The tragedy of an arms race like in the cold war is that both sides are building weapons out of fear of an attack. It's madness.
Bear in mind this mindset came after a World War where one side avoided building weapons out of fear of accidentally using them. War happened anyways because it only takes one side to start it up.
And that response was in itself an attempt to avoid the mistakes of the previous World War, where several nations built up their military to show off their national epeenery, and a small spark set off a chain reaction that destroyed an entire generation of young men.
So as silly as the fear may seem, I'd take the lack of total world war over some of the possible alternatives.
If we must, we could quibble that "elected" does not mean the same thing in China or Russia as it does in countries that don't have (or have much less) political coercion and one-party rule.
Being able to cite a list of figures and dates does not mean one understands the ideas or concepts. Naming the first president and the years he served does not tell me you understand the role of the Bill of Rights, for instance.
As for using a grading machine - it is only able to grade the answer against a correct solution that was first written by a human. It's laughable to think that a grading machine somehow bypasses human bias.
(How do you guarantee the machine is fair? Who calibrates the machine? Who audits the calibrator?)
Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly. Stop playing stupid, you knew this to be true.
Remember, Monopoly doesn't mean ONLY ONE, it means you control a very dominating marketshare. You cannot deny that Windows does this.
I do not deny that Windows has a dominant market share.
But I don't know this definition of "monopoly" that you are using. Wiki says "only supplier of a particular commodity". The word itself, "mono" means ONE. Single. Am I missing a legal definition of monopoly that defies common sense?
Acted like a monopoly? Sure. Is a monopoly? There has always been alternatives. MS has even acted in response to those alternatives (competition!) to preserve its market share. Part of what makes something a monopoly is that there is no competition.
But really, the main point I had is that pretty much any monopoly you can point to, exists because of gov't provided barriers of entry.
Absolute horseshit. Unless you subscribe to the idea that Joe Schmo should be able to sell a copy of Windows without actually paying Microsoft, which I find completely ridiculous.
IP is a gov't (society) granted monopoly. If the gov't does not protect it, then yes, every Joe Schmoe can make his own copy of any code/book/art, and all software becomes an unlimited supply commodity.
I don't think it would be a good thing to allow your stated scenario (no copyright), but that doesn't change the nature of IP - it's a gov't granted and protected monopoly.
That is how IP can go public domain; the gov't withdraws the legal monopoly protection and allows any Joe Schmoe to make and sell copies (books, arts... code).
Even accepting that Microsoft is a monopoly (of... what? Microsoft products?), you'll note that their OS "monopoly" only exists because the government protects and enforces the copyright of their software.
Do you really pay delivery charges from Amazon? I can't recall the last time I bought something from Amazon itself (not a 3rd-party seller on Amazon) and paid a delivery charge. Why would you, given how easy it usually is to get free shipping from them (and has been for years)?"
Yes we do. Even if it's not itemized separately from the item's cost, the customer is paying Amazon's delivery charges. Because UPS/USPS/FedEx are not charities, and Amazon pays them because the customer is paying Amazon for that delivery.
The shipping cost Amazon pays to get individual items to your home is probably more than the cost the brick and motor store pays, but since Amazon has fewer employees, they have more room to cut prices and still have the same or higher profit margins.
And I noted that this reflects Amazon's higher efficiency - they're able to deliver you the same goods at less cost!
This is a great thing for their customers. Unfair to brick and mortars? Sure - but they have their own advantages over online shopping.
Do you think the UPS/USPS/FedEx guy dropping goods off at your home is doing it for free? They're providing a service that is paid for - Amazon may be giving you "free shipping" but it's really just rolled into your purchase price. Customers are paying for the delivery charges, unless Amazon is selling a particular item at a loss when shipping charges are factored in.
I also daresay that it costs more to deliver packages to individual addresses throughout a city, rather than just driving a truck full of goods to a retailer to unload.
That Amazon can use a costlier method of delivery and *still* provides goods at a cheaper price reflects that their business is *more efficient* than the brick and mortar store. (for that particular customer, on that particular product)
To what extent that efficiency needs to be penalized through taxes is a question for the US federal gov't.
Just out of interest, how many games have you heard about where you have to stop domestic terrorists?
