I don't own any pirated anything, so from there you can figure out my real identity since as far as I can tell that class has exactly one member, myself.
But I could really give a shit when the people who should have good paying jobs but don't because of this and 1000 other machinations the rich and Congress unleash upon the average citizen resort to stealing the end products of Disney, of the record labels of the cable companies of Microsoft and all the rest of the knowing and calculating liars who practice class warfare on a mind bending scale. Sometime stealing IS a political act, even when the thieves aren't aware of it as being such.
If there's any doubt that the Romney's the Carly Fiorina's, the Bill Gateses and John Chambers (CISCO) of this world are rich because they write the laws the force us to play by, then have a listen to David Kay Johnson
It's pure class warfare. Most Americans hate the idea of waging class warfare. But like the over-amicable dodo bird , middle class Americans don't live in a world that shares their love of fairness and dedication to economic non-aggression. Quite the opposite, actually.
The fact is that American capitalists have an interpretation of "the free market" meme that is indistinguishable from some ephemeral "right" to get rich through any means.
By their own analysis, wages go down when the supply of available labor goes up and wages go up when the labor market is tight.
So they act as though they just don't know whatever it is you're on about , and maybe you're a little racist or xenophobic or protectionist -or all three - when you point out that by prevailing on Congress to flood the market with H1Bs, you're putting your thumb on the scale of the "free market" in favor of business owners and to the disfavor of labor.
American capitalism isn't now and never was about the free and fair functioning of a market for goods and labor. It was is and always will be about crony capitalism.
If wages are up, the free market solution to that problem is something we briefly had in the late 80s and early 90s - massive enrollment and enthusiasm on the part of the job seeking portion of the citizenry for Computer Science as a major. More labor chases those dollars and the labor market swells stabilizing wages. Everyone wins. But the idea that everyone wins makes American business owners want to puke.
You have to read Ron Hira from Rochester University and Norm Matloff - two guys who actually crunched the numbers on this topic - in order to understand that absolutely, indisputably, the H1B program is nothing but another of the ways the rich prey on the middle class and undermine their opportunities so that the rich can pocket a little more money:
First I agree with you that the issue is easily solved with robots.txt and that as far as the practical aspects of this matter go, that's all need be said no this topic.
You said (numbers added):
1) Since the first news papers media outlets have taken freely available information then charged for it and wrapped adverts around it in order to pay for the distribution of that information (and making a profit too).
(2)Now someone else is playing their game and playing it better than them they are crying foul.
3)Google's adverts are no more wrong then their adverts, issue prices or subscription costs: in both cases someone is profiting from the act of making information easier to access for those who pay (which to my mind is fair enough in both cases).
1 is a mischaracterization of what they are doing the way it is a mischaracterization to say someone who writes a physics textbook is largely just taking facts about the world , adding graphics and layout and charging a lot for it. That much is obvious about authors and analysts.
Publishers ALSO perform very many useful services including finding and paying authors, deciding what to publish in the first place and basically acting as a time-saving sieve through which the world's candidate stories authors and events pass. They are judged on their ability to do this. Think how useless FoxNews and The New Of The World are. Lotta value add work goes in with publishers also.
2) Without 1 being true, 2 is not true either .
3) Is true, but doesn't in any way support your point that their business models are somehow equivalent. They aren't , they're different. What they are BOTH doing , (and in this they are the same with every other viable business model ) is processing raw material , in this case information, and adding value through that processing. Google is a post processor to newspapers in this matter (in other matters they are a post processor to links and a million other things they keep statistics on), but that doesn't mean that newspapers aren't adding value that needs to be compensated.
Not trying to be too critical here, the essential spirit of "suck it up publishers and adapt!" is I think the ultimately the right one, but neither I nor anyone else has yet proved it to be the right one and everyone who thinks this may just be wrong.
I'll take the opposing side as a thought experiment, because there is actually a point in there, This is not my real opinion on this topic. My real opinion is if the French do this, then Google will have to filter French sites just as a business decision.
OK so people who write for a living need to be compensated. If Google makes everything free, then what are they going to do? France is a place that takes great steps to guard its culture against the deprivations of "the market". They directly finance, to a certain extent, their musicians for instance. In France, you might be a street musician paid by the state. It's just like the discussion the other day about astronomy in the US and who pays for it; some things just would not exist if they relied on the market to produce them. Those things are public goods and they need to be supported collectively.
So this nation that pays musicians to muse has their writers decrying the give-away of their labor by Google. There IS a sense in which that's stealing. It's theirs, Google took it and gave it away without their permission. I am not saying it's the only way to interpret that state of affairs, but it's not prima fascia a crazy interpretation.
The French thinking here is not without real interest. They are essentially trying to impose a form of micropayments on Google. If a vision of the web and Google had been co-designed by all concerned parties from the start, this likely would have been the deal. But Google and like search engines just "happened" to everyone and has come to be seen by most people as a kind of force of nature, a natural fact about the web that it's useless to work against.
The French don't buy into the whole idea that the average person should think of herself as a helpless, passive recipient of some big, non-human market "forces".. They keep in the forefront of their minds the fact that people are behind companies and laws govern people. We could go for a little more of that thinking over here.
This idea, if Google were forced to live by it, would really tank Google as we know it. Their business model would not survive in its present form. But Craigslist tanked newspapers in their present form- they were 80-90% reliant on their classifieds for revenue.So business models fail when things change ; that would extend even unto Google itself. That's a completely valid way to look at things.
The difference is that some people accept it when business models are the ones inflicting the change, no matter how radical- i.e. Google and Craigslist, but not when laws and legislatures try the same thing- that's Communism ! But attempting to enforce copyright law is not a form of Communism. It's just the opposite, it's capitalism, errr.. right?
