As a conservative I shouldn't be defending Carper, particularly when it comes to this crap called Health Care reform, but I can see his point on this issue.
Senators are deal makers. Actually deciding and negotiating how we will live versus organizing those rules are two entirely different jobs - representing, and lawyering. Representation is about power and deal making, and lawyering is really a technocratic function. Asking a Senator to actually organize their laws into the US code is really a lot like expecting a developer to organize everything into assembly by hand. Senators put down contracts on plain paper text, then, they hand it off to staffers whose job it is to organize the stuff into law. Sure, we could naively say that the senators should just pass the law as is, but, we would wind up with spaghetti law, a huge blob of laws that no one could follow because they were not organized. The law has to be organized to be useful, just like large computer program.
Now what would be useful would be a grammar system that did that job of taking the legislature's requirements, their "meta law", and have the computer compile that into the US Code. Actually, we'd probably just scrap the US Code or reverse engineer it into the new system, just so everything could be consistently organized. That way, you could enter a list of attributes for parties and a situation between them, and see what the law says, and you really wouldn't need a lawyer for much things any more.
So that way when you leave the company, you take all those "secrets" with you? How is this a bad thing again?
I'm not exactly seeing this as a bad thing at all. The corporations become much harder to sue, nearly everyone on the planet gets their privacy back, and everybody wins, except for the lawyers, and that's even better.
The obvious answer is that corporations as part of their activities would say that everything on their computers belongs to the people using them, and their employment is a purchase of some assets or IP back. Everything else, your emails, your non-contracted work product, etc, would be your personal property, and then corps would literally own nothing to produce in court, except a finished product and some bills.
Actually, it was meant to be a take-off of newsmax. Besides, I do not endorse racist content in any way. Just because you hate white people doesn't mean that I have to.
because it's blindingly obvious to the rest of us
Whose the "rest of us"? Liberals don't speak for the people, they want to arrange them in a way they think is best for them, but you don't echo their demands, believe in their culture, or support their causes, you know, that guns, god, and religion, country, community, family, and hard work stuff. Liberals are just totalitarian shills for would be dictators behind the scenes.
President Obama and his gang of socialist cronies, are not only trying to loot health care, loot your energy bill, take away your guns, turn you away from god, break up your family and destroy your cultural heritage, now they are going to spy on you to do it. The vast spy apparatus run by the Federal Government has its eye firmly cast on you as liberal scientists work to develop insects that can be controlled by computer and made to either watch or attack you. This isn't made up stuff. They even brag about it with a press release.
Fellow conservatives, you have to be informed to avoid being shackled by the chains of Obama's socialism and enslaved by his Chicago liberal crooks and cronies. Just the other day, President Obama's top school guy admitted telling school age little boys not to report getting raped by sexual criminals. It's only going to get worse, before it gets better, and you have to stay on the ball. The Treatyist can help you stay on guard.
Seriously, why do you have to live in a stupid bubble that says a total dictatorship backed up by concentration camps isn't evil? These countries aren't like, ho hum, the USA, where you call yourself oppressed because your daddy didn't give attention. These are countries where you call yourself oppressed because you said you were hungry and the 5 year plan said you had more food than ever, or you said that you were unhappy and Allah should provide.
I'm so sick of hearing people put the USA on the same moral ground as places like that. We aren't like that, and we aren't like that because we have people that do the work of keeping us not like that. There's cultural institutions that have been put in place, educational traditions. Granted, liberals are tearing all that down and replacing it with the sort of self indulgent crap that invariably leads to a sense of entitlement about property and ultimately a dictatorship class, but, they haven't been successful yet.
What if, like the vast majority of people, he doesn't lose his sight or senses? If it is reasonable for people who are impared to wish the same impairment on others, is not reasonable to wish that impaired people did not exist?
Sorry to throw Symantec under the bus, but the AV program and AV mentality that they have created amounts to a CPU tax. We don't have 4 core machines, we have 3 cores plus for one for Symantec, which manages to have the deadlock everything while it scans a single file.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I rather think I have it exactly:
irony (n) - originally meant to describe a phrasing of words whose meaning is the opposite of its literal statement, this overused slashdot word has come to mean any sort of notable relationship between the beginning of a body of text and its lexical end.
