Well, except that Sec of State Galvin is a Democrat, not a Republican as Bruce says in his talk. Little mistakes like that chip away at Bruce's credibility. Especialy since Galvin is one of the most, if not the most, prominent Democrats in MA.
"And statist 'communism' as practiced in places like the USSR and China has very little to do with real communist/socialist theory."
Maybe it has very little to do with the wishes and hopes of communist theorists, but statist communism was directly linked to actual communist theories.
I have so much email sitting in Outlook archives that I can't possibly remember everything in there. Further, I also have tons of mailing list archives that contain lots of good information, and Google Desktop is an excellent way to interface with it.
I no longer use Outlook, so Google Desktop is really the only way I see that old email (if GMail let me upload Outlook files and store them for me, this would be moot). Basically, Google Desktop lets me use the info in my old email just as I use info on the web.
Finally, if Google Desktop wasn't integrated into the Google web interface, I would not use it. The whole value of the interface integration is that it lets me go to Google to "search for information", not "search the web". Once I have to think about several place to search, I just, usually, pick the most likely place to be valuable and stick to that (usually the web). But if I can search the web AND usenet AND my desktop/email...well then Google is MUCH more useful than it would be if I had to go to a new place for each of the above.
Anyway, Google Desktop lets me worry about information, not where the information resides. And that is a huge benefit to me because I am lazy.
The justification for the FCC is that airwaves are publicly owned and therefore the public can control the content that goes over them. The FCC is supposed to represent the public.
If governments start to own significant chunks of internet backbone, do you really think they will decline to create an internet FCC or expand the current FCC to the net? Do you really think that a government power grab is worth it if you can get a cheaper broadband line (that will be paid for through taxes anyway)?
Harrison wasn't sued for listening to and being inspired by "He's So Fine", he was sued for using the same music and claiming it was his own. The songs didn't just sound similar, they were the same melody and chords.
You can play the blues without paying Robert Johnson's estate, but you can't play Crossroads and call it your own.
The Civil War is over, buddy. Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee, and good ol' Stonewall are all dead and buried. It's time to let Virginia back into our hearts.
Yes, notice that XM is dedicated to running a profitable business by keeping their costs low and that these actions make their long-term survival more likely. Who wants to buy another Betamax? Not me.
Yes, from this perspective electricity "doesn't matter" because all firms need it. I'll grant the point, but this is a strange way of using the word "matters", isn't it?
IT was once a competitive advantage, but it has become a competitive requirement. When it comes to besting your rivals, it doesn't matter. When it comes to running a business at all, it's essential.
It seems that RFID is a pretty clear refutation to the thesis. RFID will slash inventory costs, while hopefully increasing accurracy. And RFID is clearly Information technology.
RFID will also make some tech dreams closer to reality, eg a fridge that knows what's inside and what needs replacing.
I visited the Stop and Shop with the "Shopping Buddy" that was/.ed a few weeks ago and I think that is another IT that is making a difference. That has the potential to shrink both the labor needed at a supermarket checkout, as well as shrinking the time needed to buy food (it takes so little time to pay for the food, that the bottleneck is bagging groceries!) With RFID the shopping would be even faster, as one could skip the scanning of groceries as one put them in the shopping cart.
All of the RFID worship is meant to provide a counterpoint to the idea that IT doesn't matter. RFID matters and RFID is IT. IT still matters.
Working for a firm is a big risk, as we see from these numbers. It's a truism that there isn't any sort of corporate loyalty to employees; there is just loyalty to quarterly earnings. The people who make jobs, ie employers, don't make them as an end in themselves. They make jobs in order to make money.
Every person in the workforce is working to provide for themselves and is working as a means to that end. (Of course, that isn't always the only end, but it is always an end.) If we think of a firm delegating software engineering to "Anonymous Coward X" when they hire ACX, we can also think of ACX delegating marketing, AR/AP, accounting, etc. to the firm. Sometimes ACX works to help the firm (sometimes he posts at legnth on/.) and sometimes the firm works to help ACX (and sometimes it lays him off unexpectedly.)
