With crowdfunding, it's much easier to get money by being flashy and having a low buy-in price like $1 - $5. A little viral marketing, and you have $50-100k in no time because a buck is nothing to people and you are never scrutinized for wanting some pocket change. If project buy-ins were regulated and limited to certain minimums, say $100 - $500, then the project owners are going to have to submit some well-documented proposals on how they plan to deliver and demonstrate genuine drive to finish the project if they want to see any money at all. As you increase the minimum buy-in the crowd will naturally make more intelligent choices.
Worse than that, they'll probably think what they did had an affect on this outcome. So in the future they'll try to do what 'worked' this time -- kill some Americans.
That's what I thought. I remember seeing this video back when the squircle Zunes were coming out, and Courier concept video had just been released a few months earlier. People's reaction to it was "yeah, I like it, but Courier is coming out man!" Ha! what a disappointment that was...
Such a company represents more than just profit for the owners; It represents a influx of both domestic and foreign revenue for the economy at large; it represents a decrease of trade deficit, perhaps even an increase of trade surplus; it represents a body of money that otherwise would not have been taxed. In short it represents a goose that lays golden eggs for a country (though far be it from me to elevate companies to such levels), and governments are not stupid or crazy when they think twice before acting in ways that may cause them to take flight. Portugal has no such golden geese, and is not burdened by the fear of losing them. Which is why I said it was easy for them to do, not that it was right or wrong for them to do. You can say that it is amoral to consider such things, but amoral is not the same as immoral, as previous posters have suggested.
I don't expect UK or France (other top IP reliant economies) to follow Portugal either. Even without cronyism the legitimate taxes that can be raised from these industries ensures that no country with a sizable stake will do the same.
It's easy to do because Portugal has little stake in copyright enforcement. Can anyone name a globally distributing film/music/software company from Portugal?
You know what's also 'cute'? If this were a Republican administration, Slashdot would have laid it all on the President with absolutely no hesitation, instead of the meager 90 instances of Obama getting some flack (most of them don't really count as they're just from the thread title). Here we mostly see people criticize the military establishment, either afraid or unwilling to link it to its current Commander in Chief. Slashdot's inability to criticize Democrats with the same fervor as it does Republicans is a real hindrance to its collective objectivity.
I'd bet you would never bring out the "it would have happened anyway/other side would have done the same thing" rationale if a Republican were the President. No, a poster like you in that circumstance would be immediately accused of being an apologist or perhaps even a shill, and you'd either be too afraid, unwilling, or already part of that mob.
The thing is, socialist slogans proclaiming they're for the people aren't too different from capitalist slogans proclaiming they're for freedom. It all winds up in a race for who can use whom to empower himself. My advice is: be skeptical of everything, particularly of ideals which you hold dear.
But I do think this gaffe is good to point out in the wake of the Romney airplane windows gaffe, which has gotten so much attention. People on both sides make a big deal about nothing just to have the satisfaction of one-upping the other guys on trivial matters. Now that these stupid "aha look how dumb they are" moments have happened to both sides, I really hope everyone who has joined in on the mockery can step back and take a look at themselves.
Should keep their religious beliefs and their politics to themselves. For politicians, the latter is impossible, but the former should still apply. (that's why Republicans are somewhat more repulsive in this regard).
But, this is really a non-story in any case, neither Torvald's political opinions nor Romney's assessment of airplane windows should matter to us. (I mean if Clinton's assessment of blowjobs didn't affect his ability to act as President, then surely Romney's assessment of airplane windows couldn't either.)
As pointed out below, there was a split within the Republican camp -- 95 for, 96 against, with those against the bill in both house and senate represented by majority Republicans. It then would not be surprising nor hypocritical that those among the 96 would still be working against the bill. That one faction of Republicans worked against another faction of Republicans is not indicative of Republican hypocrisy, it's merely how politics sometimes play out.
Your reasoning would also lead us to conclude that Democrats were fickle/flip-flopping/hypocrites when their votes were split for the wiretap re-authorization bill (which incidentally Obama signed) where many were for it while many others spoke out against it.