Examples:
Liberal Poster: "I always thought Bush was stupid, and ironically, he was!"
Conservative Poster: "I always thought Obama was a socialist, and ironically, he is!"
General Snarky Remark about FOSS: "Oh the irony, the FOSS guy talks about not paying for software, yet, begs for money."
General Snarky Remark about Closed Software: "Oh the irony, Windows ran an ad about stability, but it crashed on my machine."
And finally:
"Ironically, nearly every comment on Slashdot, is ironic."
Notice the price trends? Tesla is starting with a $109k car. Their next one is going to be $57k. The one after that, $30k. Fisker is starting at $90k. Their next car is going to be $40k. Mitsubishi's MiEV is almost $50k. By 2015, they expect to be closer to $20k.
But those numbers are based on increasing volume, that is my point. In order to build a car today, you need to have massive capital. If the cars Tesla makes for 100M dollar invested are as good as the cars Toyota makes for each 100M invested, then, Tesla should sell more cars than Toyota. You can't use consumer prices to determine the overall cost or effectiveness of an investment, unless you know the volume, that's my point.
I agree; look at any commodity...in this case, let's say the home computer...and then look backwards in histor
Actually, that's completely wrong and computers are the best example of it. When you say that something is cheaper, you have to do the multiply and consider the quantity, to get the real cost. Look at how many players with some capital could get into the hardware business previously. There used to be scores of CPUs out there, and now there's but a handful. Similarly look at how many operating systems there used to be.
The reason is because of expanding markets. Sure, the costs might be about the same or slightly smaller for the consumer, but, for the producer, they have gotten much much higher. How much does it cost to build a FAB these days? How many lines of code do you need to have a credible operating system? The Linux kernel is what, over a million lines long? That's almost twice as many lines Bill Gates famously proclaimed computers might need in -bytes-.
The complexity is staggering, and so are the costs behind it. The only thing that mitigates the complexity is the development of abstraction and tools but those too cost money. It would be a lot easier to make a DOS today than it was in 1980 largely because the compiler and other tools are better, but those tools are not good enough to make a kernel that satisfies today's market as cheap as it was to make a 1980s kernel with 1980's tools.
Now to go back to your original Chevy concept, I'd be willing to bet that you could probably build a 1970s era Pontiac GTO for less than $2000 in today's money, really because the engines and transmissions on those things are so simple compared to today's vehicles that you could probably get a CNC to make all the parts for you, and with much better perfection than they were made using the old ways. The only real labor cost would be in the assembly and the materials, paradoxically, would probably be cheaper as there's not the same demand for the heavier but higher grade steel used to make pre-oil shock American cars. Cars have actually gotten much more expensive, even considering inflation, and the reason is really due to both regulation and competitive pressures. Even now the shrinkage of car brands is part of a trend that has been going on now for a century. There used to be -thousands- of car manufacturers. Now how many are left?
And how much does it cost to get started? What, 500M for Mr. Gore? 500M for Tesla? 100 years ago it was a tool shop and a garage.
Bottom line is, if someone cannot make an electric car profitably now, it probably means that it is not profitable, period. Throwing public money after it would only be useful to the extent that it encourages engineering problems to be solved to hopefully make it profitable. If we were going to throw taxpayer dollars at anything, we should be researching nuclear power, batteries, and ultra capacitors.
Oh wait a minute, you said treatment, as in the spinal cord repair. I thought for a minute you were talking about the Iraq war, Mr. Center-right conservative. Sorry, my bad.
1) We already spend three times as much per year on keeping old people into expensive medicine than we do the war.
2) Iraq has twenty trillion dollars worth of oil. Had the war gone out ok then gasoline would be fifty cents a gallon and the national savings would be about 300 billion per year, if not more, basically saving enough money to pretty much buy national health insurance, if you wanted to.
This is human progress. These rulings about genetic engineering are foolish because they defend intellectual property for the expense of feeding people. The problem isn't the genetically engineered crop - its clearly better. The idea that humans should not be allowed to alter genes in the environment is stupid. Genes are altered all the time by everything, whether or not people do it is quite alright because we are not somehow separate from the eco-system.
