..exist solely for & are optimized to make mony, not get you a date. Paid matchmaking worked when your parents paid the village matchmaker, on delivery. But on-line dating sites are simple emotional pornography & fraud.
And its not hard to optimize for a successful on-line dating site, using a bit of intuition from you evolutionary psychology class & common sense. But such thought experiments always yield free sites. For example, consider the following site ideas:
1) Only women, not men, may not initiate first contact; thus restricting everyone to the rare "high probability" conversations where the women has already made a positive assessment, and limiting the guy's eye.
2) People place "ads" for specific "dates" (outings), others "bid" by expressing interest. Again means grils are initiating conversations. Gets people out into the real world. Plus many free drinks, shows, & meals for the girls.
You can just go on & on like this, but you'll never see a money maker here.
Women have what you say is "the advantage" in ANY singles settng. But very few girls manage to exploit it. And the reason is: the girls who are good with men have all got one before they every make it to a singles setting. Guys arn't usually happy with just one, if they can help it, so the guys who women usually choose in signles setting are just after a 2nd or 3rd partner. So the cycle continues.
But the other important factor is compromise. All women want a "self-confidence" guy above all else (your genes say "get me a guy who can teach my sons to get multiple girls" but "try to get him to put all his effort into my children"). So any woman who can compromise on the guy's "self-confidence" gets her good looking, rich, & faithful, but shy, but. Guys likewise care about looks above all else, making fat girls pretty damn easy.
Anyone, women especially, who bitches about dating just han't been trying to learn from mistakes or compromise.
Yeah, most of the people I know who are actually nice to animals work in labs which use animals.. even a couple vegans. Animal rights protestors are stupid.
I still think its basically an issue of legitimacy, not a simply philosophical issue.
I fully agree that eliminating limited liability has strong potential to resolve a number of problems, and limited liability itself may be "inherently wrong." But it simply isn't true that people "vote with their money" when companies are even vaguely monopolistic, say less then 20 choices, or when consumers can't easily find guides listing the pros & cons of the various choices. So you also need either (a) a powerful method to prevent monopolies or (b) a means to treat those monopolies like side governments (ideally partially de-monopolizing the real government too, but that is another issue). I favor both (a) and (b) as I'm not confidant that monopolies are avoidable.
Anyway, an essential part of (a) is eliminating IP period. BTW, You can also try a progressive corperate income tax, sales tax, or VAT" (i.e. bigger companies pay a higher precentage of their income / higher sales tax), at minimum it moves anti-trust & anti-collusion casess to tax court, where real money is at stake.. and it probably eliminates the individual income tax too.
Voiding Sony's IP is only seems excessive for Sony due to Sony's size, but keep in mind that Sony wanted to install this backdoor on *everyones* computer; once you take intent into consideration voiding their existing IP isn't excessive.
As for the 10 years thing, no reasonable judge would just let them sell all the existing IP to themselves, you'd need fair-ish auctions. You could even just auction off a contract which grants exculsive rights for 10 years, and returns those rights to Sony at the end. You'd see tons of minor labels spring up, it'd still be an improvement, dispite the fact that each has unfair monopoly powers.
I took a look at the reviews for "How to Date a White Woman: A Practical Guide for Asian Men" and found this gem, which everyone should vote up:
I was So Lonely, January 3, 2006 Reviewer: chosen "chosen" (shadowbane) I have been used book this. Book so good i get blonde. She blonde vietnamese, i no care. I love her good. she love me too. i no lose kidney.
Amazon bombing! Choose some children's books. Find the worst porn DVD's . Create lots of amazon accounts. Write a script to rate up both the porn & the books. Yey! Fun for the whole family!:)
Yes and no, I like the iddea of elimionating limited liability for corperations, i.e. making stock holders liable, but also allowing the courts to reasign all the debt to the executives & board members who made the decissions, so that ordinary people don't get screwed. But its not true that corperations can necissarily avoid big punishments.
However, its actually quite easy to make the "no IP" restriction extremely painful. If you merely voided all Sony's current copyrights, Sony CD prices would crash as the market flooded with competitors, effectively ending the revenue stream they abused.. it might decrease the price of other companies CDs too. Voiding their patents too would leave them defenseless vs. patent sharks, effectively decorperating them. Such punishments would have a profound positive impact upon behaviors of other corporations.