Is that also how you feel about the Patriot Act extension - backed by mostly Republicans, but signed by Obama? There was a thread back then where nearly everyone blamed Congress, and made excuses for Obama. You're telling us you would have spoken out against all those people, and that it was irrelevant since Obama signed it?
So it's the same Republicans who initially voted against the bill who are still against the bill? Where's the hypocrisy that OP was implying? Those Republicans who voted for it aren't making a big fuss.
On that background it is strange that so many of those that sympathise with Socialism are well-educated high-achievers, while so many of the most conservative and reactionary are found amongst those with little or no education.
On the other hand, 'well-educated high-achievers' never have to live with the 'plebs', never to realize that the view of the indolent and irresponsible is just as true as their own view of the downtrodden and exploited, while those 'reactionaries' with little or no education get to live and experience it first hand. I'm not ready to toss aside their beliefs as you so easily do. They're lower middle class who work their butts off to stay afloat. They don't have the insulated luxury of living with like-minded high-achievers, their neighbors are Jane, who has time to juggle 3 boyfriends and get pregnant yet again but none to study for her GED, or Tom, twice divorced and not a dime sent to his struggling ex-wives. And yet people think these folks believe what they believe only because they lack education?
Well, that could have other meanings. It could mean, as you say, that they're admitting something. But it could just as likely mean that there are some Muslims who are cynical about people of their faith. I'm sure we can find a good percentage of self-identified Christians who think they're surrounded by fundamentalists and think there are people among them who sympathize with abortion clinic bombers. Less of them would think so as compared to non-Christians, just like the graph, but I'm sure you could find 8 cynics out of 100.
I'm not sure about those equal chances. People in the West don't fear for their lives when they espouse anti-authoritarian or anti-religion views. This tells me there are more barriers in the West to some imaginary future Hitler. Now, you can say those barriers aren't good enough for you, but the difference is there and the equivalence is false.
"You're not perfect" is the tried-and-true retort of the miserable. Say this, or anything like it, and you shut down criticism along with any desire for self-reflection. Enjoy your brief moment of one-upmanship, because ultimately it's not he who loses, but you.
Seeing as how Romney is more hesitant about QE3 and further stimulus, I don't see how saying he'll bring about devaluation more quickly than Obama is in any way Informative. With each additional QE venture, the US increases the risk of destroying one of the pillars of its strength -- its status as a reserve currency -- since with these stimuluses, the US is essentially picking itself up by putting an arm on the shoulder of every other economy in the world. While a softer kind of currency manipulation compared to what China does, it's manipulation nonetheless, and builds resentment in a world that already resents the country. How long before those who wish to move away from the USD outnumber those who wish to stay? Romney might not be able (or even willing) to put a stop to it, but to say he'll make it worse? That's hard to believe.
This is why we should defund all research, and use the money to fund espionage. All of the benefits, very little of the costs. And afterwards, we'll just pick some idea the other guys borrowed a couple decades or centuries ago to justify what we did. Then everyone will be in awe of how smart Americans are.
Why is this modded down? CCTV-7 is the military channel, which has programming that "reminds Chinese how awesome they are!" It's like if Discovery Channel's military shows were broadcast on PBS, alongside an overarching narrative that pits the US as China's main adversary. Slashdotters who think "Future War" is propaganda would be in shock.
Exactly, OP makes the basic error of comparing sequential throughput. Sequential rates are only for marketing, real world performance is based on latency and random read/write rates. SSDs give you 1/10th to 1/100th of the latency, and 50x to 150x the random read/write of spindle drives. They're nowhere close to each other.
From that answer we can deduce that you allow that flag burners COULD be doing it as a protest against government, rather than to be solely antagonistic. Would you not also allow the possibility that this film maker COULD have done it as a protest against Islam, rather than to be solely antagonistic?
Slashdot Mirror
Whitehouse confirms
Yes, Obama wants to start a war with China. You have singlehandedly exposed this conspiracy. Enjoy your +5 Insightful
Why would the Great Firewall allow other countries to tarnish China's good name?
