CIA is one of the most evil organizations in the last 50 years. Following in the footsteps of other similar spy organizations like the SS and the KGB, the CIA is responsible for hundreads of thousands of deaths and for torturing many more.
I would urge Americans to limit their agents to WITHIN their country. Overthrowing other governments, killing innocent people, and spreading torture techniques is not my idea of defense. You want to protect your country? Use the agents to track and monitor people WITHIN your country. Sending them off to cause troubles in other countries is neither moral nor effective.
Countries where CIA has been complicit in kiling or torturing more than 10 people include El Salvador, Guatemla, Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and many more...
It looks like the Beagle is gone. Who knows what happened? Perhaps we will find out in 133 years when we land on Mars:)
This means that two probes to Mars failed (this one, and the recent Japanese one). I think NASA is sending two which should arrive soon. I wonder if they'll make it.
Why does it have to grow and grow and become one of some "500 Club"?
It's capitalism... if you don't grow, you die... at least that's how the system works. Capitalism is based on competition. If YOU don't grow, someone else will. And they will become powerful and crush you one day... or at least that's how I understand the system to be...
It depends on what you are exactly doing. I'm no expert in any of this but *I* would go with a standard base from some reputable large company. If you are providing a specific product and can control the rollout, your argument against adopting say the.NET platform isn't that important. YOU can determine when/if to upgrade the system. You don't really have to upgrade if it is not benefitial to you. In fact, many custom solutions are like this. Many companies are still running Windows NT, UNIX, Windows 3.11, or even DOS(!). They didn't upgrade because it isn't important to them (I imagine they WILL rollout something new in the future though). When I worked in the field, I most specialized applications were like this. The people who upgrade all the time are generally the ones that use the system for general purposes (eg. desktop) or for security purposes.
I just think the cost of building a whole system from scratch is way too high. Developing a web server (as the article mentions) is just not worth it (just like how you wouldn't really build a web browser if you need to browse some web pages or something).
Common sense once said that. However, nowadays, any individual with a public-school education knows otherwise. Therefore, this is no longer common sense. Common sense, in short, is the set of things that an average individual should know -- via schooling, teaching from ones' parents, etc etc.
I think you are overestimating the impact of school there. First of all, I don't think many people took physics. Things like that are only covered in physics and at the high school level (if I remember). Second, the vast majority of the people STILL don't know that. Do a test. Ask the next 5 people you meet whether larger masses fall at the same rate as smaller ones and they probably won't get it right.
Yes, I can. Just because people vary in height, would you claim that I can't call some tall and others short?
I would have no problem with OBJECTIVE measurements. Things like intelligence, "how dumb you are", stupidity, and so forth are subjective. I don't want to create a world where some people are labelled as being stupid by another class that thinks they somehow are not, especially when there is the implication that these people somehow "deserve" it.
Quite right. Not clicking on attachments isn't common sense yet -- at least not in most cases. I'd say there are some groups of people (particularly the young in areas with high computer use) in which this is common sense, but I'll certainly agree that it isn't, as of yet, for the general case.
More like 50 years! A LOT of people still don't use computers. It is questionable whether the majority will EVER understand computers (just like how the majority doesn't know anything about science, or arts, or whatever... each human has particular interests).
Where this differs from the Nigerian Scam is that opening email attachments is something that's new. Con men and scammers have been around for the ages, and a need for caution in financial matters has been constant for thousands of years. Stories condemning individuals who fail to exercise caution in caring for their families' fortunes have been part of the collective consciousness for ages.
But these con men are SMART. They don't use the same thing. They modify it. They add things. They modernize it. They fix the flaws. And so on. Snake oil salesmen have been around for ages. The difference is that they don't sell snake oil anymore. This means that the general population still falls for them.
I hold that the vast majority of humanity is capable of fending for themselves, and thus that protecting the relative few who are not in fact capable of such at the expense of all is foolhardy.
It may be foolhardy but it is less elitist. Under your system, who dictates that someone is dumb? For instance, why not LEGALIZE these scams? After all, the "smart ones" will not fall for it, and the "dumb ones" deserve it. Isn't that what you want? Isn't that elitist?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Let the conspiracy theories begin...
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
People won't pay for something that they can get for free. If they can download it at no cost or inconvenience, they aren't getting out the checkbook. I don't care about your.00003% exceptions to that rule. That won't fund a business.
That is not necessarily true. The poster above points out the water business. Perhaps you are overlooking something. Your reasoning reminds of a classic case that is mentioned in business courses. The founder of Fedex (who was a university student) presented a paper discussing his proposed fast-delivery business. The paper didn't receive a great grade and I think the professor even said something like 'no one is going to pay for faster mail that is 10x the cost' (I made up the words but the original quote is something similar). Needless to say, the student went on to found Fedex and it became one of the biggest corporations. You argument seems similar. You may be right but I don't know.
You may be overlooking something. For instance, customers may not want to download stuff. It may be inconvenient or it may cost them. To YOU, downloading is nothing but a computer newbie might not know or want to download (how many newbies want to hunt around on the net for packages to download?). Or the customer may not have high speed conneciton and hence would pay for a service charge....it's just like how it might seem dumb to me to pay $5 to deliver overnight mail (in the 70's or even now). But businesses were willing to pay $5 for overnight mail.
