Getting right to the point, we may occasionally laud the EU's political environment as somewhat superior to the American one, but whether the EU is getting better or worse depends to a great extent on whether this "Minister" will be investigated and prosecuted.
To let "Mr. Typo" get off light, you have to have the kind of benighted self-contempt that Americans, Chinese and ex-Soviet citizens are really familiar with.
Spyware vendors generally attempt to deceive users into installing their products using a variety of ruses that would be unlikely to withstand the scrutiny of a civil court. Most spyware scams rest on the twin pillars of egregiously onerous "fine print" in legally specious (and generally unenforceable) "click-wrap" licenses (and that's if they didn't just sneak in without asking at all), and false advertising.
A good judge would hold with common sense - that allowing spyware is both practically speaking a bad idea (since, just like spam did for email, once we allow it, it will render computers unusable as it scales upwards) and a classic scam, from the point of view of common law, which still holds onto antiquated ideas about contracts needing the informed consent of both parties, and the reasonable expectations of a consumer.
If I knock on your door and say "flowers" and then when you open it burst inside and start hanging advertisements and planting hidden listening devices, this is not a constitionally protected activity any more than selling snake oil or engaging in a protection racket.
This is leaving aside the many privacy protecetions which have easily trumped "first amendment" protections in the past - the many enshrined confidences of the lawyer, the doctor, and even the video rental store. I would suggest that the more outrageous the conduct of the software (i.e. spyware) the more difficult it would be to demonstrate that the user had engaged it willingly... to the point that for many kinds of conduct, we simply don't permit it at all, out of common sense or common decency - hence, our rules against usury (i.e. outrageous interest rates) and gambling - classic ways to prey on the innocent and ignorant.... or even just allowing the phone company to sell your detailed phone records.
Of course, if you're such a laissez faire first amendment purist, I'm sure you support pornography on saturday morning TV?
I for one am thrilled to find that our first amendment protections are so strong. I am sure, given this kind of brave judicial scrutiny, that the DMCA and PATRIOT acts will quickly receive the same treatment.
What do you think? Will we settle it this time? Will we have copyright anarchy or copyright enforcement? If we're too permissive, we'll have no information economy!
What a false dillemma.
Have you really seen how strict we're thinking of making our copyright rules?
Freedom and privacy are in themselves valuable. And strict enforcement of copyright is simply incompatible with freedom and privacy.
But, actually, neither freedom nor privacy are the most important reason to avoid becoming "too strict" about copyright.
Our _economy_ requires us not to be too strict.
Remember, our whole world is, and has always been, engaged in massive, systematic violations of copyright law. So let's look at why that is, and what purpose it serves, before we rock the boat too quickly.
For a minute, let's set aside mix tapes, and libraries, and the VCR, half your childhood singalongs in school and around the campfire - all of which are illegal, and might not have happened under a "strict" copyright regime.
Lets head to the everyday world of the home and office, where almost every other computer has some illegally duplicated software or media on it. Sooner or later somebody brought a CD or some music from home, or installed WinZIP without paying for it. Only WinZIP is the tip of the iceberg. Many of the most copied software titles are "programs for work." Microsoft's Office, or Windows. Visual C++. Macromedia's Flash or Director.
It gets copied because it's very expensive, and the people who want to use these tools can't always afford them.
This stolen software is used to do work. It writes school papers. It creates art projects. It produces other software, from desktop applications to web sites to video games (even some really big titles you've all bought in the store). It is used by the attorneys of companies suing other companies for copyright infringement, and certainly by the children of everyone concerned. "Stolen" media is present all around you, like air and water, in virtually every workplace, and in every home, used for writing love letters, wiling away hours in hospital beds, researching cancer, and even fighting crime and educating our children. (Yes, even police and schools have been prosecuted by the "BSA" - the software industry's copyright enforcement arm.)
Perfect enforcement of copyright has never been possible, or even close - so only egregious violations of it are prosecuted (big companies that could afford it, but chose not to pay, or stalls on the street - actually trying to sell the stolen goods). The rest pass by, unremarked, uncredited - often even without our noticing.
This stolen softare, present in everywhere, from the halls of giants like EA, Microsoft, and IBM (despite their own best efforts to stop it) to little companies all over the country, has been used to do work that made billions of dollars in the marketplace.
Copying, whatever its costs, has enormous benefits. It's like a magic lubricant, empowering our business and creative activities and enriching our lives - subtracting the mythical "last 5%" from the copyright holder, while adding 500% to the society as a result.
Imagine if a poor person could magically borrow a wealthy man's house. He could shower, eat in the kitchen, he could read the wealthy man's books, change into the wealthy man's clothes, and when walking out the door, get a better job.
Now what if millions of poor men could all live in the rich man's house at the same time as its owner did, without anyone ever meeting each other? What if the kitchen was always full no matter how many people it fed?
This is the magical world of "intellectual property" - where the very term "property" makes us want to protect our ideas as though only one person could possess them at a time. Yet we all know that's not true. Ideas have a different set of rules. As has been observed many times already, "Intellectual Property" many not be
It has everything you describe, plus quite a bit more. I could list a litany of minor features here and there and maybe there'd be a pissing match, but it all comes down to polish, polish, polish. IDEA is just one of the most "completed" pieces of commercial software I've seen. Even where it does the same thing that many IDE's do, it just does it much better. Better than VS, better than Eclipse, better than Netbeans - basically better than everything else I've tried.
VS.Net users I know either spend a lot of time envying it or switch. BTW the developer is supposed to be porting some of their advanced functionality to the VS platform...
In many cases that is true, however you conveniently gloss over the fact companies aren't outsourcing 100% or even 50% of the tech worker's jobs. The industry isn't up and moving away. Just because you can't get a job here doing what you've always done doesn't meant that your job doesn't exist. Are you saying the gov't should gurantee you a position in the tech field just because that's where you want to work? In that case, they should provide me a job being a movie star because, hey, that's where I want to work. The job market is only so big.
You're right. The government should give you a pony too, but since it won't, I'm sure that Laissez Faire won't have any adverse affects on our lives after all. Maybe only 39.4201% of the industry will chose to pay "free market" rates for services.
Lord knows those greasy unions will make a stink.
Yes, our dollars are going overseas. We are importing services from other countries and sending our American dollar to those countries. This will affect our GDP. However, if a displaced worker upgrades their skills then they can increae their productivity and increase the national GDP. Now the real question is: Will the displaced worker's productivity go up enough to offset the GDP loss in importing labor from a third party? It depends on the displaced worker. Are you going to be mad and sulk, or are you going to be mad and actually do something about it?
You're right. I'm going to give Sally Struthers a call in the morning, because I read in TV guide that TV and VCR repair can't be outsourced.
