Consoles are winning and will eventually win. The reason is simple:
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play.
Now that consoles have comparable graphics and sound to a mid-level PC, there's little advantage to using a PC over a console for games. And there are often large disadvantages.
If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.
Do you think it will work then? Will the rockets stop landing because of this?
Because if they don't, then I don't understand your point. You seem to be in favor of this village taking an ineffective action. Isn't an ineffective action, by definition, worthless and wasteful?
If I wanted the rockets to stop falling on my village, I'd be in favor of the action that would work. If a non-violent action worked, good. If not, then violent ones would be the next thing to try. It's simple problem-solving. And if you have a grave enough problem, violence just another tool in the toolbox.
The most significant difference I see is the latter of the two groups isn't engaging in deception to try and get their goals legislated.
Assuming deception, that's a fair point. However "get their goals legislated" is an interesting phrase. It's not like salaries are being capped and folks are being forced by government IT enforcers to study and become skilled.
H1B visa applicants are people too, and they are freely willing to work if given the chance. They're not "legislated" to work in the US, the legislation is to remove the prohibition on them working here.
How much searching for a candidate is needed before a shortage can be declared?
You pay well, or you pay well for the Sacramento area?
I don't know how much everyone at the company makes. We pay well for the areas where we're located. We haven't been able to find anyone to send an offer letter to.
How much effort does someone have to go to and how much do they have to offer to pay before a shortage can be acknowledged?
If the total debt as a percentage of GDP is flat, then it isn't a problem for the future -- no more than it is a problem for the present, at least.
Deficits are a problem, but they aren't a bigger problem than taxes or spending. The deficit as a "ticking time bomb" is yet another false scare. Folks who think of themselves as responsible folks don't like financing government with debt. But responsible folks need to be responsible to reality, not to unjustifiable alarmism.
Everyone's heard it all before. The Nordic countries are a paradise. We know.
Please consider just moving to one of those countries and spare the rest of us the one-sided, rose-colored analysis of why the US needs to give up everything unique about ourselves and our culture and our lifestyle and change to be exactly like Sweden and Norway. Thanks.
Aside from that, what's your point? That there's a counter-example to the argument? So what? It's true except in the Nordic countries then. Since the US isn't one of those Nordic countries, it still seems like a useful rule.
BTW: I disagree with some of Lessig's ideas. The problem isn't that everyone's lives and choices are controlled by bad people and they should be controlled by good people instead. Rather, people should be free to live their own lives and make their own choices.
You are correct in theory. In theory, shareholder lawsuits provide a way to remedy a legitimate grievances and an incentive to honesty.
In practice, shareholder lawsuits happen without regard to honesty. The cost is not related to wrongdoing. So when actual wrongdoing occurs and shareholders sue, it is no different than any other time.
In other words, if you are going to be sued whether you steal or not, it logically follows that you ought to steal so you have more cash left over after the lawyers get done. The current system provides negative incentive to be honest.
No. Shareholder lawsuits are not about investors. Shareholder lawsuits are about lawyers.
Shareholder lawsuits are guaranteed to occur any time a company does (or declines to do) any significant action that might affect the price of the stock. They are not an event. They are not newsworthy except as an indication of our broken legal system.
You could mind your own business and stop trying to push your beliefs on them.
Also, security and privacy are different things. Privacy advocates seem to have some strange motivation beyond simple protection from data and identity theft or other actual harm.
No. There's no superhuman person who never gets things wrong. Expertise is not incorruptible. Competence is not infallibility.
This is why we should not have government schools -- because we no longer have a common set of beliefs and every set of teachings offends a substantial minority of people.
It should be left up to the parents. They should choose their children's school. No more one-size-fits-all government truth/propaganda education. We should be past that now.
Except that you can't easily live in 95% of Canada or Australia.
If we get some global warming, perhaps that will improve for Canada and Russia. If Australia starts getting more strong storms due to global warming, it might start to be wetter and somewhat more habitable too.
Secondly, the original article had a 'might' in it and was of the form "Biofuels might make greenhouse gases worse". Deleting 'might' combletely changes the meaning and esculates the threat.
So they might, or they might not make greenhouse gases worse. Wow, those biofuels sound great. Let's all force everyone to buy them so we can experience this dubious benefit or harm.
Everyone else in the world gains a tiny amount from the reduced emission of carbon...
This assumes anthropogenic global warming. For the sake of argument, let us assume that. It also assumes warmer is worse. No one has ever tried to make the case that warmer is worse with any kind of scientific cost-benefit analysis. So reduced carbon may be a gain, or a loss.
It doesn't really seem like a good argument to make someone want to artificially impoverish himself.
So you're saying that people have a duty to make themselves artificially poor now so in a hundred years, someone on the other side of the planet can afford to have 3 children instead of 2? No sale.
Look at a globe sometime. See Russia? It's a huge land mass. See Canada and Australia also. -- huge. These areas are very sparsely populated. There's more than enough land for several times the current world population, and the world population isn't going up very fast.
...but some of the rest of us care about not screwing over our children!