The problem is financial: it's that Monsanto and others have a habit of showing up on your doorstep with a bill because one of their genetically modified seeds may have blown onto your doorstep. If you modified the laws so that people who GM stuff blown onto their land could just use it, or, if their crops were dimished by the GM, they could sue, then you would not have this problem. It's like that for regular seeds. Why not be that way for anything else?
I'm in strong favor of intellectual property rights, but clearly, intellectual property rights should not trump the rights of land ownership.
Maybe I'm just different, but I think any man that made the windows 3.1 tada.wav sucks. It's like how Bob Dylan ruined himself for a decade of fans at Live Aid in the 1980s. Some things,you just don't do.
ope. It's called recognition that every government of every political persuasion needs to enact laws that promote the common good.
No its not. It's people like you and this idea of the "common good". Because its always "your common good".
Do you think an energy efficient TV displays pictures somehow worse than an energy hog TV ? Should we allow people to waste energy when the national interest is in conserving it ?
It's not in the national interest to conserve energy. It's in your interest that people use less. I would prefer we simply build more nuclear power plants and lower the price of energy so taht people can use more of it.
See, what a fine little NAZI you are? You don't even admit that anyone can have any other ideas about life, other than you.
Slashdot Mirror
As a conservative I shouldn't be defending Carper, particularly when it comes to this crap called Health Care reform, but I can see his point on this issue.
Senators are deal makers. Actually deciding and negotiating how we will live versus organizing those rules are two entirely different jobs - representing, and lawyering. Representation is about power and deal making, and lawyering is really a technocratic function. Asking a Senator to actually organize their laws into the US code is really a lot like expecting a developer to organize everything into assembly by hand. Senators put down contracts on plain paper text, then, they hand it off to staffers whose job it is to organize the stuff into law. Sure, we could naively say that the senators should just pass the law as is, but, we would wind up with spaghetti law, a huge blob of laws that no one could follow because they were not organized. The law has to be organized to be useful, just like large computer program.
Now what would be useful would be a grammar system that did that job of taking the legislature's requirements, their "meta law", and have the computer compile that into the US Code. Actually, we'd probably just scrap the US Code or reverse engineer it into the new system, just so everything could be consistently organized. That way, you could enter a list of attributes for parties and a situation between them, and see what the law says, and you really wouldn't need a lawyer for much things any more.
Then why call it silly?
Was calling the question of the topic silly, and offering up the correct alternative.
So that way when you leave the company, you take all those "secrets" with you? How is this a bad thing again?
I'm not exactly seeing this as a bad thing at all. The corporations become much harder to sue, nearly everyone on the planet gets their privacy back, and everybody wins, except for the lawyers, and that's even better.
The obvious answer is that corporations as part of their activities would say that everything on their computers belongs to the people using them, and their employment is a purchase of some assets or IP back. Everything else, your emails, your non-contracted work product, etc, would be your personal property, and then corps would literally own nothing to produce in court, except a finished product and some bills.
At the rate this idiocy is going it won't be long until directors of failed corporations get charged with manslaughter or murder
The way corporations are run, maybe they should.
LMAO, looks exactly like the GNAA posts.
It was meant to be a takeoff of Newsmax posts.
LMAO, looks exactly like the GNAA posts.
Actually, it was meant to be a take-off of newsmax. Besides, I do not endorse racist content in any way. Just because you hate white people doesn't mean that I have to.
because it's blindingly obvious to the rest of us
Whose the "rest of us"? Liberals don't speak for the people, they want to arrange them in a way they think is best for them, but you don't echo their demands, believe in their culture, or support their causes, you know, that guns, god, and religion, country, community, family, and hard work stuff. Liberals are just totalitarian shills for would be dictators behind the scenes.
The wisdom of crowds is what we have now in the USA. Love them or hate them, the people picked Obama and the Democrats.
Dear Conservative,
President Obama and his gang of socialist cronies, are not only trying to loot health care, loot your energy bill, take away your guns, turn you away from god, break up your family and destroy your cultural heritage, now they are going to spy on you to do it. The vast spy apparatus run by the Federal Government has its eye firmly cast on you as liberal scientists work to develop insects that can be controlled by computer and made to either watch or attack you. This isn't made up stuff. They even brag about it with a press release.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17895-freeflying-cyborg-insects-steered-from-a-distance.html
Don't worry though, the Treatyst has all the answers for conservatives:
We expose Obama by tracking his failures.