If I recall correctly, Rainbow Six (which is a counter-terrorism tactical FPS), involved "domestic terrorists" (wacko environmentalists).
Was a pretty fun game. Killed hundreds of hours of free time.
What about all the poor saps who are still stuck with the 9X series? They qualify as Windows users, no? (okay, they're not modern day Windows machines, but they make up at least 50% of the Windows installs out there...) I know whenever I deal with those bloody machines, a BSOD is inevitable.
My parent's XP machine crashes on a regular basis, having no problems with 2000 or BSD. The machine I'm using right now works relatively well with 98 (still crashes occasionally), but is plain unusable with XP. (Bloody problems with everything, especially video & sound. Drivers for 2000, 98 work, but XP? Nooo.....).
Don't forget that they also changed it so the computer reboots automatically instead of showing them BSODs, so that MS can now claim they "fixed" it. (though I suppose you're stuck rebooting anyways... but it hides the problem. I know I didn't know at first why XP was restarting randomly. I can imagine that most people see the apparent lack of the Blue Screen and think that Windows doesn't have that problem anymore.)
Too much toward one extreme is the culprit. If ATI or nVidia were the only game in town (ie: monopoly), then innovation would likely slow down. (why bother making a new bleeding edge card that obsoletes previous cards when you can just jack up your prices on those old cards, since you're the only option?)
Now, ATI is giving nVidia a run for its money, and nVidia needs to respond with a better card, which ATI will respond to, ad infinitum. Which hopefully means, 2 or 3 years later, I can pick up a card as powerful as the 9700 Pro for budget prices. = )
Well, its not that law is a secondary concern, its that there are two kinds of law.
The first one is criminal law. These are wrongs against society (like murder, theft, and what not), and the person guilty of it will be punished by the government.
The second kind is civil law, which involves torts, wrongs against either individuals or organizations. These are pursued by the victim to the perpetuator in order to receive recompensation for any damages.
The two often go together. (ie: You stole my computer. You've acted against society and me. I may sue for the damages caused to me [cost of a new computer], or whatever it takes to put me back financially before you stole my computer under civil law. Then you are slapped with jail time or a fine under criminal law, to serve as a deterrent to other potential theives.)
Now, in this case, to the best of my knowledge, the fans have not violated any criminal law, so there is only a tort (private wrong) involved. As such, the business has the right to sue the fans for any damages that they can prove. BUT, the company may choose not to sue the fans for whatever reason.
In this case, its because they think that by letting the fans do so, they will get advertising (Hey... what's that cool comic based off of? Trigun? Cool... gotta check that out.), and by not suing their fans, the fans will likely be happier with the company and keep buying stuff.
If the company instead sued the fans, that would hurt their business, as they are basically attacking their customers, which are their revenue source. (like shooting yourself in the foot... not very intelligent.)
IANAL, but I'm taking a law class in high school, and hopefully this clears things up a bit. (and please correct me if I got anything about this wrong.)
But for the third one, the answer is teaching (or if necessary, forcing) people to be reponsible gun users, or responsible drivers. What about teens having sex? Just pass them condoms and hope for the best?
A more realistic reaction would be to show them their options. They can choose to have sex now w/ or w/o condoms, and they can have physical pleasure at the risk of pregnancy and STDs(though maybe at a lower risk w/ condoms), or they can choose to abstain from sex, avoid all those risks, and learn that having a close relationship doesn't mean getting in bed together.
I think there's a myth that teens are totally hormone controlled animals that will @#$% at the first opportunity. You assume that they won't listen to reason, have no self-control, cannot think about consequences. Too many teens are told that they won't be able to resist their sexual urges and that to even try is futile. I wonder how they'll behave? Don't be afraid to expect more from teens. I'm a high school junior and still a virgin.
Slashdot Mirror
The tragedy of an arms race like in the cold war is that both sides are building weapons out of fear of an attack. It's madness.
Bear in mind this mindset came after a World War where one side avoided building weapons out of fear of accidentally using them. War happened anyways because it only takes one side to start it up.
And that response was in itself an attempt to avoid the mistakes of the previous World War, where several nations built up their military to show off their national epeenery, and a small spark set off a chain reaction that destroyed an entire generation of young men.
So as silly as the fear may seem, I'd take the lack of total world war over some of the possible alternatives.
