No he doesn't, you just need some basic economics and legal knowledge (common sense wouldn't hurt too, but let's not ask too much).
the fact things are overpriced will lead to pirating, because the pirates will either be able to offer it for free, or for a lower cost.
There is no correlation between pricing and piracy, and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary. And thanks for your insight that thieves can offer things they steal for cheaper than a companies that invests a large amount of money into a game--brilliant!
pirates are competition for the companies they pirate from, illegal, yes, but competition nonetheless.
Wow, another amazing insight. Being stolen from is not competition, that's a complete perversion of economics.
and companies also would like something like this done to legal competitors as well, kinda sad. but still, the parent has a good point.
Is this anything other than typical anti-corporate babbling?
I know you were trying to show that XP is significantly more stable than 98, NT4, etc., but perhaps you should pick a different metric.:)
My work machine was Redhat 7.1, and its uptime was 356 days I think. I was sad to turn it off, but I was moving floors.
Yeah, I know 19 days isn't that impressive (EXCEPT compared to 95/98/me). I worked at the school library a summer ago, and used the same workstation every single day--it was just your basic Dell XP box--it was at 90 some days uptime by the end of the summer. XP can be really goodeven in comparison with nix/bsd oses. Won't dispute that unixey operating systems still have it beat in general though--I've got a freebsd server in the 100's since the last power outage.
It's the.net runtime framework i'm in morbid fear of.
So are you scared of glibc? libc? the MS c++ stdlibraries? MFC classes? Because they're the same thing buddy! I think you don't understand what.net is..
And yes, I do give MCSE's a bad name; I've run slackware since version 1.2 ('93-'94?), and if a biz client is running winXP, I refuse to work on it.
Woopie, good for you. I've run FreeBSD for 7 years and RedHat since version 4, if you want to play a pissing contest, we're all dorks here on slashdot:-p And as for refusing to run XP? THat's honestly your loss-XP is far and away my favorite MS OS I've ever run. My uptime is 19 days as of right now, if you were wondering.
I resent the "giving pagans a bad name" statement, though.
Well if all pagan libertarians are happy with being paranoid anti-MS zealots, then I guess I complimented them.
The page seems to indicate that the.net runtime might be installed on your machine if you execute the download; can anyone who has done it confirm this for me? I don't want to have to drive a wooden stake through my CPU. I'm a MCSE, but I would never purposfully allow.net in my house. it activates all my tin foil hat's little buzzers and lights.
What the hell? Informative? You're afraid of a program library? Do you not have any clue wthat.net is?
It's users like you that give MCSE's a bad name (and pagan libertarians as well).
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
Do you know that the US produces and consumes 25 percent of the world's power and yet has only 4 percent of the world's population? Yet you think that the US has a negative effect on CO2 production?
Yes, And what country has the highest economic output? You act as if all this energy consumption was going into a blackhole--in reality the US is still the economic and industrial powerhouse of the world. Does efficiency mean nothing to you?
IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe the way federal law works is that this would define a minimum--if states wanted to do MORE than the minimum, that's fine.
The extremely simple answer is BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BUY THEM for that much money--if people didn't think that was a worthwhile transcation, nobody would ever buy music soundtracks! What gives you the right to be the arbitrary arbiter of prices? I don't see what makes you so much smarter than everyone else.
I recommend Nobel prize winner Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for a comprehensive explanation of why communist/socialist societies must inevitably devolve into dictatorships.
And I couldn't help to notice that you avoided the slavery analogy. So is slavery a property right or is it not?
As a libertarian I would say that no, slavery is not a property right, _however_ you can sell your labor to anyone you want. That's not slavery though. You have the freedom to work for whoever you want (and they have the freedom to hire you, or not).
What's the mater, aren't you pro american, don't you believe in property rights, commerce, and business, how will the plantations recover their costs and be profitable without slaves? You answer that question, and I'll answer yours.
