Any maybe you, personally, do change your own oil and brakepads etc, but most geeks I would wager don't. How is it different?
The difference is that cars inherently need periodic maintenance, whether you do it yourself or pay somebody else. Computers don't inherently get slower and less usable over time, and there are relatively simple ways to protect yourself from hostile software. I don't know much about cars, but if there were a way to eliminate the need for oil changes by slightly changing my driving habits, I'd certainly investigate it.
Re:Somone get these ppl some free software!
on
Given Up to Spyware?
·
· Score: 1
His reasoning: "I just don't trust it... They can't be up to any good if they're not asking for anything in return".
Glad somebody is paying attention. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue; if anything, it's a majority/minority party issue. Remember, the Clinton administration tried to ban all non-approved cryptography, and that was strongly opposed by many Republicans, including John Ashcroft.
So overall, more wealth is entering into the country than is leaving. Unfortunately most of it is going into the hands of corporations, while the median standard of living continues to plummet like a rock.
Hardly. Median income dropped somewhat during the recession as one would expect, but stablized in 2003 at about the same level as 1998.
I was born in 1952. I certainly have screwed up royally somewhere. Thank you for pointing that out. I feel so much better now.
No offense intended. It's my goal to be *able* to retire by 50. (Not that I plan to, just that I don't want money to be an issue by then). Other people have different goals, and that's fine. I was just responding to the original poster's attitude that we're all doomed and there's nothing we can do about it.
That was such an outrageous thing to say, I decided to actually do the math.
Um, ok. People really have retired at 40 and 50 without being dot-com millionaires, you know.
You'd have to save and invest 26% of your income to retire and maintain your existing lifestyle.
Which is not a staggering amount if you have a good paying job. And maintaining your existing lifestyle, while ideal, isn't actually necessary. If you've been making $80 a year, you can easily survive on $50k.
In other words, if a store offered a free lunch? I would assume someone else is paying the difference because there AIN'T no free lunch.
How is it that Intel, AMD, and IBM keep offering better processors for less? Who is "paying the difference" there? You seem to assume that one person can economically gain only at the expense of another, which is absolutely, completely wrong. Please, find an economics textbook. Your fundamental misconceptions about how markets work make further discussion pointless.
Seriously, this is not a troll - can someone explain to me how open source software doesn't undermine programmers being able to earn a crust. I could be way off, but doesn't it undermine our industry?
I use lots of open source software at my development job, and it substantially increases my productivity, making me more valuable to my company. Additionally, my company uses open source software directly, thereby saving money which can be used for expansion.
Thought experiment: suppose Perl and Apache (and similar tools) cost $1000 a seat. More IT jobs, or fewer?
that we seem to be working harder for longer for less benefits, less pay and less holidays than we ever did before..
Because we have selective memories. Think of everything that you take for granted today that would have been nearly indistinguishable from magic 30 years ago.
There's no free lunch. Most of the time, cheaper isn't really cheaper. It's still the same price, but someone else just happens to be paying for it, like former employees, the community, government, vendors, etc.
Economic growth improves people's lives. Evidence: the totality of recorded human history.
Consumers also get less for their money by paying for millions of unemployed neighbors.
Until those neighbors get other jobs. Yes, I know, unlike every other period of economic change, this time there really will be no other jobs.
Business has responsibilities beyond their earnings.
What responsibilities? Why do they have them? Do you as an individual have the same responsibilities?
Capitalism isn't magical. There is no fundamental law of the universe that states that because we lose one industry, that there will always be another replacement industry.
We "lose" industries because we're able to produce the same amount or more with substantially fewer workers. This is a net benefit to society, because it lowers the costs of goods. Even if the displaced workers can never find any other job (which has consistently not been the case), we could pay them welfare and still come out ahead.
At some point, the old rules will no longer work, and then we will be in a world of hurt. And even if we aren't there yet, shouldn't it worry you just a little bit that we will be just one step closer?
Actually I rather look forward to the day when all our material needs can be provided by nanotech assemblers at virtually zero cost. Throughout history your argument has been raised against every significant technological change, and has always been proven wrong.
Tell that to people in the rust belt who lost their manufacturing jobs in the 70s and haven't found a replacement in 30 years.
That's unfortunate, but what do you want to do about it, forbid technological advancement so they can keep their jobs at the expense of everyone else? Economic progress hurts some people, but society as a whole benefits.
A large number of you are gonna be screwed when automation and outsourcing leaves you in your 40s and 50s without a job. You'd better pray social security's still around then, but that's kind of a slim hope.
