Please read their press releases, business plan, etc. - they DO have a business plan, and they do (at least publicly) intend to have a return on their investment.
With all due respect, and understanding that, properly explained and understood, the CONCLUSIONS you end up with aren't far from the truth, you need to understand that your little spiel here is very simplistic, and a bit insulting. Do you understand the TRUE difference between what these laborers are making per hour and what we are paying for these products? Do you honestly believe that US$79.50 is being transferred "from the third world to the first world"? If so, and you'd like to be able to argue this reasonably valid point of view (conclusion wise), I'd suggest you do some more reading and discussion - economics and wealth aggregation is a much more complicated subject than you seem to be crediting it at, and I hate to see a worthy conclusion so poorly championed.
And attitudes like this make me sincerly wish that you could experience what the world would be like without people who did these things. It could easily be extrapolated that our entire race would still be sitting in Africa, if we still existed. Do you have any idea of the technology that you use EVERY DAY that wouldn't have been invented if we didn't have a space exploration program? What about if we never bothered to sail the seas? Where do you think you'd be? Maybe you'd rather NOT exist...
Ignore the limited resources motivation, ignore the profit motivation, ignore the information we have been collecting through very "human" methods, and take a crack at Bush at the same time? Why not?
As a rant, this article does a great job. But here's what is missing - what the heck is he talking about? Everything he says is liberally sprinkled with statements telling us these things are self-evident, when they are anything but. He is constantly is referring to how this will clearly show that, or pointing out that this proves this or that later on, but never gets there.
Can anyone summarize what is being said here in some sort of logical way? Because I'm confused. I see the title, I see no information supporting the title (unless, perhaps, I was to do the research myself).
Fact is, if it's an operating system written by anyone but Microsoft, it's more secure than Microsoft's. If you are bored, we can make up some reasons as to why this is so. (sarcasm implied, but hell, I know ya'all will miss it)
It amazes me that people seem to think that nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Building a nuclear reactor does not magically create nuclear weapons. Not building nuclear reactors does not magically make it impossible to build nuclear weapons. Why is this considered a reasonable argument against nuclear power? I'm not sure I like the idea - I'm not a big fan of the waste product. However, I've read about a lot of work being done in this area, and some theoritical stuff that could potentially come close to eliminating the radioactive waste.
Why do I get the feeling that even if we could eliminate nuclear waste, and could, for all intents and purposes, guarantee that a Cherynobel would never happen again, people would still be against nuclear power because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I think people need to get rational on this subject, and Mr. Bruce Sterling, though an excellent story teller, is hardly the rational side of this arguement. The comments he makes are rather juvenile, and really don't provide a counterpoint. It's full of little "that's not true" and "ain't that silly" blurbs, which is a really sad commentary in itself of the shape of debate in our society today. Shame on us.
It amazes me that people seem to think that nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Building a nuclear reactor does not magically create nuclear weapons. Not building nuclear reactors does not magically make it impossible to build nuclear weapons. Why is this considered a reasonable argument against nuclear power? I'm not sure I like the idea - I'm not a big fan of the waste product. However, I've read about a lot of work being done in this area, and some theoritical stuff that could potentially come close to eliminating the radioactive waste.
Why do I get the feeling that even if we could eliminate nuclear waste, and could, for all intents and purposes, guarantee that a Cherynobel would never happen again, people would still be against nuclear power because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I think people need to get rational on this subject, and Mr. Bruce Sterling, though an excellent story teller, is hardly the rational side of this arguement. The comments he makes are rather juvenile, and really don't provide a counterpoint. It's full of little "that's not true" and "ain't that silly" blurbs, which is a really sad commentary in itself of the shape of debate in our society today. Shame on us.
It amazes me that people seem to think that nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Building a nuclear reactor does not magically create nuclear weapons. Not building nuclear reactors does not magically make it impossible to build nuclear weapons. Why is this considered a reasonable argument against nuclear power? I'm not sure I like the idea - I'm not a big fan of the waste product. However, I've read about a lot of work being done in this area, and some theoritical stuff that could potentially come close to eliminating the radioactive waste.
Why do I get the feeling that even if we could eliminate nuclear waste, and could, for all intents and purposes, guarantee that a Cherynobel would never happen again, people would still be against nuclear power because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I think people need to get rational on this subject, and Mr. Bruce Sterling, though an excellent story teller, is hardly the rational side of this arguement. The comments he makes are rather juvenile, and really don't provide a counterpoint. It's full of little "that's not true" and "ain't that silly" blurbs, which is a really sad commentary in itself of the shape of debate in our society today. Shame on us.
Okay, Linspire = assholes. However, they are NOT breaking copyright. Think Calvin & Hobbes. These images DID NOT previously exist as exact duplicates. Image copyright protects EXACT duplication, and this did not happen. Nothing illegal here, just another company stealing ideas from someone else.
Wow, I'm mr. greed and you are mr. saint. As a matter of fact, you sound much like a socialist. So, in your world, people work 40+ hrs a week to make other people happy?