I don't beleive my argument ignores this fact. When you are young and going to college you have the ability to take huge risks because there is typically a safety net for you (family). When you have a family to support you cannot take such great risks. Some people will have to completely change their situation and skill set, but the reality is that while it's risky, it's done every day/week/month/year currently. Some win, some lose. Again, is this something that needs to be regulated? There are already low interest rate loans, tax breaks, and subsidies for re training workers. What more should be done?
I know! Risk is what makes economics so much fun. I am sure you are right, there is no possible way this could go catastrophically wrong for our country.
But don't forget about school vouchers! I heard that if you're a Catholic you're less likely to have a job that can be done in a country with a less valuable currency.
True, but I fail to see how this relates directly to the situation. There are a myriad of jobs you can perform which do not have these restrictions and are easy to learn with help from the local library. A service position such as these gurantees you a little work that can't easily be outsourced, but it doesn't gurantee you work or that you'll live above the poverty level.
It's true. It's never been so easy to compete with the 3rd world as it is today. Why just the other day I was in the library reading Kafka and by accident I opened a book on Pest Control and now I have a super secure job as an exterminator! They tell me the Diazinon is totally safe.
But fear not, kids, because if you're as lazy and stupid as we all know you are, there's always one career that guarantees you'll always stay above the poverty line, like a buoy on an oil slick: crime!
Just one hint: free market capitalists tend to have the best stuff in their houses to steal. That's because they're smart enough to know when the banking system (too reliant on those lazy consumers) isn't really so reliable. You can always spot where they live by the high fences.
If you think outsourcing doesn't affect your bottom line then you should take another look at how cheap computers and software really are. Now live overseas for a year and see how expensive these same items are to the locals. Nearly 90% of the items you use on a daily basis are the result of outsourcing manufacturing, design, tech s
He is saying something else. He is explaining how a free market works. Discussing how an individual's plight is affected by the aggregate demand for his services.
With instant electronic distribution, all "distance" skills are now worth almost exactly what they cost in the poorest, most depressed country on earth. It may take a few years to reach an equilibrium, but nothing will stop it (short of "protectionism").
I'm amused you'd bring up "interviewing skills." It sounds like you actually don't understand the point he's raising. Let's try this again. Maybe by paraphrasing it will be more clear. We are talking about the hypothetical perfect american employee. She interviews really well in case you were wondering. She needn't be a programmer, lest someone choose that as a red herring. Any "distance" skill - that can be accomplished without physical presence - will do.
That employee is now unable to work. Who will hire her? She is at the mercy of the currency market, let alone the much-hated protections of the American lower classes. She may be able to find a job today, and next year, but he is as doomed as a garment worker. Sooner or later (quite soon, really) the market will catch up with her.
"And we'd like to welcome just about every worker in America to the global slave economy. Please, have a seat and make yourself comfortable. If you fight it you'll only waste time you should be spending learning how to shine my shoes."
There are two scenarios here, let's play with them a little bit:
1: We try to oppose the practice of slavery. Abolitionists and liberal commie pinkos try to foment a civil war between the glorious southern confederacy and the evil, money-grubbing unionist north. Or even just pass laws requiring minimum wage and overtime.
Outcome: They lose.
2: We recognize the fallacy of thinking that the lower classes should be "free." We allow innovative companies to enslave labor (as long as they do it in Africa or Asia), which can really cut costs. Displaced workers are forced to find a way to become aristocrats or accept a lower salary - like nothing!
Outcome: Those innovative aristocrats earn more money, increasing the economic power of themselves. The US Labor force is also better off, since it no longer exists. National GDP increases, companies become more profitable, etc.
There is no realistic way to stop slavery. All one can do is try to stay ahead of the curve. Get your MBA and try to become a house-servant! Move to a smaller plantation where slavery doesn't make sense - well, maybe it makes more sense when you're smaller. But hey, you can always start your own cotton plantation! (It's easy. You just have to inherit land from your daddy!)
Eventually the global economy will level out, and all of you uppity lower classes will get what's coming to you. This will happen regardless of the measures you are taking to slow it down. In the end our products are still competitive on the global market, even though we don't actually make them, and we will still carry 1/3 of the international GDP, which is amazing considering how our economy is based around consumer spending. Anyway, fighting it is only going to slow down our economy and speed up the rest of the world's economy.
Slavery is inevitable - because everything that helps out the bottom line is legal somewhere, and free trade lets us relocate our operations to wherever that is! Laws trying to stop it never work anyway, so why try? Besides, all these pesky commie ideas about tarriffs, labor laws and public schools never worked in the past. Didn't Laissez Faire get us where we are today?
If you really want to keep your current life style... heh. That's funny. In fact, if you want to keep from sleeping in the alley behind my townhouse, you'll learn to roll with the frequent lashings, pick yourself up and get back in the game.
No, I did not say that. I was stating my qualifications to be saying the things I'm saying here on/.
I never took it otherwise. My comment was a (slightly disrespectful) joke; pointing out that "throw[ing] your qualifications on the table" is now a very important part of the process in getting work, if you don't do it based on price. But you do point out other factors:
If we are supplying services, we bid on rates and margin. Qualifications are written and evaluated as part of the bid (experience, bonding capacity, etc.) A budget will often be provided, but it is just that - a budget. If an Owner wants something more concrete than that, a Guaranteed Maximum Price will be proposed.
OK, all this I understand. You get to make a non-binding estimate. You do fix rates, overhead and profit. Those rates you can plan in advance, of course. And I think the bigger picture here is that, as you bring up the invoice review process, to an extent the buyer can try to verify that your costs really were your costs - if you open up your books and show what you paid out, I suppose the theory goes, then we can do the simple math on overhead and profit... it might sound good on paper.
But what about the distance/time quicksand? That is, if you'll forgive an awful play on words: if I don't know the distance or the time, how can I really know your rate? You won't give a real estimate, and your rates+overhead+profit doesn't tell me how fast you can do the work, let alone how well. All the incentive is now for you to do it as slowly as possible. You don't even have to commit fraud - just take your sweet time. We have, in this quicksand we're now mired in, very few definite answers as to how badly the buyer is getting screwed. This is the problem with reviews, even detailed ones - the same problem that complicates legal remedies.
What sane person wouldn't at this point, at least put more checks on the process? "Cost plus with a guaranteed maximum," as you say? And from there it's a much shorter trip to a fixed bid. In fact, it starts to resemble many "complex" fixed bid contracts that I've seen - the kind that have various contingencies planned for in advance...
Too complex, perhaps, when you're hiring someone to fix your toilet - but these are big money deals. It might be worh the extra effort?