Having said all this, I take no position when it comes to your main argument. At this point in time, I don't know whether one can or cannot build a business around open-source. Maybe open-source is not possible under capitalism? Or maybe you can build a successful business around open-source? Hard to say...
--OFF-TOPIC--
I checked out your celestron page:) Sorry about the mess you are in... I know you feel angry but perhaps the company has a reason for its policy (BTW I don't know anything about telescopes... I also don't have anything to do with Celestron).
Perhaps they don't offer parts individually. Maybe they don't have it set up so that you can buy things individually. Isn't this like asking whether you can buy the right speaker of your television? The answer from Panasonic (my tv) would probably be 'no, you can't buy just the speaker'. Or how about trying to buy the handle for your vacuum? You probably can't. Perhaps your case is like that.
In my view, the things you mentioned can be overcome by geeks. Things like time management, making tough decisions, etc can be overcome. However, the thing that will kill the geeks IN MY OPINION is something like marketing/sales/customer relations. Most geeks just aren't good at that. Many don't like dealing with potential clients. Many can't pitch a deal. Many have no idea how to sell a product (we might know all the technical details but can't promote it). And so on. At least that's how *I* am and my experience from failure...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Best Lesson: True Geeks Shouldn't Start Busines
on
Make More Mistakes
·
· Score: 1
Why are you citing Startup.com? That movie has nothing to do with what you are saying. I don't see the relevance. The company in startup.com did NOT fail because of the lack of business skills. It failed for other reasons. At least that's my impression--what's yours?...
Anyway, I agree with your view. Most people don't have business skills. That doesn't mean that you can't start a business. It just means that you need to find someone else who you can partner with. I started a small computer business this year with a friend (which ultimately failed). The biggest lesson I learned is that I need someone who can do MARKETING!!! I, as well as my partner, just couldn't do marketing. We weren't comfortable making cold calls, or trying to win some customers. And so forth. I think we would have been ok on the technology side but sales&marketing was a complete failure.
Have you heard of a mortgage? Nobody said he bought the building outright.
It seemed like he bought the building outright. That was my reading of the story. Usually companies either lease or buy outright. Often companies lease instead of buying for tax advantages. From the article it seemed that he actually bought the building. I could be right; or you could be right. Not clear from the article...
I have a hard time believing you're a sucessful businessman when you're busy flaming people on slashdot.
What does this have to do with being a businessperson? He didn't agree with the advice given and pointed that out. I'm not a businessperson (I'm just an unemployed loser:( ) but even I don't agree with the article (I did start a small business this year which failed:( ). Small businesses just can't make many mistakes. Quoting the CEO of IBM seems so irrelevant to me. The vast majority of SMEs don't have enough resources to fail. A few "small" failures can bring down most SMEs.
That is a VERY GOOD point. Only LARGE companies have the resources to keep failing over and over. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel are well known for trying a million things, out of which only a few really work--but when they DO work, they work out very well. SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) barely make enough money. A few failures will bring them down--unless they are lucky.
You are overlooking the risk-return tradeoff under capitalism. A tech company is more risky than a restaurant business (of course, it depends on the specifics but I'm speaking in general). A tech company has higher rate of failure, BUT it will return higher profits IF it is successful. In general, risky companies have higher returns but have higher failure rates.
YOU would start a restaurant (or a stripe club;) ) because it is less risky. But someone else might go for a tech company because the profit margins are higher. Restaurants can bring in guaranteed revenue (assuming the location is ok and there is a market) but have VERY LOW profit margins. Restaurants are highly competitive. In contrast, a computer company will have higher margins with risky income.
So, basically we can say that YOU and your friend who opened a restaurant are more risk-averse than your other friend who opened up a software company*...
(* of course there may be other factors too. For example, your friend who opened the restaurant might know about running a restaurant but nothing about running a computer business)
First off, I object -- quite strongly -- to you taking single phrase out of my argument and ignoring the rest. That said, let me try to defend that one phrase, on the premise you're unable to find anything disagreeable with the rest.
I picked one sentence because I felt it summarized your view (your view being that people who are too stupid deserve it). I think that sentence represents your view. If not, I'm sorry; I have no intention of misrepresenting your views.
"Too good to be true" is a reference to the effect that an individual is responsible for maintaining and using some level of that thing known as "common sense".
My point is that "common sense" is next to meaningless. I personally think common sense is a conservative trait and should only be used as a last resort. Relying on common sense can lead to major mistakes. For example, common sense says that dropping a 100kg weight and a 10kg weight will result in the 100kg weight hitting the ground first. Science says that's not true. I personally rely on rationality over common sense.
In any case, common sense varies with people. You cannot claim some person is "dumb" for falling to these schemes. For example, there are MILLIONS of people clicking on attached e-mail links (attached files, links to websites, virsuses, etc). That might be dumb to a person like you, who has knowledge of computers (and hence probably never clicks on an attached file). But claiming that these people are dumb is just wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of people, in this case, are not like you. They don't know anything about computers. Claiming that these people are dumb is simply elitist. YOU are making the claim that you are "superior" in some manner to these people and these people "deserve" what they get. The same thing applies to the Nigerian Scam.
