Guess I should provide a bit more detail: in Texas (at least, my part of it) primaries are party-specific. The parties decide whom they're going to run, then they run them. I'm not entirely sure that primaries are part of official election law (which is why you can actually vote in both the Dem and Repub primaries. Legally, even).
So, when you show up at a primary location here, it's either all Republicans or all Democrats on the ticket. Punching a straight-party ticket is as easy as...picking any slot.
People do have some weird ideas about voting, though. I've had a few people tell me that they thought you should only be allowed to vote Republican or Democrat.
I can top that. My sister volunteered at the Republican primaries (no, that's not the stupid part). I came up to visit her, and - in just the 15 minutes I was there - 6 people asked how to vote a "straight Republican ticket".
That's right, folks. Coining a new phrase for stupidity: "Couldn't figure out how to vote party line at a primary."
So what's in it for them? How do they feel about what they do? Anyone have a link to any information about them?
You know how you get someone to implement a censorship system for you? You don't hire mean and cruel people, you get a few people who want to do good. Then you set up draconian punishments for violations of speech and thought codes.
Then (and this is the magic ingredient), you tell these people you've hired that their job is to keep people from getting in trouble by preventing the people from violating the speech and thought codes.
Pretty easy, really, and you put people in "helping mode." What's the old quote about "the tyrant may rest, but those who are act for your own good are tireless in their efforts." These people almost definitely believe that they are helping people - saving them from worse punishment.
And they're probably frustrated by how hard people try to prevent them from doing their job.
By your own arguements, copyrights that don't generate revenue have no inherent value, so, therefore, should be taxed at a rate of $0. That, is, the tax on copyrighted material should be based on it's worth, which is related to the revenue it generates. So effectively you're arguing for an income tax based on copyrighted material.
Perhaps I am dense and don't see where you're going with this. Is this supposed to show a contradiction in my arguments? Please clarify.
Libertarians don't believe the govt. has the right to make and break contracts, only protect and enforce the rights of individuals.
Contract was definitely poor word choice on my part - particularly when discussing a libertarian point of view!
If we limit discussion to those libertarian philosophies which allow for copyright, then we get into the realm of "social convention" law or the realm of property - depending on how you classify copyright.
The **AA would seem to be of the mind that copyright is property - the creation of a work is the creation of an article of personal property, a use of which is instantiation (not duplication, as duplication would be the creation of another thing with attendant rights). This use may be sold or rented. If you believe that this is so, then it would follow that your property is like other property: it might devalue, but it never goes away. Infinite copyright duration.
Of course, along with that would come the other tenants of property: squatters rights, public nuisance, eminent domain, valuation (inheritance becomes expensive), and the many, many taxes. Oh, and bankruptcy. I'm not sure if you can currently be forced to sell off copyright in probate or not, but that'd be pretty nasty.
If, on the other hand, you consider that copyright is a "social convention" that we have created (difficult to come up with an example outside of patents and trademark), then this is the belief that it is beneficial to society to have this construct. The nature of the construct requires that no one be outside of the construct in order for it to be effective. The rationale for the construct is either that it's "the right thing to do" or it's "beneficial to society" to have it. The original reason for copyright in the US was the latter - there's been a lot of propaganda trying to convince people of the former.
If you believe that copyright is a social
convention (powered by law), then the questions become "does it suit its purpose" and "what should it take to change it?". This is set up in the original law creating the convention.
So, many libertarians who believe the social convention philosophy of copyright are upset because the tradeoffs made by the convention are becoming unbalanced. Further, many believe that the way you entered the convention should be the way you keep the convention - you cannot retroactively change the deal.
The social convention status of copyright really turns it into a grey area. Because it all rests on ideas like "beneficial," "fair," and "reasonable" the thing that matters is who making the judgement call, not what the questions are.
Hayek warned of such situations, and I believe that his ideas have shown true (yet again) in regards to copyright - not something he was directly concerned with.
The problem is we can either turn copyright into property, abolish copyright, further wade into the mire of "beneficial" and "fair", or go for super-secret option number 4.
Trouble is, I haven't seen a 4 proposed. Maybe we will.
Which is actually a very logical and straightforward idea - you owe the commons a tax on anything you can restrict the access of others to - but the idea actually causes libertarians to shrivel and die, like salt on a slug.
Hey, it's just cold today. That's all. It's normally not shriveled.
Seriously, this isn't all that bad of an idea. There's a wide range of thought amongst libertarians about what is best to tax. Some favor an income tax, as it (theoretically) affects all equally. Some favor a consumption tax, as it's easier to administer and you can regulate how much you pay. Some favor a tax on rent, which is similar to what you propose.
