The thing is that there -are- really cheap places to get education (community colleges, city/state universities, etc.). Pretty much any ``public'' college (as opposed to a private college) can be paid for from your credit card and paid off over the semester. And there's always financial-aid to help those in serious need.
The debt mostly applies to folks who go to private school 'cause they think the name of the school matters in the long run (it doesn't). What matters in the long run is knowledge, and the skill of gathering more knowledge (knowing C++ isn't as useful as the ability to read books and learn new things).
I frankly don't see how -information- can be sent via entanglement; once you measure a particle's spin, that tells you what the spin of the -other- particle is [ignoring where that other particle may be---maybe light years away] (but the measurer of that -other- particle has no idea what -your- particle's spin is when they're doing their measurement; unless of course they're close by, which defeats the whole magic).
(ie: their experiment is funny... first they'll measure the ``past'' particle (ie: now), then they'll measure the ``future'' particle (a bit later), and confirm that the past particle spin matches the future one (except they've measured the past one first, so technically, it could be the future particle matching the past particle!)).
There should be a law... that if a patent is not used (licensed, or product that brings in income; income appropriate to the prices they'd charge for the patent license) or defended within 12 months, it becomes public domain.
Also charge a property tax on the patent (you're holding `property'!) that's proportional to how much the patent is "worth" by the corp's determination (ie: they can claim the patent is worth $1, and pay very little tax, but then they can't sue someone for millions for violation (or charge more than $1 for licensing of the patent)---on the other hand, they can claim it's worth 1 million and be able to sue others for 1 million, but then they'll have to pay a property tax on that 1 million). The first 12 months are a grace "tax free" time (for those 1 million dollar ideas from a poor inventor).
If patent is registered by an -individual- not associated with any corporation (not holding a `manager' position in some corp), then the 12 month period turns into 3 years. If patent is transfered to corp ownership, the 12 months kicks in.
Patent expires in either case after 3 years for corps and 5 years for individuals. Dates cannot be extended.
In other words, if they still have the patent after 12 months, they're making money from it (appropriate to the patent's value), AND they're paying property tax on it (appropriate to how much it is worth to -them-; if someone violates their patent, there's a cap on how much they can be sued for). Otherwise it's public domain and they can't sue anyone.
The above would stop corps from registering unworthy ideas that they plan to sit on for future litigation. Yet still provide a few years lead and profit for the corp.
I'm guessing you've never had headaches with -Windows- being a pain in the neck and insisting on non-widescreen resolutions (making things look squished) for a widescreen monitor. Or not being able to install Windows XP on a laptop with an unsupported video card (yeah, that video card -can- do VGA... but for some reason, Windows just says it doesn't detect video).
Most folks who giveup on Linux haven't given it a fair chance. And no, having a problem for a few hours and giving up isn't a fair chance. How long did it take you to get used to Windows? (nobody becomes an expert in 2 hours...even in Windows world).
So effectively, this makes the PC lose its greatest benefit.
All the benefits of a PC are still there. Nobody ever said you have to use Microsoft products (and those who force you to use Microsoft software [ie: wr0k] usually buy you a copy at their expense).
You don't own the software. You `own' a license, which they can revoke at their will (and you agreed to this).
The license is whatever Microsoft and YOU agree to, and their license only lets you install on 1 box, and not make any major changes to it (they're being nice and allowing you 1 major change). That's it. If you don't like it, don't buy it!!!
You are of course free to make major changes (which invalidates your previous license!), and then buy another license---which I'm sure Microsoft will be only too happy to provide.
It's a dirty game they're playing, and if you don't like it, don't play.
Even if I were to agree that it is "mere" advertising and not also the media on which the advertising is delivered, do you believe that all companies providing fungible services and not physical products are pretty much worthless? Lawyers and accountants don't necessarily do anything that the other lawyers and accounts can't do, but that doesn't mean their firms are worthless.
I tend to think that google looks kind of expensive as well, but it's a huge cash generating machine, and its downfall is not certain.
Laywers and accountants aren't usually priced at 100 billion.
You didn't read the post right. Grandparent's point was that google isn't worth what it's selling at (not that it's -not- a huge cash generating machine; it's just not a 100 billion dollar cash generating machine).