I think I answered that above, but I'll restate some points I made earlier--plantations were uneconomic before the end of slavery. That's one of the reasons why the south was so far behind the north economically and in most other ways. In addition, plantations were only really viable for a short window of time, and in certain geographic areas (and there weren't even that many big plantations in exist). I'm really not fond of this example... There is no choice, no freedom in slavery (duh), slaves are the subject of violence and force. That is why slavery is not a right.
What the hell, I consider myself libertarian, these two sentences pretty much sum up your whole problem. Free markets and property rights are rights that exist inspite of government, not because of it
Natural rights.. ok, so I take it you're an archo-capitalist then? Well that's weird, because most anarchos like corps. Let me put it this way, I am a libertarian, and the government exists solely to protect individual rights.
AND, being a libertarian has NOTHING to do with being against greed (I take it you've never read Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness) and being libertarian doesn't mean you don't believe in IP either. For instance, Boaz, director of the Cato institute (one of the most highly regharded libertarian thinktanks if you're not familiar with it) believes in intellectual property in perpetuity--we're not talking 76 years, with a possible extension, we're talking for EVER--no one can take it from you, unless of course you say it's ok, sell it, trade it etc. A work is property like any other.
And I can't help but notice, that you've yet again failed to have any possible suggestion about how in magical fearie land where corporations are not allwoed to be greedy and property rights aren't allowed to be enforced (doesn't sound libertarian to me) any company..ANY COMPANY..could hope to make a go of it. Forget just drug companies.. You would destroy the engine of world prosperity for some imagined egalitarian ideals.
And I'll explain it to you again. The road to prosperity comes thru maing freedom an end in itself and not greed.
You want to decode that sentence for me? I have no clue what you're getting at that, and I quite frankly can't believe you have ANY evidence to backup whatever you're saying. Prosperity has come through free markets, free societies, and free governments--the same system that you are now trying to destroy by destroying property rights.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the only possible meaning I could get out of your sentence was that you want people to be free, but only free as you define it--for instance, people can't be free to follow their own desires, they have to be slaves to the collective will. That's not freedom bro.
Maybe some drug companies will go bankrupt, maybe some plantations will too. I don't give a crap, there are things infinitely more important.
Well I guess you're happy to just sit by and say "fuck you" to everyone that has a problem not solved by existing technology or an untreatable disease (I guess that's what you're getting at in the above paragraph) however I prefer to see forward progress, and the same progress that has made more people today live longer, healthier lives--well, I'm happy to see that continue. I guess you're still lusting after Maoist and Stalinist gulags huh?
Once you stop asserting sone poorly thought out notion that there exists some kind of a right to restrict how others use ideas and inventions then the solutions will present themselves.
Ok, let's just for a minute throw out your theoretical "maybes" and "the solution will MAGICALLY present itself--I believe in faeries!" and answer my question--if companies can't make money developing VERY expensive drugs, then who is going to have the money to invest in research and development and testing? Who is going to support the thousands of scientists that no longer have jobs thanks to you? I can't believe that you would be so cruel as to destroy the livelihoods of all those thousands, maybe even millions employed in such a noble pursuit--that's truly heartless.
Maybe, you won't like them, maybe how things turn out will suck for you. I have no sympathy because plenty of other people are needlessly dying because of the way things are now.
You're damn right I wouldn't like that future, and not just for myself, because it would be a trainwreck for all of the planet. People needlessly dying? I suppose you want some form of government control (your type usually merely wants to replace "corporation" with "government"). Well, let's just do a brief comparison of how many millions, MILLIONS of innocents have died under socialist regimes, versus free, capitalist societies. Stalin, Marx, Mao--are you an admirer of theirs? If you are, I suggest you look at the figures, and see which type of society needlessly wastes life.
Patnets need to die and they will one way or the other, deal with it.
Well isn't that the point. That's like asking how will the plantation masters ever make any money without slaves, ever recover the large cost of purchase and of running a plantation?