Google's moral - economic argument goes something like this- our search engine provides you, the author, with a form of free, worldwide PR for your brand and the ability to generate revenue by running ads on your site. We are therefore a net benefit to you the copyright holder. Of course the benefit to society is not in question and the more information there is out there, the more productive and innovative people will be and a rising society lifts all boats, it's just that some people in society like to sink other people's boats.
But the same moral-economic argument can be made right back to Google. By paying us, the copyright holders, you're distributing Google money to the value -producing agents that provide first rate content for the web in the first place. By making the web worthwhile, we provide you with a huge world wide advertising venue and the opportunity to charge advertisers a fee. The money you give to us we spend and that stimulates economic activity the world over as goods and services chase all these dollars that are now being distributed more evenly.
The idea of compensating authors and copyright holders in micro amounts for micro contributions is interesting. But that's not the way we'r
Binding Arbitration is contract legalese for "meet our FOAF, the arbitrator...".
Think about it. Who is the arbitrator and who does he / she want to please / not piss off? Whose circle does he / she run in? Who is in a position to provide work / favors / introductions / etc. for him or her? Who does he or she identify with? The whole science of jury selection that lawyers apply them to so assiduously is based on the answer to those types of questions. And yet in "binding arbitration" you're being "paranoid" and "unreasonable" if you ask them. Oh, and you have no choice. Yeah, that's fair. Paypal effectively excludes itself from our centuries old year old legal system and does what it wants.
PayPal is guaranteed that *most* customers will not not select PayPal on account of this contract change. The only blow back they'll ever feel is if , for decades the most outrageous shit goes down under the name of "binding arbitration" that finally even the type of regressive reactionary Congress we have is forced to DO something about it.
What this means is you shouldn't base anything important on the allegedly contractually obligated behavior of PayPal. Be ready to walk away and be able to walk away.
And yes, I DO understand the deleterious effects frivolous lawsuits have on companies; see my posts under WoofyGoofy->Software Patents for details.
He tried early on to introduce single payer AKA HillaryCare ; it was, as matter of fact, as a matter of inescapable political reality, dead in the water before the negotiations even got started. He elected to not waste his capital on it and instead try for something which might- and did- pass.
The reactionary Republican Congress ( which does indeed make Nixon look liberal) made that perfectly clear as did the health insurance companies, who ultimately backed Obamacare.
YOu need to read a little more history to see how progressive legislation eventually emerges from the sausage factory. Social Security was originally 'fer widows 'n' orphans because that's all they could get through Congress. Then it was slowly expanded to be a generalized safety net for pensioners and the disabled etc. That's how things get done.
Yes single payer is the solution we are groping towards, but it's not going to happen all at once, unless you've struck on a way to make your Fox-watching Limbaugh-listening uncle Harry change his mind.
3) Cutting oil production IS progressive because it drives up prices and that makes renewables competitive, incentivizing investment and R and D in same. It's not that the technology isn't there, it's that it's not competitive against oil prices.
Sure, we could just declare global warming to be the greatest national security threat the United States has ever faced bar none and mandate renewable R and D, usage and production, and we should do just that. We could also force oil companies to build into the price of oil the costs they are inflicting on society. But then there's that little issue of your uncle Harry....
The problem is the CAFC which is a sort of SCOTUS for patents. These judges are infected with an extremist version of property rights everywhere on everything . The belief is that private property is the only thing that creates wealth and therefore the more private property you create the more wealth there will be.
Supporters contrast the US with developing nations which have poor enforcement of property rights and cite the difference as proof of their thesis.
Property rights are important to wealth creation, but they're not the ONLY thing and it's really just stoner high-school level thinking to conclude that more is better. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD , a good thing can be carried to ridiculous extremes and cease to be a good thing.
The takeaway lesson is that good things are good not because of some intrinsic property they possess but because of the (always mutable) relation they bear to the system they exist in and all the other (very mutable) things in that system.
So in this case property rights are only good insofar as the system also has a considerable amount of commons... a very considerable amount.
But property rights under the CAFC have become like Agent Smith in The Matrix.. it's out of control , replicating itself over and over and over and over attempting to reach into every nook and cranny and acknowledging no other good than its own.
I suppose libertarians think of themselves as against patents but FYI that's not the way Ron and Rand Paul see things. This election season Ron Paul explicitly asserted that things we normally think of as "the commons" like chunks of air could be rolled up into clearly defined property and bought and sold. Just saying.
Amusingly the new Ayn Rand movie has as a plot feature an evil Big Government that is seizing up all patents. It's amusing since patents are not a natural right but rather a man-made creation of government and legislation.... in effect a government grant of monopoly. So to say that the government is "seizing" it up or taking away something which is someone else's is highly amusing.
The government (that is We, through our elected representatives) gave it to you via legislation and the government can take it away from you via the same process and both are completely legitimate functions of the government, however you may feel about patents (I am against them in almost every field, although I am still willing to listen to intelligent dissent) .
There's an entire natural class of people out there who are constitutionally incapable of thinking in more than two shades of gray and all notions of things being defined only in terms of their relation to other things leaves them desperate for some form of Absolute Certainty. Those people should not be in government.
If the code is useful enough to enough people, there's a chance a large corporation will buy it from you. A lot of OS is actually written with this as the unstated goal. It certainly happened to MySQL. There are many other examples.
That is one way to make money off open source.
I read (sorry can't find it) an interesting article that made the point that non-sopftware companies (hardware manufacturers, service sellers) support OS projects because they want software to be free and lower the TCO of that OTHER thing they're selling. Essentially, they want to capture the $ corporations would otherwise have to direct to purchasing software . There's only so much money to go around and if its "wasted" in buying software, that's money the complements to software- hardware and consulting and advertising- can't capture.