If I actually need a job by the time I'm in my 50s, I'll have screwed up royally somewhere. Compound interest and dollar cost averaging are your friends. You really can take responsibility for your own life.
Of course, it doesn't matter to me, I moved out of the IT field into something that can't be outsourced so easily. But I just don't like what's going to happen to all my old friends and coworkers when the industry bottoms out.
If your doomsday scenario occurs, they can do the same thing you did. This is not the first time the job market has shifted. Most Americans were farmers not that many generations ago. Millions and millions "lost" those jobs due to industrialization, and we're far better off for it.
That's not a very good example. The raid was conducted at the request of other countries, and AFAIK no Americans were actually arrested. Now we can debate to what extent the FBI should be an instrument of foreign law enforcement agencies (wasn't multilaterism was supposed to be good?), but it's not a case of Bush and Ashcroft just throwing their opponents in prison.
Commercial speech does not have the ordinary "First amendement protections" afforded to other speech.
True, although the logic for that escapes me, since I don't recall any adjectives before "speech" in the 1st Amendment. Of course, the Incumbency Protection, er, "Campaign Finance Reform" act has started shredding the protections for political speech also, so it's sort of consistent in a depressing way.
Getting back on topic, freedom of speech does not include the freedom to harass, which a company is doing if they keep calling after you tell them to stop.
What do you think - a tax-exempt card vs. rebate checks?
Very interesting idea (and I am surprised I haven't seen it elsewhere), but I think there are a couple of serious flaws. First, you have nontrivial administration costs of deciding and keeping track of who gets what rate, and businesses would have to break down their sales by rate as well. (True, you do save on mailing out rebate checks, but my sense is that this would be even more expensive). Second, it seems to make fraud much more profitable. Even if the discount cards are 100% unforgeable, a gray market would immediately spring up where cardholders buy expensive products on behalf of the real customers. Third, as you point out the potential for tracking is worrisome, and you'd essentially *have* to track purchases to try to minimize type of fraud I just described.
They have neither the personal financial discipline nor the practical ability to wait for a check to come back in 6 months to a year, giving them back the money they shouldn't have paid in the first place. The problem lessens as the checks become more frequent (monthly, weekly, etc.)
IIRC the FairTax calls for monthly rebates, which I think is about right.
Simply-put, the solution of rebate checks fails to deal with the opportunity cost of leaving one's money tied-up with the government for any amount of time.
True, of course very few people even understand the concept of opportunity costs. And really, we have the same situation today. Several times I've listened to people expounding on their brilliant financial maneuver of increasing their income tax withholding so they'd get a bigger refund on April 15. My attempts to explain the time value of money were futile. (Them: "But if they didn't take it out of my paycheck I'd just spend it!" Me: Kif-style sigh).
Point me to an EULA that has passed msuter in a court of law.
Unfortunately, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg it was ruled that the EULA terms were enforceable. In nearly all cases EULAs make a mockery of contracts and consumers rights, so I'm hoping that ruling can be overturned somehow.
If you brought software, then you would have the rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.
Not at all. The books that I buy are mine. I own them, but I can't copy and redistribute them because I don't own the *copyright*.
The same applies to books CD's paintings, basically any kind of intelectual property, but in those cases the licence is more standard, so you don't read a EULA every time. You can read the book, you can resell it, but you can't publish your own edition.
Again, that has nothing to do with licenses, only with copyright law. If I buy a hammer, I can't hit someone on the head with it because of laws against assault and battery. That doesn't mean the hammer isn't mine or that I only have a "license to use" it.
But installing software is making a copy. In fact, executing an application makes a copy in RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these copies.
Argh. It's amazing how effectively copyright interests have perpetuated this myth. See 17 USC 117. It's not an infringement of copyright to "copy" a program for the purpose of running it, and you don't need a license to do so. Most EULAs gives you *nothing* that you didn't already have, and as such should be struck down due to lack of consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
Any maybe you, personally, do change your own oil and brakepads etc, but most geeks I would wager don't. How is it different?
The difference is that cars inherently need periodic maintenance, whether you do it yourself or pay somebody else. Computers don't inherently get slower and less usable over time, and there are relatively simple ways to protect yourself from hostile software. I don't know much about cars, but if there were a way to eliminate the need for oil changes by slightly changing my driving habits, I'd certainly investigate it.
His reasoning: "I just don't trust it... They can't be up to any good if they're not asking for anything in return".
Your father has inspired me to update my sig.
Censorship of television is about a zero on the list of my priorities. Non-political censorship of anything only rates as annoying.
