Free shipping is not dumping. Amazon offers that everywhere and still makes payroll. They can do it because their warehouses are extremely efficient. The cost is very low. So they can offer free shipping and make a profit.
In any case... they're now charging a penny. Happy now?
Most places don't have milkmen. And your point about still having them fails to address a few points.
1. some book stores will survive online retail. Some won't. After those that won't die, you'll be able to say "we still have those".
Do you have as many milkmen as you did 100 years ago? Unlikely.
So that point is moot.
2. Your milkmen are not your culture. And a living culture is not static.
Imagine if a man joined this conversation from your culture of 400 years ago... did you protect Christianity? The church used to be a big part of your culture... but today it has less and less significance and that significance is actively suppressed by your government.
Which means not only is it silly to say you're protecting your culture by attacking online retail but the fact of the matter is that you have actively undermined what was your culture many times in the past.
3. All countries have cultures. Mine has one as much as any other country on earth. Suggesting otherwise is ignorance or jingoism. Pick one.
4. As to the milkman being gone, we don't miss him. He was useful while we needed him and he ceased to exist when he didn't.
We no more miss him then we miss wagon trains or dying by age 60.
How do you deal with the lack of milk men delivering fresh milk to your home every day.
Oh my god, we need to protect milk men.
First, lets put a big tax on refrigerators so that fewer people buy them.
Second, we'll put a big tax on super markets that carry milk so that a lot of them don't... and you MUST get your milk from the milk man.
Are you happy now?
The situations are analogous. Milkmen are not competitive in most places anymore because we have refrigeration and easy 7 day a week access to super markets or markets that offer milk. We also tend to have cars and its no big deal.
But there was a day when most milk was delivered by a milkman. And he'd deliver milk every couple days to your house and pick up used bottles.
Further, he'd drop off fresh ice cream, butter, and other dairy products.
And then there was the diaper guy that mothers would contract with to deliver fresh diapers daily and pick up the spent ones. My own mother used such a service when I was a baby. You don't find those services anymore. The cheap disposable diapers you find at stores made the diaper guy obsolete.
You want to try and protect that? Its a waste of time.
Its gone. They're already dead. Our societies are becoming littered with zombie corporations. The walking dead. Kept alive through stimulus and protectionism but that's just like running electricity through a dead frog to watch it hop. Its dead. Cut the power and it moves no more.
Same thing with these companies and same thing with these book stores. What you're saying is that without preserving an artificial environment they can't stay in business. Well... then they're dead already.
Bury them. Mourn them if you like but don't morbidly drag their corpses around with you.
I'm going to try and buy some... sadly live in the US so this might be complicated... and ironically they're apparently made in the US... yet not sold here... Why are so many companies incompetent at just shutting up and taking my money!
I ran into a similar situation with an Italian movie company... I wanted to buy an Italian movie... you cannot buy it... it isn't possible. They're not on any of the streaming sites. They're not on any of the online retailing sites... its literally impossible to buy the movie... what I had to do in the end was buy a used copy from Amazon... because that was the only option.
Its maddening... offer your products on the global market place please.
If consenting adults want to buy crack and smoke it then why should I try to stop them? Why is that in the interest of society or myself?
You're likely going to say its dangerous or harmful. Well, lots of things are dangerous or harmful. Some sports for example cause damage to the body and there are fatalities in those sports... should we out law them? And what about suicide itself... That is, putting a shotgun in your mouth and pulling the trigger... want to make that illegal?
You obviously can't. And that's the fucking point. You can't stop it. So stop wasting my fucking time.
Wrong. An imperialist would think that he has the right to impose rules through his nation.
Instead, I am saying that NO country has a right to control the market.
And anyone that tries simply creates an imbalance that creates black markets or inspires people to create loopholes or complicated ways of doing things that confuses the morons trying to regulate the system into thinking you're not doing the thing they passed laws to keep you from doing.
What France is trying to do is save brick and mortar retail.
It can't.
It would be like trying to save agrarian farm culture in the face of the industrial revolution. Utter waste of time.
So France can pass any sort of law they like... they're wasting their time... it will fail.
Adapt to changing circumstances. Don't try to pass laws making the future illegal... the future will not be denied.
And when you do business in china that includes censoring all information the communist party doesn't want shown and giving access to the email accounts of political enemies.
Sorry, you have to keep your own conscience with these things.
When the politicians decide to be absurd you do what you can to frustrate their stupidity... and absent that, shut down operations and embarrass the politicians by creating a market vacuum.