You have to have something people 1) want and 2) can't otherwise get for free .
Google "gives away" code because people have to pay to advertise with them and you can't just whip up a Google on demand.. they have accumulating, ongoing knowledge about the web and the entities on it that is hard to accumulate.
Apple sells hardware and is a middle man (iTunes), a place people go to reduce the complexity imposed by too-many-things in too-many-places and the complexity imposed by having to circumvent DRM which they must think is the larger share of their value proposition or they wouldn't do it.. an aggregator of reliable stuff for sale in a known location,
IBM and Oracle sell software and services, but only Oracle is *truly* a software company IMO. They could exist on their licensing alone.. but it's not OS.
I guess I am trying to answer your question indirectly by answering the question why do people pay for any IT at all instead of getting it for free ? You have to somehow be an easier more cost effective solution to a problem they have and they cannot get it for free. You can sell OS but it has to either be a loss leader to a widget (Apple) or service (Apple IBM Google) .
That's why business is in love with the cloud- software on a server is effectively inaccessible to the end user for free and anyways the end user could not usefully use that software. Think Google internal algorithms.
The cloud is as much about building competitive advantage through gradually acquiring specialized knowledge of some aspect of the world, doing Big Data computing against that knowledge and selling the value-added result to your customers as it is about software per se.
You can't sell something people can get for free ; that's the bottom line, unless those people are very very enlightened. (Ubuntu is trying this now with a pay what it's worth approach. We'll see how it goes. If there are any enlightened user bases out there of this sort, they have to include the set of linux adopters)
When you OS your code if you want to make money realistically, you better have a business plan that is using that code as a loss leader. Either that or you're serving a niche, but you're not open sourcing (or overpricing).
I know people will say services, but really, services is a grinding and volatile way to make a living unless you're sending lots of other people to perform those services and taking a cut of what they are billing.
Meh. I've rambled enough. Hope something in there sparks a thought.
Pffffftttt... It's not going to save them from the jihadis . Democracy, not DNA , is the only thing that's going to stop the jihadis from toppling Saudi and the UAE.
Of cource, hereditary absolute monarchists aren't much interested in that fact....
DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE HANDS OF RELIGIONSISTS who constantly use out of context quotes by Einstein to "prove" he variously a Christian a religious Jew, sympathetic to Christianity, a fundie, believed in god etc etc etc. none of which he did.
In a related Slashdot story yesterday we have this quote:
'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.
Really? Isn't that why DARPA created the internet in the first place, so our communication and command and control systems could survive a nuclear attack that we failed to prevent?
So I guess we already DO accept the notion that prevention is going to fail and the worst possible thing may happen sooner or later.
So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.
How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks. This is doable and should be done.
This is fundamentally the problem of modern society; it's what brought down the Twin Towers . We make something like a plane and never see it as a guided missile filled with explosive jet fuel. We build huge skyscrapers piling people on top of people and don't permit ourselves to think too much that this same arrangement of people represents a force multiplier to a determined enemy. Just an easy example from recent history; other possibilities abound.The more technologically advanced we become the more highly leveraged weapons we accidentally deliver into the hands of religionists and other madmen.
There has to be a paradigm shift in ALL our thinking about the things, the structures of civil society upon which we depend, and not just in the thinking in intelligence circles because we need to vote "yes", even "hell yes" for the taxes which pay to make these things not just work, but secure.
We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch or less concerned with security, but because we are not keeping up with ourselves technologically, in a certain sense.
However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether the lives of the accused johns may be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community) for a the mere accusation of having committed a misdemeanor.,...
should be
However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether they or those people in town they beholden to are on that fucking (!) list or video tape and just what they might have said on that video tape and holy shit we're all fucking ruined someone think of something fast... gotta get to that the evidence locker and find a magnet... a BIG ASS magnet like the ones they use to pick up cars in junkyards with...
Yeah and according to various pundits, I'm suspicious because I have the foresight, circumspection and enough emotional development to resist peer pressure to refuse to turn over the most intimate personal details of my personal life to perfect strangers who's STATED and ONLY motivation is to make a buck off me by selling those same details to other perfect strangers all the while displaying a reckless disregard for whatever real life ramifications doing so may have on me.
So there's more to the story than the simple statements you're making.
I know there are people out there who feel the way you do, but there are people just as knowledgeable who feel the opposite also and who can match you point by point. I freely and cheerfully admit it seems you're more technically savvy than me on CPUs, however, that doesn't make what you're saying correct or definitive.
My point stands: the 8150 is the top of the line AMD chip and it's imminently affordable and performance wise, I have found it to be awesome.
Earlier I linked you to the price/performance valuation which put the 8150 at the top of the heap; your opinion differs and you have your own sites which rate something else as being better, OK, but that evaluation is not some kind of fraud being perpetrated on unwary consumers. I think experts are genuinely disagreeing here, as opposed to people just misrepresenting reality all over the place.
Overclocking is not a problem at all.. my ASUS board makes it a no brainer , basically "how much faster do you want to go?.. push this button".
The Roadmap also seems to include the AM3+ socket. That would give me an upgrade path for which I am thankful.
I'll give you this AMD overpromised on this chip. They did. It is not 50% faster than the 2600k. Obviously they are aware of this and being the great company they are, I am pretty sure they won't misfire like that again any time soon. It's a new design. I am not on Windows 8 and it seems unlikely I will go there even if it does improve my performance because I really hate giving money to Microsoft also. But that's another topic.
First, Democratic governments do get replaced for non-performance.. i.e. this past Congress.