With crowdfunding, it's much easier to get money by being flashy and having a low buy-in price like $1 - $5. A little viral marketing, and you have $50-100k in no time because a buck is nothing to people and you are never scrutinized for wanting some pocket change. If project buy-ins were regulated and limited to certain minimums, say $100 - $500, then the project owners are going to have to submit some well-documented proposals on how they plan to deliver and demonstrate genuine drive to finish the project if they want to see any money at all. As you increase the minimum buy-in the crowd will naturally make more intelligent choices.
Worse than that, they'll probably think what they did had an affect on this outcome. So in the future they'll try to do what 'worked' this time -- kill some Americans.
That's what I thought. I remember seeing this video back when the squircle Zunes were coming out, and Courier concept video had just been released a few months earlier. People's reaction to it was "yeah, I like it, but Courier is coming out man!" Ha! what a disappointment that was...
Such a company represents more than just profit for the owners; It represents a influx of both domestic and foreign revenue for the economy at large; it represents a decrease of trade deficit, perhaps even an increase of trade surplus; it represents a body of money that otherwise would not have been taxed. In short it represents a goose that lays golden eggs for a country (though far be it from me to elevate companies to such levels), and governments are not stupid or crazy when they think twice before acting in ways that may cause them to take flight. Portugal has no such golden geese, and is not burdened by the fear of losing them. Which is why I said it was easy for them to do, not that it was right or wrong for them to do. You can say that it is amoral to consider such things, but amoral is not the same as immoral, as previous posters have suggested.
I don't expect UK or France (other top IP reliant economies) to follow Portugal either. Even without cronyism the legitimate taxes that can be raised from these industries ensures that no country with a sizable stake will do the same.
It's easy to do because Portugal has little stake in copyright enforcement. Can anyone name a globally distributing film/music/software company from Portugal?
You know what's also 'cute'? If this were a Republican administration, Slashdot would have laid it all on the President with absolutely no hesitation, instead of the meager 90 instances of Obama getting some flack (most of them don't really count as they're just from the thread title). Here we mostly see people criticize the military establishment, either afraid or unwilling to link it to its current Commander in Chief. Slashdot's inability to criticize Democrats with the same fervor as it does Republicans is a real hindrance to its collective objectivity.
I'd bet you would never bring out the "it would have happened anyway/other side would have done the same thing" rationale if a Republican were the President. No, a poster like you in that circumstance would be immediately accused of being an apologist or perhaps even a shill, and you'd either be too afraid, unwilling, or already part of that mob.
The thing is, socialist slogans proclaiming they're for the people aren't too different from capitalist slogans proclaiming they're for freedom. It all winds up in a race for who can use whom to empower himself. My advice is: be skeptical of everything, particularly of ideals which you hold dear.
But I do think this gaffe is good to point out in the wake of the Romney airplane windows gaffe, which has gotten so much attention. People on both sides make a big deal about nothing just to have the satisfaction of one-upping the other guys on trivial matters. Now that these stupid "aha look how dumb they are" moments have happened to both sides, I really hope everyone who has joined in on the mockery can step back and take a look at themselves.
Should keep their religious beliefs and their politics to themselves. For politicians, the latter is impossible, but the former should still apply. (that's why Republicans are somewhat more repulsive in this regard).
But, this is really a non-story in any case, neither Torvald's political opinions nor Romney's assessment of airplane windows should matter to us. (I mean if Clinton's assessment of blowjobs didn't affect his ability to act as President, then surely Romney's assessment of airplane windows couldn't either.)
As pointed out below, there was a split within the Republican camp -- 95 for, 96 against, with those against the bill in both house and senate represented by majority Republicans. It then would not be surprising nor hypocritical that those among the 96 would still be working against the bill. That one faction of Republicans worked against another faction of Republicans is not indicative of Republican hypocrisy, it's merely how politics sometimes play out.
