When you say "tired," I say "tried & true." The Internet is a new medium, not a standalone phenomenon that does not use the same rules. If a business cannot keep up with new technology and that tech is what their customers want, the company deserves to die off, not be granted new abilities by the government just because they are a rich collapsing dinosaur. To prop them up in any way is against the point of Capitalism, although it seems that there aren't any Federal politicians who do know the point.
> The automobile took over from horse and carriage because it won over the market.
And the "market," assuming the true meaning of "people," and not "corporations," has decided that free music sharing is what they want. So MP3s, in essence, have won over the market.
> The analogy to P2P is useless.
Stating a belief does not make it true. Give reasons why, don't just say "this is the way I think it should be, so that's the way it is."
> why is there a copyright at all
To protect, for a limited time, the owner's monopoly (not in a bad way) on their creations. That "limited time" no longer exists, and copyright has grown to include many things not previously covered because a big company bought laws.
> then have the hope of benefitting from copyright to recoup on that investment.
By selling their song? Fine, that still exists. They CAN hope to recoup on their investment. The key word is "hope." Artists are not guaranteed money just because they make a song. Everyone (I hope) knows that. If you cannot make a living at your job any more, do you just stay there & whine about it? No. If you cannot make a living making music, perhaps you should look into a part-time job to support yourself. You aren't entitled to anything. If you are good at what you do, you can make a lot of money. Dave Matthews is a perfect example. I think his music sucks, but there are millions who love it. He was successful without joining a RIAA record label -- how did he do it? He has shitloads of talent and he puts on an amazing live show. Ever tried finding a DMB song on Napster/KaZaA/whatever? Impossible to find a studio version, since the live ones are usually as good or better, or at least slightly different. That is what draws the audiences. If you aren't good enough or driven enough to do that, is that my fault?
Do you not believe that the desires of the people should guide what a business does? Should market forces be controlled so that consumers do not have a choice? I hope you don't think that.
> Starbucks has quite possibly the worst espresso I've ever had
Yes, for American Coffee Shop snobs, consistency = quality, which is oviously untrue. Starbucks' espresso is mostly crap for anyone who actually likes espresso and not hot, bitter water.
> Starbucks, in Canada, charges $2.10 for a Venti coffee
Venti? What the hell is a Venti coffee? 20oz? One of the things that annoy me about many coffee shops (starbucks included) is that they just make up words because they sound neat -- it makes the people who go there (snobs who think they are better because they can order a "venti" instead of a "large," even though they have never spoken a word of Italian) feel superior. Venti means 20, not "large" or "frikkin huge."
> What I admire about the Postgres team is that they focus on standards first and speed second.
What I don't admire about them is the impossibility of using it (a few years ago). I had a RedHat 6.0 (yeah, it's old, get over it) install and I followed the documentation exactly and postgres wouldn't even run. I downloaded it & compiled & installed from source, same result. MySQL, OTOH took a few hours to get running exactly as I wanted -- after days being frustrated by PG.
I believe it is to verify that you are who you say you are -- you're requsting what should be confidential data, and it`s easier to forge a signature than a fingerprint. At least that's what I think. It could be a sneaky way to get a larger database of fingerprints, or both.
> Review and challenge only exists if you have the time and money to wade through the monolithic ball of red tape that's in the way.
I had to go through a review & challenge when being hired to my current job (there was an item on my criminal record that was supposed to have been expunged). I had to send in a form (easily obtainable) and sign it, with my fingerprints on it (I wasn't happy about that, but realize it's a necessity). Two weeks later, I got a reply and sent in some papers, all was taken care of.
Total cost to me? About 4 hours. Yeah, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but I did not have to "wade through [a] monolithic ball of red tape."
So it has nothing to do with idealism, of which I am certainly a proponent, I speak from personal experience on this one.
> Unlike a credit report, a citizen cannot access it, view it, dispute it, or make corrections to it.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. It's fine that you are against this, as I am too (and I am in one of the few states still thinking it's a good idea), but you CAN make corrections. There is a process called "review and challenge," which while you cannot look at the direct results from this system, you can get the list of info it gives (that doesn't make much sense, but it is the case). If any of it is wrong you can submit a correction. Now, whether that request goes any further than the trashcan is questionable.