Certainly, if a Contractor isn't performing, you let them go. That is far easier under a cost plus arrangement than a fixed bid.
I disagree. It is never easy. In most cases, whether you are building something or fixing something, you are married to whoever you sign with. Replacing them, even amicably, usually results in enormous expense, trouble, sometimes even danger.
In my experience, fixed bid contracts always explicitly provide for termination, usually with pro-rating or a pre-arranged a lump sum... How is that far less easy than finding out you have a bill for an egregious amount that you might not be able to convincingly argue that you shouldn't have to pay?
But lack of oversight is a problem no matter what the contract structure. You just described a (reputable) Contractor's nightmare of an Owner: lack of knowledge, lack of skills, and just signs off on everything. Then when the final bill comes due, they want EVERYTHING explained before they pay up, even for work they have already signed off on. Yes, an unscrupulous contractor will tell an Owner that they did more work that actually happened, but the alternate is also true: unscrupulous Owners will attempt to renegociate the contract after the fact.
I've certainly seen both - I could tell you some horror stories. But none of this makes a convincing case for cost plus. In fact, I would suggest it says the opposite. More on that in a minute.
First, an oddball design and wildly fluctuating steel prices compelled the bidder to put in a lot of contingency in his bid. Is the price of steel going to go up 50% or 100% over the next 6 months (and no, thos
No, I'm not in construction, so that's a big factor if our experiences are different. Probably like most people here, my contracting experience has been computer related, though running the gamut: as an employee of agencies (including as a project manager), a freelancer, and entrepeneur... running projects to do ongoing support (sysadmin, maintenance), install big (i.e. "campus-"wide) networks, and of course, software development, from million dollar entertainment projects to multi-million dollar big-enterprise systems (financial markets). My clients have ranged from about a dozen Fortune 100 to NFPs and schools - but never the government. I've been doing this for about a decade and a half. And I can still count the number of times I got a cost plus job.
I'm thinking now that maybe I should go into construction though. You make it sound great.:) If I understand you correctly, you can "throw your qualifications on the table," and find potential clients that will agree to cost plus. If this is true, I'm pretty impressed.
Actually, this leads me to a question which I hope isn't too off-topic... When a government agency is considering a choice between contractors who want to bill on a cost plus basis, how does that agency choose a contractor? Do people in your field supply non-binding estimates, or rate sheets for materials and services? Is it based on reputation and handshakes? Or is it all back rooms, family rooms, and college roommates?
This all comes down to how strict the oversight is. If I can invoice for a phenomenal amount and then cut and run when your review process scolds me (assuming you can even afford to fire me), and worse, our contractual arrangement makes determining whether I actually violated our agreement a rather subtle and complex process, so your legal remedies are curtailed... I think the description "blank check" still sounds pretty accurate; I hope you can help me understand why that's not the case.
Putting it as simply as I can, I guess what a construction layman like myself has trouble with, is that if I sent someone off to run a project for me, and then later found out the project was going wrong... and the punch line was that nobody had gone to the trouble of creating limits or an estimate for the work in advance (at least, any that was strong enough to go to court over)... wouldn't I fire that person? Even (or especially) if that person was the federal government?
All this is just because I have trouble imagining how often you really need to do cost plus, rather than your other contract scenarios. Keeping in mind that unexpected events and unreliable estimates are the norm in both of our fields... outside of your hypothetical example, why is it done?
You have a skewed view of what really happens in the private sector.
No, he's right on.
Most contractors in the private sector would, if it were really likely to be an issue, bid on a planning phase to investigate the soil for possible contaminants, assuming they didn't have to "discover" for free in order to even get in the door. Flat fees all the way. If you get screwed badly enough, all you can do is beg for mercy.
Or if you basically figure you'll be OK, just write the contract contingent on conditions you expect, and if you go outside them renegotiate... you know, agree to everything before anyone writes an invoice.
Are you getting the picture yet? Companies don't write blank checks, unless they're big, sloppy companies (of which I've worked for many - some are rich enough they can afford to be sloppy on an unimagineable scale).
Cost plus work is done all the time. Lots of bad things are done all the time. It doesn't change the fact that fraud under a cost plus regime is much easier than under a fixed price.
You make it sound like, when an unscrupulous contracter gets hauled into cort for playing games, that's money lost. This is, from another perspective, an enforcement action by the government. It costs money to have police, to have courts and prosecutors... what sense does it make to then balk at the costs of civil (and criminal!) actions against fraudulent contractors? Punishing criminals and hucksters is a net gain for society... And an unavoidable "cost of doing business" for an honest, functioning government.
As a P.S., if the civil courts are broken enough that it's "too expensive" and "too time-consuming" to fight fraud, that's another topic altogether...
What you just described is really helpful. I wish I could have found this information out much sooner... I googled quite a bit, but this never came up. It goes back to my earlier point. There just doesn't seem to be a good "wifi howto" out there. If there were, this should definitely be in it.
I can tell you that quite a few, even very new, "high end" devices are single antenna, judging by what I saw in the store and in catalogs.
I have followed homebrew antenna stories with great interest, and frankly would have already made one, except that I don't (and I doubt many do) have the materials to make my own pigtails, and off the shelf ones cost as much as the cheap range extender antennas (that didn't work)...
In these articles, the pigtail is always the little *minor point about that $2.79 cost I mentioned...
It's an interesting idea. It's a single antenna, BTW - and I tried replacing the stock rubber duck with alternatives to little effect. But now you have me wondering if I should try to send it back, or buy another and return it if it's the same.
We have the same router. But are you using 108MB/SuperG or WPA? After some research I've come to believe my troubles may stem from what's in my walls, possibly insulation or pipes. It's an old building. But I can decrease the signal strength by over 50% by putting my hand in front of the ("omnidirectional") antenna on either end. And how common are my troubles likely to be?
I had to place my router in the geomertic center of the apartment, and fiddle with "an inch to the left, an inch to the right" (which really would make a difference!) - I now have it reaching every room. It's silly, though, to get into wiring your wireless hardware so it can sit in just the right place...
I comparison shopped for a week and found horror stories about each brand, including Linksys. The prices were all comparable. But I guess the reality is I had no way to know what I was getting into before I got into it.
108MB superG mode doesn't allow you to switch channels. Whether that's because it's automated or simply always occupies channel six is unknown.
I don't think this is going to happen, but I _think_ the idea is, when the calls are all carried by the data network (even at the prices we pay for symetrical connectivity today) it'll be cheaper and lower-margin than the voice network. So the backbone providers would need enormous across-the-board price increases for data connectivity to recover.
Of course, what's stopping them from doing exactly that? Then the dreaming really starts. These people, if you get them drunk enough, will admit they believe wireless meshes could eventually replace the backbone. Who knows? But it doesn't seem likely anytime in the near future.