Rent refers to Adam Smith's categorization of income as either profits, wages, or rents - in order of risk. Profits are the result of selling something of added value (some product), wages are the result of employment, and rents are the result of renting out resources. Rent adds the least to the economy, and is money invested at odds with profits and wages - both of which produce more wealth.
Rents also have the benefit of self-valuation. You tax based upon a percentage of the rent. It is in the taxee to value the property according to its market value.
Libertarians also tend to have a dislike of rents as rents are often correlated with people rent seeking through government - increasing your rent through the action of government. Basically browbeating people with government authority.
So, there's a libertarian view on taxing ownership.
Oh, and please keep in mind: most libertarians are big believers in contract, and many of us believe that the gov't changing the copyright contract away from the public's favor is seriously uncool.
There's another proposal I've heard: after an initial term (15 or 20 years), you pay a "copyright renewal tax" of $x per work.
This has several benefits: copyright of immediate works does not require registration, there is no complicated tax system[1], the first - most profitable - period is guaranteed for free, and (most importantly) it becomes easy to discover whether or not a work is in the public domain and who the rights holder is.
Oh, and it discourages IP hoarding, which is a real problem now. But it doesn't set the bar very high. Even a $1 per 15-year renewal wouldn't be that bad, and would confer numerous benefits.
Your proposal is an interesting one, though. Yours and this one seem to have slightly different aims.
It's the difference between taxing production and taxing rent seeking behavior. The proposal is Lawrence Lessig's, and there is much discussion of it out there.
[1] - the more complicated the calculation is, the more likely it will be abused by "special interests." You also bring in the IRS (auditing, valuation, paperwork). Simple "if it's not in the list as having paid $15, it's public domain" is something the Library of Congress could easily keep track of.
With the software that I've made work across platforms, the issue usually isn't hardware as much as software environment.
Aside from endian-ness, the usual issue is either an out-of-date library, a completely screwy compiler/libc, library location fun, different headers/#DEFINE's, etc.
Because of this, usually if it works on x86 Debian, it'll work on the rest. The major exceptions are anything dealing with hardware, such as X11; however, while many programs may depend on X11, they do not suffer the same issues, so once X11 works, they do too.
The worst (unix-like) platforms to port to (on the whole) are the proprietary unices, as they tend to have the most screwy stuff going on. You can spend days with autoconf adding tests for this or that or the other condition. FreeBSD compatibility, on the other hand, usually isn't bad.
When I was talking about "things I like" I was referring to books as well. Yes, though, a good comic shop can help you find the really good stuff. I was trying to point out the situation in book stores, since the grandparent was talking about that.
As an aside, concerning bookstores: they usually put all the graphic novels in one area, but Maus is always in history. I guess when you are perceived well enough, you aren't grouped with the rest of your kind.
I liken comic books to the old serials that used to be printed in major newspapers. Most of these stories were pretty bad, however there were some that were extremely good. Great Expectations comes to mind.
Similarly, comic books are largely forgettable. They may be entertaining, but that's where most of them stop. However, much like Dickens, there are some who really do something with the medium.
I have found, in general, that book stores largely stock comic book compendia which sell. I've had to order pretty much everything I've wanted. The majority of the clerks are also dismissive of the medium, as well, so they're hardly a help in finding good specimens.
What's worse[1] is that, because the avid readers of comic books are usually such because they like what you and I dismiss as crap, they often avoid the abberations - the literature - in the field. Thus making it harder to find.
As for books getting shorter, this largely has to do with the fact that the majority of publishing imprints tend to be extremely trendy. There's a "sweet spot" that they're constantly trying to hit - much like the ideal pop song length changes about every 5 years. Just like pop songs, I don't find it appealing to sample just the 80%-that's-crap of publications when I'm trying to find good material. The 20% is less affected by trend.
[1] - Here I mean worse for me. Honestly, I'm very happy that people get what they want in stores. Makes other people happy. I just wish I could find a place where people like what I like, so I could find more things that I might like.
According to the US Small Business Administration, 50% of small businesses fail within the first year, and 95% fail within five years. To start and run a business without ever having held a job is a sure path to disaster for all but the most talented, hardworking, and lucky.
Please read the article. It is linked in the story for your convenience.
I hasten to add that the group that most stands to benefit by outsourcing is small-to-medium businesses. Outsourcing allows them to do something that they would not otherwise be able to do (say, have a phone bank, or have parts assembly). This lets smaller and smaller businesses compete with the big boys.
