i guess its kind of like starwars geeks debating over who shot first. maybe in 2000 years they will wage holly wars about it... the hansades - as it were.
Please go and explain this to the millions of people who pray to God every day asking him to help them by interfering in the world. You could save them a lot of time.
The reason they aren't going after these "real" pirates is because they are in nations who's legal systems have no incentive to stop the flow of pirated American, European and Japanese media.
At the least, they can try to stop the sale of these goods in the US. In New York, it's not at all uncommon for there to be someone on a street corner with a table set up selling lots of pirated dvd's and cd's. I've been eating in a pizzeria and had a guy come in and go table to table offering pirates dvd's and cd's. This is completely accepted and seems normal to most people. In other parts of the country, I haven't seen it so much, but it is rampant in New York. These are "real pirates" and law enforcement certainly could be doing more about it, but they don't care. If the RIAA and MPAA want to really combat piracy, they should be leaning on law enforcement to target these people rather than spending so much of their time focussing on p2p.
Even if you like doing them, you have to admit that drug abuse results in a serious amount of fucking around and not a lot of productivity.
No I don't. Lots of people have mind-expanding experiences that help them learn about themselves and the world, and these ultimately lead to society being better off. Drugs are "unproductive" in the same way that reading a book or listening to music is unproductive. Sure, at the actual moment that I am sitting there and reading I am not creating something useful. But our society is ultimately better off when it consists of people who broaden themselves by being exposed to somewhat challenging music and books and drugs on occasion.
Obviously, you don't like Wal-Mart. I don't either. But a lot of people do. The reason they shop there is that they want to shop there. The reason that other stores go out of business is that their customers would perfer to go to Wal-Mart. You are apparently so egoecentric that you assume everyone shares your preferences and thus the only reason that people shop at Wal-Mart is that they are somehow forced to. But that is not the case. If you really believe this, then you should buy some land near your local Wal-Mart and open your own store that sells the same sorts of goods, but of higher quality, and pay your employees well. Run the store the way you think Wal-Mart should be run. Then see how many people leave Wal-Mart to come shop at your store. Put your money where your mouth is.
First, there are plenty of drugs that aren't "engineered substances". Trying to tar all "drugs" with the same brush is just wrong since many are not man-made at all.
Second, everything you eat and drink is going to interact with your body and brain and have effects on the "high complex mechanisms" therein. By your logic, every time I eat a vegetable or drink some juice, I am doing something foolish since I can't explain all the exact effects it will have.
If the war on drugs is such a failure, why is drug use down significantly among teens?
Because it is cyclic and naturally goes up and down, as do all trends among fickle teens. In the mid/ late nineties there were plenty of news articles about how drug use was skyrocketing in popularity again and how ecstasy was becoming an epidemic and was going to be the new crack, and so on. Now, there is tons of hype about the fact that it is slightly down. This is all stupid. Every few years, drug use will go slightly up or slightly down. That doesn't mean that every time there is a decline, the war on drugs is somehow working.
But you're aware that the vast majority of drugs are legal? You're saying that all drugs are "inherently bad" and should be eliminated? That anyone who has ever consumed a relatively benign drug like tylenol or marijuana or caffeine has "fucked up" their lives? That if I grow mushrooms in my house and eat them sometimes, I am receiving some sort of financial benefit (how?) and committing a bad act? None of this makes any sense.
Your paycheck gets smaller [if you're lucky enough to get one] to make that so-called efficiency possible.
Now we're going in circles. The original post said that your paycheck gets smaller. And I said "but you can buy more because the lower cost of production makes goods cheaper". And now you say "but your paycheck is smaller" again. Yes, I get that. We can go around forever.
Why would goods become cheaper, when the money can be put to better use increasing the profit margin of investors?
The goods will become cheaper because it will be possible to make them more cheaply. This is the way the market operates. If one company chooses to keep their prices higher than necessary, they will be driven out of business by a competing company that lowers their prices. If no one lowers their prices, then anyone can profitably start their own company that will make the same product more cheaply and drive the existing companies out of business. Customers will choose to get something cheaper if they can. Look at how successful Wal-Mart is and how effectively they have destroyed their competition, mainly because they charge low prices. If it's possible to lower prices, someone will and they will win as a result. This means that the profit magins of investors of companies that inflate prices will not be good, so the incentive is to price things cheaply. Thus, your paycheck buys more as production becomes more efficient.
The problem, as I see it, is that the company is highly unlikely to actually compensate you for being more efficient.
They may not compensate you by paying you more. But on a larg scale, the effect should be the same. As companies become more efficient, goods will become cheaper, so your paycheck will buy more. Any investments you have in industries that become more efficient will reward you financially. As things become more efficient, there is more wealth to go around.
Also, isn't this estimation based on the "perfect" scenario? Ie. No outside forces being exerted on the rock before it hits us? Even though 30 years is a drop in the universe's bucket in terms of time, there is a lot that could possibly alter the course.
