While I follow your presentation perfectly, I don't see how you are coupling the exchange rate internationally to inflation domestically. If you are arguing that ought to be and indeed will end up linked, that's fine, but one need not speculate, one need only look to the domestic inflation figures. Speculation and even seemingly valid logic can be confounded by many factors in a complex system. Best to look to the actual results.
I'm reminded of a long, long argument I once had about condo appreciation. This fellow presented this very long logical argument why condos really couldn't appreciate, and I asked him for data, any data, from any source, that showed that they didn't. Couldn't do it.
There is some inflation here. But it's hardly crazy.
BTW, the petrodollar welfare article is interesting, but note that the Euro can't really *yet* be the reserve currency, as fairly well binding legislation at the EU is keeping the number of euros available for that sort of thing scarce. Perhaps if demand for euros rise, they EU will change things.
This will be directly reflected in the actual inflation numbers. There is no need to attempt to discern inflation through currency imbalance, and can be quite misleading, given the fluidity of exports (or indeed selecting not to import) extant in the markets today.
No, unfortunately you are right. The Third World is in the midst of First Worldifying. Energy consumption is thereby growing at a superlinear pace. Oil is doomed.
Anyway, Fissables are sustainable for any reasonable definition of sustainable. All is not lost, so to speak, don't sweat it. There's lots of alternatives. In the long run, we need energy. In the short, liquid energy compatible with current distribution and so forth. This is not intractable. There are ways to oilify coal. They are energy expensive, but with nuclear it gets the problem solved in the short run, and move to breath.
Been to Europe? Notice the vast difference in the size of cars and the proliferation of mopeds? Reducing consumption, when the time comes, isn't unworkable: we already have the existence proof via artificially inflated european petrol costs at the pump (the 100% plus taxes).
but we don't have a source of uranium, we only have a storehouse of it. The only thing that brings a reliable input of energy to earth is the sun.
No, the orbit of the moon also imparts energy to us down here on earth via tidal forces. This is of course temporary, as the moon will eventually phase lock with us. But then the sun is also temporary. A few billion years out, and *gasp*, it's not sustainable. How can I go on? *har har*
With accessible crude, conveniently accessible and generated over the millenia for us, we've had a good run, but it's coming to an end. We still have supplies of coal, sand crude, and natural gas, all in various states of depletion, with coal likely to last the longest. Fissibles still have several thousand years of run in it, so no issue there. Fusables would be best, with their practically unlimited sustainability, but we don't have the technology yet.
Careful what you wish for. Tightening up H1-B could mean more BPO, and more BPO means less wealth flowing and circulating domestically.
BTW, while you didn't say this, the H1-B process is widely abused, I know. Just don't assume that asking for this specific thing is perfectly guaranteed to have the outcome you desire.
No link. Collectible, owned by my aunt, circa 1905 ish. One got the idea through the book that it was extreme educational sadism at its best. Ruler and knuckle wapping included. HA.
Well, if one is willing to forget the "learning to think" and simply said "used to be harder," he'd be right. I have personally looked over a 5th Grade Reader from circa 1900. In the US today, students get to that material no sooner than the 10th grade in most districts (e.g., _The Illiad_).
There are many messages in this thread that tell you to take classes, pick up study guides, use entertaining internet approaches to learning math, and so forth. None of them are particularly wrong.
But there is another side to this. For math, the way to learn it, to really learn it, is enormous amounts of hard work. If you remember math books, they have problem sets in them. The way to learn the math is to study a bit, and do all the problems. Perhaps twice, if it takes that. Learning math is really about practicing the solving of equations and so forth. While the other things will help you understand what it is you're trying to do, if you don't really focus yourself on the solving of many equations.... again and again and again.... you won't learn math. Except for perhaps the simplest of stuff.
I learned this the hard way. I have an IQ of 128ish. I.e., "very smart but not a genius". Going through school, I grew accustomed to listening to lectures, scribbling notes, and getting a B or an A if I was lucky, but otherwise working very little. And then I hit Calculus. The "working very little" strategy failed to work here. This was the first time I ever had to do a class twice. Ouch. It's not the "studying" here that counts, but the running through problem after problem after problem until you really and truly understand.
And let us assume that Red Hat and other Linux distributors are then forced to pay a patent royalty for every copy of the operating system that they sell.
That's a bad assumption. What you want to think about is being forced to pay a royalty for every copy they distribute.
Yes. As other posters pointed out, a patent isn't like a copyright. It controls even if you are allowed to possess and use an instance of an infringing work. So you can even sue the buyers of the end product.
The issue is that if you force Microsoft to show their patents, they will. And they will have some, believe me on this. Some may be cheesy, but I have no doubt that they have extensive patent holdings, and some of them will hold up in court, even if you do disagree with the idea of software/process patents (as I do).
So suing is not really the "we, the community's" best interest. Our best interest is to laugh at Microsoft and ignore their FUD. We cannot be said to be culpable by inaction in this regard, because it is THEIR inaction in failing to disclose their patents that is the problem here. In fact, the longer they fail to disclose, while being aware of the violations, the better the case the community has against them.
