I'm suggesting that apples don't grow on orange trees.
Finland, as a very small autonomous political entity, can leverage taxes from its residents. In our nation of over 300 million people (almost exactly 50 Finlands, in fact) the residents must support both state and federal programs; neither could leverage taxes in the same way, even if the taxes were as high as Finland's.
Maybe Ron Paul is right and that means we need a much looser coalition of strongly independent states -- but what works in a closed system doesn't necessarily scale to 50 of those closed systems stitched together.
I live within the shadow of a large 4-year state university (that I am currently attending for my PhD in Computer Science). In-state tuition is about 5k/yr. Two-bedroom apartments are less than $600/mo. In the absolute worst case books are still less than $1k/yr, and the tuition includes all fees.
A good computer is $600, once.
I worked my way through the whole thing. I took a loan one year to defray costs. I've already had job offers that will be in six figures after paying down those loans in a year. But according to you, it wasn't worth it. That's completely ignoring the education and research opportunities I've already had -- rather the whole point, I would think.
My fiancee earned a full room-and-board scholarship based solely on merit.
People like you always tend to -- and I am trying to put this delicately -- make things up to support an agenda whereby you tax me more to support people with no intent to succeed. It's always the same made-up, false assumptions.
No. In professional literature and discussion, "orthogonal" always refers to independent -- as in, separated design elements are orthogonal, or this discussion is orthogonal to TFA. I have not once heard it used in the manner you describe, and find that implication to be, well, orthogonal to its actual meaning *grin*.
He'll do what he's done for any pro-Google or anti-Microsoft ruling -- conveniently stop following the case on his blog. (See Oracle vs. Google, any of the Galaxy Tab victories)
Seriously, he's not even trying. MS must be paying him a bundle. He doesn't even make a secret of it (read his boilerplate on his blog -- can't disclose current client, MS largest and most common client, you do the math)
Supply-side economics has only created greater income disparity, economic displacement, financial bubbles, long-term recession and reduced social mobility.
has not been substantiated. There is not even an established correlation, let alone a clear causal link. This line of thought borders very closely on superstition.
For instance, the "half a century of growth, prosperity, and greater social equality" had unquestionably some relation to the tremendous technological, industrial, and social progress of that time -- and included its own share of relatively severe recessions, which existed despite the lack of an Internet to report them.
You are insulting a group of people who work very hard to develop models of enormously complex processes. In addition, you are dismissing models and their followers as "dumb shits" without even a first-order analysis of causality. It is good to be confident in your assertions, but confidence without reason is simple arrogance, and no boon to one's wisdom.
Your claim that any science that utilizes predictive models is not a rigorous discipline summarily dismisses most theoretical fields, such as many forms of quantum mechanics, exascale supercomputing research, genetic analysis, and a big chunk of pharmaceuticals. When dealing with a sufficiently complex system, even an approximation is a victory.
The evidence is unclear unless it can be proven otherwise. (It cannot, until the models improve.) There are strong first-principles reasons why supply-side economics is expected to provide a strong model of a sufficiently complex economy.
Let's say today you buy a picture to hang on the wall. Next week your house burns down. Did the picture burn the house down?
Wait, I have to prove that supply-side economics doesn't work? Don't you have that backwards? Shouldn't we, before we adopt an over-arching economic theory which will affect everyone's lives have a little bit of evidence that it does work?
In this situation you're describing, what do we do while we debate what theory to adopt? How do we prove which one works?
If we are to this level -- 'adoption' -- it is worth considering that the term 'supply-side economics' lays claim to a fairly wide variety of individual theories; it is not a single, well-defined set of policies. Dismissing people who study these policies as "dumb shits" -- let alone dismissing the entire field as lacking "intellectual rigor" -- is ridiculous.
I take grave offense at someone levying such a claim when they, by their own admission, know little of the field or its practices, or, indeed, of science or intellectual rigor itself. It is hypocrisy, and it is philosophically indefensible.
My credentials are hanging ten hard. If you come close, I'll show you.