Second, what you're describing is a world populated only by sociopaths , who look for every opportunity to defraud others and advantage themselves and have no other motivations. That does not describe our world, and if it did, your mechanic would be the least of your problems.
Here's my working theory on this distinctly libertarian / Ayn Randian take on reality. A certain subset of humanity actually are sociopaths.. about 1% overall about 25% of the prison population and about 4% of CEOs.
Very many more people are what might be called sociopath-lite.. they only care abut their family and themselves.
The type of interpretation of how society works and what people's motivations run to as offered above makes sense to sociopaths who see in it an accurate description of their own inner world.
The fact is most people are not criminally minded, do not enter into every transaction and task scheming of ways to cheat other people and have complex inner lives which include things like duty, conscientiousness, idealism, a genuine desire to do the right thing, a need to be helpful and to live up to their own ideals and a sense of community with those they work with and serve.
That would include , maybe especially, people who choose careers in civil service.
I saw those reviews before I purchased the chip, but thanks for the links anyways. The Wikipedia article (there's one for everything... ) goes into the Tomshardware and other reviews you cited , the initial reception of the chip and AMD's response and some adjustments they made.
I tried not to give the impression that I am defending this chip . Actually, I consider the attention both good and bad this chip has gotten to be to my benefit so I could make an informed buying decision. I also appreciate your obvious enthusiasm for the subject and take it for what it is.
From Wiki:
The first Bulldozer CPUs were met with a mixed response. It was discovered that the FX-8150 performed poorly in benchmarks that were not highly threaded, falling behind the second-generation Intel Core i* series processors and being matched or even outperformed by AMD's own Phenom II X6 at lower clock speeds.
In highly threaded benchmarks, the FX-8150 performed on par with the Phenom II X6, and the Intel Core i7 2600K, depending on the benchmark.
Given the overall more consistent performance of the Intel Core i5 2500K at a lower price, these results left many reviewers underwhelmed.
The processor was found to be extremely power-hungry under load, especially when overclocked, compared to Intel's Sandy Bridge.[27][28]
The Tom's Hardware website commented that the lower-than-expected performance in multi-threaded workloads may be because of the way Windows 7 currently schedules threads to the cores.
They point out that "if Windows were able to utilize an FX-8150's four modules first, and then backfill each module's second core, it'd maximize performance with up to four threads running concurrently."
This is similar to what happens on Intel CPUs with HyperThreading â" Windows 7 "schedules to physical cores before utilizing logical (HyperThreaded) cores."[29]
On 13 October, AMD stated on its blog that "there are some in our community who feel the product performance did not meet their expectations", but showed benchmarks on actual applications where it outperformed "Sandy Bridge i7 2600k" and "AMD X6 1100T".[30]
On 6 March 2012, AMD posted a knowledge base article stating that there was a compatibility issue with FX processors, and certain games on the widely used digital game distribution platform, Steam. AMD stated that they had provided a BIOS update to several motherboard manufacturers (namely: Asus, Gigabyte Technology, MSI, and ASRock) that would fix the issue.[31]
I have an recent ASUS MB that I bought with the chip and I am telling you I think the chip is blazing. Just my opinion. I also have zero problem keeping it in the 75 F range... it gets up to 95 F when it's working on file compression / comparison for a LONG time-.. I mean hours and hours.
As far as energy is concerned, the less energy the better no question. My house has LED lights and tons of insulation , plus we source 10% of our power from renewable resources thanks to our local utility so.. meh.. won't feel it in the pocketbook and the my fellow earthlings won't feel increased carbon emissions because of it either.
All the apps I run are muti-threaded.. woudl 6have done? Perhaps uut the 8 outperform the 6, as the AMD footnote cited by Wiki shows.
Right now, this is the best chip AMD has to offer and as I said intel was not an option for moral reason. So I bought the best I could . Buying the best was not out of my price range, and that doesn't happen in too many categories of Things I Wish I Owned.
I liked AMD's reposte and benchmarks here...and also notice what the first commentor has to say; I fully concur, and no, it wasn't me.
After this week's outburst, it's come out that Jack's mind mind jump on the idea that critical numbers were being goosed because he did it all the time while at GE...
Slashdot Mirror
But I could really give a shit when the people who should have good paying jobs but don't because of this and 1000 other machinations the rich and Congress unleash upon the average citizen resort to stealing the end products of Disney, of the record labels of the cable companies of Microsoft and all the rest of the knowing and calculating liars who practice class warfare on a mind bending scale. Sometime stealing IS a political act, even when the thieves aren't aware of it as being such.
If there's any doubt that the Romney's the Carly Fiorina's, the Bill Gateses and John Chambers (CISCO) of this world are rich because they write the laws the force us to play by, then have a listen to David Kay Johnson
http://tinyurl.com/9qv48f8
It's pure class warfare. Most Americans hate the idea of waging class warfare. But like the over-amicable dodo bird , middle class Americans don't live in a world that shares their love of fairness and dedication to economic non-aggression. Quite the opposite, actually.
The fact is that American capitalists have an interpretation of "the free market" meme that is indistinguishable from some ephemeral "right" to get rich through any means.
By their own analysis, wages go down when the supply of available labor goes up and wages go up when the labor market is tight.
So they act as though they just don't know whatever it is you're on about , and maybe you're a little racist or xenophobic or protectionist -or all three - when you point out that by prevailing on Congress to flood the market with H1Bs, you're putting your thumb on the scale of the "free market" in favor of business owners and to the disfavor of labor .
American capitalism isn't now and never was about the free and fair functioning of a market for goods and labor. It was is and always will be about crony capitalism.
