You're assuming that genetic "code" is some sort of constructed plan for executing some function, when in reality it's nothing more than molecules interacting in different ways. Take DNA replication, for example. I think/. recently had a story with a really awesome animation of it, and it looked ridiculously complicated. These molecules were flying in an changing bits around, and then flying out, and other molecules were flying in and doing another job. The difficulty comes when you ask "where were these molecules waiting before they flew in to do their job", and then you realize that the molecules were always bouncing around the entire time - they simply did not interact (ie, "do their job") until the situation presented itself. So unlike computer code, where there is a definite plan and things are done in a certain order, genetic "code" is more like a bunch of little robots bouncing around, constantly doing conditional "if/then" checks on their environment. E.g, "If robot B is attracted to me, I'll give her some of my ions."
For me it's kinda frightening to think that we couldn't someday get the "source code of life" in the same way software has source code. It simply doesn't exist.
This is like saying global warming either does exist because today was the hottest on record, or does not exist because today was the coldest on record. Why are these analogous? Because in both situations, you're only considering one data point, which does not even begin to indicate a trend.
Ha! You call me the ignorant one. First, it was an automatic update, unless you call that notice saying "Updates are ready for your computer" something besides "automatic update"... Second, what I said came directly from Microsoft's suggestions for resolving the "Access Denied" error in a knowledgebase article they wrote specifically for Service Pack 3. Just because you assumed that I was talking about a problem that everyone would encounter, not simply those who got the Access Denied error, don't call me the ignorant one.
"The solution is to not have corrupt politicians write legislation, so voters should stop voting corrupt politicians in."
So if voters vote for corrupt politicians, then it's alright? No. You cannot vote away someone else's rights. Sure, informed voting is a start but it will only get you so far. We can both agree though that having a public that's more informed is better, although in the US at least we are going in the opposite direction.
"Why should the road owners even bother talking with store owners..."
Because there is money to be made. If a road owner refuses to cooperate, people will choose other, cheaper routes, and the road owner will realize his idiocy and choose to sign agreements with stores, having them pay the tolls so people have the least hassle of all. But the model I am suggesting is probably not ideal. See the link I posted in my previous reply for a much better and more logical system. The goal of all of this, remember, is to stop violating everyone's rights.
"I will stop trying to fill your poor little mind"
Why the need to resort to ad hominem? I thought we were making some progress even though you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions along the way.
Way to misread my post. The MS instructions say to go to Run As Administrator, not to go to Run As... and then select the admin account. That's Vista only. Not to mention the vista-only file that it tells you to modify. As for antivirus, it wasn't even the problem. The problem was registry permissions on certain keys.
The access denied is not due to user login security level. I was logged in as an Admin. Our AV is networked and can only be unloaded from the workstation, not temporarily closed or disabled. The problem was that certain registry entries or Windows system files had very specifiy security settings that did not allow even administrators to modify them.
It was through automatic update... and this same error is happening to a ton of people online; google for: xp "service pack 3" access denied. Microsoft already has a few knowledgebase entries about it. That was what I was talking about in my original post....... yeeeeesh....
Again, antivirus was probably never going to be a problem. I got it working by running Microsoft's utility that changes permissions on all entries in the registry and all files in the Windows directory, as Microsoft suggested.
They suggest closing antivirus if you get "Access is Denied". The problem is that once you get the "Access Denied" error, you have to wait a half hour for it to uninstall SP3, and then it leaves you with a comforting final message "Windows may no longer work properly"... I doubt closing antivirus would help unless it's really restrictive.
Did anyone else get this? Microsoft really screwed this one up. Not only did they release an AUTOMATIC UPDATE that cannot be installed unless you close your antivirus (which isn't possible for my company's antivirus - the only choice is to unload it from the workstation), or to run this utility that changes permissions on all registry values and windows files, BUT they ALSO provided instructions that only make sense in a VISTA environment. For example, telling people to right-click and go to Run As Administrator, or referencing "defltbase.inf", which is a file you only find in Vista.
"You are incorrectly assuming that I am assuming that companies by default are corrupt."
