Ethical investing is a niche market. We in America value the almighty dollar above all else, and not without reason. So if some dastardly company were to now sell out and take the Chinese money and make a bundle, they will be rewarded with higher stock prices. Corporate bonuses will rise. That's all that matters, right?
they only have to pay a penny to the artist and half a penny to the songwriter, per song. It's the only way the label can sell the CD for so cheap and still make money..
It almost sounds like you're serious, so I'll just go ahead and point out that at 1.5 cents per song, that leave $9.75 at least out of $10.00 that does NOT go to the artist. So blaming the artist for high CD prices is of course ridiculous.
Well if it's that small a fraction, then Apple and MS probably don't care either. In fact, it looks like "patent encumbrance" is grossly overstated here.
The cost is still paid by the average user, it's just tacked onto the cost of the O/S or whatever you buy from Apple, MS, etc. As for "why", various consumers value different things. Some value cheap, some value fast, some value open source, some value high quality, etc. Ideally, customers who want choice can get it with a plugin, and the rest will get it easily without a plugin. But there will always be this creative edge. Most people will just say with safe, reasonably fast and easy.
Instead of "move to" I should have said "live". They might have not moved there, it's true. But they also might well have moved there, and I will claim that most did in fact move there. My reasoning: Most people go somewhere other than their birth town for advanced degrees, then they take a job somewhere and that also is likely to be somewhere other than where they grew up, so I said "moved to." And your point about Latin dudes and chicks moving in, yes, it all goes to show that the level of education of people in a certain spot is not necessarily equal to the level of education available in that spot.
Bullshit, we're lazy and not interested. We're discouraged and cynical. We're confused and demoralized. But we are allowed. And if we take that seriously, they cannot stop us.
it's not in the government's best interest for citizens to have control over the government.
Only true if you believe that the government interest is distinct from that of its citizens, which is an inherently corrosive viewpoint. Also, let's remember that the government is not a person, it's a group of people, so it actually does not have an interest per se. I'd say that our form of government is an experiment in letting the citizenry have a say, and if we do not participate fully then well-meaning people in the government will each do what they think is best for us, based on a guess and their own experiences.
"libertarian socialist faerieland?" Um, WTF? You are just stringing together words that you were taught bad people believe in and hoping one of them will stick.
True, and maybe I'm making a distinction without a difference. I guess I'm saying that preventing a Congressman or group of Congressmen from engaging in religious practices or citing religious beliefs in their decisions is going too far, but that no law that has the intent to support a particular religious view, such as modifying textbooks to mention Christianity, should be allowed.
I'm not guessing. The map shows where people with degrees live. That's all it shows. The conclusion that this is where education is best is not unreasonable, but not a slam dunk either. I just think the map is at best an indirect indicator. I'm pretty sure that educated people tend to bring a preference and a demand for good education as well, so it seems likely that education is good where they move to, but this would be a side effect. My interpretation is that the map is also showing is where high-paying jobs and nice living conditions are, because educated people have more ability to demand such things.
Sometimes it *looks like* there are no options other than violence. Do you really think the answer to China's repressive regime is for massive civil war to break out? The majority of such uprisings simply result in a new repressive regime, because the leadership of a successful bloody revolution consists of bloody revolutionaries. You cite the American Revolution, I give you the Communist Bolshevik Revolution. You show me George Washington, I point to Ghandi.
I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.
Really? Could it be because they talk about Christianity a lot, and Democrats, not so much? I'm not saying Christian Republicans are "more Christian" than Christian Democrats, but obviously Democrats don't talk about Christian values very often. Republicans do a lot more. So people with lots of religious concerns tend to be Republicans. Isn't that obvious? Which part am I getting wrong?
By the way, "becoming associated" is something that happens in an individual's brain, not in reality. So the association seems to be one that YOU buy into. Are you sure most people share that?
I'm an atheist, but he's right. The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion. Or am I wrong here? What does it mean really to "separate Church and state?" The idea of a secular state is an excellent one, but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points.
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees. It does not necessarily mean education in Texas is substandard, although I'm not saying it means the opposite either.
Interesting post. Because he complains that government doesn't obey the same laws as the rest of us, you assume he's conservative. Huh. Or was there something else that tipped his hand? I gave up labeling people a while ago, so I've lost track -- do good liberals nowadays not favor government obeying the same laws as the rest of us?
Yes, I know what he meant and he still misspelled a simple word in a public forum, for which he deserves mild ridicule. When people make errors like that they reduce the perception that they are careful thinkers, and inadvertently cast doubt on the substance of their argument. IMHO. I consider myself to be doing a service by laughing at them. You can thank me privately, I am a humble servant of the public good.
