You refer to the market as if it were something other than the collective actions of a bunch of people participating in it, of which we are certainly a component.
You most certainly can sign a contract that takes away your right to free speech for some amount of money--nondisclosure agreements as part of employment contracts are one simple example.
Japanese romaji characters --the pictographic characters used to write English words -- could also be used to confuse Japanese readers.
Romaji is the roman alphabet transliteration of hiragana and katakana. You've confused it with a mixture of katakana, the phonetic alphabet used for imported words, or kanji, the pictographic alphabet.
The Fair Tax avoids the problem of the poor picking up a larger percentage of the tax burden by providing a refund to everyone monthly equal to the tax paid on autonomous consumption.
The executives would still earn salaries. Workers don't earn profit from their sale of labor, but they still work
I was refering to economic profit in both cases.
I'm not suggesting that economic profit be outlawed. What I objected to originally to is the idea that, without economic profit, nobody would earn money. Economic profit is, by definition, what you get back AFTER you've paid everybody for their labor, their materials, their time, their expertise, etc. It's what you get back after you've added all the value you can possibly have added. I don't believe that it's therefore immoral, but it does mean economic inefficiency is taking place.
If there weren't any economic profit (say, because new technology meant anyone could enter any market at any time. Uber-nanotech or something. Just hypothetically), then people would still make money, they'd just have to do it by adding value rather than by taking advantage of barriers to market entry. The reason to create a Widget business in this economy would not be because of the economic profit, but because you could make a living being involved in an industry that you enjoyed working with. That doesn't mean you couldn't make $1.7 mil/yr as CEO, so long as there weren't other people who were qualified and willing to do the job for less. It would mean that the upper segments of the economy would be subject to the same wage pressures as everyone else. This might be good or bad overall, but it's clearly not someone those with a vested interest in the status quo would be terribly happy with.
P.S. Workers do earn profit from the sale of labor. It's called wages. They wouldn't be working if they weren't getting paid for it.
They certainly earn accounting profit, or else nobody would work, but do they make economic profit? It's been a while since I took Macro and Micro.
I didn't lose any money; my credit union immediately credits its customers as soon as they dispute an amount. It's just that VISA,inc. didn't seem to care that one of their customer's accounts (I mean the company, not me) had obviously been compromised.
I had my CC# stolen by "hackers" and released on a chat room. I know this because somebody who used it had a guilty conscience and emailed me. He was from another country, my bank seemed to have zero interest in tracking it down. The email clearly indicated the vendor from which it was taken.
And after they got out, they would be wandering around in program memory, changing things. Well, guess what they figured out how to change? The variable that listed their score.
Just think: If companies could not turn a profit, why would they bother making any products in the first place?
The executives would still earn salaries. Workers don't earn profit from their sale of labor, but they still work.
I've heard the claim "In a frictionless economy, nobody would earn money." Preposterous! In a frictionless economy, *everybody* would have to *earn* their money. No wonder people are so afraid of it.
Slashdotters are so two-faced. One second we are railing about how there's no way anyone can compete against the monopoly in Redmond, the next we're railing about how Linux is kicking Windows' ass. Makes no sense to me.
What do you expect? We're a big, somewhat diverse (given what there is to work with to begin with) group of people. Sure, the big-name Karma Whores weigh in on every subject with a different opinion, but different stories attract different kinds of posts from (most importantly) different people.
People in general are two-faced if you attempt to reason about them as if they were a single entity with a single, consistent worldview.
Companies pay each other patent royalties for inventions all the time, but "Real Men Hate Macs" so it's different when the patent pool includes (not just consists entirely of) Apple.
Strongarm the "big" pipes and "big" ISPs to stop encrypted traffic (or at least make it a "privilege" by deeming it commercial traffic and charging significantly higher prices for "permission" to use encrypted material).
How will they design a system which can, on the fly, determine what is encrypted content and what is merely, say, compressed?
Re:He definately doesn't know what an OS is...
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
I fail to see the presence of either Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt.
Sounds to me more like you get pulled over for speeding, and claim as a defense that you were just keeping pace with traffic. Then, when you get home, you sue the other drivers for driving above the speed limit, thus causing your pace-keeping to be speeding as well.
That's why we have innocent until proven guilty in the United States at least. You don't have to prove that you didn't break the contract, they have to prove that you did.
In civil court, the legal standard is "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In essence, if they have evidence that you broke the NDA, you DO effectively have to prove your innocence.
All well and good, but pointing to closed source projects and claiming they don't reuse code between themselves detracts from his message
In this context, code re-use isn't cutting and pasting code from one project to another, it's calling services via object brokers, or shared libraries. Hence, it shouldn't matter that the projects involved are closed-source.
