It is possible to account for energy use during normal use of the product (which is what makes a CFL cheaper than a traditional incandescent bulb). It is not possible to account for cost of pollution (which, in case of the CFL example, may be a major cost as a CFL is definitely more polluting than an incandescent in the disposal stage, if not recycled properly).
Unless you're getting your power from a coal plant, in which case even just grinding up the CFL at EOL releases less lifetime pollutants than the incandescent bulb (and the power used to light it) did.
The average person may not even bother with owning a traditional computer in the future, just a phone and maybe a tablet. Mozilla will get locked out of that space if they don't compete.
So what? They can and should do one thing, do it really well, and maybe add related products. Going from a web browser to an email client is somewhat reasonable - most of what they do is handle network traffic, filter, and render the results. Going from a web browser to an OS makes no sense whatsoever.
Appeals in most trials are generally granted only after evidence is shown that the initial trial was incorrect in some way - new evidence comes to light, or one of the jurors brags about taking a bribe, etc. They're not common.
For example if I rob a bank and have video and photos of me doing it, have fingerprints on the money, hell lets even say they find the money on me. There is no reason that the trial should go on and on and on, there is no reason I should be able to appeal the conviction when the facts are as clear cut.
Let's say that all that is true, but they also find your daughter kidnapped by the mob and threatened at gunpoint unless you comply. Are you sure you wouldn't want the opportunity to present your side of the story in court, preferably with the help of an attorney, even though everything you said was true?
The trouble with short-cutting a trial because "its obvious he's guilty," is that, ultimately, someone has to decide that he was obviously guilty. These days that somebody is a jury. Most people prefer that to someone in middle management declaring "obvious guilt, no need for a trial."
The pieces of data that I wouldn't want stolen (SSN, bank accounts) aren't in my personal control anyway.
Interesting examples. Your SSN is not and was never intended to be private and confidential - entities using it as both an identifier and a password were misguided to say the least. As for your bank account information, your checking routing and account numbers at least are also effectively public in that you share them with everyone you've ever handed a paper check to.
Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?
I believe that the state will be required to recognize your marriage, just as today if you marry someone in a state where, for example, the age of consent laws are more permissive than your own state that the state will recognize it just fine.
That's what makes this such a sham. All of these issues already exist, and they've already been dealt with.
That seems to be the general theme of your post: anyone willing to engage in an economic transaction must be either a scammer or a fool.
When the items concerned have no intrinsic value but exist only for arbitrage, I'd tend to agree with your characterization. With most sales, the purchaser can use the items they buy to enable other things to happen. With currency swaps, that's not the case, especially when moving from a widely accepted highly traded currency to an almost not accepted thinly traded one.
It doesn't work for everyone, that's true. Also, many people (especially those who are comfortable paying $80K for a car) will just hop on a plane to go 1,000 miles.
Thankfully even if we had 80% electric cars there will still be gasoline cars available to rent for the few days a year when you want to drive that far, just as people rent trucks from U-Haul for periodic use instead of owning them all the time, just in case.
The thing is that - for most people, most of the time, in the real world - the available presets that are guaranteed to work and to look good are, in fact, just fine. In exchange for not having a setting between 125% and 150%, Apple offers its users the security and convenience of a one-click solution that is, actually, the first one in any consumer OS that actually works and works as advertised. Even with windows spanning displays at different DPIs, everything looks "correct."
In exchange for getting all that without trying I'll happily stick to one of the five different preset levels, personally. I prefer to spend my time using my laptop rather than configuring it. But maybe that's just me.
Of course, if BitCoin was really legit and stable, why would they be selling those machines in the first place when they could just farm BC, swap it for dollars, buy more machines, lather, rinse, and repeat?
In any silly boom (some of which (tulips for example) get exceedingly silly), the solid, predictable money is made selling to the intrepid entrepreneurs. Not that long ago I had a friend who made a mint building custom enclosures for Emu and Llama down here in Texas - and anyone who invested in UPS/FedEx during the free shipping wars did just fine.