That's a wretched example. Did you ever stop to think and wonder why slavery didn't spread outside of the south? Why it never caught on in the north, in factories, in the west, etc? It's quite simple--slavery wasn't economical! Yes it's true, there were political and religious factors LATER on, but had slavery been more economical, you can bet it would have spread far more than it did.
Besides the inaccuracy of your assumptions, I fail to see any parallels between a company spending hundreds of millions, paying hundreds of SCIENTISTS, to create drugs, and slave labor. In fact, I think we both know you just went for a standard nonfactual polemicist argument.
Of course the answer is that the road to prosperity cones thru making freedom an end in itself and not greed. Patents are not about incentive, not about freedom, not about R&D but controll and greed. That's why they are so inherently evil and need to go away.
You can spread dogmatic blither blather all you want, but you didn't address a single one of my points, except with a terribly flawed example that even had your assumptions been correct would not at all have been pertinent.
I ask you again--if a drug company spends hundreds of millions of dollars developing a new drug (and provides the livelihood of hundreds, if not thousands of employees), and a competitor can simply copy that drug and sell it at their cost to produce (minus R&D), how can the original company make any money? How can they be expected to develop any further treatments without money? If there's no money to be made in drugs, how can you expect any drugs at all to be developed?
If you have a coherent answer for this question (and I would appreciate it if you don't ramble off again into poorly defined rants about the "evil patents" -- if you just have that nonsense to spew again, please don't bother posting) I would honestly love to hear it.
How are drug companies that spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars developing drugs supposed to compete when a company can simply replicate their drugs for a penny, without the R&D costs?
How can they possibly make enough money to pay their scientists, to buy equipment, to fund studies, etc?
Well, I totally agree with your point, but just as an addendum--after checking one online site, you can order 512mb ddr ram for $70. I got my 512mb sdram for $54 3 years ago. I think it's a safe assumption that prices will be signifigantly lower in 2 years.
Yes, you are correct: the artificial intelligence embodied in these anti-spam solutions are not more accurate than a human who actually reads the message body. But they are still better than humans at sorting mail.
But that's not the point! You could hire someone to read your email and classify as Spam or not spam, and I doubt they would EVER mess up. Do you disagree with this?
You're missing the point! Humans aren't 100% accurate on classifying JUST on the subject and From lines, but I don't see how we aren't when reading the body.
I'm not sure that's true either--it's definitely true that the hardline conservatives are not supported by huge numbers of people. BUT, the reformists have been said to lack credibility, for 4 or 5 years of no progress. Read comment boards like on the BBC Persian, people in Iran are simply fed up with everyone (and rightfully so).
Actually the "an/en" suffix is much much older than Dutch, or German, or Indo-Germanic languages -- like I said, it's a very old Indo-European language feature. And since English isn't purely Indo-Germanic, or Romance, or anything, it has features from multiple families.
Don't mean to be pedantic--but you wouldn't say "get a boxen" because boxen is plural.
etymologically it's an old way (well, old in English) of pluralizing that we only see in a few words...child children, brother brethren is similiar too. Interestingly enough, Persian being an Indo-European language has it too--Taleban (-an) is students (pl).
What exactly does that mean? The US has one of the most open space programs, compare to the Russians historically for instance (if you don't know what I mean, I'd be glad to provide some examples)
Slashdot Mirror
he has a decent point.
No he doesn't, you just need some basic economics and legal knowledge (common sense wouldn't hurt too, but let's not ask too much).
the fact things are overpriced will lead to pirating, because the pirates will either be able to offer it for free, or for a lower cost.
There is no correlation between pricing and piracy, and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary. And thanks for your insight that thieves can offer things they steal for cheaper than a companies that invests a large amount of money into a game--brilliant!
pirates are competition for the companies they pirate from, illegal, yes, but competition nonetheless.