I don't know about anyone else - frankly I would love to hear other points of view on this! - but in my experience this technology is about an order of magnitude short on range and power. My hardware (top of the line DLink as of two months ago) barely penetrates two walls in my home. It can't go 50 feet.
I looked at antennas and amplifiers and wireless geek sites. I discovered two things:
I couldn't find any clear, authoritative, useful sites dealing with building and tuning Wifi networks...
Amplifiers and antennas cost hundreds, or thousands of dollars. Oh, I sprang for two less expensive "range extender" antennas from major suppliers, but they were useless - 10% observable difference.
At this point, I would frankly love to hear, "hey idiot, you're doing it all wrong! here's a url, here's what you're missing, etc etc." But I have a sinking feeling I wont.
This leaves me with the impression that Wifi is entirely not powerful or reliable enough to get anywhere near the neighborhood/citywide meshes that people (even Cringley, apparently) imagine. Like I said, based on my experiences so far, it's off by an order of magnitude. Even if you can fix that by upgrading your gear, it's not cheap, or easy.
One thing I will say is that I'm impressed with Linksys for going with Linux, and now I understand why I should have bought them, even though they're half as fast as what I bought, and don't support WPA. My DLink router, although it's overcome its notorious problems with 5-minute interval spontaneous reboots, still needs to be rebooted daily, otherwise traffic slows to a crawl. DLink, of course, like most vendors, finds only benign amusement with the fact that their product's firmware is totally boned. It's too late now, but if I could, I would bring everything back and switch to anything that ran linux in the router.
The use of ECT for any reason is medically and morally questionable. That is, unless you can describe, without resorting to pseudoscience, how it works, and why its action is theraputic rather than simply conveniently destructive. ECT is an elaborate "scientific" wrapper to make what is basically bludgeoning a hopeless patient socially acceptable. It lingers after the ice pick only because its use of electricity rather than blunt force has left it a veneer of Wizard of Oz-style acceptability.
Psychosurgery and ECT have been extensively misused. I think we both know that. Such misuse wouldn't be as common if we, for instance, knew anything specific about the workings of many of the diseases we were trying to treat, let alone the supposed mechanisms by which these "treatments" work.
Yes, the brain is complicated. This is exactly my point.
Most importantly, when you don't really know what you're doing, either call yourself a researcher or walk back down the ramp and give your Ph.D. back. Don't indulge in the fantasy you can cure things you don't understand, with treatments you don't understand, at great expense to your patients and with a blind eye to your failure rate.
Current therapy techniques certainly help some people. But let's not fool ourselves. Doctors schooled in the four humours helped people too. They just did as much harm as good - sometimes more.
Until empiricism and rigor reign in the practices of the community that don't work, and for many of the things that do, strip away the gloss to show us what they really are (in certain cases, the unspoken argument goes, bludgeoning is merciful)... most of our discipline belongs on the back shelf with Reiki and Accupuncture. Right now we are in a dire state, hurting people rather than helping them, providing a false sense of security, and to be really blunt, misleading patients and lay people with such regularity that it is basically institutional practice.
Slow down there. You want to make it out as if psychology/psychiatry has the same strong empirical underpinnings that, say, internal medicine has? Don't make me laugh.
As a matter of fact, everybody does pick and choose which laws to follow, from seatbelts to taxes to underage drinking to marijuana. I would be happy if everybody had the same skepticism towards psychology/psychotherapy/counseling/etc that we all have towards the government. Unfortunately, they don't - people give the field far more credit and trust, much more than it deserves.
I don't need homosexuality to show how dangerously ill-equipped psychology/psychiatry is to live up to its expectations. I'd start with lobotomies (fallen out of favor how recently?) and ECT (that's "electroshock," for the crowd)... which is... still being practiced?
Psychology/Psychiatry today is where internal medicine was 100 years ago. Leeches, cocaine, etc. We're getting better, slowly. But the original point is quite correct. It's a field with no center, running on bluff and hype, overpopulated with quacks and hustlers. It's kept aloft by optimism, dishonesty, and placebo effect, and not the least bit ashamed to leave a trail of human wreckage behind it.
In certain major cities, supermarkets rely on foot traffic. They depend on getting the business from everybody close around them regardless of their quality, because they were the closest.
I can describe the two local supermarkets in my major city within "quick" walking distance as
Outrageously expensive (Hint: suburban readers, double or triple what you usually pay)
Terrible quality
What do I mean by "terrible?" How about dirty, nasty, not stocking certain common items for days or weeks, bugs, whatever. And I'm talking about major chains, not bodegas here!
They simply relied on there being no competition. And now all of a sudden there is. People would flee to delivery services even if they weren't easier, better and cheaper. Not to mention that carrying groceries is a pain in "carless" environments, especially for older folks, especially if you live on the 3rd floor without an elevator.
I see the grocery delivery trucks everywhere now, and every day. Judging by the frequency, I'd say the local supermarkets where I am have already lost a significant amount of business. Bravo capitalism.
If you've ever read a booster speech about how Americans innovate so they'll always come out on top, then you can skip this article.
If anyone knows this guy, I have one question for him. Do his kids go to public school?
If so what school district? What are his property taxes? How does his school's funding compare to the average school funding in his state? In the country?
We are not going to be innovating much anymore. The WWII-era education extravaganza is over. The Neoconservatives have declared it a failed experiment, and would happily find ways to divert people into religious education, taking the public education funding with them. The rest of the political spectrum can't seem to find any motivation or clout to fix it. Creationism is taught on equal footing with evolution in public schools in the rural south. The public at large, even much of the punditry, blithely accepts the over-20-students-per-class myth.
Our high school dropout rate is abyssmal. Higher education costs (public, let alone private) will soon be leaving the range where people below the upper-middle class can afford them, and our governments are losing the ability to run the financial aid systems that bridge the gap.
I am consistently amazed at our capacity to believe that we will somehow find a way to be rich, even if our citizens can't hold any jobs that can be done cheaper in the 3rd world.
I can add very little to this, except to add that the original argument is backwards.
I have demonstrated how software patents are ridiculous. It was very easy, because they are very ridiculous. So has someone really arrived to say, OK, I see your point, but since "real-world patents" work the same way, how can there be a problem?
I just can't stop laughing. If it's anything at all, it's a sign that real patents have problems too, not the other way around!
I mean, I've just explained trivially why software patents are impossible. Is the coward really saying "so, sure, it's impossible, so what? We endured it in the real world..."
And the ultimate answer is, real patents _do_ have issues - only, for a variety of reasons, they are not as serious for engineering constrained by presence in the physical world as they are for software.