Screw france and any other country that thinks they have a right to control how markets operate.
The devices with seven days battery life are pretty viable furthermore, I don't want to have sound coming out of the watch... phone conversations need to be private... so you'd have to match this iwth a bluetooth headset or something.
the point is to make whether something was or was not reproduced/verified so obvious and easily obtainable and implicit in the report itself that any science writer that fails to note it will be grammar nazied into oblivion by his science writer peers.
Look, what you're saying is that its hopeless, there is nothing we can do, and we should just accept the status quo.
I refuse to do that. We didn't get as far as we have as a species by giving that mentality and respect... and I give it none.
I appreciate that the problem we're dealing with here might be a complicated one... that's fine. Then we can come up with solutions that are functional either because they interact with its complexity or because they bypass it via some elegant loophole.
Its too expensive to pull the starving artist living in a studio apartment and eating macaroni unless you likewise keep the games extremely simple and something that can be done entirely by ONE person.
The instant you start pushing beyond that you need cash flow and that means you need a business.
These game makers are often masters of their craft but they're first and foremost artists and creative type people. Just because you're a master in one thing doesn't mean you're competent in anything else. And from what I've seen most of them are highly incompetent at business.
They don't work out their budgets properly... they miss payroll... they don't do proper advertising... and so big projects turn into debt... and the debt eats them alive.
I've seen it over and over again.
The big evil companies they were working for might be soulless monsters that don't grasp or respect their vision... but they are typically competent in business.
In games... if you have to be competent in one thing or the other... being competent in business is more sustainable then being competent in the art of making games.
A soulless company can stay in business forever if its good at business.
An extremely gifted company that is bad at business might not survive past one product release.
Building wide WiFi is not something the FCC really regulates. They put some standards on manufacturers to comply with but beyond that there is no interaction at the user level.
Furthermore, providing wifi is a state or city matter not a federal matter.
IF the FCC wants to help they can break up these monopolies and stop them from engaging in non-competitive behavior.
Otherwise the FCC can just go fuck themselves with a chainsaw.
We're at that place the europeans were when they had a good idea of the scale the Americas but they didn't actually know what was in them... and there were like four countries that could even go to them.
So they drew up maps and just said "well this is all spain's, this is all protugal's, this is holland, etc"...
Never mind that the countries in question might only have literally ten people over there at that moment... which is effectively no one.
What worries me is that they're going to sit down here on earth and say "that asteroid belongs to X" "That asteroid belongs to Y" "that asteroid belongs to M"... and none of those people will actually go there. They'll just sit on earth like property trolls waiting for someone to actually go... and when they do, they'll claim ownership of whatever profits are made.
I'm not reading this thing because its too pie in the sky at this point. But frankly, I'm not terribly comfortable letting the government determine property rights in space until we have multiple companies exploiting asteroids at the same time. Until that happens its the deep frontier and the law of the gun might be preferable.
Again... this is probably the tenth time I've said this...
Read it, asshole.
If you don't want to reproduce the work. FINE. Don't have anything verified.
Hell, I don't even care if you get it peer reviewed. Have the whole thing written up by a bipolar crackhead for all I care.
All I want is that you specify all the things you have not done to back up your work.
if you've not been peer reviewed, say that. if your work has not been reproduced, say that. if the people that did the work were not actually scientists, say that.
etc.
That's the loophole I offered to the last ten people that have said variations of the same argument.
And I expect that an 11th or 12th person is going to do it as well... because who needs reading comprehension when you've got elbows and a keyboard. Just mash away and press send, am I right?
I am beyond tired of repeating myself on this issue...
You don't want to go through the expense of having your work reproduced or it isn't practical or whatever? Fine.
When its reported or publish or both... it will be said somewhere in there, "the work has yet to be verified"... and I am happy. I can then largely ignore the whole thing until it has been verified. Scientists can of course spend as much time as they like going over it... that's their profession. The general public has no reason to give a damn until the work has been verified. We shouldn't be troubled with anything less.
But as you keep saying, the scientists already assume this stuff. So for them, the red asterisk is redundant.
My point is that it is not for the laymen. Telling them that something has or has not been reproduced is important information that either might not occur to them or they might assume one way or the other.
Its good for people to be careful with science that has not been reproduced. Laypeople clearly need some help with that.
If the works had a disclaimer on them when they were unverified it would make it less likely and less forgivable when a newspaper went off half cocked with a report.
I'm often ranked pretty highly... my score is excellent and has been for a long time... does that mean anything to you or does this sort of thing only mean something when it is in your favor?
