Encourage private investment in companies which will build and operate it, then sue the companies for anti-competitive practices when they charge extra to get a return on their investment. Once the companies go bankrupt, sell the elevator at a greatly defleated price to new companies which will operate them for less. The only ones who loose are the suckers-I mean the venture capitolists.
If I'm not mistaken, the TB problem was really solved by improved sanitation, and antibiotics were only used to treat cases that already existed. As long as we keep up sanitation standards, antibiotic resistant strains should will be a threat to the vast majority of us. I know this will come as little comfort to people living in third world countries, but most of the slashdot readership has nothing to worry about.
The only reason Apple computer made the agreement in the first place was because back then Apple Computer was small and they had no choice. I can't believe that any modern court would feel that Apple Corps. has a right to a large monetary settlement. I don't see how they could prove that they have lost any money at all to Apple Computer over this. This is just money grubbing rich assholes trying to use archaic legal systems to make even more money. This is a misuse of the court system and an insult to free market economics in general.
If this happens, I will never buy another Beetles song as long as I live. I own them all already anyway, but maybe I should get rid of my collection too.
"In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. "
So let me get this right, a dead guy that once headed a company that was bought by the company that bungled the voter rolls in Florida once donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. This somehow proves that Bush bought the election? That seems a little flimsy to me. So do all the other points. Nothing really seems to be a firm connection, it's all very circumstantial and unspectacular.
This kind of smoke and mirrors is what really upsets me about Moore. He stats things in his movies in such a way that a less careful person would assume that they are definitely true, but but if you listen carefully to the words he says, he's not really saying anything at all. He IMPLIES lots of stuff, but he doesn't really say anything.
How will professors get tenured if there no screening body left to determine which research is publishable? Will the NIH also provide a new screening body to take place of science journals, or will the universities have to shoulder the cost and revamp their tenure related practices?
Slashdot should apply, they could make a bundle off of the commissions with all the iTunes related articles they post. All they'd have to do is find a covert way to post links so that people wouldn't realize that it's a money making proposition for them;)
There should be a -1 moral relativist option for moderators so they won't get comments like yours confused with truly insightful arguments.
As a US citizen, you have the right to disagree with laws and lobby for their repeal. You do not have to right to break them. The foundation of society is the agreement of common morals. In a democracy that means respecting the rights of others, obeying the laws of your country, and lobbying against laws you feel are unfair.
Suppose, for example, you decided that because everyone in Europe drives on the left side of the street, people in this country should also (this is not an unreasonable argument). Should you: a) petition the government to try to change driving standards or b) drive on the left side of the street in protest of the silly right side driving law
You see, if each member of society acted however they wished, it would be chaos. This is why you must obey the law.
"wherever these explorers aimed for, they always had a hope that when they came to the end of their journey, the land that they arrived at could sustain them"
Are you saying that non-earthly space bodies could never sustain humans? Fundamentally all people need is energy. And other planetary bodies could certainly provide that. I think people that claim space travel is impossible for whatever reason simply lack imagination.
You criticism of the ocean vessel analogy doesn't wash either. Ships were far from safe, and were by no stretch of the imagination self-sustaining. People can not live off of fish and water alone, sailors with diets lacking fresh fruit suffered form scurvy. Also, ships did run the risk of running out of water, it doesn't always rain. In short, space travel is hard, not impossible.
Whether or not it is worth it is another argument entirely. I maintain the spirit of exploration and conquest is what sustains the human race. I don't feel that these things can be achieved vicariously by robots.
I don't know if you've actually read 1984, but it makes an interesting point. In the book, it was not The Government of The Corporations censuring information, it was the people censuring themselves. This is much like what is happening today.
As far corporations having little public oversight, you should know that in free market economics, the public has ultimate oversight over everything. For example, if the public at large decided they didn't agree with Wal-Marts practices, they would stop buying products from them. As a result, Wal-Mart would either amend their practices, or go out of business. And don't say that information about Wal-Mart is censured, because anyone who isn't living under a rock can't even go outside without hearing about how bad Wal-Mart is.