"Software" seems to give people common sense blinders in so many cases. Maybe we should try talking about software patents with a metaphor, like "Math patents" or "English patents..."
Slashdot Mirror
He must not be from around here.
Getting right to the point, we may occasionally laud the EU's political environment as somewhat superior to the American one, but whether the EU is getting better or worse depends to a great extent on whether this "Minister" will be investigated and prosecuted.
To let "Mr. Typo" get off light, you have to have the kind of benighted self-contempt that Americans, Chinese and ex-Soviet citizens are really familiar with.
Excuse me?
Spyware vendors generally attempt to deceive users into installing their products using a variety of ruses that would be unlikely to withstand the scrutiny of a civil court. Most spyware scams rest on the twin pillars of egregiously onerous "fine print" in legally specious (and generally unenforceable) "click-wrap" licenses (and that's if they didn't just sneak in without asking at all), and false advertising.
A good judge would hold with common sense - that allowing spyware is both practically speaking a bad idea (since, just like spam did for email, once we allow it, it will render computers unusable as it scales upwards) and a classic scam, from the point of view of common law, which still holds onto antiquated ideas about contracts needing the informed consent of both parties, and the reasonable expectations of a consumer.
If I knock on your door and say "flowers" and then when you open it burst inside and start hanging advertisements and planting hidden listening devices, this is not a constitionally protected activity any more than selling snake oil or engaging in a protection racket.
This is leaving aside the many privacy protecetions which have easily trumped "first amendment" protections in the past - the many enshrined confidences of the lawyer, the doctor, and even the video rental store. I would suggest that the more outrageous the conduct of the software (i.e. spyware) the more difficult it would be to demonstrate that the user had engaged it willingly... to the point that for many kinds of conduct, we simply don't permit it at all, out of common sense or common decency - hence, our rules against usury (i.e. outrageous interest rates) and gambling - classic ways to prey on the innocent and ignorant.... or even just allowing the phone company to sell your detailed phone records.
Of course, if you're such a laissez faire first amendment purist, I'm sure you support pornography on saturday morning TV?
I for one am thrilled to find that our first amendment protections are so strong. I am sure, given this kind of brave judicial scrutiny, that the DMCA and PATRIOT acts will quickly receive the same treatment.
Here we have another debate about copyright.
What do you think? Will we settle it this time? Will we have copyright anarchy or copyright enforcement? If we're too permissive, we'll have no information economy!
What a false dillemma.
Have you really seen how strict we're thinking of making our copyright rules?
Freedom and privacy are in themselves valuable. And strict enforcement of copyright is simply incompatible with freedom and privacy.
But, actually, neither freedom nor privacy are the most important reason to avoid becoming "too strict" about copyright.
Our _economy_ requires us not to be too strict.
Remember, our whole world is, and has always been, engaged in massive, systematic violations of copyright law. So let's look at why that is, and what purpose it serves, before we rock the boat too quickly.
For a minute, let's set aside mix tapes, and libraries, and the VCR, half your childhood singalongs in school and around the campfire - all of which are illegal, and might not have happened under a "strict" copyright regime.
Lets head to the everyday world of the home and office, where almost every other computer has some illegally duplicated software or media on it. Sooner or later somebody brought a CD or some music from home, or installed WinZIP without paying for it. Only WinZIP is the tip of the iceberg. Many of the most copied software titles are "programs for work." Microsoft's Office, or Windows. Visual C++. Macromedia's Flash or Director.
It gets copied because it's very expensive, and the people who want to use these tools can't always afford them.
This stolen software is used to do work. It writes school papers. It creates art projects. It produces other software, from desktop applications to web sites to video games (even some really big titles you've all bought in the store). It is used by the attorneys of companies suing other companies for copyright infringement, and certainly by the children of everyone concerned. "Stolen" media is present all around you, like air and water, in virtually every workplace, and in every home, used for writing love letters, wiling away hours in hospital beds, researching cancer, and even fighting crime and educating our children. (Yes, even police and schools have been prosecuted by the "BSA" - the software industry's copyright enforcement arm.)
Perfect enforcement of copyright has never been possible, or even close - so only egregious violations of it are prosecuted (big companies that could afford it, but chose not to pay, or stalls on the street - actually trying to sell the stolen goods). The rest pass by, unremarked, uncredited - often even without our noticing.
This stolen softare, present in everywhere, from the halls of giants like EA, Microsoft, and IBM (despite their own best efforts to stop it) to little companies all over the country, has been used to do work that made billions of dollars in the marketplace.
Copying, whatever its costs, has enormous benefits. It's like a magic lubricant, empowering our business and creative activities and enriching our lives - subtracting the mythical "last 5%" from the copyright holder, while adding 500% to the society as a result.
Imagine if a poor person could magically borrow a wealthy man's house. He could shower, eat in the kitchen, he could read the wealthy man's books, change into the wealthy man's clothes, and when walking out the door, get a better job.
Now what if millions of poor men could all live in the rich man's house at the same time as its owner did, without anyone ever meeting each other? What if the kitchen was always full no matter how many people it fed?
This is the magical world of "intellectual property" - where the very term "property" makes us want to protect our ideas as though only one person could possess them at a time. Yet we all know that's not true. Ideas have a different set of rules. As has been observed many times already, "Intellectual Property" many not be
It has everything you describe, plus quite a bit more. I could list a litany of minor features here and there and maybe there'd be a pissing match, but it all comes down to polish, polish, polish. IDEA is just one of the most "completed" pieces of commercial software I've seen. Even where it does the same thing that many IDE's do, it just does it much better. Better than VS, better than Eclipse, better than Netbeans - basically better than everything else I've tried.
VS.Net users I know either spend a lot of time envying it or switch. BTW the developer is supposed to be porting some of their advanced functionality to the VS platform...
Just try it out. Seriously.
And then when the company goes out of business, and all their media degrades, their work is lost to history forever.
Yeah, that sounds like a great bargain in exchange for the publisher to eke out another 2% in sales.
Making backups yourself is legal, has always been legal, and needs to stay legal.
In many cases that is true, however you conveniently gloss over the fact companies aren't outsourcing 100% or even 50% of the tech worker's jobs. The industry isn't up and moving away. Just because you can't get a job here doing what you've always done doesn't meant that your job doesn't exist. Are you saying the gov't should gurantee you a position in the tech field just because that's where you want to work? In that case, they should provide me a job being a movie star because, hey, that's where I want to work. The job market is only so big.
You're right. The government should give you a pony too, but since it won't, I'm sure that Laissez Faire won't have any adverse affects on our lives after all. Maybe only 39.4201% of the industry will chose to pay "free market" rates for services.
Lord knows those greasy unions will make a stink.
