There are alot more important and much more useful projects money could be put into IMHO!
I really, really despise this argument. It assumes that pile of money/resources are in some way "ours" and not the people who actually own it. You could also say the same thing about people who spend cash on an iPod, since that money would buy a lot of grain and rice for starving people. Yeah, that's right. The exact same reason PETA zealots don't throw red paint on leather clad bikers - personal sacrifice sucks.
It doesn't harm me one bit if "investors" throw piles of cash at this company. Worst case is that its a scam, and we have a couple less foolish wealthy through natural redistribution. Best case is that they actually do it, and we begin the era of human habitation in space. More likely they are for real (IMHO) and even if they fail at producing a working space elevator they might still spin off some interesting research in materials, lifter tech., etc.
Greylisting only works because spammers haven't changed their bots to do a retry. This is starting to change, since spammers have way more cpu cycles and bandwidth to work with then I'll ever have. I do use greylisting to great success, but I've started seeing the effectiveness dip occasionally. It is only a matter of time before the curve catches up, and I'm positive this DKIM will be no different. Here are some numbers from yesterday on my little host:
greylist stats:
561 New blocks
509 One hit wonders
443 Remote hosts passed
109 Didn't get the hint
Fairly typical day actually. Yes, almost every new email server contacting my host is a spammer.
so I can buy a plug-in-hybrid and seriously reduce oil dependence.
And the energy in the socket comes from lollipops and unicorn kisses? Our (the US, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere) use of oil is more than just to turn into gas. It is turned into just about everything we use, from plastics to fertilizer. Let's do the maths:
U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption = 9,159,000 barrels/day
U.S. Non-Gasoline Consumption = 11,643,000 barrels/day
U.S. Crude Oil Production = 5,178,000 barrels/day (and declining since the 70's)
Even if all the cars were taken off the road today, there still would be a huge need to import oil. We use twice what we pump for stuff other than driving. I also wouldn't count on ethanol to take up the slack, since petroleum is a major input in agriculture. The ugly truth is there is no ending dependence on foreign oil until it is all gone and we are fighting over the scraps that are left. You can't make plastic out of yellowcake.
I was under the impression that the government and everything it owns, collectively, belong to the American People, but apparently I'm wrong.
I believe you have that backwards unfortunately. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The laws are already there on the books to take all your stuff, as was done with gold in 1933.
Or in slash-speak: a beowulf cluster of laws own all u base, it runs windows vista ultimate cluster edition, and that's Condoleezza under the hot grits.
If you go global with absolute free trade, then you are going to have people living in slums like in India, and healthcare like that of the third world, because that is your peer group
I believe this is the sentiment that is incorrect, as it assumes that under free trade there is nothing added but existing resources are just redistributed. That the world is static and everyone would achieve some median level. With real free trade you would see a lot more market "surface" become exposed creating more demand, as well as more entities stepping up to provide them over the medium term. Protectionism is never a positive for any economy.
US workers work longer hours than most of the planet, and a good portion as just as productive.
Unfortunately that productivity is chained by some pretty steep taxation. Both visible on your pay stub, as well as charged directly to your employer just for hiring you. That is even before any employer supplied benefits come into the equation. The bottom line is that employing a US worker is more expensive per unit of output. The longer hours we work just helps us justify our cost a bit, but not enough. Add that to the recent descent into pantophobia and fiscal stupidity, and you have a recipe for some real unpleasant economic times.
I'm saying smoking is declining in public spaces because a law was written making it illegal to do so.
But that law isn't changing behavior, just location - the inconvenience factor is minor compared to a total ban. You also use the word "declining", indicating that folks are still smoking in public areas. Again not changing behavior in a really meaningful way. I'd bet rape is also illegal, but it still happens. Guns are illegal in many places, but gun crimes still happen. Seeing any kind of pattern here?
The power of the law is in not in the words on the paper, but in what they represent.
Exactly - peoples willingness to acquiesce to something if it doesn't trouble them too much, or they would be doing anyway. Laws only work where people are willing to follow them, not the other way round. Again - war on drugs, speeding, two boys kissing, etc. People go along right up to the point they don't anymore.
So, you are saying smoking is declining because there was a law written? Could it be smoking has been declining for a number of years prior to the current push by the anti-smoking crowd? (at least in the US, not sure about across the pond) Not because of a law, but because people decided to quit. Someone who wants to do something will find a way, law be damned. Ask yourself why is pot so popular, if laws change behavior? It's only been outlawed (in the US) for the last several decades.
