Just think what weaning the U.S. off oil-dependence would do for its world politics
As if the US government doesn't bomb innocent people by choice? I see your point, but come on. Government holds the keys to war, not the producers or consumers of oil.
That means the milk here doesn't taste nearly as good as it could
Tell me about it. We went to Costa Rica a few months ago, and the milk there is orders of magnitude better tasting than ANY milk I've had in the states. Same goes for the beef, chicken, and pork. When you don't feed steriods and other chemicals to your livestock, they come out tasting like they should.
The definition of "emergency services" and "infrastructure" should be allowed to evolve.
OK, so let's talk about technological evolution.
Government and centralized services are hardly the ultimate, best-case solution. They are more of a temporary kludge until technology advances enough to render them obsolete. In the future, things like water, sewer, and electricity will be completely de-centralized and privatized. Not because centralization doesn't work, but because decentralization is the logical perfect solution.
In the future, there will be no power cords. You won't have to find a socket and plug your lamp in to have light -- the lamp will come with some form of high-efficiency battery or other self-sufficient energy source that lasts for 50 years before it needs to be replaced. Same goes for your computer, your dishwasher, your fridge, your stereo, and anything else that requires electricity. In the future, the eggs will no longer be in one basket. Power outages will be a thing of the past. In 100 years, people will look back on centralized power as fully obsolete technology -- no practical reason to use it anymore, because the better decentralized technology will be orders of magnitude cheaper to implement.
Same goes for water and sewer. Each household will have a compact, super-efficient and eco-friendly sewage treatment "plant". Your sewage goes in, and comes out as a fully-treated, eco-safe, de-hydrated block of compact crap that can be disposed of safely. I imagine in the distant future we will even have "instant water". Each individual tap, toilet, and shower will produce its own water, eliminating the need for pipes.
Now, some of this may or may not happen during our lifetimes, but it is guaranteed that it will eventually happen, whether or not we can imagine it today. Why? Because decentralization is the logical best-case scenario. Centralized services cannot possibly be as efficient or reliable as a mature decentralized technology.
The U.S. usually views blockbuster movie releases first. Many hot game titles are available here first. It all evens out in the long run.
I don't watch movies or play games, you insensitive clod. (I'm actually serious, I don't.) Then again, I don't buy many gadgets either. (Except that cool Nexus HSF I just ordered.)
I've automated the procedure with a few different shell scripts, and the process (extracting to wav, converting to flac, renaming the files) is now condensed to a single command. It takes about 10 minutes per disc. If you post your email address I can send you a tar file containing the scripts (you'd probably want to modify them for your own needs, but it's a good start).
If a site is laid out correctly, all desired information should be availble tthe user with one mouse click, removing the need for a back button.
Uh, no. Sometimes I want to re-trace my steps, on my own terms, not yours. The back and forward commands are as fundamental to a browser as reload and stop, and I consider any website that breaks them as defective.
True communism requries that the state assume ownership over everything (including your body). There is no such thing as private property under communism, because the state ultimately has the power to confiscate anything you "own" (including your body). How exactly is this going to be accomplished if not through totalitarian force? It simply would not be possible if not for totalitarian force. This is why communism is necessarily totalitarian by nature.
Perhaps you are thinking of anarcho-socialism, where people voluntarily agree to abandon (or at least de-emphasize) the concept of private property? (This society doesn't exist today, but the closest thing I can think of would be the Amish, or the hippie community in that movie "The Beach".)
FLAC won't be popular on portable players until portable players come with 100GB+ of storage. (I don't know about you, but I want ALL of my cd's on the player, not just 1 or 2 of them.) Until then, my FLACs will stay archived on my computer/jukebox, and if I want to transfer the music to a portable player, it's a snap to convert them to mp3 or ogg.
The real value of FLAC is lossless archiving. Right now, it just isn't practical to put FLACs on your portable player.
You should consider moving to FLAC for archiving. Disks are so cheap it just makes sense now. While a lossy archive is better than nothing, it's still not a real backup. To draw an analogy, backing up cd's with lossy compression is sort of like backup up to analog cassettes. You can still listen to the music, of course, but the fact is you don't have an exact duplicate of the original data, and thus you don't have a real backup.
Maybe the solution isn't worrying so much about "backups," but making sure that you give your money to someone who respects their customers.
I would never trust anyone but myself with any of my data, including my music files. While I agree that the right thing to do is to allow the customer to re-download, I can't emphasize the first point enough. NEVER trust anybody but yourself with your data.
Check out secondspin.com. (No, I'm not affiliated.) I buy about 5 used cd's from them per month, with an upper limit of $8 each. The selection is quite extensive. Most of the cd's are scratchless, in great condition. Some actually look brand new. I buy them, archive them in FLAC format, and store them away with the rest of my collection. (I have a 230-cd/2700-song FLAC archive which doubles as a jukebox and lossless backup.)
Why purchase a lossy itunes "album" for $10 when you can have the real thing for $8 or less? One more thing -- when you purchase used cd's, you aren't giving a cent to the RIAA.
Ah, yes. Esperanto, the most ignored language ever invented. (Emphasis on the "invented" -- a real language can not possibly be "invented", but only evolved.)