Reminds me of all the commercials for people telling you that the USD is worthless and that you should by their gold - which they're willing to give you if you'll give them your USD...
It's a stock, the value bounces up and down and if you buy right and sell right you can make some money off of it, but you should never put in more than you can stand to lose. Except you don't get to curse at a CEO for not squeezing the little guy enough to bring up the bottom line and increase the value.
See, to me that's the opposite of a stock. A share of stock is ownership in a company, making a bet that the value of the company will increase - over the long term - faster than inflation will. What you're describing is much of a lottery, where you're trying to predict the public perception (and therefore the price of the stock) rather than the intrinsic value at all. I'd agree that that's probably a fair comparison to BitCoin, FWIW, but shouldn't really be compared to fractional corporate ownership.
I've been waiting for years for that little automatically updating map that video games promised me.
Think about the possibilities of being able to grey it out too - imagine the convenience when hunting for your car keys, being able to see a ghost map on your phone of everywhere you've looked and say "Aha! That corner's missing! The extra treasure must be there!"
That's what we ended up doing with our databases - did a bunch of comparisons and ended up sticking to 15K disks and maxing out RAM instead. Even at Rackspace prices we came out ahead on price/performance.
Really though its linguistically equivalent to saying, "We promise that it won't be more than 2.5 times faster. Could even be slower - who knows - but it certainly isn't 3 times faster."
As an example, suppose I put a few years of effort into creating a nice unique web site, free for users and paid for by advertisers. Do I want that unique-ness to be copied immediately, all across the Internet, and my ad-revenue proportionately diluted, by giving away the source code? What do I deserve to earn, financially speaking, for those years of effort?
Well, you "earned" a proportional share of the value of the libraries, browsers, webservers, and other systems that you used to build that site, without which you wouldn't have yet rendered more than a few pixels. Does that count for anything?
"web server" is a thing that most people could agree on a definition of. "web site" is not - to some people it means the URL, to others the functionality, to others the code, and to others just the look and feel. Especially since you can say, "I was running the web site locally then installed it onto a new server. Its a project term, not a physical place.
We're quickly heading into a future where personal computers are merely a frame running applications which actually are web sites residing on a remote host. So pushing for the adoption of free Javascript frameworks is getting just as important as promoting free C libraries and binaries has been until now.
And yet "Web 2.0" has to be one of the most widely spread open source revolutions ever. All the popular frameworks are already free - by choice and by cultural convention. When an ecosystem comes together with a great ethos of sharing, and in fact the very transport/execution model almost requires it, but the FSF starts picking away at it anyway, you're inevitably going to get some folk who realize that whatever they do they'll get criticized and either stop trying (bad) or start actively closing stuff away to piss them off. That's the danger of an organization like the FSF transitioning deeper into the crazy zone.
So, for JavaScript, if the authors actually do their programming directly on the minified version, then distributing only that would be okay. If they don't, and use a non-minified version for development (which everyone does), then I'd want to have that original version as well before I'd call it Free software.
In fairness, nobody is actually calling it Free software. The FSF is just saying that you should stop using software that isn't Free.
This also means, btw, that you should stop obeying traffic signals, driving any car built in the last few decades, flying, or using telephones - its not as if telcom infrastructure is Free software, after all.
You can wave your hands as much as you like, nobody other than Ron Paul ought to have the right to use the domain name "ronpaul.com" to make political statements about Ron Paul.
Which Ron Paul? I mean, should the WIPO just award named domain ownership to whoever's picture comes up higher in at least 2 of the 3 leading search engines?
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible to account for energy use during normal use of the product (which is what makes a CFL cheaper than a traditional incandescent bulb). It is not possible to account for cost of pollution (which, in case of the CFL example, may be a major cost as a CFL is definitely more polluting than an incandescent in the disposal stage, if not recycled properly).
Unless you're getting your power from a coal plant, in which case even just grinding up the CFL at EOL releases less lifetime pollutants than the incandescent bulb (and the power used to light it) did.
