You didn't read the uber-parent post, or its first link. As the Reg states, "The simple laws of economics – supply and demand – dictate that prices will rise in times of scarcity." It then follows with "[C]learly some resellers need to convince customers that movements are legit." Clearly, this is impossible when a misanthrope refuses to read the uber-parent post and its links, or learn the most basic law of economics. You want the drives for free, the OEMs want to sell them for infinity, and supply and demand results in a price, prices being the most important things of all, that set maximum production for maximum utility. But an anti-social person doesn't want people to have nice things, or any things, as they're just fueled by rage and jealously at not being successful, at not being useful by society's judgment. So you have to attack and destroy it.
None of the stories linked to in his quoted section or the/. fluff state a word about putative price fixing, nor any suspicions of "taking advantage of the situation," which itself is undefined.
Pretty much everyone has at least one laptop, and those can take RAM, hard drives, CPUs if you're proficient, and assorted peripherals. Only Apple is a closed-shop on that end. Yes, I have a Kindle and an iPod Touch, and I can't upgrade or repair those, but that doesn't mean I'll stop working with what I've had forever and require for my everyday life, the PC. I don't see why anyone else would just stop either, PCs are not disappearing as the must-have tool for getting work done in nearly all occupations.
Bit absurd for a clueless nit who has no grasp of the ancient principle of comparative advantage, or that of malinvestment, to be lecturing anyone on the economics of production.
Don't confuse corporate welfare or a fascist economy for economically productive R&D. If such technologies can be profitably developed within our current regulatory economy, then entrepreneurs will create start-ups, and funders will give funding. This wasteful exercise of $130 million is a political, not an economic, decision, and rent-seekers with the closest ties to the government will satiate themselves at the public trough. If you want to rebuild the economy, the answer is not centralized planning or rent-seeking under a government unlawfully propping up its supporters with taxpayer money, but free-market competition under the same legal regime of equality under the law, absent political bribery and ransom.
Assuming they are correct (they know how many resources are available on the entire planet [I think some natural resource extraction companies would like to talk to you]? They can forecast future technology?) People will invent new technology as needed, tastes will change, and price rationing will take care of the rest. This is like complaining that there aren't enough Aston-Martin DB5s in the world, or that we need to find another Earth to allow everyone to have prime beachfront real-estate.
Hate to break this to you, but I know of people who are finding work overseas, I have friends that are, and I'm thinking of doing it myself. We are all highly educated, or at least can pass as such. Not all jobs are high-tech, and you can certainly find well-paying jobs outside the US in any industry. I don't want to be in a banana republic US where I'm upper-middle class (or a politician), while everyone else is starving.
The US is not the only economy in the world, and Americans are not going to stay in the US if there are no jobs. The policy of the Federal and State governments should be to work to attract high-wage jobs by cutting taxation, regulation, and the deficit, and returning to hard currency. Trying to fence jobs in will only result in foreign employers even more strenuously avoiding the US, while the most capable Americans will strive even more vigorously to escape.
...about the Texas Board of Education's efforts to put a more political spin on some of their State's textbooks.
You mean a political spin in a direction other than the usual. I haven't read the list of changes or the textbooks, and I don't agree with some of the changes I have read about, but textbooks have been political for longer than I've been around, and I'm not sure that, once the government started using education to mold children to their liking, it has ever been any other way.
Are ugly people more prone to criminal behavior? If so, it would be rational for, when the evidence isn't as heavily weighted in the direction of innocence, for a juror to infer a greater probability of wrongdoing, quite apart from considerations of fairness.
I can't imagine any court would grant an injunction. The undue hardship upon OEMs and end-users makes it almost certain not to be granted. MS was sued a few years ago for violating a product activation patent, which I think was found to be an infringement, but the court refused to grant an injunction, as it would do great harm to the consumer. Although the court did seem a bit ignorant of technology, and utilized an argument that a months long total rewrite of Office was required, instead of just slipstreaming a minor update disabling product activation. The court could have given MS a reasonable amount of time to fix it, then granted an injunction. I think it ended up being a damages linked to royalties award.
I've used System Restore on my Win7 64-bit systems. If Win7 really had a habit of deleting System Restore points, it would have been detected and harped upon within hours of its release, 32-bit or 64-bit. Whatever the problem is, it's hard to believe it's Windows' fault.
Slashdot Mirror
A central bank is a State sanctioned central planning monopoly, artificially adjusting the monetary supply and rate of interest; this is not Facebook.