Yes, our dollars are going overseas. We are importing services from other countries and sending our American dollar to those countries. This will affect our GDP. However, if a displaced worker upgrades their skills then they can increae their productivity and increase the national GDP. Now the real question is: Will the displaced worker's productivity go up enough to offset the GDP loss in importing labor from a third party? It depends on the displaced worker. Are you going to be mad and sulk, or are you going to be mad and actually do something about it?
You're right. I'm going to give Sally Struthers a call in the morning, because I read in TV guide that TV and VCR repair can't be outsourced.
I don't beleive my argument ignores this fact. When you are young and going to college you have the ability to take huge risks because there is typically a safety net for you (family). When you have a family to support you cannot take such great risks. Some people will have to completely change their situation and skill set, but the reality is that while it's risky, it's done every day/week/month/year currently. Some win, some lose. Again, is this something that needs to be regulated? There are already low interest rate loans, tax breaks, and subsidies for re training workers. What more should be done?
I know! Risk is what makes economics so much fun. I am sure you are right, there is no possible way this could go catastrophically wrong for our country.
But don't forget about school vouchers! I heard that if you're a Catholic you're less likely to have a job that can be done in a country with a less valuable currency.
True, but I fail to see how this relates directly to the situation. There are a myriad of jobs you can perform which do not have these restrictions and are easy to learn with help from the local library. A service position such as these gurantees you a little work that can't easily be outsourced, but it doesn't gurantee you work or that you'll live above the poverty level.
It's true. It's never been so easy to compete with the 3rd world as it is today. Why just the other day I was in the library reading Kafka and by accident I opened a book on Pest Control and now I have a super secure job as an exterminator! They tell me the Diazinon is totally safe.
But fear not, kids, because if you're as lazy and stupid as we all know you are, there's always one career that guarantees you'll always stay above the poverty line, like a buoy on an oil slick: crime!
Just one hint: free market capitalists tend to have the best stuff in their houses to steal. That's because they're smart enough to know when the banking system (too reliant on those lazy consumers) isn't really so reliable. You can always spot where they live by the high fences.
If you think outsourcing doesn't affect your bottom line then you should take another look at how cheap computers and software really are. Now live overseas for a year and see how expensive these same items are to the locals. Nearly 90% of the items you use on a daily basis are the result of outsourcing manufacturing, design, tech s
He is saying something else. He is explaining how a free market works. Discussing how an individual's plight is affected by the aggregate demand for his services.
With instant electronic distribution, all "distance" skills are now worth almost exactly what they cost in the poorest, most depressed country on earth. It may take a few years to reach an equilibrium, but nothing will stop it (short of "protectionism").
I'm amused you'd bring up "interviewing skills." It sounds like you actually don't understand the point he's raising. Let's try this again. Maybe by paraphrasing it will be more clear. We are talking about the hypothetical perfect american employee. She interviews really well in case you were wondering. She needn't be a programmer, lest someone choose that as a red herring. Any "distance" skill - that can be accomplished without physical presence - will do.
That employee is now unable to work. Who will hire her? She is at the mercy of the currency market, let alone the much-hated protections of the American lower classes. She may be able to find a job today, and next year, but he is as doomed as a garment worker. Sooner or later (quite soon, really) the market will catch up with her.
"And we'd like to welcome just about every worker in America to the global slave economy. Please, have a seat and make yourself comfortable. If you fight it you'll only waste time you should be spending learning how to shine my shoes."
There are two scenarios here, let's play with them a little bit:
1:
We try to oppose the practice of slavery. Abolitionists and liberal commie pinkos try to foment a civil war between the glorious southern confederacy and the evil, money-grubbing unionist north. Or even just pass laws requiring minimum wage and overtime.
Outcome:
They lose.
2:
We recognize the fallacy of thinking that the lower classes should be "free." We allow innovative companies to enslave labor (as long as they do it in Africa or Asia), which can really cut costs. Displaced workers are forced to find a way to become aristocrats or accept a lower salary - like nothing!
Outcome:
Those innovative aristocrats earn more money, increasing the economic power of themselves. The US Labor force is also better off, since it no longer exists. National GDP increases, companies become more profitable, etc.
There is no realistic way to stop slavery. All one can do is try to stay ahead of the curve. Get your MBA and try to become a house-servant! Move to a smaller plantation where slavery doesn't make sense - well, maybe it makes more sense when you're smaller. But hey, you can always start your own cotton plantation! (It's easy. You just have to inherit land from your daddy!)
Eventually the global economy will level out, and all of you uppity lower classes will get what's coming to you. This will happen regardless of the measures you are taking to slow it down. In the end our products are still competitive on the global market, even though we don't actually make them, and we will still carry 1/3 of the international GDP, which is amazing considering how our economy is based around consumer spending. Anyway, fighting it is only going to slow down our economy and speed up the rest of the world's economy.
Slavery is inevitable - because everything that helps out the bottom line is legal somewhere, and free trade lets us relocate our operations to wherever that is! Laws trying to stop it never work anyway, so why try? Besides, all these pesky commie ideas about tarriffs, labor laws and public schools never worked in the past. Didn't Laissez Faire get us where we are today?
If you really want to keep your current life style... heh. That's funny. In fact, if you want to keep from sleeping in the alley behind my townhouse, you'll learn to roll with the frequent lashings, pick yourself up and get back in the game.
No, I did not say that. I was stating my qualifications to be saying the things I'm saying here on /.
I never took it otherwise. My comment was a (slightly disrespectful) joke; pointing out that "throw[ing] your qualifications on the table" is now a very important part of the process in getting work, if you don't do it based on price. But you do point out other factors:
If we are supplying services, we bid on rates and margin. Qualifications are written and evaluated as part of the bid (experience, bonding capacity, etc.) A budget will often be provided, but it is just that - a budget. If an Owner wants something more concrete than that, a Guaranteed Maximum Price will be proposed.
OK, all this I understand. You get to make a non-binding estimate. You do fix rates, overhead and profit. Those rates you can plan in advance, of course. And I think the bigger picture here is that, as you bring up the invoice review process, to an extent the buyer can try to verify that your costs really were your costs - if you open up your books and show what you paid out, I suppose the theory goes, then we can do the simple math on overhead and profit... it might sound good on paper.
But what about the distance/time quicksand? That is, if you'll forgive an awful play on words: if I don't know the distance or the time, how can I really know your rate? You won't give a real estimate, and your rates+overhead+profit doesn't tell me how fast you can do the work, let alone how well. All the incentive is now for you to do it as slowly as possible. You don't even have to commit fraud - just take your sweet time. We have, in this quicksand we're now mired in, very few definite answers as to how badly the buyer is getting screwed. This is the problem with reviews, even detailed ones - the same problem that complicates legal remedies.
