And proving that something like math or music exists on its own with no actual material existence is something that's been done for the last 2500+ years
This seems to me an example of a lack of rigor in reasoning. Math and music are very different in the given context. The point dealt specifically with physical manifestations. While both of these words are similar in that they can be lumped into a group called "ideas", for the current purpose music can take such in the form of material vibration, whereas math can only be represented. Besides this the assumption that your debate opponent will accept your vague, unsubstantiated premise is considered terribly bad form.
so what makes the possibility of a God existing (without being materially sense-able, but being 'spiritually' detectable to some) impossible?
I have not yet delved deep enough into the arguments which supposedly prove the impossibility of the existence of a deities of various definitions to answer that. I'd point you to such places if you truly seek an answer*; I doubt it given your casual oversimplification and dismissal. My current personal rejection of religion stems three things. First, is my disagreement with various aspects of religions, mostly based on acts of organized religions. Second is the standing premise I hold that proof of God is dependent on existing belief, an easily-identifiable fallacy. Third is a simple lack of need- I do not want enough for an explanation to the world around me to suspend either of the former.
I suggest that the problem many agnostics/atheists (to continue ignoring the actual definitional complexity behind each) have with the religious is that for the most part these split into two groups. The first, contains those who never actually think about their given religion and simply accept whichever dominates their culture. In monotheistic cultures this is often seems to be caused caused not by a lack of mental ability or curiosity but by design, using the threat of the terrible consequences of heresy.
The other is the group who seek something with which to make sense of their lives. I felt saddened once when I watched Christian Evangelicals on television: these folks were encouraged to actively seek evidence of Jesus in their daily lives**, without that core principal which science depends on. Skepticism- attempts to contradict prevailing ideas is what separates modern science from the superstition and speculation that held the place of knowledge 2500+ ago. Think Plato's writings on the four elements and all the false "science" nonsense like that spawned.
* The absence of a proper counter-argument to yours does not mean you have the truth. Especially if you look to random uncredentialed strangers like myself. Keep looking.
** To a Jew by upbringing, this notion embodies a religious equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. In Jewish tradition revelation by God is considered to be an extremely rare occurrence, reserved to the few chosen by God. It's not something your average Joe gets to experience, and certainly not done in the medium of toasted bread. Put crudely, when God wants to tell us something, He speaks up, He doesn't exhibit passive-aggressive behavior.
The problem with parent post is that it ignores the expected tiny value of individual micropayments, and sets up unsustainable business models as strawmen.
As far as costs: using GP's figures, if you pay 1 cent 10,000 times, true that will add up to $100. But look at it this way: 10,000 seconds translate into over two hours of non-stop friend-adding at the sort of rate you'd need if you made a living clicking on banner ads. Speaking of banner ads- that's how you're currently using the micropayments idea, except there's a third party involved and you get pissed off by monkeys asking to be shot in the face. I can't wait to switch to a monkey-less model. (Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the many mechanisms used for blocking those monkey ads. To save someone the time of trying the rediculous counter-argument: yes, I do it too, but it's a bad thing when you look at the big picture; it destroys the business model of the service you are using.)
Next, business models aren't developed as haphazardly as suggested (excluding the lousy ones that quickly fail). Of course MySpace and Facebook don't charge for adding friends- that idea would get someone fired; encouraging a larger number of friends is *the mechanism* for attracting new customers and keeping people on the site producing ad revenue. eBay similarly would never require a micropayment for performing each search query because it goes against their business model of taking a share of sales by getting visitors to bid as often as possible. On the other hand, the New York Times, unless generating revenue by showing visitors a bunch of ads, has little incentive to pay its staff to write stuff to be given out for free, so yeah, we should pay for that value should they switch to an ad-free micropayment-based model: note that the business model remains the same- visitors per page-visit (the difference is how the money is generated).
Advertising will never die unless congress passes an unlikely (and probably unconstitutional) law against misleading consumers, requiring advertising to plainly state the pros and cons of products in equal font size. I'm sure that when a good micropayment system is established there will be a smart entrepreneur who will say- "I'll give you a micropayment allowance (perhaps even in the form of an "unlimited" subscription- surely Comcast will try to offer a rate hike including such) if you just watch some ads!". Thereby allowing cheapskates who would rather be monitored and flooded with constant advertising than spend $10-$20 a month on their "hobby" of web-surfing.
Those of us old enough to need to make a budget have realized the monthly cost of entertainment and understand that web-surfing can definitely maintain its status as an extremely frugal pastime compared to the other options out there. It's not a bad business model- we're just waiting for a someone to implement it in a way that can reache critical mass. It's likely just a matter of time.
If that's still to expensive, people can always turn to the web-based version of the public library and browse Wikipedia to kill time.
Interesting. Though perhaps also (or instead) it is subsidizing monopolies: real estate barons, utility companies or other overpriced non-discretionary expenditures. I assume income taxes are a non-issue, but feel free to include them in your own theory.
Regardless, I agree with what I infer to be your point. If a job is worth hiring someone, it's worth paying a living wage.
Government assistance is hardly limited to welfare. I'm still repaying the federally subsidized low-interest loans I got for college. Don't use extremes to counter a reasonable argument.
As for fish- affirmative action was designed to help lift people out of poverty which was caused by racism. Pigment wouldn't be relevant were it not for that causal relationship. Need me to connect the dots?
it's a little ironic as Google is primarily an advertising company
Begging to differ, I'd say very little. Google provides advertising space, it's not an advertising firm. Google's business is not making their users feel like they need to buy some widget. The business is matching the right advertiser with the right consumer, which has nothing to do with snazzy graphics and catchy slogans. I think this is one of Google's best moves- staying away from the sleaze and siding with the consumer.