There's a risk to delegating your source of income to a firm that doesn't have any loyalty to you. And there are risks to taking all those functions on yourself. But if no one is looking to delegate software engineering, maybe ACX is better off by giving up on finding a firm to take over his revenue generation.
You're absolutely right. So, I guess that the biometric ID would both be more reliable (hopefully) and easier to execute for the staff, which would make it more often executed.
I wonder what the rates of fraud are in situations where biometrics would be plausible and how much biometrics could even, in principle, save money. Presumably it's a large amount if there is serious research into it. But there seems to be big chunks of commerce that are outside biometrics...ecommerce, for example, doesn't seem amenable to biometrics. Is there a parallel solution for those instances of fraud?
Using a credit card typically requires a signature to match against the one on the card's back. Using an ATM/debit card requires a numerical code to match with the bank's records. Are biometrics really a good replacement for the card, or would they be a better replacement for the signature or ATM code? As there will be a secondary piece of ID anyway, why tie up the fingerprint with all the bank info, when the print could be just tied to the ID?
The best definition I can come up with for libertarianism is "the political ideology which is in favor of radical reduction of government power in both social and economic issues". Objectivism is a philosophy that takes stands on many philosophical issues and does not exclusively (or primarily) deal with politics (despite what it might seem like from the rants of some "objecti-dicks". So, all objectivists are libertarians (no matter what they want to say otherwise), but not all libertarians are objectivists.
Some people have characterized the objectivist ethics as rigid. I'm somewhat curious why (I would characterize many objectivists as rigid (like AYn Rand), but not objectivism, per se, and not many of the objectivists I know). Is it because most objectivists are big on claiming "certainty"? Or is it because their system claims complete integration? Or because so many of their solutions to moral dilemmas seems so controversial and yet objectivists stick by those solutions? Or is it just Ayn Rand's often hysterical tone in her essays and books?
I'd like to comment directly on two things:
Furthermore, Objectivism has a strict system of epistemology (reason), metaphysics (objective reality), and aesthetics (strongly resembling the works of Ayn Rand... just kidding, sort of). Libertarians make no judgement on these things, and Objectivists typically use this fact to portray them as a bunch of free-lovin', drug-legalizin', non-judgemental hippie anarchists.
*Some* objectivists typically portray libertarians as anarchists (etcetera, etcetera), but certainly not all of them. And, generally, the objectivists who make such arguments (such as Peter Schwartz) are generally regarded as idiots within the objectivist movement as well as beyond the movement.
Objectivists, however, denounce charitable giving as immoral.
Not so. Objectivists think that charitable giving is great (notice that both of the major objectivist organizations are charities ; ). Seriously, though, charity is a great thing _when it is in your self-interest_, and that is actually quite often (I could write a book about how often things that seem altruistic are actually quite egoistic, but I won't write it in the slashdot comment section : ).
A good rule to use when listening to objectivists talk is if it seems to be too rediculous to be taken seriously, chances are some objectivists agree with you and don't take that position seriously. Many objectivists are very reasonable (while being quite radical at the same time) and many are quite stupid (while being quite offensive at the same time). Objectivism isn't just what Ayn Rand said (or what anyone says she said) its a system of ideas that is alive and being expanded and corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I think it's clear that whole democracy thing ddn't work out.
Even with the mistake, I'll give you props for admitting it in a civil way. Civility is much more important to know than MA politics. :)
Well, except that Sec of State Galvin is a Democrat, not a Republican as Bruce says in his talk. Little mistakes like that chip away at Bruce's credibility. Especialy since Galvin is one of the most, if not the most, prominent Democrats in MA.
On the up-side, eventually you'll grow up and stop measuring yourself against the standards of teenagers.