If my argument is elitist, it is such only inasmuch as it presumes that the average individual is reasonably intelligent and capable of looking out for their own best interests. Frankly, I believe that it is your position -- which presumes the average individual to be a simple-minded fool who must be protected lest they throw away their fortune -- to be elitist.
That makes no sense. How can *I* be elitist? I think it's YOU who is more elitist. Aren't you closer to the definition than me? Anyway, this whole argument is pointless (neither of us are going to fall for these scams). BUT I just don't like your reasoning. For instance, if the government introduces some insurance, or some law which allows these victims to get their money back (although this would result in citizens paying some of the cost), would you be against it? I think you would; I wouldn't!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:source code escrow not very useful
on
Source Code Escrow
·
· Score: 1
Let me tell you what. Microsoft sales / marketing is getting a BEATING re: the whole Open Source vs Closed Source issue. Open Source for better or worse is a giant buzz and people that have no idea why they do or dont want it are asking about it all the time.
I highly doubt MS is losing the marketing war. If your assertion is correct, how come companies aren't using open-source software? Where are the linux sales? How many are using mySQL? Or Postgresql? How many use Openoffice.org?
...I have a responsibility to myself and to those whom I care for to recognize it as too good to be true...
What exactly is too good to be true? I mean, there are millions of people being ripped off by 'too good to be true' scams. One just needs to look at the stock market, or puchase of cars, or houses, or whatever. There is no such thing as 'too good to be true' because people have different thresholds. You cannot use that. Someone selling me a corporate bond with a return of 15% might be too good to be true for you. But maybe not to me. To me, it might seem reasonable, especially if the scammer justifies it using some finance-speak which I might not fully understand.
Your argument is elitist. You might be ok with it but I certainly don't think it is helping anyone in society... you have to put yourself in other people's shoes...
It seems that you are very displeased with banks. You have lost faith in them and I can understand that given what you wen through. But what is the alternative? What do you do with your money?
Do you keep it in your home? (do not answer if it will impact your security). If yes, how do you protect it from thieves? What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your money? Or how about a fire? What if a fire burns down all your cash in your house?
Like I said, it is very risky for you to keep money at home or something. We live under capitalism and one is pretty much forced to keep money in banks for various reasons. I'm not a capitalist but I see no alternative at this point in time. You declared war on banks and I don't know if you realize this but financial institutions (such as banks, stock markets, etc) are the HEART of capitalism. You are literally fighting the most powerful institution under capitalism. You are trying to live your live without the most powerful thing.
The $235
The $235 in my example is not supposed to be something that I'm flashing at you. This isn't "keeping up with the Jonses". We are talking about inflation. Your money will be worth LESS in the future. The $235 is for one year. Over a period of 20 or 30 years, you will be worse off by tens of thousands of dollars (relative to my hypothetical position). This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with YOU maintaining the value of your money over the long term. I'm not talking about MATERIALISM. I'm like you in that I don't care what others do. I'm unemployed now but even if I have a job, I don't care about living in mansion with a luxury car. I'm pretty cool with a typical house with typical car. BUT I think it is imperative that my money does not lose its value over the long term. I have no money now (since I'm unemployed and young), but if I did have money, I cannot let it be worth little in 30 years from now!
The cost of ALL goods will increase due to inflation while YOUR MONEY won't! That's what I'm getting at. If goods cost $200 more (or whatever the inflation will be), you will afford even less. The situation I'm talking about is inflation only (and not rich people jacking up the price of houses and stuff like that).
When you are working, the impact of all this may not be that big. People's wages increase with inflation (HOPEFULLY!) so you'll be ok. But when you have to rely on fixed income (as retirees or others have to), that's when the problem shows up. You have to live off the money you saved up and it won't be worth as much as it should be (relative to society).
Perhaps you have a better idea of how my viewpoint makes things like inflation seem very small compared to all the other aspects of the entire financial picture.
The thing with inflation, at least to me, is that it is VERY IMPORTANT. It can ADD UP. Interest rates are exponential so the value of your money can decrease very rapidly. I think it is important to keep up with that. $235 is nothing but over 20 years, it will turn into $10,000 (or more). Yes it can. I can do the calculation for you (if you want).
I demand a return to a civilization where your extra $235 can benefit you, but not at my expense... where you can buy a larger house, but that has no effect upon mine. Do you think we can achieve that? I envision stopping the cycles of boom and bust with musings like this.
This all depends on your econopolitical views. I'm a leftist and my view is that it isn't possible under capitalism. Over 150 years ago, Karl Marx predicted the boom & bust cycle of capitalism. My view is that it is intrinsic to capitalism--no way around it. Marx also remarked how the booms and recessions result in wealthy people getting even more wealthy. For instance, during the late 90's boom, only a select few really got rich. People in the tech industry may be benefitted a lot (since they were involved) but for t
There is no such thing as taking compassion too far!!!