Really? If that were true, it might mean that the chance of the asteroid actually hitting us wouldn't be 100%. Why, it might even be as low as 1/233!
Anyone, the "GNU" is not supposed to refer primarily to glibc/ gcc. It's supposed to refer to the GNU implementation of the standard unix tools, like grep and ls and more and so forth. If we take X and everything graphical out of the model and just imagine a console-based system, then the real bare bones of it would be the kernel, a shell (probably from gnu) and the basic utilities (probably from gnu). With just a kernel, this system would be useless. Of course, you probably want applications too, but in terms of the bare essentials of a usable system, you need linux and the gnu stuff. Which is why it is the "gnu/linux" system. Which made some sense. RMS explains this in the film Revolution OS so if you watch that, you'll see that I'm not just making this up.
But my point was that today, stuff like KDE and X are core to most people's experience of using Linux and most people would consider those pretty essential, so by his reasoning, those people should put those in the name too, but then the whole thing spirals out of control. (I admit that my inclusion of things like XMMS was gratuitous).
It would be cooler if someone actually started breaking in to people's houses and replacing their framed photos with pictures of goatse while leaving everything else undisturbed. That would be a fun project for when I have some free time, actually.
His point was that this doesn't offer much over normal pictures. Sure, you can pay for a subscription so that a grandmother can get updated pictures in her frame. But she'd probably like it better if you just mailed her some photographs. Or gave them to her, you know, in person.
What's the point? Do you plan to run an OS with just the kernel, and without applications?
The point is that naming the whole environment after all of the applications is ridiculuous. Otherwise it would be GNU/X Window/Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment/Opera/XMMS/.../Linu x. Doesn't that seem a bit absurd? And everyone running different software would have to use a different name? It's just not a reasonable way of constructing the name. Yes, we get that there is GNU software involved. But this isn't "the GNU system plus the Linux kernel", this is the Linux kernel plus a million other things. Trying to put them all in the name is just silly.
If one candidate has a position that is gaining him/her votes, then the other candidate will co-opt that position. Given that politics is mostly marketing these days, I see the market naturally converging to a 50-50 split.
This all assumes that both candidates will have equally good marketing people running their campaign. This is unlikely to be the case. Probably one of them will happen to end up with a more skilled staff, either by luck or because they spend more money or whatever.
Ok. I have some news then: In XP SP2, the "local" zone is even more restricted in what it can do than the "internet" zone. The idea that ActiveX or anything else can gain the ability to do malicious things by putting itself into a more locked-down zone is, indeed, horseshit. You can go look up "local machine lockdown" on msdn for more info.
Well now I'm confused. One person makes baseless FUD against IE (that pages can somehow do something bad by getting into the Local zone) and you say it's not flamebait. Then someone else posts equally baseless FUD (that IE runs in kernel space) and you debunk it. Whose side are you on?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Vegas has the over/under at 7 years.
Please go and explain this to the millions of people who pray to God every day asking him to help them by interfering in the world. You could save them a lot of time.
At the least, they can try to stop the sale of these goods in the US. In New York, it's not at all uncommon for there to be someone on a street corner with a table set up selling lots of pirated dvd's and cd's. I've been eating in a pizzeria and had a guy come in and go table to table offering pirates dvd's and cd's. This is completely accepted and seems normal to most people. In other parts of the country, I haven't seen it so much, but it is rampant in New York. These are "real pirates" and law enforcement certainly could be doing more about it, but they don't care. If the RIAA and MPAA want to really combat piracy, they should be leaning on law enforcement to target these people rather than spending so much of their time focussing on p2p.
No I don't. Lots of people have mind-expanding experiences that help them learn about themselves and the world, and these ultimately lead to society being better off. Drugs are "unproductive" in the same way that reading a book or listening to music is unproductive. Sure, at the actual moment that I am sitting there and reading I am not creating something useful. But our society is ultimately better off when it consists of people who broaden themselves by being exposed to somewhat challenging music and books and drugs on occasion.
Obviously, you don't like Wal-Mart. I don't either. But a lot of people do. The reason they shop there is that they want to shop there. The reason that other stores go out of business is that their customers would perfer to go to Wal-Mart. You are apparently so egoecentric that you assume everyone shares your preferences and thus the only reason that people shop at Wal-Mart is that they are somehow forced to. But that is not the case. If you really believe this, then you should buy some land near your local Wal-Mart and open your own store that sells the same sorts of goods, but of higher quality, and pay your employees well. Run the store the way you think Wal-Mart should be run. Then see how many people leave Wal-Mart to come shop at your store. Put your money where your mouth is.
First, there are plenty of drugs that aren't "engineered substances". Trying to tar all "drugs" with the same brush is just wrong since many are not man-made at all.