If wages are up, the free market solution to that problem is something we briefly had in the late 80s and early 90s - massive enrollment and enthusiasm on the part of the job seeking portion of the citizenry for Computer Science as a major. More labor chases those dollars and the labor market swells stabilizing wages. Everyone wins. But the idea that everyone wins makes American business owners want to puke.
You have to read Ron Hira from Rochester University and Norm Matloff - two guys who actually crunched the numbers on this topic - in order to understand that absolutely, indisputably, the H1B program is nothing but another of the ways the rich prey on the middle class and undermine their opportunities so that the rich can pocket a little more money:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/do-we-need-foreign-technology-workers/
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2011/09/answers-for-sen.html
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-foreign-stem-graduates-get-green-cards/broad-stem-grad-green-card-exemptions-would-distort-labor-market
I realize that the whole time I was typing I was thinking of Google books... that's the big copyright issue with Google. ..
Bitcoins are inherently (there will only ever be so many!) deflationary.
First I agree with you that the issue is easily solved with robots.txt and that as far as the practical aspects of this matter go, that's all need be said no this topic.
You said (numbers added) :
1) Since the first news papers media outlets have taken freely available information then charged for it and wrapped adverts around it in order to pay for the distribution of that information (and making a profit too).
(2)Now someone else is playing their game and playing it better than them they are crying foul.
3)Google's adverts are no more wrong then their adverts, issue prices or subscription costs: in both cases someone is profiting from the act of making information easier to access for those who pay (which to my mind is fair enough in both cases).
1 is a mischaracterization of what they are doing the way it is a mischaracterization to say someone who writes a physics textbook is largely just taking facts about the world , adding graphics and layout and charging a lot for it. That much is obvious about authors and analysts.
Publishers ALSO perform very many useful services including finding and paying authors, deciding what to publish in the first place and basically acting as a time-saving sieve through which the world's candidate stories authors and events pass. They are judged on their ability to do this. Think how useless FoxNews and The New Of The World are. Lotta value add work goes in with publishers also.
2) Without 1 being true, 2 is not true either .
3) Is true, but doesn't in any way support your point that their business models are somehow equivalent. They aren't , they're different. What they are BOTH doing , (and in this they are the same with every other viable business model ) is processing raw material , in this case information, and adding value through that processing. Google is a post processor to newspapers in this matter (in other matters they are a post processor to links and a million other things they keep statistics on), but that doesn't mean that newspapers aren't adding value that needs to be compensated.
Not trying to be too critical here, the essential spirit of "suck it up publishers and adapt!" is I think the ultimately the right one, but neither I nor anyone else has yet proved it to be the right one and everyone who thinks this may just be wrong.
Cheers!
I'll take the opposing side as a thought experiment, because there is actually a point in there, This is not my real opinion on this topic. My real opinion is if the French do this, then Google will have to filter French sites just as a business decision.
OK so people who write for a living need to be compensated. If Google makes everything free, then what are they going to do? France is a place that takes great steps to guard its culture against the deprivations of "the market". They directly finance, to a certain extent, their musicians for instance. In France, you might be a street musician paid by the state. It's just like the discussion the other day about astronomy in the US and who pays for it; some things just would not exist if they relied on the market to produce them. Those things are public goods and they need to be supported collectively.
So this nation that pays musicians to muse has their writers decrying the give-away of their labor by Google. There IS a sense in which that's stealing. It's theirs, Google took it and gave it away without their permission. I am not saying it's the only way to interpret that state of affairs, but it's not prima fascia a crazy interpretation.
The French thinking here is not without real interest. They are essentially trying to impose a form of micropayments on Google. If a vision of the web and Google had been co-designed by all concerned parties from the start, this likely would have been the deal. But Google and like search engines just "happened" to everyone and has come to be seen by most people as a kind of force of nature, a natural fact about the web that it's useless to work against.
The French don't buy into the whole idea that the average person should think of herself as a helpless, passive recipient of some big, non-human market "forces" .. They keep in the forefront of their minds the fact that people are behind companies and laws govern people. We could go for a little more of that thinking over here.
This idea, if Google were forced to live by it, would really tank Google as we know it. Their business model would not survive in its present form. But Craigslist tanked newspapers in their present form- they were 80-90% reliant on their classifieds for revenue.So business models fail when things change ; that would extend even unto Google itself. That's a completely valid way to look at things.
The difference is that some people accept it when business models are the ones inflicting the change, no matter how radical- i.e. Google and Craigslist, but not when laws and legislatures try the same thing- that's Communism ! But attempting to enforce copyright law is not a form of Communism. It's just the opposite, it's capitalism, errr.. right?
Google's moral - economic argument goes something like this- our search engine provides you, the author, with a form of free, worldwide PR for your brand and the ability to generate revenue by running ads on your site. We are therefore a net benefit to you the copyright holder. Of course the benefit to society is not in question and the more information there is out there, the more productive and innovative people will be and a rising society lifts all boats, it's just that some people in society like to sink other people's boats.
But the same moral-economic argument can be made right back to Google. By paying us, the copyright holders, you're distributing Google money to the value -producing agents that provide first rate content for the web in the first place. By making the web worthwhile, we provide you with a huge world wide advertising venue and the opportunity to charge advertisers a fee. The money you give to us we spend and that stimulates economic activity the world over as goods and services chase all these dollars that are now being distributed more evenly.
The idea of compensating authors and copyright holders in micro amounts for micro contributions is interesting. But that's not the way we'r
Binding Arbitration is contract legalese for "meet our FOAF, the arbitrator...".
Think about it. Who is the arbitrator and who does he / she want to please / not piss off? Whose circle does he / she run in? Who is in a position to provide work / favors / introductions / etc. for him or her? Who does he or she identify with? The whole science of jury selection that lawyers apply them to so assiduously is based on the answer to those types of questions. And yet in "binding arbitration" you're being "paranoid" and "unreasonable" if you ask them. Oh, and you have no choice. Yeah, that's fair. Paypal effectively excludes itself from our centuries old year old legal system and does what it wants.
