how about teaching responsibility, rather than teaching them to depend on others to make sure they don't do something wrong.
No, how about teaching responsibility (in this case, safe driving and not being a douche who talks on the cellphone, etc) and PUNISHING people who are dangerous and do something wrong.
You can be as responsible and as good a driver as the world has ever seen, but all it takes is one driver yapping on a cellphone running a light, or one person grabbing for that gummy bear that slipped away and merging into your lane, and everything YOU can do as a driver is irrelevant.
I still think you're absolutely as wrong and dangerous as when we first had this conversation, and you still don't get it, but hey, cheers for consistency at least!
Ah, the point at which someone starts resorting to childish ad hominems and still refuses to answer my questions tells me that I'm usually right...
This isn't some debatable point, it's not some obscure economic theory, it's something that is instantly and blatantly obvious
This just shows--yet again, though you've still refused to answer--that you lack experience in any field that would be affected by your policies. Some areas can be offshored relatively easily and can save money. Others can't. At the company where I am currently working we partnered with an Indian company on one project as an experiment. The initial costs looked far lower, but due to QC, shipping overruns, time and communications delays, it turned out to be more expensive. The good ole American worker was cheaper. The DPA deduction doesn't hurt either!
You can sit and whine about cheap steel all you want
Cheap steel was one example. In reality the impact of your market controls would be systemic and across the board.
less jobs on average means lower wages on average, so in the end most people came out the same.
Your claim is that average wages have gone DOWN over the past 2 decades (your timeframe?)? Please verify.
Look, it's really simple. When you make it so expensive to do business in the US, you make manufactured goods from overseas all the cheaper. If an American car manufacturer has to pay for highly taxed steel, highly taxed computer parts, highly taxed engines, etc, the final result is going to be even MORE expensive than a car manufactured entirely outside of the country.
Furthermore, if we tax everyone else's products into oblivion, don't you think everyone else is going to do the same to our goods? You've just made it unappealing for foreign companies to build manufacturing plants in the US. You've made it far more expensive for EVERY consumer. You've also made every other country in the world far less likely to buy MORE expensive American goods, that they will also tax.
How is that a good thing?
The way to improve markets is to make it easier for companies to do business, and to lower the burden that the unproductive classes leech of of the productive.
When gas prices went up, UPS and all other shipping firms raised their prices. Working in a business that ships a lot of good and receives a lot of shipments, this made our costs rise by a great deal. We are a small company and have been forced to raise some of our prices. This gets passed on to everybody. Now everybody has to pay higher gas prices for their cars, higher shipping costs to get our products, and higher prices for our products because they are more expensive. Thus consumers are impacted far more than you would expect by a cursory investigation--they pay the price for more expensive gas time and time again.
You said you wanted to raise the price of foreign goods. So now those cheap foreign tshirts are going to be gone, and I'm going to have to buy more expensive products. My japanese car is going to be more expensive, so I'll have less money to spend on anything else. That's the obvious part--you're obviously fine with that (and I'm sure you have the means to support yourself in a far more expensive society..), so, let's move on.
If Chinese steels becomes more expensive, who suffers? Business suffers, and everybody suffers through higher prices. Maybe some few jobs are briefly created, but a lot of other business are going to go out of business because they cn't afford to create their products without cheap steel.
Now, for someone like you, who refused to answer my question about what jobs you've worked, you not doubt work in a highly intellectual field--probably something like programming or computer related--IT? (given that we're on slashdot--and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)--you're probably entirely insulated from this world. You probably don't work in manufacturing or know anybody who does. It's a few more dollars out of your pocket, but you're making plenty anyway, so what does it matter. What you're doing is dooming entirely entire classes of business. You make it exponentially more expensive to do manufacturing here, and you're going to kill ALL manufacturing here as a result.
You would kill the economy in your misguided effort to control the economy as you see fit.
