> pi has repition, here and thee.. an dhtere are a few
I don't hear well, but I thought I heard "raw passion, her and thee... and tear our nephew" But that part about the nephew makes no sense. So please repeat what you said, more slowly if you could.
It works great for anything less than two people. It can work well for 10 people. Get past 1000 people and it devolves into theater where nothing substantive can be accomplished.
I think little good can come out of sovereign countries ceding power to an international group, be they financiers or politicians. Every higher layer is even more inaccessible to us common folk. Push government power down to the local level, not up to the global level. Distributed power has far less potential for tyranny.
"they were leveraging the OS to get their compactness"
You do realize 1986 Turbo Pascal ran on DOS, right? Back when developers wrote directly to the monitor and disk drives? When we had to have an intimate relationship with the stack? When there were no threads and one process owned the entire CPU?
Leverage that, young whippersnapper, and get off my lawn.
If houses weren't a good investment, practically nobody would buy one, because renting for 20 years is cheaper
If renting from a landlord is cheaper than buying it outright, how does the landlord make money?
Questionable math aside, I think you'll find most people actually do buy their house primarily for a place to live. Call us crazy, but some of us like to live under our own terms rather than a landlord's.
> Or does the "free market" assume no government intervention
Exactly. Government intervention takes the "freedom" out of the market. Could be soviet-style mandates of prices, could be rent controls, could be wage controls. Some of us may like some of those (I like a 40 hour work week) but when the government imposes rules on the market, it's not a free market anymore.
If you don't like the mess, maybe you could just put a lid on your 401(k) and seal it really well. They die happy, suffocating in money, and you can keep their Rolexes.
The job of the courts is to draw the line to decide between the state's interest in the efficient operation of law enforcement and the citizen's interest in having his property untouched by the state.
Nope. The job of the courts is to read the Constitution, look in the list of enumerated powers, and see if surveilling the citizenry is in the list.
If the answer is yes, the court is then supposed to read the bill of rights and see if warrantless surveillance is expressly forbidden.
Allowing unauthorized/forbidden activity because it makes the government's job easier is precisely what they are *not* supposed to do.
The constitutional rationale for "exclusive rights" is to encourage the arts and sciences. This is probably unnecessary - both existed before so-called intellectual property protections did.
The whole idea of claiming responsibility for a creation is shaky; good creators copy, great creators steal. When 'IP" protections kick in after the creator has climbed onto the shoulders of prior giants, it seems inherently unfair.
Practically speaking, as to science, there's enough of a money motive for new technology that patents can and do help push the envelope along.
But painting, storytelling, singing don't necessarily advance just because you forbid anybody else to copy the work. Artists who choose their field for the money are probably going to be disappointed, but if they do make it, it's often more about marketing than merit.
And it's the marketeers who often reap most of the reward. Getting paid for their marketing work is fine, but then the monopoly protection is helping the marketeers, not artists in general or edgy art in particular.
So my "case for piracy" is that there's no strong case for monopoly, and "piracy" is what the artists themselves do and have done for millenia.
> Can we at least agree that scientists are human > and thus vulnerable to the same pressures that motive > other human beings?
Nope. Different humans are motivated by different things. Some of us live for sports, some of us live for money, some of us live for love, some of us live to build, some of us live to discover, some of us live to please, some of us live for power.
Research scientists in general did not choose their profession for its salary or its power. Most scientists would not falsify research for money. Virtue and integrity aside, they know if nobody can reproduce their results they're unlikely to have a long career.
Slashdot Mirror
Voters who are baffled or bamboozled can't effectively run a country. The best they can do is hold beauty pageants and popularity contests.
Please show your data.
How could anyone there possibly be uninterested in the launch? Especially FAA nerds?
That's pretty much the entire "Federal Reserve". We may be converging on a root problem here.
> pi has repition, here and thee .. an dhtere are a few
I don't hear well, but I thought I heard "raw passion, her and thee ... and tear our nephew" But that part about the nephew makes no sense. So please repeat what you said, more slowly if you could.
> Completely devoid of repetition is vastly more difficult.
Maybe not. I'd just play pi.
It works great for anything less than two people. It can work well for 10 people. Get past 1000 people and it devolves into theater where nothing substantive can be accomplished.