PayPal is guaranteed that *most* customers will not not select PayPal on account of this contract change. The only blow back they'll ever feel is if , for decades the most outrageous shit goes down under the name of "binding arbitration" that finally even the type of regressive reactionary Congress we have is forced to DO something about it.
What this means is you shouldn't base anything important on the allegedly contractually obligated behavior of PayPal. Be ready to walk away and be able to walk away.
And yes, I DO understand the deleterious effects frivolous lawsuits have on companies; see my posts under WoofyGoofy->Software Patents for details.
Binding arbitration.
He tried early on to introduce single payer AKA HillaryCare ; it was, as matter of fact, as a matter of inescapable political reality, dead in the water before the negotiations even got started. He elected to not waste his capital on it and instead try for something which might- and did- pass.
The reactionary Republican Congress ( which does indeed make Nixon look liberal) made that perfectly clear as did the health insurance companies, who ultimately backed Obamacare.
YOu need to read a little more history to see how progressive legislation eventually emerges from the sausage factory. Social Security was originally 'fer widows 'n' orphans because that's all they could get through Congress. Then it was slowly expanded to be a generalized safety net for pensioners and the disabled etc. That's how things get done.
Yes single payer is the solution we are groping towards, but it's not going to happen all at once, unless you've struck on a way to make your Fox-watching Limbaugh-listening uncle Harry change his mind.
3) Cutting oil production IS progressive because it drives up prices and that makes renewables competitive, incentivizing investment and R and D in same. It's not that the technology isn't there, it's that it's not competitive against oil prices.
Sure, we could just declare global warming to be the greatest national security threat the United States has ever faced bar none and mandate renewable R and D, usage and production, and we should do just that. We could also force oil companies to build into the price of oil the costs they are inflicting on society. But then there's that little issue of your uncle Harry....
Supporters contrast the US with developing nations which have poor enforcement of property rights and cite the difference as proof of their thesis.
Property rights are important to wealth creation, but they're not the ONLY thing and it's really just stoner high-school level thinking to conclude that more is better. Just like EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD , a good thing can be carried to ridiculous extremes and cease to be a good thing.
The takeaway lesson is that good things are good not because of some intrinsic property they possess but because of the (always mutable) relation they bear to the system they exist in and all the other (very mutable) things in that system.
So in this case property rights are only good insofar as the system also has a considerable amount of commons... a very considerable amount.
But property rights under the CAFC have become like Agent Smith in The Matrix.. it's out of control , replicating itself over and over and over and over attempting to reach into every nook and cranny and acknowledging no other good than its own.
I suppose libertarians think of themselves as against patents but FYI that's not the way Ron and Rand Paul see things. This election season Ron Paul explicitly asserted that things we normally think of as "the commons" like chunks of air could be rolled up into clearly defined property and bought and sold. Just saying.
Amusingly the new Ayn Rand movie has as a plot feature an evil Big Government that is seizing up all patents. It's amusing since patents are not a natural right but rather a man-made creation of government and legislation .... in effect a government grant of monopoly. So to say that the government is "seizing" it up or taking away something which is someone else's is highly amusing.
The government (that is We, through our elected representatives) gave it to you via legislation and the government can take it away from you via the same process and both are completely legitimate functions of the government, however you may feel about patents (I am against them in almost every field, although I am still willing to listen to intelligent dissent) .
There's an entire natural class of people out there who are constitutionally incapable of thinking in more than two shades of gray and all notions of things being defined only in terms of their relation to other things leaves them desperate for some form of Absolute Certainty. Those people should not be in government.
If the code is useful enough to enough people, there's a chance a large corporation will buy it from you. A lot of OS is actually written with this as the unstated goal. It certainly happened to MySQL. There are many other examples.
That is one way to make money off open source.
I read (sorry can't find it) an interesting article that made the point that non-sopftware companies (hardware manufacturers, service sellers) support OS projects because they want software to be free and lower the TCO of that OTHER thing they're selling. Essentially, they want to capture the $ corporations would otherwise have to direct to purchasing software . There's only so much money to go around and if its "wasted" in buying software, that's money the complements to software- hardware and consulting and advertising- can't capture.
You have to have something people 1) want and 2) can't otherwise get for free .
Google "gives away" code because people have to pay to advertise with them and you can't just whip up a Google on demand.. they have accumulating, ongoing knowledge about the web and the entities on it that is hard to accumulate.
Apple sells hardware and is a middle man (iTunes), a place people go to reduce the complexity imposed by too-many-things in too-many-places and the complexity imposed by having to circumvent DRM which they must think is the larger share of their value proposition or they wouldn't do it.. an aggregator of reliable stuff for sale in a known location,
IBM and Oracle sell software and services, but only Oracle is *truly* a software company IMO. They could exist on their licensing alone.. but it's not OS.
I guess I am trying to answer your question indirectly by answering the question why do people pay for any IT at all instead of getting it for free ? You have to somehow be an easier more cost effective solution to a problem they have and they cannot get it for free. You can sell OS but it has to either be a loss leader to a widget (Apple) or service (Apple IBM Google) .
That's why business is in love with the cloud- software on a server is effectively inaccessible to the end user for free and anyways the end user could not usefully use that software. Think Google internal algorithms.
The cloud is as much about building competitive advantage through gradually acquiring specialized knowledge of some aspect of the world, doing Big Data computing against that knowledge and selling the value-added result to your customers as it is about software per se.