If a big business were smart about it, they'd want everyone to have to have everything done in house: delivery, sales, advertising, legal work, labor, etc, etc, etc. No one but a big business can afford to do that.
Incidentally, some big businesses ARE thinking that way: many of the industry certifications and industry licensing programs are geared towards forcing your company to act like a big business.
I'd also like to add that some of these really big companies are supporters of some of the movements for penalizing outsourcing: they can shrug off the penalties, but their smaller competitors cannot[1].
[1] - no insult intended towards the movements themselves. I think the participants believe in what they're doing. Just because a big business puts money into it for less-than-scrupulous reasons doesn't mean the cause is bankrupt. Hell, I'm a libertarian, and some businesses contribute big money to libertarian magazines because they like deregulation - they don't like all of the things that libertarians would like ALONG with the deregulation, but they like deregulation.
Somehow, I don't think Lucas is too concerned with someone "screwing SW3" by "only" renting it on DVD (and maybe buy it later).
Not intending to hurt Lucas. My use of "screw" was unclear. In my local vernacular, screw can mean both "harm" and "not taking that option" - usually the latter.
"I could brush the floor with a toothbrush, but screw that. I'll go rent a floor buffer - you can ride those."
Admittedly around here we see a lot of "boycott ____! Don't buy any of ______!"
Mostly, I'm just sad that Star Wars has been downgraded on my list from "theatre" to "rent when I get around to it." It's still interesting, and I'd like to see it - but Firefly IS something I want to see in the theatre.
And I'm certain Lucas doesn't care either way about me personally or my actions.
I think programming is going in two different directions simultaneously: using languages that define away most of the programming bugs, and fixing/monitoring of programming bugs.
Worried about using uninitialized pointers? Use a system that automatically initializes them to a safe location and can dump useful information for debugging - or better yet, one that doesn't have pointers.
Worried about data corruption? Use a copy-on-write system throughout, or use one that can at least spot the bug.
Both of these directions require more processor power and more memory. I think most everyone would be more interested in systems that are stable, resilient, and that can provide good information when they aren't than systems that are just faster.
If having a dual-core proc means I could switch over to using garbage collection everywhere but in the kernel, I would be all over that. If having a dual-core proc meant that I could run a model verification of the code in addition to the code itself, thus providing information about when the code is stuffed, I'd be ecstatic. If all this extra memory and proc could be used to always run code with debugging symbols to where a stack dump could be run with good output, it would be great!
If, on the other hand, all that is used to make sure the secretary's klondike program can have extra animation and noises...that doesn't really thrill me.
One of the things that fools people about programming is that they think that the computer "understands" something. If you teach a computer how to win at Tic-Tac-Toe, it doesn't really understand how to play Tic-Tac-Toe. It doesn't "understand" anything. It just does something according to a set of rules that have been defined.
As a side-note amidst my agreeing with you: Goedel would've really fried von Neumann's wig.
Build me a machine that calculates whether or not a program has an infinite loop within it!
[T]o some extent all good papers (or assignments) are alike and can be spotted fairly easily;
Funny enough, I did much better in essay tests the higher up in schooling I went. In upper-division college, I did quite well. I think I was outputting pretty much the same quality of papers (relatively) as a senior in high school, but suddenly I was making A's instead of C's.
Thinking back --- reading all of the A papers in class and trying to figure out why I made a C --- you're right: all of the A papers were eerily similar, often down to the tone. Even if you blacked out the name and wrote my essay up on a typewriter, you could pick mine out of a crowd.
No question that some of mine were bad. I hated regurgitating facts and making obvious statements in essays - I wanted to work on the level of my teachers[1] - so I would gloss over things that were deducible from other portions of the essay, or I would talk about a different section of the work as related to the subject at hand. So I wouldn't have in the key phrases that fit the checklist.
There's a scene in Donnie Darko where his English teacher is reading one of his essays, looks over to the science professor, shakes her head and says "Donnie Darko," suggesting that that explains everything. Of course, it does. That was what my essays were like.
No real point here, just reminiscing. I do think the system is broken, but I have no real suggestions as to how to fix it. Though I would like to add that an oral exam might be thrown in for kicks. Many of these students are able to write an A essay because of its pro forma nature, but are unable to think about the subject material, draw their own conclusions, defend those conclusions, let alone attack weak ones. That's what separates the fact memorizers and those who understand the material[2].
[1] - As a side note, I became disillusioned with high school around the time when I realized that most of my teachers didn't have a higher level they operated at regarding history, chemistry, or English. All they did was teach us these things. This is part of why I liked college so much better: the profs were interested in the material, not just the teaching of that material.