Of course, the major problem is that Sony isn't person-like at all, it more resembles a government. So it should be treated as a government. Companies shold have to establish their legitimacy like democrasies, either by being so numerous and compeditive that consumers have endless arbitrary choice, or by allowing everyone, not just the sstock holders, to vote.
No company spends billions on cancer research now! Governments pay for almost all research into truely new treatments, and they don't spend much of their budget on it. Drug companies only spend on: (a) figuring out how to make a marginally better version of a perfectly good product which is about to go off patent, so that they can bilk the patients out of more money. (b) paying for trials to "veryify that a drug is safe," i.e. bribing the FDA.
Here is an interesting idea: Start a new system of DNS & add support to all the open source browsers. But, unlike DNS, don't restrict yourself to blah.blah.com, just allow any string at all, but enclose them in quotes. i.e.
would be a valid name. You would still respect ICANN's opinion on TLDs without whitespace or funny characters, but you start lessening your own TLDs with whitespace & funny characters.
We seriously needc coyright reform: limit to 7 years & invalidate without publishing "all source materials used in creation". So software would never receive a copyright unless it was open source software, and music would never receive a copyright unless lyrics & tabs were published. Of course, they don't need to promote the source, but it needs to be available online from their site, and at the library of congress.
As more people write for wikinews, fewer people will read these rags anyway.
BTW, Why does anyone still submit stories to slashdot anymore? Its much more effective to submit a story to wikinews, at least it wont just be thrown out carelessly there.
Change patents to 7 years from "hitting the market", or 1 year from filing if later, but make all products on the market first to be inherently non-infringing. Suppose that you file for a trivial patent, like "one-click" shopping. Your competitors now don't even need to challenge the patent, all they have to do it make their current product infringe before yours goes on the market, or within 1 year if you go to market quickly. You can't ever use that paent against them now. As a side note, patents without a marketable product would never become valid.
Patents exist to protect venture capitalists with vision, i.e. those who take real risks on products which might not even sell. Your patent is bad for society if your competitors immediately recognize it as a product worth bringing to market quickly (one year).
We seriously needc coyright reform: limit to 7 years & invalidate without publishing "all source materials used in creation". So software would never receive a copyright unless it was open source software, and music would never receive a copyright unless lyrics & tabs were published. Of course, they don't need to promote the source, but it needs to be available online from their site, and at the library of congress.
So when will the RFID companies start putting up anarchist websites to encourage this; thus moving companies to RFID?
Anyway, I don't have much sympathy for thieves, but I'd have a lot of sympathy for a hypothetical "true anarchist" who placed discount stickers on lots of items, but didn't buy any themsevles. One would presumably mark the most expensive iPod down to the least expensive iPod. Physical evidice would be minimized if he threw away the sticker backing material before leaving the store too, used a printer which could not trace to him, and wore gloves. Not too hard to minimized CCTV evidence either. Now if he dressed in a santa hat, that would just be priceless.:)
See, this is why we need more people like Pete Ashdown running for office. He has a policy & strategy page with some comments about raising a stink over the RIAA's lawsuits.
If you care about video game legislation, why don't you go insert a policy statment about video games into Pete Ashdown's policy & strategy wiki (via).
Drugs that help prevent feelings of love for a partner would be extremely useful at rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters, as you could use them to help keep the girl from going back to the jerk.
No, you can keep a limited degree of copyright, say five years, and a limited degree of GPL, by passing a law that no one gets that copyright protection unless they release the source code.
I tend to assume that any good songs Eminem, Madonna, or Kylie Minogue will ever make, I've already downloaded. If I got to Kazaa, etc. its usually for some old infulential-but-cult song which I somehow missed through my own ignorance.
Our peaceful society is bult on sufficent resources to grant pretty much everyone most of what they need, as well as the reasonable effectiveness on non-violent revolutions. Once the powerful restrict the capasity for non-violent revolutions sufficently, it will be only the plentiful resources preventing bloodshed. Peak oil anyone? China will function far more effectively than western nations under serious resource constraints, BTW.
Anyway, I'm not actually sure just how much the non-violent revolutions have been restricted in our society. This article was written to scare IP & stock owners into giving the author money. Strong IP laws benifit the lawyers much more than even the largest non-media companies. Such companies might bail out if the IP boat starts seriously sinking.
Slashdot Mirror
..exist solely for & are optimized to make mony, not get you a date. Paid matchmaking worked when your parents paid the village matchmaker, on delivery. But on-line dating sites are simple emotional pornography & fraud.
