A $15 CD is 3 hours of minimum wage work. Most of the people who do that work are high school and college students, an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money? It's not like we're hurting for options on how to get it cheaper than a typical overpriced local store.
The Bush admin is considering a $15 tax on orgasms. Why is it too much to ask if you enjoyed the experience, you pay the money?
those millions of people will be finally protected against viruses and spyware.... and against anything untrusted such as themselves
"Computer viruses have prompted 1.8 million households to junk their PCs over the past two years, while spyware has claimed another 850,000 machines in just the past six months."
The patent was filed in 1998 and in almost a decade, they have yet to implement a useful location based search engine. Yet by the time the idea has become obvious and more than one party has applications using that idea, the original patent filers still don't have a product. Isn't this example the very reason that software patents outrages intelligent people? It did not contribute to innovation back in 1998. It holds back innovation in 2007.
Their 'about us' on their website is also interesting http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml? cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-65428. It is full of statements relating to diversity of various sorts such as the international diversity of board members, the professional diversity of members, diversity of funding sources.... yet almost nothing about competence or credentials with respect to technology or the internet. In fact, their list of expert members http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml? cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-145834 consists almost exclusively of government bureaucrats, lawyers, non-tech academics (e.g. law, business).
The general theory underlying this is already probably (I haven't seen the details) covered in an graduate level econometric theory textbook. Almost all (interesting) practical implementations involve solving a constrained optimization problem where the objective function cannot be expressed analytically so numerical approximations are necessarily and monte carlo methods are used. This is essentially a problem in making a educated guess (i.e. estimates) about underlying characteristics given observations on behavior.
In the journals, research is often conducted on the same dataset (albeit the dataset may change over time due to addition of new data) and sensitivity analysis is conducted, say by variation of the weights attached to a particular subset of outcome characteristics targeted on the dataset of known characteristics and behavior. An example would be determining the likelihood that the set of full time workers in the dataset are single parent females. However, 50 years of evidence indicates that most estimates are not robust across time, across different datasets of purported the same population and most researchers would not recommend making economic policy on the basis of the estimates.
As such, it is hard to see what can be patented in this case by Xerox. Perhaps they can patent jointly (i) the dataset, (ii) the data collection procedure, (iii) the particular instance of the optimization problem, and (iv) the solution algorithm. As noted, almost each of these items (i),(iii),(iv) are slightly varied in research as many researchers investigate the same problem/question. Moreover, since it is unlikely that the estimates would be robust, it seems to be an enormous waste of time all around.
There is a very long way to go in terms of behaving responsibly. The kyoto accord is hardly a start since it reduces emissions to 1990 levels for US and Europe, currently largest in per capita emissions. Suppose that energy consumption and green house gas production of the average indian and chinese person increase to 50 percent of 1990 levels of Europe in per capita terms. That is a very large increase in green house gas production. This is not even addressed in the kyoto accord. So not only does india and china have to find very large increases in the efficiency of their consumption with regard to emissions but both the US and Europe will still have very large reductions in their per capita emissions for an equitable effort towards combatting climate change. Although the technology is still expensive and sounds like science fiction... with some research, it may not be so in 20 years and could have a role (limited) in our collective efforts.
It is not an either/or situation. Research into such technologies is useful as a complement to behaving more responsibly. People can behave more responsibly and there will be nevertheless be some warming. Or they don't need to alter their behavior as much if we manage to implement some terra-forming technologies. After all, most of the households in the world do not enjoy the level of energy consumption (and green gas production) enjoyed by OECD countries such as the US and France.
One obvious solution to the patents conumdrum is to have two types of patents - the patently obvious is eligible for 24 months of protection so you do get a pat on the back for 'innovation' and limits the harm of an underfunded patent office. Or you can apply for the much harder to get patent which affords you all the long-lasting protection you get today under the current system.