My car is made in Japan because it's better. My computer is made in China because it's cheaper. My clothes are made in China because they are cheaper. No one is putting a gun to my--or anybody else's--head and forcing me to buy the best product for the least amount of money. Where American products are better, they do well. Your misguided attempts to control people's actions according to your standards and what you what want, how YOU think people should act, is in short, a disaster, and would completely doom our economy.
If you don't mind my asking, what kind of jobs have you held?
I'm not so sure people are going to be ready to pay the high price for many goods manufactured in American...seems unfair that it would disproportionately affect the poorer quarters of the economy?
What markets are you particularly interested in protecting?
So you're proposing that we tax any foreign company doing business in the US at an exorbitant rate to punish them for not being American? I don't think that's going to go over well, and will cost a heck of a lot of jobs!
What you're saying exactly misses the point of what I'm saying. The US is not the world anymore. We lack the ability to do what you want to do. If we do tax corporations that "outsource jobs" or create new centers in other countries, or even that want to move headquarters to us, do you not think that everybody else in the world is going to stop business coming to us as well? Why should foreign corporations stand by in such a situation? And the next time an American company is involved in an International merger, where do you think the combined entity will be based? You are proposing the exact kind of isolationism and protectionism that is no longer possible.
Because liking your country is bad when Americans do it but it's good for South Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and anyone else. But not Americans. Americans who like their country and are proud of American success are "fools". Right?
Woa there, I think you might have misunderstood me! *I* am a big fan of American exceptionalism, I think we're the best, and while there are plenty of places around the world I enjoy visiting and still want to visit, this is the only place where I want to live.
One thing that I imagine can be agreed upon (?) is that despite Obama's protestations to the contrary, his plans will only increase this flow. Or do you think that corporations with business and arms around the world will want to stick around for higher tax rates and an administration that has relied on anti-corporate populism?
Why should corporations want to stay in an environment becoming increasingly hostile? Public perception of many corporations (and certainly "the corporation") is justifiably dismal. The next president will no doubt raise business taxes. Doesn't it make sense to move to somewhere like Ireland? People make this same kind of decision all the time when deciding where to live.
One of the interesting things in these discussions is that so many people betray how utterly insular they are. The economy is global and it's easier than ever to move around the world and communicate around the world. The difference between Ireland and the US (or the US and China, India, Slovakia, Russia, etc ad infinitum) ain't what it was 50 years ago. American exceptionalism is commonly laughed at as something for fools and demagogues, yet everyone who rants about how corporations should be taxed higher and how corporations shouldn't be allowed to go overseas are betraying their own beliefs.
I believe in right and wrong. I would think that even if you don't have a problem with music piracy on an individual level, that you would think that SELLING someone else's music would be a problem.
This is the point at which so many of the idealistic-claiming music sharers completely fall apart. Fine, you believe music should be free (or cheaper, or whatever your pet argument is), great. When you're perfectly willing for a Russian site to selling music from the around the world completely illegally, you cross the line, and it becomes blatantly obvious you just want free music..
Wow, you cite Allofmp3.com as an example? You do realize it's like...totally illegal, right? Sure it's cheap to sell something if you don't have to buy it in the first place? Speaking of which, I've got a great bridge you might be interested in...
I don't understand the whining about a $1 mp3. I can understand complaining about lossless to a degree. I can understand complaining about DRM. But $1? That's less than a can of coke, a swig of beer, less than a big mac, etc etc.
Then again it seems that most people do NOT agree with your assessments, as the itunes store (and others) are doing very well selling songs for a dollar.
Why not lossless? Because most people don't care that much?
15 cents a song? I think you would take a BEATING on server costs, bandwidth costs, staff costs, and credit card processing costs. But hey, if you want start a service selling tracks for 15 cents, be my guest!
For me (and I would guess a lot of people) itunes store works fine. I rarely if ever buy a whole CD, just single tracks--impulse buys. Don't really care too much if its lossless as most of the time the encoding sounds good enough for me on my etymotic headphones, my laptop shit speakers, and my sound system.