What is more, lets say I said something horrible... but lots of people up voted me... would you then conclude that my argument was good or that for some reason there were just a lot of sick people upvoting me?
Son, what you just threw at me was a logical fallacy. Look it up...
And it is ironic that in a discussion about science and integrity there in someone thinks a logical fallacy disproves or undermines my position.
Okay, why is your program acceptable when clearly we could do something even cheaper.
Why have journals at all? It would be cheaper not to have them.
Why use trained scientists? It would be cheaper not to have them. We could have everything done by robots or trained sea monkeys. What could possibly go wrong?
Look, the bullshit science is not acceptable. You want to talk about money? This shit means you get less money. It creates the impression that many of you are selling bullshit on a regular basis... do not respect the public... do not respect the institutions... do not respect your own profession... and lack all integrity.
And worse... it sends the impression that if you're doing all those things we have no ability to know one way or the other.
Now... under those conditions... how many zeros am I going to write on this check?
Please tell me how sad you are about science not getting properly funded while at the same time telling me you can't verify anything.
As others have noted, many science grants include requirements of status updates and information sharing as a requirement of the grant.
That's good. And it means there are already people thinking along the lines I've laid out.
And because I'm sure you're going to say you don't like one thing or another. That's fine. I offered a giant loophole... just say somewhere on the submission that you didn't do any of those things.
That's all. Say it hasn't been reproduced. Say it hasn't been vetted in detail. Just say that.
And then when the laypeople see it they know that everything hangs on the credibility of a couple scientists that could be some flavor of wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Free shipping is not dumping. Amazon offers that everywhere and still makes payroll. They can do it because their warehouses are extremely efficient. The cost is very low. So they can offer free shipping and make a profit.
In any case... they're now charging a penny. Happy now?
You can't save the zombies. They're already dead.
It will take a long time for those that have linked their personal identity to the man to admit this point... but he always has been a fool.
Most places don't have milkmen. And your point about still having them fails to address a few points.
1. some book stores will survive online retail. Some won't. After those that won't die, you'll be able to say "we still have those".
Do you have as many milkmen as you did 100 years ago? Unlikely.
So that point is moot.
2. Your milkmen are not your culture. And a living culture is not static.
Imagine if a man joined this conversation from your culture of 400 years ago... did you protect Christianity? The church used to be a big part of your culture... but today it has less and less significance and that significance is actively suppressed by your government.
Which means not only is it silly to say you're protecting your culture by attacking online retail but the fact of the matter is that you have actively undermined what was your culture many times in the past.
3. All countries have cultures. Mine has one as much as any other country on earth. Suggesting otherwise is ignorance or jingoism. Pick one.
4. As to the milkman being gone, we don't miss him. He was useful while we needed him and he ceased to exist when he didn't.
We no more miss him then we miss wagon trains or dying by age 60.
How do you deal with the lack of milk men delivering fresh milk to your home every day.
Oh my god, we need to protect milk men.
First, lets put a big tax on refrigerators so that fewer people buy them.
Second, we'll put a big tax on super markets that carry milk so that a lot of them don't... and you MUST get your milk from the milk man.
Are you happy now?
The situations are analogous. Milkmen are not competitive in most places anymore because we have refrigeration and easy 7 day a week access to super markets or markets that offer milk. We also tend to have cars and its no big deal.
But there was a day when most milk was delivered by a milkman. And he'd deliver milk every couple days to your house and pick up used bottles.
Further, he'd drop off fresh ice cream, butter, and other dairy products.
And then there was the diaper guy that mothers would contract with to deliver fresh diapers daily and pick up the spent ones. My own mother used such a service when I was a baby. You don't find those services anymore. The cheap disposable diapers you find at stores made the diaper guy obsolete.
You want to try and protect that? Its a waste of time.
Its gone. They're already dead. Our societies are becoming littered with zombie corporations. The walking dead. Kept alive through stimulus and protectionism but that's just like running electricity through a dead frog to watch it hop. Its dead. Cut the power and it moves no more.
Same thing with these companies and same thing with these book stores. What you're saying is that without preserving an artificial environment they can't stay in business. Well... then they're dead already.
Bury them. Mourn them if you like but don't morbidly drag their corpses around with you.
... its more then sufficient for the referring of chess matches between children.
You missed the point where I said the effort is pointless and will accomplish nothing.
France is pissing into the wind on this issue.
All they can do is humilitate themselves by passing lots of stupid laws that wont' change anything.