And if you include non-corporate groups, like government employee unions, then even Halliburton is small potatoes.
"And statist 'communism' as practiced in places like the USSR and China has very little to do with real communist/socialist theory."
Maybe it has very little to do with the wishes and hopes of communist theorists, but statist communism was directly linked to actual communist theories.
Email archives.
I have so much email sitting in Outlook archives that I can't possibly remember everything in there. Further, I also have tons of mailing list archives that contain lots of good information, and Google Desktop is an excellent way to interface with it.
I no longer use Outlook, so Google Desktop is really the only way I see that old email (if GMail let me upload Outlook files and store them for me, this would be moot). Basically, Google Desktop lets me use the info in my old email just as I use info on the web.
Finally, if Google Desktop wasn't integrated into the Google web interface, I would not use it. The whole value of the interface integration is that it lets me go to Google to "search for information", not "search the web". Once I have to think about several place to search, I just, usually, pick the most likely place to be valuable and stick to that (usually the web). But if I can search the web AND usenet AND my desktop/email...well then Google is MUCH more useful than it would be if I had to go to a new place for each of the above.
Anyway, Google Desktop lets me worry about information, not where the information resides. And that is a huge benefit to me because I am lazy.
I write a blog about good guitar exercises. Take a look. http://www.PracticingGuitar.com
"I thought that if it was a tight race you didn't give up."
Perhaps, then, the race is not as tight as it might seem?
Wanna know the difference between Ronald Reagan and the crackhead on 8th avenue? They're both worm food right now.
Is that a difference?
Get some culture, buddy.
Denemo
"How can it be a monopoly, if there is no competition?"
How can it not be a monopoly, if there is no competition?
How can it be a monopoly, if there is competition?
The justification for the FCC is that airwaves are publicly owned and therefore the public can control the content that goes over them. The FCC is supposed to represent the public.
If governments start to own significant chunks of internet backbone, do you really think they will decline to create an internet FCC or expand the current FCC to the net? Do you really think that a government power grab is worth it if you can get a cheaper broadband line (that will be paid for through taxes anyway)?
Harrison wasn't sued for listening to and being inspired by "He's So Fine", he was sued for using the same music and claiming it was his own. The songs didn't just sound similar, they were the same melody and chords.
You can play the blues without paying Robert Johnson's estate, but you can't play Crossroads and call it your own.
There's no great love for Richmond
The Civil War is over, buddy. Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee, and good ol' Stonewall are all dead and buried. It's time to let Virginia back into our hearts.
Even the Great Emancipator has stopped by to say hello.
Well, it's hard to be unique and not rare...
Yes, notice that XM is dedicated to running a profitable business by keeping their costs low and that these actions make their long-term survival more likely. Who wants to buy another Betamax? Not me.
Yes, from this perspective electricity "doesn't matter" because all firms need it. I'll grant the point, but this is a strange way of using the word "matters", isn't it?
IT was once a competitive advantage, but it has become a competitive requirement. When it comes to besting your rivals, it doesn't matter. When it comes to running a business at all, it's essential.
It seems that RFID is a pretty clear refutation to the thesis. RFID will slash inventory costs, while hopefully increasing accurracy. And RFID is clearly Information technology.
/.ed a few weeks ago and I think that is another IT that is making a difference. That has the potential to shrink both the labor needed at a supermarket checkout, as well as shrinking the time needed to buy food (it takes so little time to pay for the food, that the bottleneck is bagging groceries!) With RFID the shopping would be even faster, as one could skip the scanning of groceries as one put them in the shopping cart.
RFID will also make some tech dreams closer to reality, eg a fridge that knows what's inside and what needs replacing.
I visited the Stop and Shop with the "Shopping Buddy" that was
All of the RFID worship is meant to provide a counterpoint to the idea that IT doesn't matter. RFID matters and RFID is IT. IT still matters.