LOS wireless is a dubious concept, I agree!
the "Climategate" models are indeed broken, because they have failed to accurately predict the weather in the last eight years.
Climate and weather are different things. It would help your arguments if you sounded much like you knew the difference.
You also display an ignorance of statistics, I'm afraid. 8 years is too short a time to talk about a high confidence level. The much vaunted "cooling trend" is actually perfectly reasonable within a warming model. But to discuss it requires something called "statistics," which I detect will overwhelm you. LOL
I recommend this page
And nobody said they do care. That's kind of the problem -- it's not a matter of "saving face." It's a matter of making rulings that increasingly do not make any sense to non-lawyers. They might not be a court, but they act like one. Senseless rulings based on obscure, complex points of law is what drives ordinary guys like me to wonder what chance I have of getting justice in our system, and to call it broken. So if the court shrugs off what effect their rulings have on the perception that there is justice in this country, then I think they are ignoring the reason they exist in the first place, which is to uphold the rule of law. The law is a social contract between the citizens, not just a game for people to play in court to make money.
Here, you can appeal decisions of the patent office before that court, and in my experience, the rulings are generally very sensible.
Sensible and the US legal system parted ways a while ago. I am totally bewildered by this ruling.
@Zordak: Yes, duh, the court ruled that the patent is upheld. Only a lawyer would in effect claim "QED" based on that. How can we have respect for the rule of law when completely idiotic rulings like this pop out? Obviously something is wrong.
I call bullshit on the premise. If the user has bandwidth enough to download malware, he has bandwidth enough to download malware detection software and updates.
but only 2x or 3x means the end of the combustion engine, if the cost can be kept under control.
If I had a dime for every time I'd heard this on Slashdot.... wow. Anyhow, it's not only cost that has to be solved, of course, this is very basic research and I'm sure there are a whole host of practcal problems to overcome, any one of which could be a show stopper. Once they are all addressed, then we can start talking about cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Ethical investing is a niche market. We in America value the almighty dollar above all else, and not without reason. So if some dastardly company were to now sell out and take the Chinese money and make a bundle, they will be rewarded with higher stock prices. Corporate bonuses will rise. That's all that matters, right?
they only have to pay a penny to the artist and half a penny to the songwriter, per song. It's the only way the label can sell the CD for so cheap and still make money..
It almost sounds like you're serious, so I'll just go ahead and point out that at 1.5 cents per song, that leave $9.75 at least out of $10.00 that does NOT go to the artist. So blaming the artist for high CD prices is of course ridiculous.
Well if it's that small a fraction, then Apple and MS probably don't care either. In fact, it looks like "patent encumbrance" is grossly overstated here.
The cost is still paid by the average user, it's just tacked onto the cost of the O/S or whatever you buy from Apple, MS, etc. As for "why", various consumers value different things. Some value cheap, some value fast, some value open source, some value high quality, etc. Ideally, customers who want choice can get it with a plugin, and the rest will get it easily without a plugin. But there will always be this creative edge. Most people will just say with safe, reasonably fast and easy.
Instead of "move to" I should have said "live". They might have not moved there, it's true. But they also might well have moved there, and I will claim that most did in fact move there. My reasoning: Most people go somewhere other than their birth town for advanced degrees, then they take a job somewhere and that also is likely to be somewhere other than where they grew up, so I said "moved to." And your point about Latin dudes and chicks moving in, yes, it all goes to show that the level of education of people in a certain spot is not necessarily equal to the level of education available in that spot.
We're not allowed -
Bullshit, we're lazy and not interested. We're discouraged and cynical. We're confused and demoralized. But we are allowed. And if we take that seriously, they cannot stop us.
it's not in the government's best interest for citizens to have control over the government.
Only true if you believe that the government interest is distinct from that of its citizens, which is an inherently corrosive viewpoint. Also, let's remember that the government is not a person, it's a group of people, so it actually does not have an interest per se. I'd say that our form of government is an experiment in letting the citizenry have a say, and if we do not participate fully then well-meaning people in the government will each do what they think is best for us, based on a guess and their own experiences.
"libertarian socialist faerieland?" Um, WTF? You are just stringing together words that you were taught bad people believe in and hoping one of them will stick.
True, and maybe I'm making a distinction without a difference. I guess I'm saying that preventing a Congressman or group of Congressmen from engaging in religious practices or citing religious beliefs in their decisions is going too far, but that no law that has the intent to support a particular religious view, such as modifying textbooks to mention Christianity, should be allowed.