As far as Hitler is concerned, can you prove that it was his upbringing that made him do what he did? If anything, Hitler did what he did because of the ideology he supported. It wasn't his upbrining. There were/are tons of wealthy people, smart people, etc that support fascism--even to this day. In any case, why would someone feel sympathy for Hilter? Compassion and empathy comes from some terrible thing that happens to a person. It NEVER justifies the victim's deeds, regardless of what those deeds are.
Somewhere you have to draw a line and say that this person is to blame for his screw up and then stick it to him.
What exactly is "stick[ing] it to him"? Are you one, like some on Slashdot, that want to criminilize mistakes? The problem with the world is not this guy. No he isn't. Instead, the problem is people like you... people who want to hurt those making mistakes and possibly create a fascist society where "stupidity" leads to death...
Yes I'm angry at the Slashdot response... All of you lack a heart... and on Christmas to boot...:(
Yes, religious people are more gullible--especially when the scammer is a master manipulator of religion. One needs to look no further than the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, they are a religious organization. Just go and read the KKK Charter and you'll find that they justify everything from the Bible. Anyway, so many people actually BELIEVE what the grand dragons of the KKK say about religion. They are just too gullible.
Or one just needs to look at certain countries where religious "leaders" have the following of mass number of people even though the so-called leaders are discredited.
I also think conservatives are more likely to fall for these scams. Conservatives have a habit of living in caves and are more likely to be manipulated. I have no proof of this but I would love to hear of anyone that has done any study tying econopolitical stance with scams.
That's not why... The reason cops in Nigeria probably don't care is because this is the 3rd largest industry in Nigeria (according to the article). This must mean that there are thousands of people employed in the business. It's very hard for the goverment to crack down on something that the people live off of... kind of like how the Afghan government does almost nothing to poppy production because the people will starve if they shut them down (unless the UN or USA/EU compensates them)... or how prostitution (including underage girls) is so rampant in some parts of Southeast Asia and no one does anything because it is a big industry employing tens of thousands of people, with many trickle-down benefits...
I'm tired of everyone saying the people who get scammed are innocent but stupid. They may be stupid, but they're not innocent. They all knew something shady was going on; they just didn't realize it was at their expense.
All of you on Slashdot dissing this old person should be ashamed of yourselves. Most of you are laughing now but wait until something like this happens to you. You people don't realize that these are sophisticated operations. It isn't just an e-mail and that's that. Did you even read the article? If people can fly you around the world, set up fake guards, metal cases filled with cash, etc, it is SO EASY for someone to fall for that. None of you have any idea how sophisticated scammers are.
It's just too bad you guys attribute all this to stupidity (what the hell is stupidity anyway? Are you stupid for falling to George "Warmonger" Bush's lies of WMD in Iraq?). Until you guys get defrauded on a car you buy, or a house you buy, or a vacation, or whatever, you are all living in your glass houses throwing stones at the victims.
(No, I haven't lost any money on anything like this. But I just feel sad and angry at the hostility directed by the Slashdot crowd towards the victim. It isn' that surprising to me though. Most people here are conservatives and quite clueless on these issues, not to mention heartless:( )
That's capitalism. I don't know what your problem is. If you support capitalism (I don't but you probably do), your argument is worth nothing. If we follow your reasoning, people who default on any debt should be thrown in jail too. After all, interest rates are higher than they should be because of expected risk of default. And people whose house burns down should be sent to jail too. I mean, your insurance is higher than it should be because of a few extra fires.
What sort of idiotic reasoning is that? Your SELFISH impulses are making you behave irrationally. People have the RIGHT to do whatever they want. There are currency traders who purposely crash a country's currency in order to profit from it. That's ok. So why isn't this?
The problem is when people get addicted to it. Spending a few dollars, or even a few hundread in an year, is not bad. But spending thousands can destroy people's lives.
If playing the lottery is ok, is the casino ok too? In both cases, it is ADDICTION that is the problem...
In any case, the view that it is a "tax" on the poor is correct. The people who play lotteries are the poor and only a FEW win. The loterry companies extract more from the lower classes than they give back (that's why they are in business and make billions).
A test like that is used quite often in social sciences, including economics. There was a recent study which proved that men who look at sexy women become dumber. They used a test similar to yours (although the purpose was different and the expected value was not equal in this study).
Anyway, I think your test can be used to determine how risk-averse someone is. To make it more accurate, you should increase the base value from $1 to say $10,000. That way the lower outcomes are valued well. So my answer would be:
In the $1 case that you presented, I would pick one with probably $200,000+ outcome. I always consider $200,000 to be a good number. But it would depend on the probability (I'm not sure how small the probability is at that point). I would ignore anything less than 30% probability.
If the minimum value was something like $10,000, I would pick the $10,000 one. I'm risk averse and poor/unemployed so guaranteed income is important. If I was employed had a salary of $50,000+, I would pick something else (proably more like the $200,000 outcome or something--depends on probability).
Slashdot Mirror
CIA is one of the most evil organizations in the last 50 years. Following in the footsteps of other similar spy organizations like the SS and the KGB, the CIA is responsible for hundreads of thousands of deaths and for torturing many more.