You didn't read the uber-parent post, or its first link. As the Reg states, "The simple laws of economics – supply and demand – dictate that prices will rise in times of scarcity." It then follows with "[C]learly some resellers need to convince customers that movements are legit." Clearly, this is impossible when a misanthrope refuses to read the uber-parent post and its links, or learn the most basic law of economics. You want the drives for free, the OEMs want to sell them for infinity, and supply and demand results in a price, prices being the most important things of all, that set maximum production for maximum utility. But an anti-social person doesn't want people to have nice things, or any things, as they're just fueled by rage and jealously at not being successful, at not being useful by society's judgment. So you have to attack and destroy it.
None of the stories linked to in his quoted section or the /. fluff state a word about putative price fixing, nor any suspicions of "taking advantage of the situation," which itself is undefined.
"The professor leading the team, Manuel Cebrian, won the challenge two years ago, so his odds of winning again are great[.]"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Pretty much everyone has at least one laptop, and those can take RAM, hard drives, CPUs if you're proficient, and assorted peripherals. Only Apple is a closed-shop on that end. Yes, I have a Kindle and an iPod Touch, and I can't upgrade or repair those, but that doesn't mean I'll stop working with what I've had forever and require for my everyday life, the PC. I don't see why anyone else would just stop either, PCs are not disappearing as the must-have tool for getting work done in nearly all occupations.
Bit absurd for a clueless nit who has no grasp of the ancient principle of comparative advantage, or that of malinvestment, to be lecturing anyone on the economics of production.
There is a presumption that an issued patent is valid, but that presumption can be rebutted.
There cannot be valid duplicate patents on anything. See 35 U.S.C. 102.
And once upon a time, most people rode around in cars without seatbelts.
The PDF is clearly aimed at novices. To have included non-standard home operating systems at such an audience would have been unproductive.
Don't confuse corporate welfare or a fascist economy for economically productive R&D. If such technologies can be profitably developed within our current regulatory economy, then entrepreneurs will create start-ups, and funders will give funding. This wasteful exercise of $130 million is a political, not an economic, decision, and rent-seekers with the closest ties to the government will satiate themselves at the public trough. If you want to rebuild the economy, the answer is not centralized planning or rent-seeking under a government unlawfully propping up its supporters with taxpayer money, but free-market competition under the same legal regime of equality under the law, absent political bribery and ransom.
It is strange they haven't posted their aggregate ownership of Nokia. It's also odd they are asking for jobs.
There is a book titled "Green Power, Black Death."
The government can't copyright, so I'm baffled at it being able to patent.
Assuming they are correct (they know how many resources are available on the entire planet [I think some natural resource extraction companies would like to talk to you]? They can forecast future technology?) People will invent new technology as needed, tastes will change, and price rationing will take care of the rest. This is like complaining that there aren't enough Aston-Martin DB5s in the world, or that we need to find another Earth to allow everyone to have prime beachfront real-estate.
I reckon the latter.
Hate to break this to you, but I know of people who are finding work overseas, I have friends that are, and I'm thinking of doing it myself. We are all highly educated, or at least can pass as such. Not all jobs are high-tech, and you can certainly find well-paying jobs outside the US in any industry. I don't want to be in a banana republic US where I'm upper-middle class (or a politician), while everyone else is starving.
The US is not the only economy in the world, and Americans are not going to stay in the US if there are no jobs. The policy of the Federal and State governments should be to work to attract high-wage jobs by cutting taxation, regulation, and the deficit, and returning to hard currency. Trying to fence jobs in will only result in foreign employers even more strenuously avoiding the US, while the most capable Americans will strive even more vigorously to escape.
You mean a political spin in a direction other than the usual. I haven't read the list of changes or the textbooks, and I don't agree with some of the changes I have read about, but textbooks have been political for longer than I've been around, and I'm not sure that, once the government started using education to mold children to their liking, it has ever been any other way.
Are ugly people more prone to criminal behavior? If so, it would be rational for, when the evidence isn't as heavily weighted in the direction of innocence, for a juror to infer a greater probability of wrongdoing, quite apart from considerations of fairness.
The single "A Question of Time" comes to mind...ick.
I can't imagine any court would grant an injunction. The undue hardship upon OEMs and end-users makes it almost certain not to be granted. MS was sued a few years ago for violating a product activation patent, which I think was found to be an infringement, but the court refused to grant an injunction, as it would do great harm to the consumer. Although the court did seem a bit ignorant of technology, and utilized an argument that a months long total rewrite of Office was required, instead of just slipstreaming a minor update disabling product activation. The court could have given MS a reasonable amount of time to fix it, then granted an injunction. I think it ended up being a damages linked to royalties award.
You're arguing against a nonexistent premise. Thanks for the irony, though.
I've used System Restore on my Win7 64-bit systems. If Win7 really had a habit of deleting System Restore points, it would have been detected and harped upon within hours of its release, 32-bit or 64-bit. Whatever the problem is, it's hard to believe it's Windows' fault.