If they stick to this, then the cap will, by necessity, spiral down.
Consider, if the current average is M, and people using more than M are capped at M, then the average will decrease to M'. Now, the former average is more than the new average, and presumably would initiate a new round of caps at the value M'. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That's the problem with socialized medical programs like medicare/medicaid, etc. Suddenly, the government and "concerned citizens" like yourself feel that since they are footing the bill for some members of society, they have a right to impose restrictions in the form of outrageous taxation on everyone.
Sure, smoking is a bad idea, but it's really not the government's place to profit off of it in the form of high taxation, just like it's not the government's place to outlaw the actions of individual choices that they don't like.
Just like if a government commissions a new fighter plane?
That's not an accurate analogy; there is zero consumer market for fighter planes. At the risk of getting into a spiraling argument over the accuracy of a given analogy, I would offer the following: It would be like if the government funded the making of movies. I'm not talking about documentaries and the like, but "Hollywood style" movies that would be distributed freely. Would this be a sensible use of government resources?
Either way, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable for them to pay people to produce software for their purposes.
Of course it is, but there is a matter of scope. The implications of the present case is that these governments will essentially make an OS for mass distribution, in direct competetion with the market. Using the overwhelming resources available to them, they could swamp the market and essentially "force" consumers to use their product. This is similar to what critics of MS say they have essentially done. However, in this case, the resources available dwarf MS, both in terms of raw money and, more importantly, legal recourse to really enforce the use of their product.
So you mean governments shouldn't be allowed to buy stuff?
Of course they can buy stuff, though I would prefer if they bought as little as possible. However, there is a vast difference between buying a product, be it a plane or an OS, and getting into the business of making a product.
It's a bit different in this case: the governments in question would be paying people to make a product to replace existing products (Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc). Even though they may start with Linux, or BSD, do you think they will just join the OSS movement and play nice? Do you think they won't impose standards, or DRM, or backdoors? Do you really think they will release source code?
The power a government can exert, backed up by armed force and threat of imprisonment, vastly overshadows anything MS can do by not following standards.
That's very true, but also remember that he was considered a rube for his pronunciation as well, despite being very intelligent (unlike the current rube).
If they did the inverse: from an external scan of a living person's head, construct what their skull looks like. It would be easy to do with a CT scan, but you need a doctor's prescription for one of those.
Think about it, who wouldn't want a model of their own skull on their desk? Imagine the Hamlet-esque possibilities.
It seems glaringly obvious to me: selling recorded music is no longer a viable business model without very draconian measures against the technology that makes virtually free copies available. This is being attempted via various laws and lawsuits, but I don't see this working in the long run.
Now, is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, as has been pointed out numerous times by a slew of people, the artists themselves make most of their money on live shows. Thus, the only big loser is the RIAA and the record labels. I'm sure few will shed tears for them.
I see two consequences of this:
1. The manufactured pop star is going away. This can only be a good thing from the point of view of the "true artists", as it eliminates competetion with a gross advantage in the marketplace due to the artificial distribution and subsequent promotion mechanism.
2. Less music will be made, but it should be of a higher caliber, or at the very least made by people with more of a passion for it. This actually returns music to its pre-recording technology origins, as the vast majority of musicians before ~1900 were amateurs or semi-pro. It will no longer be a job or career, rather a hobby.
I've been reading slashdot for over 5 years. I don't expect much from the site when it comes to literary review. The vast majority of reviews of fictional works are done by fanboys, though usually they are able to hide this fact with a modicum of justification of why the work in question is worthy of reading. Usually this is awkward and clumsy, but at least the attempt is made, and a "literary critique" can be said to have been attempted.
However, the above review is amazing in its unabashed and breathless fanboy presumption: Apparently, just telling us the plot is compelling enough to have us join the ranks of fans.
I mean, really. At least the Star Wars people usually make some reference to Campbell to justify their adoration of the work. Here, the complexity of the work in its unification of various mythologies is relegated to the one line blurb in the summary box, but not expounded upon at all in "the review" itself. I expected a work akin to Illuminatus, but the actual review itself makes it sound like one of Kilgore Trouts insane ideas for a SF novel.
Be safe? From what? Banning boxcutters on commercial flights was all we needed to do to prevent another 911, and that's what is used to justify all this cowardice. That is exactly what it is, too, old woman fearfulness of what could happen, or what "they" would do if they could. Substitute the "they" of the day as needed.
I am ashamed to be an American when views such as yours are so widespread. This is so contrary to the ideals and original purpose of this country it's like a bad joke.
Slashdot Mirror
If they stick to this, then the cap will, by necessity, spiral down.
Consider, if the current average is M, and people using more than M are capped at M, then the average will decrease to M'. Now, the former average is more than the new average, and presumably would initiate a new round of caps at the value M'. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That's the problem with socialized medical programs like medicare/medicaid, etc. Suddenly, the government and "concerned citizens" like yourself feel that since they are footing the bill for some members of society, they have a right to impose restrictions in the form of outrageous taxation on everyone.
