Roads are obsolete technology. They suit horses and cars, and horses are looking like the safer long term bet than cars at this point. States shouldn't be investing in them, but rather in rail systems that are fed by a local renewable energy source, such that they can run forever without a fuel source, and people just get on and off as they see fit. But again, that doesn't result in ongoing leverage over the population, so no business would want to build it.
You're right, there are a number of possible motives. But the one I mentioned is something they've bet the company on, and it is enough to demand that they do this in the absence of any other motive, which makes this action predictable. The bean counters referred to in the article who say this is unexpected are too blinded by mathematical models to understand the underlying factors at work.
They got paid by large private and government interests to put Trusted Computing on everyones machines so they can engage in widespread information control. They would LIKE more money from the consumer, but they MUST achieve widespread deployment for this to be realized. If it's realized, they will have a power the likes of which has never been seen before on earth, and money will be the least of their concerns. If it's not, they will become a niche product. It's pretty obvious where their motives lie, and their actions are entirely sensible if you understand their motives.
You forgot number 6: Patents alter the value of a good idea in a negative fashion and destroy the wealth of a society.
Illustration:
You make widgets. You can use your infrastructure to churn out 100 widgets per man hour, you pay your workers $20 an hour, so you get 5 widgets for a buck.
A better way to make widgets is now possible because of general advancements in material sciences, and someone patents the technology.
If you made widgets the new way, you could churn out 200 widgets per man hour, still pay your workers the same, and get 10 widgets for a buck. But you have to pay a patent fee of $0.30 per widget, which drives the cost up to 10 widgets for $4.
So, faced with the economics, you decide that you can't afford to do things the better way, and keep doing them the stupid way.
The person who has the patent doesn't have any infrastructure for making widgets, they're not interested in making widgets, they're interested in making boomerangs, and they can make more money getting $0.30 in fees per per boomerang and not getting any patent fees from widget makers than they can by dropping the patent fees within range of the widget makers, so they keep the price firm.
End result: Productivity of society decreases, and people behave in a stupid fashion because the system actively discourages acting in the smart way.
A good idea should be picked up by everyone, and spread as far and wide as possible, for the benefit of everyone on earth. Patents prevent it from happening. Therefore, they're bad. For everyone.
#3 was interesting... the arrogance of thinking that other people can't turn your idea into a commodity. Of course we can... a good idea is obvious when it's time comes, and out of reach until its time comes. Why would someone who wants to actually do things in the world support patents? They wouldn't. Patents serve the person who wants to sit around lazy and suck off other peoples effort for the rest of their life, resting on their past achievement, such as it is. So, why would you want to participate in a system that is geared to encourage and reward that sort of person, when they're the worst among us?
Great programmers work for who they want, on what they want. They take getting their personal needs met for granted, but they have grand ideas about things they want to see realized and not enough money of their own to do it.
So you advertise on the basis of the interesting work that you're doing, and aim for the ears of someone who has been itching to build such things rather than talking about the creature comfort and monetary perks.
Great people want strong leadership that will help them achieve beyond what they can do alone.
Your home is already unguardable. If I don't mind making a scene, I can go in your window just as quick as your door. Locks on your doors don't prevent entry, they make entry obvious to the observer. Or to put it another way, the purpose of the lock is to prevent unauthorized entry from being done in secret, not to prevent unauthorized entry from happening.
And you're right about the housing issue. That is how the housing problems are going to be dealt with, as the far-from-center houses become unsustainable by reason of the fuel consumption overhead required to live there and travel to where other people you need to interact with are. It's just a matter of time.
You know, there's nothing that forces people to give up secrets, any more than there's a requirement that they make safe things. But there's a requirement that they make things that can be demonstrated to be safe if they wish to enter the marketplace. It's not much different as social contracts go, and that was just the first idea that popped into my head, low hanging fruit.
There are better ways, but you'll have to wait for the manifesto.:P
That's easy. Require the particulars of the manufacturing process to be made transparent and registered for everyone to see before the proprietor is allowed to enter the market, in the same way that they are expected to pass safety regulations. Anyone who attempts to refuse or rebel has all their infrastructure seized outright. Done.
Money is what you use when you have scarcity instead of wealth, and you're trying to figure out who should get the short supply.