Then again, I'm only a wannabe borderline semi-audiophile;)
I boycott most music as well, but just because it sucks. The best music (IMO of course) was made in the 80's and 90's. The VAST majority of my downloaded music is content that I originally had a CD for, but have lost over the course of several moves.
That's funny, I boycott music from the 80s and 90s.;-)
Look forward to the generation that things the 00's and 10s had the best music, and be afraid...
Neat idea, but there are a mile of comments between each page, making it quite hard to scroll through it all. Now if re-pagination could figure out just what the content from each page was and include just that...
What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
Ok, so since you have failed to answer the question twice, I'm guessing you don't REALLY have a problem with this?
Microsoft can put out new kernels for WinXP and above that disallows any installation of anything that wants to run at Ring-0 unless it comes from Microsoft Windows Update.
Wow are you serious...? You're advocating a Microsoft operating system that will not support any hardware, unless MICROSOFT approves it. Talk about DRM/TPM etc! Whatever happened to the slashdot values of more power to the users? You're advocating Microsoft requiring users to update their entire operating system just to support new hardware? Talk about being locked into the upgrade cycle..unbelievable. I can't believe you honestly believe these things?
It is precisely the fact that so many apps want to insert their code into the OS that causes a lot of such instability.
For the third time, What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
For years I have been advising people that run Windows not to install more than a very small handful of apps. The reason for this is clear -- the way things are now, if you run more than a handful of apps, you will kill your machine's performance.
Nonsense.
You ARE correct that your average Dell/etc has a bunch of junk installed. iTunes/ipod/quicktime is amongst the worst. What does that have to do with Microsoft? If you recall, MS has had a few court difficulties with regards to requiring distributors to bundle/not bundle software...are you advocating that Microsoft should be able to control what Dell, HP, etc bundle with their computers? I have a hard time believing that's what you really want...
You see, that's the problem: Most people, like you, assume that because people know your name, they must be your friends; the ones you "hang out" with.
If you had ever had a social life, you would see the fallacy of this assumption.
Wow, harsh, thanks for the anonymous forum flame though, always nice to know the Internet is unchanging:)
If you actually read my post, I didn't say a thing about your "friends"... in fact I used the term "hang out" that you did and included a smiley emoticon at the end of the post.
I said I used a browser more than any other application. You then said you didn't. Now you're saying maybe you do? (or xterm wins):p
Honestly, I'm not really sure where we are disagreeing anymore. You even mention a kernel scheduling multiple tabs (presumably via threads or processes), etc. I don't disagree. I'm arguing with the original statement that the browser SHOULD be a light-weight application. The browser is what a browser is, and as the web gets richer, browsers get bigger. As people do more and more activities in their browser, it's only natural that the browser becomes a more rich development platform and user interface.
In answer to your question, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a conventional text editor. I use vi myself..
Apple for not testing their driver and Microsoft for making there approval process nothing but a way to get money. WHQL= I paid Microsoft but it still could be total crap.
I think you might still be confused?
I believe the driver is NOT WHQL approved. Last time I installed iTunes I got the unapproved driver popup at least...do you have further information?
You should go over the list of files that get installed with a wide variety of apps.
What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
how common is it for Windows apps to require Administrator privileges to run?
Increasingly uncommon. When we first switched to roaming desktops at my office around 7 years ago, it was a big problem. Even everyday apps like Wordperfect malfunctioned without admin privileges. I personally can't remember the last time we've had a problem like this. With Vista, it's a bit more important that apps follow the guidelines, and I think this problem has diminished further.
There are plenty of [unpopular] things they can do to fix or reverse the problem, but they won't because they fear losing their large developer base.
Slashdot Mirror
how about teaching responsibility, rather than teaching them to depend on others to make sure they don't do something wrong.
No, how about teaching responsibility (in this case, safe driving and not being a douche who talks on the cellphone, etc) and PUNISHING people who are dangerous and do something wrong.
You can be as responsible and as good a driver as the world has ever seen, but all it takes is one driver yapping on a cellphone running a light, or one person grabbing for that gummy bear that slipped away and merging into your lane, and everything YOU can do as a driver is irrelevant.