Wow, another amazing insight. Being stolen from is not competition, that's a complete perversion of economics.
and companies also would like something like this done to legal competitors as well, kinda sad. but still, the parent has a good point.
Is this anything other than typical anti-corporate babbling?
I know you were trying to show that XP is significantly more stable than 98, NT4, etc., but perhaps you should pick a different metric. :)
My work machine was Redhat 7.1, and its uptime was 356 days I think. I was sad to turn it off, but I was moving floors.
Yeah, I know 19 days isn't that impressive (EXCEPT compared to 95/98/me). I worked at the school library a summer ago, and used the same workstation every single day--it was just your basic Dell XP box--it was at 90 some days uptime by the end of the summer. XP can be really goodeven in comparison with nix/bsd oses. Won't dispute that unixey operating systems still have it beat in general though--I've got a freebsd server in the 100's since the last power outage.
It's the .net runtime framework i'm in morbid fear of.
So are you scared of glibc? libc? the MS c++ stdlibraries? MFC classes? Because they're the same thing buddy! I think you don't understand what .net is..
And yes, I do give MCSE's a bad name; I've run slackware since version 1.2 ('93-'94?), and if a biz client is running winXP, I refuse to work on it.
Woopie, good for you. I've run FreeBSD for 7 years and RedHat since version 4, if you want to play a pissing contest, we're all dorks here on slashdot :-p And as for refusing to run XP? THat's honestly your loss-XP is far and away my favorite MS OS I've ever run. My uptime is 19 days as of right now, if you were wondering.
I resent the "giving pagans a bad name" statement, though.
Well if all pagan libertarians are happy with being paranoid anti-MS zealots, then I guess I complimented them.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07 -22&res=l
The page seems to indicate that the .net runtime might be installed on your machine if you execute the download; can anyone who has done it confirm this for me? I don't want to have to drive a wooden stake through my CPU. .net in my house. it activates all my tin foil hat's little buzzers and lights.
I'm a MCSE, but I would never purposfully allow
What the hell? Informative? You're afraid of a program library? Do you not have any clue wthat .net is?
It's users like you that give MCSE's a bad name (and pagan libertarians as well).
Do you know that the US produces and consumes 25 percent of the world's power and yet has only 4 percent of the world's population? Yet you think that the US has a negative effect on CO2 production?
Yes, And what country has the highest economic output? You act as if all this energy consumption was going into a blackhole--in reality the US is still the economic and industrial powerhouse of the world. Does efficiency mean nothing to you?
IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt, but I believe the way federal law works is that this would define a minimum--if states wanted to do MORE than the minimum, that's fine.
The extremely simple answer is BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BUY THEM for that much money--if people didn't think that was a worthwhile transcation, nobody would ever buy music soundtracks! What gives you the right to be the arbitrary arbiter of prices? I don't see what makes you so much smarter than everyone else.
Interesting theory, but doesn't really stand up. Check out: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemograph ics.asp?cycle=2004
Also, check out the whole site..pretty interesting!
I recommend Nobel prize winner Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for a comprehensive explanation of why communist/socialist societies must inevitably devolve into dictatorships.
No, I disagree strongly.
Companies are not out modifying BitTorrent. They have no reason to favor MIT over GPL.
That would have been a good point, IF you were right about companies not modifying BitTorrent. Check out Blizzard!
And I couldn't help to notice that you avoided the slavery analogy. So is slavery a property right or is it not?
As a libertarian I would say that no, slavery is not a property right, _however_ you can sell your labor to anyone you want. That's not slavery though. You have the freedom to work for whoever you want (and they have the freedom to hire you, or not).
What's the mater, aren't you pro american, don't you believe in property rights, commerce, and business, how will the plantations recover their costs and be profitable without slaves? You answer that question, and I'll answer yours.