I didn't make that assumption; I just said it seemed that way to me. It's only an assumption if it's taken for granted.
"What incentive is there for companies to provide the cheapest possible access?"
I explained that in the next sentence. Companies with stores want people to buy their products, so they offer free parking whenever possible, and if metered parking is the only choice, they will try to influence the city to provide the cheapest possible parking meters, in order to attract as many customers as possible. The same would be true for private roads. They would want readily-available, cheap routes to their stores, so that more customers would be willing to take those routes, and they would form agreements with road owners to make that happen.
This could easily lead to free road use for customers, where the expense is passed on to the customer through higher prices, but again competition will work to reduce that price as much as possible. It would essentially be a voluntary road tax on goods. The difference between that system and the current one is that only one of these is voluntary, whereas the other is coerced and makes a mockery of everyone's rights.
"There are plenty of monopoly companies who are well aware of how much they can milk before they get kicked by the cow. Now if the Gov appointed a decent regulator, then you'd pay quite a bit less."
Again with this monopoly nonsense. Monopolies can only be maintained through force, and force can only be applied by a government. It is corrupt politicians who write legislation in favor of corrupt companies, maintaining their monopolies. The solution is not more government regulation of the economy, but less. Get the government out of the economy, and the rest will follow. After all, if a politician is no longer able to write legislation that can manipulate the economy, corrupt companies will no longer be able to maintain their corruption.
A road is only a monopoly if you disregard a person's right to access his own property. The common argument against private roads is that someone could buy up all the land around your house while you're at work, and then prevent you from accessing your house. But you have a right to your property, and if the person refuses to agree to terms allowing you to access your property, you can bring them to court and the court can force them to allow access to your property. Of course, in practice this would probably never happen simply because it would be too much hassle, and the road owner would simply permit access to the end-points, probably for free given that there is so much incentive for road owners to provide the cheapest possible access from a person's house to a store where that person can buy goods. In other words, stores want customers, and for the same reason they offer free parking outside their stores, they would also want free or cheap road tolls whenever possible, and they will influence road owners to make that happen.
HERE is a link I found explaining in more detail how a country made up of privately-owned roads could (and ideally would) function.
"If you've got a corrupt government it's not going to make such a big difference whether that government appoints a single company to build the roads or twenty different companies to build the different roads."
Again you are committing the same fallacy. Ideally the government would sell off its monopolies in chunks to the highest bidders, and that would be the end of it. There would then no longer be any ties between the government and these companies. With the money from the auction, the government would then compensate those who have been harmed by the monopoly - namely, everyone.
I do agree with you about government corruption and the corruption of the economy that results, but I think you are incorrectly assuming that companies by default are corrupt. "Company" is not a bad word. It has simply become one by politicians trying to shift the blame - "it's not our fault corrupt companies want to give us money because we can write laws in their favor!"
"If you don't have a government, some dictator will come into power, and voila you now have a government."
That is exactly why I do want a government - but only a government capable of protecting and upholding the rights of its citizens, and nothing else. Where are people getting this notion that I am in favor of anarchy?
"Either the government builds the roads or lets some corp or organisation do it instead."
I believe this is the "fallacy of false alternative" - those aren't the only two options. One single government that has a monopoly on building roads, and then grants that entire monopoly to a single corporation, is just as much a manipulation of the economy and violation of everyone's rights. There is no reason that a single company is needed for roads to exist.
"Get a clue. You will get a government whether you like it or not."
Who said I don't want a government? Of course I want a government. The government is what is supposed to uphold and protect the rights of its citizens. However, when people vote for congressmen willing to violate the rights of their constituents, all because those voters believe they will somehow benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, the result is a broken government.
Please explain where you got this notion from that I am in favor of anarchy.
You seem to think that by going after certain corrupt corporations, we can solve the problem. Except, of course, that more corrupt corporations will come to replace them. The only thing that is going to solve the problem is to remove the desire for corporations to fund elected officials, and the only way to do that is to stop those elected officials from being able to pass laws that manipulate the economy. Is that clear enough?
Of course, your underlying assumptions - that people will vote for a president with the same discretion they use to find and buy better products, and that elected officials will actually follow through on the promises that got them elected - are false.