As far a lawyers deciding that a corporation was an entity, that was meant to allow corporations to be sued. If they weren't an entity, they'd have no liability at all! I know you'd rather be able to sue them and not allow them to defend themselves, but it simply doesn't work that way.
As far as corporations not having a "natural lifespan, a brain, or a moral sense", you should know that corporations are run by people, and those people have at least two of the things you mentioned above. Assuming a corporation were run by people with moral sense, the corporation itself would have those properties as well.
The real problem with corporations is investors. If a corporation's CEO doesn't increase marked share, and profits, shareholders remove them and get someone else. As a result, many corporations and up being run by the most evil, unscrupulous people shareholders can find. Of course, most shareholders don't pay attention to the companies they invest in except to note their profits and share price. Many mutual fund owners don't even know where their money is invested, they only care that the fund performs well. I think Steve Jobs had it right when he said that their share price/ market share/ profits weren't really important. That sure hurt Apple's stock price though. Responsible investment all the way.
No kidding, I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted in this thread. Why do people think they need the government to do these things for them? Heaven forbid people should realize they have a problem and seek treatment on their own.
Yup, this is merely a ploy by pharmaceutical companies to make more money. It has nothing to do with helping people overcome drug addiction. They will sell more drugs by preventing drug addiction. Makes sense to me. Here's the business plan:
1) Prevent drug addiction 2) ??? 3) Profit!!!
Seriously, they make how much money off of people addicted to prescription drugs? I don't think this is a money making venture for them.
I myself have 20/20 vision, and have always had it that way. My mom had RK over 10 years ago, back when they still did it with a scalpel. Before that she could not see without very thick glasses. Now she has perfect vision, and she has not had any problems since the surgery. It has increased her activity level and self esteem remarkably. It was very good for her.
My old boss got laser eye surgery last year, and she hasn't had any problems. After she got it done she had visible blood around her cornea, which was pretty bad-ass. Of course, that was only temporary. She too now has perfect vision.
A couple years ago my father had laser eye surgery for his cataracts. I know it's a different procedure, but it's pretty similar. A few months afterward, he had some problems with retina separation, which the doctors felt was related to the procedure. He got secondary surgery to correct the problem, and hasn't had any problems since then. He's required reading glasses since the surgery, but then the surgery wasn't meant to correct that anyway.
I don't think I'd get laser corrective surgery if I had bad vision. Maybe I'd feel differently if I actually required glasses. I feel that surgery damages your body, so you shouldn't get it unless you need it.
I think you mean the 68000 series, as in 68020 / 68030 / 68040. No biggy, just an extra zero. Man, remember when you had to look for a computer with a floating point coprocessor listed as a feature? I used to have a Performa 630 without a FP. You would not believe how slowly things render when the FP is emulated. I eventually "upgraded" to a PPC 601, but that actually seem to slow the OS down because it had to emulate a lot of the old 68000 code present in Mac OS 7.5 at the time. Now I feel old and I'm only 22.
Do you have to bribe a republican to side with big business? No, they almost exclusively believe in supply side economics. Do you need to bribe a democrat to raise taxes and increase government spending? No, that's what democrats stand for. So yes, I do believe that is usually the case.
I don't know, it just seems like a calculator can do it a lot faster than I can, and it won't make any mistakes. As an engineer, I almost never do any arithmetic by hand, but I use advanced math skills all the time.
Besides, they don't really need to test your abilities to do arithmetic and the like. Why not just write the test so that there is no real need to use a calculator? Arithmetic is so mindless and it doesn't really relate to modern day job skills.
I don't think they should be allowed to bribe, but aren't there already laws in place to prevent this. Large political contributions don't, in my opinion, constitute bribes. I think that the contributer usually simply agrees with the candidate, and want's them to succeed. I don't believe that any more regulation is necessary.