Your reasoning would also lead us to conclude that Democrats were fickle/flip-flopping/hypocrites when their votes were split for the wiretap re-authorization bill (which incidentally Obama signed) where many were for it while many others spoke out against it.
Is that also how you feel about the Patriot Act extension - backed by mostly Republicans, but signed by Obama? There was a thread back then where nearly everyone blamed Congress, and made excuses for Obama. You're telling us you would have spoken out against all those people, and that it was irrelevant since Obama signed it?
So it's the same Republicans who initially voted against the bill who are still against the bill? Where's the hypocrisy that OP was implying? Those Republicans who voted for it aren't making a big fuss.
On that background it is strange that so many of those that sympathise with Socialism are well-educated high-achievers, while so many of the most conservative and reactionary are found amongst those with little or no education.
On the other hand, 'well-educated high-achievers' never have to live with the 'plebs', never to realize that the view of the indolent and irresponsible is just as true as their own view of the downtrodden and exploited, while those 'reactionaries' with little or no education get to live and experience it first hand. I'm not ready to toss aside their beliefs as you so easily do. They're lower middle class who work their butts off to stay afloat. They don't have the insulated luxury of living with like-minded high-achievers, their neighbors are Jane, who has time to juggle 3 boyfriends and get pregnant yet again but none to study for her GED, or Tom, twice divorced and not a dime sent to his struggling ex-wives. And yet people think these folks believe what they believe only because they lack education?
Well, that could have other meanings. It could mean, as you say, that they're admitting something. But it could just as likely mean that there are some Muslims who are cynical about people of their faith. I'm sure we can find a good percentage of self-identified Christians who think they're surrounded by fundamentalists and think there are people among them who sympathize with abortion clinic bombers. Less of them would think so as compared to non-Christians, just like the graph, but I'm sure you could find 8 cynics out of 100.
I'm not sure about those equal chances. People in the West don't fear for their lives when they espouse anti-authoritarian or anti-religion views. This tells me there are more barriers in the West to some imaginary future Hitler. Now, you can say those barriers aren't good enough for you, but the difference is there and the equivalence is false.
"You're not perfect" is the tried-and-true retort of the miserable.
Say this, or anything like it, and you shut down criticism along with any desire for self-reflection.
Enjoy your brief moment of one-upmanship, because ultimately it's not he who loses, but you.
Seeing as how Romney is more hesitant about QE3 and further stimulus, I don't see how saying he'll bring about devaluation more quickly than Obama is in any way Informative. With each additional QE venture, the US increases the risk of destroying one of the pillars of its strength -- its status as a reserve currency -- since with these stimuluses, the US is essentially picking itself up by putting an arm on the shoulder of every other economy in the world. While a softer kind of currency manipulation compared to what China does, it's manipulation nonetheless, and builds resentment in a world that already resents the country. How long before those who wish to move away from the USD outnumber those who wish to stay? Romney might not be able (or even willing) to put a stop to it, but to say he'll make it worse? That's hard to believe.
This is why we should defund all research, and use the money to fund espionage. All of the benefits, very little of the costs. And afterwards, we'll just pick some idea the other guys borrowed a couple decades or centuries ago to justify what we did. Then everyone will be in awe of how smart Americans are.
Why is this modded down? CCTV-7 is the military channel, which has programming that "reminds Chinese how awesome they are!" It's like if Discovery Channel's military shows were broadcast on PBS, alongside an overarching narrative that pits the US as China's main adversary. Slashdotters who think "Future War" is propaganda would be in shock.
Exactly, OP makes the basic error of comparing sequential throughput. Sequential rates are only for marketing, real world performance is based on latency and random read/write rates. SSDs give you 1/10th to 1/100th of the latency, and 50x to 150x the random read/write of spindle drives. They're nowhere close to each other.
From that answer we can deduce that you allow that flag burners COULD be doing it as a protest against government, rather than to be solely antagonistic. Would you not also allow the possibility that this film maker COULD have done it as a protest against Islam, rather than to be solely antagonistic?
What about the unwritten manifesto of radical Muslims that prescribes violence against blasphemy?