Ah yes, that's you alright!
I still think you're absolutely as wrong and dangerous as when we first had this conversation, and you still don't get it, but hey, cheers for consistency at least!
God, you're dumb, aren't you?
Ah, the point at which someone starts resorting to childish ad hominems and still refuses to answer my questions tells me that I'm usually right...
This isn't some debatable point, it's not some obscure economic theory, it's something that is instantly and blatantly obvious
This just shows--yet again, though you've still refused to answer--that you lack experience in any field that would be affected by your policies. Some areas can be offshored relatively easily and can save money. Others can't. At the company where I am currently working we partnered with an Indian company on one project as an experiment. The initial costs looked far lower, but due to QC, shipping overruns, time and communications delays, it turned out to be more expensive. The good ole American worker was cheaper. The DPA deduction doesn't hurt either!
You can sit and whine about cheap steel all you want
Cheap steel was one example. In reality the impact of your market controls would be systemic and across the board.
less jobs on average means lower wages on average, so in the end most people came out the same.
Your claim is that average wages have gone DOWN over the past 2 decades (your timeframe?)? Please verify.
Look, it's really simple. When you make it so expensive to do business in the US, you make manufactured goods from overseas all the cheaper. If an American car manufacturer has to pay for highly taxed steel, highly taxed computer parts, highly taxed engines, etc, the final result is going to be even MORE expensive than a car manufactured entirely outside of the country.
Furthermore, if we tax everyone else's products into oblivion, don't you think everyone else is going to do the same to our goods? You've just made it unappealing for foreign companies to build manufacturing plants in the US. You've made it far more expensive for EVERY consumer. You've also made every other country in the world far less likely to buy MORE expensive American goods, that they will also tax.
How is that a good thing?
The way to improve markets is to make it easier for companies to do business, and to lower the burden that the unproductive classes leech of of the productive.
Aren't you the guy who was arguing that it was perfectly safe to eat and use your cellphone while driving?
When gas prices went up, UPS and all other shipping firms raised their prices. Working in a business that ships a lot of good and receives a lot of shipments, this made our costs rise by a great deal. We are a small company and have been forced to raise some of our prices. This gets passed on to everybody. Now everybody has to pay higher gas prices for their cars, higher shipping costs to get our products, and higher prices for our products because they are more expensive. Thus consumers are impacted far more than you would expect by a cursory investigation--they pay the price for more expensive gas time and time again.
You said you wanted to raise the price of foreign goods. So now those cheap foreign tshirts are going to be gone, and I'm going to have to buy more expensive products. My japanese car is going to be more expensive, so I'll have less money to spend on anything else. That's the obvious part--you're obviously fine with that (and I'm sure you have the means to support yourself in a far more expensive society..), so, let's move on.
If Chinese steels becomes more expensive, who suffers? Business suffers, and everybody suffers through higher prices. Maybe some few jobs are briefly created, but a lot of other business are going to go out of business because they cn't afford to create their products without cheap steel.
Now, for someone like you, who refused to answer my question about what jobs you've worked, you not doubt work in a highly intellectual field--probably something like programming or computer related--IT? (given that we're on slashdot--and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)--you're probably entirely insulated from this world. You probably don't work in manufacturing or know anybody who does. It's a few more dollars out of your pocket, but you're making plenty anyway, so what does it matter. What you're doing is dooming entirely entire classes of business. You make it exponentially more expensive to do manufacturing here, and you're going to kill ALL manufacturing here as a result.
You would kill the economy in your misguided effort to control the economy as you see fit.
They wouldn't HAVE to buy a made in China?
My car is made in Japan because it's better. My computer is made in China because it's cheaper. My clothes are made in China because they are cheaper. No one is putting a gun to my--or anybody else's--head and forcing me to buy the best product for the least amount of money. Where American products are better, they do well. Your misguided attempts to control people's actions according to your standards and what you what want, how YOU think people should act, is in short, a disaster, and would completely doom our economy.
