Point out evidence to a communist that people are selfish. Or to a libertarian that the FDIC stopped runs on banks and lead to the stabilization of the economy. Point out to a racist that minorities are people too. Point out to feminist that, well, there's too many examples.
After you do all that, come back and tell me religion is the only problem.
I have to disagree. Most likely, he'll compare his results to effects in AAA titles, and get frustrated quickly.
If he likes WoW, creating custom LUA scripts for UI features would be a good place to start, because it means optimizing something he's already doing. Other games may or may not work, but the difference is that modding a game is hard. Creating in-game tools that help him play is easier. It also teaches iteration leads to perfection.
It took my parents years of coming around to this - they tried getting me into sports and music (I do love music, just not what I wanted to be doing back then) before finally realizing that I wanted to work with computers, both in hardware and software, and that their best bet was to support me so that I could grow up to do something I love, not something that they wanted me to do or hoped I would do. It's fine and dandy to explore different interests with your kids, but if you don't consider what THEY want then you're just being a jackass, no matter how good your intentions are.
Yes and no. Some decisions (what to eat) children just aren't mature enough to make. Other skill sets (language) are easiest learned at a young age, and pretty universally useful (if only to test out of foreign language classes later in life to take something else in their stead). Or things like some sport/exercise to build good habits that hopefully last a lifetime.
But those should be balanced by helping, nay encouraging, the child to do something he enjoys. The best habit is to teach them to pursue their interests, and the best skillset is learning how to learn.
The discovery evidence from Viacom vs. YouTube/Google proves you wrong. We can thank Viacom for showing just how possible it might be that "viral"/pirate content is actually being distributed by the rights holder.
That argument, merits aside, would only be applicable to downloading, not uploading. If I give you a free cookie, that doesn't mean you can tell other people to come into my store and take a free cookie.
That's why they don't need DRM. They're big games are all multiplayer. After all (absent independent shards), everyone who plays WoW has a legitimate account. And all the Battle.net accounts mean that they have successfully moved to Software As A Service. The single-player version is essentially a demo.
If you're one month pregnant you're a little pregnant, but eight months pregnant and you're a lot pregnant? If your body is still warm you're only a little dead?
Congratulations, you've discovered that two terms (pregnant and dead) are not relative, highlighting the difference between relative and not relative.
Interesting point one: If all or no terms were relative, there would be no need for the word as it would never convey information.
Interesting point two: Relative is in fact relative. We tend to think of the degree to which relative is relative as "scale".
They've basically been used to prevent industries that are due for a downsizing from correcting themselves. Furthermore, they don't solve any of the fundamental problems these industries face, so basically the correction will still happen at some point in the future.
Assuming that those companies won't overcorrect, leading to a boom-bust cycle. Or that those companies aren't being temporarily slowed down because of, say a recession. If that's the case, then the cost to society of temporary makework may be worthwhile for the consistency it brings.
But the above is theoretical. You may feel that car companies are a dying industry, but keep in mind that they forced the companies to streamline, then ran "cash for clunkers" which, depending on the oil supply, may have been presciently brilliant.
Some subsidies are for completely different reasons: to make a market more perfect, to invest in a natural monopoly to gain a moral right to regulate it, because the supply is vital for national defense (imagine if China made the cheapest food in the world, and thus had all the farmers), to fix externalities.
We'd be much better off if these resources were invested in productive work (that could include investing in training for those that lose their jobs to do this work)
Assuming "productive" means "able to earn enough income to not need subsidies", some people will never be productive. And how many jobs do we want someone to be forced to go through? Efficiency is great, but producing the most for no reason isn't. Basically, the reason pure capitalism keeps getting screwed with is that some of those widgets being bought and sold are people with intrinsic value.
And that's not even going into the whole question of why the government should be able to choose winners and losers
That's a pretty talking point, but I'm not aware of subsidies on a company-by-company basis. If it's industry-by-industry, well sometimes the industry should exist but cannot be self-sufficent. Pure public goods (libraries and lighthouses) are a clear example. Pure private goods (designer clothes) clearly should be not subsidized. But isn't it reasonable to assume that some goods may fall in between the spectrum.
I agree that not all subsidies are good, but not all subsidies are bad.
Global interconnectivity is progress. Therefore more actions take place across city/county/state/national lines. In order to efficiently police actions of any type at the same level that they were policed before, a higher authority needs to disambiguate when each locales laws become paramount (international law) or abrogate onto itself the authority formerly given to the more local authority.
Unless you need to subsidize an industry. Then you need makework in that industry. Nor is it clear that there is enough productive work for every skill level (if you are aiming for employment as the goal). Lastly, the biggest issue with the broken-window type thing is the lack of, for lack of a better work, central planning. I drive through two counties regularly. One is repaving year old roads, and one is barely able to keep the rebar covered in the potholes.