Your ability to be skeptical about the choice of targets clearly means that the military planners in 1945 got it all wrong.
Such a pity they didn't have your superior analytical abilities to figure out the right place to bomb.
Does it have to?
If we must, we could quibble that "elected" does not mean the same thing in China or Russia as it does in countries that don't have (or have much less) political coercion and one-party rule.
Being able to cite a list of figures and dates does not mean one understands the ideas or concepts. Naming the first president and the years he served does not tell me you understand the role of the Bill of Rights, for instance.
As for using a grading machine - it is only able to grade the answer against a correct solution that was first written by a human. It's laughable to think that a grading machine somehow bypasses human bias.
(How do you guarantee the machine is fair? Who calibrates the machine? Who audits the calibrator?)
Doom is not a 3rd-person shooter video game, nor was it the first. (Wolfenstein 3d preceded it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_shooter
Yes, Microsoft was a monopoly. Stop playing stupid, you knew this to be true. Remember, Monopoly doesn't mean ONLY ONE, it means you control a very dominating marketshare. You cannot deny that Windows does this.
I do not deny that Windows has a dominant market share.
But I don't know this definition of "monopoly" that you are using. Wiki says "only supplier of a particular commodity". The word itself, "mono" means ONE. Single. Am I missing a legal definition of monopoly that defies common sense?
Acted like a monopoly? Sure. Is a monopoly? There has always been alternatives. MS has even acted in response to those alternatives (competition!) to preserve its market share. Part of what makes something a monopoly is that there is no competition.
But really, the main point I had is that pretty much any monopoly you can point to, exists because of gov't provided barriers of entry.
Absolute horseshit. Unless you subscribe to the idea that Joe Schmo should be able to sell a copy of Windows without actually paying Microsoft, which I find completely ridiculous.
IP is a gov't (society) granted monopoly. If the gov't does not protect it, then yes, every Joe Schmoe can make his own copy of any code/book/art, and all software becomes an unlimited supply commodity.
I don't think it would be a good thing to allow your stated scenario (no copyright), but that doesn't change the nature of IP - it's a gov't granted and protected monopoly.
That is how IP can go public domain; the gov't withdraws the legal monopoly protection and allows any Joe Schmoe to make and sell copies (books, arts ... code).
Microsoft is a monopoly?
What of this Linux thing? Or that Apple company?
Even accepting that Microsoft is a monopoly (of ... what? Microsoft products?), you'll note that their OS "monopoly" only exists because the government protects and enforces the copyright of their software.
He already addressed this when he said
I was answering this rhetorical question:
Do you really pay delivery charges from Amazon? I can't recall the last time I bought something from Amazon itself (not a 3rd-party seller on Amazon) and paid a delivery charge. Why would you, given how easy it usually is to get free shipping from them (and has been for years)?"
Yes we do. Even if it's not itemized separately from the item's cost, the customer is paying Amazon's delivery charges. Because UPS/USPS/FedEx are not charities, and Amazon pays them because the customer is paying Amazon for that delivery.
The shipping cost Amazon pays to get individual items to your home is probably more than the cost the brick and motor store pays, but since Amazon has fewer employees, they have more room to cut prices and still have the same or higher profit margins.
And I noted that this reflects Amazon's higher efficiency - they're able to deliver you the same goods at less cost!
This is a great thing for their customers. Unfair to brick and mortars? Sure - but they have their own advantages over online shopping.
Do you think the UPS/USPS/FedEx guy dropping goods off at your home is doing it for free? They're providing a service that is paid for - Amazon may be giving you "free shipping" but it's really just rolled into your purchase price. Customers are paying for the delivery charges, unless Amazon is selling a particular item at a loss when shipping charges are factored in. I also daresay that it costs more to deliver packages to individual addresses throughout a city, rather than just driving a truck full of goods to a retailer to unload. That Amazon can use a costlier method of delivery and *still* provides goods at a cheaper price reflects that their business is *more efficient* than the brick and mortar store. (for that particular customer, on that particular product) To what extent that efficiency needs to be penalized through taxes is a question for the US federal gov't.
Bread is open source, and God owns the copyright on fish. Try again!
Knowledgable Windows user get no BSODs?