Of course, if, you are labelled a terrorist on this system for voting Libertarian, when you request it they can just say "nope, nothing found, have a nice day."
That's why I say we should find out the location of the key points & blow them up in the name of freedom. Am I going to have pigs/feds at my door for saying that? Probably not (damn, and I wanted to try out my new rifle), but it's still a good idea.
> why the hell do people need to see a damn spec to realize how small the planet is in comparison to tha vastness of space?
Because insanely large spans are easy to say, but very difficult to grasp, if you aren't already into astronomy. 1 million miles: wow, that's a lot. Travel one million miles and it just seemed to get a WHOLE LOT FURTHER.
> if the chances are of an asteroid hitting every 65M years, and it's the 64,9999M year then we can assume the chances get increasingly higher each year that passes that the asteroid has not hit
No, we cannot assume that, if there is a random distribution of asteroids. I liked the AC post of "Now I know why casinos make money," as it brings up a good example of why statistics can be confusing. The chances of an asteroid hitting do NOT increase every year there isn't one. Take slot machines (well, ones that are truly random): Sure, there is a jackpot to be given every 2,000,000 pulls. For each pull, the odds are the same every time. Sure, if you pull it 2,000,000 times, it is likely that one of those might be a jackpot, but even if it has not happened for 4,000,000 pulls, your chances of hitting it on pull 4,000,001 are exactly the same of hitting it on pull one (if they are truly random, of course -- real slot machines are "weighted" to give results after a certain amount of time/# of pulls).
Another way of looking at it is this: You get jackpot on pull 1! (congratulations!) You put in another quarter and your chances are exactly the same of getting another. HOWEVER, from an outside view, the chances of getting two in a row are slim. From the perspective of the player, since you already got it once, you have the guaranteed first, so it no longer fits into the statistical equation, so your chances are no worse.
This mistake is one of the hard-to-grasp concepts in statistics, and is one of the reasons statistics can be used to "prove anything."
> i can't back your statistical logic, because the same holds true for asteroids as does an erruption.
And I can't back yours. Eruptions are a process with a guaranteed end (an explosion, although the magnatude can vary wildly). Asteroids are not a process, but each one is independent of each other one. So, unless there is more asteroid "activity," if the chances of an asteroid strike were %.001 100,000,000 years ago, the chances are.001% now, regarless of how recently the lastone hit. If we were hit today, tomorrow there would still be a %.001 chance of another one hitting.
When dealing with statistics, remember: the chance of something happening at an exact time is not affected by the fact that that same thing happened at some other specific time. That might not make sense unless you already understand...
> > If someone believes something strongly, anything you tell them, they will intrepret it as a confirmation of their beliefs. > Just try talking to one of those religious nutbags, the ones that call themselves 'Christians'
Well thank you for that glowing review. You are right, of course, Christianity IS the only true religion, as you say, but I can't agree that I am the true son of God. Okay, I guess you've got me... I am the new Christ. Tell everyone you know! Save their souls!
> If you know how to read between line's, you would understand more?
The AC was more blunt, but really, if you want to look like you have a good argument why a conspiracy could be true, you will want to have at least a limited knowledge of good spelling and grammar. Otherwise, you look stupid. Seriously, if you aren't smart enough to know how to do simple things, like use an apostrophe appropriately, capitalize, have some sense of grammar, and spell common words correctly (although you did not do that), why should we believe that you are smart enough to put together evidence of an extremely complicated conspiracy?
This is one of the first things I look at when judging whether something is due more research.
> I really hope we clean up our act and start convincing Mother Earth that we are worth keeping around. I don't want to be buried in volcanic ash along with some dinosaurs she didn't like anymore.
I think what would be much more useful is to teach people that nature doesn't want anything. "Nature" is a word that is basically "Earth." You might as well try to convince a tree to dance the Hokey-Pokey. If a volcano is going to blow, it is going to blow regardless of anything mankind does. All volcanic activity is underground, in sealed caverns (if it were not sealed, there would be no pressure -> no eruption), so anything we do to the environment up here affects it in no way whatsoever.