I'd love to see you teach a single mother of three how to manage an international corporation so she too can score $12M after driving it into bankruptcy and help you keep some of your taxes.
What the "no-welfare!" sheep don't understand is that most of the people getting assistance from the government the are the hardworking industrious Americans that our many dishonest politicians appeal to in campaigns. It's just a little hard to get a decent education when you're already 30 with kids, never completed high-school and in debt.
What really kills me is how such heartless Republicans can advocate bootstrapology and at the same time label an inheritance tax a "Death Tax" to make it sound terrible for the government to take back part of what it provided to the few who were exceptionally successful when they no longer need it. Inheritance is not a natural right, nor protected by the constitution- it's a relic from aristocracy which encourages laziness and dependence which we both abhor. A perfect example is our outgoing president: lousy student (unless one counts drinking and partying), terrible businessman, yet so far from destitute.
The teach a man to fish story is more related to affirmative action, but you're probably firmly against that too without having even thought about it.
"Flynt and Francis concede the industry itself is in no financial danger -- DVD sales have slipped over the past year, but Web traffic has continued to grow."
The porn industry is doing great thanks to the Internet (as are other sex-based industries). No more people being ashamed to walk into their local XXX shops to buy product.
The founders did not attempt to destabilize the monarchy, despite their ill will towards- and actions against the crown. They chose to declare independence from the empire and found a just society which avoided the possibility of tyranny. There's a big difference.
The right they fought for was a constitution, ensuring a democratically elected government which worked for the people and did not abuse them. Despite Republican claims they did not chant the "small government" mantra- they sought States' rights, so that people could live according to their own beliefs without an over-arching figure dictating unnecessary laws that were unnecessary for the protection of the union (e.g. federal "marriage protection" and anti-abortion laws).
What has eroded is the ability of a government to be limited in a much more complex world than the one in which our forefathers lived. I would love keep the taxes I pay to the department of transportation, but maintaining airports and highways is a little more important to me. Sure, there's waste, and that should be addressed, but to say government should be "limited" is simply naive acceptance of a cheap electioneering tactic.
Want to make government smaller? Vote out incumbents, demand your representatives pay attention to citizens' lobbying rather than corporate, and go work for it to replace an incompetent bureaucrat with a better one. Posting rhetoric here won't push your agenda far.
Interesting idea but you're not talking about something as simple as renting out cartridges of Super Mario.
Running an MMO server (or any server for that matter) requires maintenance, both to ensure the software keeps running and to provide whatever in-game support was necessary to keep the bulk of customers from gradually leaving a piece of dead software.
Given how unlikely it is for short-sighted game publishers to invest in development of quality turn-key software I suspect that unless you hire the layed off people the MMO had supporting the system your servers won't live very long.
Have you seen Change.gov, the official transition website? I doubt converting and linking a few more video files is "impractical" or "too much work" given the obvious technical ability behind that site.
Openness is not "getting the word out", it is making sure information sought by the public is available. YouTube has no contract with the government to provide hosting service, other than a lopsided EULA. You have no assurance of transparency which is the root of the request in question.
Back to the point- there's nothing wrong with putting videos on government websites. Just because many people love YouTube because it fulfills their desire to watch guys kick kicked in the nuts doesn't mean you should use it to promote your political agenda. A hyperlink in an email, news story or your BFF's blog will work regardless of the hosting server.
There are two very simple win-win solutions to your problem:
1) Donate to the midi sequencer project. Tell them on which distro you need their project to install. Though this depends on the project being proactive. 2) Fund development directly by hiring a developer to package it for you. Remember to then submit this work to the project so they can provide you with future updates. There's a kid next-door (or an adult in a third-world country) who will happily do this for you for $20.
Beats spending $49.95 or more on a 1-machine license of proprietary software.
Well yes in theory. Here are several points on why your idea can't work:
use it to fund the foundation of a brand-new, American-based, car manufacturing company
(my emphasis)
* "A" being equal to "one" means no competition. That's not capitalism, and will never have popular support.
* "Fund" suggests (at least partial) ownership by the American people. That'll never work politically. I can't believe the SOCIALISM-IS-BAD-EVEN-WHEN-ITS-NOT-REALLY-WHAT-SOCIALISM-MEANS!!!! nuts haven't compared you to Marx yet.
* Who gets to decide which of the several startups gets funding. Congress? If that's the case Detroit will be "starting" these "new companies", using the Obama explanation for hiring Clinton people: that they need "tested and experienced" people to "whether these difficult times". In other words: NewGM's board of directors will "just happen" to be made up exactly like GM's current board. !QED.
* You forgot to use the words "green," "clean" and "cheap" at least once each per sentence. Though made into buzzwords (see rhetoric on "Clean Coal Technology" and "Drill Here Drill Now"), efficiency and clean energy should definitely be a requirement for any funds handed out by government, whether as bailouts or loans.
Who hasn't ever had a touchscreen ATM or a touchscreen POS station not register a touch as something unintended? You don't think the ATM is trying to rip you off when it picks "Savings" when you meant "Checking". You just hit cancel and do it again.)
I haven't. Maybe I'm lucky and have picked three consecutive banks that don't buy ATMs from the lowest bidder, but I call such an argument excuse territory, not "plausible explanation." I employ PEBKAC as a diagnosi, but I wouldn't make it this case.
I take my money and my vote very seriously and I don't just jab at the screen wildly, even on my regular ATM. Again, while technically possible, I doubt grandma, who has never seen this particular kind of machine, would "jeopardize" her vote by clicking haphazardly. Unless she was poking McCain's name with her middle finger- I'd actually buy that.