"Especially in a system where business effectively runs government."
The only thing that makes it possible for corrupt companies to be able to "run the government" is that the government has its fingers in the economy. If the government was unable to manipulate the economy, there would be no incentive for corrupt corporations to invest in politicians. The government was created to uphold the rights of its citizens, not to violate those very rights in exchange for fundraising.
"You think corporate employees don't get their jobs through friends and family or cronyism?"
Of course this happens, but if those who get these jobs are not qualified, they will make bad decisions that ruin the company, and customers will move on to another provider. So there is an incentive to finding skilled, competent employees. When the government grants itself a monopoly on a service, customers are stuck with that service as the only choice, and so there is no incentive for the government to find the best and brightest because no matter how badly they do, they can still take as much money from the public as they want to keep their sham going.
"There are efficient government run systems."
Please list them. Government-run systems may occasionally have bouts of efficiency, but only a competitive market, in which the customer has multiple choices for the same service, will guarantee that the customer does not get screwed in the end. All it takes is a new congressman in 2 or 4 years to completely screw a region, and as the service is government-granted monopoly, those customers can have no other choice.
"Some stuff governments just do better than private corps."
Besides steal from their own citizens, can you please elaborate on what "stuff" you are referring to?
"The idea is governments try not to do too much stuff that they're not good at, and regulate the private corps (especially the monopolies)."
Please think about how ridiculous this statement is. A monopoly can only be maintained through government manipulation of the economy. Sure, companies do merge and people are periodically left with fewer choices, but as these mergers result in worse service for a community, demand will increase for better (or more specific) service, and other private corporations will expand to fill this demand. For a true monopoly to be maintained would require that someone prevent alternatives from existing; this would have to be done by force, and only the government is capable of forcing anyone to do anything against their will (as long as that will does not violate the rights of others, of course).
Again, this is the primary difference between government-run services and private services - choice. Obviously with private services, the number and quality of choices will fluctuate, but because customers have alternatives, in the long run there is an incentive for the companies to provide better service, in order to increase and maintain their customer base. None of this exists for government-run services.
The best part of private-run services, though, is that you are freely giving your money to them in exchange for a service at an agreed-upon price, whereas the government can freely tax you as much as they please for a service, and your only alternatives are jail or deportation - either of which would be forced upon you.
"And the government is accountable to the people."
This is the most laughable statement of all. This may be true if the public kept itself informed about the issues, and if we actually knew where our tax dollars were going, and if corrupt congressmen could not simply be granted immunity or pardoned, but as it stands there is no accountability, and the only thing that is required to get reelected is sufficient funds.
With a private corporation, though, if you provide poor service, customers can choose an alternative.
"Anyway, it does look like the US voters are happy enough with the situation, otherwise they could get together and vote for someone really different for a change."
Just because voters are happy with government-run rights violations does not mean those rights don't exist. You can't vote rights out of existence. Forcefully taking someone else's productivity (ie, money) is a violation of their rights.
"the voters voted in an independent instead of the incumbent."
"You think burying all our CO2 is going to be cheap?"
Way to dodge answering his original question and disregard his point about emissions being released to produce and maintain equipment for wind and solar technologies.
Can you provide real-world examples along with details about how these senior management got their jobs, and who exactly was paying them these ridiculous amounts to make bad decisions?
I was about to reply with the same thing. This is yet another example of why it is ridiculous to say it is better to "just let the government handle it". Not only is there no incentive to be cost-effective, secure, OR efficient, but the exact opposite becomes the case - government employees get their jobs through friends and family, ie cronyism, so because they did not need to prove their competence to get their jobs, there is also no incentive for them to be competent in their positions.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that genetic "code" is some sort of constructed plan for executing some function, when in reality it's nothing more than molecules interacting in different ways. Take DNA replication, for example. I think /. recently had a story with a really awesome animation of it, and it looked ridiculously complicated. These molecules were flying in an changing bits around, and then flying out, and other molecules were flying in and doing another job. The difficulty comes when you ask "where were these molecules waiting before they flew in to do their job", and then you realize that the molecules were always bouncing around the entire time - they simply did not interact (ie, "do their job") until the situation presented itself. So unlike computer code, where there is a definite plan and things are done in a certain order, genetic "code" is more like a bunch of little robots bouncing around, constantly doing conditional "if/then" checks on their environment. E.g, "If robot B is attracted to me, I'll give her some of my ions."