I think I answered that above, but I'll restate some points I made earlier--plantations were uneconomic before the end of slavery. That's one of the reasons why the south was so far behind the north economically and in most other ways. In addition, plantations were only really viable for a short window of time, and in certain geographic areas (and there weren't even that many big plantations in exist). I'm really not fond of this example... There is no choice, no freedom in slavery (duh), slaves are the subject of violence and force. That is why slavery is not a right.
Good answer?
What the hell, I consider myself libertarian, these two sentences pretty much sum up your whole problem. Free markets and property rights are rights that exist inspite of government, not because of it
Natural rights.. ok, so I take it you're an archo-capitalist then? Well that's weird, because most anarchos like corps. Let me put it this way, I am a libertarian, and the government exists solely to protect individual rights.
AND, being a libertarian has NOTHING to do with being against greed (I take it you've never read Ayn Rand's Virtue of Selfishness) and being libertarian doesn't mean you don't believe in IP either. For instance, Boaz, director of the Cato institute (one of the most highly regharded libertarian thinktanks if you're not familiar with it) believes in intellectual property in perpetuity--we're not talking 76 years, with a possible extension, we're talking for EVER--no one can take it from you, unless of course you say it's ok, sell it, trade it etc. A work is property like any other.
And I can't help but notice, that you've yet again failed to have any possible suggestion about how in magical fearie land where corporations are not allwoed to be greedy and property rights aren't allowed to be enforced (doesn't sound libertarian to me) any company..ANY COMPANY..could hope to make a go of it. Forget just drug companies.. You would destroy the engine of world prosperity for some imagined egalitarian ideals.
And I'll explain it to you again. The road to prosperity comes thru maing freedom an end in itself and not greed.
You want to decode that sentence for me? I have no clue what you're getting at that, and I quite frankly can't believe you have ANY evidence to backup whatever you're saying. Prosperity has come through free markets, free societies, and free governments--the same system that you are now trying to destroy by destroying property rights.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the only possible meaning I could get out of your sentence was that you want people to be free, but only free as you define it--for instance, people can't be free to follow their own desires, they have to be slaves to the collective will. That's not freedom bro.
Maybe some drug companies will go bankrupt, maybe some plantations will too. I don't give a crap, there are things infinitely more important.
Well I guess you're happy to just sit by and say "fuck you" to everyone that has a problem not solved by existing technology or an untreatable disease (I guess that's what you're getting at in the above paragraph) however I prefer to see forward progress, and the same progress that has made more people today live longer, healthier lives--well, I'm happy to see that continue. I guess you're still lusting after Maoist and Stalinist gulags huh?
Once you stop asserting sone poorly thought out notion that there exists some kind of a right to restrict how others use ideas and inventions then the solutions will present themselves.
Ok, let's just for a minute throw out your theoretical "maybes" and "the solution will MAGICALLY present itself--I believe in faeries!" and answer my question--if companies can't make money developing VERY expensive drugs, then who is going to have the money to invest in research and development and testing? Who is going to support the thousands of scientists that no longer have jobs thanks to you? I can't believe that you would be so cruel as to destroy the livelihoods of all those thousands, maybe even millions employed in such a noble pursuit--that's truly heartless.
Maybe, you won't like them, maybe how things turn out will suck for you. I have no sympathy because plenty of other people are needlessly dying because of the way things are now.
You're damn right I wouldn't like that future, and not just for myself, because it would be a trainwreck for all of the planet. People needlessly dying? I suppose you want some form of government control (your type usually merely wants to replace "corporation" with "government"). Well, let's just do a brief comparison of how many millions, MILLIONS of innocents have died under socialist regimes, versus free, capitalist societies. Stalin, Marx, Mao--are you an admirer of theirs? If you are, I suggest you look at the figures, and see which type of society needlessly wastes life.
Patnets need to die and they will one way or the other, deal with it.
Sure, whatever you say bro.
Well isn't that the point. That's like asking how will the plantation masters ever make any money without slaves, ever recover the large cost of purchase and of running a plantation?