I don't see why companies can't make this type of agreement
For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad. Therefore the regulation of an oligopoly is considered okay. In a oligopsony, similar affects arise from collusion: the buyers of services gain huge price setting power, because they no longer have to out-bid one another.
The congress too should stop abusing the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses to turn a limited government into an unlimited one.
Congress isn't increasing the size of the government, it's moving governmental functions from the state/local level to the federal level. The total amount of government is remaining the same.
As for why they do it, well, you can blame progress for that. As I write this over the internet, I am interacting with people in many states, and even some countries. Sorry, states cannot regulate this at all and the federal government has to step in. Progress intertwines us all.
And, to build on your point, it also applies to giving people money. Keeping a few recent grads fed while they work on some new tech can more than pay dividends in increased tax revenue when they hit it big. I'd like to see some level of welfare as public venture capital.
Again, your disclaimer of "I'm not defending the current system."
The government MUST control the flow of information.
Yes, because the alternative is a corporation controlling the flow of information. NPR and CSPAN are better news sources (in CSPAN's case, only for governmental news) then MSNBC, FOX News or ClearChannel. So is the BBC, a autonomous, but public, news source.
I understand paranoia. I understand not wanting the government to control as in mete out information. But the government certainly should regulate some things about information. I cannot sell you "zero-calorie soda" that contains calories, why can I sell you a "20 MBPS internet connection" but that gets throttled if you want to look at specific parts of the internet?
Premptive reply to the fine print argument: The government would stop me from putting "zero-calorie* soda (*Discounting calories from sugar and high-fructose corn syrup)" on a soda. And be right to do so. Because we cannot expect people to be able to devote that much of their time to every decision.
This is the broken window fallacy, for those who didn't know this has been repeatedly disproven.
Where and how? Subsidizing businesses can make sense, and all the broken window fallacy does is disproportionately allocate the cost of subsidizing.
People from some schools of economics (e.g. the Austrian school) disagree with the idea of subsidies in general and regard the broken window as an example of a fallacy, whereas Keynesians explicitly call for broken window style logic, albeit in some limited cases.
My view: If we want to give people money to keep them from starving, broken window inspired make-work is a perfectly acceptable way to do it. It's better then getting them hooked on handouts. We even end up with some impressive post offices.
Why would the private earmarking have to come only out of taxes you pay? And why should the rich get to earmark more? The entire point was to keep the private earmarking on the 1 person/$100 of earmarks level
How can we download an entire movie within, say, one minute?
You can already download an HD movie in real-time. It's called "on demand". Oh, you want that speed to all the content providers? Maybe I can introduce you to my friend "Net Neutrality".
Obama came to power with an agenda to implement certain things that left had wanted to do for years and finally got their chance (no 1 being the healthcare bill).
Paraphrased from the American President:
Obama "I've made no secret of the fact that the [health care] bill was my top priority."
Everyone: "Well then, congratulations. It's only taken you [15 months] to put together [health care] legislation that has no hope of [providing health care]."
Seriously, all Obama did was set up a crisis that will push us to one extreme or the other in 10 years. Maybe a full government takeover of healthcare is necessary, but can we honestly talk about it as opposed to making a bad situation worse?
He caught a computer virus, as evidenced from the ability to infect another computer. However, he is far from the first. I sneezed on a keyboard, my friend used the keyboard, and later he sneezed on his keyboard. Using the scientist's criteria, that makes it a computer virus (can transmit from one computer to another). I was infected with my cold over two decades ago, and I doubt I was the first.
The idea is that these users we always hear about who never have less than 50 tabs open can't remember which tabs are which, and if you put up a Facebook login screen or something, then you'll think it's just a timed out Facebook session.
I have a lot of tabs open right now, but I would think I would notice if someone put up a Facebook or Gmail login. Those are opened in different browsers. And a different OS for banking/anything to do with money.
Not to mention that without javascript and/or flash, I doubt his exploit will affect me.
Science and religion are always mutually compatible. Science relies on the idea that things happen today like they did yesterday and like they will happen in the future. Once something can manipulate things outside the laws of nature, science cannot verify that such a thing happened. In fact, if science could validate it, it would become scientific, not religious.
That said, science can confirm events that occurred in religious texts.
Trying to overreach science's influence, like Richard Dawkins, leads to extremists pushing back trying to get evolution taken out of schools. If both sides were just honest about science's limitations, there wouldn't be any problem.
Lastly, why is it those who are theoretically the best educated vis-a-vis science those who get caught up on the "6 days to create the universe" problem. Isn't time different for different observers, etc, etc?
Non-tech-savvy users with unsecured WAPs are vulnerable to all sorts of things
And unarmed people walking through alleys at night are vulnerable to all sorts of things as well; it doesn't mean we don't prosecute those who do those things.