Is it ok then on a limited accounted unders windows XP (using firefox and a firewall)? More generally, how useful is browsing from a limited account against day zero exploits? As I understand it, running under a limited account means that the exploit cant do anything that I cant do as a limited user including installing stuff. But a quick google leads to statements such as
" If the exploit attacks an operating system service, as Sasser and Blaster do, then it doesn't even matter whether anyone is logged on, let alone whether they are an admin. (Use a firewall.)" (http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004 /06/25/166039.aspx)
I am admin for my parent's home computer remotely and that is their current setup. Is there something else that I be doing?
You pointed out a number of factors that should affect a good business decision. They are all forms of opportunity costs. Putting scarce R&D workers into Itanium means fewer workers available for R&D in other areas. This does not contradict the fact that previous costs are sunk. Consider a more mundane example. Your car needs repair. Whether you repair it depends on a number of factors. However even if it has a long history of repairs, it MAY be the case that you repair it once more because it is cheaper than buying another car. I am not saying whether the Intel decision is correct. It is a comment on the line of reasoning on whether Intel's marketing decision was a good business decision. You may have wished you bought a toyota but it is too bad you bought a ford suv 3 years ago.
Previous costs are SUNK costs. The correct line of thinking would be asking something like whether $10B can result in an increase of $10B in revenue over that period - then do the adjustments for interest costs and opportunity costs.
In a nutshell, the prices are wrong in wow. This encourages gold farmers to engage in behavior that is socially detrimental - like those who steal in an economy in a depression. Or we create an economy that allows these people to have jobs that are considered useful. Suppose that you can create custom items instead so that the gods of wow runs the wow walmart while gold farmers run all the specialty shops. Provided that the prices are 'right'. And practical problems such as inflation and glut can be dealt with by changing the costs of production which ultimately affect prices. For example, increase the relative time cost of making a +5 sword to a +1 sword by two and you can expect a proportional change in their
relative price
At the right prices, gold farmers may find it more financially rewarding to create the NPC economy that is so elusive in many games. You can go to the local walmart or you can walk through the market area and haggle and bid. The gods of wow can make rules that there will always be some items that cannot be created. Otherwise, gold farmers are a boon that the rulers of wow have failed to recognize.
The value to the consumer of the option to resell the game in the future is included in the price. Imagine you could buy cars under 2 arrangements: (i) you can resell the car, or (ii) you cant resell the car. Wouldnt you be less willing to pay the same $$$ for option (ii)? Note to game publishers, research economists dropped the assumption "All else being equal" sometime in the 1980s.
the US governments have failed to prevent spam originating in its own borders. Why would anyone think that a government agency (i.e. the UN and its parts) that is weaker can do it for the world?
Next the question is: where do I get a piece of this pork?
There should be a market for ideas like this... It would be fun to make money off smart guys whose "affected" ideologies make them not-so-smart in some situations.
Wanna cite where you got them quotes on Bush? I follow what he says and he has never come close to making the above statements.
I bet that you made them up because you hate Bush. That is so pathetic and sad.
Long term goals are nice to have. Whether they'll do you any good is another matter. Look at all the books and articles in business journals about strategic planning and all that. How many managers in 1970 or 1980 could imagine the changes that have taken place since (including the slow long descent down the fortune 500 list of their own firms)? The conglomerate craze of the early 80's paved the way for the junk bond dealers who dismantled inefficient conglomerates whose parts were worth than their sum.
What will the business landscape look like? Will there be a few big conglomerates or millions of dot.coms all over the place? Chances are that you will be working for someone and that someone else today don't know where the world will be in 20-30 years. I wonder how many people can imagine what the world would look like in 20-30 years. What will programming and computers be like in 10 years? In 20?
So I suggest something pithy and cliche: use general strategies such as saving for a rainy day, diversifiying your eggs into different baskets, updating your skills, make plans to do/learn/try out things that you are interested in.
Knowledge is not very useful since what is useful can generally be picked up in terms of days, weeks or months. I've heard people boasting of all their experience in some field and I think, 'So you got to make the same shitty things for 5 years.'
Enthusiasm for the all strange wonderful things in this world and trying new things out - you lose that, you don't got much left.
I am mystified by the lack of the following interpretation of the bible: the bible is a road map to where mankind comes from and where it should be going.