I guess just I have more respect for the human spirit than to ever believe words on paper could affect our will to be individuals.
Cigarette machine: not much of an inconvenience to buy cigs via alternate methods
Motor cycle helmets: small percentage of the population, smallish inconvenience
The nasty truth is that people obey laws because they want to obey them, and not for any other reason. There is nothing magical about them.
Most Americans don't feel that it is ethically wrong to behave in ways that the DMCA marks as illegal. Worse, they're inconvenienced by the law and are actively looking for workarounds for the technology it impacts.
This is not just true with technology law. People obey laws because they are what they normally would do anyway, aren't overly inconvenienced by it, or it only affects a small percentage of people. Laws aren't effective ways to change behavior, which is why I just shake my head at all the folks who want more regulation to "fix" something.
Take moulds. Prior to the 1920s, most people would have said, "It is well known mould does nothing for us. The only purpose mould can possibly have is making us sick." Then along comes Fleming who shows the right mould can be used to kill all kinds of bacteria. The same has been said of viruses - which we're learning to harness now, and even bacteria.
I just don't buy that analogy. Harnessing previously "bad" things as you mention above have a benefit for the end user. DRM adds no value for the end consumer of the movie or song.
Capitalism is a system based on the base greed of men (and women).
Wrong. Capitalism gets incorrectly associated with all kinds of nonsense, just like Socialism and Communism. If you actually look into it, most things people think are capitalism are something else entirely. (Usually corporatism)
In capitalism "profit" is an abnormal condition, and only enjoyed temporarily through innovation (market or technology). Why? Because there are other market participants that will put you out of business with a cheaper product it you are charging too much or have shitty quality. People put it down because the rewards go to the innovators. Innovation is hard work, emphasis on the work.
And to answer the obvious rebuttal:
No. That is monopoly or oligarchy, which are characteristics of corporatism. There are very few examples of capitalism in history, and none today larger than a neighborhood scope.
I have read a number of AK-47 vs. M16 pissing contests.
I really wasn't trying to turn it into one. The M16 is a decent weapon, so is the AK47. Which is "better" will depend entirely on the mission. We would actually dismount our M2s sometimes. Now that's a heavy pig to carry, even with three guys. (barrel, ammo, housing/tripod) Although I've toted some heavier firepower.
Because otherwise good (but risky) ideas would never get funded.
In my experience, there are more "good ideas" than resources to carry them out. However, insulating those who stand to benefit most from the risk creates a moral hazard. If someone wants to partake of the profits of your airplane industry, and makes good returns on shitty product, why shouldn't they be at risk when the planes fall out of the sky?
It's not about efficient allocation of capital, it's about risk appreciation. Without the risk factor, the only differentiating characteristic of investing is total returns. If both stocks are priced to include the risk to their particular business, you'd see less concentration on quarterly returns and more on quality and stability of the business. Pricing in risk rewards good behavior, not pricing in risk only rewards the earnings churn.
Originally, the limited-liability corporation was created as a separate legal entity so that individual investors would not be responsible for a corporation's debts after the corporation went out of business.
Why shouldn't the stock holders of a company be liable for the actions of the company they own a portion of? Doesn't that give unfair advantage over the sole proprietorship? Doesn't that distort the actual value of the stock of a company?
When business does Profitable Evil, the people getting the benefit of it should also carry the risk of Evil biting them in the ass.
Why not just stop subsidizing the Middle East oil production? If the goal is to make petroleum more expensive, stop propping up the oil cartel with direct subsidies and military support. It will end some brutal regimes, decreases the cost of our gov't**, and has the same endpoint as the "tax the fuel" plan.
Taxes just increase the funds going from our pockets to another boondoggle.
**Our govt costs way more to operate than we are paying taxes to support. Decreases in expenditures won't do squat to reduce taxes until there is zero GAAP (not cash accounting) budget deficit.
The parents were never taught how to think. In fact since school hasn't changed since before they were in it, and most of their parents as well for that matter, they were never actually taught how to think. They were in fact encouraged not to.
Agreed. My point was not to try to make the Parents (or anyone really) think for themselves. Might as well wish for fame and glory while I'm at it!:) The best (the only!) thing that we can do is to remove the enablers of not thinking. The solution sucks, since many won't have the tools to cope with a non-mandated environment. The problem is at what point do we pay the bill for the lack of involvement with our kids? And that bill gets larger every year we put it off.