Your vernacular has escaped me, I'm afraid. The relevant options appear to be a threat of violence, a claim of endowment, or a level of proficiency in one of a number of sports. The latter is laudable, though I've not much use for the first two.
So you're saying that the only variable and/or decision for the past thirty-two years was the decision to lend credence to supply-side economics as opposed to some other theory? Things haven't gone well, so clearly the thing you don't like must be at fault? It couldn't possibly be due to any other effects?
That's a vapid claim. However, since you still haven't provided any kind of corroborative evidence that supply-side economics theories are responsible for worsening the economy, it's the only one I can imagine you are making. Alternatively, do you have proof that things wouldn't be worse if some other theory had been utilized?
At this point a simple summary of your credentials would be a substantial improvement over what you have yet offered.
No one said anything about banning; taxes were being discussed. Cigarette smoke imposes an externality, in that when you smoke you worsen the health of yourself and other people -- this effect is financially significant even in the absence of public health care. Aggressive taxes are, therefore, justified.
Since you're being so incredibly critical, I'm assuming you have access to data that you will share that proves conclusively the opposing point -- that supply-side economics doesn't work?
Or are you just assuming based on your own preconceptions? Because that would be hilarious coming from someone accusing others of lacking "intellectual rigor".
Cost of what cleanup? Who cleans up? What if the companies can't pay for it? How 'toxic' before suing? What about people damaged by the soil? Do they get to sue? Who gets priority? How does the government get money to cover all this administration?
When you eat too much in public, you only ruin your health. Smoking in public exposes bystanders to secondhand smoke, a substance which kills tens of thousands of people per year.
1) But closed-source binaries have all those same problems, plus additional ones. Therefore, it is precisely easier to audit open-source software.
2) But with open-source, it's possible for the source to become distributed, whereas it's not even that for closed-source software. Therefore, it is precisely easier to audit open-source software.
3) I was unclear, here, and accept responsibility for speaking carelessly. What I meant was that a person who finds a problem can find other people to report it to.
4) Since most people would not like secret laws, but most people have not read through all standing laws, it follows that availability even without pursuit is a benefit -- therefore open source provides a benefit even if the code is not explicitly audited by the beneficiary.
That would require everyone's routers to have it. All major companies, and operating systems (including Linux), with some pretty heavy suppression to keep it going...
(emphasis mine)
Meaning, therefore, there needs to be some FOSS in the loop, which is apropos of the non-trustworthiness of corporate software.
Interesting that this comment was posted at the exact same moment as the article. Other than that, yawn.
The site says it celebrates Apple patents. By claiming otherwise you are lying, because you know the truth is counter to what you want people to believe.
The old design of Android was because phones used keyboards. Phones used keyboards because capacitive touchscreens weren't available or economical. Everyone started using multitouch gestures at the same time. By claiming otherwise you are lying, because you know the truth is counter to what you want people to believe.
That store was a larger store with a Samsung booth. The icons on the wall had nothing to do with the Samsung store, and the Samsung people had no control over them. By claiming otherwise you are lying, because you know the truth is counter to what you want people to believe.
Regarding the rest of this hot air, take a look here for a pretty good list of suits in which Apple has attempted and failed to sue on all manner of crazy premises. Read through that and tell me with a straight face you support the legal actions of this company. They photoshopped pictures of the Tab in legal documents, altering multiple aspects of the device to make it (falsely) appear more like an iPad. They very clearly have no interest in "protecting their rights"; they just want to strongarm the competition with government help. This is consistent with their behavior for the past forty years.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm suggesting that apples don't grow on orange trees.
Finland, as a very small autonomous political entity, can leverage taxes from its residents. In our nation of over 300 million people (almost exactly 50 Finlands, in fact) the residents must support both state and federal programs; neither could leverage taxes in the same way, even if the taxes were as high as Finland's.
Maybe Ron Paul is right and that means we need a much looser coalition of strongly independent states -- but what works in a closed system doesn't necessarily scale to 50 of those closed systems stitched together.
Finland also has fewer people in it than Wisconsin.
I live within the shadow of a large 4-year state university (that I am currently attending for my PhD in Computer Science). In-state tuition is about 5k/yr. Two-bedroom apartments are less than $600/mo. In the absolute worst case books are still less than $1k/yr, and the tuition includes all fees.