Therefore, I conclude that eco-nuts (not calling you one) are wasting their time, as we'll probably be wiped out by something over which we have no control before we kill ourselves (except possibly for war, which can kill us all with almost no warning).
> [I saw a NZ ranger] walk up to the Lady Knox geyser and pour some detergent into it. A few minutes later it starting bubbling and erupted.
Nah, he just knew when it would erupt and was too cheap to use a washing machine. Just hope he caught all his clothes in the air before they fell onto the dirt, or else his time was wasted.
> Some serious legislative intervention may be required to speed things up when that does happen. But a lot of us would be happy indeed to see an end to the privileged role the oil-producing countries play on the world political scene.
And what do you think the first "legislative interventions" will be? Well, as oil starts to go dry, it will be harder for campanies to get enough supply for demand, so under usual market forces, they will have to reduce size or go out of business. Given the government's view of oil companies (as campaign contributors, ignoring Dem/Rep here), they'll probably prop them up by wasting taxpayer money.
We'll be paying to support a business that can't support itself, just like the airlines. People don't want to fly as much any more, since it isn't necessary, but the government is giving them money hand over fist so they can still get their precious contributions/bribes. Hmm, maybe if some of the least profitable ones go out of business the ones left over will pick up the other companies' passengers and start to succeed. *gasp* what a horrible concept!
Slashdot Mirror
> Here comes the tired old "buggy whip" argument.
When you say "tired," I say "tried & true." The Internet is a new medium, not a standalone phenomenon that does not use the same rules. If a business cannot keep up with new technology and that tech is what their customers want, the company deserves to die off, not be granted new abilities by the government just because they are a rich collapsing dinosaur. To prop them up in any way is against the point of Capitalism, although it seems that there aren't any Federal politicians who do know the point.
> The automobile took over from horse and carriage because it won over the market.
And the "market," assuming the true meaning of "people," and not "corporations," has decided that free music sharing is what they want. So MP3s, in essence, have won over the market.
> The analogy to P2P is useless.
Stating a belief does not make it true. Give reasons why, don't just say "this is the way I think it should be, so that's the way it is."
> why is there a copyright at all
To protect, for a limited time, the owner's monopoly (not in a bad way) on their creations. That "limited time" no longer exists, and copyright has grown to include many things not previously covered because a big company bought laws.
> then have the hope of benefitting from copyright to recoup on that investment.
By selling their song? Fine, that still exists. They CAN hope to recoup on their investment. The key word is "hope." Artists are not guaranteed money just because they make a song. Everyone (I hope) knows that. If you cannot make a living at your job any more, do you just stay there & whine about it? No. If you cannot make a living making music, perhaps you should look into a part-time job to support yourself. You aren't entitled to anything. If you are good at what you do, you can make a lot of money. Dave Matthews is a perfect example. I think his music sucks, but there are millions who love it. He was successful without joining a RIAA record label -- how did he do it? He has shitloads of talent and he puts on an amazing live show. Ever tried finding a DMB song on Napster/KaZaA/whatever? Impossible to find a studio version, since the live ones are usually as good or better, or at least slightly different. That is what draws the audiences. If you aren't good enough or driven enough to do that, is that my fault?
Do you not believe that the desires of the people should guide what a business does? Should market forces be controlled so that consumers do not have a choice? I hope you don't think that.
> Starbucks has quite possibly the worst espresso I've ever had
Yes, for American Coffee Shop snobs, consistency = quality, which is oviously untrue. Starbucks' espresso is mostly crap for anyone who actually likes espresso and not hot, bitter water.
> Starbucks, in Canada, charges $2.10 for a Venti coffee
Venti? What the hell is a Venti coffee? 20oz? One of the things that annoy me about many coffee shops (starbucks included) is that they just make up words because they sound neat -- it makes the people who go there (snobs who think they are better because they can order a "venti" instead of a "large," even though they have never spoken a word of Italian) feel superior. Venti means 20, not "large" or "frikkin huge."
> What I admire about the Postgres team is that they focus on standards first and speed second.
What I don't admire about them is the impossibility of using it (a few years ago). I had a RedHat 6.0 (yeah, it's old, get over it) install and I followed the documentation exactly and postgres wouldn't even run. I downloaded it & compiled & installed from source, same result. MySQL, OTOH took a few hours to get running exactly as I wanted -- after days being frustrated by PG.