You can't sell something people can get for free ; that's the bottom line, unless those people are very very enlightened. (Ubuntu is trying this now with a pay what it's worth approach. We'll see how it goes. If there are any enlightened user bases out there of this sort, they have to include the set of linux adopters)
When you OS your code if you want to make money realistically, you better have a business plan that is using that code as a loss leader. Either that or you're serving a niche, but you're not open sourcing (or overpricing).
I know people will say services, but really, services is a grinding and volatile way to make a living unless you're sending lots of other people to perform those services and taking a cut of what they are billing.
Meh. I've rambled enough. Hope something in there sparks a thought.
"all my programs belong to me"
You've apparently never heard the words "software patent".
Almost certainly, you can be sued for infringing someone's software patent and they can prevent you from releasing your code.
The only question is, does the patent holder know or care about you?
all your bases are belong to us.
one-click
Pffffftttt... It's not going to save them from the jihadis . Democracy, not DNA , is the only thing that's going to stop the jihadis from toppling Saudi and the UAE.
Of cource, hereditary absolute monarchists aren't much interested in that fact....
DO NOT LET THIS FALL INTO THE HANDS OF RELIGIONSISTS who constantly use out of context quotes by Einstein to "prove" he variously a Christian a religious Jew, sympathetic to Christianity, a fundie, believed in god etc etc etc. none of which he did.
'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.
Really? Isn't that why DARPA created the internet in the first place, so our communication and command and control systems could survive a nuclear attack that we failed to prevent?
So I guess we already DO accept the notion that prevention is going to fail and the worst possible thing may happen sooner or later.
So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.
How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks. This is doable and should be done.
This is fundamentally the problem of modern society; it's what brought down the Twin Towers . We make something like a plane and never see it as a guided missile filled with explosive jet fuel. We build huge skyscrapers piling people on top of people and don't permit ourselves to think too much that this same arrangement of people represents a force multiplier to a determined enemy. Just an easy example from recent history; other possibilities abound.The more technologically advanced we become the more highly leveraged weapons we accidentally deliver into the hands of religionists and other madmen.
There has to be a paradigm shift in ALL our thinking about the things, the structures of civil society upon which we depend, and not just in the thinking in intelligence circles because we need to vote "yes", even "hell yes" for the taxes which pay to make these things not just work, but secure.
We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch or less concerned with security, but because we are not keeping up with ourselves technologically, in a certain sense.
However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether the lives of the accused johns may be disproportionately scarred (obtaining or keeping a job, treatment of members of their families within the community) for a the mere accusation of having committed a misdemeanor.,...
should be
However, the notoriety of the case has some, including newspaper editors, wondering whether they or those people in town they beholden to are on that fucking (!) list or video tape and just what they might have said on that video tape and holy shit we're all fucking ruined someone think of something fast... gotta get to that the evidence locker and find a magnet... a BIG ASS magnet like the ones they use to pick up cars in junkyards with...
Yeah and according to various pundits, I'm suspicious because I have the foresight, circumspection and enough emotional development to resist peer pressure to refuse to turn over the most intimate personal details of my personal life to perfect strangers who's STATED and ONLY motivation is to make a buck off me by selling those same details to other perfect strangers all the while displaying a reckless disregard for whatever real life ramifications doing so may have on me.
Yeah. Right.
IGPs built on chip kills OCing ability
and yet:it goes to 8.8 GHZ and perhaps 9 GHZ:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fx-8150-overclock-9ghz-bulldozer,15853.html
So there's more to the story than the simple statements you're making.
I know there are people out there who feel the way you do, but there are people just as knowledgeable who feel the opposite also and who can match you point by point. I freely and cheerfully admit it seems you're more technically savvy than me on CPUs, however, that doesn't make what you're saying correct or definitive.
My point stands: the 8150 is the top of the line AMD chip and it's imminently affordable and performance wise, I have found it to be awesome.
Earlier I linked you to the price/performance valuation which put the 8150 at the top of the heap; your opinion differs and you have your own sites which rate something else as being better, OK, but that evaluation is not some kind of fraud being perpetrated on unwary consumers. I think experts are genuinely disagreeing here, as opposed to people just misrepresenting reality all over the place.
Overclocking is not a problem at all.. my ASUS board makes it a no brainer , basically "how much faster do you want to go? .. push this button".
The Roadmap also seems to include the AM3+ socket. That would give me an upgrade path for which I am thankful.
I'll give you this AMD overpromised on this chip. They did. It is not 50% faster than the 2600k. Obviously they are aware of this and being the great company they are, I am pretty sure they won't misfire like that again any time soon. It's a new design. I am not on Windows 8 and it seems unlikely I will go there even if it does improve my performance because I really hate giving money to Microsoft also. But that's another topic.
Cheers.
First, Democratic governments do get replaced for non-performance.. i.e. this past Congress.
Second, what you're describing is a world populated only by sociopaths , who look for every opportunity to defraud others and advantage themselves and have no other motivations. That does not describe our world, and if it did, your mechanic would be the least of your problems.
Here's my working theory on this distinctly libertarian / Ayn Randian take on reality. A certain subset of humanity actually are sociopaths .. about 1% overall about 25% of the prison population and about 4% of CEOs.
Very many more people are what might be called sociopath-lite .. they only care abut their family and themselves.
The type of interpretation of how society works and what people's motivations run to as offered above makes sense to sociopaths who see in it an accurate description of their own inner world.
The fact is most people are not criminally minded, do not enter into every transaction and task scheming of ways to cheat other people and have complex inner lives which include things like duty, conscientiousness, idealism, a genuine desire to do the right thing, a need to be helpful and to live up to their own ideals and a sense of community with those they work with and serve.
That would include , maybe especially, people who choose careers in civil service.