Look at what Amazon did... did that look like someone taking the french government seriously.
That's indifference and contempt.
Amazon is laughing at France.
And so are the rest of the internet retailers. They know France did a stupid thing that won't change anything.
Be smarter then france... grasp that you can't stop it and adapt.
And how is that different from people that do dangerous things or intentionally hurt themselves in other ways?
If your best justification for the drug war is health insurance premiums then you've lost.
Just concede and agree with me because if insurance is your best argument... lolzcats.
I'm going to try and buy some... sadly live in the US so this might be complicated... and ironically they're apparently made in the US... yet not sold here... Why are so many companies incompetent at just shutting up and taking my money!
I ran into a similar situation with an Italian movie company... I wanted to buy an Italian movie... you cannot buy it... it isn't possible. They're not on any of the streaming sites. They're not on any of the online retailing sites... its literally impossible to buy the movie... what I had to do in the end was buy a used copy from Amazon... because that was the only option.
Its maddening... offer your products on the global market place please.
As to Colombians... sure.
If consenting adults want to buy crack and smoke it then why should I try to stop them? Why is that in the interest of society or myself?
You're likely going to say its dangerous or harmful. Well, lots of things are dangerous or harmful. Some sports for example cause damage to the body and there are fatalities in those sports... should we out law them? And what about suicide itself... That is, putting a shotgun in your mouth and pulling the trigger... want to make that illegal?
You obviously can't. And that's the fucking point. You can't stop it. So stop wasting my fucking time.
Wrong. An imperialist would think that he has the right to impose rules through his nation.
Instead, I am saying that NO country has a right to control the market.
And anyone that tries simply creates an imbalance that creates black markets or inspires people to create loopholes or complicated ways of doing things that confuses the morons trying to regulate the system into thinking you're not doing the thing they passed laws to keep you from doing.
What France is trying to do is save brick and mortar retail.
It can't.
It would be like trying to save agrarian farm culture in the face of the industrial revolution. Utter waste of time.
So France can pass any sort of law they like... they're wasting their time... it will fail.
Adapt to changing circumstances. Don't try to pass laws making the future illegal... the future will not be denied.
And when you do business in china that includes censoring all information the communist party doesn't want shown and giving access to the email accounts of political enemies.
Sorry, you have to keep your own conscience with these things.
When the politicians decide to be absurd you do what you can to frustrate their stupidity... and absent that, shut down operations and embarrass the politicians by creating a market vacuum.
Screw france and any other country that thinks they have a right to control how markets operate.
how is that an insult?... and what have you done here but waste my time with it?
Again... nothing novel or interesting... your post has no reason to exist.
The devices with seven days battery life are pretty viable furthermore, I don't want to have sound coming out of the watch... phone conversations need to be private... so you'd have to match this iwth a bluetooth headset or something.
Absent constructive counter proposals you are advocating the status quo.
Do you have constructive counter proposals or are you advocating the status quo?
the point is to make whether something was or was not reproduced/verified so obvious and easily obtainable and implicit in the report itself that any science writer that fails to note it will be grammar nazied into oblivion by his science writer peers.
Look, what you're saying is that its hopeless, there is nothing we can do, and we should just accept the status quo.
I refuse to do that. We didn't get as far as we have as a species by giving that mentality and respect... and I give it none.
I appreciate that the problem we're dealing with here might be a complicated one... that's fine. Then we can come up with solutions that are functional either because they interact with its complexity or because they bypass it via some elegant loophole.
Really we are just seeing a failure in widely used proprietary software.
Obscure proprietary software is less of a problem because hackers are less likely to attack it.
Its too expensive to pull the starving artist living in a studio apartment and eating macaroni unless you likewise keep the games extremely simple and something that can be done entirely by ONE person.
The instant you start pushing beyond that you need cash flow and that means you need a business.
These game makers are often masters of their craft but they're first and foremost artists and creative type people. Just because you're a master in one thing doesn't mean you're competent in anything else. And from what I've seen most of them are highly incompetent at business.
They don't work out their budgets properly... they miss payroll... they don't do proper advertising... and so big projects turn into debt... and the debt eats them alive.
I've seen it over and over again.
The big evil companies they were working for might be soulless monsters that don't grasp or respect their vision... but they are typically competent in business.
In games... if you have to be competent in one thing or the other... being competent in business is more sustainable then being competent in the art of making games.
A soulless company can stay in business forever if its good at business.
An extremely gifted company that is bad at business might not survive past one product release.
which just tells you how poorly the federal government... especially the executive is being run these days...