Suppose you were an almighty being and you had to explain things to a group of mostly superstitous beings who believed in thunder gods and spirits. Would you tell them about the galaxies and distances they can't imagine? Or about electrons and microbes that they can't see? Suppose further that as the almighty creator, you had a destiny in mind for such beings. Would it be any use to stick to the true story of science?
I haven't read the bible but listening to people trying to explain the bible to me, I wonder why so much of the story of creation is taken so literally. This seems to me to be one of the least interesting or useful stories in the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
The Bush admin is considering a $15 tax on orgasms. Why is it too much to ask if you enjoyed the experience, you pay the money?
"Computer viruses have prompted 1.8 million households to junk their PCs over the past two years, while spyware has claimed another 850,000 machines in just the past six months."
The patent was filed in 1998 and in almost a decade, they have yet to implement a useful location based search engine. Yet by the time the idea has become obvious and more than one party has applications using that idea, the original patent filers still don't have a product. Isn't this example the very reason that software patents outrages intelligent people? It did not contribute to innovation back in 1998. It holds back innovation in 2007.
Their 'about us' on their website is also interesting http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml? cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-65428. It is full of statements relating to diversity of various sorts such as the international diversity of board members, the professional diversity of members, diversity of funding sources.... yet almost nothing about competence or credentials with respect to technology or the internet. In fact, their list of expert members http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml? cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-145834 consists almost exclusively of government bureaucrats, lawyers, non-tech academics (e.g. law, business).
In the journals, research is often conducted on the same dataset (albeit the dataset may change over time due to addition of new data) and sensitivity analysis is conducted, say by variation of the weights attached to a particular subset of outcome characteristics targeted on the dataset of known characteristics and behavior. An example would be determining the likelihood that the set of full time workers in the dataset are single parent females. However, 50 years of evidence indicates that most estimates are not robust across time, across different datasets of purported the same population and most researchers would not recommend making economic policy on the basis of the estimates.
As such, it is hard to see what can be patented in this case by Xerox. Perhaps they can patent jointly (i) the dataset, (ii) the data collection procedure, (iii) the particular instance of the optimization problem, and (iv) the solution algorithm. As noted, almost each of these items (i),(iii),(iv) are slightly varied in research as many researchers investigate the same problem/question. Moreover, since it is unlikely that the estimates would be robust, it seems to be an enormous waste of time all around.
There is a very long way to go in terms of behaving responsibly. The kyoto accord is hardly a start since it reduces emissions to 1990 levels for US and Europe, currently largest in per capita emissions. Suppose that energy consumption and green house gas production of the average indian and chinese person increase to 50 percent of 1990 levels of Europe in per capita terms. That is a very large increase in green house gas production. This is not even addressed in the kyoto accord. So not only does india and china have to find very large increases in the efficiency of their consumption with regard to emissions but both the US and Europe will still have very large reductions in their per capita emissions for an equitable effort towards combatting climate change. Although the technology is still expensive and sounds like science fiction... with some research, it may not be so in 20 years and could have a role (limited) in our collective efforts.
It is not an either/or situation. Research into such technologies is useful as a complement to behaving more responsibly. People can behave more responsibly and there will be nevertheless be some warming. Or they don't need to alter their behavior as much if we manage to implement some terra-forming technologies. After all, most of the households in the world do not enjoy the level of energy consumption (and green gas production) enjoyed by OECD countries such as the US and France.
One obvious solution to the patents conumdrum is to have two types of patents - the patently obvious is eligible for 24 months of protection so you do get a pat on the back for 'innovation' and limits the harm of an underfunded patent office. Or you can apply for the much harder to get patent which affords you all the long-lasting protection you get today under the current system.
Is it ok then on a limited accounted unders windows XP (using firefox and a firewall)? More generally, how useful is browsing from a limited account against day zero exploits? As I understand it, running under a limited account means that the exploit cant do anything that I cant do as a limited user including installing stuff. But a quick google leads to statements such as " If the exploit attacks an operating system service, as Sasser and Blaster do, then it doesn't even matter whether anyone is logged on, let alone whether they are an admin. (Use a firewall.)" (http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004 /06/25/166039.aspx)
I am admin for my parent's home computer remotely and that is their current setup. Is there something else that I be doing?
the candidates with the most votes should win.
on their search results?
