I just don't see free hardware happening. I just don't think the economics support it. Software you can build and maintain for low costs. You just need people to donate their time. Hardware is a much different story. Someone has to pay for the silicon, the clean rooms, the R&D, etc.
People may give away software to have you buy hardware or services. And people may give you hardware if you buy software or services. But, at the end of the day, somebody is going to pay something.
is the Internet equivalent of self-important navel-gazing.
That said, the media loves to use the rise, fall, return template for many stories.
They'll do a bunch of stories about the great new thing (Java, microbreweries, politician running for president, whatever) then stories about their demise, and then stories about "hey we said they were dead but they're still around."
Supply and demand sets the proper level. I know of no pre-defined way to know which job is the most valuable other than what people are willing to pay.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with property rights because property belongs to people. They wanted to protect people from mob rule, which is what pure democracy is.
Your rights can be easily violated in a democracy. And that's what they were hoping to prevent.
So putting property over people? Unless you are trolling, your understanding of the views of the Founders' philosophy seems to be lacking.
Then state laws would require that. I'm not sure if the feds would need to care about a state law, since I'm not sure about state law vs. federal polic case law. 4th amendment violations would still not be in view.
I mentioned this in a reply to someone's post, but I'll restate it here.
When you are on a library's computer you are on property owned by the public, presumably the county or municipality. There is no expectation to privacy. No 4th amendment rights are being violated.
I would assume that packaging that software would hurt many anti-virus companies. They are probably doing this for legal reasons. Why cause more anti-trust headaches when you don't have to?
And its market capitalization was around 118 billion dollars. That gives them a P/E ratio of around 88 or 89.
To put this in perspective, their market capitalization, which should be around how much money their business is worth, is about 40% of Microsoft's market cap. And Microsoft is a monopoly sitting on $40 billion of cash. Their P/E is in the low 20's.
Let's not look for vast conspiracies when we can find adequate, simpler answers.
1) If you make a car more fuel efficient, many people will just drive more. The limiiting reagent is money.
2) People don't switch because of economic reasons. It's hard to get a critical mass with a new technology when a well-established and relatively cheap alternative (oil) is entrenched. Will the industry try to protect itself? Sure. But who wouldn't? And it doesn't take them to twist the arms of people. If there was a will, there would be a way. Necessity is the mother of invention...blah...blah...blah
3) Environmentalists have been a big anti-nuclear force and people don't want nuclear reactors built. That's why nuclear energy hasn't grown more. Look at Europe, which is less prone to the oil oligarchy. They haven't built a new reactor in a while either and are considering it now.
When oil is expensive enough, alternatives will pop up. People will also drive less.
from what I've read case law supports this. Since it involves foreign powers and influence, the President, any President, can use those powers with no need for a warrant as is within his right as commander and chief.
How about we strike a deal? The government will prevent people from blowing stuff up, like the Brooklyn Bridge, and they won't use those tapes in court at a trial.
Well, I would only be angry if my worldview allowed for me to be angry. If we are just a series of chemical and physical accidents, why get angry about anything?
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't see free hardware happening. I just don't think the economics support it. Software you can build and maintain for low costs. You just need people to donate their time. Hardware is a much different story. Someone has to pay for the silicon, the clean rooms, the R&D, etc.
People may give away software to have you buy hardware or services. And people may give you hardware if you buy software or services. But, at the end of the day, somebody is going to pay something.
thanks. faded memory. At least I remembered it was in Warsaw.
It was in a Jewish cementary in either Warsaw (9 years ago so my memory is a bit fuzzy). I don't think his gravestone was in Esperanto.
is the Internet equivalent of self-important navel-gazing.
That said, the media loves to use the rise, fall, return template for many stories.
They'll do a bunch of stories about the great new thing (Java, microbreweries, politician running for president, whatever) then stories about their demise, and then stories about "hey we said they were dead but they're still around."
It would save Google time and money and they would agree right away.
Supply and demand sets the proper level. I know of no pre-defined way to know which job is the most valuable other than what people are willing to pay.
Why should the gold standard be the point in time for the economy when a lot was smoke and mirrors?