Building wide WiFi is not something the FCC really regulates. They put some standards on manufacturers to comply with but beyond that there is no interaction at the user level.
Furthermore, providing wifi is a state or city matter not a federal matter.
IF the FCC wants to help they can break up these monopolies and stop them from engaging in non-competitive behavior.
Otherwise the FCC can just go fuck themselves with a chainsaw.
We're at that place the europeans were when they had a good idea of the scale the Americas but they didn't actually know what was in them... and there were like four countries that could even go to them.
So they drew up maps and just said "well this is all spain's, this is all protugal's, this is holland, etc"...
Never mind that the countries in question might only have literally ten people over there at that moment... which is effectively no one.
What worries me is that they're going to sit down here on earth and say "that asteroid belongs to X" "That asteroid belongs to Y" "that asteroid belongs to M"... and none of those people will actually go there. They'll just sit on earth like property trolls waiting for someone to actually go... and when they do, they'll claim ownership of whatever profits are made.
I'm not reading this thing because its too pie in the sky at this point. But frankly, I'm not terribly comfortable letting the government determine property rights in space until we have multiple companies exploiting asteroids at the same time. Until that happens its the deep frontier and the law of the gun might be preferable.
Again... this is probably the tenth time I've said this...
Read it, asshole.
If you don't want to reproduce the work. FINE. Don't have anything verified.
Hell, I don't even care if you get it peer reviewed. Have the whole thing written up by a bipolar crackhead for all I care.
All I want is that you specify all the things you have not done to back up your work.
if you've not been peer reviewed, say that.
if your work has not been reproduced, say that.
if the people that did the work were not actually scientists, say that.
etc.
That's the loophole I offered to the last ten people that have said variations of the same argument.
And I expect that an 11th or 12th person is going to do it as well... because who needs reading comprehension when you've got elbows and a keyboard. Just mash away and press send, am I right?
I am beyond tired of repeating myself on this issue...
You don't want to go through the expense of having your work reproduced or it isn't practical or whatever? Fine.
When its reported or publish or both... it will be said somewhere in there, "the work has yet to be verified"... and I am happy. I can then largely ignore the whole thing until it has been verified. Scientists can of course spend as much time as they like going over it... that's their profession. The general public has no reason to give a damn until the work has been verified. We shouldn't be troubled with anything less.
But as you keep saying, the scientists already assume this stuff. So for them, the red asterisk is redundant.
My point is that it is not for the laymen. Telling them that something has or has not been reproduced is important information that either might not occur to them or they might assume one way or the other.
Its good for people to be careful with science that has not been reproduced. Laypeople clearly need some help with that.
If the works had a disclaimer on them when they were unverified it would make it less likely and less forgivable when a newspaper went off half cocked with a report.
This is a good thing.
I read it. Do you care what I thought about it or did you just want me to read it?
I'm often ranked pretty highly... my score is excellent and has been for a long time... does that mean anything to you or does this sort of thing only mean something when it is in your favor?
What is more, lets say I said something horrible... but lots of people up voted me... would you then conclude that my argument was good or that for some reason there were just a lot of sick people upvoting me?
Son, what you just threw at me was a logical fallacy. Look it up...
And it is ironic that in a discussion about science and integrity there in someone thinks a logical fallacy disproves or undermines my position.
Try again.
Okay, why is your program acceptable when clearly we could do something even cheaper.
Why have journals at all? It would be cheaper not to have them.
Why use trained scientists? It would be cheaper not to have them. We could have everything done by robots or trained sea monkeys. What could possibly go wrong?
Look, the bullshit science is not acceptable. You want to talk about money? This shit means you get less money. It creates the impression that many of you are selling bullshit on a regular basis... do not respect the public... do not respect the institutions... do not respect your own profession... and lack all integrity.
And worse... it sends the impression that if you're doing all those things we have no ability to know one way or the other.
Now... under those conditions... how many zeros am I going to write on this check?
Please tell me how sad you are about science not getting properly funded while at the same time telling me you can't verify anything.
As others have noted, many science grants include requirements of status updates and information sharing as a requirement of the grant.
That's good. And it means there are already people thinking along the lines I've laid out.
And because I'm sure you're going to say you don't like one thing or another. That's fine. I offered a giant loophole... just say somewhere on the submission that you didn't do any of those things.
That's all. Say it hasn't been reproduced. Say it hasn't been vetted in detail. Just say that.
And then when the laypeople see it they know that everything hangs on the credibility of a couple scientists that could be some flavor of wrong.