[2] - Oral exams, of course, have a hard time with providing anything but pass/fail, and the potential for personality conflict to make the difference between pass and fail is extremely high. Not really sure what to do about that.
If you don't mind taking a few moments, would you explain to me the difference in this case? As you say, this is an important distinction, and I'd like to make sure I understand it.
There has never been anything out of the creationist camp that resembles science.
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that at one time creationism was a scientific proposition. Much thought was put into it, and men of science and reason believed it as the best explanation of the time.
Much later, more evidence was revealed and better explanations came along. What separates creationism now from creationism then is that back then it was the best explanation to fit the available data. Now, it's an attempt to reject all new data.
At one time, there were competing theories of creationism that were debated, and they didn't just depend upon the bible.
To (approximately) quote Penn and Teller's program Bullshit!, "if your belief in God is based on faith, we've got nothing on you. If, however, you believe that the bible is an accurate and literal telling of early history, you've got another thing coming."
just a quick fact that will work either way in the discussion: more than half (I think it's around 70%) of firearms used in crimes such as robbery were stolen/black-market.
Of course, you could argue that there are more black-market firearms because there are more white-market firearms to steal, and you could argue that it doesn't matter how many restrictions you place on legal ownership, it's illegal ownership that is the problem.
Can't say as I know either way, just thought I'd throw the fact in. And, of course, I can't remember where the fact is from, but I think it's from a DOJ report.
what kind of propoganda do they show the kids in highschool these days that makes (some/most of) them spineless apathetic boobs?
Guess you haven't spent any time in high school lately. I've been out for years myself, but I have a high school student that I mentor, so I tend to get reminded on a regular basis.
The fact is that compliant students are easier to lecture to.
Imagine this situation: you spend all day going from one room to another. In each room you will be lectured to for a period between 45 minutes and an hour-and-a-half. During this time you will be expected to remain passive, any questions leading beyond the lesson will be rejected.
Five days a week, for months at a time.
It induces a passive nature. It's so effective at it that teachers are working on new styles of teaching to "engage" the students. Sometimes known as "active learning" - it's designed to combat the passivity.
On top of this situation, many things are done to keep the students in line and quiet ("non-disruptive"). The system takes itself very seriously, and the level of retaliation is awe-inspiring.
I remember reading once something along the lines of "Teachers constantly tell high school students to 'act like adults.' Of course, this is the last thing they want: if adults were in this situation they would rapidly organize a revolution."
The fact is that students don't know what freedom is. They've been conditioned to not respond to people who try to stir up trouble, and we act surprised when they voice opinions along those lines.
I think Paul Graham is right: one of the best things we could do for high school education is bring back apprenticeships. There's a reason the kids are bored.
There is an issue with usage base, and it can't be ignored; however, I think it is a sub-issue of desireability. Desireability will at first be limited to bulk purchases, such as for cities, large businesses, etc. The customers are more price-sensitive than consumers, and are willing to invest in technologies to reduce price.
I think the mistake is to think of alternative fuels as an architecture problem requiring massive investment and planning. It is, rather, a organic-type problem, with thing coming around as they are needed - not through magic but through people making purchases that make sense to them.
I think those who will benefit the most are those who are the wisest in purchasing according to their needs, rather than throwing money at low-return investments[1].
[1] - NB: I believe investing $1m in alternative fuel technology right now would be throwing money at low-return high-risk. Investing $1m (adjust for inflation) in 30 years, however, will be a different subject. The point is not that alternative fuels are a bad investment, it's that there are better investments now. This will change.
Since it doesn't exist, would it be cruel to eat a spherical cow?
Anyways. I was replying to a proposal to modify the price so as to effect change. Since it was within the bounds of a working market, I went with the market argument.
I agree that externalities are not being addressed. I believe that they can be addressed through respect for private property and the use of the tort law system: establish land-use torts and contract provisions for them.
The thing of it is that the market doesn't have to be all that near perfect in order for the effect of reduced oil supplies to be felt and compensated for. Even if the government placed a subsidized price cap on oil when supplies were running low, people would make investment decisions based on the information that supplies were running low.
Most importantly, it needs to be understood that reducing oil consumption is not the only positive end out there, it has to be balanced with the others.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, as much as the community complains about /. spelling problems, when you see this printed as the headline in a newspaper article:
it's a sad, sad day.
People who live in ass houses should not stow thrones.
I'd almost forgotten about Tucker!
Francis Ford Coppola directed a movie about him: http://imdb.com/title/tt0096316
Nice.