For me it's kinda frightening to think that we couldn't someday get the "source code of life" in the same way software has source code. It simply doesn't exist.
This is like saying global warming either does exist because today was the hottest on record, or does not exist because today was the coldest on record. Why are these analogous? Because in both situations, you're only considering one data point, which does not even begin to indicate a trend.
Ha! You call me the ignorant one. First, it was an automatic update, unless you call that notice saying "Updates are ready for your computer" something besides "automatic update"... Second, what I said came directly from Microsoft's suggestions for resolving the "Access Denied" error in a knowledgebase article they wrote specifically for Service Pack 3. Just because you assumed that I was talking about a problem that everyone would encounter, not simply those who got the Access Denied error, don't call me the ignorant one.
"The solution is to not have corrupt politicians write legislation, so voters should stop voting corrupt politicians in."
So if voters vote for corrupt politicians, then it's alright? No. You cannot vote away someone else's rights. Sure, informed voting is a start but it will only get you so far. We can both agree though that having a public that's more informed is better, although in the US at least we are going in the opposite direction.
"Why should the road owners even bother talking with store owners..."
Because there is money to be made. If a road owner refuses to cooperate, people will choose other, cheaper routes, and the road owner will realize his idiocy and choose to sign agreements with stores, having them pay the tolls so people have the least hassle of all. But the model I am suggesting is probably not ideal. See the link I posted in my previous reply for a much better and more logical system. The goal of all of this, remember, is to stop violating everyone's rights.
"I will stop trying to fill your poor little mind"
Why the need to resort to ad hominem? I thought we were making some progress even though you haven't bothered to answer any of my questions along the way.
Way to misread my post. The MS instructions say to go to Run As Administrator, not to go to Run As... and then select the admin account. That's Vista only. Not to mention the vista-only file that it tells you to modify. As for antivirus, it wasn't even the problem. The problem was registry permissions on certain keys.
I've been running OS upgrades on the same PC since Windows 3.1 without ever having to reformat...
...then I upgraded to Vista and my house burned down.
The access denied is not due to user login security level. I was logged in as an Admin. Our AV is networked and can only be unloaded from the workstation, not temporarily closed or disabled. The problem was that certain registry entries or Windows system files had very specifiy security settings that did not allow even administrators to modify them.
It was through automatic update... and this same error is happening to a ton of people online; google for: xp "service pack 3" access denied. Microsoft already has a few knowledgebase entries about it. That was what I was talking about in my original post....... yeeeeesh....
Again, antivirus was probably never going to be a problem. I got it working by running Microsoft's utility that changes permissions on all entries in the registry and all files in the Windows directory, as Microsoft suggested.
Err... our AV is run over the network. Besides, I think the suggestion to close AV is only true for AV software that is highly restrictive.
They suggest closing antivirus if you get "Access is Denied". The problem is that once you get the "Access Denied" error, you have to wait a half hour for it to uninstall SP3, and then it leaves you with a comforting final message "Windows may no longer work properly"... I doubt closing antivirus would help unless it's really restrictive.
Did anyone else get this? Microsoft really screwed this one up. Not only did they release an AUTOMATIC UPDATE that cannot be installed unless you close your antivirus (which isn't possible for my company's antivirus - the only choice is to unload it from the workstation), or to run this utility that changes permissions on all registry values and windows files, BUT they ALSO provided instructions that only make sense in a VISTA environment. For example, telling people to right-click and go to Run As Administrator, or referencing "defltbase.inf", which is a file you only find in Vista.
"You are incorrectly assuming that I am assuming that companies by default are corrupt."
I didn't make that assumption; I just said it seemed that way to me. It's only an assumption if it's taken for granted.
"What incentive is there for companies to provide the cheapest possible access?"