Second, everything you eat and drink is going to interact with your body and brain and have effects on the "high complex mechanisms" therein. By your logic, every time I eat a vegetable or drink some juice, I am doing something foolish since I can't explain all the exact effects it will have.
Because it is cyclic and naturally goes up and down, as do all trends among fickle teens. In the mid/ late nineties there were plenty of news articles about how drug use was skyrocketing in popularity again and how ecstasy was becoming an epidemic and was going to be the new crack, and so on. Now, there is tons of hype about the fact that it is slightly down. This is all stupid. Every few years, drug use will go slightly up or slightly down. That doesn't mean that every time there is a decline, the war on drugs is somehow working.
But you're aware that the vast majority of drugs are legal? You're saying that all drugs are "inherently bad" and should be eliminated? That anyone who has ever consumed a relatively benign drug like tylenol or marijuana or caffeine has "fucked up" their lives? That if I grow mushrooms in my house and eat them sometimes, I am receiving some sort of financial benefit (how?) and committing a bad act? None of this makes any sense.
Now we're going in circles. The original post said that your paycheck gets smaller. And I said "but you can buy more because the lower cost of production makes goods cheaper". And now you say "but your paycheck is smaller" again. Yes, I get that. We can go around forever.
The goods will become cheaper because it will be possible to make them more cheaply. This is the way the market operates. If one company chooses to keep their prices higher than necessary, they will be driven out of business by a competing company that lowers their prices. If no one lowers their prices, then anyone can profitably start their own company that will make the same product more cheaply and drive the existing companies out of business. Customers will choose to get something cheaper if they can. Look at how successful Wal-Mart is and how effectively they have destroyed their competition, mainly because they charge low prices. If it's possible to lower prices, someone will and they will win as a result. This means that the profit magins of investors of companies that inflate prices will not be good, so the incentive is to price things cheaply. Thus, your paycheck buys more as production becomes more efficient.
They may not compensate you by paying you more. But on a larg scale, the effect should be the same. As companies become more efficient, goods will become cheaper, so your paycheck will buy more. Any investments you have in industries that become more efficient will reward you financially. As things become more efficient, there is more wealth to go around.
But under the laws in most states, you should be charging sales tax on the goods at your lawn sale, right?
I'm pretty sure they don't give Pulitzers for moderation systems or software.
Really? If that were true, it might mean that the chance of the asteroid actually hitting us wouldn't be 100%. Why, it might even be as low as 1/233!
And even if the plural of virus were formed by turning -us into -i, that would yield viri, not virii.
Hey, I once had that same sig.
Anyone, the "GNU" is not supposed to refer primarily to glibc/ gcc. It's supposed to refer to the GNU implementation of the standard unix tools, like grep and ls and more and so forth. If we take X and everything graphical out of the model and just imagine a console-based system, then the real bare bones of it would be the kernel, a shell (probably from gnu) and the basic utilities (probably from gnu). With just a kernel, this system would be useless. Of course, you probably want applications too, but in terms of the bare essentials of a usable system, you need linux and the gnu stuff. Which is why it is the "gnu/linux" system. Which made some sense. RMS explains this in the film Revolution OS so if you watch that, you'll see that I'm not just making this up.
But my point was that today, stuff like KDE and X are core to most people's experience of using Linux and most people would consider those pretty essential, so by his reasoning, those people should put those in the name too, but then the whole thing spirals out of control. (I admit that my inclusion of things like XMMS was gratuitous).
It would be cooler if someone actually started breaking in to people's houses and replacing their framed photos with pictures of goatse while leaving everything else undisturbed. That would be a fun project for when I have some free time, actually.
His point was that this doesn't offer much over normal pictures. Sure, you can pay for a subscription so that a grandmother can get updated pictures in her frame. But she'd probably like it better if you just mailed her some photographs. Or gave them to her, you know, in person.
From his comments, it was apparently a large wang.
The point is that naming the whole environment after all of the applications is ridiculuous. Otherwise it would be GNU/X Window/Gnome/KDE/Enlightenment/Opera/XMMS/.../Lin
This all assumes that both candidates will have equally good marketing people running their campaign. This is unlikely to be the case. Probably one of them will happen to end up with a more skilled staff, either by luck or because they spend more money or whatever.
Ok. I have some news then: In XP SP2, the "local" zone is even more restricted in what it can do than the "internet" zone. The idea that ActiveX or anything else can gain the ability to do malicious things by putting itself into a more locked-down zone is, indeed, horseshit. You can go look up "local machine lockdown" on msdn for more info.
Well now I'm confused. One person makes baseless FUD against IE (that pages can somehow do something bad by getting into the Local zone) and you say it's not flamebait. Then someone else posts equally baseless FUD (that IE runs in kernel space) and you debunk it. Whose side are you on?
You were very, very wrong.
Given that GMT has been deprecated in favor of UTC for quite a while, I have no idea why you think that a new time system would resurrect it.