Guess I should provide a bit more detail: in Texas (at least, my part of it) primaries are party-specific. The parties decide whom they're going to run, then they run them. I'm not entirely sure that primaries are part of official election law (which is why you can actually vote in both the Dem and Repub primaries. Legally, even).
So, when you show up at a primary location here, it's either all Republicans or all Democrats on the ticket. Punching a straight-party ticket is as easy as...picking any slot.
People do have some weird ideas about voting, though. I've had a few people tell me that they thought you should only be allowed to vote Republican or Democrat.
I can top that. My sister volunteered at the Republican primaries (no, that's not the stupid part). I came up to visit her, and - in just the 15 minutes I was there - 6 people asked how to vote a "straight Republican ticket".
That's right, folks. Coining a new phrase for stupidity: "Couldn't figure out how to vote party line at a primary."
So what's in it for them? How do they feel about what they do? Anyone have a link to any information about them?
You know how you get someone to implement a censorship system for you? You don't hire mean and cruel people, you get a few people who want to do good. Then you set up draconian punishments for violations of speech and thought codes.
Then (and this is the magic ingredient), you tell these people you've hired that their job is to keep people from getting in trouble by preventing the people from violating the speech and thought codes.
Pretty easy, really, and you put people in "helping mode." What's the old quote about "the tyrant may rest, but those who are act for your own good are tireless in their efforts." These people almost definitely believe that they are helping people - saving them from worse punishment.
And they're probably frustrated by how hard people try to prevent them from doing their job.
By your own arguements, copyrights that don't generate revenue have no inherent value, so, therefore, should be taxed at a rate of $0. That, is, the tax on copyrighted material should be based on it's worth, which is related to the revenue it generates. So effectively you're arguing for an income tax based on copyrighted material.
Perhaps I am dense and don't see where you're going with this. Is this supposed to show a contradiction in my arguments? Please clarify.
Libertarians don't believe the govt. has the right to make and break contracts, only protect and enforce the rights of individuals.
Contract was definitely poor word choice on my part - particularly when discussing a libertarian point of view!
If we limit discussion to those libertarian philosophies which allow for copyright, then we get into the realm of "social convention" law or the realm of property - depending on how you classify copyright.
The **AA would seem to be of the mind that copyright is property - the creation of a work is the creation of an article of personal property, a use of which is instantiation (not duplication, as duplication would be the creation of another thing with attendant rights). This use may be sold or rented. If you believe that this is so, then it would follow that your property is like other property: it might devalue, but it never goes away. Infinite copyright duration.
Of course, along with that would come the other tenants of property: squatters rights, public nuisance, eminent domain, valuation (inheritance becomes expensive), and the many, many taxes. Oh, and bankruptcy. I'm not sure if you can currently be forced to sell off copyright in probate or not, but that'd be pretty nasty.
If, on the other hand, you consider that copyright is a "social convention" that we have created (difficult to come up with an example outside of patents and trademark), then this is the belief that it is beneficial to society to have this construct. The nature of the construct requires that no one be outside of the construct in order for it to be effective. The rationale for the construct is either that it's "the right thing to do" or it's "beneficial to society" to have it. The original reason for copyright in the US was the latter - there's been a lot of propaganda trying to convince people of the former.
If you believe that copyright is a social convention (powered by law), then the questions become "does it suit its purpose" and "what should it take to change it?". This is set up in the original law creating the convention.
So, many libertarians who believe the social convention philosophy of copyright are upset because the tradeoffs made by the convention are becoming unbalanced. Further, many believe that the way you entered the convention should be the way you keep the convention - you cannot retroactively change the deal.
The social convention status of copyright really turns it into a grey area. Because it all rests on ideas like "beneficial," "fair," and "reasonable" the thing that matters is who making the judgement call, not what the questions are.
Hayek warned of such situations, and I believe that his ideas have shown true (yet again) in regards to copyright - not something he was directly concerned with.
The problem is we can either turn copyright into property, abolish copyright, further wade into the mire of "beneficial" and "fair", or go for super-secret option number 4.
Trouble is, I haven't seen a 4 proposed. Maybe we will.
Anyways, I hope that made my thoughts more clear.
Which is actually a very logical and straightforward idea - you owe the commons a tax on anything you can restrict the access of others to - but the idea actually causes libertarians to shrivel and die, like salt on a slug.
Hey, it's just cold today. That's all. It's normally not shriveled.