Ignoring the possibility of a blatant (and far too risky to be believable) "switching votes before the users' eyes" "feature", as a software developer my totally uninformed hunch screams "crappy UI." If a machine is built to be used by the general public, it should be usable by the general public. It's why ATMs have screens with very few nice big buttons with big bright centered-aligned text. Your hand has to shake really badly for you to miss the $40 and hit the $200, though granted can shake less for the checking/savings error.
OT: my ATM doesn't have a "cancel" button. Maybe it should, but I don't need or want it to.
While your distrust in government is certainly not without good cause or need, the argument and analogy are both off in this context. Other than the fact that the IRS' website refers to the US code and many court decisions, just complaining about it doesn't help you.
The IRS doesn't want your money- it wants congress' money. Equating the IRS to "the government" is overly optimistic about the how Washington works, or rather doesn't. It's not the smart well-oiled private corporation one might think.
Why don't all the unhappy "get off my back / quit taxing me" nutjobs get political (and stuff) and actually bring change, or find somewhere else to live. When the American people are actually overtaxed, we'll rise up and demand a stop to it. Until then, good luck finding as good an income and standard of living in such a place, without relying on US-owned tax-evading corporations.
One of the problems with human beings is that we extrapolate from our own circumstances to make conclusions that we think apply to everyone. "I'm doing great, so lots of people are doing great"
We have to be accurate when applying a term like "priceless," and certainly not make a false analogy of Linux to air. (Why not compare water to Linux? You can pay for both of them, just as you can get air and Linux for free.)
Currently, air is available to all at no cost, assuming no special circumstances. Thus it not priceless but free, as in having a value of $0. Its value goes up quite quickly when one ascends into the sky/space or underground/water, which is due to its being a necessity (priceless), though the price does not escalate to infinity due to the increasing likelihood of new suppliers (see "demand & supply").
But these values are not for the air itself, but for the SERVICE of supplying it where it is needed. I can't find a memorable Sesame Street skit about a guy selling air for my fellow/.ers, but I'm wouldn't doubt that some day crazy rich people in L.A. will start importing "Natural iodized air from the Rockies" like bottled water.
While you can acquire a Linux-based OS for free, most businesses will have additional costs (as they do with Windows in addition to licensing costs). When gives Linux the (what sees to be haphazardly-assessed) value here is not a price, but the availability of opportunity of providing these operating system services.
A superbly crude, one-dimensional comparrison of budget size past and present.
It ignores the projected span of time to re-reach the moon and that the $2B figure is a yearly addition to the budget, not a one-time grant. It underestimates what $2 buys: a shuttle(!) or 4 to 5 launches. It also neglects to mention that space exploration is no longer an "us against them" war, but a combined effort (though granted the U.S. is a major contributor to international efforts), spreading the cost and reducing waste-by-redundancy. In its haste to condemn Obama and trash NASA it also promots ignorance of decades' worth of research and experience in engineering, which significantly reduces cost, complexity and risk.
While I applaud the skepticism politicians deserve, it's up to us skeptics to be better than the politicians by providing actual arguments. Leave the empty rhetoric to campaigners.
And to all the "Privatization solves all problems!!!-nuts" out there, where exactly do you expect private industry to find the revenue to outnumber the overwhelming investment and risk involved in such endeavors? How many $200,000 tickets do you think Branson's will sell? Not all millionaires are so foolish as to spend money at that rate, risking their lives- he's got a rather limited clientele with which to attempt to reduce the cost and create sustaining business. Sure- there's place for a market for lifting cargo into orbit. But to the moon? Mars? What possible business model is there for anything beyond Low-Earth Orbit? Nobody is crazy enough to put their money into such a high risk and long term venture.
Whether the Federal government should be doing it is still a valid question. I found Bush's selfish, legacy-oriented declaration of going to Mars another example of terrible leadership. I don't know that enough scientists have immediate use of Moon/Mars missions, especially considering how useful the money would be to education and infrastructure projects in the U.S. and abroad. If there's enough desire on part of the scientific community for these, I'd be happy to have my tax dollars go there. Otherwise, I'd be more interested in my paying for the reduction of war, disease, corruption, crime and hunger around the world.
I don't get comments like this. What does it matter if Google calls it a Beta or 1.0? It's a rose, regardless.
Marketing types care about version numbers only for promoting what I call the "fallacy of the increasing version number". Just look at Bill Gates admitting that the latest version of Windows is a failure, and in the same sentence have the gall to reuse the fallacy promising that "Windows 7" will be better.
Engineers use versions to track changes, bugs and provide such information as release notes to informed customers, and Gmail does discreetly update you about new features. What would Google announcing that Gmail "hit 1.0" even mean to you the user? To me it means nothing and I'd rather they not decide it was "done".
Funny, but no good. They'd want to use non-USAF IP address space, or the target would both know USAF is the source and could easily filter out the offensive traffic.
To build a good bot net I assume you would want the machines to be distributed as widely as possible among the population - not only does that make filtering impossible but it makes it harder for ISPs to crack down if only thirty subscribers are sending bad packets.
You should have suggested contacting AF Cyber Command and selling it the right to install root kits before sending these machines off to an online auction. That might work nicely- see the fear-filled commentary news that was rampant when the IBM-Lenovo deal happened.
Boy am I glad you're not running the world after reading this classic example of "I know better than everyone else because I said so" megalomaniacal rant. Is there reasoning behind your arbitrary rules and numbers, or did you toss a D20? I doubt you'd have come up with an identical list had you been served something different for breakfast, or perhaps had it on a golden, rather than silver platter.