Artificial scarcity, which includes all intellectual property law, is about destroying wealth so you can force people to work like slaves and fight over the scraps.
It's reminiscent of the wealth burning parties of primitives, intended to prevent the accumulation of wealth so the people would have to keep making more in the service of the tribal leaders.
Basically, Alexey Pazhitnov Leonidovich doesn't value wealth, he values leverage over his fellow man, which he can only have if people are systematically kept in a state of deprivation.
It blows my mind how many people defend a system that keeps them impoverished, not because they don't understand what it's doing to them and their fellows, but because they think they're going to be the man on the top one of these days and they want to be the beneficiary of all those systematic imbalances.
You think the government stepping in and FORCING a productive enterprise to pay some schmoe $20,000 because they're using a picture on a website is a beautiful example of free market capitalism? What are you, an idiot? They did get it for what it was worth. They got it for nothing. Then some lazy dickhead exploited a broken system to tax them when he didn't deliver them anything of any tangible worth. That's a brilliant system indeed.
That's because DivX and XviD both sprang from the open source Project Mayo. They used the "assign your copyright to us when you contribute" scheme that MySQL uses. Then suddenly the project was shut down, and all the Project Mayo code suddenly became the closed source DivX project. XviD was created by the pissed off Project Mayo contributers.
First thing I do with any IDE is turn off auto-completion. I find that my fingers have already typed the entire function name and hit space before my eyes register that the stupid IDE has replaced my text with some wrong guess. Stupid, stupid concept right from the word go.
Whatever. It was a point and click photograph that my daughter could have created. It took no significant effort to create, and could have been swapped out with some other photo. It's not worth anything at all.
It's nice to see that some dude pocketed $20,000 because he took a picture of a public building and sued someone. That's great. I'm sure he deserved every penny. Fucking wanker. Get a real job.
What does it take to get impeached in this country?
Invasion of the US by the coalition of the willing. When you don't deal with your own, and other countries have to step in, it's a lot worse for you than if you'd done it yourself. Just a thought
The girl was given enough privacy to get far enough out on a limb that she believed she was too estranged from anyone to receive help, and then, with a lonely helplessness filling her heart, she killed herself.
It's a very common story, and it wouldn't have happened without the veil of secrecy that allowed it to go unnoticed.
That family needs a little vigilante justice from their local community, and private communication needs to disappear by the wayside so the vigilantes know when they're needed ahead of time next time.
I've been a Microsoft developer for 7 years, got 7 years experience making a living with their products. I'm not a Linux guru. But I switched. I didn't do it because Linux is perfect. I did it because Microsoft is TERRIBLE, and NOTHING EVER just works. So I don't know what the fuck you're talking about....
Personally, I'd rather go to Cuba than the US any day. I've been researching with travel agents about how I can visit South America from Canada without having to set foot in the US ever again. Crazy Fascists.
What an odd interpertation. Why should anyone in your company try to dig into someone else's code to fix it? What if the "OSS community" doesn't bother to help, how does that leave your project? Pretty fucked, from my point of view. As expensive as MS support is, at least you CAN get them to find a solution to your problem.
There are a lot of people who care more about covering their ass than about delivering solutions. They want to put in a 40 hour day, and if it doesn't work, they want to point fingers at someone and go home without being blamed.
Those people are losers. They don't care about protecting their capacity to succeed, they care about preventing accountability. They fail on a regular basis because of this attitude.
There are some people who care more about delivering a top notch solution to a problem. They want to put in the time to make it work, and they don't want to have to ask someone to care about their problem and hope they do.
Those people are winners. They don't care much about accountability and suits, they care about being a person who always succeeds at what they attempt. They don't generally fail.
Winners don't like depending on other companies to cover their ass. They like being able to do it themselves. They take responsibility because that is their nature.
That is the answer to your question. Stick it wherever you like.
Those problems are fixable. First, you install Xen on your Linux box. Then you install Win2K on Xen, and you put your productivity applications on that install. When you need them, fire up Windows in a virtual machine, and they're there. My girlfriend needs those same programs for her graphic design business, and that's what we're planning on doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Roads are obsolete technology. They suit horses and cars, and horses are looking like the safer long term bet than cars at this point. States shouldn't be investing in them, but rather in rail systems that are fed by a local renewable energy source, such that they can run forever without a fuel source, and people just get on and off as they see fit. But again, that doesn't result in ongoing leverage over the population, so no business would want to build it.