I'm sorry, but lobbying really is a right. Donating money to campaigns is a right as well. Lobbying to enact laws restricting monetary donations is taking away my rights, and therefore by your own reasoning you have no right to stipulate that those laws should be made. I guess that you would argue it is fair for me to fault you for trying to steal my rights. You're welcome.
Well, I hardy think it's fair to fault members of corporations for wanting to protect their money making assets. People working in the recording industry have as much of a right to lobby for rights as you have to lobby against them. I don't see anything wrong with that. These laws do, after all, benefit some people. It's not like corporations are just big evil moneymaking machines. They are run by people just like any other business, and those people have needs and desires. If people in these corporations command more influence in congress, it is only because they care about it more.
I have to admit, though, that the really long copyrights in the US are a bit unreasonable. How long do these people need to own the work before it makes them enough money. Patents only last 1/5 as long, and that amount of time seems more than sufficient to recoup the typically much larger R&D costs associated with patents.
Re:bad music . . . dominates the airwaves
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 0
No, I have listened to a pretty diverse array of TMBG songs, and I've never really liked any of them. And no, that wasn't a troll. It is absurd to say that all the music on the radio is crap. It's too bad you can't moderate stories, because that line really was a troll.
bad music . . . dominates the airwaves
on
TMBG on DRM
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Oh please, just because you want to torture yourself by listening to TMBG doesn't mean that the rest of us want to. I really dislike the argument that independent artists make better music. It's true that they make more attempts at being creative than big label artists, but most people don't want to listen to music that creative or experimental. They want to listen to music that sounds good, and that's what the big labels produce. I mean, TMBG is funny, but I wouldn't want to listen to more than 5 minutes of it in a day, much less a whole album. DRM is pretty stupid though.
The government has a long history of trying to ban alcohol and firearms. As for tobacco, it's social impact is smaller so they just try to tax the fuck out of it. As hard as it may be to believe, most people do not wake up in the morning and say "gee wis, how can I fuck the american people today?" that includes politicians. As much as you'd like to blame you problems on the government, the fact is that is long as you don't want to take responsibility for yourself, the government is your only option. The problem here is not corrupt, evil politicians, it is lazy, apathetic citizens who are unwilling take that responsibility for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this some kind of joke? How is this flame-bait? I don't get it.
Encourage private investment in companies which will build and operate it, then sue the companies for anti-competitive practices when they charge extra to get a return on their investment. Once the companies go bankrupt, sell the elevator at a greatly defleated price to new companies which will operate them for less. The only ones who loose are the suckers-I mean the venture capitolists.
If I'm not mistaken, the TB problem was really solved by improved sanitation, and antibiotics were only used to treat cases that already existed. As long as we keep up sanitation standards, antibiotic resistant strains should will be a threat to the vast majority of us. I know this will come as little comfort to people living in third world countries, but most of the slashdot readership has nothing to worry about.
The only reason Apple computer made the agreement in the first place was because back then Apple Computer was small and they had no choice. I can't believe that any modern court would feel that Apple Corps. has a right to a large monetary settlement. I don't see how they could prove that they have lost any money at all to Apple Computer over this. This is just money grubbing rich assholes trying to use archaic legal systems to make even more money. This is a misuse of the court system and an insult to free market economics in general.
If this happens, I will never buy another Beetles song as long as I live. I own them all already anyway, but maybe I should get rid of my collection too.
"In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. "
So let me get this right, a dead guy that once headed a company that was bought by the company that bungled the voter rolls in Florida once donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. This somehow proves that Bush bought the election? That seems a little flimsy to me. So do all the other points. Nothing really seems to be a firm connection, it's all very circumstantial and unspectacular.
This kind of smoke and mirrors is what really upsets me about Moore. He stats things in his movies in such a way that a less careful person would assume that they are definitely true, but but if you listen carefully to the words he says, he's not really saying anything at all. He IMPLIES lots of stuff, but he doesn't really say anything.
How will professors get tenured if there no screening body left to determine which research is publishable? Will the NIH also provide a new screening body to take place of science journals, or will the universities have to shoulder the cost and revamp their tenure related practices?