No copyright can be held by a corporation. All copyrights are held by the works author or authors This tells me that you (choose all that apply): 1) want to drastically change copyright from being a form of property to something undefined, which would require you do a whole lot more work. Please refer to the Copyright Act of 1790, which uses the phrase "...any other person or persons...who halt or have purchased or legally acquired the copyright of..." to establish this. I'd be glad to see software legally differentiated from the set of works that fall under copyright law, but I have yet to see a convincing suggestion of implementation. 2) deny corporations the right to purchase or own property, regardless of how much capital they may pump into the development of copyrightable material. Do you think Pixar's technology and business talent comes cheap, or is secondary to the script writers and voice actors they hire? 3) would like to do away with all other types of property? I expect the "...and no religion too..." part will happen first. 4) are ignoring as many other problems this proposition causes as I am because we're lazy SOBs who complain about congress not getting anything done regardless of how difficult it actually is to figure out stuff like this, especially given the many interested parties and the fact that we're not starting from scratch.
I'm all in favor of my favorite band having full control over artistic aspects of their work, but many of today's best selling "musicians" are nothing more than corporate-owned personalities. Reality does matter and I see it as artists' and consumers' choice that we still have what should be an obsolete music industry.
Oh, and Blizzard both licenses ("sells"?) software and licenses ("rents"?) access to their game servers. I'm with you on using the software as you please: drill as many extra holes as you want in your own bowling ball, but you can't roll in my lanes with it just because you paid for a few games. Use a regulation ball like you agreed to or tear up your own damn alley.
If only this were possible. I'll stop at three problems with this idea:
First, you can't build a lawsuit because you don't really know what off-the-shelf software is "supposed to do" beyond marketing material. And no judge would disallow a company's right to add additional features (bugs) into their products. At best, you could try misleading advertising and get nowhere with the judge. Unless you had a contract with a developer to provide a set of capabilities and fault tolerance thresholds, you've got no case.
Second, you have to fight the EULA contract you signed, which removed all liability for damages from the software publisher. Again, this is what is wrong with proprietary software vendors holding all the power.
Third, nothing short of world peace and free pizza and Ben&Jerry's for life would compensate humanity for the BSOD.
I find both of your premises to be potentially false, due to their ambiguous and subjective nature:
1) Bill Gates == SUCCESSFUL True from a business standpoint, but often seen as false if you're talking about the technical merit of Windows and other Microsoft products.
2) Bill Gates != AWESOME There are quite a few folks who are very excited about Microsoft's products, especially XBox gamers and PDC attendees. Oh, and don't forget all the starving kids in Africa who are given free computers. This statement would be at lease false, if not opposite to their opinion.
I also see fault with your use of the predicate "Bill Gates", which in the first premise should have read "Measure of Bill Gates business-wise" and in the second "Bill Gates' popularity with the ladies" (or most any other measure of macho coolness). Naturally, you can't use reach the conclusion using equivalence of the two predicate.
Due to these faults, there are also many counterexamples such as Eric Schmidt, where using your argument would produce the opposite conclusion.
Dude- lighten up. I didn't say anything bad about Apple- you can worship in peace. Hell, I was trying to be super nice and not even trash Microsoft. I guess you artsy-fartsy Mac types are over sensitive. If you need to be coddled while having the following explained to you, perhaps you should ask Steve to make it easier.
No, windows and Linux are both OS platforms and are, for the purposes of development, equally open (otherwise no one could write software for either windows or Linux)... Apple begs to differ...
You missed the point. I'm not talking about competition in developing applications for the operating system. I'm talking about developing a replacement operating system which can take the place of Windows. Apple has not and will never do that because they cannot develop an operating system which can run Quicken, Taxcut and Halo 3 (as long as these continue to be based on Microsoft's proprietary Win32/.NET Windows architectures), no matter how furiously their fanboys beg to differ on their behalf. Consumer choice between products in the free market assumes that they are have strengths and weaknesses but are generally interchangeable. When you have to exchange not only the product, but your spending habits,
The false assumption here is that unless you choose open source you are choosing intentional bugs.
Is this is a straw-man or simply careless reading? I didn't and wouldn't claim that all commercial software is sabotaged. A correct reading leads to "commercial open source software cannot have intentionally placed bugs," which has no relation to "commercial software must have intentionally placed bugs." I didn't even go so far as to claim Microsoft (or your precious Apple) does this, only pointing out that others allege it and the exploring dynamics of such actions.
In addition you are assuming that there is some community dedicated to nothing but scrutinizing the source code of open source software as there is in a proprietary company (like apple).
Open source does have many people providing quality control. In important places (the kernel, major applications, etc) there are people on a full-timesalarydoing this just like at proprietary vendors. You must be reading the Microsoft FUD. Please note how artfully fear-mongering stats are taken from reliable sources and placed at the top of the references, while security related references are almost exclusively written by Microsoft's employees and tucked in at the bottom. This has little to do with reality, and proprietary QA personnel don't find the important
point of fact, Red-hat does not risk it's reputation since they are a support provider not the OS provider per-se...
This is perhaps the strangest thing you've said, not only because it's factually wrong in several places, but because it ignores the reality of human behavior. It's also way off topic, but I'll correct you anyway because it was a poor attempt at addressing the main point.
Software vendors' customers often have a minimal understanding of what they are "buying." You suggest to be knowledgeable and yet still don't even use the right term. How well do you think some Vice President understands copyright law and those crazy EULA's? RedHat actually used to sell boxed copies for under $100, which I'm fairly certain did not include a support contract. Now that downloading ISO's is easy, perhaps it's not economic to manufacture and ship discs of plastic containing software that can be downloaded freely.