This is equivalant to a government taking money from one party by force and distributing it to another party. The second party gains (and so does government of course), but ONLY at the first party's expense. No wealth is created.
obviously belongs under the second paragraph. Where is the post editing capability on slashdot?
Voluntary trade is the only possible way to create wealth, because of the principle of mutual benefit. The first party gains (+1), and the second party gains (+1), and the net sum is positive: wealth is created. This is equivalant to a government taking money from one party by force and distributing it to another party. The second party gains (and so does government of course), but ONLY at the first party's expense. No wealth is created.
Force can never create wealth -- only transfer it from one party to another. When a thief takes money by force, he gains (+1) only at the expense of the victim (-1). The net sum is zero; no wealth is created.
The contract between Ken and Jeopardy is clearly voluntary; both parties benefit from the transaction, and thus wealth is created.
Funny, but I think we all know the answer to that: Since Ken entered into a contract with Jeopardy voluntarily, this production of wealth for mutual benefit was entirely rational.
There is nothing wrong with advertising on the web. What's wrong is doing it in a way that undermines the user's control of the web browser. Google seems to be doing it right, and reaping the benefits.
I choose to be happy for Ken. I wonder why so many others choose to be envious.
I'll take a stab at that. You are part of the group that realizes that wealth is created -- not simply discovered and collected -- by those with the will and motivation to make it happen. The envious people are part of the group that thinks wealth has always existed, and the rich are the ones who simply got there first or took more than their "fair share".
No, it blows that government has the power to make it happen. Without that power, those 100 people would have to take personal responsibility like everyone else, instead of having government do it for them.
Remember who holds the keys. It's not those 100 people -- it's government.
Because it presents an image of competition. If the average voter was aware how little the two parties differ, the status quo would never be accepted as legitimate. Creating the false image of competition makes the voter think he actually has a choice, which of course is the fundamental paradigm behind democratic government.
His actions and policies are anything but conservative.
Yes, but then again, the average "conservative" is anything but conservative.
Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has enjoyed nearly exponential growth in terms of both revenue and power over the people.
Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has been dominated by two political parties: the republicans and the democrats.
Now, if the republicans really were practicing "conservative" politics over this period, don't you think they would have countered the democrats ability to expand government, resulting in a government which neither grows much nor shrinks much over time?
After all, the republicans and democrats have dominated US politics together. Neither party has dominated exclusively, or anywhere near enough to tip the scales significantly in one direction, right? So how exactly did this near-exponential growth occur, if not because both parties favor expansion of government?
Conclusion: The republians stand for continuous expansion of government, both in revenue and power over the people -- NOT limited government as they publicly claim. The two parties may differ slightly on how to expand government, but in general, history proves -- quite neatly and cleanly if I might say -- that both parties stand for continuous expansion of government.
Slashdot Mirror
As if the US government doesn't bomb innocent people by choice? I see your point, but come on. Government holds the keys to war, not the producers or consumers of oil.
Tell me about it. We went to Costa Rica a few months ago, and the milk there is orders of magnitude better tasting than ANY milk I've had in the states. Same goes for the beef, chicken, and pork. When you don't feed steriods and other chemicals to your livestock, they come out tasting like they should.
The definition of "emergency services" and "infrastructure" should be allowed to evolve.
OK, so let's talk about technological evolution.
Government and centralized services are hardly the ultimate, best-case solution. They are more of a temporary kludge until technology advances enough to render them obsolete. In the future, things like water, sewer, and electricity will be completely de-centralized and privatized. Not because centralization doesn't work, but because decentralization is the logical perfect solution.
In the future, there will be no power cords. You won't have to find a socket and plug your lamp in to have light -- the lamp will come with some form of high-efficiency battery or other self-sufficient energy source that lasts for 50 years before it needs to be replaced. Same goes for your computer, your dishwasher, your fridge, your stereo, and anything else that requires electricity. In the future, the eggs will no longer be in one basket. Power outages will be a thing of the past. In 100 years, people will look back on centralized power as fully obsolete technology -- no practical reason to use it anymore, because the better decentralized technology will be orders of magnitude cheaper to implement.
Same goes for water and sewer. Each household will have a compact, super-efficient and eco-friendly sewage treatment "plant". Your sewage goes in, and comes out as a fully-treated, eco-safe, de-hydrated block of compact crap that can be disposed of safely. I imagine in the distant future we will even have "instant water". Each individual tap, toilet, and shower will produce its own water, eliminating the need for pipes.
Now, some of this may or may not happen during our lifetimes, but it is guaranteed that it will eventually happen, whether or not we can imagine it today. Why? Because decentralization is the logical best-case scenario. Centralized services cannot possibly be as efficient or reliable as a mature decentralized technology.
I don't watch movies or play games, you insensitive clod. (I'm actually serious, I don't.) Then again, I don't buy many gadgets either. (Except that cool Nexus HSF I just ordered.)
I've automated the procedure with a few different shell scripts, and the process (extracting to wav, converting to flac, renaming the files) is now condensed to a single command. It takes about 10 minutes per disc. If you post your email address I can send you a tar file containing the scripts (you'd probably want to modify them for your own needs, but it's a good start).