Sure, one may argue till they turn blue that "$400 a share" price is ``real'' because that's what it's selling at -now-; but historically, P/E ratios as high as google haven't -lasted- over long term. There are 2 ways out of it for google... it's either to make 10x as much money as they're making now [while their share price remains the same] (ha! they're already at the top of their earning potential---unless they successfully break into other markets, they're stuck), or... well... the price of their shares will collapse. All the current shareholders -pray- they won't be the ones still holding on to those shares when that happens (ie: a neat situation for a rapid selloff/price drop).
Is there any evidence at all to support these predictions?
Are you kidding? Hell no! It's just a way for him to get into the news, and improve his chances of getting tenure or some grant. Even if it -was- based on something, there's no way to prove it true/false; at least not during his lifetime---which is the whole point of publishing in academia. Ie: folks reviewing his grant proposals might just recognize his name after this. That's the only reason for such ``news''.
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
So... what's the difference between saying: "Person A is a crook, a con artist, and a fraud."
or... "I think person A is a crook, a con artist, and a fraud."
or how about adding at the end "opinions expressed above are my own, and may not represent an official position", or something...
Wouldn't by definition everything YOU say be what YOU -think- and may not reflect reality?
Oh, bullshit. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Somebody who owns 1.25% of Google is worth $1.65 billion. The fact that they don't have a checking account with a balance $1.65 billion is beside the point.
Problem with that argument is that as soon as some major chunk of shares are sold (and 1.65 billion worth is a large chunk), the price will drop, and those 1.25% of google won't be worth 1.65 billion anymore (but maybe 1.1 billion, for all anyone cares).
And if that sale manages to set off some alarms,... heh, well, they could be worth a mere few million:-/
There's not much holding google's stock price up except speculation. Yes, they're big and profitable, but they're not worth what the crazy mr.market is willing to pay for them. And mr.market isn't stupid---as soon as folks start selling, mr.market will adjust his numbers. It's only a matter of time until they drop---it's not an "IF" question, it's a "WHEN" question. (unless of course they manage to increase their profits 10x fold all at the same time keeping their stock price at where it is now---but how likely is that???; their size is working against them when it comes to multiplying their profits)
The reversal -is- the problem. Nobody is worried about -warming- as such; it's the non-stability everyone is afraid of.
Ie: imagine oceans get -really- warm, melt the ice caps, water gets less salty---this causes some currents to shut down, and some parts of the world to get much colder than they are now... which in turn may cause a -new- ice cap to form in those places... which -may- just ends up being the `next' ice age.
Another issue is that such things tend to happen over the course of a few hundred years (ie: very suddenly in geological terms).
...lawyers will be able to buy more yaughts, and no 'victim' will actually get anything significant out of the deal.
Which defeats the whole purpose of such a case... but eh, lawyers have to be lawyers. `victims' (if they can be called that) will get a CD-ROM that lets them use AOL for 1500 hours!
This is just BS by lawyers. I really think search corps should release such data all the time (google anyone?). If folks think it invades their privacy, well then... welcome to the Internet!
I found that data pretty interesting, and would love to see something similar from Google, and other big search engines.
I read the Foundation series a long time ago so I may have this wrong but wasn't the whole 'joke' about Hari Seldon that really he couldn't predict the future? The 1000 year plan is found to be wrong at some stage I'm sure. And then there was that 'mule' fella.
Indeed. But a huge part of the story are the robots that set the whole thing in motion---thus, Future=>AI, Robots, etc. The percieved freedom of will, while controlled by some hidden and supposedly more intelligent entity (AI? Government? Aliens? God?), that's the future.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that there -are- really cheap places to get education (community colleges, city/state universities, etc.). Pretty much any ``public'' college (as opposed to a private college) can be paid for from your credit card and paid off over the semester. And there's always financial-aid to help those in serious need.
The debt mostly applies to folks who go to private school 'cause they think the name of the school matters in the long run (it doesn't). What matters in the long run is knowledge, and the skill of gathering more knowledge (knowing C++ isn't as useful as the ability to read books and learn new things).
Yes. The world needs a cheaper source of IT folks.
...teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fishing.
Here's something fun to read: The Free Will Theorem.
I frankly don't see how -information- can be sent via entanglement; once you measure a particle's spin, that tells you what the spin of the -other- particle is [ignoring where that other particle may be---maybe light years away] (but the measurer of that -other- particle has no idea what -your- particle's spin is when they're doing their measurement; unless of course they're close by, which defeats the whole magic).