I explained that in the next sentence. Companies with stores want people to buy their products, so they offer free parking whenever possible, and if metered parking is the only choice, they will try to influence the city to provide the cheapest possible parking meters, in order to attract as many customers as possible. The same would be true for private roads. They would want readily-available, cheap routes to their stores, so that more customers would be willing to take those routes, and they would form agreements with road owners to make that happen.
This could easily lead to free road use for customers, where the expense is passed on to the customer through higher prices, but again competition will work to reduce that price as much as possible. It would essentially be a voluntary road tax on goods. The difference between that system and the current one is that only one of these is voluntary, whereas the other is coerced and makes a mockery of everyone's rights.
"There are plenty of monopoly companies who are well aware of how much they can milk before they get kicked by the cow. Now if the Gov appointed a decent regulator, then you'd pay quite a bit less."
Again with this monopoly nonsense. Monopolies can only be maintained through force, and force can only be applied by a government. It is corrupt politicians who write legislation in favor of corrupt companies, maintaining their monopolies. The solution is not more government regulation of the economy, but less. Get the government out of the economy, and the rest will follow. After all, if a politician is no longer able to write legislation that can manipulate the economy, corrupt companies will no longer be able to maintain their corruption.
I've been reading through their site and like the straight-forward writing style:
"Hopefully the installer will open the page for you, so you won't be reading this."
"Insecure mode should work automatically once enabled, so the rest of this page is about connecting to Friends."
Or how about the java error message:
"The JVM you are using is known to be buggy. It may produce OutOfMemoryError's when there is plenty of memory available. Please upgrade..."
A road is only a monopoly if you disregard a person's right to access his own property. The common argument against private roads is that someone could buy up all the land around your house while you're at work, and then prevent you from accessing your house. But you have a right to your property, and if the person refuses to agree to terms allowing you to access your property, you can bring them to court and the court can force them to allow access to your property. Of course, in practice this would probably never happen simply because it would be too much hassle, and the road owner would simply permit access to the end-points, probably for free given that there is so much incentive for road owners to provide the cheapest possible access from a person's house to a store where that person can buy goods. In other words, stores want customers, and for the same reason they offer free parking outside their stores, they would also want free or cheap road tolls whenever possible, and they will influence road owners to make that happen.
HERE is a link I found explaining in more detail how a country made up of privately-owned roads could (and ideally would) function.
"If you've got a corrupt government it's not going to make such a big difference whether that government appoints a single company to build the roads or twenty different companies to build the different roads."
Again you are committing the same fallacy. Ideally the government would sell off its monopolies in chunks to the highest bidders, and that would be the end of it. There would then no longer be any ties between the government and these companies. With the money from the auction, the government would then compensate those who have been harmed by the monopoly - namely, everyone.
I do agree with you about government corruption and the corruption of the economy that results, but I think you are incorrectly assuming that companies by default are corrupt. "Company" is not a bad word. It has simply become one by politicians trying to shift the blame - "it's not our fault corrupt companies want to give us money because we can write laws in their favor!"
"If you don't have a government, some dictator will come into power, and voila you now have a government."
That is exactly why I do want a government - but only a government capable of protecting and upholding the rights of its citizens, and nothing else. Where are people getting this notion that I am in favor of anarchy?
"Either the government builds the roads or lets some corp or organisation do it instead."
I believe this is the "fallacy of false alternative" - those aren't the only two options. One single government that has a monopoly on building roads, and then grants that entire monopoly to a single corporation, is just as much a manipulation of the economy and violation of everyone's rights. There is no reason that a single company is needed for roads to exist.
"Get a clue. You will get a government whether you like it or not."
Who said I don't want a government? Of course I want a government. The government is what is supposed to uphold and protect the rights of its citizens. However, when people vote for congressmen willing to violate the rights of their constituents, all because those voters believe they will somehow benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, the result is a broken government.
Please explain where you got this notion from that I am in favor of anarchy.
You seem to think that by going after certain corrupt corporations, we can solve the problem. Except, of course, that more corrupt corporations will come to replace them. The only thing that is going to solve the problem is to remove the desire for corporations to fund elected officials, and the only way to do that is to stop those elected officials from being able to pass laws that manipulate the economy. Is that clear enough?