> Why are the finger prints necessary?
I believe it is to verify that you are who you say you are -- you're requsting what should be confidential data, and it`s easier to forge a signature than a fingerprint. At least that's what I think. It could be a sneaky way to get a larger database of fingerprints, or both.
> have you diven on roads in those counties in LA during that period?
You mean the legal age? No, I have never been to Louisiana. I guess giving kids alcohol after only two years of driving probably is a bad idea...
> Anyone remember the mini-fusion generator that powered the Delorean?
You mean Mr. Fusion?
Man, and here I thought the quality of the electricity around here was crap now...
> I love that sig...
Thanks! I had come to dislike the "information wants to be free" mantra, while at the same time studying Buddhism.
(BTW, just 'cuz I don't like the saying doesn't mean I disagree with the principle)
> Review and challenge only exists if you have the time and money to wade through the monolithic ball of red tape that's in the way.
I had to go through a review & challenge when being hired to my current job (there was an item on my criminal record that was supposed to have been expunged). I had to send in a form (easily obtainable) and sign it, with my fingerprints on it (I wasn't happy about that, but realize it's a necessity). Two weeks later, I got a reply and sent in some papers, all was taken care of.
Total cost to me? About 4 hours. Yeah, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but I did not have to "wade through [a] monolithic ball of red tape."
So it has nothing to do with idealism, of which I am certainly a proponent, I speak from personal experience on this one.
> Unlike a credit report, a citizen cannot access it, view it, dispute it, or make corrections to it.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. It's fine that you are against this, as I am too (and I am in one of the few states still thinking it's a good idea), but you CAN make corrections. There is a process called "review and challenge," which while you cannot look at the direct results from this system, you can get the list of info it gives (that doesn't make much sense, but it is the case). If any of it is wrong you can submit a correction. Now, whether that request goes any further than the trashcan is questionable.
Of course, if, you are labelled a terrorist on this system for voting Libertarian, when you request it they can just say "nope, nothing found, have a nice day."
That's why I say we should find out the location of the key points & blow them up in the name of freedom. Am I going to have pigs/feds at my door for saying that? Probably not (damn, and I wanted to try out my new rifle), but it's still a good idea.
> This is exactly how the Feds forced all the states to adopt the 55 MPH speed limit and the 21 y/o drinking age.
Not all states have limits of 55, and at least until recently, LA had a drinking age under 21. So it isn't "forced," although it is underhanded.
> Perhaps if more people used those nice erudite words,
Perhaps we should use suitable common words instead, to refine our language to get rid of obsolete & redundant words. Dunno.
> why the hell do people need to see a damn spec to realize how small the planet is in comparison to tha vastness of space?
Because insanely large spans are easy to say, but very difficult to grasp, if you aren't already into astronomy. 1 million miles: wow, that's a lot. Travel one million miles and it just seemed to get a WHOLE LOT FURTHER.
> Subscribe, cheapskate.
> > by larien (5608) *
Funny, I wonder what that asterisk means...
> I can't wait for Adobe Housebuilder v8.0, I hear they've included support for incorporating a mini-bar into your new home!
Yeah, you thought building a house in the Sims was fun? Wait till you can do the Real Thing.
> Every builder I know will tell you that architects don't know the first thing about designing buildings that can actually be built.
Yup, Architects are like artists, with a grand vision, and engineers tell them it will never work.
> if the chances are of an asteroid hitting every 65M years, and it's the 64,9999M year then we can assume the chances get increasingly higher each year that passes that the asteroid has not hit
No, we cannot assume that, if there is a random distribution of asteroids. I liked the AC post of "Now I know why casinos make money," as it brings up a good example of why statistics can be confusing. The chances of an asteroid hitting do NOT increase every year there isn't one.
Take slot machines (well, ones that are truly random): Sure, there is a jackpot to be given every 2,000,000 pulls. For each pull, the odds are the same every time. Sure, if you pull it 2,000,000 times, it is likely that one of those might be a jackpot, but even if it has not happened for 4,000,000 pulls, your chances of hitting it on pull 4,000,001 are exactly the same of hitting it on pull one (if they are truly random, of course -- real slot machines are "weighted" to give results after a certain amount of time/# of pulls).
