yeah, but if you think about it, software used to have a tangible monetary value before the internet, when distribution was costly and the major determinant of market spread was the company's investment in stamping CD's, packaging and delivery. But now the price of shipping software is close to zero. Is this reflected in the price of Microsoft licenses?
If the market were free to determine the price of software, it would be a very low price. People at large don't see tangible value in something that can be copied at the cost of a couple of joules of electrical energy. They see value in things they just can't get another way, or quality they can't get elsewhere. That's where Apple's business model is somewhat viable, since they go to the effort to make a package that works as advertised that you can't really get anywhere else (OS X is basically inferior on non-Apple hardware and not really worth mass-piracy).
The Linux vendors survive on providing service and support. There gets a point (mostly for corporations) when it's cheaper to pay the Linux vendor to do things for you than to do it all yourself. That's fair trade.
Microsoft should be doing the same. Provide Vista free, unencumbered. Let it spread naturally. Sell boxes, sure, but sell them essentially at-cost. Let Microsoft's specialist abilities (software support, live updates etc) be the thing people pay for. The price point should be that at which it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to help you than to go it alone.
I just went ahead and installed Linux. Saved thousands in mac hardware premiums, plus I could still use my old Windows software until I got used to the free alternatives.
How about SPACE: Silicon Phase Activated Circuit Eviscerator.
Then they could take SPACE into space and see what happens!
Udder than that I think we might as well talk about it 'till the cows come home.