Of course, your underlying assumptions - that people will vote for a president with the same discretion they use to find and buy better products, and that elected officials will actually follow through on the promises that got them elected - are false.
"Especially in a system where business effectively runs government."
The only thing that makes it possible for corrupt companies to be able to "run the government" is that the government has its fingers in the economy. If the government was unable to manipulate the economy, there would be no incentive for corrupt corporations to invest in politicians. The government was created to uphold the rights of its citizens, not to violate those very rights in exchange for fundraising.
"You think corporate employees don't get their jobs through friends and family or cronyism?"
Of course this happens, but if those who get these jobs are not qualified, they will make bad decisions that ruin the company, and customers will move on to another provider. So there is an incentive to finding skilled, competent employees. When the government grants itself a monopoly on a service, customers are stuck with that service as the only choice, and so there is no incentive for the government to find the best and brightest because no matter how badly they do, they can still take as much money from the public as they want to keep their sham going.
"There are efficient government run systems."
Please list them. Government-run systems may occasionally have bouts of efficiency, but only a competitive market, in which the customer has multiple choices for the same service, will guarantee that the customer does not get screwed in the end. All it takes is a new congressman in 2 or 4 years to completely screw a region, and as the service is government-granted monopoly, those customers can have no other choice.
"Some stuff governments just do better than private corps."
Besides steal from their own citizens, can you please elaborate on what "stuff" you are referring to?
"The idea is governments try not to do too much stuff that they're not good at, and regulate the private corps (especially the monopolies)."
Please think about how ridiculous this statement is. A monopoly can only be maintained through government manipulation of the economy. Sure, companies do merge and people are periodically left with fewer choices, but as these mergers result in worse service for a community, demand will increase for better (or more specific) service, and other private corporations will expand to fill this demand. For a true monopoly to be maintained would require that someone prevent alternatives from existing; this would have to be done by force, and only the government is capable of forcing anyone to do anything against their will (as long as that will does not violate the rights of others, of course).
Again, this is the primary difference between government-run services and private services - choice. Obviously with private services, the number and quality of choices will fluctuate, but because customers have alternatives, in the long run there is an incentive for the companies to provide better service, in order to increase and maintain their customer base. None of this exists for government-run services.
The best part of private-run services, though, is that you are freely giving your money to them in exchange for a service at an agreed-upon price, whereas the government can freely tax you as much as they please for a service, and your only alternatives are jail or deportation - either of which would be forced upon you.
"And the government is accountable to the people."
This is the most laughable statement of all. This may be true if the public kept itself informed about the issues, and if we actually knew where our tax dollars were going, and if corrupt congressmen could not simply be granted immunity or pardoned, but as it stands there is no accountability, and the only thing that is required to get reelected is sufficient funds.
With a private corporation, though, if you provide poor service, customers can choose an alternative.
"Anyway, it does look like the US voters are happy enough with the situation, otherwise they could get together and vote for someone really different for a change."
Just because voters are happy with government-run rights violations does not mean those rights don't exist. You can't vote rights out of existence. Forcefully taking someone else's productivity (ie, money) is a violation of their rights.
"the voters voted in an independent instead of the incumbent."
"Some people steal because they're starving."
And that is not the case with the government.
"You think burying all our CO2 is going to be cheap?"
Way to dodge answering his original question and disregard his point about emissions being released to produce and maintain equipment for wind and solar technologies.
Can you provide real-world examples along with details about how these senior management got their jobs, and who exactly was paying them these ridiculous amounts to make bad decisions?
I was about to reply with the same thing. This is yet another example of why it is ridiculous to say it is better to "just let the government handle it". Not only is there no incentive to be cost-effective, secure, OR efficient, but the exact opposite becomes the case - government employees get their jobs through friends and family, ie cronyism, so because they did not need to prove their competence to get their jobs, there is also no incentive for them to be competent in their positions.
Wow! They recovered 400MB of data when all they had to work with was "500 Internal Server Error"?! Unbelievable!!!
Ha! Nice sig!