:(:(:(
I would urge Americans to limit their agents to WITHIN their country. Overthrowing other governments, killing innocent people, and spreading torture techniques is not my idea of defense. You want to protect your country? Use the agents to track and monitor people WITHIN your country. Sending them off to cause troubles in other countries is neither moral nor effective.
Countries where CIA has been complicit in kiling or torturing more than 10 people include El Salvador, Guatemla, Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and many more...
CIA blowbacks include Iraqgate (money laundering to Iraq via Banca de la Franca), Iran-Contra (no comment), Usama bin Laden (contrary to US govt propaganda, he learned all his techniques off the CIA), and so forth. Then again, nothing out of the CIA should surprise anyone. I mean, this is the same organization that saved (and was influenced by) some of the most cruel Nazi war criminals. (another story here)
I guess I just got blacklisted for that...fuck the CIA and everything that it stands for
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It looks like the Beagle is gone. Who knows what happened? Perhaps we will find out in 133 years when we land on Mars :)
This means that two probes to Mars failed (this one, and the recent Japanese one). I think NASA is sending two which should arrive soon. I wonder if they'll make it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why does it have to grow and grow and become one of some "500 Club"?
It's capitalism... if you don't grow, you die... at least that's how the system works. Capitalism is based on competition. If YOU don't grow, someone else will. And they will become powerful and crush you one day... or at least that's how I understand the system to be...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It depends on what you are exactly doing. I'm no expert in any of this but *I* would go with a standard base from some reputable large company. If you are providing a specific product and can control the rollout, your argument against adopting say the .NET platform isn't that important. YOU can determine when/if to upgrade the system. You don't really have to upgrade if it is not benefitial to you. In fact, many custom solutions are like this. Many companies are still running Windows NT, UNIX, Windows 3.11, or even DOS(!). They didn't upgrade because it isn't important to them (I imagine they WILL rollout something new in the future though). When I worked in the field, I most specialized applications were like this. The people who upgrade all the time are generally the ones that use the system for general purposes (eg. desktop) or for security purposes.
I just think the cost of building a whole system from scratch is way too high. Developing a web server (as the article mentions) is just not worth it (just like how you wouldn't really build a web browser if you need to browse some web pages or something).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Common sense once said that. However, nowadays, any individual with a public-school education knows otherwise. Therefore, this is no longer common sense. Common sense, in short, is the set of things that an average individual should know -- via schooling, teaching from ones' parents, etc etc.
I think you are overestimating the impact of school there. First of all, I don't think many people took physics. Things like that are only covered in physics and at the high school level (if I remember). Second, the vast majority of the people STILL don't know that. Do a test. Ask the next 5 people you meet whether larger masses fall at the same rate as smaller ones and they probably won't get it right.
Yes, I can. Just because people vary in height, would you claim that I can't call some tall and others short?
I would have no problem with OBJECTIVE measurements. Things like intelligence, "how dumb you are", stupidity, and so forth are subjective. I don't want to create a world where some people are labelled as being stupid by another class that thinks they somehow are not, especially when there is the implication that these people somehow "deserve" it.
Quite right. Not clicking on attachments isn't common sense yet -- at least not in most cases. I'd say there are some groups of people (particularly the young in areas with high computer use) in which this is common sense, but I'll certainly agree that it isn't, as of yet, for the general case.
More like 50 years! A LOT of people still don't use computers. It is questionable whether the majority will EVER understand computers (just like how the majority doesn't know anything about science, or arts, or whatever... each human has particular interests).
Where this differs from the Nigerian Scam is that opening email attachments is something that's new. Con men and scammers have been around for the ages, and a need for caution in financial matters has been constant for thousands of years. Stories condemning individuals who fail to exercise caution in caring for their families' fortunes have been part of the collective consciousness for ages.
But these con men are SMART. They don't use the same thing. They modify it. They add things. They modernize it. They fix the flaws. And so on. Snake oil salesmen have been around for ages. The difference is that they don't sell snake oil anymore. This means that the general population still falls for them.
I hold that the vast majority of humanity is capable of fending for themselves, and thus that protecting the relative few who are not in fact capable of such at the expense of all is foolhardy.
It may be foolhardy but it is less elitist. Under your system, who dictates that someone is dumb? For instance, why not LEGALIZE these scams? After all, the "smart ones" will not fall for it, and the "dumb ones" deserve it. Isn't that what you want? Isn't that elitist?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
People won't pay for something that they can get for free. If they can download it at no cost or inconvenience, they aren't getting out the checkbook. I don't care about your .00003% exceptions to that rule. That won't fund a business.
:) Sorry about the mess you are in... I know you feel angry but perhaps the company has a reason for its policy (BTW I don't know anything about telescopes... I also don't have anything to do with Celestron).
That is not necessarily true. The poster above points out the water business. Perhaps you are overlooking something. Your reasoning reminds of a classic case that is mentioned in business courses. The founder of Fedex (who was a university student) presented a paper discussing his proposed fast-delivery business. The paper didn't receive a great grade and I think the professor even said something like 'no one is going to pay for faster mail that is 10x the cost' (I made up the words but the original quote is something similar). Needless to say, the student went on to found Fedex and it became one of the biggest corporations. You argument seems similar. You may be right but I don't know.