You want them to live lives of artificial poverty, just like you are. What a gift you're giving them! If it's wrong for you to use a resource, how will it be OK for them to use it?
I see more and more resources being put off-limits to use as time passes. How well will your children live when they're not allowed by the governments you built to use any land or energy?
When I look at it that way it makes a whole lot more sense from a practical point of view to modify my behavior to simply use less energy.
Question: Why?
Seriously, what's the point? How are you going to be better off if you use less energy? What do you gain? What does anyone gain?
Sure, you'll save some money. But a normal, rational person already does that when it beats the alternative. I could save the gas I'd use to go buy groceries and walk to the store tomorrow. It'll be -10 degrees and high winds (it would be -11 except for the global warming), but it's only a 10 minute walk. And I might save 50 cents worth of energy. Is that a good trade?
I could spend a few hundred bucks on a super-efficient water heater, or I could take shorter showers.
If you really want to save energy, why not take cold showers? Or don't bathe at all? Saving energy has some value, right?
You are artificially impoverishing yourself for no reason. How does it make sense to deprive yourself so you can die with a tiny bit of extra money in the bank or oil in the ground? Will you go to environmental heaven if you sacrifice enough?
That would be hard. Going through airport security is extremely easy and takes about one minute unless you're absolutely stupid. So i don't think it's really analogous.
You sometimes have to wait in line to get up to the security checkpoint. Of course, you have to wait in line in every other part of society where more than about 5 people are doing something.
No. A license does not provide the ability to drive. And "No" to government education -- education does not require government workers. And "No" to government parks staffed with government workers -- start a foundation if you want parks. "No" to government libraries too -- start a private foundation if you want libraries.
That would save a lot more than enough money for the police and firefighters and prison guards -- all actual legitimate government functions (though private-sector fire departments exist too) -- to have retirement plans. Plus we could all have huge tax cuts and freedom and choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Consoles are winning and will eventually win. The reason is simple:
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play.
Now that consoles have comparable graphics and sound to a mid-level PC, there's little advantage to using a PC over a console for games. And there are often large disadvantages.
If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.
Do you think it will work then? Will the rockets stop landing because of this?
Because if they don't, then I don't understand your point. You seem to be in favor of this village taking an ineffective action. Isn't an ineffective action, by definition, worthless and wasteful?
If I wanted the rockets to stop falling on my village, I'd be in favor of the action that would work. If a non-violent action worked, good. If not, then violent ones would be the next thing to try. It's simple problem-solving. And if you have a grave enough problem, violence just another tool in the toolbox.
Who wants to bet the chemicals would kill more people than the rockets?
The people of the village of Sderot want to take that bet.
Please pay attention.
The most significant difference I see is the latter of the two groups isn't engaging in deception to try and get their goals legislated.
Assuming deception, that's a fair point. However "get their goals legislated" is an interesting phrase. It's not like salaries are being capped and folks are being forced by government IT enforcers to study and become skilled.
H1B visa applicants are people too, and they are freely willing to work if given the chance. They're not "legislated" to work in the US, the legislation is to remove the prohibition on them working here.
How much searching for a candidate is needed before a shortage can be declared?
You pay well, or you pay well for the Sacramento area?
I don't know how much everyone at the company makes. We pay well for the areas where we're located. We haven't been able to find anyone to send an offer letter to.
How much effort does someone have to go to and how much do they have to offer to pay before a shortage can be acknowledged?
Then you aren't looking hard enough or have requirements that even people who develop code for the linux kernel wouldn't qualify for.
We can't even find people to interview, much less interview and reject.
There are two very obvious sides to this argument:
1. We want more supply of labor to bring the price down.
2. We want less supply of labor to bring the price up.
Both positions are entirely self-serving. There's no surprise.
FWIW: Our company is looking for someone to be a Unix/Linux sysadmin in the Sacramento area. We pay well. We can't find anyone.
...that is why the USA is staring at 1/3 to 1/2 trillion dollar deficits forever.
Forever apparently doesn't include 2006 when the deficit was $0.248 trillion.
(In case you can't tell, my pet peeve is deficits.)
Why? You never said what was wrong with deficits.
Deficits at a small percentage of GDP are no particular problem. See the graphs on the whitehouse budget page.
If the total debt as a percentage of GDP is flat, then it isn't a problem for the future -- no more than it is a problem for the present, at least.
Deficits are a problem, but they aren't a bigger problem than taxes or spending. The deficit as a "ticking time bomb" is yet another false scare. Folks who think of themselves as responsible folks don't like financing government with debt. But responsible folks need to be responsible to reality, not to unjustifiable alarmism.
If you reduce the size of democratic government a non-democratic government will arise to replace it.
Therefore, all governments have always been exactly the same size.
Everyone's heard it all before. The Nordic countries are a paradise. We know.
Please consider just moving to one of those countries and spare the rest of us the one-sided, rose-colored analysis of why the US needs to give up everything unique about ourselves and our culture and our lifestyle and change to be exactly like Sweden and Norway. Thanks.
