I believe that the complex rules should be saved for situations when players want to try unique things.
Also, if they want problem solving challenges, then adding randomness to the situation might not help. Leaving lock picking skills to randomness is silly when a player is willing to spend the time to try it. It might be boring for other players, though.
I read your journal entry. Thanks for the warning.
Remember what you said about your father and the guards that the Jews appreciated and how the big wigs left? I just saw a documentary about Buchenwald. I bet that your father was there. The documentary mentioned that the place was very disciplined and efficiently organized.
I want to make a disclaimer, though. The video is a holocaust denial video.
It makes sense, though, because communism views employers as evil. At least, that seems to be a stereotype, so now that you mention it, execution for withholding makes sense.
Sorry, I thought that you were referring to a couple of pay cheques, and not a couple of months of sales.
So, if it would only last a couple months of sales, then obviously it won't work, but I feel that if the assembly line tasks are mundane enough, then hiring new workers should be easy.
In a way, it is almost like assuming that somebody is guilty, but not really. In the court of law, they are innocent until proven guilty, but in general discussions, it is not automatically so.
This is all just to facilitate discussion, and nothing more.
No. Unless I don't understand your system, there should be records on what is and is not subsidized.
If we are talking about hidden subsidies, then we can just discuss principles. For example, "Sales tax subsidizes health care, which subsidizes smoking." We might agree or disagree with that, but the idea is that no official documents are needed, because we understand what is being communicated.
In the case of subsidies, it's not hard to disprove and prove.
Not being able to prove a negative is something that is impossible to do for statistics in the wild. There are probably other examples too.
Yeah, but remember, it only needs to last 1 or 2 cycles. Also, the same desperation that feeds into lotteries can also influence here. Also, how are people going to know any better? If a former worker says, "Don't work there! You won't get paid!", then how will anybody know if the former worker is deceiving or not?
Those desperately looking for work can always rationalize, "Well, maybe you're just a disgruntled worker. Why is everybody else getting paid, and not you?".
Unpaid wages is not unheard of for a good reason, right?
I think that common sense is that most industries are subsidized in the US. If people want to argue that an industry is not subsidized, then they should be the ones who are required to prove it.
In short, I believe that all discussions should begin with the assumption that the industry in question is subsidized, unless there is common belief or are official statements to prove otherwise.
I wouldn't be surprised if they could withhold wages from those on the lowest rungs. The execs could argue that the competition is sucking away the money, and that wages will be coming soon. In the mean time, execs will get paid. When the workers are burnt out, then they will get fired without wages. By not paying wages, and then hiring fresh workers, they are literally lowering the cost of production.
I'm not saying that this is exactly how it is in China. I honestly don't know. I'm just saying that nothing is beneath a company, when profit is at stake.
This barely protect the coal power plants. It protects [or is at least supposed to protect] the solar manufacturers. In order to compete, people have to eat and pay bills.
I think that he is implying that lost jobs is equal to a lower standard of living.
Remember, it is very hard to innovate, so people who have invested time into building the solar industry will lose everything, just because another company is "cheating".
As for the lower standard of living, just because prices are high, it does not mean that westerners will have a lower standard of living. Prices might be higher than other countries, but if the domestic workers have a salary and it is much higher than what is necessary to buy a home and pay bills, then everybody will be fine.
That dream world will never happen, no matter what path you choose, if you insist on letting companies close down.
Honestly, if China can pump money into companies, then why can't the US take the money out?
I agree. The government wouldn't even really have to think about it. It would just need to pay attention to how much those manufacturers are being subsidized. It would encourage foreign manufacturers to compete on quality.
Regarding the Linux kernel example, I view it as them porting to Linux to *limit* the spread to the other businesses [e.g. Sun].
On the other hand, if a government or a who-cares type volunteer wanted everybody to have the same operating system, for profit or not, then they would choose a BSD license, thus forcing a standard.
China chose Linux, probably because all the software was there already.
That being said, I could be wrong about China, since you seem to be revealing new information to me.
Regarding X, I don't know the history, even though I just went through Wikipedia's version of it. There is no reason for the proprietary Xs to be incompatible, other than beliefs about technical merits, or just inflexibility [i.e. "Nope. It's my way, or the highway."].
If I understand the history correctly, a group wanted to force the advertising clause on others, and then and uproar arose. This makes sense, because it is more restrictive.
Some graphic card vendors are not allowed to create their own linked drivers, from what I read on Slashdot, so that implies to me that a BSD license would have accommodated them.
[I copied and pasted the text below from my reply to other guy above, because it applies to you. I would like to add that perhaps the BSD licenses should require a link to the original BSD licensed code.]
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I think that you are right on a grand scale. I misunderstood it, because I focused on things like drivers and operating systems. Operating systems like BSD and Linux don't need to be under the GPL, because, by nature, the developers want the spread of the software. They make the software commonly available, and they want developers to code to the standard.
In other situations, there needs to be a trust relationship. If we need to force a company to release the source, then we might as well use the GPL. I could imagine that tax software might fit in here. The tax software probably has no meaningful stuff that needs to be patented or copyrighted.