What sane person wouldn't at this point, at least put more checks on the process? "Cost plus with a guaranteed maximum," as you say? And from there it's a much shorter trip to a fixed bid. In fact, it starts to resemble many "complex" fixed bid contracts that I've seen - the kind that have various contingencies planned for in advance...
Too complex, perhaps, when you're hiring someone to fix your toilet - but these are big money deals. It might be worh the extra effort?
Certainly, if a Contractor isn't performing, you let them go. That is far easier under a cost plus arrangement than a fixed bid.
I disagree. It is never easy. In most cases, whether you are building something or fixing something, you are married to whoever you sign with. Replacing them, even amicably, usually results in enormous expense, trouble, sometimes even danger.
In my experience, fixed bid contracts always explicitly provide for termination, usually with pro-rating or a pre-arranged a lump sum... How is that far less easy than finding out you have a bill for an egregious amount that you might not be able to convincingly argue that you shouldn't have to pay?
But lack of oversight is a problem no matter what the contract structure. You just described a (reputable) Contractor's nightmare of an Owner: lack of knowledge, lack of skills, and just signs off on everything. Then when the final bill comes due, they want EVERYTHING explained before they pay up, even for work they have already signed off on. Yes, an unscrupulous contractor will tell an Owner that they did more work that actually happened, but the alternate is also true: unscrupulous Owners will attempt to renegociate the contract after the fact.
I've certainly seen both - I could tell you some horror stories. But none of this makes a convincing case for cost plus. In fact, I would suggest it says the opposite. More on that in a minute.
First, an oddball design and wildly fluctuating steel prices compelled the bidder to put in a lot of contingency in his bid. Is the price of steel going to go up 50% or 100% over the next 6 months (and no, thos
No, I'm not in construction, so that's a big factor if our experiences are different. Probably like most people here, my contracting experience has been computer related, though running the gamut: as an employee of agencies (including as a project manager), a freelancer, and entrepeneur... running projects to do ongoing support (sysadmin, maintenance), install big (i.e. "campus-"wide) networks, and of course, software development, from million dollar entertainment projects to multi-million dollar big-enterprise systems (financial markets). My clients have ranged from about a dozen Fortune 100 to NFPs and schools - but never the government. I've been doing this for about a decade and a half. And I can still count the number of times I got a cost plus job.
:) If I understand you correctly, you can "throw your qualifications on the table," and find potential clients that will agree to cost plus. If this is true, I'm pretty impressed.
I'm thinking now that maybe I should go into construction though. You make it sound great.
Actually, this leads me to a question which I hope isn't too off-topic... When a government agency is considering a choice between contractors who want to bill on a cost plus basis, how does that agency choose a contractor? Do people in your field supply non-binding estimates, or rate sheets for materials and services? Is it based on reputation and handshakes? Or is it all back rooms, family rooms, and college roommates?
This all comes down to how strict the oversight is. If I can invoice for a phenomenal amount and then cut and run when your review process scolds me (assuming you can even afford to fire me), and worse, our contractual arrangement makes determining whether I actually violated our agreement a rather subtle and complex process, so your legal remedies are curtailed... I think the description "blank check" still sounds pretty accurate; I hope you can help me understand why that's not the case.
Putting it as simply as I can, I guess what a construction layman like myself has trouble with, is that if I sent someone off to run a project for me, and then later found out the project was going wrong... and the punch line was that nobody had gone to the trouble of creating limits or an estimate for the work in advance (at least, any that was strong enough to go to court over)... wouldn't I fire that person? Even (or especially) if that person was the federal government?
All this is just because I have trouble imagining how often you really need to do cost plus, rather than your other contract scenarios. Keeping in mind that unexpected events and unreliable estimates are the norm in both of our fields... outside of your hypothetical example, why is it done?
You have a skewed view of what really happens in the private sector.
No, he's right on.
Most contractors in the private sector would, if it were really likely to be an issue, bid on a planning phase to investigate the soil for possible contaminants, assuming they didn't have to "discover" for free in order to even get in the door. Flat fees all the way. If you get screwed badly enough, all you can do is beg for mercy.
Or if you basically figure you'll be OK, just write the contract contingent on conditions you expect, and if you go outside them renegotiate... you know, agree to everything before anyone writes an invoice.
Are you getting the picture yet? Companies don't write blank checks, unless they're big, sloppy companies (of which I've worked for many - some are rich enough they can afford to be sloppy on an unimagineable scale).
Cost plus work is done all the time. Lots of bad things are done all the time. It doesn't change the fact that fraud under a cost plus regime is much easier than under a fixed price.
You make it sound like, when an unscrupulous contracter gets hauled into cort for playing games, that's money lost. This is, from another perspective, an enforcement action by the government. It costs money to have police, to have courts and prosecutors... what sense does it make to then balk at the costs of civil (and criminal!) actions against fraudulent contractors? Punishing criminals and hucksters is a net gain for society... And an unavoidable "cost of doing business" for an honest, functioning government.
As a P.S., if the civil courts are broken enough that it's "too expensive" and "too time-consuming" to fight fraud, that's another topic altogether...
What you just described is really helpful. I wish I could have found this information out much sooner... I googled quite a bit, but this never came up. It goes back to my earlier point. There just doesn't seem to be a good "wifi howto" out there. If there were, this should definitely be in it.
I can tell you that quite a few, even very new, "high end" devices are single antenna, judging by what I saw in the store and in catalogs.
I have followed homebrew antenna stories with great interest, and frankly would have already made one, except that I don't (and I doubt many do) have the materials to make my own pigtails, and off the shelf ones cost as much as the cheap range extender antennas (that didn't work)...
In these articles, the pigtail is always the little *minor point about that $2.79 cost I mentioned...
It's an interesting idea. It's a single antenna, BTW - and I tried replacing the stock rubber duck with alternatives to little effect. But now you have me wondering if I should try to send it back, or buy another and return it if it's the same.
We have the same router. But are you using 108MB/SuperG or WPA? After some research I've come to believe my troubles may stem from what's in my walls, possibly insulation or pipes. It's an old building. But I can decrease the signal strength by over 50% by putting my hand in front of the ("omnidirectional") antenna on either end. And how common are my troubles likely to be?
I had to place my router in the geomertic center of the apartment, and fiddle with "an inch to the left, an inch to the right" (which really would make a difference!) - I now have it reaching every room. It's silly, though, to get into wiring your wireless hardware so it can sit in just the right place...
I comparison shopped for a week and found horror stories about each brand, including Linksys. The prices were all comparable. But I guess the reality is I had no way to know what I was getting into before I got into it.