Dude, its Mozilla. Its a required plugin.
The average person may not even bother with owning a traditional computer in the future, just a phone and maybe a tablet. Mozilla will get locked out of that space if they don't compete.
So what? They can and should do one thing, do it really well, and maybe add related products. Going from a web browser to an email client is somewhat reasonable - most of what they do is handle network traffic, filter, and render the results. Going from a web browser to an OS makes no sense whatsoever.
Appeals in most trials are generally granted only after evidence is shown that the initial trial was incorrect in some way - new evidence comes to light, or one of the jurors brags about taking a bribe, etc. They're not common.
you want to rehabilitate the person who attacked a major city in the name of religion??
Depends. Would you rather have a martyr, or someone actively campaigning against religious attacks?
For example if I rob a bank and have video and photos of me doing it, have fingerprints on the money, hell lets even say they find the money on me. There is no reason that the trial should go on and on and on, there is no reason I should be able to appeal the conviction when the facts are as clear cut.
Let's say that all that is true, but they also find your daughter kidnapped by the mob and threatened at gunpoint unless you comply. Are you sure you wouldn't want the opportunity to present your side of the story in court, preferably with the help of an attorney, even though everything you said was true?
The trouble with short-cutting a trial because "its obvious he's guilty," is that, ultimately, someone has to decide that he was obviously guilty. These days that somebody is a jury. Most people prefer that to someone in middle management declaring "obvious guilt, no need for a trial."
The pieces of data that I wouldn't want stolen (SSN, bank accounts) aren't in my personal control anyway.
Interesting examples. Your SSN is not and was never intended to be private and confidential - entities using it as both an identifier and a password were misguided to say the least. As for your bank account information, your checking routing and account numbers at least are also effectively public in that you share them with everyone you've ever handed a paper check to.
Have you ever looked at a 5NF database? They can be hugely inefficient and remarkably hard to get right.
Say you have a same-sex marriage in a state that recognizes it or a country that recognizes it. Now you move to Alabama. Are you unmarried? And can Alabama still discriminate against your marriage? Or does this just apply to the federal government?
I believe that the state will be required to recognize your marriage, just as today if you marry someone in a state where, for example, the age of consent laws are more permissive than your own state that the state will recognize it just fine.
That's what makes this such a sham. All of these issues already exist, and they've already been dealt with.
That seems to be the general theme of your post: anyone willing to engage in an economic transaction must be either a scammer or a fool.
When the items concerned have no intrinsic value but exist only for arbitrage, I'd tend to agree with your characterization. With most sales, the purchaser can use the items they buy to enable other things to happen. With currency swaps, that's not the case, especially when moving from a widely accepted highly traded currency to an almost not accepted thinly traded one.
You commute over 265 miles a day? If not, then you don't need this at all since you can charge at home, spending pennies instead of $20K.
It doesn't work for everyone, that's true. Also, many people (especially those who are comfortable paying $80K for a car) will just hop on a plane to go 1,000 miles.
Thankfully even if we had 80% electric cars there will still be gasoline cars available to rent for the few days a year when you want to drive that far, just as people rent trucks from U-Haul for periodic use instead of owning them all the time, just in case.
The thing is that - for most people, most of the time, in the real world - the available presets that are guaranteed to work and to look good are, in fact, just fine. In exchange for not having a setting between 125% and 150%, Apple offers its users the security and convenience of a one-click solution that is, actually, the first one in any consumer OS that actually works and works as advertised. Even with windows spanning displays at different DPIs, everything looks "correct."
In exchange for getting all that without trying I'll happily stick to one of the five different preset levels, personally. I prefer to spend my time using my laptop rather than configuring it. But maybe that's just me.
Of course, if BitCoin was really legit and stable, why would they be selling those machines in the first place when they could just farm BC, swap it for dollars, buy more machines, lather, rinse, and repeat?
In any silly boom (some of which (tulips for example) get exceedingly silly), the solid, predictable money is made selling to the intrepid entrepreneurs. Not that long ago I had a friend who made a mint building custom enclosures for Emu and Llama down here in Texas - and anyone who invested in UPS/FedEx during the free shipping wars did just fine.
