Puff the Magic Blowfish, lived in the sea And frolicked in the SCSI disk in a land called Bee Ess Dee. Little Theo de Raadt loved that rascal puff, And brought him threads and interrupts and other fancy stuff!
The difference between Star Trek and Star Wars fans: Star Trek fans can get laid.
p.s. They get laid with overweight chicks in Klingon costume and makeup who tend to whine quite a bit about their "issues", but at least they get laid. The best Star Wars fans can hope for is a lubricated foam rubber Yoda handpuppet to wield their light saber.
Yet we have no problem with the economically ignorant voting. The vast majority of voters don't know the first thing about economics, but they're still voting for things like wage and price controls, income redistribution, trade restrictions, etc. Most people, probably including yourself, believe all sorts of impossible things. Like how tarrifs protects jobs, how taxes aren't a drain on the economy, how minimum wages don't reduce employment, etc.
People who know economics may still vote for these things, but at least they will be able to rationally weigh the costs against the benefits. Economics is far more central to our lives than evolution, yet its a subject that's nearly absent in public schools.
Most people who hold to evolution aren't thinking either. They're just believing what others have told them. The number of people who have examined their initial axioms and then used logical reasoning to reach the conclusion that evolution is probable is a very small number.
Maybe the problem is "public education". Why should a federal administrator three thousand miles away know what's better for a child than the parents themselves? Government should not be everyone's nanny.
While the abolition of government schools is not remotely feasible, there are a few things we can do to remove our children's education from the control of Bush/Pelosi. Put control back in the hands of the local counties. Legalize home schooling in all states. And provide a full tax credit (not voucher) for parents who opt out of the public school system by choosing private schools or homeschooling.
I am not a supporter of assassination. Let me repeat that again so that you have no confusion: I am not a supporter of assassination. However, if you are going to be exerting coercive military force, a small focused assassination is far less intrusive than massive military mobilization. Or trade sanctions, for that matter.
Why is it that we insist on freedom of thought, unless it's thought we don't want people thinking? Am I the only one who sees the inherent hypocrisy of orthodox free thought?
You're not going to Hell for not having a literalist interpretation of Genesis. But... neither is society going to hell in a handbasket because not enough people believe in evolution. It's okay if your auto mechanic believes something different from you. Your software isn't any better or worse because an evolutionist|creationist wrote it.
Really, it's no big deal. Take a deep breath and relax. You'll find you'll live longer for it.
But I don't accept your claim that the Republicans are no worse than Democrats in this respect. Just how they deal with evolution and global warming, at least in Bush's reign, is much worse than anything I can recall a Democratic leadership doing. Perhaps you'd like to give some counter examples?
You're right. Democrat shit don't stink! What's their 2008 campaing slogan going to be? "7.3% less corrupt than the other guys"?
The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science! As long as some government official, bureaucrat or politician can gain a bit of power by manipulating science, they will. The separation of church and state has proven to be a great success. Let's take it one step further and have a separation of science and state.
To quote an old saying: "Capitalism is the worst economic system... except for all the others."
But even that is a product of mistaken thinking. Capitalism isn't a system. It's the absence of a system. In every other economic environment, there is a system of planning to direct economic activities. But economic activity is *human* activity, and you cannot plan an economy without some level of tyranny to coerce humans to the planners will. Capitalism (as the term is commonly used) is synonymous with freedom. There is not system. There is no dictator directing human behavior. Just free people interacting with each other voluntarily. All the rest of the economy arises from that.
Typically a business will pay its salesmen on commission. This has the result that the highest paid salesmen are also your most productive salesmen. They pay for themselves.
To lay off your most productive salesmen is an act of supreme stupidity.
...when in fact there seems to be a straightforward solution.
Of course there are straightforward solutions! People have been putting forth sensible, rational, straightforward solutions to Wikipedia for years. But these proposals have been ignored by wikpedians refusing to believe that there are any significant problems.
This topic sounds suspiciously like the middle manager who refuses to hear your solutions to severe problems, and then when a new CEO is brought in because the company is tanking, submits your ideas as his own, and gets a nice promotion out of the deal.