A good computer is $600, once.
I worked my way through the whole thing. I took a loan one year to defray costs. I've already had job offers that will be in six figures after paying down those loans in a year. But according to you, it wasn't worth it. That's completely ignoring the education and research opportunities I've already had -- rather the whole point, I would think.
My fiancee earned a full room-and-board scholarship based solely on merit.
People like you always tend to -- and I am trying to put this delicately -- make things up to support an agenda whereby you tax me more to support people with no intent to succeed. It's always the same made-up, false assumptions.
No. In professional literature and discussion, "orthogonal" always refers to independent -- as in, separated design elements are orthogonal, or this discussion is orthogonal to TFA. I have not once heard it used in the manner you describe, and find that implication to be, well, orthogonal to its actual meaning *grin*.
He'll do what he's done for any pro-Google or anti-Microsoft ruling -- conveniently stop following the case on his blog. (See Oracle vs. Google, any of the Galaxy Tab victories)
Seriously, he's not even trying. MS must be paying him a bundle. He doesn't even make a secret of it (read his boilerplate on his blog -- can't disclose current client, MS largest and most common client, you do the math)
But this claim:
Supply-side economics has only created greater income disparity, economic displacement, financial bubbles, long-term recession and reduced social mobility.
has not been substantiated. There is not even an established correlation, let alone a clear causal link. This line of thought borders very closely on superstition.
For instance, the "half a century of growth, prosperity, and greater social equality" had unquestionably some relation to the tremendous technological, industrial, and social progress of that time -- and included its own share of relatively severe recessions, which existed despite the lack of an Internet to report them.
You are insulting a group of people who work very hard to develop models of enormously complex processes. In addition, you are dismissing models and their followers as "dumb shits" without even a first-order analysis of causality. It is good to be confident in your assertions, but confidence without reason is simple arrogance, and no boon to one's wisdom.
Your claim that any science that utilizes predictive models is not a rigorous discipline summarily dismisses most theoretical fields, such as many forms of quantum mechanics, exascale supercomputing research, genetic analysis, and a big chunk of pharmaceuticals. When dealing with a sufficiently complex system, even an approximation is a victory.
The evidence is unclear unless it can be proven otherwise. (It cannot, until the models improve.) There are strong first-principles reasons why supply-side economics is expected to provide a strong model of a sufficiently complex economy.
Let's say today you buy a picture to hang on the wall. Next week your house burns down. Did the picture burn the house down?
Wait, I have to prove that supply-side economics doesn't work? Don't you have that backwards? Shouldn't we, before we adopt an over-arching economic theory which will affect everyone's lives have a little bit of evidence that it does work?
In this situation you're describing, what do we do while we debate what theory to adopt? How do we prove which one works?
If we are to this level -- 'adoption' -- it is worth considering that the term 'supply-side economics' lays claim to a fairly wide variety of individual theories; it is not a single, well-defined set of policies. Dismissing people who study these policies as "dumb shits" -- let alone dismissing the entire field as lacking "intellectual rigor" -- is ridiculous.
I take grave offense at someone levying such a claim when they, by their own admission, know little of the field or its practices, or, indeed, of science or intellectual rigor itself. It is hypocrisy, and it is philosophically indefensible.
My credentials are hanging ten hard. If you come close, I'll show you.
Your vernacular has escaped me, I'm afraid. The relevant options appear to be a threat of violence, a claim of endowment, or a level of proficiency in one of a number of sports. The latter is laudable, though I've not much use for the first two.
So you're saying that the only variable and/or decision for the past thirty-two years was the decision to lend credence to supply-side economics as opposed to some other theory? Things haven't gone well, so clearly the thing you don't like must be at fault? It couldn't possibly be due to any other effects?
That's a vapid claim. However, since you still haven't provided any kind of corroborative evidence that supply-side economics theories are responsible for worsening the economy, it's the only one I can imagine you are making. Alternatively, do you have proof that things wouldn't be worse if some other theory had been utilized?