That the parents are offered the opportunity to act as that oversight committee. I think it has the potential to scare a lot of teachers into either doing their fucking job, or getting out of the business.
You can't make the parents pay attention to their kids, why would they pay attention to this? A committee isn't the solution, removing the ability of parents to pass all the decisions having to do with educating their children to someone else is. That means forcing the parents to think instead of throwing fistfuls of money at problems. Good luck trying that in our current system. The whole structure encourages it.
Slashdot Mirror
I really, really despise this argument. It assumes that pile of money/resources are in some way "ours" and not the people who actually own it. You could also say the same thing about people who spend cash on an iPod, since that money would buy a lot of grain and rice for starving people. Yeah, that's right. The exact same reason PETA zealots don't throw red paint on leather clad bikers - personal sacrifice sucks.
It doesn't harm me one bit if "investors" throw piles of cash at this company. Worst case is that its a scam, and we have a couple less foolish wealthy through natural redistribution. Best case is that they actually do it, and we begin the era of human habitation in space. More likely they are for real (IMHO) and even if they fail at producing a working space elevator they might still spin off some interesting research in materials, lifter tech., etc.
Greylisting only works because spammers haven't changed their bots to do a retry. This is starting to change, since spammers have way more cpu cycles and bandwidth to work with then I'll ever have. I do use greylisting to great success, but I've started seeing the effectiveness dip occasionally. It is only a matter of time before the curve catches up, and I'm positive this DKIM will be no different. Here are some numbers from yesterday on my little host:
greylist stats:
561 New blocks
509 One hit wonders
443 Remote hosts passed
109 Didn't get the hint
Fairly typical day actually. Yes, almost every new email server contacting my host is a spammer.
And the energy in the socket comes from lollipops and unicorn kisses? Our (the US, but I'm sure it applies elsewhere) use of oil is more than just to turn into gas. It is turned into just about everything we use, from plastics to fertilizer. Let's do the maths:
U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption = 9,159,000 barrels/day
U.S. Non-Gasoline Consumption = 11,643,000 barrels/day
U.S. Crude Oil Production = 5,178,000 barrels/day (and declining since the 70's)
Even if all the cars were taken off the road today, there still would be a huge need to import oil. We use twice what we pump for stuff other than driving. I also wouldn't count on ethanol to take up the slack, since petroleum is a major input in agriculture. The ugly truth is there is no ending dependence on foreign oil until it is all gone and we are fighting over the scraps that are left. You can't make plastic out of yellowcake.
Ref:http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.h
I believe you have that backwards unfortunately. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The laws are already there on the books to take all your stuff, as was done with gold in 1933.
Or in slash-speak: a beowulf cluster of laws own all u base, it runs windows vista ultimate cluster edition, and that's Condoleezza under the hot grits.
Unfortunately most CEOs don't have a time horizon longer than the next quarter. Short term thinking is all too often the norm these days.
I believe this is the sentiment that is incorrect, as it assumes that under free trade there is nothing added but existing resources are just redistributed. That the world is static and everyone would achieve some median level. With real free trade you would see a lot more market "surface" become exposed creating more demand, as well as more entities stepping up to provide them over the medium term. Protectionism is never a positive for any economy.
Unfortunately that productivity is chained by some pretty steep taxation. Both visible on your pay stub, as well as charged directly to your employer just for hiring you. That is even before any employer supplied benefits come into the equation. The bottom line is that employing a US worker is more expensive per unit of output. The longer hours we work just helps us justify our cost a bit, but not enough. Add that to the recent descent into pantophobia and fiscal stupidity, and you have a recipe for some real unpleasant economic times.
But that law isn't changing behavior, just location - the inconvenience factor is minor compared to a total ban. You also use the word "declining", indicating that folks are still smoking in public areas. Again not changing behavior in a really meaningful way. I'd bet rape is also illegal, but it still happens. Guns are illegal in many places, but gun crimes still happen. Seeing any kind of pattern here?
Exactly - peoples willingness to acquiesce to something if it doesn't trouble them too much, or they would be doing anyway. Laws only work where people are willing to follow them, not the other way round. Again - war on drugs, speeding, two boys kissing, etc. People go along right up to the point they don't anymore.