While the company has the responsibility to read the license, whoever sold/promoted/encouraged their use of Linux has a responsibility not to imply that it is unencumbered. The GPL is VERY encumbered, yet "unencumbered" is one of the definitions of "free".
Hmmm. In my book, calmly stating that you're going to beat the living shit out of someone because of an insult earns a place rather higher up on the crazy-sociopath-worth-avoiding list than making totally implausible, exaggerated threats in an anonymous forum.
Not all those threats are implausible or exaggerated. The police are taking the threats to Kathy seriously. Remember that she only posted the *tamest* of them.
As for my warning, I'm hardly abnormal in this regard. I would suggest that you get out into the real world and viciously insult someone's mother to their face. See what happens. It doesn't matter if you end up winning the lawsuit against the biker after you told him his mother used to be a fluffer on a horse farm, your face will still be smashed in. This isn't kindergarten where you can hide behind your teacher's skirts after you insult another kid. This is real life where words do indeed have consequences.
If history has taught us anything, it's that human beings are not paragons of restraint. We are imperfect beings. You deliberately provoke us and we will react. The world is not what you wish it to be, the world is what it is. I suggest you meditate on this truth.
I find it amusing as all hell that the mainstream media is foaming at the mouth over blogging "irregularities". This is the same media that has never once apologized for blowing up trucks to prove that they're unsafe; presenting obviously forged documents as genuine; buying photoshopped images from partisans; failing to check that their key sources even exist; etc; etc.
Not only don't I believe anything I read on the intertubes, I don't believe anything I read in the papers, hear on the radio, or see on television.
People don't talk like in the real world because they know there are consequences. If someone said to my mom what some have said to Kathy, I'd beat the living shit out of them! Most of you would as well. But once we get online and start posting anonymously, there are no consequences. We can say the most vile and violent things and people act like it's normal.
We will adapt though. The days of freewheeling indiscriminate anonymous posting is coming to an end. There are too many posts to moderate them all, but blogs can (and are) moderate the posters themselves, by requiring pre-registration. This isn't an infringement against free speech, it's common sense. If you want to say something vile and violent, do it on your own site.
The Matewan case is not so straightfoward. The workers were being evicted from company property. Pinkerton, however, should have been dissolved and its owners imprisoned. Not because they were exemplars of a free market, but because they were extramarket criminals. The only legitimate role of government in a free market is to protect the lives and properties of the people. By deliberately and willfully turning an eye to the excesses of Pinkerton, the government failed in its responsibilities.
Just because some people are criminals does not make everyone a criminal. The fact that some criminals over a century ago broke strikes by breaking legs DOES NOT mean that it's the normal state of events today! The grandparent post was not insightful, it was idiotic.
Businesses will, of course, attempt collusion. It's only natural. It's something we as individuals do all the time, so why should we behave any differently when we go to work? And just as a tiny minority of us individuals may commit crimes, a tiny minority of businessmen may as well. But that's not the point.
My thesis is that collusion is not a successful business strategy. In a normal business climate it will always fail. Even in abnormal business climates, collusions are incredibly fragile. All it takes is one member to bail and they evaporate.
In the case of music price fixing, in your first link, it was not every distributor, only some of the larger ones. But beyond that, it isn't a normal business climate. They had exclusive music deals only because the government gave them guarantees of exclusivity, via the mechanism of copyright monopolies. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any partially successful monopoly, cartel or collusion that did not have government as a willing accomplice. Copyrights, patents, trade barriers, entry restrictions, etc., are not elements of a free market.
There are plenty of unsuccessful collusions, however. Your links are all examples. If they were successful they wouldn't have been caught, tried and punished. So yes, you are correct that businesses will attempt to price fix. But the cases of successful price fixing are few and far between, and require the application of government power to function.
Slashdot Mirror
Puff the Magic Blowfish, lived in the sea
And frolicked in the SCSI disk in a land called Bee Ess Dee.
Little Theo de Raadt loved that rascal puff,
And brought him threads and interrupts and other fancy stuff!
They way I remember, and the way all those who saw the original broadcasts remember it, is:
"We now interrupt this program to bring you a special bulletin..."