Slashdot should apply, they could make a bundle off of the commissions with all the iTunes related articles they post. All they'd have to do is find a covert way to post links so that people wouldn't realize that it's a money making proposition for them ;)
There should be a -1 moral relativist option for moderators so they won't get comments like yours confused with truly insightful arguments.
As a US citizen, you have the right to disagree with laws and lobby for their repeal. You do not have to right to break them. The foundation of society is the agreement of common morals. In a democracy that means respecting the rights of others, obeying the laws of your country, and lobbying against laws you feel are unfair.
Suppose, for example, you decided that because everyone in Europe drives on the left side of the street, people in this country should also (this is not an unreasonable argument). Should you:
a) petition the government to try to change driving standards
or
b) drive on the left side of the street in protest of the silly right side driving law
You see, if each member of society acted however they wished, it would be chaos. This is why you must obey the law.
"wherever these explorers aimed for, they always had a hope that when they came to the end of their journey, the land that they arrived at could sustain them"
Are you saying that non-earthly space bodies could never sustain humans? Fundamentally all people need is energy. And other planetary bodies could certainly provide that. I think people that claim space travel is impossible for whatever reason simply lack imagination.
You criticism of the ocean vessel analogy doesn't wash either. Ships were far from safe, and were by no stretch of the imagination self-sustaining. People can not live off of fish and water alone, sailors with diets lacking fresh fruit suffered form scurvy. Also, ships did run the risk of running out of water, it doesn't always rain. In short, space travel is hard, not impossible.
Whether or not it is worth it is another argument entirely. I maintain the spirit of exploration and conquest is what sustains the human race. I don't feel that these things can be achieved vicariously by robots.
I don't know if you've actually read 1984, but it makes an interesting point. In the book, it was not The Government of The Corporations censuring information, it was the people censuring themselves. This is much like what is happening today.
As far corporations having little public oversight, you should know that in free market economics, the public has ultimate oversight over everything. For example, if the public at large decided they didn't agree with Wal-Marts practices, they would stop buying products from them. As a result, Wal-Mart would either amend their practices, or go out of business. And don't say that information about Wal-Mart is censured, because anyone who isn't living under a rock can't even go outside without hearing about how bad Wal-Mart is.
As far a lawyers deciding that a corporation was an entity, that was meant to allow corporations to be sued. If they weren't an entity, they'd have no liability at all! I know you'd rather be able to sue them and not allow them to defend themselves, but it simply doesn't work that way.
As far as corporations not having a "natural lifespan, a brain, or a moral sense", you should know that corporations are run by people, and those people have at least two of the things you mentioned above. Assuming a corporation were run by people with moral sense, the corporation itself would have those properties as well.
The real problem with corporations is investors. If a corporation's CEO doesn't increase marked share, and profits, shareholders remove them and get someone else. As a result, many corporations and up being run by the most evil, unscrupulous people shareholders can find. Of course, most shareholders don't pay attention to the companies they invest in except to note their profits and share price. Many mutual fund owners don't even know where their money is invested, they only care that the fund performs well. I think Steve Jobs had it right when he said that their share price/ market share/ profits weren't really important. That sure hurt Apple's stock price though. Responsible investment all the way.
No kidding, I'd mod you up if I hadn't posted in this thread. Why do people think they need the government to do these things for them? Heaven forbid people should realize they have a problem and seek treatment on their own.
Yup, this is merely a ploy by pharmaceutical companies to make more money. It has nothing to do with helping people overcome drug addiction. They will sell more drugs by preventing drug addiction. Makes sense to me. Here's the business plan:
1) Prevent drug addiction
2) ???
3) Profit!!!
Seriously, they make how much money off of people addicted to prescription drugs? I don't think this is a money making venture for them.
I myself have 20/20 vision, and have always had it that way. My mom had RK over 10 years ago, back when they still did it with a scalpel. Before that she could not see without very thick glasses. Now she has perfect vision, and she has not had any problems since the surgery. It has increased her activity level and self esteem remarkably. It was very good for her.