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/presidentsprogress.aspx
We have our own answers on health care
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/singlepayer.aspx
Plus we got stuff about fast food
http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=2000caloriedodge&image=0
atomic bombs
http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=manhattan&image=0
Plus, we got technology, like some benchmarking about C# vs C++ (fancy that, C# is faster than STL on C++)
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/cpp_vs_csharp_arrays.aspx
And finally we make fun of that liberal Cold Play song with a really bad right wing parody of our own (lyrics only)
http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/vivalavida.aspx
Fellow conservatives, you have to be informed to avoid being shackled by the chains of Obama's socialism and enslaved by his Chicago liberal crooks and cronies. Just the other day, President Obama's top school guy admitted telling school age little boys not to report getting raped by sexual criminals. It's only going to get worse, before it gets better, and you have to stay on the ball. The Treatyist can help you stay on guard.
Check out the Treatyist today!
http://www.treatyist.com/
Seriously, why do you have to live in a stupid bubble that says a total dictatorship backed up by concentration camps isn't evil? These countries aren't like, ho hum, the USA, where you call yourself oppressed because your daddy didn't give attention. These are countries where you call yourself oppressed because you said you were hungry and the 5 year plan said you had more food than ever, or you said that you were unhappy and Allah should provide.
I'm so sick of hearing people put the USA on the same moral ground as places like that. We aren't like that, and we aren't like that because we have people that do the work of keeping us not like that. There's cultural institutions that have been put in place, educational traditions. Granted, liberals are tearing all that down and replacing it with the sort of self indulgent crap that invariably leads to a sense of entitlement about property and ultimately a dictatorship class, but, they haven't been successful yet.
What if, like the vast majority of people, he doesn't lose his sight or senses? If it is reasonable for people who are impared to wish the same impairment on others, is not reasonable to wish that impaired people did not exist?
Sorry to throw Symantec under the bus, but the AV program and AV mentality that they have created amounts to a CPU tax. We don't have 4 core machines, we have 3 cores plus for one for Symantec, which manages to have the deadlock everything while it scans a single file.
That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I rather think I have it exactly:
irony (n) - originally meant to describe a phrasing of words whose meaning is the opposite of its literal statement, this overused slashdot word has come to mean any sort of notable relationship between the beginning of a body of text and its lexical end.
Examples:
Liberal Poster: "I always thought Bush was stupid, and ironically, he was!"
Conservative Poster: "I always thought Obama was a socialist, and ironically, he is!"
General Snarky Remark about FOSS: "Oh the irony, the FOSS guy talks about not paying for software, yet, begs for money."
General Snarky Remark about Closed Software: "Oh the irony, Windows ran an ad about stability, but it crashed on my machine."
And finally:
"Ironically, nearly every comment on Slashdot, is ironic."
Wow, I can make my computer look like a cheesy CD tower...
The guy is talking about FOSS saving all this money, so he takes to making outlandish claims to get PR for himself, hits for his site.
Notice the price trends? Tesla is starting with a $109k car. Their next one is going to be $57k. The one after that, $30k. Fisker is starting at $90k. Their next car is going to be $40k. Mitsubishi's MiEV is almost $50k. By 2015, they expect to be closer to $20k.
But those numbers are based on increasing volume, that is my point. In order to build a car today, you need to have massive capital. If the cars Tesla makes for 100M dollar invested are as good as the cars Toyota makes for each 100M invested, then, Tesla should sell more cars than Toyota. You can't use consumer prices to determine the overall cost or effectiveness of an investment, unless you know the volume, that's my point.
I agree; look at any commodity...in this case, let's say the home computer...and then look backwards in histor
Actually, that's completely wrong and computers are the best example of it. When you say that something is cheaper, you have to do the multiply and consider the quantity, to get the real cost. Look at how many players with some capital could get into the hardware business previously. There used to be scores of CPUs out there, and now there's but a handful. Similarly look at how many operating systems there used to be.