That's not true. Everyone knows that the original Star Trek was invented by a little old lady from Leningrad...
The difference between Star Trek and Star Wars fans: Star Trek fans can get laid.
p.s. They get laid with overweight chicks in Klingon costume and makeup who tend to whine quite a bit about their "issues", but at least they get laid. The best Star Wars fans can hope for is a lubricated foam rubber Yoda handpuppet to wield their light saber.
I'm still amazed they can count the number of molecules in a mole. Does it throw the count off if the moles poop halfway through?
Yet we have no problem with the economically ignorant voting. The vast majority of voters don't know the first thing about economics, but they're still voting for things like wage and price controls, income redistribution, trade restrictions, etc. Most people, probably including yourself, believe all sorts of impossible things. Like how tarrifs protects jobs, how taxes aren't a drain on the economy, how minimum wages don't reduce employment, etc.
People who know economics may still vote for these things, but at least they will be able to rationally weigh the costs against the benefits. Economics is far more central to our lives than evolution, yet its a subject that's nearly absent in public schools.
Most people who hold to evolution aren't thinking either. They're just believing what others have told them. The number of people who have examined their initial axioms and then used logical reasoning to reach the conclusion that evolution is probable is a very small number.
Maybe the problem is "public education". Why should a federal administrator three thousand miles away know what's better for a child than the parents themselves? Government should not be everyone's nanny.
While the abolition of government schools is not remotely feasible, there are a few things we can do to remove our children's education from the control of Bush/Pelosi. Put control back in the hands of the local counties. Legalize home schooling in all states. And provide a full tax credit (not voucher) for parents who opt out of the public school system by choosing private schools or homeschooling.
Reynolds is a complete wacko wingnut fucktard.
Flamebait: See above.
I am not a supporter of assassination. Let me repeat that again so that you have no confusion: I am not a supporter of assassination. However, if you are going to be exerting coercive military force, a small focused assassination is far less intrusive than massive military mobilization. Or trade sanctions, for that matter.
Why is it that we insist on freedom of thought, unless it's thought we don't want people thinking? Am I the only one who sees the inherent hypocrisy of orthodox free thought?
You're not going to Hell for not having a literalist interpretation of Genesis. But... neither is society going to hell in a handbasket because not enough people believe in evolution. It's okay if your auto mechanic believes something different from you. Your software isn't any better or worse because an evolutionist|creationist wrote it.
Really, it's no big deal. Take a deep breath and relax. You'll find you'll live longer for it.
But I don't accept your claim that the Republicans are no worse than Democrats in this respect. Just how they deal with evolution and global warming, at least in Bush's reign, is much worse than anything I can recall a Democratic leadership doing. Perhaps you'd like to give some counter examples?
You're right. Democrat shit don't stink! What's their 2008 campaing slogan going to be? "7.3% less corrupt than the other guys"?
Civilization III. It's uncanny how it makes you think the game is outright cheating.
The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science! As long as some government official, bureaucrat or politician can gain a bit of power by manipulating science, they will. The separation of church and state has proven to be a great success. Let's take it one step further and have a separation of science and state.
To quote an old saying: "Capitalism is the worst economic system... except for all the others."
But even that is a product of mistaken thinking. Capitalism isn't a system. It's the absence of a system. In every other economic environment, there is a system of planning to direct economic activities. But economic activity is *human* activity, and you cannot plan an economy without some level of tyranny to coerce humans to the planners will. Capitalism (as the term is commonly used) is synonymous with freedom. There is not system. There is no dictator directing human behavior. Just free people interacting with each other voluntarily. All the rest of the economy arises from that.
Typically a business will pay its salesmen on commission. This has the result that the highest paid salesmen are also your most productive salesmen. They pay for themselves.
To lay off your most productive salesmen is an act of supreme stupidity.
...when in fact there seems to be a straightforward solution.
Of course there are straightforward solutions! People have been putting forth sensible, rational, straightforward solutions to Wikipedia for years. But these proposals have been ignored by wikpedians refusing to believe that there are any significant problems.