What about all the poor saps who are still stuck with the 9X series? They qualify as Windows users, no? (okay, they're not modern day Windows machines, but they make up at least 50% of the Windows installs out there...) I know whenever I deal with those bloody machines, a BSOD is inevitable.
My parent's XP machine crashes on a regular basis, having no problems with 2000 or BSD. The machine I'm using right now works relatively well with 98 (still crashes occasionally), but is plain unusable with XP. (Bloody problems with everything, especially video & sound. Drivers for 2000, 98 work, but XP? Nooo.....).
Don't forget that they also changed it so the computer reboots automatically instead of showing them BSODs, so that MS can now claim they "fixed" it. (though I suppose you're stuck rebooting anyways... but it hides the problem. I know I didn't know at first why XP was restarting randomly. I can imagine that most people see the apparent lack of the Blue Screen and think that Windows doesn't have that problem anymore.)
But does selling students (or anyone for that matter) CDs at discounted prices generate ill-will?
I think not! And we all know that suing everyone at the drop of a hat is the best way to make sure everyone hates you.
This way, they get to compete with Microsoft for the title of "Most Hated Company/Cartel".
[sarcastic]
Its a win-win situation... for them at least.
[/sarcastic]
I prefer "Mac-in-Box"
= P
It's more of a balance = good thing...
Too much toward one extreme is the culprit. If ATI or nVidia were the only game in town (ie: monopoly), then innovation would likely slow down. (why bother making a new bleeding edge card that obsoletes previous cards when you can just jack up your prices on those old cards, since you're the only option?)
Now, ATI is giving nVidia a run for its money, and nVidia needs to respond with a better card, which ATI will respond to, ad infinitum. Which hopefully means, 2 or 3 years later, I can pick up a card as powerful as the 9700 Pro for budget prices. = )
Well, its not that law is a secondary concern, its that there are two kinds of law.
The first one is criminal law. These are wrongs against society (like murder, theft, and what not), and the person guilty of it will be punished by the government.
The second kind is civil law, which involves torts, wrongs against either individuals or organizations. These are pursued by the victim to the perpetuator in order to receive recompensation for any damages.
The two often go together. (ie: You stole my computer. You've acted against society and me. I may sue for the damages caused to me [cost of a new computer], or whatever it takes to put me back financially before you stole my computer under civil law. Then you are slapped with jail time or
a fine under criminal law, to serve as a deterrent to other potential theives.)
Now, in this case, to the best of my knowledge, the fans have not violated any criminal law, so there is only a tort (private wrong) involved. As such, the business has the right to sue the fans for any damages that they can prove. BUT, the company may choose not to sue the fans for whatever reason.
In this case, its because they think that by letting the fans do so, they will get advertising (Hey... what's that cool comic based off of? Trigun? Cool... gotta check that out.), and by not suing their fans, the fans will likely be happier with the company and keep buying stuff.
If the company instead sued the fans, that would hurt their business, as they are basically attacking their customers, which are their revenue source. (like shooting yourself in the foot... not very intelligent.)
IANAL, but I'm taking a law class in high school, and hopefully this clears things up a bit. (and please correct me if I got anything about this wrong.)
Dunno about your first two points....
But for the third one, the answer is teaching (or if necessary, forcing) people to be reponsible gun users, or responsible drivers. What about teens having sex? Just pass them condoms and hope for the best?
A more realistic reaction would be to show them their options. They can choose to have sex now w/ or w/o condoms, and they can have physical pleasure at the risk of pregnancy and STDs(though maybe at a lower risk w/ condoms), or they can choose to abstain from sex, avoid all those risks, and learn that having a close relationship doesn't mean getting in bed together.
I think there's a myth that teens are totally hormone controlled animals that will @#$% at the first opportunity. You assume that they won't listen to reason, have no self-control, cannot think about consequences. Too many teens are told that they won't be able to resist their sexual urges and that to even try is futile. I wonder how they'll behave? Don't be afraid to expect more from teens. I'm a high school junior and still a virgin.
(But then again, I post on Slashdot... =P )
e.) CowboyNeal (is toasted by flamethrowers.)
Squeek? SQUEEEEEEEEEK!!!!! *splat* (I know, I know, it's the computer mouse.. but this was the first thing I thought of when I read it)