You pointed out a number of factors that should affect a good business decision. They are all forms of opportunity costs. Putting scarce R&D workers into Itanium means fewer workers available for R&D in other areas. This does not contradict the fact that previous costs are sunk. Consider a more mundane example. Your car needs repair. Whether you repair it depends on a number of factors. However even if it has a long history of repairs, it MAY be the case that you repair it once more because it is cheaper than buying another car. I am not saying whether the Intel decision is correct. It is a comment on the line of reasoning on whether Intel's marketing decision was a good business decision. You may have wished you bought a toyota but it is too bad you bought a ford suv 3 years ago.
Previous costs are SUNK costs. The correct line of thinking would be asking something like whether $10B can result in an increase of $10B in revenue over that period - then do the adjustments for interest costs and opportunity costs.
In a nutshell, the prices are wrong in wow. This encourages gold farmers to engage in behavior that is socially detrimental - like those who steal in an economy in a depression. Or we create an economy that allows these people to have jobs that are considered useful. Suppose that you can create custom items instead so that the gods of wow runs the wow walmart while gold farmers run all the specialty shops. Provided that the prices are 'right'. And practical problems such as inflation and glut can be dealt with by changing the costs of production which ultimately affect prices. For example, increase the relative time cost of making a +5 sword to a +1 sword by two and you can expect a proportional change in their relative price At the right prices, gold farmers may find it more financially rewarding to create the NPC economy that is so elusive in many games. You can go to the local walmart or you can walk through the market area and haggle and bid. The gods of wow can make rules that there will always be some items that cannot be created. Otherwise, gold farmers are a boon that the rulers of wow have failed to recognize.
Next the question is: where do I get a piece of this pork?
More fun than winning arguments...
I thought that you should encourage trolls to bang the walls with their heads - AND not to repeat aloud that awful noise in their heads.
Wanna cite where you got them quotes on Bush? I follow what he says and he has never come close to making the above statements. I bet that you made them up because you hate Bush. That is so pathetic and sad.
Long term goals are nice to have. Whether they'll do you any good is another matter. Look at all the books and articles in business journals about strategic planning and all that. How many managers in 1970 or 1980 could imagine the changes that have taken place since (including the slow long descent down the fortune 500 list of their own firms)? The conglomerate craze of the early 80's paved the way for the junk bond dealers who dismantled inefficient conglomerates whose parts were worth than their sum. What will the business landscape look like? Will there be a few big conglomerates or millions of dot.coms all over the place? Chances are that you will be working for someone and that someone else today don't know where the world will be in 20-30 years. I wonder how many people can imagine what the world would look like in 20-30 years. What will programming and computers be like in 10 years? In 20? So I suggest something pithy and cliche: use general strategies such as saving for a rainy day, diversifiying your eggs into different baskets, updating your skills, make plans to do/learn/try out things that you are interested in. Knowledge is not very useful since what is useful can generally be picked up in terms of days, weeks or months. I've heard people boasting of all their experience in some field and I think, 'So you got to make the same shitty things for 5 years.' Enthusiasm for the all strange wonderful things in this world and trying new things out - you lose that, you don't got much left.
I am mystified by the lack of the following interpretation of the bible: the bible is a road map to where mankind comes from and where it should be going. Suppose you were an almighty being and you had to explain things to a group of mostly superstitous beings who believed in thunder gods and spirits. Would you tell them about the galaxies and distances they can't imagine? Or about electrons and microbes that they can't see? Suppose further that as the almighty creator, you had a destiny in mind for such beings. Would it be any use to stick to the true story of science? I haven't read the bible but listening to people trying to explain the bible to me, I wonder why so much of the story of creation is taken so literally. This seems to me to be one of the least interesting or useful stories in the bible.