It seems to me that these statements by Ballmer are a clear Lanham Act violation under Section 43(a)(1)(B) which can be used when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business.
Well. They likely do have a warchest filled up with cheesy patents. They probably have over a 100 patents that could be SAID to impact core Linux distributions. Whether or not their failure to specify weakens their position is a separate issue. Whether or not the patents ought not have been granted in the first place, because of obviousness, prior art, or other things, is also a separate issue.
Well. True. However, I think it's just a little worse for Microsoft than you have outlined. Because they are aware, and have announced they are aware, but failed to cite with specificity the issues to the allegedly infringing parties, mentioned parties have a right to claim that Microsoft's lack of coming forward has damaged them (of a sorts) by allowing them to continue investing on their current path. I.e., since Microsoft is aware, they have an onus to inform at this point. And they are willfully failing to inform, and instead engaging in a battle of the press. Foolish move. Didn't work for SCO, either, in the end.
Don't these kinds of threats put MS in legal jeopardy? Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business,...
It would seem to me to be a variation of Slander of Title, but whether or not a "variation" counts here I do not know.
It could be that while he was mistaken, he genuinely believed otherwise.
Delusional belief in the idea that one's way of thinking is superior to the beliefs of others; well, this kind of thinking is practically universal amongst narcissists.
Well, I'm sure he's aware of that. You can let them go because you merely because you don't like them, and you're not required to give a termination reason, but you can't fire someone for an "illegal reason," of which there are many.
Wouldn't that also mean that a requirement of "10+ years experience" is age discrimination because it prevents a 25-year-old from getting the job?
Of course it is. However, that sort of age discrimination is not actually illegal.
C//
Re:business and government are run by aliens?
on
GAO Report Slams FCC
·
· Score: 1
A company is not a citizen. And the people working for it don't behave like ordinary citizens. Generally speaking, their behavior is highly colored by the lens of fiduciary responsibility, a requirement placed on them by terms of their employment to see not to their needs or the needs of the citizens of this country, but rather for the self interests of the company in and of itself. Your twice-bolded use of the word "citizens," therefore, ought be viewed with a rather jaundiced eye.
Slashdot Mirror
While I follow your presentation perfectly, I don't see how you are coupling the exchange rate internationally to inflation domestically. If you are arguing that ought to be and indeed will end up linked, that's fine, but one need not speculate, one need only look to the domestic inflation figures. Speculation and even seemingly valid logic can be confounded by many factors in a complex system. Best to look to the actual results.
I'm reminded of a long, long argument I once had about condo appreciation. This fellow presented this very long logical argument why condos really couldn't appreciate, and I asked him for data, any data, from any source, that showed that they didn't. Couldn't do it.
There is some inflation here. But it's hardly crazy.
Look here http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01w.html and then browse around at nearby things. Latest data on inflation-adjusted individual income here.
BTW, the petrodollar welfare article is interesting, but note that the Euro can't really *yet* be the reserve currency, as fairly well binding legislation at the EU is keeping the number of euros available for that sort of thing scarce. Perhaps if demand for euros rise, they EU will change things.
C//
This will be directly reflected in the actual inflation numbers. There is no need to attempt to discern inflation through currency imbalance, and can be quite misleading, given the fluidity of exports (or indeed selecting not to import) extant in the markets today.
C//
No, unfortunately you are right. The Third World is in the midst of First Worldifying. Energy consumption is thereby growing at a superlinear pace. Oil is doomed.
Anyway, Fissables are sustainable for any reasonable definition of sustainable. All is not lost, so to speak, don't sweat it. There's lots of alternatives. In the long run, we need energy. In the short, liquid energy compatible with current distribution and so forth. This is not intractable. There are ways to oilify coal. They are energy expensive, but with nuclear it gets the problem solved in the short run, and move to breath.
Been to Europe? Notice the vast difference in the size of cars and the proliferation of mopeds? Reducing consumption, when the time comes, isn't unworkable: we already have the existence proof via artificially inflated european petrol costs at the pump (the 100% plus taxes).
C//
but we don't have a source of uranium, we only have a storehouse of it. The only thing that brings a reliable input of energy to earth is the sun.
No, the orbit of the moon also imparts energy to us down here on earth via tidal forces. This is of course temporary, as the moon will eventually phase lock with us. But then the sun is also temporary. A few billion years out, and *gasp*, it's not sustainable. How can I go on? *har har*
With accessible crude, conveniently accessible and generated over the millenia for us, we've had a good run, but it's coming to an end. We still have supplies of coal, sand crude, and natural gas, all in various states of depletion, with coal likely to last the longest. Fissibles still have several thousand years of run in it, so no issue there. Fusables would be best, with their practically unlimited sustainability, but we don't have the technology yet.
C//
You have trouble with critical thinking, I see.
C//
Careful what you wish for. Tightening up H1-B could mean more BPO, and more BPO means less wealth flowing and circulating domestically.
BTW, while you didn't say this, the H1-B process is widely abused, I know. Just don't assume that asking for this specific thing is perfectly guaranteed to have the outcome you desire.
C//
Your bit of genius aptly neglects that fossil fuels store energy from ages ago. Not energy we have to generate or capture today.