Sure, smoking is a bad idea, but it's really not the government's place to profit off of it in the form of high taxation, just like it's not the government's place to outlaw the actions of individual choices that they don't like.
Perhaps "the government" shouldn't have an opinion on the activities of the citizens, save for the "big stuff" like murder and theft.
Well, we have the increasingly unpopular and expensive quagmire already; my god, it is the 70's all over again!
Make linux, not war.
Branch? It's more like a homework assignment in quantum mechanics.
That's not an accurate analogy; there is zero consumer market for fighter planes. At the risk of getting into a spiraling argument over the accuracy of a given analogy, I would offer the following: It would be like if the government funded the making of movies. I'm not talking about documentaries and the like, but "Hollywood style" movies that would be distributed freely. Would this be a sensible use of government resources?
Either way, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable for them to pay people to produce software for their purposes.
Of course it is, but there is a matter of scope. The implications of the present case is that these governments will essentially make an OS for mass distribution, in direct competetion with the market. Using the overwhelming resources available to them, they could swamp the market and essentially "force" consumers to use their product. This is similar to what critics of MS say they have essentially done. However, in this case, the resources available dwarf MS, both in terms of raw money and, more importantly, legal recourse to really enforce the use of their product.
So you mean governments shouldn't be allowed to buy stuff?
Of course they can buy stuff, though I would prefer if they bought as little as possible. However, there is a vast difference between buying a product, be it a plane or an OS, and getting into the business of making a product.
It's a bit different in this case: the governments in question would be paying people to make a product to replace existing products (Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, etc). Even though they may start with Linux, or BSD, do you think they will just join the OSS movement and play nice? Do you think they won't impose standards, or DRM, or backdoors? Do you really think they will release source code?
The power a government can exert, backed up by armed force and threat of imprisonment, vastly overshadows anything MS can do by not following standards.
Be careful what you wish for...
Note the date of that article. It's pre-911. My suspicions are that, like nation-building and socialized medicine, Shrub's view has changed.
That's very true, but also remember that he was considered a rube for his pronunciation as well, despite being very intelligent (unlike the current rube).
And I would like to point out that I would be useful in keeping the neighbors' kids off your immaculate lawns.
If they did the inverse: from an external scan of a living person's head, construct what their skull looks like. It would be easy to do with a CT scan, but you need a doctor's prescription for one of those.
Think about it, who wouldn't want a model of their own skull on their desk? Imagine the Hamlet-esque possibilities.
1. Let the thing catch fire
2. ??? (Collect insurance)
3. Profit!!
For corporate adoption, not having games is an advantage.
A power outage in August?!? It must be terrorists, since during the hottest month of the year there's no reason to use much electricity.
end sarcasm
Bush et al have got you people afraid of your own shadows. Sad, really, though still funny.
I think the term you are looking for is "rabbitmen", perhaps with a slightly altered version of an Elton John song.
This would be a stroke of diabolical evil genius!
It seems glaringly obvious to me: selling recorded music is no longer a viable business model without very draconian measures against the technology that makes virtually free copies available. This is being attempted via various laws and lawsuits, but I don't see this working in the long run.
Now, is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, as has been pointed out numerous times by a slew of people, the artists themselves make most of their money on live shows. Thus, the only big loser is the RIAA and the record labels. I'm sure few will shed tears for them.
I see two consequences of this:
1. The manufactured pop star is going away. This can only be a good thing from the point of view of the "true artists", as it eliminates competetion with a gross advantage in the marketplace due to the artificial distribution and subsequent promotion mechanism.
2. Less music will be made, but it should be of a higher caliber, or at the very least made by people with more of a passion for it. This actually returns music to its pre-recording technology origins, as the vast majority of musicians before ~1900 were amateurs or semi-pro. It will no longer be a job or career, rather a hobby.
It's science news, so of course CNN's copy was edited by NASA.
However, the above review is amazing in its unabashed and breathless fanboy presumption: Apparently, just telling us the plot is compelling enough to have us join the ranks of fans.
I mean, really. At least the Star Wars people usually make some reference to Campbell to justify their adoration of the work. Here, the complexity of the work in its unification of various mythologies is relegated to the one line blurb in the summary box, but not expounded upon at all in "the review" itself. I expected a work akin to Illuminatus, but the actual review itself makes it sound like one of Kilgore Trouts insane ideas for a SF novel.
That's the bitch part about freedom: people don't always do what you want them to do.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Be safe? From what? Banning boxcutters on commercial flights was all we needed to do to prevent another 911, and that's what is used to justify all this cowardice. That is exactly what it is, too, old woman fearfulness of what could happen, or what "they" would do if they could. Substitute the "they" of the day as needed.
Ah, so the military is essentially a workfare program, worthy of FDR. I'm glad someone finally admitted it.
Yes, you're absolutely right. However, one wonders what role a dozen aircraft carriers will play if we do indeed stay out of their part of the world.
I am ashamed to be an American when views such as yours are so widespread. This is so contrary to the ideals and original purpose of this country it's like a bad joke.