You're right, there are a number of possible motives. But the one I mentioned is something they've bet the company on, and it is enough to demand that they do this in the absence of any other motive, which makes this action predictable. The bean counters referred to in the article who say this is unexpected are too blinded by mathematical models to understand the underlying factors at work.
They got paid by large private and government interests to put Trusted Computing on everyones machines so they can engage in widespread information control. They would LIKE more money from the consumer, but they MUST achieve widespread deployment for this to be realized. If it's realized, they will have a power the likes of which has never been seen before on earth, and money will be the least of their concerns. If it's not, they will become a niche product. It's pretty obvious where their motives lie, and their actions are entirely sensible if you understand their motives.
You forgot number 6: Patents alter the value of a good idea in a negative fashion and destroy the wealth of a society.
Illustration:
You make widgets. You can use your infrastructure to churn out 100 widgets per man hour, you pay your workers $20 an hour, so you get 5 widgets for a buck.
A better way to make widgets is now possible because of general advancements in material sciences, and someone patents the technology.
If you made widgets the new way, you could churn out 200 widgets per man hour, still pay your workers the same, and get 10 widgets for a buck. But you have to pay a patent fee of $0.30 per widget, which drives the cost up to 10 widgets for $4.
So, faced with the economics, you decide that you can't afford to do things the better way, and keep doing them the stupid way.
The person who has the patent doesn't have any infrastructure for making widgets, they're not interested in making widgets, they're interested in making boomerangs, and they can make more money getting $0.30 in fees per per boomerang and not getting any patent fees from widget makers than they can by dropping the patent fees within range of the widget makers, so they keep the price firm.
End result: Productivity of society decreases, and people behave in a stupid fashion because the system actively discourages acting in the smart way.
A good idea should be picked up by everyone, and spread as far and wide as possible, for the benefit of everyone on earth. Patents prevent it from happening. Therefore, they're bad. For everyone.
#3 was interesting... the arrogance of thinking that other people can't turn your idea into a commodity. Of course we can... a good idea is obvious when it's time comes, and out of reach until its time comes. Why would someone who wants to actually do things in the world support patents? They wouldn't. Patents serve the person who wants to sit around lazy and suck off other peoples effort for the rest of their life, resting on their past achievement, such as it is. So, why would you want to participate in a system that is geared to encourage and reward that sort of person, when they're the worst among us?
Fucking lawyers... I hope you get hit by a bus.
Great programmers work for who they want, on what they want. They take getting their personal needs met for granted, but they have grand ideas about things they want to see realized and not enough money of their own to do it.
So you advertise on the basis of the interesting work that you're doing, and aim for the ears of someone who has been itching to build such things rather than talking about the creature comfort and monetary perks.
Great people want strong leadership that will help them achieve beyond what they can do alone.
Your home is already unguardable. If I don't mind making a scene, I can go in your window just as quick as your door. Locks on your doors don't prevent entry, they make entry obvious to the observer. Or to put it another way, the purpose of the lock is to prevent unauthorized entry from being done in secret, not to prevent unauthorized entry from happening.
:P
And you're right about the housing issue. That is how the housing problems are going to be dealt with, as the far-from-center houses become unsustainable by reason of the fuel consumption overhead required to live there and travel to where other people you need to interact with are. It's just a matter of time.
You know, there's nothing that forces people to give up secrets, any more than there's a requirement that they make safe things. But there's a requirement that they make things that can be demonstrated to be safe if they wish to enter the marketplace. It's not much different as social contracts go, and that was just the first idea that popped into my head, low hanging fruit.
There are better ways, but you'll have to wait for the manifesto.
That's easy. Require the particulars of the manufacturing process to be made transparent and registered for everyone to see before the proprietor is allowed to enter the market, in the same way that they are expected to pass safety regulations. Anyone who attempts to refuse or rebel has all their infrastructure seized outright. Done.
I was talking about modern capitalism.
I've come up with a fourth way of doing things. I'm working on my Manifesto, tune in at 11.
Money is what you use when you have scarcity instead of wealth, and you're trying to figure out who should get the short supply.
Artificial scarcity, which includes all intellectual property law, is about destroying wealth so you can force people to work like slaves and fight over the scraps.