Seriously, this isn't all that bad of an idea. There's a wide range of thought amongst libertarians about what is best to tax. Some favor an income tax, as it (theoretically) affects all equally. Some favor a consumption tax, as it's easier to administer and you can regulate how much you pay. Some favor a tax on rent, which is similar to what you propose.
Rent refers to Adam Smith's categorization of income as either profits, wages, or rents - in order of risk. Profits are the result of selling something of added value (some product), wages are the result of employment, and rents are the result of renting out resources. Rent adds the least to the economy, and is money invested at odds with profits and wages - both of which produce more wealth.
Rents also have the benefit of self-valuation. You tax based upon a percentage of the rent. It is in the taxee to value the property according to its market value.
Libertarians also tend to have a dislike of rents as rents are often correlated with people rent seeking through government - increasing your rent through the action of government. Basically browbeating people with government authority.
So, there's a libertarian view on taxing ownership.
Oh, and please keep in mind: most libertarians are big believers in contract, and many of us believe that the gov't changing the copyright contract away from the public's favor is seriously uncool.
There's another proposal I've heard: after an initial term (15 or 20 years), you pay a "copyright renewal tax" of $x per work.
This has several benefits: copyright of immediate works does not require registration, there is no complicated tax system[1], the first - most profitable - period is guaranteed for free, and (most importantly) it becomes easy to discover whether or not a work is in the public domain and who the rights holder is.
Oh, and it discourages IP hoarding, which is a real problem now. But it doesn't set the bar very high. Even a $1 per 15-year renewal wouldn't be that bad, and would confer numerous benefits.
Your proposal is an interesting one, though. Yours and this one seem to have slightly different aims.
It's the difference between taxing production and taxing rent seeking behavior. The proposal is Lawrence Lessig's, and there is much discussion of it out there.
[1] - the more complicated the calculation is, the more likely it will be abused by "special interests." You also bring in the IRS (auditing, valuation, paperwork). Simple "if it's not in the list as having paid $15, it's public domain" is something the Library of Congress could easily keep track of.
With the software that I've made work across platforms, the issue usually isn't hardware as much as software environment.
Aside from endian-ness, the usual issue is either an out-of-date library, a completely screwy compiler/libc, library location fun, different headers/#DEFINE's, etc.
Because of this, usually if it works on x86 Debian, it'll work on the rest. The major exceptions are anything dealing with hardware, such as X11; however, while many programs may depend on X11, they do not suffer the same issues, so once X11 works, they do too.
The worst (unix-like) platforms to port to (on the whole) are the proprietary unices, as they tend to have the most screwy stuff going on. You can spend days with autoconf adding tests for this or that or the other condition. FreeBSD compatibility, on the other hand, usually isn't bad.
When I was talking about "things I like" I was referring to books as well. Yes, though, a good comic shop can help you find the really good stuff. I was trying to point out the situation in book stores, since the grandparent was talking about that.
As an aside, concerning bookstores: they usually put all the graphic novels in one area, but Maus is always in history. I guess when you are perceived well enough, you aren't grouped with the rest of your kind.
I liken comic books to the old serials that used to be printed in major newspapers. Most of these stories were pretty bad, however there were some that were extremely good. Great Expectations comes to mind.
Similarly, comic books are largely forgettable. They may be entertaining, but that's where most of them stop. However, much like Dickens, there are some who really do something with the medium.
I have found, in general, that book stores largely stock comic book compendia which sell. I've had to order pretty much everything I've wanted. The majority of the clerks are also dismissive of the medium, as well, so they're hardly a help in finding good specimens.
What's worse[1] is that, because the avid readers of comic books are usually such because they like what you and I dismiss as crap, they often avoid the abberations - the literature - in the field. Thus making it harder to find.
As for books getting shorter, this largely has to do with the fact that the majority of publishing imprints tend to be extremely trendy. There's a "sweet spot" that they're constantly trying to hit - much like the ideal pop song length changes about every 5 years. Just like pop songs, I don't find it appealing to sample just the 80%-that's-crap of publications when I'm trying to find good material. The 20% is less affected by trend.
[1] - Here I mean worse for me. Honestly, I'm very happy that people get what they want in stores. Makes other people happy. I just wish I could find a place where people like what I like, so I could find more things that I might like.
According to the US Small Business Administration, 50% of small businesses fail within the first year, and 95% fail within five years. To start and run a business without ever having held a job is a sure path to disaster for all but the most talented, hardworking, and lucky.
Please read the article. It is linked in the story for your convenience.
I hasten to add that the group that most stands to benefit by outsourcing is small-to-medium businesses. Outsourcing allows them to do something that they would not otherwise be able to do (say, have a phone bank, or have parts assembly). This lets smaller and smaller businesses compete with the big boys.