You may be overlooking something. For instance, customers may not want to download stuff. It may be inconvenient or it may cost them. To YOU, downloading is nothing but a computer newbie might not know or want to download (how many newbies want to hunt around on the net for packages to download?). Or the customer may not have high speed conneciton and hence would pay for a service charge....it's just like how it might seem dumb to me to pay $5 to deliver overnight mail (in the 70's or even now). But businesses were willing to pay $5 for overnight mail.
Having said all this, I take no position when it comes to your main argument. At this point in time, I don't know whether one can or cannot build a business around open-source. Maybe open-source is not possible under capitalism? Or maybe you can build a successful business around open-source? Hard to say...
--OFF-TOPIC--
I checked out your celestron page
Perhaps they don't offer parts individually. Maybe they don't have it set up so that you can buy things individually. Isn't this like asking whether you can buy the right speaker of your television? The answer from Panasonic (my tv) would probably be 'no, you can't buy just the speaker'. Or how about trying to buy the handle for your vacuum? You probably can't. Perhaps your case is like that.
BTW, how much do these telescopes cost?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What's an S-corporation?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
In my view, the things you mentioned can be overcome by geeks. Things like time management, making tough decisions, etc can be overcome. However, the thing that will kill the geeks IN MY OPINION is something like marketing/sales/customer relations. Most geeks just aren't good at that. Many don't like dealing with potential clients. Many can't pitch a deal. Many have no idea how to sell a product (we might know all the technical details but can't promote it). And so on. At least that's how *I* am and my experience from failure...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Why are you citing Startup.com? That movie has nothing to do with what you are saying. I don't see the relevance. The company in startup.com did NOT fail because of the lack of business skills. It failed for other reasons. At least that's my impression--what's yours?...
Anyway, I agree with your view. Most people don't have business skills. That doesn't mean that you can't start a business. It just means that you need to find someone else who you can partner with. I started a small computer business this year with a friend (which ultimately failed). The biggest lesson I learned is that I need someone who can do MARKETING!!! I, as well as my partner, just couldn't do marketing. We weren't comfortable making cold calls, or trying to win some customers. And so forth. I think we would have been ok on the technology side but sales&marketing was a complete failure.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Have you heard of a mortgage? Nobody said he bought the building outright.
:( ) but even I don't agree with the article (I did start a small business this year which failed :( ). Small businesses just can't make many mistakes. Quoting the CEO of IBM seems so irrelevant to me. The vast majority of SMEs don't have enough resources to fail. A few "small" failures can bring down most SMEs.
It seemed like he bought the building outright. That was my reading of the story. Usually companies either lease or buy outright. Often companies lease instead of buying for tax advantages. From the article it seemed that he actually bought the building. I could be right; or you could be right. Not clear from the article...
I have a hard time believing you're a sucessful businessman when you're busy flaming people on slashdot.
What does this have to do with being a businessperson? He didn't agree with the advice given and pointed that out. I'm not a businessperson (I'm just an unemployed loser
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That is a VERY GOOD point. Only LARGE companies have the resources to keep failing over and over. Companies like Microsoft, IBM, and Intel are well known for trying a million things, out of which only a few really work--but when they DO work, they work out very well. SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) barely make enough money. A few failures will bring them down--unless they are lucky.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are overlooking the risk-return tradeoff under capitalism. A tech company is more risky than a restaurant business (of course, it depends on the specifics but I'm speaking in general). A tech company has higher rate of failure, BUT it will return higher profits IF it is successful. In general, risky companies have higher returns but have higher failure rates.
;) ) because it is less risky. But someone else might go for a tech company because the profit margins are higher. Restaurants can bring in guaranteed revenue (assuming the location is ok and there is a market) but have VERY LOW profit margins. Restaurants are highly competitive. In contrast, a computer company will have higher margins with risky income.
YOU would start a restaurant (or a stripe club
So, basically we can say that YOU and your friend who opened a restaurant are more risk-averse than your other friend who opened up a software company*...
(* of course there may be other factors too. For example, your friend who opened the restaurant might know about running a restaurant but nothing about running a computer business)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First off, I object -- quite strongly -- to you taking single phrase out of my argument and ignoring the rest. That said, let me try to defend that one phrase, on the premise you're unable to find anything disagreeable with the rest.
I picked one sentence because I felt it summarized your view (your view being that people who are too stupid deserve it). I think that sentence represents your view. If not, I'm sorry; I have no intention of misrepresenting your views.
"Too good to be true" is a reference to the effect that an individual is responsible for maintaining and using some level of that thing known as "common sense".
My point is that "common sense" is next to meaningless. I personally think common sense is a conservative trait and should only be used as a last resort. Relying on common sense can lead to major mistakes. For example, common sense says that dropping a 100kg weight and a 10kg weight will result in the 100kg weight hitting the ground first. Science says that's not true. I personally rely on rationality over common sense.
In any case, common sense varies with people. You cannot claim some person is "dumb" for falling to these schemes. For example, there are MILLIONS of people clicking on attached e-mail links (attached files, links to websites, virsuses, etc). That might be dumb to a person like you, who has knowledge of computers (and hence probably never clicks on an attached file). But claiming that these people are dumb is just wrong. The VAST MAJORITY of people, in this case, are not like you. They don't know anything about computers. Claiming that these people are dumb is simply elitist. YOU are making the claim that you are "superior" in some manner to these people and these people "deserve" what they get. The same thing applies to the Nigerian Scam.
