The individual liar who is found out may no longer be an economic force; but how many spring up to replace him (her)?
Lying is a fundamental technique of salesmanship, and is often viewed as the quickest most efficient way to profit.
It's sort of like drug dealers/hustlers in the completely unrestricted free market of the street drug trade. There are always those who lie to you while selling you bunk. They may not last, but others inevitably take their place...
They should just publish everything online (cheaper) and let peers rate the articles. Sort of like slashdot moderation. Wait, maybe that's not such a good idea...
Notice the "Free" in "Free Registration Required"...
Re:What is science? Can't all be free...
on
Who Owns Science?
·
· Score: 1
I think the point is that free/open science will benefit us all (even the journal publishers, because they too will benefit from quicker technological advances) more than the other kinds, and contribute towards us not becoming "borgified".
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA was: Re:a great slipery slope
on
Who Owns Science?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
But the only reason something turns a profit is because it's useful enough to someone for them to decide to pay for it.
Or because someone sells it well enough to you that you think you need it, or you think it will be better than something else. The seller often lies...
Geeks see a need for a device/program. They function as a evolutionary force to fill an "ecological" niche. The niche is the need, the device is the thing that exploits the niche. "Suits" do the same thing. They see a financial or economic inefficiency and they create a "device" (a financial instrument or business, say) to exploit it. They are money hackers. Profit is just another way of saying efficiency which everyone here knows is related to elegance.
I think the difference is that when coding, being truthful (with yourself, when debugging) contributes to efficiency; but when "hacking money", lying is often the most efficient path.
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 1
Each of us has a part of us that likes to make stuff for geeky reasons. And each of us has a part that likes the benjamins.
Making stuff for geeky reasons is a trait that will hopefully survive for a while; liking the benjamins need only remain with us as long as we choose...
I could be wrong, but I think the Fed's pushing up interest rates also had a major effect on the stock market crash. The Fed basically (and arbitrarily) called "Time!" on the ideas behind the dot-com boom...
Unless you can farm, fabricate and generate electricity, you're not going to lead a very fufilling life without doing something for money.
Humans existed for 15? thousand years without doing anything for money...so it is possible.
What we need to do is invest heavily in technology so that food and energy become basically free to produce. Then we can each pursue our happiness without having to do something to make a living.
Why would anybody innovate products that require significant R&D then?
Because the drugs developed will benefit the researchers themselves?
Society would be better off with lower cost drugs. If the free market can't produce that, why not try something else (government-funded research for example)?
What is the point of your corrections? It is obvious why "of" is replacing "have" in "should have": phonetically, "should of" is equivalent to "should've". This indicates a problem with English spelling. The best solution is to make English spelling phonetic.
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by correcting mistakes. You obviously understand the intent of the author. Are you really afraid that if you let go some of the rules imprinted upon you as a child you will become stupid?
Purchasing power does not equal technological advancement.
I think this is one key point where people's opinions diverge. I agree with the statement, but I think hard core free market capitalists want you to believe that money is the best evaluator of ideas. So if a technological advance doesn't make money in the free market, it is worthless. I think there are enough counterexamples to disprove the theory that the free market alone (or primarily) drives (or should drive) technological advancement. (The medium we're currently using for example.)
I think the patent office thinks its main purpose is to make money, and since they get revenue from patent applications, it makes good business sense to grant a lot of patents to give more people the incentive to apply...
"No matter what I do I have to choose between things I read/view/etc. in detail and those I don't; the cover of a book, the spelling and grammar of a commentary, and so on are simply factors I use to make that decision."
I guess it's a question of how much weight you give to spelling/grammar. I used to give it much more weight than I do now...
The problem I think I had with your original post was that you seemed to realize that your present method of judging things is a hack, but instead of spending your time trying to figure out how to improve the hack (i.e., how to judge things more fairly), you defended the hack, thereby reproducing and spreading the idea that judging books by their covers is okay...Perhaps your philosphy includes "if you can't beat them, join them"?
In the case of this Prince commentary, as several posts showed it proved fairly trivial to convert it to conventional spelling. Imagine a filter that converted the less-essential parts of external stimuli to a form more customized for you personally...so you could "make your own covers" with a program that extracted the information you would like to see on covers and packaged it in a way that you find pleasing...The point being: it won't necessarily require eternal life to judge things more fairly...
Slashdot Mirror
OJ was let off because of centuries of lynching innocent black men for looking at white women.
The individual liar who is found out may no longer be an economic force; but how many spring up to replace him (her)?
Lying is a fundamental technique of salesmanship, and is often viewed as the quickest most efficient way to profit.
It's sort of like drug dealers/hustlers in the completely unrestricted free market of the street drug trade. There are always those who lie to you while selling you bunk. They may not last, but others inevitably take their place...