If you don't mind my asking, what kind of jobs have you held?
I'm not so sure people are going to be ready to pay the high price for many goods manufactured in American...seems unfair that it would disproportionately affect the poorer quarters of the economy?
What markets are you particularly interested in protecting?
So you're proposing that we tax any foreign company doing business in the US at an exorbitant rate to punish them for not being American? I don't think that's going to go over well, and will cost a heck of a lot of jobs!
What you're saying exactly misses the point of what I'm saying. The US is not the world anymore. We lack the ability to do what you want to do. If we do tax corporations that "outsource jobs" or create new centers in other countries, or even that want to move headquarters to us, do you not think that everybody else in the world is going to stop business coming to us as well? Why should foreign corporations stand by in such a situation? And the next time an American company is involved in an International merger, where do you think the combined entity will be based? You are proposing the exact kind of isolationism and protectionism that is no longer possible.
Because liking your country is bad when Americans do it but it's good for South Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Africans, Asians, Australians, and anyone else. But not Americans. Americans who like their country and are proud of American success are "fools". Right?
Woa there, I think you might have misunderstood me! *I* am a big fan of American exceptionalism, I think we're the best, and while there are plenty of places around the world I enjoy visiting and still want to visit, this is the only place where I want to live.
One thing that I imagine can be agreed upon (?) is that despite Obama's protestations to the contrary, his plans will only increase this flow. Or do you think that corporations with business and arms around the world will want to stick around for higher tax rates and an administration that has relied on anti-corporate populism?
Why should corporations want to stay in an environment becoming increasingly hostile? Public perception of many corporations (and certainly "the corporation") is justifiably dismal. The next president will no doubt raise business taxes. Doesn't it make sense to move to somewhere like Ireland? People make this same kind of decision all the time when deciding where to live.
One of the interesting things in these discussions is that so many people betray how utterly insular they are. The economy is global and it's easier than ever to move around the world and communicate around the world. The difference between Ireland and the US (or the US and China, India, Slovakia, Russia, etc ad infinitum) ain't what it was 50 years ago. American exceptionalism is commonly laughed at as something for fools and demagogues, yet everyone who rants about how corporations should be taxed higher and how corporations shouldn't be allowed to go overseas are betraying their own beliefs.
I believe in right and wrong. I would think that even if you don't have a problem with music piracy on an individual level, that you would think that SELLING someone else's music would be a problem.
This is the point at which so many of the idealistic-claiming music sharers completely fall apart. Fine, you believe music should be free (or cheaper, or whatever your pet argument is), great. When you're perfectly willing for a Russian site to selling music from the around the world completely illegally, you cross the line, and it becomes blatantly obvious you just want free music..
Wow, you cite Allofmp3.com as an example? You do realize it's like...totally illegal, right? Sure it's cheap to sell something if you don't have to buy it in the first place? Speaking of which, I've got a great bridge you might be interested in...
I don't understand the whining about a $1 mp3. I can understand complaining about lossless to a degree. I can understand complaining about DRM. But $1? That's less than a can of coke, a swig of beer, less than a big mac, etc etc.
Then again it seems that most people do NOT agree with your assessments, as the itunes store (and others) are doing very well selling songs for a dollar.
Why not lossless? Because most people don't care that much?
15 cents a song? I think you would take a BEATING on server costs, bandwidth costs, staff costs, and credit card processing costs. But hey, if you want start a service selling tracks for 15 cents, be my guest!
For me (and I would guess a lot of people) itunes store works fine. I rarely if ever buy a whole CD, just single tracks--impulse buys. Don't really care too much if its lossless as most of the time the encoding sounds good enough for me on my etymotic headphones, my laptop shit speakers, and my sound system.
Then again, I'm only a wannabe borderline semi-audiophile ;)
I guess that's fair, though it also seems fair to say that McCain's "start in politics" was earlier--with his first job in the senate in '77.
although the mbp used to let you choose between matte and glossy; i don't know if it still does; but that's just the finish not the technology.)