I'm not guessing. The map shows where people with degrees live. That's all it shows. The conclusion that this is where education is best is not unreasonable, but not a slam dunk either. I just think the map is at best an indirect indicator. I'm pretty sure that educated people tend to bring a preference and a demand for good education as well, so it seems likely that education is good where they move to, but this would be a side effect. My interpretation is that the map is also showing is where high-paying jobs and nice living conditions are, because educated people have more ability to demand such things.
Sometimes it *looks like* there are no options other than violence. Do you really think the answer to China's repressive regime is for massive civil war to break out? The majority of such uprisings simply result in a new repressive regime, because the leadership of a successful bloody revolution consists of bloody revolutionaries. You cite the American Revolution, I give you the Communist Bolshevik Revolution. You show me George Washington, I point to Ghandi.
I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.
Really? Could it be because they talk about Christianity a lot, and Democrats, not so much? I'm not saying Christian Republicans are "more Christian" than Christian Democrats, but obviously Democrats don't talk about Christian values very often. Republicans do a lot more. So people with lots of religious concerns tend to be Republicans. Isn't that obvious? Which part am I getting wrong?
By the way, "becoming associated" is something that happens in an individual's brain, not in reality. So the association seems to be one that YOU buy into. Are you sure most people share that?
I'm an atheist, but he's right. The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion. Or am I wrong here? What does it mean really to "separate Church and state?" The idea of a secular state is an excellent one, but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points.
Screw the GOP and the DNC. How about if We the People reclaim our mantle of "government by the people?"
that map only shows where people move to after they get advanced degrees. It does not necessarily mean education in Texas is substandard, although I'm not saying it means the opposite either.
So murdering another person is preferable to you than landing in jail? OK, but I disagree that speech that lands you in jail has "failed".
assassinating some high level people in the Chinese government.
Yes, what a proud bastion of liberty that would make them. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Interesting post. Because he complains that government doesn't obey the same laws as the rest of us, you assume he's conservative. Huh. Or was there something else that tipped his hand? I gave up labeling people a while ago, so I've lost track -- do good liberals nowadays not favor government obeying the same laws as the rest of us?
Yes, I know what he meant and he still misspelled a simple word in a public forum, for which he deserves mild ridicule. When people make errors like that they reduce the perception that they are careful thinkers, and inadvertently cast doubt on the substance of their argument. IMHO. I consider myself to be doing a service by laughing at them. You can thank me privately, I am a humble servant of the public good.
LOS wireless is a dubious concept, I agree!
the "Climategate" models are indeed broken, because they have failed to accurately predict the weather in the last eight years.
Climate and weather are different things. It would help your arguments if you sounded much like you knew the difference.
You also display an ignorance of statistics, I'm afraid. 8 years is too short a time to talk about a high confidence level. The much vaunted "cooling trend" is actually perfectly reasonable within a warming model. But to discuss it requires something called "statistics," which I detect will overwhelm you. LOL
I recommend this page
I don't think "site" means what you think it means.
And nobody said they do care. That's kind of the problem -- it's not a matter of "saving face." It's a matter of making rulings that increasingly do not make any sense to non-lawyers. They might not be a court, but they act like one. Senseless rulings based on obscure, complex points of law is what drives ordinary guys like me to wonder what chance I have of getting justice in our system, and to call it broken. So if the court shrugs off what effect their rulings have on the perception that there is justice in this country, then I think they are ignoring the reason they exist in the first place, which is to uphold the rule of law. The law is a social contract between the citizens, not just a game for people to play in court to make money.
Here, you can appeal decisions of the patent office before that court, and in my experience, the rulings are generally very sensible.
Sensible and the US legal system parted ways a while ago. I am totally bewildered by this ruling. @Zordak: Yes, duh, the court ruled that the patent is upheld. Only a lawyer would in effect claim "QED" based on that. How can we have respect for the rule of law when completely idiotic rulings like this pop out? Obviously something is wrong.
I call bullshit on the premise. If the user has bandwidth enough to download malware, he has bandwidth enough to download malware detection software and updates.
Islamofascists are really "Mufsidoon engaged in Hiraba."
I'm not sure that helps at all, what do you think of this article?
but only 2x or 3x means the end of the combustion engine, if the cost can be kept under control.
If I had a dime for every time I'd heard this on Slashdot.... wow. Anyhow, it's not only cost that has to be solved, of course, this is very basic research and I'm sure there are a whole host of practcal problems to overcome, any one of which could be a show stopper. Once they are all addressed, then we can start talking about cost.