Your understanding of RedHat's role is lacking. RH certainly is not the sole (and perhaps not even a major)
Slashdot Mirror
And proving that something like math or music exists on its own with no actual material existence is something that's been done for the last 2500+ years
This seems to me an example of a lack of rigor in reasoning. Math and music are very different in the given context. The point dealt specifically with physical manifestations. While both of these words are similar in that they can be lumped into a group called "ideas", for the current purpose music can take such in the form of material vibration, whereas math can only be represented. Besides this the assumption that your debate opponent will accept your vague, unsubstantiated premise is considered terribly bad form.
so what makes the possibility of a God existing (without being materially sense-able, but being 'spiritually' detectable to some) impossible?
I have not yet delved deep enough into the arguments which supposedly prove the impossibility of the existence of a deities of various definitions to answer that. I'd point you to such places if you truly seek an answer*; I doubt it given your casual oversimplification and dismissal. My current personal rejection of religion stems three things. First, is my disagreement with various aspects of religions, mostly based on acts of organized religions. Second is the standing premise I hold that proof of God is dependent on existing belief, an easily-identifiable fallacy. Third is a simple lack of need- I do not want enough for an explanation to the world around me to suspend either of the former. I suggest that the problem many agnostics/atheists (to continue ignoring the actual definitional complexity behind each) have with the religious is that for the most part these split into two groups. The first, contains those who never actually think about their given religion and simply accept whichever dominates their culture. In monotheistic cultures this is often seems to be caused caused not by a lack of mental ability or curiosity but by design, using the threat of the terrible consequences of heresy.
The other is the group who seek something with which to make sense of their lives. I felt saddened once when I watched Christian Evangelicals on television: these folks were encouraged to actively seek evidence of Jesus in their daily lives**, without that core principal which science depends on. Skepticism- attempts to contradict prevailing ideas is what separates modern science from the superstition and speculation that held the place of knowledge 2500+ ago. Think Plato's writings on the four elements and all the false "science" nonsense like that spawned.
* The absence of a proper counter-argument to yours does not mean you have the truth. Especially if you look to random uncredentialed strangers like myself. Keep looking. ** To a Jew by upbringing, this notion embodies a religious equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. In Jewish tradition revelation by God is considered to be an extremely rare occurrence, reserved to the few chosen by God. It's not something your average Joe gets to experience, and certainly not done in the medium of toasted bread. Put crudely, when God wants to tell us something, He speaks up, He doesn't exhibit passive-aggressive behavior.
The problem with parent post is that it ignores the expected tiny value of individual micropayments, and sets up unsustainable business models as strawmen.
As far as costs: using GP's figures, if you pay 1 cent 10,000 times, true that will add up to $100. But look at it this way: 10,000 seconds translate into over two hours of non-stop friend-adding at the sort of rate you'd need if you made a living clicking on banner ads. Speaking of banner ads- that's how you're currently using the micropayments idea, except there's a third party involved and you get pissed off by monkeys asking to be shot in the face. I can't wait to switch to a monkey-less model. (Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the many mechanisms used for blocking those monkey ads. To save someone the time of trying the rediculous counter-argument: yes, I do it too, but it's a bad thing when you look at the big picture; it destroys the business model of the service you are using.)
Next, business models aren't developed as haphazardly as suggested (excluding the lousy ones that quickly fail). Of course MySpace and Facebook don't charge for adding friends- that idea would get someone fired; encouraging a larger number of friends is *the mechanism* for attracting new customers and keeping people on the site producing ad revenue. eBay similarly would never require a micropayment for performing each search query because it goes against their business model of taking a share of sales by getting visitors to bid as often as possible. On the other hand, the New York Times, unless generating revenue by showing visitors a bunch of ads, has little incentive to pay its staff to write stuff to be given out for free, so yeah, we should pay for that value should they switch to an ad-free micropayment-based model: note that the business model remains the same- visitors per page-visit (the difference is how the money is generated).
Advertising will never die unless congress passes an unlikely (and probably unconstitutional) law against misleading consumers, requiring advertising to plainly state the pros and cons of products in equal font size. I'm sure that when a good micropayment system is established there will be a smart entrepreneur who will say- "I'll give you a micropayment allowance (perhaps even in the form of an "unlimited" subscription- surely Comcast will try to offer a rate hike including such) if you just watch some ads!". Thereby allowing cheapskates who would rather be monitored and flooded with constant advertising than spend $10-$20 a month on their "hobby" of web-surfing.
Those of us old enough to need to make a budget have realized the monthly cost of entertainment and understand that web-surfing can definitely maintain its status as an extremely frugal pastime compared to the other options out there. It's not a bad business model- we're just waiting for a someone to implement it in a way that can reache critical mass. It's likely just a matter of time.
If that's still to expensive, people can always turn to the web-based version of the public library and browse Wikipedia to kill time.
Interesting. Though perhaps also (or instead) it is subsidizing monopolies: real estate barons, utility companies or other overpriced non-discretionary expenditures. I assume income taxes are a non-issue, but feel free to include them in your own theory.
Regardless, I agree with what I infer to be your point. If a job is worth hiring someone, it's worth paying a living wage.
Why do people tack stupid stuff onto my posts?
Government assistance is hardly limited to welfare. I'm still repaying the federally subsidized low-interest loans I got for college. Don't use extremes to counter a reasonable argument.