This topic sounds suspiciously like the middle manager who refuses to hear your solutions to severe problems, and then when a new CEO is brought in because the company is tanking, submits your ideas as his own, and gets a nice promotion out of the deal.
Mod parent down.
Why? Because you disagree? Someone should mod you down for being an ass!
While the company has the responsibility to read the license, whoever sold/promoted/encouraged their use of Linux has a responsibility not to imply that it is unencumbered. The GPL is VERY encumbered, yet "unencumbered" is one of the definitions of "free".
P.S. Everyone look up Visalia, CA on the map now.
I used to live there. Very nice place. I'm considering moving back.
Hmmm. In my book, calmly stating that you're going to beat the living shit out of someone because of an insult earns a place rather higher up on the crazy-sociopath-worth-avoiding list than making totally implausible, exaggerated threats in an anonymous forum.
Not all those threats are implausible or exaggerated. The police are taking the threats to Kathy seriously. Remember that she only posted the *tamest* of them.
As for my warning, I'm hardly abnormal in this regard. I would suggest that you get out into the real world and viciously insult someone's mother to their face. See what happens. It doesn't matter if you end up winning the lawsuit against the biker after you told him his mother used to be a fluffer on a horse farm, your face will still be smashed in. This isn't kindergarten where you can hide behind your teacher's skirts after you insult another kid. This is real life where words do indeed have consequences.
If history has taught us anything, it's that human beings are not paragons of restraint. We are imperfect beings. You deliberately provoke us and we will react. The world is not what you wish it to be, the world is what it is. I suggest you meditate on this truth.
I find it amusing as all hell that the mainstream media is foaming at the mouth over blogging "irregularities". This is the same media that has never once apologized for blowing up trucks to prove that they're unsafe; presenting obviously forged documents as genuine; buying photoshopped images from partisans; failing to check that their key sources even exist; etc; etc.
Not only don't I believe anything I read on the intertubes, I don't believe anything I read in the papers, hear on the radio, or see on television.
People don't talk like in the real world because they know there are consequences. If someone said to my mom what some have said to Kathy, I'd beat the living shit out of them! Most of you would as well. But once we get online and start posting anonymously, there are no consequences. We can say the most vile and violent things and people act like it's normal.
We will adapt though. The days of freewheeling indiscriminate anonymous posting is coming to an end. There are too many posts to moderate them all, but blogs can (and are) moderate the posters themselves, by requiring pre-registration. This isn't an infringement against free speech, it's common sense. If you want to say something vile and violent, do it on your own site.
The Matewan case is not so straightfoward. The workers were being evicted from company property. Pinkerton, however, should have been dissolved and its owners imprisoned. Not because they were exemplars of a free market, but because they were extramarket criminals. The only legitimate role of government in a free market is to protect the lives and properties of the people. By deliberately and willfully turning an eye to the excesses of Pinkerton, the government failed in its responsibilities.
Just because some people are criminals does not make everyone a criminal. The fact that some criminals over a century ago broke strikes by breaking legs DOES NOT mean that it's the normal state of events today! The grandparent post was not insightful, it was idiotic.
Businesses will, of course, attempt collusion. It's only natural. It's something we as individuals do all the time, so why should we behave any differently when we go to work? And just as a tiny minority of us individuals may commit crimes, a tiny minority of businessmen may as well. But that's not the point.
My thesis is that collusion is not a successful business strategy. In a normal business climate it will always fail. Even in abnormal business climates, collusions are incredibly fragile. All it takes is one member to bail and they evaporate.
In the case of music price fixing, in your first link, it was not every distributor, only some of the larger ones. But beyond that, it isn't a normal business climate. They had exclusive music deals only because the government gave them guarantees of exclusivity, via the mechanism of copyright monopolies. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any partially successful monopoly, cartel or collusion that did not have government as a willing accomplice. Copyrights, patents, trade barriers, entry restrictions, etc., are not elements of a free market.
There are plenty of unsuccessful collusions, however. Your links are all examples. If they were successful they wouldn't have been caught, tried and punished. So yes, you are correct that businesses will attempt to price fix. But the cases of successful price fixing are few and far between, and require the application of government power to function.