It seems to me that you are very quick to judge me, without asking me any questions or trying to understand my position whatsoever. It also seems to me that you could not have been a good financial analyst nor a good business consultant, since nothing has monetary (or at least nothing SHOULD have monetary) value in your little make believe world.
I also feel pretty sad for your students, since what you are espousing is completely at odds with capitalism and basically every marketplace as they currently operate worldwide.
So I come to the following conclusion: 1) you are trolling; or 2) you are crazy and delusional, and actually believe the world works this way. I hope you understand that I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer living in a world where your "way" works. I'd love it. There is nothing that I'd like more. But I actually live in this world, and it doesn't work that way. It didn't even work that way in Russia, which was the only system that even TRIED to do what you are pretending is true. I guess that leaves us at an impasse, however, since I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you of your issues since living in the world doesn't seem to have penetrated.
Have a great life! Hope you can maintain your dreamworld - it sounds nice. But please, stop teaching - you are just hurting these poor kids chances of surviving reality.
So, what you are saying is that you'll use rhetoric to argue for your hypothesis that has no real world proof because it's some sort of invention?
Okay, this is obviously a waste of my time. Have a great, short life, troll. Watch out for that truck - it's probably a friend of mine on cleanup duty.
Show me even ONE example of a place or civilization that has/had a good infrastructure without a government, or ANYTHING of what you are saying, and then we can start discussing this in earnest.
Talk about hoodwinked. You are living in a libertarian handbook boyo. At this point, I'm going to have to conclude your head is stuck in the cloud of theories, without any practical proof. Feel free to prove me wrong - I'd welcome it: I'm a big fan of minimal government interference, but I'm no anarchist.
By the way, if you seriously think the government has nothing to do with the people, not only is your head stuck in the clouds but it's a pretty cynical cloud too. There's no doubt that the government, at many levels, loses contact with the people, and doesn't do a good job representing us, but shit, man, stop whining and do something about it - it IS possible. I've seen it done. Hell, I've done it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you honestly think we should/can handle one problem at a time, then I have to question how it is you've survived this long.
Then vote. And think twice about the people you are voting for if you don't want them spending money on things you don't want to support.
Please read their press releases, business plan, etc. - they DO have a business plan, and they do (at least publicly) intend to have a return on their investment.
With all due respect, and understanding that, properly explained and understood, the CONCLUSIONS you end up with aren't far from the truth, you need to understand that your little spiel here is very simplistic, and a bit insulting. Do you understand the TRUE difference between what these laborers are making per hour and what we are paying for these products? Do you honestly believe that US$79.50 is being transferred "from the third world to the first world"? If so, and you'd like to be able to argue this reasonably valid point of view (conclusion wise), I'd suggest you do some more reading and discussion - economics and wealth aggregation is a much more complicated subject than you seem to be crediting it at, and I hate to see a worthy conclusion so poorly championed.
And attitudes like this make me sincerly wish that you could experience what the world would be like without people who did these things. It could easily be extrapolated that our entire race would still be sitting in Africa, if we still existed. Do you have any idea of the technology that you use EVERY DAY that wouldn't have been invented if we didn't have a space exploration program? What about if we never bothered to sail the seas? Where do you think you'd be? Maybe you'd rather NOT exist...
Ignore the limited resources motivation, ignore the profit motivation, ignore the information we have been collecting through very "human" methods, and take a crack at Bush at the same time? Why not?
but why didn't it work? Or is this a case of "it could have been worse?" And if it is, then why does it even matter?
that the Department of Homeland defense was evil and wrong in everything it does and says? ;)
EPA:
City: 28
Highway: 38
Reality:
City: 25
Highway: 35
Thank you. This was a bit of what I was looking for - a little sense out of a long article on non-sense.
As a rant, this article does a great job. But here's what is missing - what the heck is he talking about? Everything he says is liberally sprinkled with statements telling us these things are self-evident, when they are anything but. He is constantly is referring to how this will clearly show that, or pointing out that this proves this or that later on, but never gets there.
Can anyone summarize what is being said here in some sort of logical way? Because I'm confused. I see the title, I see no information supporting the title (unless, perhaps, I was to do the research myself).
Fact is, if it's an operating system written by anyone but Microsoft, it's more secure than Microsoft's. If you are bored, we can make up some reasons as to why this is so. (sarcasm implied, but hell, I know ya'all will miss it)
Microsoft's website on how to fix this for the corporate sites is pretty simple - keep your system patched. Is that too much to ask?
It's not a problem for me, from where I'm at, so therefore, ergo, etc. SOMETHING must be working right!