Uh, no. Sometimes I want to re-trace my steps, on my own terms, not yours. The back and forward commands are as fundamental to a browser as reload and stop, and I consider any website that breaks them as defective.
True communism requries that the state assume ownership over everything (including your body). There is no such thing as private property under communism, because the state ultimately has the power to confiscate anything you "own" (including your body). How exactly is this going to be accomplished if not through totalitarian force? It simply would not be possible if not for totalitarian force. This is why communism is necessarily totalitarian by nature.
Perhaps you are thinking of anarcho-socialism, where people voluntarily agree to abandon (or at least de-emphasize) the concept of private property? (This society doesn't exist today, but the closest thing I can think of would be the Amish, or the hippie community in that movie "The Beach".)
Why not go with a dual-boot system, so you can have the best of both worlds?
FLAC won't be popular on portable players until portable players come with 100GB+ of storage. (I don't know about you, but I want ALL of my cd's on the player, not just 1 or 2 of them.) Until then, my FLACs will stay archived on my computer/jukebox, and if I want to transfer the music to a portable player, it's a snap to convert them to mp3 or ogg.
The real value of FLAC is lossless archiving. Right now, it just isn't practical to put FLACs on your portable player.
You should consider moving to FLAC for archiving. Disks are so cheap it just makes sense now. While a lossy archive is better than nothing, it's still not a real backup. To draw an analogy, backing up cd's with lossy compression is sort of like backup up to analog cassettes. You can still listen to the music, of course, but the fact is you don't have an exact duplicate of the original data, and thus you don't have a real backup.
I would never trust anyone but myself with any of my data, including my music files. While I agree that the right thing to do is to allow the customer to re-download, I can't emphasize the first point enough. NEVER trust anybody but yourself with your data.
Why purchase a lossy itunes "album" for $10 when you can have the real thing for $8 or less? One more thing -- when you purchase used cd's, you aren't giving a cent to the RIAA.
Ah, yes. Esperanto, the most ignored language ever invented. (Emphasis on the "invented" -- a real language can not possibly be "invented", but only evolved.)
This is equivalant to a government taking money from one party by force and distributing it to another party. The second party gains (and so does government of course), but ONLY at the first party's expense. No wealth is created.
obviously belongs under the second paragraph. Where is the post editing capability on slashdot?
Voluntary trade is the only possible way to create wealth, because of the principle of mutual benefit. The first party gains (+1), and the second party gains (+1), and the net sum is positive: wealth is created. This is equivalant to a government taking money from one party by force and distributing it to another party. The second party gains (and so does government of course), but ONLY at the first party's expense. No wealth is created.
Force can never create wealth -- only transfer it from one party to another. When a thief takes money by force, he gains (+1) only at the expense of the victim (-1). The net sum is zero; no wealth is created.
The contract between Ken and Jeopardy is clearly voluntary; both parties benefit from the transaction, and thus wealth is created.
Funny, but I think we all know the answer to that: Since Ken entered into a contract with Jeopardy voluntarily, this production of wealth for mutual benefit was entirely rational.
What the hell for? Google's ads are probably the least intrusive example of web advertising I've ever seen.
There is nothing wrong with advertising on the web. What's wrong is doing it in a way that undermines the user's control of the web browser. Google seems to be doing it right, and reaping the benefits.
I'll take a stab at that. You are part of the group that realizes that wealth is created -- not simply discovered and collected -- by those with the will and motivation to make it happen. The envious people are part of the group that thinks wealth has always existed, and the rich are the ones who simply got there first or took more than their "fair share".
So, are you proud or embarrased that you actually knew how to do that?
So, don't leave us hanging ten. How are those PCB's holding up to the saltwater and wave action?
No, it blows that government has the power to make it happen. Without that power, those 100 people would have to take personal responsibility like everyone else, instead of having government do it for them.
Remember who holds the keys. It's not those 100 people -- it's government.
Because it presents an image of competition. If the average voter was aware how little the two parties differ, the status quo would never be accepted as legitimate. Creating the false image of competition makes the voter think he actually has a choice, which of course is the fundamental paradigm behind democratic government.
Of course not, but if they didn't claim so, the public wouldn't readily accept that they actually have a choice in the voting booth.
Yes, but then again, the average "conservative" is anything but conservative.
Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has enjoyed nearly exponential growth in terms of both revenue and power over the people.
Over the past century, US government (especially federal) has been dominated by two political parties: the republicans and the democrats.
Now, if the republicans really were practicing "conservative" politics over this period, don't you think they would have countered the democrats ability to expand government, resulting in a government which neither grows much nor shrinks much over time?
After all, the republicans and democrats have dominated US politics together. Neither party has dominated exclusively, or anywhere near enough to tip the scales significantly in one direction, right? So how exactly did this near-exponential growth occur, if not because both parties favor expansion of government?
Conclusion: The republians stand for continuous expansion of government, both in revenue and power over the people -- NOT limited government as they publicly claim. The two parties may differ slightly on how to expand government, but in general, history proves -- quite neatly and cleanly if I might say -- that both parties stand for continuous expansion of government.