(ie: their experiment is funny... first they'll measure the ``past'' particle (ie: now), then they'll measure the ``future'' particle (a bit later), and confirm that the past particle spin matches the future one (except they've measured the past one first, so technically, it could be the future particle matching the past particle!)).
There should be a law... that if a patent is not used (licensed, or product that brings in income; income appropriate to the prices they'd charge for the patent license) or defended within 12 months, it becomes public domain.
Also charge a property tax on the patent (you're holding `property'!) that's proportional to how much the patent is "worth" by the corp's determination (ie: they can claim the patent is worth $1, and pay very little tax, but then they can't sue someone for millions for violation (or charge more than $1 for licensing of the patent)---on the other hand, they can claim it's worth 1 million and be able to sue others for 1 million, but then they'll have to pay a property tax on that 1 million). The first 12 months are a grace "tax free" time (for those 1 million dollar ideas from a poor inventor).
If patent is registered by an -individual- not associated with any corporation (not holding a `manager' position in some corp), then the 12 month period turns into 3 years. If patent is transfered to corp ownership, the 12 months kicks in.
Patent expires in either case after 3 years for corps and 5 years for individuals. Dates cannot be extended.
In other words, if they still have the patent after 12 months, they're making money from it (appropriate to the patent's value), AND they're paying property tax on it (appropriate to how much it is worth to -them-; if someone violates their patent, there's a cap on how much they can be sued for). Otherwise it's public domain and they can't sue anyone.
The above would stop corps from registering unworthy ideas that they plan to sit on for future litigation. Yet still provide a few years lead and profit for the corp.
I'm guessing you've never had headaches with -Windows- being a pain in the neck and insisting on non-widescreen resolutions (making things look squished) for a widescreen monitor. Or not being able to install Windows XP on a laptop with an unsupported video card (yeah, that video card -can- do VGA... but for some reason, Windows just says it doesn't detect video).
Most folks who giveup on Linux haven't given it a fair chance. And no, having a problem for a few hours and giving up isn't a fair chance. How long did it take you to get used to Windows? (nobody becomes an expert in 2 hours...even in Windows world).
So effectively, this makes the PC lose its greatest benefit.
All the benefits of a PC are still there. Nobody ever said you have to use Microsoft products (and those who force you to use Microsoft software [ie: wr0k] usually buy you a copy at their expense).
You don't own the software. You `own' a license, which they can revoke at their will (and you agreed to this).
The license is whatever Microsoft and YOU agree to, and their license only lets you install on 1 box, and not make any major changes to it (they're being nice and allowing you 1 major change). That's it. If you don't like it, don't buy it!!!
You are of course free to make major changes (which invalidates your previous license!), and then buy another license---which I'm sure Microsoft will be only too happy to provide.
It's a dirty game they're playing, and if you don't like it, don't play.
Problem is that space colonies won't be self sufficient for a -while-; thus, creating a -need- to be closely tied to earth.
Even if I were to agree that it is "mere" advertising and not also the media on which the advertising is delivered, do you believe that all companies providing fungible services and not physical products are pretty much worthless? Lawyers and accountants don't necessarily do anything that the other lawyers and accounts can't do, but that doesn't mean their firms are worthless.
I tend to think that google looks kind of expensive as well, but it's a huge cash generating machine, and its downfall is not certain.
Laywers and accountants aren't usually priced at 100 billion.
You didn't read the post right. Grandparent's point was that google isn't worth what it's selling at (not that it's -not- a huge cash generating machine; it's just not a 100 billion dollar cash generating machine).
Sure, one may argue till they turn blue that "$400 a share" price is ``real'' because that's what it's selling at -now-; but historically, P/E ratios as high as google haven't -lasted- over long term. There are 2 ways out of it for google... it's either to make 10x as much money as they're making now [while their share price remains the same] (ha! they're already at the top of their earning potential---unless they successfully break into other markets, they're stuck), or... well... the price of their shares will collapse. All the current shareholders -pray- they won't be the ones still holding on to those shares when that happens (ie: a neat situation for a rapid selloff/price drop).
Just a thought.
Is there any evidence at all to support these predictions?