If my argument is elitist, it is such only inasmuch as it presumes that the average individual is reasonably intelligent and capable of looking out for their own best interests. Frankly, I believe that it is your position -- which presumes the average individual to be a simple-minded fool who must be protected lest they throw away their fortune -- to be elitist.
That makes no sense. How can *I* be elitist? I think it's YOU who is more elitist. Aren't you closer to the definition than me? Anyway, this whole argument is pointless (neither of us are going to fall for these scams). BUT I just don't like your reasoning. For instance, if the government introduces some insurance, or some law which allows these victims to get their money back (although this would result in citizens paying some of the cost), would you be against it? I think you would; I wouldn't!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Let me tell you what. Microsoft sales / marketing is getting a BEATING re: the whole Open Source vs Closed Source issue. Open Source for better or worse is a giant buzz and people that have no idea why they do or dont want it are asking about it all the time.
I highly doubt MS is losing the marketing war. If your assertion is correct, how come companies aren't using open-source software? Where are the linux sales? How many are using mySQL? Or Postgresql? How many use Openoffice.org?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
...I have a responsibility to myself and to those whom I care for to recognize it as too good to be true...
What exactly is too good to be true? I mean, there are millions of people being ripped off by 'too good to be true' scams. One just needs to look at the stock market, or puchase of cars, or houses, or whatever. There is no such thing as 'too good to be true' because people have different thresholds. You cannot use that. Someone selling me a corporate bond with a return of 15% might be too good to be true for you. But maybe not to me. To me, it might seem reasonable, especially if the scammer justifies it using some finance-speak which I might not fully understand.
Your argument is elitist. You might be ok with it but I certainly don't think it is helping anyone in society... you have to put yourself in other people's shoes...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Christmas Troll,
You are pretty slow with your messages...
Sincerely,
The Enemy of Trolls
Banks
... where you can buy a larger house, but that has no effect upon mine. Do you think we can achieve that? I envision stopping the cycles of boom and bust with musings like this.
It seems that you are very displeased with banks. You have lost faith in them and I can understand that given what you wen through. But what is the alternative? What do you do with your money?
Do you keep it in your home? (do not answer if it will impact your security). If yes, how do you protect it from thieves? What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your money? Or how about a fire? What if a fire burns down all your cash in your house?
Like I said, it is very risky for you to keep money at home or something. We live under capitalism and one is pretty much forced to keep money in banks for various reasons. I'm not a capitalist but I see no alternative at this point in time. You declared war on banks and I don't know if you realize this but financial institutions (such as banks, stock markets, etc) are the HEART of capitalism. You are literally fighting the most powerful institution under capitalism. You are trying to live your live without the most powerful thing.
The $235
The $235 in my example is not supposed to be something that I'm flashing at you. This isn't "keeping up with the Jonses". We are talking about inflation. Your money will be worth LESS in the future. The $235 is for one year. Over a period of 20 or 30 years, you will be worse off by tens of thousands of dollars (relative to my hypothetical position). This has nothing to do with me. This has to do with YOU maintaining the value of your money over the long term. I'm not talking about MATERIALISM. I'm like you in that I don't care what others do. I'm unemployed now but even if I have a job, I don't care about living in mansion with a luxury car. I'm pretty cool with a typical house with typical car. BUT I think it is imperative that my money does not lose its value over the long term. I have no money now (since I'm unemployed and young), but if I did have money, I cannot let it be worth little in 30 years from now!
The cost of ALL goods will increase due to inflation while YOUR MONEY won't! That's what I'm getting at. If goods cost $200 more (or whatever the inflation will be), you will afford even less. The situation I'm talking about is inflation only (and not rich people jacking up the price of houses and stuff like that).
When you are working, the impact of all this may not be that big. People's wages increase with inflation (HOPEFULLY!) so you'll be ok. But when you have to rely on fixed income (as retirees or others have to), that's when the problem shows up. You have to live off the money you saved up and it won't be worth as much as it should be (relative to society).
Perhaps you have a better idea of how my viewpoint makes things like inflation seem very small compared to all the other aspects of the entire financial picture.
The thing with inflation, at least to me, is that it is VERY IMPORTANT. It can ADD UP. Interest rates are exponential so the value of your money can decrease very rapidly. I think it is important to keep up with that. $235 is nothing but over 20 years, it will turn into $10,000 (or more). Yes it can. I can do the calculation for you (if you want).
I demand a return to a civilization where your extra $235 can benefit you, but not at my expense
This all depends on your econopolitical views. I'm a leftist and my view is that it isn't possible under capitalism. Over 150 years ago, Karl Marx predicted the boom & bust cycle of capitalism. My view is that it is intrinsic to capitalism--no way around it. Marx also remarked how the booms and recessions result in wealthy people getting even more wealthy. For instance, during the late 90's boom, only a select few really got rich. People in the tech industry may be benefitted a lot (since they were involved) but for t
Third Post
Merry Christmas to all...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no such thing as taking compassion too far!!!