As for fish- affirmative action was designed to help lift people out of poverty which was caused by racism. Pigment wouldn't be relevant were it not for that causal relationship. Need me to connect the dots?
it's a little ironic as Google is primarily an advertising company
Begging to differ, I'd say very little. Google provides advertising space, it's not an advertising firm. Google's business is not making their users feel like they need to buy some widget. The business is matching the right advertiser with the right consumer, which has nothing to do with snazzy graphics and catchy slogans. I think this is one of Google's best moves- staying away from the sleaze and siding with the consumer.
I'd love to see you teach a single mother of three how to manage an international corporation so she too can score $12M after driving it into bankruptcy and help you keep some of your taxes.
What the "no-welfare!" sheep don't understand is that most of the people getting assistance from the government the are the hardworking industrious Americans that our many dishonest politicians appeal to in campaigns. It's just a little hard to get a decent education when you're already 30 with kids, never completed high-school and in debt.
What really kills me is how such heartless Republicans can advocate bootstrapology and at the same time label an inheritance tax a "Death Tax" to make it sound terrible for the government to take back part of what it provided to the few who were exceptionally successful when they no longer need it. Inheritance is not a natural right, nor protected by the constitution- it's a relic from aristocracy which encourages laziness and dependence which we both abhor. A perfect example is our outgoing president: lousy student (unless one counts drinking and partying), terrible businessman, yet so far from destitute.
The teach a man to fish story is more related to affirmative action, but you're probably firmly against that too without having even thought about it.
RTFA:
"Flynt and Francis concede the industry itself is in no financial danger -- DVD sales have slipped over the past year, but Web traffic has continued to grow."
The porn industry is doing great thanks to the Internet (as are other sex-based industries). No more people being ashamed to walk into their local XXX shops to buy product.
It terminates my hope at collecting a full decades worth of a magazine
Think long-term: collect Playboy.
The founders did not attempt to destabilize the monarchy, despite their ill will towards- and actions against the crown. They chose to declare independence from the empire and found a just society which avoided the possibility of tyranny. There's a big difference.
The right they fought for was a constitution, ensuring a democratically elected government which worked for the people and did not abuse them. Despite Republican claims they did not chant the "small government" mantra- they sought States' rights, so that people could live according to their own beliefs without an over-arching figure dictating unnecessary laws that were unnecessary for the protection of the union (e.g. federal "marriage protection" and anti-abortion laws).
What has eroded is the ability of a government to be limited in a much more complex world than the one in which our forefathers lived. I would love keep the taxes I pay to the department of transportation, but maintaining airports and highways is a little more important to me. Sure, there's waste, and that should be addressed, but to say government should be "limited" is simply naive acceptance of a cheap electioneering tactic.
Want to make government smaller? Vote out incumbents, demand your representatives pay attention to citizens' lobbying rather than corporate, and go work for it to replace an incompetent bureaucrat with a better one. Posting rhetoric here won't push your agenda far.
Interesting idea but you're not talking about something as simple as renting out cartridges of Super Mario.
Running an MMO server (or any server for that matter) requires maintenance, both to ensure the software keeps running and to provide whatever in-game support was necessary to keep the bulk of customers from gradually leaving a piece of dead software.
Given how unlikely it is for short-sighted game publishers to invest in development of quality turn-key software I suspect that unless you hire the layed off people the MMO had supporting the system your servers won't live very long.
Have you seen Change.gov, the official transition website? I doubt converting and linking a few more video files is "impractical" or "too much work" given the obvious technical ability behind that site.
Openness is not "getting the word out", it is making sure information sought by the public is available. YouTube has no contract with the government to provide hosting service, other than a lopsided EULA. You have no assurance of transparency which is the root of the request in question.
Back to the point- there's nothing wrong with putting videos on government websites. Just because many people love YouTube because it fulfills their desire to watch guys kick kicked in the nuts doesn't mean you should use it to promote your political agenda. A hyperlink in an email, news story or your BFF's blog will work regardless of the hosting server.
There are two very simple win-win solutions to your problem:
1) Donate to the midi sequencer project. Tell them on which distro you need their project to install. Though this depends on the project being proactive.
2) Fund development directly by hiring a developer to package it for you. Remember to then submit this work to the project so they can provide you with future updates. There's a kid next-door (or an adult in a third-world country) who will happily do this for you for $20.
Beats spending $49.95 or more on a 1-machine license of proprietary software.
use it to fund the foundation of a brand-new, American-based, car manufacturing company
(my emphasis)
* "A" being equal to "one" means no competition. That's not capitalism, and will never have popular support.
* "Fund" suggests (at least partial) ownership by the American people. That'll never work politically. I can't believe the SOCIALISM-IS-BAD-EVEN-WHEN-ITS-NOT-REALLY-WHAT-SOCIALISM-MEANS!!!! nuts haven't compared you to Marx yet.
* Who gets to decide which of the several startups gets funding. Congress? If that's the case Detroit will be "starting" these "new companies", using the Obama explanation for hiring Clinton people: that they need "tested and experienced" people to "whether these difficult times". In other words: NewGM's board of directors will "just happen" to be made up exactly like GM's current board. !QED.
* You forgot to use the words "green," "clean" and "cheap" at least once each per sentence. Though made into buzzwords (see rhetoric on "Clean Coal Technology" and "Drill Here Drill Now"), efficiency and clean energy should definitely be a requirement for any funds handed out by government, whether as bailouts or loans.
Don't hurt his brain. Use shorter answers:
Vegas.
Who hasn't ever had a touchscreen ATM or a touchscreen POS station not register a touch as something unintended? You don't think the ATM is trying to rip you off when it picks "Savings" when you meant "Checking". You just hit cancel and do it again.)