Slashdot Mirror
You refer to the market as if it were something other than the collective actions of a bunch of people participating in it, of which we are certainly a component.
You most certainly can sign a contract that takes away your right to free speech for some amount of money--nondisclosure agreements as part of employment contracts are one simple example.
Too bad you can't copyright a name or title. Try a trademark.
Romaji is the roman alphabet transliteration of hiragana and katakana. You've confused it with a mixture of katakana, the phonetic alphabet used for imported words, or kanji, the pictographic alphabet.
Thus proving itself wrong.
The Fair Tax avoids the problem of the poor picking up a larger percentage of the tax burden by providing a refund to everyone monthly equal to the tax paid on autonomous consumption.
"effective" has a very specific meaning w.r.t. the DMCA, and is defined in the statute. It doesn't mean "functions well".
I'm not suggesting that economic profit be outlawed. What I objected to originally to is the idea that, without economic profit, nobody would earn money. Economic profit is, by definition, what you get back AFTER you've paid everybody for their labor, their materials, their time, their expertise, etc. It's what you get back after you've added all the value you can possibly have added. I don't believe that it's therefore immoral, but it does mean economic inefficiency is taking place.
If there weren't any economic profit (say, because new technology meant anyone could enter any market at any time. Uber-nanotech or something. Just hypothetically), then people would still make money, they'd just have to do it by adding value rather than by taking advantage of barriers to market entry. The reason to create a Widget business in this economy would not be because of the economic profit, but because you could make a living being involved in an industry that you enjoyed working with. That doesn't mean you couldn't make $1.7 mil/yr as CEO, so long as there weren't other people who were qualified and willing to do the job for less. It would mean that the upper segments of the economy would be subject to the same wage pressures as everyone else. This might be good or bad overall, but it's clearly not someone those with a vested interest in the status quo would be terribly happy with.
P.S. Workers do earn profit from the sale of labor. It's called wages. They wouldn't be working if they weren't getting paid for it.
They certainly earn accounting profit, or else nobody would work, but do they make economic profit? It's been a while since I took Macro and Micro.
I didn't lose any money; my credit union immediately credits its customers as soon as they dispute an amount. It's just that VISA,inc. didn't seem to care that one of their customer's accounts (I mean the company, not me) had obviously been compromised.
I had my CC# stolen by "hackers" and released on a chat room. I know this because somebody who used it had a guilty conscience and emailed me. He was from another country, my bank seemed to have zero interest in tracking it down. The email clearly indicated the vendor from which it was taken.
Sounds like Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru to me..
The executives would still earn salaries. Workers don't earn profit from their sale of labor, but they still work.
I've heard the claim "In a frictionless economy, nobody would earn money." Preposterous! In a frictionless economy, *everybody* would have to *earn* their money. No wonder people are so afraid of it.
What do you expect? We're a big, somewhat diverse (given what there is to work with to begin with) group of people. Sure, the big-name Karma Whores weigh in on every subject with a different opinion, but different stories attract different kinds of posts from (most importantly) different people.
People in general are two-faced if you attempt to reason about them as if they were a single entity with a single, consistent worldview.
Companies pay each other patent royalties for inventions all the time, but "Real Men Hate Macs" so it's different when the patent pool includes (not just consists entirely of) Apple.
"Open Source" is too broad. However the "Stackable(R) Letter Tray" box sitting in front of me refers to a product with a very specific term...
Unless you correspond with someone who uses PGP. Then it's time to panic again.
I fail to see the presence of either Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt.
FUD does NOT mean "I disagree with the author"
Sounds to me more like you get pulled over for speeding, and claim as a defense that you were just keeping pace with traffic. Then, when you get home, you sue the other drivers for driving above the speed limit, thus causing your pace-keeping to be speeding as well.
"Choosing" in the sense that if somebody has a gun to your head and asks for all your money, you "choose" to give them your money rather than die.
Maybe that's true if you're using PIO modes, but modern IDE uses DMA transfers, so the processor cycle issue really isn't so much any more.
In civil court, the legal standard is "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In essence, if they have evidence that you broke the NDA, you DO effectively have to prove your innocence.
In this context, code re-use isn't cutting and pasting code from one project to another, it's calling services via object brokers, or shared libraries. Hence, it shouldn't matter that the projects involved are closed-source.
Did you even read the linked article? It describes how pipes, though powerful, aren't the end-all, be-all.
As others have pointed out earlier in this article, they most certainly are.