Lots of TV has political content, even ignoring traditional news programs: The Daily Show, South Park, even stuff like Law and Order.
There is little point in arguing with Him. All we really can do is bow down and submit to Him.
And if God tells you to strap on a belt of explosives and slaughter the infidels, well, that's His will and you'd better obey, right?
Glad somebody is paying attention. This is not a Democrat/Republican issue; if anything, it's a majority/minority party issue. Remember, the Clinton administration tried to ban all non-approved cryptography, and that was strongly opposed by many Republicans, including John Ashcroft.
So overall, more wealth is entering into the country than is leaving. Unfortunately most of it is going into the hands of corporations, while the median standard of living continues to plummet like a rock.
Hardly. Median income dropped somewhat during the recession as one would expect, but stablized in 2003 at about the same level as 1998.
I was born in 1952. I certainly have screwed up royally somewhere. Thank you for pointing that out. I feel so much better now.
No offense intended. It's my goal to be *able* to retire by 50. (Not that I plan to, just that I don't want money to be an issue by then). Other people have different goals, and that's fine. I was just responding to the original poster's attitude that we're all doomed and there's nothing we can do about it.
That was such an outrageous thing to say, I decided to actually do the math.
Um, ok. People really have retired at 40 and 50 without being dot-com millionaires, you know.
You'd have to save and invest 26% of your income to retire and maintain your existing lifestyle.
Which is not a staggering amount if you have a good paying job. And maintaining your existing lifestyle, while ideal, isn't actually necessary. If you've been making $80 a year, you can easily survive on $50k.
In other words, if a store offered a free lunch? I would assume someone else is paying the difference because there AIN'T no free lunch.
How is it that Intel, AMD, and IBM keep offering better processors for less? Who is "paying the difference" there? You seem to assume that one person can economically gain only at the expense of another, which is absolutely, completely wrong. Please, find an economics textbook. Your fundamental misconceptions about how markets work make further discussion pointless.
To be a good citizen. Not to pile up fourths at the buffet and wipe their ass on the tablecloth.
That explains much of your fuzzy reasoning. The economy is neither fixed size nor a common buffet.
No. I don't control eleven figures of capital.
Hmm, so you *can* wipe your ass on the tablecloth?
Seriously, this is not a troll - can someone explain to me how open source software doesn't undermine programmers being able to earn a crust. I could be way off, but doesn't it undermine our industry?
I use lots of open source software at my development job, and it substantially increases my productivity, making me more valuable to my company. Additionally, my company uses open source software directly, thereby saving money which can be used for expansion.
Thought experiment: suppose Perl and Apache (and similar tools) cost $1000 a seat. More IT jobs, or fewer?
that we seem to be working harder for longer for less benefits, less pay and less holidays than we ever did before..
Because we have selective memories. Think of everything that you take for granted today that would have been nearly indistinguishable from magic 30 years ago.
There's no free lunch. Most of the time, cheaper isn't really cheaper. It's still the same price, but someone else just happens to be paying for it, like former employees, the community, government, vendors, etc.
Economic growth improves people's lives. Evidence: the totality of recorded human history.
Consumers also get less for their money by paying for millions of unemployed neighbors.
Until those neighbors get other jobs. Yes, I know, unlike every other period of economic change, this time there really will be no other jobs.
Business has responsibilities beyond their earnings.
What responsibilities? Why do they have them? Do you as an individual have the same responsibilities?
Capitalism isn't magical. There is no fundamental law of the universe that states that because we lose one industry, that there will always be another replacement industry.
We "lose" industries because we're able to produce the same amount or more with substantially fewer workers. This is a net benefit to society, because it lowers the costs of goods. Even if the displaced workers can never find any other job (which has consistently not been the case), we could pay them welfare and still come out ahead.
At some point, the old rules will no longer work, and then we will be in a world of hurt. And even if we aren't there yet, shouldn't it worry you just a little bit that we will be just one step closer?
Actually I rather look forward to the day when all our material needs can be provided by nanotech assemblers at virtually zero cost. Throughout history your argument has been raised against every significant technological change, and has always been proven wrong.
Tell that to people in the rust belt who lost their manufacturing jobs in the 70s and haven't found a replacement in 30 years.
That's unfortunate, but what do you want to do about it, forbid technological advancement so they can keep their jobs at the expense of everyone else? Economic progress hurts some people, but society as a whole benefits.
A large number of you are gonna be screwed when automation and outsourcing leaves you in your 40s and 50s without a job. You'd better pray social security's still around then, but that's kind of a slim hope.