You still get the choice.
I boycott most music as well, but just because it sucks. The best music (IMO of course) was made in the 80's and 90's. The VAST majority of my downloaded music is content that I originally had a CD for, but have lost over the course of several moves.
That's funny, I boycott music from the 80s and 90s. ;-)
Look forward to the generation that things the 00's and 10s had the best music, and be afraid...
Neat idea, but there are a mile of comments between each page, making it quite hard to scroll through it all. Now if re-pagination could figure out just what the content from each page was and include just that...
I was going to write something, but I think wikipedia says it best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_connector#Hardware_issues
Just FWIW, the "Foreign Broadcast Information Service" is now called the "Open Source Center" and is not part of the CIA any longer.
For more info about the classification level, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOUO
What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
Ok, so since you have failed to answer the question twice, I'm guessing you don't REALLY have a problem with this?
Microsoft can put out new kernels for WinXP and above that disallows any installation of anything that wants to run at Ring-0 unless it comes from Microsoft Windows Update.
Wow are you serious...? You're advocating a Microsoft operating system that will not support any hardware, unless MICROSOFT approves it. Talk about DRM/TPM etc! Whatever happened to the slashdot values of more power to the users? You're advocating Microsoft requiring users to update their entire operating system just to support new hardware? Talk about being locked into the upgrade cycle..unbelievable. I can't believe you honestly believe these things?
It is precisely the fact that so many apps want to insert their code into the OS that causes a lot of such instability.
For the third time, What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
For years I have been advising people that run Windows not to install more than a very small handful of apps. The reason for this is clear -- the way things are now, if you run more than a handful of apps, you will kill your machine's performance.
Nonsense.
You ARE correct that your average Dell/etc has a bunch of junk installed. iTunes/ipod/quicktime is amongst the worst. What does that have to do with Microsoft? If you recall, MS has had a few court difficulties with regards to requiring distributors to bundle/not bundle software...are you advocating that Microsoft should be able to control what Dell, HP, etc bundle with their computers? I have a hard time believing that's what you really want...
You see, that's the problem: Most people, like you, assume that because people know your name, they must be your friends; the ones you "hang out" with.
If you had ever had a social life, you would see the fallacy of this assumption.
Wow, harsh, thanks for the anonymous forum flame though, always nice to know the Internet is unchanging :)
If you actually read my post, I didn't say a thing about your "friends" ... in fact I used the term "hang out" that you did and included a smiley emoticon at the end of the post.
I said I used a browser more than any other application. You then said you didn't. Now you're saying maybe you do? (or xterm wins) :p
Honestly, I'm not really sure where we are disagreeing anymore. You even mention a kernel scheduling multiple tabs (presumably via threads or processes), etc. I don't disagree. I'm arguing with the original statement that the browser SHOULD be a light-weight application. The browser is what a browser is, and as the web gets richer, browsers get bigger. As people do more and more activities in their browser, it's only natural that the browser becomes a more rich development platform and user interface.
In answer to your question, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a conventional text editor. I use vi myself..
Apple for not testing their driver and Microsoft for making there approval process nothing but a way to get money.
WHQL= I paid Microsoft but it still could be total crap.
I think you might still be confused?
I believe the driver is NOT WHQL approved. Last time I installed iTunes I got the unapproved driver popup at least...do you have further information?
You should go over the list of files that get installed with a wide variety of apps.
What other windows apps do you run that require drivers to be installed?
how common is it for Windows apps to require Administrator privileges to run?
Increasingly uncommon. When we first switched to roaming desktops at my office around 7 years ago, it was a big problem. Even everyday apps like Wordperfect malfunctioned without admin privileges. I personally can't remember the last time we've had a problem like this. With Vista, it's a bit more important that apps follow the guidelines, and I think this problem has diminished further.
There are plenty of [unpopular] things they can do to fix or reverse the problem, but they won't because they fear losing their large developer base.
Such as? What are some things Microsoft can do?