Another way of looking at it is this: You get jackpot on pull 1! (congratulations!) You put in another quarter and your chances are exactly the same of getting another. HOWEVER, from an outside view, the chances of getting two in a row are slim. From the perspective of the player, since you already got it once, you have the guaranteed first, so it no longer fits into the statistical equation, so your chances are no worse.
This mistake is one of the hard-to-grasp concepts in statistics, and is one of the reasons statistics can be used to "prove anything."
> i can't back your statistical logic, because the same holds true for asteroids as does an erruption.
.001% now, regarless of how recently the lastone hit. If we were hit today, tomorrow there would still be a %.001 chance of another one hitting.
And I can't back yours. Eruptions are a process with a guaranteed end (an explosion, although the magnatude can vary wildly). Asteroids are not a process, but each one is independent of each other one. So, unless there is more asteroid "activity," if the chances of an asteroid strike were %.001 100,000,000 years ago, the chances are
When dealing with statistics, remember: the chance of something happening at an exact time is not affected by the fact that that same thing happened at some other specific time. That might not make sense unless you already understand...
> > If someone believes something strongly, anything you tell them, they will intrepret it as a confirmation of their beliefs.
> Just try talking to one of those religious nutbags, the ones that call themselves 'Christians'
Well thank you for that glowing review. You are right, of course, Christianity IS the only true religion, as you say, but I can't agree that I am the true son of God. Okay, I guess you've got me... I am the new Christ. Tell everyone you know! Save their souls!
> If you know how to read between line's, you would understand more?
The AC was more blunt, but really, if you want to look like you have a good argument why a conspiracy could be true, you will want to have at least a limited knowledge of good spelling and grammar. Otherwise, you look stupid. Seriously, if you aren't smart enough to know how to do simple things, like use an apostrophe appropriately, capitalize, have some sense of grammar, and spell common words correctly (although you did not do that), why should we believe that you are smart enough to put together evidence of an extremely complicated conspiracy?
This is one of the first things I look at when judging whether something is due more research.
> I really hope we clean up our act and start convincing Mother Earth that we are worth keeping around. I don't want to be buried in volcanic ash along with some dinosaurs she didn't like anymore.
I think what would be much more useful is to teach people that nature doesn't want anything. "Nature" is a word that is basically "Earth." You might as well try to convince a tree to dance the Hokey-Pokey. If a volcano is going to blow, it is going to blow regardless of anything mankind does. All volcanic activity is underground, in sealed caverns (if it were not sealed, there would be no pressure -> no eruption), so anything we do to the environment up here affects it in no way whatsoever.
Therefore, I conclude that eco-nuts (not calling you one) are wasting their time, as we'll probably be wiped out by something over which we have no control before we kill ourselves (except possibly for war, which can kill us all with almost no warning).
> [I saw a NZ ranger] walk up to the Lady Knox geyser and pour some detergent into it. A few minutes later it starting bubbling and erupted.
Nah, he just knew when it would erupt and was too cheap to use a washing machine. Just hope he caught all his clothes in the air before they fell onto the dirt, or else his time was wasted.
> Some serious legislative intervention may be required to speed things up when that does happen. But a lot of us would be happy indeed to see an end to the privileged role the oil-producing countries play on the world political scene.
And what do you think the first "legislative interventions" will be? Well, as oil starts to go dry, it will be harder for campanies to get enough supply for demand, so under usual market forces, they will have to reduce size or go out of business. Given the government's view of oil companies (as campaign contributors, ignoring Dem/Rep here), they'll probably prop them up by wasting taxpayer money.
We'll be paying to support a business that can't support itself, just like the airlines. People don't want to fly as much any more, since it isn't necessary, but the government is giving them money hand over fist so they can still get their precious contributions/bribes. Hmm, maybe if some of the least profitable ones go out of business the ones left over will pick up the other companies' passengers and start to succeed. *gasp* what a horrible concept!
Sorry for the rant...
> natural gas:: Tis a winner.
Natural gas is too expensive. Plus, do you have any idea of the difference in available oil to available Natural gas?