They should just publish everything online (cheaper) and let peers rate the articles. Sort of like slashdot moderation. Wait, maybe that's not such a good idea...
Pay for the research labs with tax money! We the citizens would benefit from our investment.
Notice the "Free" in "Free Registration Required"...
I think the point is that free/open science will benefit us all (even the journal publishers, because they too will benefit from quicker technological advances) more than the other kinds, and contribute towards us not becoming "borgified".
freedom wants to be information
But the only reason something turns a profit is because it's useful enough to someone for them to decide to pay for it.
Or because someone sells it well enough to you that you think you need it, or you think it will be better than something else. The seller often lies...
Half a century of various failed or struggling communist social models bear out that there will always be those motivated by greed.
Well, hunter-gatherers survived for several thousand years with a lifestyle not motivated primarily by greed. So it is possible.
Imagine living like a hunter-gatherer (lots of leisure time), but with the convenience of technology...greed need not remain with us forever.
MS is there because people *wanted* it there.
Or because they were sold on it. Without being presented with all the options. So a lot of people made an uninformed choice.
Geeks see a need for a device/program. They function as a evolutionary force to fill an "ecological" niche. The niche is the need, the device is the thing that exploits the niche. "Suits" do the same thing. They see a financial or economic inefficiency and they create a "device" (a financial instrument or business, say) to exploit it. They are money hackers. Profit is just another way of saying efficiency which everyone here knows is related to elegance.
I think the difference is that when coding, being truthful (with yourself, when debugging) contributes to efficiency; but when "hacking money", lying is often the most efficient path.
Each of us has a part of us that likes to make stuff for geeky reasons. And each of us has a part that likes the benjamins.
Making stuff for geeky reasons is a trait that will hopefully survive for a while; liking the benjamins need only remain with us as long as we choose...
I could be wrong, but I think the Fed's pushing up interest rates also had a major effect on the stock market crash. The Fed basically (and arbitrarily) called "Time!" on the ideas behind the dot-com boom...
Unless you can farm, fabricate and generate electricity, you're not going to lead a very fufilling life without doing something for money.
Humans existed for 15? thousand years without doing anything for money...so it is possible.
What we need to do is invest heavily in technology so that food and energy become basically free to produce. Then we can each pursue our happiness without having to do something to make a living.
Why would anybody innovate products that require significant R&D then?
Because the drugs developed will benefit the researchers themselves?
Society would be better off with lower cost drugs. If the free market can't produce that, why not try something else (government-funded research for example)?
Why would I want to spell check a web page?
That feature would hopefully eliminate the majority of the "you spelled a word wrong, therefore I'm not going to listen to you any further" posts.
What is the point of your corrections? It is obvious why "of" is replacing "have" in "should have": phonetically, "should of" is equivalent to "should've". This indicates a problem with English spelling. The best solution is to make English spelling phonetic.
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by correcting mistakes. You obviously understand the intent of the author. Are you really afraid that if you let go some of the rules imprinted upon you as a child you will become stupid?
In praise of idleness
Is Holland really utopia?
Purchasing power does not equal technological advancement.
I think this is one key point where people's opinions diverge. I agree with the statement, but I think hard core free market capitalists want you to believe that money is the best evaluator of ideas. So if a technological advance doesn't make money in the free market, it is worthless. I think there are enough counterexamples to disprove the theory that the free market alone (or primarily) drives (or should drive) technological advancement. (The medium we're currently using for example.)
every 0THER day?
Is slashdot benefiting from the story of this server being crushed?
I think the patent office thinks its main purpose is to make money, and since they get revenue from patent applications, it makes good business sense to grant a lot of patents to give more people the incentive to apply...
"No matter what I do I have to choose between things I read/view/etc. in detail and those I don't; the cover of a book, the spelling and grammar of a commentary, and so on are simply factors I use to make that decision."
I guess it's a question of how much weight you give to spelling/grammar. I used to give it much more weight than I do now...
The problem I think I had with your original post was that you seemed to realize that your present method of judging things is a hack, but instead of spending your time trying to figure out how to improve the hack (i.e., how to judge things more fairly), you defended the hack, thereby reproducing and spreading the idea that judging books by their covers is okay...Perhaps your philosphy includes "if you can't beat them, join them"?
In the case of this Prince commentary, as several posts showed it proved fairly trivial to convert it to conventional spelling. Imagine a filter that converted the less-essential parts of external stimuli to a form more customized for you personally...so you could "make your own covers" with a program that extracted the information you would like to see on covers and packaged it in a way that you find pleasing...The point being: it won't necessarily require eternal life to judge things more fairly...
</technological evangelism>
You can debug the programs, but the humans?