:(
As far as Hitler is concerned, can you prove that it was his upbringing that made him do what he did? If anything, Hitler did what he did because of the ideology he supported. It wasn't his upbrining. There were/are tons of wealthy people, smart people, etc that support fascism--even to this day. In any case, why would someone feel sympathy for Hilter? Compassion and empathy comes from some terrible thing that happens to a person. It NEVER justifies the victim's deeds, regardless of what those deeds are.
Somewhere you have to draw a line and say that this person is to blame for his screw up and then stick it to him.
What exactly is "stick[ing] it to him"? Are you one, like some on Slashdot, that want to criminilize mistakes? The problem with the world is not this guy. No he isn't. Instead, the problem is people like you... people who want to hurt those making mistakes and possibly create a fascist society where "stupidity" leads to death...
Yes I'm angry at the Slashdot response... All of you lack a heart... and on Christmas to boot...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes, religious people are more gullible--especially when the scammer is a master manipulator of religion. One needs to look no further than the Ku Klux Klan. Yes, they are a religious organization. Just go and read the KKK Charter and you'll find that they justify everything from the Bible. Anyway, so many people actually BELIEVE what the grand dragons of the KKK say about religion. They are just too gullible.
Or one just needs to look at certain countries where religious "leaders" have the following of mass number of people even though the so-called leaders are discredited.
I also think conservatives are more likely to fall for these scams. Conservatives have a habit of living in caves and are more likely to be manipulated. I have no proof of this but I would love to hear of anyone that has done any study tying econopolitical stance with scams.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's not why... The reason cops in Nigeria probably don't care is because this is the 3rd largest industry in Nigeria (according to the article). This must mean that there are thousands of people employed in the business. It's very hard for the goverment to crack down on something that the people live off of... kind of like how the Afghan government does almost nothing to poppy production because the people will starve if they shut them down (unless the UN or USA/EU compensates them)... or how prostitution (including underage girls) is so rampant in some parts of Southeast Asia and no one does anything because it is a big industry employing tens of thousands of people, with many trickle-down benefits...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This message isn't necessarily directed at you...
:( )
I'm tired of everyone saying the people who get scammed are innocent but stupid. They may be stupid, but they're not innocent. They all knew something shady was going on; they just didn't realize it was at their expense.
All of you on Slashdot dissing this old person should be ashamed of yourselves. Most of you are laughing now but wait until something like this happens to you. You people don't realize that these are sophisticated operations. It isn't just an e-mail and that's that. Did you even read the article? If people can fly you around the world, set up fake guards, metal cases filled with cash, etc, it is SO EASY for someone to fall for that. None of you have any idea how sophisticated scammers are.
It's just too bad you guys attribute all this to stupidity (what the hell is stupidity anyway? Are you stupid for falling to George "Warmonger" Bush's lies of WMD in Iraq?). Until you guys get defrauded on a car you buy, or a house you buy, or a vacation, or whatever, you are all living in your glass houses throwing stones at the victims.
(No, I haven't lost any money on anything like this. But I just feel sad and angry at the hostility directed by the Slashdot crowd towards the victim. It isn' that surprising to me though. Most people here are conservatives and quite clueless on these issues, not to mention heartless
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's capitalism. I don't know what your problem is. If you support capitalism (I don't but you probably do), your argument is worth nothing. If we follow your reasoning, people who default on any debt should be thrown in jail too. After all, interest rates are higher than they should be because of expected risk of default. And people whose house burns down should be sent to jail too. I mean, your insurance is higher than it should be because of a few extra fires.
What sort of idiotic reasoning is that? Your SELFISH impulses are making you behave irrationally. People have the RIGHT to do whatever they want. There are currency traders who purposely crash a country's currency in order to profit from it. That's ok. So why isn't this?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The problem is when people get addicted to it. Spending a few dollars, or even a few hundread in an year, is not bad. But spending thousands can destroy people's lives.
If playing the lottery is ok, is the casino ok too? In both cases, it is ADDICTION that is the problem...
In any case, the view that it is a "tax" on the poor is correct. The people who play lotteries are the poor and only a FEW win. The loterry companies extract more from the lower classes than they give back (that's why they are in business and make billions).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
A test like that is used quite often in social sciences, including economics. There was a recent study which proved that men who look at sexy women become dumber. They used a test similar to yours (although the purpose was different and the expected value was not equal in this study).
Anyway, I think your test can be used to determine how risk-averse someone is. To make it more accurate, you should increase the base value from $1 to say $10,000. That way the lower outcomes are valued well. So my answer would be:
In the $1 case that you presented, I would pick one with probably $200,000+ outcome. I always consider $200,000 to be a good number. But it would depend on the probability (I'm not sure how small the probability is at that point). I would ignore anything less than 30% probability.
If the minimum value was something like $10,000, I would pick the $10,000 one. I'm risk averse and poor/unemployed so guaranteed income is important. If I was employed had a salary of $50,000+, I would pick something else (proably more like the $200,000 outcome or something--depends on probability).
Sivaram Velauthapillai