At this point a simple summary of your credentials would be a substantial improvement over what you have yet offered.
No one said anything about banning; taxes were being discussed. Cigarette smoke imposes an externality, in that when you smoke you worsen the health of yourself and other people -- this effect is financially significant even in the absence of public health care. Aggressive taxes are, therefore, justified.
Since you're being so incredibly critical, I'm assuming you have access to data that you will share that proves conclusively the opposing point -- that supply-side economics doesn't work?
Or are you just assuming based on your own preconceptions? Because that would be hilarious coming from someone accusing others of lacking "intellectual rigor".
Cost of what cleanup? Who cleans up? What if the companies can't pay for it? How 'toxic' before suing? What about people damaged by the soil? Do they get to sue? Who gets priority? How does the government get money to cover all this administration?
When you eat too much in public, you only ruin your health. Smoking in public exposes bystanders to secondhand smoke, a substance which kills tens of thousands of people per year.
Why should facebook be in the top 3? If I google for "Aeronautical engineering" should I get linked to Boeing in the top 3?
So what makes OSX better than Linux? Better than *BSD? What makes Maya better than Blender?
People are only allowed to volunteer on "working days"?
Examples of objectively better non-free alternatives to each of the programs he mentioned?
Stereo sound, at its inception, was disorienting to some patrons.
Color added story only through presence; 3D could be easily used in the same way.
Digital projection absolutely improves the experience, by removing film jitter and degradation.
3D doesn't make me nauseous; there's no downside for me. Ergo, I embrace it.
Color? Stereo sound? High resolution film? Digital projection?
You have my permission to replace 'audit' with a word you do not have strong preformed connotations for.
Are you claiming it is not easier to explain analyzed behavior with access to source?
1) But closed-source binaries have all those same problems, plus additional ones. Therefore, it is precisely easier to audit open-source software.
2) But with open-source, it's possible for the source to become distributed, whereas it's not even that for closed-source software. Therefore, it is precisely easier to audit open-source software.
3) I was unclear, here, and accept responsibility for speaking carelessly. What I meant was that a person who finds a problem can find other people to report it to.
4) Since most people would not like secret laws, but most people have not read through all standing laws, it follows that availability even without pursuit is a benefit -- therefore open source provides a benefit even if the code is not explicitly audited by the beneficiary.
That would require everyone's routers to have it. All major companies, and operating systems (including Linux), with some pretty heavy suppression to keep it going...
(emphasis mine)
Meaning, therefore, there needs to be some FOSS in the loop, which is apropos of the non-trustworthiness of corporate software.
True or false: it's easier to audit software you have the source to, compared to software you only have a binary for.
True or false: the source to a piece of distributed software is in the hands of many people.
True or false: if one person finds a problem, they can find others.
How would you feel if laws were secret? Yet, how often have you read through all the laws on the books?
Interesting that this comment was posted at the exact same moment as the article. Other than that, yawn.
The site says it celebrates Apple patents. By claiming otherwise you are lying, because you know the truth is counter to what you want people to believe.
The old design of Android was because phones used keyboards. Phones used keyboards because capacitive touchscreens weren't available or economical. Everyone started using multitouch gestures at the same time. By claiming otherwise you are lying, because you know the truth is counter to what you want people to believe.
That store was a larger store with a Samsung booth. The icons on the wall had nothing to do with the Samsung store, and the Samsung people had no control over them. By claiming otherwise you are lying, because you know the truth is counter to what you want people to believe.
Regarding the rest of this hot air, take a look here for a pretty good list of suits in which Apple has attempted and failed to sue on all manner of crazy premises. Read through that and tell me with a straight face you support the legal actions of this company. They photoshopped pictures of the Tab in legal documents, altering multiple aspects of the device to make it (falsely) appear more like an iPad. They very clearly have no interest in "protecting their rights"; they just want to strongarm the competition with government help. This is consistent with their behavior for the past forty years.
I love comments like this. "What? No, no, it's not Apple so it can't possibly be good."
When did the level of discourse drop so low here, to where were getting, not even anecdotal evidence, but fanciful evidence?