I think little good can come out of sovereign countries ceding power to an international group, be they financiers or politicians. Every higher layer is even more inaccessible to us common folk. Push government power down to the local level, not up to the global level. Distributed power has far less potential for tyranny.
"they were leveraging the OS to get their compactness"
You do realize 1986 Turbo Pascal ran on DOS, right? Back when developers wrote directly to the monitor and disk drives? When we had to have an intimate relationship with the stack? When there were no threads and one process owned the entire CPU?
Leverage that, young whippersnapper, and get off my lawn.
If houses weren't a good investment, practically nobody would buy one, because renting for 20 years is cheaper
If renting from a landlord is cheaper than buying it outright, how does the landlord make money?
Questionable math aside, I think you'll find most people actually do buy their house primarily for a place to live. Call us crazy, but some of us like to live under our own terms rather than a landlord's.
"You've got at LEAST 100 years before peak oil hits"
How could I verify this? May I see your math?
they want somebody else to fix the problem for them.
I think it's more like they want "somebody else" to stop causing problems for them.
Having 40% of the wealth in the hands of 1% of the population indicates a rigged game rather than a free market.
And who will make that decision?
Meteor collision, alien invasion, dying Sol, or heat death of universe?
> they would protest with their wallets
How do you mean? Should they prematurely withdraw their 401(k) funds? Stop paying their mortgage? Stop buying gasoline?
> Or does the "free market" assume no government intervention
Exactly. Government intervention takes the "freedom" out of the market. Could be soviet-style mandates of prices, could be rent controls, could be wage controls. Some of us may like some of those (I like a 40 hour work week) but when the government imposes rules on the market, it's not a free market anymore.
If you don't like the mess, maybe you could just put a lid on your 401(k) and seal it really well. They die happy, suffocating in money, and you can keep their Rolexes.
This tech should help us all increase our cognitive bias.
The job of the courts is to draw the line to decide between the state's interest in the efficient operation of law enforcement and the citizen's interest in having his property untouched by the state.
Nope. The job of the courts is to read the Constitution, look in the list of enumerated powers, and see if surveilling the citizenry is in the list.
If the answer is yes, the court is then supposed to read the bill of rights and see if warrantless surveillance is expressly forbidden.
Allowing unauthorized/forbidden activity because it makes the government's job easier is precisely what they are *not* supposed to do.
> Place scientists on a pedestal at your own, and society's risk.
What pedestal? I go with the textbooks. When they change, I change. If the climatologists are mistaken, prove it, and I'm with you all the way.
Otherwise, throw scientists under the bus at your own, and society's risk.
The constitutional rationale for "exclusive rights" is to encourage the arts and sciences. This is probably unnecessary - both existed before so-called intellectual property protections did.
The whole idea of claiming responsibility for a creation is shaky; good creators copy, great creators steal. When 'IP" protections kick in after the creator has climbed onto the shoulders of prior giants, it seems inherently unfair.
Practically speaking, as to science, there's enough of a money motive for new technology that patents can and do help push the envelope along.
But painting, storytelling, singing don't necessarily advance just because you forbid anybody else to copy the work. Artists who choose their field for the money are probably going to be disappointed, but if they do make it, it's often more about marketing than merit.
And it's the marketeers who often reap most of the reward. Getting paid for their marketing work is fine, but then the monopoly protection is helping the marketeers, not artists in general or edgy art in particular.
So my "case for piracy" is that there's no strong case for monopoly, and "piracy" is what the artists themselves do and have done for millenia.
> Can we at least agree that scientists are human
> and thus vulnerable to the same pressures that motive
> other human beings?
Nope. Different humans are motivated by different things. Some of us live for sports, some of us live for money, some of us live for love, some of us live to build, some of us live to discover, some of us live to please, some of us live for power.
Research scientists in general did not choose their profession for its salary or its power. Most scientists would not falsify research for money. Virtue and integrity aside, they know if nobody can reproduce their results they're unlikely to have a long career.
States can specify alternate legal tender, if and only if it is silver and gold coin.
Article 1, Section 10:
1: No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; .
Hollywood is all about appearances... Too much drama in that town.
Irony of the day award.
> The CIA is for international (or at least not on US soil) work.
Yes, that's the original charter. Who enforces that now?