Aside from that, what's your point? That there's a counter-example to the argument? So what? It's true except in the Nordic countries then. Since the US isn't one of those Nordic countries, it still seems like a useful rule.
BTW: I disagree with some of Lessig's ideas. The problem isn't that everyone's lives and choices are controlled by bad people and they should be controlled by good people instead. Rather, people should be free to live their own lives and make their own choices.
the journey is expected to take about 2 to 3 months
Wow, that's pretty good. How long does it take in a boat powered by fossil fuels?
You are correct in theory. In theory, shareholder lawsuits provide a way to remedy a legitimate grievances and an incentive to honesty.
In practice, shareholder lawsuits happen without regard to honesty. The cost is not related to wrongdoing. So when actual wrongdoing occurs and shareholders sue, it is no different than any other time.
In other words, if you are going to be sued whether you steal or not, it logically follows that you ought to steal so you have more cash left over after the lawyers get done. The current system provides negative incentive to be honest.
No. Shareholder lawsuits are not about investors. Shareholder lawsuits are about lawyers.
Shareholder lawsuits are guaranteed to occur any time a company does (or declines to do) any significant action that might affect the price of the stock. They are not an event. They are not newsworthy except as an indication of our broken legal system.
You could mind your own business and stop trying to push your beliefs on them.
Also, security and privacy are different things. Privacy advocates seem to have some strange motivation beyond simple protection from data and identity theft or other actual harm.
No. There's no superhuman person who never gets things wrong. Expertise is not incorruptible. Competence is not infallibility.
This is why we should not have government schools -- because we no longer have a common set of beliefs and every set of teachings offends a substantial minority of people.
It should be left up to the parents. They should choose their children's school. No more one-size-fits-all government truth/propaganda education. We should be past that now.
Except that you can't easily live in 95% of Canada or Australia.
If we get some global warming, perhaps that will improve for Canada and Russia. If Australia starts getting more strong storms due to global warming, it might start to be wetter and somewhat more habitable too.
I don't see a cost-benefit analysis at that link. They didn't look at the benefit side at all.
Secondly, the original article had a 'might' in it and was of the form "Biofuels might make greenhouse gases worse". Deleting 'might' combletely changes the meaning and esculates the threat.
So they might, or they might not make greenhouse gases worse. Wow, those biofuels sound great. Let's all force everyone to buy them so we can experience this dubious benefit or harm.
Everyone else in the world gains a tiny amount from the reduced emission of carbon...
This assumes anthropogenic global warming. For the sake of argument, let us assume that. It also assumes warmer is worse. No one has ever tried to make the case that warmer is worse with any kind of scientific cost-benefit analysis. So reduced carbon may be a gain, or a loss.
It doesn't really seem like a good argument to make someone want to artificially impoverish himself.
So you're saying that people have a duty to make themselves artificially poor now so in a hundred years, someone on the other side of the planet can afford to have 3 children instead of 2? No sale.
Look at a globe sometime. See Russia? It's a huge land mass. See Canada and Australia also. -- huge. These areas are very sparsely populated. There's more than enough land for several times the current world population, and the world population isn't going up very fast.
...but some of the rest of us care about not screwing over our children!
You want them to live lives of artificial poverty, just like you are. What a gift you're giving them! If it's wrong for you to use a resource, how will it be OK for them to use it?
I see more and more resources being put off-limits to use as time passes. How well will your children live when they're not allowed by the governments you built to use any land or energy?
When I look at it that way it makes a whole lot more sense from a practical point of view to modify my behavior to simply use less energy.
Question: Why?
Seriously, what's the point? How are you going to be better off if you use less energy? What do you gain? What does anyone gain?
Sure, you'll save some money. But a normal, rational person already does that when it beats the alternative. I could save the gas I'd use to go buy groceries and walk to the store tomorrow. It'll be -10 degrees and high winds (it would be -11 except for the global warming), but it's only a 10 minute walk. And I might save 50 cents worth of energy. Is that a good trade?
I could spend a few hundred bucks on a super-efficient water heater, or I could take shorter showers.
If you really want to save energy, why not take cold showers? Or don't bathe at all? Saving energy has some value, right?
You are artificially impoverishing yourself for no reason. How does it make sense to deprive yourself so you can die with a tiny bit of extra money in the bank or oil in the ground? Will you go to environmental heaven if you sacrifice enough?
That would be hard. Going through airport security is extremely easy and takes about one minute unless you're absolutely stupid. So i don't think it's really analogous.
You sometimes have to wait in line to get up to the security checkpoint. Of course, you have to wait in line in every other part of society where more than about 5 people are doing something.
so you don't like licensed drivers, or educators?
No. A license does not provide the ability to drive. And "No" to government education -- education does not require government workers. And "No" to government parks staffed with government workers -- start a foundation if you want parks. "No" to government libraries too -- start a private foundation if you want libraries.
That would save a lot more than enough money for the police and firefighters and prison guards -- all actual legitimate government functions (though private-sector fire departments exist too) -- to have retirement plans. Plus we could all have huge tax cuts and freedom and choice.