When I used to work in the banking industry, MASTERCARD MADE ME DO THIS. As a part of my audit, I had to record all wireless traffic visible from our data center and analyze it to ensure that none of it was potentially a rogue AP somewhere inside our network.
That's pretty justified. I mean, Mastercard wants to make sure they are not transmitting the AP, and it's hard to triangulate it.
Also, let's keep in mind that being able to see something, and being able to record it, and being able to post it in a searchable form on the internet are all very different things. You may see your neighbor changing through her curtains, but if you post that video to the internet, that's not legal (at least, not where I am). Mastercard wasn't building a database, they were testing their own security.
Slashdot Mirror
Point out evidence to a communist that people are selfish. Or to a libertarian that the FDIC stopped runs on banks and lead to the stabilization of the economy. Point out to a racist that minorities are people too. Point out to feminist that, well, there's too many examples.
After you do all that, come back and tell me religion is the only problem.
I have to disagree. Most likely, he'll compare his results to effects in AAA titles, and get frustrated quickly.
If he likes WoW, creating custom LUA scripts for UI features would be a good place to start, because it means optimizing something he's already doing. Other games may or may not work, but the difference is that modding a game is hard. Creating in-game tools that help him play is easier. It also teaches iteration leads to perfection.
Yes and no. Some decisions (what to eat) children just aren't mature enough to make. Other skill sets (language) are easiest learned at a young age, and pretty universally useful (if only to test out of foreign language classes later in life to take something else in their stead). Or things like some sport/exercise to build good habits that hopefully last a lifetime.
But those should be balanced by helping, nay encouraging, the child to do something he enjoys. The best habit is to teach them to pursue their interests, and the best skillset is learning how to learn.
That argument, merits aside, would only be applicable to downloading, not uploading. If I give you a free cookie, that doesn't mean you can tell other people to come into my store and take a free cookie.
That's why they don't need DRM. They're big games are all multiplayer. After all (absent independent shards), everyone who plays WoW has a legitimate account. And all the Battle.net accounts mean that they have successfully moved to Software As A Service. The single-player version is essentially a demo.
Congratulations, you've discovered that two terms (pregnant and dead) are not relative, highlighting the difference between relative and not relative.
Interesting point one: If all or no terms were relative, there would be no need for the word as it would never convey information.
Interesting point two: Relative is in fact relative. We tend to think of the degree to which relative is relative as "scale".
Do you mind if I use your beer analogy, well, everywhere people are being idiots about relative terms?
Assuming that those companies won't overcorrect, leading to a boom-bust cycle. Or that those companies aren't being temporarily slowed down because of, say a recession. If that's the case, then the cost to society of temporary makework may be worthwhile for the consistency it brings.
But the above is theoretical. You may feel that car companies are a dying industry, but keep in mind that they forced the companies to streamline, then ran "cash for clunkers" which, depending on the oil supply, may have been presciently brilliant.
Some subsidies are for completely different reasons: to make a market more perfect, to invest in a natural monopoly to gain a moral right to regulate it, because the supply is vital for national defense (imagine if China made the cheapest food in the world, and thus had all the farmers), to fix externalities.
We'd be much better off if these resources were invested in productive work (that could include investing in training for those that lose their jobs to do this work)
Assuming "productive" means "able to earn enough income to not need subsidies", some people will never be productive. And how many jobs do we want someone to be forced to go through? Efficiency is great, but producing the most for no reason isn't. Basically, the reason pure capitalism keeps getting screwed with is that some of those widgets being bought and sold are people with intrinsic value.
That's a pretty talking point, but I'm not aware of subsidies on a company-by-company basis. If it's industry-by-industry, well sometimes the industry should exist but cannot be self-sufficent. Pure public goods (libraries and lighthouses) are a clear example. Pure private goods (designer clothes) clearly should be not subsidized. But isn't it reasonable to assume that some goods may fall in between the spectrum.
I agree that not all subsidies are good, but not all subsidies are bad.
Global interconnectivity is progress. Therefore more actions take place across city/county/state/national lines. In order to efficiently police actions of any type at the same level that they were policed before, a higher authority needs to disambiguate when each locales laws become paramount (international law) or abrogate onto itself the authority formerly given to the more local authority.
Unless you need to subsidize an industry. Then you need makework in that industry. Nor is it clear that there is enough productive work for every skill level (if you are aiming for employment as the goal). Lastly, the biggest issue with the broken-window type thing is the lack of, for lack of a better work, central planning. I drive through two counties regularly. One is repaving year old roads, and one is barely able to keep the rebar covered in the potholes.
But Cash For was to boost specific industries.