It amazes me that people seem to think that nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Building a nuclear reactor does not magically create nuclear weapons. Not building nuclear reactors does not magically make it impossible to build nuclear weapons. Why is this considered a reasonable argument against nuclear power? I'm not sure I like the idea - I'm not a big fan of the waste product. However, I've read about a lot of work being done in this area, and some theoritical stuff that could potentially come close to eliminating the radioactive waste. Why do I get the feeling that even if we could eliminate nuclear waste, and could, for all intents and purposes, guarantee that a Cherynobel would never happen again, people would still be against nuclear power because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think people need to get rational on this subject, and Mr. Bruce Sterling, though an excellent story teller, is hardly the rational side of this arguement. The comments he makes are rather juvenile, and really don't provide a counterpoint. It's full of little "that's not true" and "ain't that silly" blurbs, which is a really sad commentary in itself of the shape of debate in our society today. Shame on us.
It amazes me that people seem to think that nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Building a nuclear reactor does not magically create nuclear weapons. Not building nuclear reactors does not magically make it impossible to build nuclear weapons. Why is this considered a reasonable argument against nuclear power? I'm not sure I like the idea - I'm not a big fan of the waste product. However, I've read about a lot of work being done in this area, and some theoritical stuff that could potentially come close to eliminating the radioactive waste.
Why do I get the feeling that even if we could eliminate nuclear waste, and could, for all intents and purposes, guarantee that a Cherynobel would never happen again, people would still be against nuclear power because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I think people need to get rational on this subject, and Mr. Bruce Sterling, though an excellent story teller, is hardly the rational side of this arguement. The comments he makes are rather juvenile, and really don't provide a counterpoint. It's full of little "that's not true" and "ain't that silly" blurbs, which is a really sad commentary in itself of the shape of debate in our society today. Shame on us.
It amazes me that people seem to think that nuclear power = nuclear weapons. Building a nuclear reactor does not magically create nuclear weapons. Not building nuclear reactors does not magically make it impossible to build nuclear weapons. Why is this considered a reasonable argument against nuclear power? I'm not sure I like the idea - I'm not a big fan of the waste product. However, I've read about a lot of work being done in this area, and some theoritical stuff that could potentially come close to eliminating the radioactive waste.
Why do I get the feeling that even if we could eliminate nuclear waste, and could, for all intents and purposes, guarantee that a Cherynobel would never happen again, people would still be against nuclear power because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I think people need to get rational on this subject, and Mr. Bruce Sterling, though an excellent story teller, is hardly the rational side of this arguement. The comments he makes are rather juvenile, and really don't provide a counterpoint. It's full of little "that's not true" and "ain't that silly" blurbs, which is a really sad commentary in itself of the shape of debate in our society today. Shame on us.
I choose neither. The one that's getting made is likely to suck, and the one this guys describes is at least as bad. Just shoot me now.
Come on people, let's start letting our representatives know what this means to us!
You are right - I had misread the article. Sorry for being an idiot. I'll try to do better.
Thanks!
Okay, Linspire = assholes. However, they are NOT breaking copyright. Think Calvin & Hobbes. These images DID NOT previously exist as exact duplicates. Image copyright protects EXACT duplication, and this did not happen. Nothing illegal here, just another company stealing ideas from someone else.
Wow, I'm mr. greed and you are mr. saint. As a matter of fact, you sound much like a socialist. So, in your world, people work 40+ hrs a week to make other people happy?
It seems to me that you are very quick to judge me, without asking me any questions or trying to understand my position whatsoever. It also seems to me that you could not have been a good financial analyst nor a good business consultant, since nothing has monetary (or at least nothing SHOULD have monetary) value in your little make believe world.
I also feel pretty sad for your students, since what you are espousing is completely at odds with capitalism and basically every marketplace as they currently operate worldwide.
So I come to the following conclusion: 1) you are trolling; or 2) you are crazy and delusional, and actually believe the world works this way. I hope you understand that I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer living in a world where your "way" works. I'd love it. There is nothing that I'd like more. But I actually live in this world, and it doesn't work that way. It didn't even work that way in Russia, which was the only system that even TRIED to do what you are pretending is true. I guess that leaves us at an impasse, however, since I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you of your issues since living in the world doesn't seem to have penetrated.
Have a great life! Hope you can maintain your dreamworld - it sounds nice. But please, stop teaching - you are just hurting these poor kids chances of surviving reality.
So, what you are saying is that you'll use rhetoric to argue for your hypothesis that has no real world proof because it's some sort of invention?
Okay, this is obviously a waste of my time. Have a great, short life, troll. Watch out for that truck - it's probably a friend of mine on cleanup duty.
Nice rhetoric. Examples? Alternatives? Put up or shut up.
Show me even ONE example of a place or civilization that has/had a good infrastructure without a government, or ANYTHING of what you are saying, and then we can start discussing this in earnest.
Talk about hoodwinked. You are living in a libertarian handbook boyo. At this point, I'm going to have to conclude your head is stuck in the cloud of theories, without any practical proof. Feel free to prove me wrong - I'd welcome it: I'm a big fan of minimal government interference, but I'm no anarchist.
By the way, if you seriously think the government has nothing to do with the people, not only is your head stuck in the clouds but it's a pretty cynical cloud too. There's no doubt that the government, at many levels, loses contact with the people, and doesn't do a good job representing us, but shit, man, stop whining and do something about it - it IS possible. I've seen it done. Hell, I've done it.