If a big business were smart about it, they'd want everyone to have to have everything done in house: delivery, sales, advertising, legal work, labor, etc, etc, etc. No one but a big business can afford to do that.
Incidentally, some big businesses ARE thinking that way: many of the industry certifications and industry licensing programs are geared towards forcing your company to act like a big business.
I'd also like to add that some of these really big companies are supporters of some of the movements for penalizing outsourcing: they can shrug off the penalties, but their smaller competitors cannot[1].
[1] - no insult intended towards the movements themselves. I think the participants believe in what they're doing. Just because a big business puts money into it for less-than-scrupulous reasons doesn't mean the cause is bankrupt. Hell, I'm a libertarian, and some businesses contribute big money to libertarian magazines because they like deregulation - they don't like all of the things that libertarians would like ALONG with the deregulation, but they like deregulation.
Somehow, I don't think Lucas is too concerned with someone "screwing SW3" by "only" renting it on DVD (and maybe buy it later).
Not intending to hurt Lucas. My use of "screw" was unclear. In my local vernacular, screw can mean both "harm" and "not taking that option" - usually the latter.
"I could brush the floor with a toothbrush, but screw that. I'll go rent a floor buffer - you can ride those."
Admittedly around here we see a lot of "boycott ____! Don't buy any of ______!"
Mostly, I'm just sad that Star Wars has been downgraded on my list from "theatre" to "rent when I get around to it." It's still interesting, and I'd like to see it - but Firefly IS something I want to see in the theatre.
And I'm certain Lucas doesn't care either way about me personally or my actions.
With a big rubber dick. I'll wait until it comes out on DVD and I can rent it.
THIS, however, is something I want to see on opening night.
I think programming is going in two different directions simultaneously: using languages that define away most of the programming bugs, and fixing/monitoring of programming bugs.
Worried about using uninitialized pointers? Use a system that automatically initializes them to a safe location and can dump useful information for debugging - or better yet, one that doesn't have pointers.
Worried about data corruption? Use a copy-on-write system throughout, or use one that can at least spot the bug.
Both of these directions require more processor power and more memory. I think most everyone would be more interested in systems that are stable, resilient, and that can provide good information when they aren't than systems that are just faster.
If having a dual-core proc means I could switch over to using garbage collection everywhere but in the kernel, I would be all over that. If having a dual-core proc meant that I could run a model verification of the code in addition to the code itself, thus providing information about when the code is stuffed, I'd be ecstatic. If all this extra memory and proc could be used to always run code with debugging symbols to where a stack dump could be run with good output, it would be great!
If, on the other hand, all that is used to make sure the secretary's klondike program can have extra animation and noises...that doesn't really thrill me.
Aaaaah, the good old "chinese box" problem.
One of the things that fools people about programming is that they think that the computer "understands" something. If you teach a computer how to win at Tic-Tac-Toe, it doesn't really understand how to play Tic-Tac-Toe. It doesn't "understand" anything. It just does something according to a set of rules that have been defined.
As a side-note amidst my agreeing with you: Goedel would've really fried von Neumann's wig.
Build me a machine that calculates whether or not a program has an infinite loop within it!
[T]o some extent all good papers (or assignments) are alike and can be spotted fairly easily;
Funny enough, I did much better in essay tests the higher up in schooling I went. In upper-division college, I did quite well. I think I was outputting pretty much the same quality of papers (relatively) as a senior in high school, but suddenly I was making A's instead of C's.
Thinking back --- reading all of the A papers in class and trying to figure out why I made a C --- you're right: all of the A papers were eerily similar, often down to the tone. Even if you blacked out the name and wrote my essay up on a typewriter, you could pick mine out of a crowd.
No question that some of mine were bad. I hated regurgitating facts and making obvious statements in essays - I wanted to work on the level of my teachers[1] - so I would gloss over things that were deducible from other portions of the essay, or I would talk about a different section of the work as related to the subject at hand. So I wouldn't have in the key phrases that fit the checklist.
There's a scene in Donnie Darko where his English teacher is reading one of his essays, looks over to the science professor, shakes her head and says "Donnie Darko," suggesting that that explains everything. Of course, it does. That was what my essays were like.
No real point here, just reminiscing. I do think the system is broken, but I have no real suggestions as to how to fix it. Though I would like to add that an oral exam might be thrown in for kicks. Many of these students are able to write an A essay because of its pro forma nature, but are unable to think about the subject material, draw their own conclusions, defend those conclusions, let alone attack weak ones. That's what separates the fact memorizers and those who understand the material[2].