And its not hard to optimize for a successful on-line dating site, using a bit of intuition from you evolutionary psychology class & common sense. But such thought experiments always yield free sites. For example, consider the following site ideas:
1) Only women, not men, may not initiate first contact; thus restricting everyone to the rare "high probability" conversations where the women has already made a positive assessment, and limiting the guy's eye.
2) People place "ads" for specific "dates" (outings), others "bid" by expressing interest. Again means grils are initiating conversations. Gets people out into the real world. Plus many free drinks, shows, & meals for the girls.
You can just go on & on like this, but you'll never see a money maker here.
Women have what you say is "the advantage" in ANY singles settng. But very few girls manage to exploit it. And the reason is: the girls who are good with men have all got one before they every make it to a singles setting. Guys arn't usually happy with just one, if they can help it, so the guys who women usually choose in signles setting are just after a 2nd or 3rd partner. So the cycle continues.
But the other important factor is compromise. All women want a "self-confidence" guy above all else (your genes say "get me a guy who can teach my sons to get multiple girls" but "try to get him to put all his effort into my children"). So any woman who can compromise on the guy's "self-confidence" gets her good looking, rich, & faithful, but shy, but. Guys likewise care about looks above all else, making fat girls pretty damn easy.
Anyone, women especially, who bitches about dating just han't been trying to learn from mistakes or compromise.
That is maybe the best post i've seen on Slashdot this year! I soooo wish I had mod points right now.
Yeah, most of the people I know who are actually nice to animals work in labs which use animals.. even a couple vegans. Animal rights protestors are stupid.
Wikinews has a story on this which could use some editing help.
I still think its basically an issue of legitimacy, not a simply philosophical issue.
I fully agree that eliminating limited liability has strong potential to resolve a number of problems, and limited liability itself may be "inherently wrong." But it simply isn't true that people "vote with their money" when companies are even vaguely monopolistic, say less then 20 choices, or when consumers can't easily find guides listing the pros & cons of the various choices. So you also need either (a) a powerful method to prevent monopolies or (b) a means to treat those monopolies like side governments (ideally partially de-monopolizing the real government too, but that is another issue). I favor both (a) and (b) as I'm not confidant that monopolies are avoidable.
Anyway, an essential part of (a) is eliminating IP period. BTW, You can also try a progressive corperate income tax, sales tax, or VAT" (i.e. bigger companies pay a higher precentage of their income / higher sales tax), at minimum it moves anti-trust & anti-collusion casess to tax court, where real money is at stake.. and it probably eliminates the individual income tax too.
Voiding Sony's IP is only seems excessive for Sony due to Sony's size, but keep in mind that Sony wanted to install this backdoor on *everyones* computer; once you take intent into consideration voiding their existing IP isn't excessive.
As for the 10 years thing, no reasonable judge would just let them sell all the existing IP to themselves, you'd need fair-ish auctions. You could even just auction off a contract which grants exculsive rights for 10 years, and returns those rights to Sony at the end. You'd see tons of minor labels spring up, it'd still be an improvement, dispite the fact that each has unfair monopoly powers.
lol, you rock.
I took a look at the reviews for "How to Date a White Woman: A Practical Guide for Asian Men" and found this gem, which everyone should vote up:
I was So Lonely, January 3, 2006
Reviewer: chosen "chosen" (shadowbane)
I have been used book this. Book so good i get blonde. She blonde vietnamese, i no care. I love her good. she love me too. i no lose kidney.
lol
Amazon bombing! Choose some children's books. Find the worst porn DVD's . Create lots of amazon accounts. Write a script to rate up both the porn & the books. Yey! Fun for the whole family! :)
Yes and no, I like the iddea of elimionating limited liability for corperations, i.e. making stock holders liable, but also allowing the courts to reasign all the debt to the executives & board members who made the decissions, so that ordinary people don't get screwed. But its not true that corperations can necissarily avoid big punishments.
However, its actually quite easy to make the "no IP" restriction extremely painful. If you merely voided all Sony's current copyrights, Sony CD prices would crash as the market flooded with competitors, effectively ending the revenue stream they abused.. it might decrease the price of other companies CDs too. Voiding their patents too would leave them defenseless vs. patent sharks, effectively decorperating them. Such punishments would have a profound positive impact upon behaviors of other corporations.
Of course, the major problem is that Sony isn't person-like at all, it more resembles a government. So it should be treated as a government. Companies shold have to establish their legitimacy like democrasies, either by being so numerous and compeditive that consumers have endless arbitrary choice, or by allowing everyone, not just the sstock holders, to vote.