I haven't. Maybe I'm lucky and have picked three consecutive banks that don't buy ATMs from the lowest bidder, but I call such an argument excuse territory, not "plausible explanation." I employ PEBKAC as a diagnosi, but I wouldn't make it this case.
I take my money and my vote very seriously and I don't just jab at the screen wildly, even on my regular ATM. Again, while technically possible, I doubt grandma, who has never seen this particular kind of machine, would "jeopardize" her vote by clicking haphazardly. Unless she was poking McCain's name with her middle finger- I'd actually buy that.
Ignoring the possibility of a blatant (and far too risky to be believable) "switching votes before the users' eyes" "feature", as a software developer my totally uninformed hunch screams "crappy UI." If a machine is built to be used by the general public, it should be usable by the general public. It's why ATMs have screens with very few nice big buttons with big bright centered-aligned text. Your hand has to shake really badly for you to miss the $40 and hit the $200, though granted can shake less for the checking/savings error.
OT: my ATM doesn't have a "cancel" button. Maybe it should, but I don't need or want it to.
While your distrust in government is certainly not without good cause or need, the argument and analogy are both off in this context. Other than the fact that the IRS' website refers to the US code and many court decisions, just complaining about it doesn't help you. The IRS doesn't want your money- it wants congress' money. Equating the IRS to "the government" is overly optimistic about the how Washington works, or rather doesn't. It's not the smart well-oiled private corporation one might think. Why don't all the unhappy "get off my back / quit taxing me" nutjobs get political (and stuff) and actually bring change, or find somewhere else to live. When the American people are actually overtaxed, we'll rise up and demand a stop to it. Until then, good luck finding as good an income and standard of living in such a place, without relying on US-owned tax-evading corporations.
One of the problems with human beings is that we extrapolate from our own circumstances to make conclusions that we think apply to everyone. "I'm doing great, so lots of people are doing great"
Quit picking on John McCain!
I beg to differ.
We have to be accurate when applying a term like "priceless," and certainly not make a false analogy of Linux to air. (Why not compare water to Linux? You can pay for both of them, just as you can get air and Linux for free.)
Currently, air is available to all at no cost, assuming no special circumstances. Thus it not priceless but free, as in having a value of $0. Its value goes up quite quickly when one ascends into the sky/space or underground/water, which is due to its being a necessity (priceless), though the price does not escalate to infinity due to the increasing likelihood of new suppliers (see "demand & supply").
But these values are not for the air itself, but for the SERVICE of supplying it where it is needed. I can't find a memorable Sesame Street skit about a guy selling air for my fellow /.ers, but I'm wouldn't doubt that some day crazy rich people in L.A. will start importing "Natural iodized air from the Rockies" like bottled water.
While you can acquire a Linux-based OS for free, most businesses will have additional costs (as they do with Windows in addition to licensing costs). When gives Linux the (what sees to be haphazardly-assessed) value here is not a price, but the availability of opportunity of providing these operating system services.
A superbly crude, one-dimensional comparrison of budget size past and present.
It ignores the projected span of time to re-reach the moon and that the $2B figure is a yearly addition to the budget, not a one-time grant. It underestimates what $2 buys: a shuttle(!) or 4 to 5 launches. It also neglects to mention that space exploration is no longer an "us against them" war, but a combined effort (though granted the U.S. is a major contributor to international efforts), spreading the cost and reducing waste-by-redundancy. In its haste to condemn Obama and trash NASA it also promots ignorance of decades' worth of research and experience in engineering, which significantly reduces cost, complexity and risk.
While I applaud the skepticism politicians deserve, it's up to us skeptics to be better than the politicians by providing actual arguments. Leave the empty rhetoric to campaigners.
And to all the "Privatization solves all problems!!!-nuts" out there, where exactly do you expect private industry to find the revenue to outnumber the overwhelming investment and risk involved in such endeavors? How many $200,000 tickets do you think Branson's will sell? Not all millionaires are so foolish as to spend money at that rate, risking their lives- he's got a rather limited clientele with which to attempt to reduce the cost and create sustaining business. Sure- there's place for a market for lifting cargo into orbit. But to the moon? Mars? What possible business model is there for anything beyond Low-Earth Orbit? Nobody is crazy enough to put their money into such a high risk and long term venture.
Whether the Federal government should be doing it is still a valid question. I found Bush's selfish, legacy-oriented declaration of going to Mars another example of terrible leadership. I don't know that enough scientists have immediate use of Moon/Mars missions, especially considering how useful the money would be to education and infrastructure projects in the U.S. and abroad. If there's enough desire on part of the scientific community for these, I'd be happy to have my tax dollars go there. Otherwise, I'd be more interested in my paying for the reduction of war, disease, corruption, crime and hunger around the world.
I don't get comments like this. What does it matter if Google calls it a Beta or 1.0? It's a rose, regardless.
Marketing types care about version numbers only for promoting what I call the "fallacy of the increasing version number". Just look at Bill Gates admitting that the latest version of Windows is a failure, and in the same sentence have the gall to reuse the fallacy promising that "Windows 7" will be better.
Engineers use versions to track changes, bugs and provide such information as release notes to informed customers, and Gmail does discreetly update you about new features. What would Google announcing that Gmail "hit 1.0" even mean to you the user? To me it means nothing and I'd rather they not decide it was "done".
Funny, but no good. They'd want to use non-USAF IP address space, or the target would both know USAF is the source and could easily filter out the offensive traffic.
To build a good bot net I assume you would want the machines to be distributed as widely as possible among the population - not only does that make filtering impossible but it makes it harder for ISPs to crack down if only thirty subscribers are sending bad packets.