Reminds me of all the commercials for people telling you that the USD is worthless and that you should by their gold - which they're willing to give you if you'll give them your USD...
It's a stock, the value bounces up and down and if you buy right and sell right you can make some money off of it, but you should never put in more than you can stand to lose. Except you don't get to curse at a CEO for not squeezing the little guy enough to bring up the bottom line and increase the value.
See, to me that's the opposite of a stock. A share of stock is ownership in a company, making a bet that the value of the company will increase - over the long term - faster than inflation will. What you're describing is much of a lottery, where you're trying to predict the public perception (and therefore the price of the stock) rather than the intrinsic value at all. I'd agree that that's probably a fair comparison to BitCoin, FWIW, but shouldn't really be compared to fractional corporate ownership.
I've been waiting for years for that little automatically updating map that video games promised me.
Think about the possibilities of being able to grey it out too - imagine the convenience when hunting for your car keys, being able to see a ghost map on your phone of everywhere you've looked and say "Aha! That corner's missing! The extra treasure must be there!"
That's what we ended up doing with our databases - did a bunch of comparisons and ended up sticking to 15K disks and maxing out RAM instead. Even at Rackspace prices we came out ahead on price/performance.
Really though its linguistically equivalent to saying, "We promise that it won't be more than 2.5 times faster. Could even be slower - who knows - but it certainly isn't 3 times faster."
I'm working on a project and I don't want to lose my place
Then bug the developers of the applications that you use in your project to include session save and restore.
At which point rebooting to correct the "common hiccup" will no longer work.
As an example, suppose I put a few years of effort into creating a nice unique web site, free for users and paid for by advertisers. Do I want that unique-ness to be copied immediately, all across the Internet, and my ad-revenue proportionately diluted, by giving away the source code? What do I deserve to earn, financially speaking, for those years of effort?
Well, you "earned" a proportional share of the value of the libraries, browsers, webservers, and other systems that you used to build that site, without which you wouldn't have yet rendered more than a few pixels. Does that count for anything?
"web server" is a thing that most people could agree on a definition of. "web site" is not - to some people it means the URL, to others the functionality, to others the code, and to others just the look and feel. Especially since you can say, "I was running the web site locally then installed it onto a new server. Its a project term, not a physical place.
We're quickly heading into a future where personal computers are merely a frame running applications which actually are web sites residing on a remote host. So pushing for the adoption of free Javascript frameworks is getting just as important as promoting free C libraries and binaries has been until now.
And yet "Web 2.0" has to be one of the most widely spread open source revolutions ever. All the popular frameworks are already free - by choice and by cultural convention. When an ecosystem comes together with a great ethos of sharing, and in fact the very transport/execution model almost requires it, but the FSF starts picking away at it anyway, you're inevitably going to get some folk who realize that whatever they do they'll get criticized and either stop trying (bad) or start actively closing stuff away to piss them off. That's the danger of an organization like the FSF transitioning deeper into the crazy zone.
So, for JavaScript, if the authors actually do their programming directly on the minified version, then distributing only that would be okay. If they don't, and use a non-minified version for development (which everyone does), then I'd want to have that original version as well before I'd call it Free software.
In fairness, nobody is actually calling it Free software. The FSF is just saying that you should stop using software that isn't Free.
This also means, btw, that you should stop obeying traffic signals, driving any car built in the last few decades, flying, or using telephones - its not as if telcom infrastructure is Free software, after all.
As it is, though, Stallman has zero coercive power over just about anybody, and isn't likely to obtain any more
Yup. Especially with people who've actually met him. Sadly apt username for that comment, btw.
You can wave your hands as much as you like, nobody other than Ron Paul ought to have the right to use the domain name "ronpaul.com" to make political statements about Ron Paul.
Which Ron Paul? I mean, should the WIPO just award named domain ownership to whoever's picture comes up higher in at least 2 of the 3 leading search engines?