Using the BSD license makes sense for operating systems that are popular and mainstream because it makes it easier for companies and developers to come to the table on their own terms.
[I copied and pasted the text below from my reply to other guy above, because it applies to you.]
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I think that you are right on a grand scale. I misunderstood it, because I focused on things like drivers and operating systems. Operating systems like BSD and Linux don't need to be under the GPL, because, by nature, the developers want the spread of the software. They make the software commonly available, and they want developers to code to the standard.
In other situations, there needs to be a trust relationship. If we need to force a company to release the source, then we might as well use the GPL. I could imagine that tax software might fit in here. The tax software probably has no meaningful stuff that needs to be patented or copyrighted.
Using the BSD license makes sense for operating systems that are popular and mainstream because it makes it easier for companies and developers to come to the table on their own terms.
I think that you are right on a grand scale. I misunderstood it, because I focused on things like drivers and operating systems. Operating systems like BSD and Linux don't need to be under the GPL, because, by nature, the developers want the spread of the software. They make the software commonly available, and they want developers to code to the standard.
In other situations, there needs to be a trust relationship. If we need to force a company to release the source, then we might as well use the GPL. I could imagine that tax software might fit in here. The tax software probably has no meaningful stuff that needs to be patented or copyrighted.
Using the BSD license makes sense for operating systems that are popular and mainstream because it makes it easier for companies and developers to come to the table on their own terms.
[disclaimer: I'm going to copy and paste this to the other people who replied to me]
Thanks for the advice. I'm not much of a gun geek, so every tidbit helps.
I honestly don't know how I would react in those situations. A lot times, I don't get grossed out like other people, but when there are bullets flying, I might react differently.
I would have never guessed about dog tags in boots. That just shows us how real those situations are.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you both.
I believe that the complex rules should be saved for situations when players want to try unique things.
Also, if they want problem solving challenges, then adding randomness to the situation might not help. Leaving lock picking skills to randomness is silly when a player is willing to spend the time to try it. It might be boring for other players, though.
Sorry, I meant your grand father.
Hi.
I read your journal entry. Thanks for the warning.
Remember what you said about your father and the guards that the Jews appreciated and how the big wigs left? I just saw a documentary about Buchenwald. I bet that your father was there. The documentary mentioned that the place was very disciplined and efficiently organized.
I want to make a disclaimer, though. The video is a holocaust denial video.
Wow. That's interesting. I've never heard of it.
It makes sense, though, because communism views employers as evil. At least, that seems to be a stereotype, so now that you mention it, execution for withholding makes sense.
Thanks for pointing that out!
Sorry, I thought that you were referring to a couple of pay cheques, and not a couple of months of sales.
So, if it would only last a couple months of sales, then obviously it won't work, but I feel that if the assembly line tasks are mundane enough, then hiring new workers should be easy.
Yes, thank you for clarifying.
In a way, it is almost like assuming that somebody is guilty, but not really. In the court of law, they are innocent until proven guilty, but in general discussions, it is not automatically so.
This is all just to facilitate discussion, and nothing more.
Sorry.
For the last paragraph, I meant, proving a negative is impossible to do for...
No. Unless I don't understand your system, there should be records on what is and is not subsidized.
If we are talking about hidden subsidies, then we can just discuss principles. For example, "Sales tax subsidizes health care, which subsidizes smoking." We might agree or disagree with that, but the idea is that no official documents are needed, because we understand what is being communicated.
In the case of subsidies, it's not hard to disprove and prove.
Not being able to prove a negative is something that is impossible to do for statistics in the wild. There are probably other examples too.
Yeah, but remember, it only needs to last 1 or 2 cycles. Also, the same desperation that feeds into lotteries can also influence here. Also, how are people going to know any better? If a former worker says, "Don't work there! You won't get paid!", then how will anybody know if the former worker is deceiving or not?
See ratemyemployer.com.
Those desperately looking for work can always rationalize, "Well, maybe you're just a disgruntled worker. Why is everybody else getting paid, and not you?".
Unpaid wages is not unheard of for a good reason, right?
I think that common sense is that most industries are subsidized in the US. If people want to argue that an industry is not subsidized, then they should be the ones who are required to prove it.
In short, I believe that all discussions should begin with the assumption that the industry in question is subsidized, unless there is common belief or are official statements to prove otherwise.
I wouldn't be surprised if they could withhold wages from those on the lowest rungs. The execs could argue that the competition is sucking away the money, and that wages will be coming soon. In the mean time, execs will get paid. When the workers are burnt out, then they will get fired without wages. By not paying wages, and then hiring fresh workers, they are literally lowering the cost of production.
I'm not saying that this is exactly how it is in China. I honestly don't know. I'm just saying that nothing is beneath a company, when profit is at stake.
This barely protect the coal power plants. It protects [or is at least supposed to protect] the solar manufacturers. In order to compete, people have to eat and pay bills.