If I actually need a job by the time I'm in my 50s, I'll have screwed up royally somewhere. Compound interest and dollar cost averaging are your friends. You really can take responsibility for your own life.
Of course, it doesn't matter to me, I moved out of the IT field into something that can't be outsourced so easily. But I just don't like what's going to happen to all my old friends and coworkers when the industry bottoms out.
If your doomsday scenario occurs, they can do the same thing you did. This is not the first time the job market has shifted. Most Americans were farmers not that many generations ago. Millions and millions "lost" those jobs due to industrialization, and we're far better off for it.
Sure they say that outsourcing and such bothers them, but do they bother to research who is outsourcing and deny them business? NO.
Which is fortunate, since outsourcing is a net benefit to the economy.
That's not a very good example. The raid was conducted at the request of other countries, and AFAIK no Americans were actually arrested. Now we can debate to what extent the FBI should be an instrument of foreign law enforcement agencies (wasn't multilaterism was supposed to be good?), but it's not a case of Bush and Ashcroft just throwing their opponents in prison.
Commercial speech does not have the ordinary "First amendement protections" afforded to other speech.
True, although the logic for that escapes me, since I don't recall any adjectives before "speech" in the 1st Amendment. Of course, the Incumbency Protection, er, "Campaign Finance Reform" act has started shredding the protections for political speech also, so it's sort of consistent in a depressing way.
Getting back on topic, freedom of speech does not include the freedom to harass, which a company is doing if they keep calling after you tell them to stop.
Look, just because you're some right-wing whackjob doesn't mean that everybody else is.
Hey, some of us actually have a sense of humor. See "South Park Republican".
What do you think - a tax-exempt card vs. rebate checks?
Very interesting idea (and I am surprised I haven't seen it elsewhere), but I think there are a couple of serious flaws. First, you have nontrivial administration costs of deciding and keeping track of who gets what rate, and businesses would have to break down their sales by rate as well. (True, you do save on mailing out rebate checks, but my sense is that this would be even more expensive). Second, it seems to make fraud much more profitable. Even if the discount cards are 100% unforgeable, a gray market would immediately spring up where cardholders buy expensive products on behalf of the real customers. Third, as you point out the potential for tracking is worrisome, and you'd essentially *have* to track purchases to try to minimize type of fraud I just described.
They have neither the personal financial discipline nor the practical ability to wait for a check to come back in 6 months to a year, giving them back the money they shouldn't have paid in the first place. The problem lessens as the checks become more frequent (monthly, weekly, etc.)
IIRC the FairTax calls for monthly rebates, which I think is about right.
Simply-put, the solution of rebate checks fails to deal with the opportunity cost of leaving one's money tied-up with the government for any amount of time.
True, of course very few people even understand the concept of opportunity costs. And really, we have the same situation today. Several times I've listened to people expounding on their brilliant financial maneuver of increasing their income tax withholding so they'd get a bigger refund on April 15. My attempts to explain the time value of money were futile. (Them: "But if they didn't take it out of my paycheck I'd just spend it!" Me: Kif-style sigh).
If you've ever looked at a clock while gaming, you'd see that the hands move much faster.
Oddly, the exact opposite is true when I'm playing defense in a UT2004 Assault map.
Point me to an EULA that has passed msuter in a court of law.
Unfortunately, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg it was ruled that the EULA terms were enforceable. In nearly all cases EULAs make a mockery of contracts and consumers rights, so I'm hoping that ruling can be overturned somehow.
If you brought software, then you would have the rite to copy, modify and distribute as you like.
Not at all. The books that I buy are mine. I own them, but I can't copy and redistribute them because I don't own the *copyright*.
The same applies to books CD's paintings, basically any kind of intelectual property, but in those cases the licence is more standard, so you don't read a EULA every time. You can read the book, you can resell it, but you can't publish your own edition.
Again, that has nothing to do with licenses, only with copyright law. If I buy a hammer, I can't hit someone on the head with it because of laws against assault and battery. That doesn't mean the hammer isn't mine or that I only have a "license to use" it.
But installing software is making a copy. In fact, executing an application makes a copy in RAM. Many EULA grant the right to make these copies.
Argh. It's amazing how effectively copyright interests have perpetuated this myth. See 17 USC 117. It's not an infringement of copyright to "copy" a program for the purpose of running it, and you don't need a license to do so. Most EULAs gives you *nothing* that you didn't already have, and as such should be struck down due to lack of consideration.
No, but in order to use the program, you have had to copy it. And in order to copy it, you have had to agree to its license.
Not true. The "copy" you make when running a program is not an infringement of copyright, so you don't need a license.