108MB superG mode doesn't allow you to switch channels. Whether that's because it's automated or simply always occupies channel six is unknown.
I don't think this is going to happen, but I _think_ the idea is, when the calls are all carried by the data network (even at the prices we pay for symetrical connectivity today) it'll be cheaper and lower-margin than the voice network. So the backbone providers would need enormous across-the-board price increases for data connectivity to recover.
Of course, what's stopping them from doing exactly that? Then the dreaming really starts. These people, if you get them drunk enough, will admit they believe wireless meshes could eventually replace the backbone. Who knows? But it doesn't seem likely anytime in the near future.
I looked at antennas and amplifiers and wireless geek sites. I discovered two things:
At this point, I would frankly love to hear, "hey idiot, you're doing it all wrong! here's a url, here's what you're missing, etc etc." But I have a sinking feeling I wont.
This leaves me with the impression that Wifi is entirely not powerful or reliable enough to get anywhere near the neighborhood/citywide meshes that people (even Cringley, apparently) imagine. Like I said, based on my experiences so far, it's off by an order of magnitude. Even if you can fix that by upgrading your gear, it's not cheap, or easy.
One thing I will say is that I'm impressed with Linksys for going with Linux, and now I understand why I should have bought them, even though they're half as fast as what I bought, and don't support WPA. My DLink router, although it's overcome its notorious problems with 5-minute interval spontaneous reboots, still needs to be rebooted daily, otherwise traffic slows to a crawl. DLink, of course, like most vendors, finds only benign amusement with the fact that their product's firmware is totally boned. It's too late now, but if I could, I would bring everything back and switch to anything that ran linux in the router.
The use of ECT for any reason is medically and morally questionable. That is, unless you can describe, without resorting to pseudoscience, how it works, and why its action is theraputic rather than simply conveniently destructive. ECT is an elaborate "scientific" wrapper to make what is basically bludgeoning a hopeless patient socially acceptable. It lingers after the ice pick only because its use of electricity rather than blunt force has left it a veneer of Wizard of Oz-style acceptability.
Psychosurgery and ECT have been extensively misused. I think we both know that. Such misuse wouldn't be as common if we, for instance, knew anything specific about the workings of many of the diseases we were trying to treat, let alone the supposed mechanisms by which these "treatments" work.
Yes, the brain is complicated. This is exactly my point.
Most importantly, when you don't really know what you're doing, either call yourself a researcher or walk back down the ramp and give your Ph.D. back. Don't indulge in the fantasy you can cure things you don't understand, with treatments you don't understand, at great expense to your patients and with a blind eye to your failure rate.
Current therapy techniques certainly help some people. But let's not fool ourselves. Doctors schooled in the four humours helped people too. They just did as much harm as good - sometimes more.
Until empiricism and rigor reign in the practices of the community that don't work, and for many of the things that do, strip away the gloss to show us what they really are (in certain cases, the unspoken argument goes, bludgeoning is merciful)... most of our discipline belongs on the back shelf with Reiki and Accupuncture. Right now we are in a dire state, hurting people rather than helping them, providing a false sense of security, and to be really blunt, misleading patients and lay people with such regularity that it is basically institutional practice.
Slow down there. You want to make it out as if psychology/psychiatry has the same strong empirical underpinnings that, say, internal medicine has? Don't make me laugh.
As a matter of fact, everybody does pick and choose which laws to follow, from seatbelts to taxes to underage drinking to marijuana. I would be happy if everybody had the same skepticism towards psychology/psychotherapy/counseling/etc that we all have towards the government. Unfortunately, they don't - people give the field far more credit and trust, much more than it deserves.
I don't need homosexuality to show how dangerously ill-equipped psychology/psychiatry is to live up to its expectations. I'd start with lobotomies (fallen out of favor how recently?) and ECT (that's "electroshock," for the crowd)... which is... still being practiced?
Psychology/Psychiatry today is where internal medicine was 100 years ago. Leeches, cocaine, etc. We're getting better, slowly. But the original point is quite correct. It's a field with no center, running on bluff and hype, overpopulated with quacks and hustlers. It's kept aloft by optimism, dishonesty, and placebo effect, and not the least bit ashamed to leave a trail of human wreckage behind it.
I can describe the two local supermarkets in my major city within "quick" walking distance as
- Outrageously expensive (Hint: suburban readers, double or triple what you usually pay)
- Terrible quality
What do I mean by "terrible?" How about dirty, nasty, not stocking certain common items for days or weeks, bugs, whatever. And I'm talking about major chains, not bodegas here!They simply relied on there being no competition. And now all of a sudden there is. People would flee to delivery services even if they weren't easier, better and cheaper. Not to mention that carrying groceries is a pain in "carless" environments, especially for older folks, especially if you live on the 3rd floor without an elevator.
I see the grocery delivery trucks everywhere now, and every day. Judging by the frequency, I'd say the local supermarkets where I am have already lost a significant amount of business. Bravo capitalism.
If you've ever read a booster speech about how Americans innovate so they'll always come out on top, then you can skip this article.
If anyone knows this guy, I have one question for him. Do his kids go to public school?
If so what school district? What are his property taxes? How does his school's funding compare to the average school funding in his state? In the country?
We are not going to be innovating much anymore. The WWII-era education extravaganza is over. The Neoconservatives have declared it a failed experiment, and would happily find ways to divert people into religious education, taking the public education funding with them. The rest of the political spectrum can't seem to find any motivation or clout to fix it. Creationism is taught on equal footing with evolution in public schools in the rural south. The public at large, even much of the punditry, blithely accepts the over-20-students-per-class myth.
Our high school dropout rate is abyssmal. Higher education costs (public, let alone private) will soon be leaving the range where people below the upper-middle class can afford them, and our governments are losing the ability to run the financial aid systems that bridge the gap.
I am consistently amazed at our capacity to believe that we will somehow find a way to be rich, even if our citizens can't hold any jobs that can be done cheaper in the 3rd world.
I can add very little to this, except to add that the original argument is backwards.
I have demonstrated how software patents are ridiculous. It was very easy, because they are very ridiculous. So has someone really arrived to say, OK, I see your point, but since "real-world patents" work the same way, how can there be a problem?
I just can't stop laughing. If it's anything at all, it's a sign that real patents have problems too, not the other way around!
I mean, I've just explained trivially why software patents are impossible. Is the coward really saying "so, sure, it's impossible, so what? We endured it in the real world..."
And the ultimate answer is, real patents _do_ have issues - only, for a variety of reasons, they are not as serious for engineering constrained by presence in the physical world as they are for software.
"Software" seems to give people common sense blinders in so many cases. Maybe we should try talking about software patents with a metaphor, like "Math patents" or "English patents..."