But, hey, what do I know? I'm not an economist.
I think that he is implying that lost jobs is equal to a lower standard of living.
Remember, it is very hard to innovate, so people who have invested time into building the solar industry will lose everything, just because another company is "cheating".
As for the lower standard of living, just because prices are high, it does not mean that westerners will have a lower standard of living. Prices might be higher than other countries, but if the domestic workers have a salary and it is much higher than what is necessary to buy a home and pay bills, then everybody will be fine.
That dream world will never happen, no matter what path you choose, if you insist on letting companies close down.
Honestly, if China can pump money into companies, then why can't the US take the money out?
I agree. The government wouldn't even really have to think about it. It would just need to pay attention to how much those manufacturers are being subsidized. It would encourage foreign manufacturers to compete on quality.
Regarding the Linux kernel example, I view it as them porting to Linux to *limit* the spread to the other businesses [e.g. Sun].
On the other hand, if a government or a who-cares type volunteer wanted everybody to have the same operating system, for profit or not, then they would choose a BSD license, thus forcing a standard.
China chose Linux, probably because all the software was there already.
That being said, I could be wrong about China, since you seem to be revealing new information to me.
Regarding X, I don't know the history, even though I just went through Wikipedia's version of it. There is no reason for the proprietary Xs to be incompatible, other than beliefs about technical merits, or just inflexibility [i.e. "Nope. It's my way, or the highway."].
If I understand the history correctly, a group wanted to force the advertising clause on others, and then and uproar arose. This makes sense, because it is more restrictive.
Some graphic card vendors are not allowed to create their own linked drivers, from what I read on Slashdot, so that implies to me that a BSD license would have accommodated them.
[I copied and pasted the text below from my reply to other guy above, because it applies to you. I would like to add that perhaps the BSD licenses should require a link to the original BSD licensed code.]
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I think that you are right on a grand scale. I misunderstood it, because I focused on things like drivers and operating systems. Operating systems like BSD and Linux don't need to be under the GPL, because, by nature, the developers want the spread of the software. They make the software commonly available, and they want developers to code to the standard.
In other situations, there needs to be a trust relationship. If we need to force a company to release the source, then we might as well use the GPL. I could imagine that tax software might fit in here. The tax software probably has no meaningful stuff that needs to be patented or copyrighted.
Using the BSD license makes sense for operating systems that are popular and mainstream because it makes it easier for companies and developers to come to the table on their own terms.
[I copied and pasted the text below from my reply to other guy above, because it applies to you.]
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I think that you are right on a grand scale. I misunderstood it, because I focused on things like drivers and operating systems. Operating systems like BSD and Linux don't need to be under the GPL, because, by nature, the developers want the spread of the software. They make the software commonly available, and they want developers to code to the standard.
In other situations, there needs to be a trust relationship. If we need to force a company to release the source, then we might as well use the GPL. I could imagine that tax software might fit in here. The tax software probably has no meaningful stuff that needs to be patented or copyrighted.
Using the BSD license makes sense for operating systems that are popular and mainstream because it makes it easier for companies and developers to come to the table on their own terms.
Hi. Thanks for your reply.
I think that you are right on a grand scale. I misunderstood it, because I focused on things like drivers and operating systems. Operating systems like BSD and Linux don't need to be under the GPL, because, by nature, the developers want the spread of the software. They make the software commonly available, and they want developers to code to the standard.
In other situations, there needs to be a trust relationship. If we need to force a company to release the source, then we might as well use the GPL. I could imagine that tax software might fit in here. The tax software probably has no meaningful stuff that needs to be patented or copyrighted.
Using the BSD license makes sense for operating systems that are popular and mainstream because it makes it easier for companies and developers to come to the table on their own terms.
[disclaimer: I'm going to copy and paste this to the other people who replied to me]
Nonsense. BSD also gives the user the same freedom. In either case, the user can look at the sources.
GPL is about giving rights to the giver of the code, and BSD is about giving freedom to the recipients of the code.
:^D I thought that you meant Great Britain, not Gary Bickford.
Yes, as a skeptic, I will not be convinced until I can see the evidence. They need to submit the porn to a magazine...I mean a peer reviewed journal.
This needs to be reproduced in the lab, as well.
A lot of the forum information that I find is out of date, or obscure. The closest that I see to RTFM is when the information is actually there.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but trying to emphasize that we need updated information. I think that there are a lot of helpful users out there.
Maybe we're talking about different forums, though.
I agree. I'm amazed that people are still grappling with this problem. It should be 1 of the easiest things to use in Linux.
Thanks for the advice. I'm not much of a gun geek, so every tidbit helps.
I honestly don't know how I would react in those situations. A lot times, I don't get grossed out like other people, but when there are bullets flying, I might react differently.
I would have never guessed about dog tags in boots. That just shows us how real those situations are.
So, small businesses, which might not be persons, would be forced to pay local taxes, but these big persons would not be required to do it?
Real persons pay sales property taxes, so maybe they should be able to set up mail boxes in other states and not pay state taxes.