So, you are saying smoking is declining because there was a law written? Could it be smoking has been declining for a number of years prior to the current push by the anti-smoking crowd? (at least in the US, not sure about across the pond) Not because of a law, but because people decided to quit. Someone who wants to do something will find a way, law be damned. Ask yourself why is pot so popular, if laws change behavior? It's only been outlawed (in the US) for the last several decades.
I guess just I have more respect for the human spirit than to ever believe words on paper could affect our will to be individuals.
Did you actually read my post?
Cigarette machine: not much of an inconvenience to buy cigs via alternate methods
Motor cycle helmets: small percentage of the population, smallish inconvenience
The nasty truth is that people obey laws because they want to obey them, and not for any other reason. There is nothing magical about them.
This is not just true with technology law. People obey laws because they are what they normally would do anyway, aren't overly inconvenienced by it, or it only affects a small percentage of people. Laws aren't effective ways to change behavior, which is why I just shake my head at all the folks who want more regulation to "fix" something.
Speed to work anyone?
I just don't buy that analogy. Harnessing previously "bad" things as you mention above have a benefit for the end user. DRM adds no value for the end consumer of the movie or song.
Wrong. Capitalism gets incorrectly associated with all kinds of nonsense, just like Socialism and Communism. If you actually look into it, most things people think are capitalism are something else entirely. (Usually corporatism)
In capitalism "profit" is an abnormal condition, and only enjoyed temporarily through innovation (market or technology). Why? Because there are other market participants that will put you out of business with a cheaper product it you are charging too much or have shitty quality. People put it down because the rewards go to the innovators. Innovation is hard work, emphasis on the work.
And to answer the obvious rebuttal:
No. That is monopoly or oligarchy, which are characteristics of corporatism. There are very few examples of capitalism in history, and none today larger than a neighborhood scope.
I really wasn't trying to turn it into one. The M16 is a decent weapon, so is the AK47. Which is "better" will depend entirely on the mission. We would actually dismount our M2s sometimes. Now that's a heavy pig to carry, even with three guys. (barrel, ammo, housing/tripod) Although I've toted some heavier firepower.
It's all about what you are trying to accomplish.
You'd be surprised how much a few oz feels like it weighs after 20 or so miles through brush. The M16 is a decent weapon today.
Most of the high tech crap is just one more thing that breaks when it counts though.
And so it shall be done!!!!
Poof! http://nwn.bioware.com/downloads/linuxclient.html
In my experience, there are more "good ideas" than resources to carry them out. However, insulating those who stand to benefit most from the risk creates a moral hazard. If someone wants to partake of the profits of your airplane industry, and makes good returns on shitty product, why shouldn't they be at risk when the planes fall out of the sky?
It's not about efficient allocation of capital, it's about risk appreciation. Without the risk factor, the only differentiating characteristic of investing is total returns. If both stocks are priced to include the risk to their particular business, you'd see less concentration on quarterly returns and more on quality and stability of the business. Pricing in risk rewards good behavior, not pricing in risk only rewards the earnings churn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license
Why shouldn't the stock holders of a company be liable for the actions of the company they own a portion of? Doesn't that give unfair advantage over the sole proprietorship? Doesn't that distort the actual value of the stock of a company?
When business does Profitable Evil, the people getting the benefit of it should also carry the risk of Evil biting them in the ass.
I wonder what their dead pixel policy is?
Sucker + Money = Woosh
Why not just stop subsidizing the Middle East oil production? If the goal is to make petroleum more expensive, stop propping up the oil cartel with direct subsidies and military support. It will end some brutal regimes, decreases the cost of our gov't**, and has the same endpoint as the "tax the fuel" plan.
Taxes just increase the funds going from our pockets to another boondoggle.
**Our govt costs way more to operate than we are paying taxes to support. Decreases in expenditures won't do squat to reduce taxes until there is zero GAAP (not cash accounting) budget deficit.
Agreed. My point was not to try to make the Parents (or anyone really) think for themselves. Might as well wish for fame and glory while I'm at it! :) The best (the only!) thing that we can do is to remove the enablers of not thinking. The solution sucks, since many won't have the tools to cope with a non-mandated environment. The problem is at what point do we pay the bill for the lack of involvement with our kids? And that bill gets larger every year we put it off.
You can't make the parents pay attention to their kids, why would they pay attention to this? A committee isn't the solution, removing the ability of parents to pass all the decisions having to do with educating their children to someone else is. That means forcing the parents to think instead of throwing fistfuls of money at problems. Good luck trying that in our current system. The whole structure encourages it.