Are you kidding? Hell no! It's just a way for him to get into the news, and improve his chances of getting tenure or some grant. Even if it -was- based on something, there's no way to prove it true/false; at least not during his lifetime---which is the whole point of publishing in academia. Ie: folks reviewing his grant proposals might just recognize his name after this. That's the only reason for such ``news''.
Yeah, but where do the brains come in? Athletes are not exactly known for their creativity or intelligence.
Might makes right. You try calling a 7 foot professional athlete stupid.
What has happened to the concept of -stable (2.6) and -experimental (2.7) trees?
:-)
They're all equally stable now
So in other words, this whole case could've been avoided by carefully qualifying statements with "I think" :-)
:-/
I think I'll add that to most things I criticize from now on
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
So... what's the difference between saying: "Person A is a crook, a con artist, and a fraud."
or... "I think person A is a crook, a con artist, and a fraud."
or how about adding at the end "opinions expressed above are my own, and may not represent an official position", or something...
Wouldn't by definition everything YOU say be what YOU -think- and may not reflect reality?
It's also kind of ironic that the advertising industry can be bigger than all the industries it advertises for combined :-/
Oh, bullshit. Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Somebody who owns 1.25% of Google is worth $1.65 billion. The fact that they don't have a checking account with a balance $1.65 billion is beside the point.
:-/
Problem with that argument is that as soon as some major chunk of shares are sold (and 1.65 billion worth is a large chunk), the price will drop, and those 1.25% of google won't be worth 1.65 billion anymore (but maybe 1.1 billion, for all anyone cares).
And if that sale manages to set off some alarms,... heh, well, they could be worth a mere few million
There's not much holding google's stock price up except speculation. Yes, they're big and profitable, but they're not worth what the crazy mr.market is willing to pay for them. And mr.market isn't stupid---as soon as folks start selling, mr.market will adjust his numbers. It's only a matter of time until they drop---it's not an "IF" question, it's a "WHEN" question. (unless of course they manage to increase their profits 10x fold all at the same time keeping their stock price at where it is now---but how likely is that???; their size is working against them when it comes to multiplying their profits)
...10KG pods of food/water into space to support the ISS
Or build the next ISS out of concrete! Pour/mold it on site. Speaking of which, this is likey what will be needed if we're ever to leave earth.
What is this "landline" that you are talking about?
:-)
Ahh, no `The Matrix' fans here, I see
Amazon would be downright stupid not to save the search data; they're just not visibly saving it anymore (thus, less questions), that's all.
By this same argument, one might say "oh, look, google isn't saving search data either; if I can't see it, it's not there!". Yeah, riiight.
It's only a matter of time before Queen Elizabeth is assassinated by some bishop.
...and some princess is kidnapped only to be rescued by some plumbers.
Sue the parents
But... they were the ones shot!
640 cores ought to be enough for everybody
:-)
Wait till per-core licensing becomes popular
The reversal -is- the problem. Nobody is worried about -warming- as such; it's the non-stability everyone is afraid of.
Ie: imagine oceans get -really- warm, melt the ice caps, water gets less salty---this causes some currents to shut down, and some parts of the world to get much colder than they are now... which in turn may cause a -new- ice cap to form in those places... which -may- just ends up being the `next' ice age.
Another issue is that such things tend to happen over the course of a few hundred years (ie: very suddenly in geological terms).
...lawyers will be able to buy more yaughts, and no 'victim' will actually get anything significant out of the deal.
Which defeats the whole purpose of such a case... but eh, lawyers have to be lawyers. `victims' (if they can be called that) will get a CD-ROM that lets them use AOL for 1500 hours!
This is just BS by lawyers. I really think search corps should release such data all the time (google anyone?). If folks think it invades their privacy, well then... welcome to the Internet!
I found that data pretty interesting, and would love to see something similar from Google, and other big search engines.
I read the Foundation series a long time ago so I may have this wrong but wasn't the whole 'joke' about Hari Seldon that really he couldn't predict the future? The 1000 year plan is found to be wrong at some stage I'm sure. And then there was that 'mule' fella.
Indeed. But a huge part of the story are the robots that set the whole thing in motion---thus, Future=>AI, Robots, etc. The percieved freedom of will, while controlled by some hidden and supposedly more intelligent entity (AI? Government? Aliens? God?), that's the future.