You should have suggested contacting AF Cyber Command and selling it the right to install root kits before sending these machines off to an online auction. That might work nicely- see the fear-filled commentary news that was rampant when the IBM-Lenovo deal happened.
1) want to drastically change copyright from being a form of property to something undefined, which would require you do a whole lot more work. Please refer to the Copyright Act of 1790, which uses the phrase "...any other person or persons...who halt or have purchased or legally acquired the copyright of..." to establish this. I'd be glad to see software legally differentiated from the set of works that fall under copyright law, but I have yet to see a convincing suggestion of implementation.
2) deny corporations the right to purchase or own property, regardless of how much capital they may pump into the development of copyrightable material. Do you think Pixar's technology and business talent comes cheap, or is secondary to the script writers and voice actors they hire?
3) would like to do away with all other types of property? I expect the "...and no religion too..." part will happen first.
4) are ignoring as many other problems this proposition causes as I am because we're lazy SOBs who complain about congress not getting anything done regardless of how difficult it actually is to figure out stuff like this, especially given the many interested parties and the fact that we're not starting from scratch.
I'm all in favor of my favorite band having full control over artistic aspects of their work, but many of today's best selling "musicians" are nothing more than corporate-owned personalities. Reality does matter and I see it as artists' and consumers' choice that we still have what should be an obsolete music industry.
Oh, and Blizzard both licenses ("sells"?) software and licenses ("rents"?) access to their game servers. I'm with you on using the software as you please: drill as many extra holes as you want in your own bowling ball, but you can't roll in my lanes with it just because you paid for a few games. Use a regulation ball like you agreed to or tear up your own damn alley.
If only this were possible. I'll stop at three problems with this idea:
First, you can't build a lawsuit because you don't really know what off-the-shelf software is "supposed to do" beyond marketing material. And no judge would disallow a company's right to add additional features (bugs) into their products. At best, you could try misleading advertising and get nowhere with the judge. Unless you had a contract with a developer to provide a set of capabilities and fault tolerance thresholds, you've got no case.
Second, you have to fight the EULA contract you signed, which removed all liability for damages from the software publisher. Again, this is what is wrong with proprietary software vendors holding all the power.
Third, nothing short of world peace and free pizza and Ben&Jerry's for life would compensate humanity for the BSOD.
I think GP meant a *sound* argument.
I find both of your premises to be potentially false, due to their ambiguous and subjective nature:
1) Bill Gates == SUCCESSFUL
True from a business standpoint, but often seen as false if you're talking about the technical merit of Windows and other Microsoft products.
2) Bill Gates != AWESOME
There are quite a few folks who are very excited about Microsoft's products, especially XBox gamers and PDC attendees. Oh, and don't forget all the starving kids in Africa who are given free computers. This statement would be at lease false, if not opposite to their opinion.
I also see fault with your use of the predicate "Bill Gates", which in the first premise should have read "Measure of Bill Gates business-wise" and in the second "Bill Gates' popularity with the ladies" (or most any other measure of macho coolness). Naturally, you can't use reach the conclusion using equivalence of the two predicate.
Due to these faults, there are also many counterexamples such as Eric Schmidt, where using your argument would produce the opposite conclusion.
No, windows and Linux are both OS platforms and are, for the purposes of development, equally open (otherwise no one could write software for either windows or Linux)... Apple begs to differ...
You missed the point. I'm not talking about competition in developing applications for the operating system. I'm talking about developing a replacement operating system which can take the place of Windows. Apple has not and will never do that because they cannot develop an operating system which can run Quicken, Taxcut and Halo 3 (as long as these continue to be based on Microsoft's proprietary Win32/.NET Windows architectures), no matter how furiously their fanboys beg to differ on their behalf. Consumer choice between products in the free market assumes that they are have strengths and weaknesses but are generally interchangeable. When you have to exchange not only the product, but your spending habits,
The false assumption here is that unless you choose open source you are choosing intentional bugs.
Is this is a straw-man or simply careless reading? I didn't and wouldn't claim that all commercial software is sabotaged. A correct reading leads to "commercial open source software cannot have intentionally placed bugs," which has no relation to "commercial software must have intentionally placed bugs." I didn't even go so far as to claim Microsoft (or your precious Apple) does this, only pointing out that others allege it and the exploring dynamics of such actions.
In addition you are assuming that there is some community dedicated to nothing but scrutinizing the source code of open source software as there is in a proprietary company (like apple).
Open source does have many people providing quality control. In important places (the kernel, major applications, etc) there are people on a full-time salary doing this just like at proprietary vendors. You must be reading the Microsoft FUD. Please note how artfully fear-mongering stats are taken from reliable sources and placed at the top of the references, while security related references are almost exclusively written by Microsoft's employees and tucked in at the bottom. This has little to do with reality, and proprietary QA personnel don't find the important
point of fact, Red-hat does not risk it's reputation since they are a support provider not the OS provider per-se...
This is perhaps the strangest thing you've said, not only because it's factually wrong in several places, but because it ignores the reality of human behavior. It's also way off topic, but I'll correct you anyway because it was a poor attempt at addressing the main point.
Software vendors' customers often have a minimal understanding of what they are "buying." You suggest to be knowledgeable and yet still don't even use the right term. How well do you think some Vice President understands copyright law and those crazy EULA's? RedHat actually used to sell boxed copies for under $100, which I'm fairly certain did not include a support contract. Now that downloading ISO's is easy, perhaps it's not economic to manufacture and ship discs of plastic containing software that can be downloaded freely.
Your understanding of RedHat's role is lacking. RH certainly is not the sole (and perhaps not even a major)