What you're presenting is not reality.
Correction - we source 100% of our power from renewable sources... LOL big difference!
I saw those reviews before I purchased the chip, but thanks for the links anyways. The Wikipedia article (there's one for everything... ) goes into the Tomshardware and other reviews you cited , the initial reception of the chip and AMD's response and some adjustments they made.
I tried not to give the impression that I am defending this chip . Actually, I consider the attention both good and bad this chip has gotten to be to my benefit so I could make an informed buying decision. I also appreciate your obvious enthusiasm for the subject and take it for what it is.
From Wiki:
The first Bulldozer CPUs were met with a mixed response. It was discovered that the FX-8150 performed poorly in benchmarks that were not highly threaded, falling behind the second-generation Intel Core i* series processors and being matched or even outperformed by AMD's own Phenom II X6 at lower clock speeds.
In highly threaded benchmarks, the FX-8150 performed on par with the Phenom II X6, and the Intel Core i7 2600K, depending on the benchmark.
Given the overall more consistent performance of the Intel Core i5 2500K at a lower price, these results left many reviewers underwhelmed.
The processor was found to be extremely power-hungry under load, especially when overclocked, compared to Intel's Sandy Bridge.[27][28]
The Tom's Hardware website commented that the lower-than-expected performance in multi-threaded workloads may be because of the way Windows 7 currently schedules threads to the cores.
They point out that "if Windows were able to utilize an FX-8150's four modules first, and then backfill each module's second core, it'd maximize performance with up to four threads running concurrently."
This is similar to what happens on Intel CPUs with HyperThreading â" Windows 7 "schedules to physical cores before utilizing logical (HyperThreaded) cores."[29]
On 13 October, AMD stated on its blog that "there are some in our community who feel the product performance did not meet their expectations", but showed benchmarks on actual applications where it outperformed "Sandy Bridge i7 2600k" and "AMD X6 1100T".[30]
On 6 March 2012, AMD posted a knowledge base article stating that there was a compatibility issue with FX processors, and certain games on the widely used digital game distribution platform, Steam. AMD stated that they had provided a BIOS update to several motherboard manufacturers (namely: Asus, Gigabyte Technology, MSI, and ASRock) that would fix the issue.[31]
I have an recent ASUS MB that I bought with the chip and I am telling you I think the chip is blazing. Just my opinion. I also have zero problem keeping it in the 75 F range ... it gets up to 95 F when it's working on file compression / comparison for a LONG time-.. I mean hours and hours.
As far as energy is concerned, the less energy the better no question. My house has LED lights and tons of insulation , plus we source 10% of our power from renewable resources thanks to our local utility so.. meh.. won't feel it in the pocketbook and the my fellow earthlings won't feel increased carbon emissions because of it either.
All the apps I run are muti-threaded.. woudl 6have done? Perhaps uut the 8 outperform the 6, as the AMD footnote cited by Wiki shows.
Right now, this is the best chip AMD has to offer and as I said intel was not an option for moral reason. So I bought the best I could . Buying the best was not out of my price range, and that doesn't happen in too many categories of Things I Wish I Owned.
I liked AMD's reposte and benchmarks here ...and also notice what the first commentor has to say; I fully concur, and no, it wasn't me.
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/10/13/our-take-on-amd-fx/
Thanks for the lively discussion.
Simple. People are not the one dimensional profit maximizers that classical economics- which is where that idea comes from- claims they are.
Dude, you gotta learn to use Google:
1 go to www.google.com
2 type in "forced ranking intel"
3 3 read the top 10 results in the first page.
The are :
http://american-business.org/383-forced-ranking-systems.html
http://www.faceintel.com/discharge.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZT57xSrPJ5YC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=intel+forced+ranking&source=bl&ots=BWTYfQm01x&sig=O61ae4i3pKexc_C5-yyCf5hVXdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j5d5UIyhM83ryAHc4oHACw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=intel%20forced%20ranking&f=false
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/university-degree/business-and-administrative-studies/despite-the-fact-that-intel-has-become-the-most-successful-company-in-the-microprocessor-industry-with-90-percent-market-share-it-still-has-some-problems-one-example-of.html
http://www.sibson.com/publications/perspectives/Volume_11_Issue_2/e_article000162170.cfm
http://business.highbeam.com/137618/article-1G1-116862343/forced-ranking-good-bad-and-alternative-one-out-five
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-01-08/the-struggle-to-measure-performance
http://books.google.com/books?id=9G1F5ymrYQgC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=intel+forced+ranking&source=bl&ots=C_Yp3z06bj&sig=Ioi8YTP1sHT4H2utqbAqo84Gu0E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j5d5UIyhM83ryAHc4oHACw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=intel%20forced%20ranking&f=false
http://www.halogensoftware.com/resources/reference-library/profiling-or-stack-ranking.php
and so on and so forth
---> BIGGEST. FAIL. EVAH.
YOU WIN!!! You WIN!!!!
Jack, what do we have for the guy who can't Google?
Well Dave, we have a free lobotomy followed up with an all expenses paid five weeks recovery in beauuutiful downtown DEEEEE-TROIT! !
Wow that's great jack.. well it's like the old saying .. those who already have, only get more!!!
Thanks for playing "I Post On Slashdot!!!"
Great piece on psychopaths that includes an interview / profile of Jack Welch that NPR carried here:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/436/the-psychopath-test
After this week's outburst, it's come out that Jack's mind mind jump on the idea that critical numbers were being goosed because he did it all the time while at GE...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-gongloff/jack-welch-book-cooking_b_1954396.html
WoofyGoofy Law of Slashdot #36864 :
Any discussion about the relative merits of a CPU will devolve into a pissing match in 3 posts or less.