Working for a firm is a big risk, as we see from these numbers. It's a truism that there isn't any sort of corporate loyalty to employees; there is just loyalty to quarterly earnings. The people who make jobs, ie employers, don't make them as an end in themselves. They make jobs in order to make money.
/.) and sometimes the firm works to help ACX (and sometimes it lays him off unexpectedly.)
Every person in the workforce is working to provide for themselves and is working as a means to that end. (Of course, that isn't always the only end, but it is always an end.) If we think of a firm delegating software engineering to "Anonymous Coward X" when they hire ACX, we can also think of ACX delegating marketing, AR/AP, accounting, etc. to the firm. Sometimes ACX works to help the firm (sometimes he posts at legnth on
There's a risk to delegating your source of income to a firm that doesn't have any loyalty to you. And there are risks to taking all those functions on yourself. But if no one is looking to delegate software engineering, maybe ACX is better off by giving up on finding a firm to take over his revenue generation.
You're absolutely right. So, I guess that the biometric ID would both be more reliable (hopefully) and easier to execute for the staff, which would make it more often executed.
I wonder what the rates of fraud are in situations where biometrics would be plausible and how much biometrics could even, in principle, save money. Presumably it's a large amount if there is serious research into it. But there seems to be big chunks of commerce that are outside biometrics...ecommerce, for example, doesn't seem amenable to biometrics. Is there a parallel solution for those instances of fraud?
Using a credit card typically requires a signature to match against the one on the card's back. Using an ATM/debit card requires a numerical code to match with the bank's records. Are biometrics really a good replacement for the card, or would they be a better replacement for the signature or ATM code? As there will be a secondary piece of ID anyway, why tie up the fingerprint with all the bank info, when the print could be just tied to the ID?
The best definition I can come up with for libertarianism is "the political ideology which is in favor of radical reduction of government power in both social and economic issues". Objectivism is a philosophy that takes stands on many philosophical issues and does not exclusively (or primarily) deal with politics (despite what it might seem like from the rants of some "objecti-dicks". So, all objectivists are libertarians (no matter what they want to say otherwise), but not all libertarians are objectivists.
Some people have characterized the objectivist ethics as rigid. I'm somewhat curious why (I would characterize many objectivists as rigid (like AYn Rand), but not objectivism, per se, and not many of the objectivists I know). Is it because most objectivists are big on claiming "certainty"? Or is it because their system claims complete integration? Or because so many of their solutions to moral dilemmas seems so controversial and yet objectivists stick by those solutions? Or is it just Ayn Rand's often hysterical tone in her essays and books?
I'd like to comment directly on two things:
Furthermore, Objectivism has a strict system of epistemology (reason), metaphysics (objective reality), and aesthetics (strongly resembling the works of Ayn Rand ... just kidding, sort of). Libertarians make no judgement on these things, and Objectivists typically use this fact to portray them as a bunch of free-lovin', drug-legalizin', non-judgemental hippie anarchists.
*Some* objectivists typically portray libertarians as anarchists (etcetera, etcetera), but certainly not all of them. And, generally, the objectivists who make such arguments (such as Peter Schwartz) are generally regarded as idiots within the objectivist movement as well as beyond the movement.
Objectivists, however, denounce charitable giving as immoral.
Not so. Objectivists think that charitable giving is great (notice that both of the major objectivist organizations are charities ; ). Seriously, though, charity is a great thing _when it is in your self-interest_, and that is actually quite often (I could write a book about how often things that seem altruistic are actually quite egoistic, but I won't write it in the slashdot comment section : ).
A good rule to use when listening to objectivists talk is if it seems to be too rediculous to be taken seriously, chances are some objectivists agree with you and don't take that position seriously. Many objectivists are very reasonable (while being quite radical at the same time) and many are quite stupid (while being quite offensive at the same time). Objectivism isn't just what Ayn Rand said (or what anyone says she said) its a system of ideas that is alive and being expanded and corrected.
Keep it real-William