I imagine proprietary coders using this and IP lawyers doing research on this.
Hopefully, chaos won't ensue.
Plenty of complaints about immature guys have been heard over the years.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with property rights because property belongs to people. They wanted to protect people from mob rule, which is what pure democracy is.
Your rights can be easily violated in a democracy. And that's what they were hoping to prevent.
So putting property over people? Unless you are trolling, your understanding of the views of the Founders' philosophy seems to be lacking.
Or we can take the money and just adapt to whatever changes occur.
Then state laws would require that. I'm not sure if the feds would need to care about a state law, since I'm not sure about state law vs. federal polic case law. 4th amendment violations would still not be in view.
I mentioned this in a reply to someone's post, but I'll restate it here.
When you are on a library's computer you are on property owned by the public, presumably the county or municipality. There is no expectation to privacy. No 4th amendment rights are being violated.
It's not the suspect's computer.
The library's computer doesn't belong to you. It belongs to a local government.
How would there be any expectation of privacy or anything else? It's not your computer, so there would be no 4th amendment violation.
I would assume that packaging that software would hurt many anti-virus companies. They are probably doing this for legal reasons. Why cause more anti-trust headaches when you don't have to?
Call me a skeptic, it doesn't bother me.
I'm open to believing in _human caused_ global warming. But I want to see what the year to year output of the Sun has been.
Remember that story last year about the ice caps on Mars shrinking? It was on slashdot. Output from stars is not static.
Just humor me before we start pronouncing doom and gloom.
For major important beliefs, I will from time to time examine them more closely. And I have gone through periods where I change and modify them.
But is it necessary to do that all the time? Once you settle something, you would like to move on and do something with that belief.
A mind is like a mouth. Once it finds some food it should clamp down and stay shut, otherwise it is disgusting.
Up to a point. You should listen to other people. But it is just not practical to constantly debate your core beliefs.
You can apply this to everyone about anything who believes in anything, secular or relgious.
People ignore things that they already believe in. People are prone to self-deception.
People are prone to notice problems in other people while not noticing problems with themselves or their own positions.
This is not new. And knowledge about the heart's capacity for self-deception is not new. Especially if you are familiar with the Scriptures.
My point in giving the P/E was to show how Google is overreaching. Their valuation is for companies with a lot more revenue.
Are they a good company with good financials? Yes. But are they going to grow enough to justify their current valuation? I don't see it.
So anything could prick a bubble.
Last I checked it was around 400 a share: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=goog
And its market capitalization was around 118 billion dollars. That gives them a P/E ratio of around 88 or 89.
To put this in perspective, their market capitalization, which should be around how much money their business is worth, is about 40% of Microsoft's market cap. And Microsoft is a monopoly sitting on $40 billion of cash. Their P/E is in the low 20's.
Oil oligarchy?
Let's not look for vast conspiracies when we can find adequate, simpler answers.
1) If you make a car more fuel efficient, many people will just drive more. The limiiting reagent is money.
2) People don't switch because of economic reasons. It's hard to get a critical mass with a new technology when a well-established and relatively cheap alternative (oil) is entrenched. Will the industry try to protect itself? Sure. But who wouldn't? And it doesn't take them to twist the arms of people. If there was a will, there would be a way. Necessity is the mother of invention...blah...blah...blah
3) Environmentalists have been a big anti-nuclear force and people don't want nuclear reactors built. That's why nuclear energy hasn't grown more. Look at Europe, which is less prone to the oil oligarchy. They haven't built a new reactor in a while either and are considering it now.
When oil is expensive enough, alternatives will pop up. People will also drive less.
Here is a reference:- 7772r.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610
from what I've read case law supports this. Since it involves foreign powers and influence, the President, any President, can use those powers with no need for a warrant as is within his right as commander and chief.
How about we strike a deal? The government will prevent people from blowing stuff up, like the Brooklyn Bridge, and they won't use those tapes in court at a trial.
There was an article a while ago about taking just a few cells without killing the embryo. So there may be another way out of any ethical dillemmas.
Well, I would only be angry if my worldview allowed for me to be angry. If we are just a series of chemical and physical accidents, why get angry about anything?