The reason is because of expanding markets. Sure, the costs might be about the same or slightly smaller for the consumer, but, for the producer, they have gotten much much higher. How much does it cost to build a FAB these days? How many lines of code do you need to have a credible operating system? The Linux kernel is what, over a million lines long? That's almost twice as many lines Bill Gates famously proclaimed computers might need in -bytes-.
The complexity is staggering, and so are the costs behind it. The only thing that mitigates the complexity is the development of abstraction and tools but those too cost money. It would be a lot easier to make a DOS today than it was in 1980 largely because the compiler and other tools are better, but those tools are not good enough to make a kernel that satisfies today's market as cheap as it was to make a 1980s kernel with 1980's tools.
Now to go back to your original Chevy concept, I'd be willing to bet that you could probably build a 1970s era Pontiac GTO for less than $2000 in today's money, really because the engines and transmissions on those things are so simple compared to today's vehicles that you could probably get a CNC to make all the parts for you, and with much better perfection than they were made using the old ways. The only real labor cost would be in the assembly and the materials, paradoxically, would probably be cheaper as there's not the same demand for the heavier but higher grade steel used to make pre-oil shock American cars. Cars have actually gotten much more expensive, even considering inflation, and the reason is really due to both regulation and competitive pressures. Even now the shrinkage of car brands is part of a trend that has been going on now for a century. There used to be -thousands- of car manufacturers. Now how many are left?
And how much does it cost to get started? What, 500M for Mr. Gore? 500M for Tesla? 100 years ago it was a tool shop and a garage.
Bottom line is, if someone cannot make an electric car profitably now, it probably means that it is not profitable, period. Throwing public money after it would only be useful to the extent that it encourages engineering problems to be solved to hopefully make it profitable. If we were going to throw taxpayer dollars at anything, we should be researching nuclear power, batteries, and ultra capacitors.
No, he's not concerned with any medical procedures at all. He's a conservative, so he doesn't go to doctors, he just prays.
Oh shut up, earth worshipper. Earth is a goddess crap was retarded 2000 years ago and its still retarded now.
Oh wait a minute, you said treatment, as in the spinal cord repair. I thought for a minute you were talking about the Iraq war, Mr. Center-right conservative. Sorry, my bad.
1) We already spend three times as much per year on keeping old people into expensive medicine than we do the war.
2) Iraq has twenty trillion dollars worth of oil. Had the war gone out ok then gasoline would be fifty cents a gallon and the national savings would be about 300 billion per year, if not more, basically saving enough money to pretty much buy national health insurance, if you wanted to.
I see you did well at Economic Fallacy School.
You are right. Why don't you Paypal me all of your money, and you can continue on.
This is human progress. These rulings about genetic engineering are foolish because they defend intellectual property for the expense of feeding people. The problem isn't the genetically engineered crop - its clearly better. The idea that humans should not be allowed to alter genes in the environment is stupid. Genes are altered all the time by everything, whether or not people do it is quite alright because we are not somehow separate from the eco-system.
The problem is financial: it's that Monsanto and others have a habit of showing up on your doorstep with a bill because one of their genetically modified seeds may have blown onto your doorstep. If you modified the laws so that people who GM stuff blown onto their land could just use it, or, if their crops were dimished by the GM, they could sue, then you would not have this problem. It's like that for regular seeds. Why not be that way for anything else?
I'm in strong favor of intellectual property rights, but clearly, intellectual property rights should not trump the rights of land ownership.
Wonder how much the treatment will cost? How many kids don't get to eat at school so that someone gets this treatment.
BizTalk is arguably the among the worst things that any computer company has ever made.
Maybe I'm just different, but I think any man that made the windows 3.1 tada.wav sucks. It's like how Bob Dylan ruined himself for a decade of fans at Live Aid in the 1980s. Some things,you just don't do.
ope. It's called recognition that every government of every political persuasion needs to enact laws that promote the common good.
No its not. It's people like you and this idea of the "common good". Because its always "your common good".
Do you think an energy efficient TV displays pictures somehow worse than an energy hog TV ? Should we allow people to waste energy when the national interest is in conserving it ?
It's not in the national interest to conserve energy. It's in your interest that people use less. I would prefer we simply build more nuclear power plants and lower the price of energy so taht people can use more of it.
See, what a fine little NAZI you are? You don't even admit that anyone can have any other ideas about life, other than you.