C//
No link. Collectible, owned by my aunt, circa 1905 ish. One got the idea through the book that it was extreme educational sadism at its best. Ruler and knuckle wapping included. HA.
C//
When on earth did this happen?
Well, if one is willing to forget the "learning to think" and simply said "used to be harder," he'd be right. I have personally looked over a 5th Grade Reader from circa 1900. In the US today, students get to that material no sooner than the 10th grade in most districts (e.g., _The Illiad_).
C//
What he meant by "official certification," was that if you don't have the cert, it is illegal to work in the field.
C//
There are many messages in this thread that tell you to take classes, pick up study guides, use entertaining internet approaches to learning math, and so forth. None of them are particularly wrong.
But there is another side to this. For math, the way to learn it, to really learn it, is enormous amounts of hard work. If you remember math books, they have problem sets in them. The way to learn the math is to study a bit, and do all the problems. Perhaps twice, if it takes that. Learning math is really about practicing the solving of equations and so forth. While the other things will help you understand what it is you're trying to do, if you don't really focus yourself on the solving of many equations.... again and again and again.... you won't learn math. Except for perhaps the simplest of stuff.
I learned this the hard way. I have an IQ of 128ish. I.e., "very smart but not a genius". Going through school, I grew accustomed to listening to lectures, scribbling notes, and getting a B or an A if I was lucky, but otherwise working very little. And then I hit Calculus. The "working very little" strategy failed to work here. This was the first time I ever had to do a class twice. Ouch. It's not the "studying" here that counts, but the running through problem after problem after problem until you really and truly understand.
C//
The buyer of a patented product is culpable for operating an infringing work. That's why big manufacturer's indemnify their customers, often.
C//
And let us assume that Red Hat and other Linux distributors are then forced to pay a patent royalty for every copy of the operating system that they sell.
That's a bad assumption. What you want to think about is being forced to pay a royalty for every copy they distribute.
C//
Are they allowed to do that?
Yes. As other posters pointed out, a patent isn't like a copyright. It controls even if you are allowed to possess and use an instance of an infringing work. So you can even sue the buyers of the end product.
C//
The issue is that if you force Microsoft to show their patents, they will. And they will have some, believe me on this. Some may be cheesy, but I have no doubt that they have extensive patent holdings, and some of them will hold up in court, even if you do disagree with the idea of software/process patents (as I do).
So suing is not really the "we, the community's" best interest. Our best interest is to laugh at Microsoft and ignore their FUD. We cannot be said to be culpable by inaction in this regard, because it is THEIR inaction in failing to disclose their patents that is the problem here. In fact, the longer they fail to disclose, while being aware of the violations, the better the case the community has against them.
C//
It seems to me that these statements by Ballmer are a clear Lanham Act violation under Section 43(a)(1)(B) which can be used when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business.
Well. They likely do have a warchest filled up with cheesy patents. They probably have over a 100 patents that could be SAID to impact core Linux distributions. Whether or not their failure to specify weakens their position is a separate issue. Whether or not the patents ought not have been granted in the first place, because of obviousness, prior art, or other things, is also a separate issue.
C//
Well. True. However, I think it's just a little worse for Microsoft than you have outlined. Because they are aware, and have announced they are aware, but failed to cite with specificity the issues to the allegedly infringing parties, mentioned parties have a right to claim that Microsoft's lack of coming forward has damaged them (of a sorts) by allowing them to continue investing on their current path. I.e., since Microsoft is aware, they have an onus to inform at this point. And they are willfully failing to inform, and instead engaging in a battle of the press. Foolish move. Didn't work for SCO, either, in the end.
C//
When did Microsoft first announce that they believed 'Linux' infringed on their Patents?
Doesn't really matter, because until they cite with specificity, they are still being tardy.
C//
Don't these kinds of threats put MS in legal jeopardy? Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business,...
It would seem to me to be a variation of Slander of Title, but whether or not a "variation" counts here I do not know.
C//
LOL. Is this some kind of self-masturbatory flamage experiment? Surely you jest.
Anyway, if you feel so firmly that the facts are on your side, try posting not as an AC.
Your behavior belies a lack of confidence in your position...
C//
His post did not say otherwise.
C//
Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased
It could be that while he was mistaken, he genuinely believed otherwise.
Delusional belief in the idea that one's way of thinking is superior
to the beliefs of others; well, this kind of thinking is practically
universal amongst narcissists.
C//
Well, I'm sure he's aware of that. You can let them go because you merely because you don't like them, and you're not required to give a termination reason, but you can't fire someone for an "illegal reason," of which there are many.
C//
Wouldn't that also mean that a requirement of "10+ years experience" is age discrimination because it prevents a 25-year-old from getting the job?
Of course it is. However, that sort of age discrimination is not actually illegal.
C//
A company is not a citizen. And the people working for it don't behave like ordinary citizens. Generally speaking, their behavior is highly colored by the lens of fiduciary responsibility, a requirement placed on them by terms of their employment to see not to their needs or the needs of the citizens of this country, but rather for the self interests of the company in and of itself. Your twice-bolded use of the word "citizens," therefore, ought be viewed with a rather jaundiced eye.
C//