That's a wretched example. Did you ever stop to think and wonder why slavery didn't spread outside of the south? Why it never caught on in the north, in factories, in the west, etc? It's quite simple--slavery wasn't economical! Yes it's true, there were political and religious factors LATER on, but had slavery been more economical, you can bet it would have spread far more than it did.
Besides the inaccuracy of your assumptions, I fail to see any parallels between a company spending hundreds of millions, paying hundreds of SCIENTISTS, to create drugs, and slave labor. In fact, I think we both know you just went for a standard nonfactual polemicist argument.
Of course the answer is that the road to prosperity cones thru making freedom an end in itself and not greed. Patents are not about incentive, not about freedom, not about R&D but controll and greed. That's why they are so inherently evil and need to go away.
You can spread dogmatic blither blather all you want, but you didn't address a single one of my points, except with a terribly flawed example that even had your assumptions been correct would not at all have been pertinent.
I ask you again--if a drug company spends hundreds of millions of dollars developing a new drug (and provides the livelihood of hundreds, if not thousands of employees), and a competitor can simply copy that drug and sell it at their cost to produce (minus R&D), how can the original company make any money? How can they be expected to develop any further treatments without money? If there's no money to be made in drugs, how can you expect any drugs at all to be developed?
If you have a coherent answer for this question (and I would appreciate it if you don't ramble off again into poorly defined rants about the "evil patents" -- if you just have that nonsense to spew again, please don't bother posting) I would honestly love to hear it.
How are drug companies that spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars developing drugs supposed to compete when a company can simply replicate their drugs for a penny, without the R&D costs?
How can they possibly make enough money to pay their scientists, to buy equipment, to fund studies, etc?
Do you have any ideas?
Well, I totally agree with your point, but just as an addendum--after checking one online site, you can order 512mb ddr ram for $70. I got my 512mb sdram for $54 3 years ago. I think it's a safe assumption that prices will be signifigantly lower in 2 years.
Ok, I think we'll just plain disagree here then :)
Yes, you are correct: the artificial intelligence embodied in these anti-spam solutions are not more accurate than a human who actually reads the message body. But they are still better than humans at sorting mail.
But that's not the point! You could hire someone to read your email and classify as Spam or not spam, and I doubt they would EVER mess up. Do you disagree with this?
THAT'S the point.
You're missing the point! Humans aren't 100% accurate on classifying JUST on the subject and From lines, but I don't see how we aren't when reading the body.
I'm not sure that's true either--it's definitely true that the hardline conservatives are not supported by huge numbers of people. BUT, the reformists have been said to lack credibility, for 4 or 5 years of no progress. Read comment boards like on the BBC Persian, people in Iran are simply fed up with everyone (and rightfully so).
Why does a post which contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation get modded informative as opposed to offtopic ?
Is there a Legion of English Teachers conspiring in Slashdot ?
Clearly there is NOT! If you had read my post you would know that english teachers would have no part of saying the word boxen! ;)
Look at it this way--boxen is a part of geek culture, and you'd be hard pressed to find another source of concentrated geek culture like slashdot.
Actually the "an/en" suffix is much much older than Dutch, or German, or Indo-Germanic languages -- like I said, it's a very old Indo-European language feature. And since English isn't purely Indo-Germanic, or Romance, or anything, it has features from multiple families.
Don't mean to be pedantic--but you wouldn't say "get a boxen" because boxen is plural.
etymologically it's an old way (well, old in English) of pluralizing that we only see in a few words...child children, brother brethren is similiar too. Interestingly enough, Persian being an Indo-European language has it too--Taleban (-an) is students (pl).
What exactly does that mean? The US has one of the most open space programs, compare to the Russians historically for instance (if you don't know what I mean, I'd be glad to provide some examples)
Yeah, you and the others are right--a true error on my part. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.