For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad. Therefore the regulation of an oligopoly is considered okay. In a oligopsony, similar affects arise from collusion: the buyers of services gain huge price setting power, because they no longer have to out-bid one another.
No, there's also labor.
Congress isn't increasing the size of the government, it's moving governmental functions from the state/local level to the federal level. The total amount of government is remaining the same.
As for why they do it, well, you can blame progress for that. As I write this over the internet, I am interacting with people in many states, and even some countries. Sorry, states cannot regulate this at all and the federal government has to step in. Progress intertwines us all.
And, to build on your point, it also applies to giving people money. Keeping a few recent grads fed while they work on some new tech can more than pay dividends in increased tax revenue when they hit it big. I'd like to see some level of welfare as public venture capital.
Again, your disclaimer of "I'm not defending the current system."
Yes, because the alternative is a corporation controlling the flow of information. NPR and CSPAN are better news sources (in CSPAN's case, only for governmental news) then MSNBC, FOX News or ClearChannel. So is the BBC, a autonomous, but public, news source.
I understand paranoia. I understand not wanting the government to control as in mete out information. But the government certainly should regulate some things about information. I cannot sell you "zero-calorie soda" that contains calories, why can I sell you a "20 MBPS internet connection" but that gets throttled if you want to look at specific parts of the internet?
Premptive reply to the fine print argument: The government would stop me from putting "zero-calorie* soda (*Discounting calories from sugar and high-fructose corn syrup)" on a soda. And be right to do so. Because we cannot expect people to be able to devote that much of their time to every decision.
Where and how? Subsidizing businesses can make sense, and all the broken window fallacy does is disproportionately allocate the cost of subsidizing.
People from some schools of economics (e.g. the Austrian school) disagree with the idea of subsidies in general and regard the broken window as an example of a fallacy, whereas Keynesians explicitly call for broken window style logic, albeit in some limited cases.
My view: If we want to give people money to keep them from starving, broken window inspired make-work is a perfectly acceptable way to do it. It's better then getting them hooked on handouts. We even end up with some impressive post offices.
Why would the private earmarking have to come only out of taxes you pay? And why should the rich get to earmark more? The entire point was to keep the private earmarking on the 1 person/$100 of earmarks level
Spoken like someone who is a part of the majority.
Given my druthers, I wouldn't trust the majority of my fellow citizens with drivers licenses, let alone the right to directly vote on every issue.
You can already download an HD movie in real-time. It's called "on demand". Oh, you want that speed to all the content providers? Maybe I can introduce you to my friend "Net Neutrality".
Paraphrased from the American President:
Obama "I've made no secret of the fact that the [health care] bill was my top priority."
Everyone: "Well then, congratulations. It's only taken you [15 months] to put together [health care] legislation that has no hope of [providing health care]."
Seriously, all Obama did was set up a crisis that will push us to one extreme or the other in 10 years. Maybe a full government takeover of healthcare is necessary, but can we honestly talk about it as opposed to making a bad situation worse?
He caught a computer virus, as evidenced from the ability to infect another computer. However, he is far from the first. I sneezed on a keyboard, my friend used the keyboard, and later he sneezed on his keyboard. Using the scientist's criteria, that makes it a computer virus (can transmit from one computer to another). I was infected with my cold over two decades ago, and I doubt I was the first.
I have a lot of tabs open right now, but I would think I would notice if someone put up a Facebook or Gmail login. Those are opened in different browsers. And a different OS for banking/anything to do with money.
Not to mention that without javascript and/or flash, I doubt his exploit will affect me.
Science and religion are always mutually compatible. Science relies on the idea that things happen today like they did yesterday and like they will happen in the future. Once something can manipulate things outside the laws of nature, science cannot verify that such a thing happened. In fact, if science could validate it, it would become scientific, not religious.
That said, science can confirm events that occurred in religious texts.
Trying to overreach science's influence, like Richard Dawkins, leads to extremists pushing back trying to get evolution taken out of schools. If both sides were just honest about science's limitations, there wouldn't be any problem.
Lastly, why is it those who are theoretically the best educated vis-a-vis science those who get caught up on the "6 days to create the universe" problem. Isn't time different for different observers, etc, etc?
I never claimed they posted it. Posting was necessary for my non-Google example, as the actual recording's legality is very locale dependent.
And unarmed people walking through alleys at night are vulnerable to all sorts of things as well; it doesn't mean we don't prosecute those who do those things.
That's pretty justified. I mean, Mastercard wants to make sure they are not transmitting the AP, and it's hard to triangulate it.
Also, let's keep in mind that being able to see something, and being able to record it, and being able to post it in a searchable form on the internet are all very different things. You may see your neighbor changing through her curtains, but if you post that video to the internet, that's not legal (at least, not where I am). Mastercard wasn't building a database, they were testing their own security.