[1] - As a side note, I became disillusioned with high school around the time when I realized that most of my teachers didn't have a higher level they operated at regarding history, chemistry, or English. All they did was teach us these things. This is part of why I liked college so much better: the profs were interested in the material, not just the teaching of that material.
[2] - Oral exams, of course, have a hard time with providing anything but pass/fail, and the potential for personality conflict to make the difference between pass and fail is extremely high. Not really sure what to do about that.
If you don't mind taking a few moments, would you explain to me the difference in this case? As you say, this is an important distinction, and I'd like to make sure I understand it.
There has never been anything out of the creationist camp that resembles science.
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that at one time creationism was a scientific proposition. Much thought was put into it, and men of science and reason believed it as the best explanation of the time.
Much later, more evidence was revealed and better explanations came along. What separates creationism now from creationism then is that back then it was the best explanation to fit the available data. Now, it's an attempt to reject all new data.
At one time, there were competing theories of creationism that were debated, and they didn't just depend upon the bible.
To (approximately) quote Penn and Teller's program Bullshit!, "if your belief in God is based on faith, we've got nothing on you. If, however, you believe that the bible is an accurate and literal telling of early history, you've got another thing coming."
just a quick fact that will work either way in the discussion: more than half (I think it's around 70%) of firearms used in crimes such as robbery were stolen/black-market.
Of course, you could argue that there are more black-market firearms because there are more white-market firearms to steal, and you could argue that it doesn't matter how many restrictions you place on legal ownership, it's illegal ownership that is the problem.
Can't say as I know either way, just thought I'd throw the fact in. And, of course, I can't remember where the fact is from, but I think it's from a DOJ report.
what kind of propoganda do they show the kids in highschool these days that makes (some/most of) them spineless apathetic boobs?
Guess you haven't spent any time in high school lately. I've been out for years myself, but I have a high school student that I mentor, so I tend to get reminded on a regular basis.
The fact is that compliant students are easier to lecture to.
Imagine this situation: you spend all day going from one room to another. In each room you will be lectured to for a period between 45 minutes and an hour-and-a-half. During this time you will be expected to remain passive, any questions leading beyond the lesson will be rejected.
Five days a week, for months at a time.
It induces a passive nature. It's so effective at it that teachers are working on new styles of teaching to "engage" the students. Sometimes known as "active learning" - it's designed to combat the passivity.
On top of this situation, many things are done to keep the students in line and quiet ("non-disruptive"). The system takes itself very seriously, and the level of retaliation is awe-inspiring.
I remember reading once something along the lines of "Teachers constantly tell high school students to 'act like adults.' Of course, this is the last thing they want: if adults were in this situation they would rapidly organize a revolution."
The fact is that students don't know what freedom is. They've been conditioned to not respond to people who try to stir up trouble, and we act surprised when they voice opinions along those lines.
I think Paul Graham is right: one of the best things we could do for high school education is bring back apprenticeships. There's a reason the kids are bored.
Excellent points.
There is an issue with usage base, and it can't be ignored; however, I think it is a sub-issue of desireability. Desireability will at first be limited to bulk purchases, such as for cities, large businesses, etc. The customers are more price-sensitive than consumers, and are willing to invest in technologies to reduce price.
I think the mistake is to think of alternative fuels as an architecture problem requiring massive investment and planning. It is, rather, a organic-type problem, with thing coming around as they are needed - not through magic but through people making purchases that make sense to them.
I think those who will benefit the most are those who are the wisest in purchasing according to their needs, rather than throwing money at low-return investments[1].
[1] - NB: I believe investing $1m in alternative fuel technology right now would be throwing money at low-return high-risk. Investing $1m (adjust for inflation) in 30 years, however, will be a different subject. The point is not that alternative fuels are a bad investment, it's that there are better investments now. This will change.
Since it doesn't exist, would it be cruel to eat a spherical cow?
Anyways. I was replying to a proposal to modify the price so as to effect change. Since it was within the bounds of a working market, I went with the market argument.
I agree that externalities are not being addressed. I believe that they can be addressed through respect for private property and the use of the tort law system: establish land-use torts and contract provisions for them.
The thing of it is that the market doesn't have to be all that near perfect in order for the effect of reduced oil supplies to be felt and compensated for. Even if the government placed a subsidized price cap on oil when supplies were running low, people would make investment decisions based on the information that supplies were running low.
Most importantly, it needs to be understood that reducing oil consumption is not the only positive end out there, it has to be balanced with the others.