I'd take away Sony's ability to own any intellectual property within the United States for a period of 10 years.
No company spends billions on cancer research now! Governments pay for almost all research into truely new treatments, and they don't spend much of their budget on it. Drug companies only spend on:
(a) figuring out how to make a marginally better version of a perfectly good product which is about to go off patent, so that they can bilk the patients out of more money.
(b) paying for trials to "veryify that a drug is safe," i.e. bribing the FDA.
You can't vote, but you can send them money. They will have an imact on EU politics if they start raking in political donations.
Here is an interesting idea: Start a new system of DNS & add support to all the open source browsers. But, unlike DNS, don't restrict yourself to blah.blah.com, just allow any string at all, but enclose them in quotes. i.e.
http://imap./"joes butt"."Fuck you mama"/
would be a valid name. You would still respect ICANN's opinion on TLDs without whitespace or funny characters, but you start lessening your own TLDs with whitespace & funny characters.
Jeff
We seriously needc coyright reform: limit to 7 years & invalidate without publishing "all source materials used in creation". So software would never receive a copyright unless it was open source software, and music would never receive a copyright unless lyrics & tabs were published. Of course, they don't need to promote the source, but it needs to be available online from their site, and at the library of congress.
As more people write for wikinews, fewer people will read these rags anyway.
BTW, Why does anyone still submit stories to slashdot anymore? Its much more effective to submit a story to wikinews, at least it wont just be thrown out carelessly there.
Change patents to 7 years from "hitting the market", or 1 year from filing if later, but make all products on the market first to be inherently non-infringing. Suppose that you file for a trivial patent, like "one-click" shopping. Your competitors now don't even need to challenge the patent, all they have to do it make their current product infringe before yours goes on the market, or within 1 year if you go to market quickly. You can't ever use that paent against them now. As a side note, patents without a marketable product would never become valid.
Patents exist to protect venture capitalists with vision, i.e. those who take real risks on products which might not even sell. Your patent is bad for society if your competitors immediately recognize it as a product worth bringing to market quickly (one year).
We seriously needc coyright reform: limit to 7 years & invalidate without publishing "all source materials used in creation". So software would never receive a copyright unless it was open source software, and music would never receive a copyright unless lyrics & tabs were published. Of course, they don't need to promote the source, but it needs to be available online from their site, and at the library of congress.
So when will the RFID companies start putting up anarchist websites to encourage this; thus moving companies to RFID?
:)
Anyway, I don't have much sympathy for thieves, but I'd have a lot of sympathy for a hypothetical "true anarchist" who placed discount stickers on lots of items, but didn't buy any themsevles. One would presumably mark the most expensive iPod down to the least expensive iPod. Physical evidice would be minimized if he threw away the sticker backing material before leaving the store too, used a printer which could not trace to him, and wore gloves. Not too hard to minimized CCTV evidence either. Now if he dressed in a santa hat, that would just be priceless.
We need a wrom that fakes pirating music to attract the RIAA to the wrong people.
See, this is why we need more people like Pete Ashdown running for office. He has a policy & strategy page with some comments about raising a stink over the RIAA's lawsuits.
If you care about video game legislation, why don't you go insert a policy statment about video games into Pete Ashdown's policy & strategy wiki (via).
Drugs that help prevent feelings of love for a partner would be extremely useful at rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters, as you could use them to help keep the girl from going back to the jerk.
No, you can keep a limited degree of copyright, say five years, and a limited degree of GPL, by passing a law that no one gets that copyright protection unless they release the source code.
I tend to assume that any good songs Eminem, Madonna, or Kylie Minogue will ever make, I've already downloaded. If I got to Kazaa, etc. its usually for some old infulential-but-cult song which I somehow missed through my own ignorance.
No, there definitely is a logical outcome: blood.
Our peaceful society is bult on sufficent resources to grant pretty much everyone most of what they need, as well as the reasonable effectiveness on non-violent revolutions. Once the powerful restrict the capasity for non-violent revolutions sufficently, it will be only the plentiful resources preventing bloodshed. Peak oil anyone? China will function far more effectively than western nations under serious resource constraints, BTW.
Anyway, I'm not actually sure just how much the non-violent revolutions have been restricted in our society. This article was written to scare IP & stock owners into giving the author money. Strong IP laws benifit the lawyers much more than even the largest non-media companies. Such companies might bail out if the IP boat starts seriously sinking.