It's reminiscent of the wealth burning parties of primitives, intended to prevent the accumulation of wealth so the people would have to keep making more in the service of the tribal leaders.
Basically, Alexey Pazhitnov Leonidovich doesn't value wealth, he values leverage over his fellow man, which he can only have if people are systematically kept in a state of deprivation.
It blows my mind how many people defend a system that keeps them impoverished, not because they don't understand what it's doing to them and their fellows, but because they think they're going to be the man on the top one of these days and they want to be the beneficiary of all those systematic imbalances.
You think the government stepping in and FORCING a productive enterprise to pay some schmoe $20,000 because they're using a picture on a website is a beautiful example of free market capitalism? What are you, an idiot? They did get it for what it was worth. They got it for nothing. Then some lazy dickhead exploited a broken system to tax them when he didn't deliver them anything of any tangible worth. That's a brilliant system indeed.
That's because DivX and XviD both sprang from the open source Project Mayo. They used the "assign your copyright to us when you contribute" scheme that MySQL uses. Then suddenly the project was shut down, and all the Project Mayo code suddenly became the closed source DivX project. XviD was created by the pissed off Project Mayo contributers.
First thing I do with any IDE is turn off auto-completion. I find that my fingers have already typed the entire function name and hit space before my eyes register that the stupid IDE has replaced my text with some wrong guess. Stupid, stupid concept right from the word go.
XviD shits on DivX. Project Mayo forever.
Scumbags.
Whatever. It was a point and click photograph that my daughter could have created. It took no significant effort to create, and could have been swapped out with some other photo. It's not worth anything at all.
It's nice to see that some dude pocketed $20,000 because he took a picture of a public building and sued someone. That's great. I'm sure he deserved every penny. Fucking wanker. Get a real job.
What does it take to get impeached in this country?
Invasion of the US by the coalition of the willing. When you don't deal with your own, and other countries have to step in, it's a lot worse for you than if you'd done it yourself. Just a thought
Good for them. There's no place in the world for sadists, which is what this is about.
Lets just go with the middle ground. Let everyone listen, and make everyone a member of the government.
The girl was given enough privacy to get far enough out on a limb that she believed she was too estranged from anyone to receive help, and then, with a lonely helplessness filling her heart, she killed herself.
It's a very common story, and it wouldn't have happened without the veil of secrecy that allowed it to go unnoticed.
That family needs a little vigilante justice from their local community, and private communication needs to disappear by the wayside so the vigilantes know when they're needed ahead of time next time.
This is so stupid.
Even if you did have a rubber that repaired itself, it still wouldn't really be sanitary to use it.
I've been a Microsoft developer for 7 years, got 7 years experience making a living with their products. I'm not a Linux guru. But I switched. I didn't do it because Linux is perfect. I did it because Microsoft is TERRIBLE, and NOTHING EVER just works. So I don't know what the fuck you're talking about....
Personally, I'd rather go to Cuba than the US any day. I've been researching with travel agents about how I can visit South America from Canada without having to set foot in the US ever again. Crazy Fascists.
What an odd interpertation. Why should anyone in your company try to dig into someone else's code to fix it? What if the "OSS community" doesn't bother to help, how does that leave your project? Pretty fucked, from my point of view. As expensive as MS support is, at least you CAN get them to find a solution to your problem.
There are a lot of people who care more about covering their ass than about delivering solutions. They want to put in a 40 hour day, and if it doesn't work, they want to point fingers at someone and go home without being blamed.
Those people are losers. They don't care about protecting their capacity to succeed, they care about preventing accountability. They fail on a regular basis because of this attitude.
There are some people who care more about delivering a top notch solution to a problem. They want to put in the time to make it work, and they don't want to have to ask someone to care about their problem and hope they do.
Those people are winners. They don't care much about accountability and suits, they care about being a person who always succeeds at what they attempt. They don't generally fail.
Winners don't like depending on other companies to cover their ass. They like being able to do it themselves. They take responsibility because that is their nature.
That is the answer to your question. Stick it wherever you like.
Those problems are fixable. First, you install Xen on your Linux box. Then you install Win2K on Xen, and you put your productivity applications on that install. When you need them, fire up Windows in a virtual machine, and they're there. My girlfriend needs those same programs for her graphic design business, and that's what we're planning on doing.