My old boss got laser eye surgery last year, and she hasn't had any problems. After she got it done she had visible blood around her cornea, which was pretty bad-ass. Of course, that was only temporary. She too now has perfect vision.
A couple years ago my father had laser eye surgery for his cataracts. I know it's a different procedure, but it's pretty similar. A few months afterward, he had some problems with retina separation, which the doctors felt was related to the procedure. He got secondary surgery to correct the problem, and hasn't had any problems since then. He's required reading glasses since the surgery, but then the surgery wasn't meant to correct that anyway.
I don't think I'd get laser corrective surgery if I had bad vision. Maybe I'd feel differently if I actually required glasses. I feel that surgery damages your body, so you shouldn't get it unless you need it.
I think you mean the 68000 series, as in 68020 / 68030 / 68040. No biggy, just an extra zero. Man, remember when you had to look for a computer with a floating point coprocessor listed as a feature? I used to have a Performa 630 without a FP. You would not believe how slowly things render when the FP is emulated. I eventually "upgraded" to a PPC 601, but that actually seem to slow the OS down because it had to emulate a lot of the old 68000 code present in Mac OS 7.5 at the time. Now I feel old and I'm only 22.
Do you have to bribe a republican to side with big business? No, they almost exclusively believe in supply side economics. Do you need to bribe a democrat to raise taxes and increase government spending? No, that's what democrats stand for. So yes, I do believe that is usually the case.
I don't know, it just seems like a calculator can do it a lot faster than I can, and it won't make any mistakes. As an engineer, I almost never do any arithmetic by hand, but I use advanced math skills all the time.
Besides, they don't really need to test your abilities to do arithmetic and the like. Why not just write the test so that there is no real need to use a calculator? Arithmetic is so mindless and it doesn't really relate to modern day job skills.
I don't think they should be allowed to bribe, but aren't there already laws in place to prevent this. Large political contributions don't, in my opinion, constitute bribes. I think that the contributer usually simply agrees with the candidate, and want's them to succeed. I don't believe that any more regulation is necessary.
Yeah, that's exactly what I think whenever I see that add asking me to donate me money to the Kerry campaign. That shit has got to stop.
I'm sorry, but lobbying really is a right. Donating money to campaigns is a right as well. Lobbying to enact laws restricting monetary donations is taking away my rights, and therefore by your own reasoning you have no right to stipulate that those laws should be made. I guess that you would argue it is fair for me to fault you for trying to steal my rights. You're welcome.
Well, I hardy think it's fair to fault members of corporations for wanting to protect their money making assets. People working in the recording industry have as much of a right to lobby for rights as you have to lobby against them. I don't see anything wrong with that. These laws do, after all, benefit some people. It's not like corporations are just big evil moneymaking machines. They are run by people just like any other business, and those people have needs and desires. If people in these corporations command more influence in congress, it is only because they care about it more.
I have to admit, though, that the really long copyrights in the US are a bit unreasonable. How long do these people need to own the work before it makes them enough money. Patents only last 1/5 as long, and that amount of time seems more than sufficient to recoup the typically much larger R&D costs associated with patents.
No, I have listened to a pretty diverse array of TMBG songs, and I've never really liked any of them. And no, that wasn't a troll. It is absurd to say that all the music on the radio is crap. It's too bad you can't moderate stories, because that line really was a troll.
Oh please, just because you want to torture yourself by listening to TMBG doesn't mean that the rest of us want to. I really dislike the argument that independent artists make better music. It's true that they make more attempts at being creative than big label artists, but most people don't want to listen to music that creative or experimental. They want to listen to music that sounds good, and that's what the big labels produce. I mean, TMBG is funny, but I wouldn't want to listen to more than 5 minutes of it in a day, much less a whole album. DRM is pretty stupid though.
The government has a long history of trying to ban alcohol and firearms. As for tobacco, it's social impact is smaller so they just try to tax the fuck out of it. As hard as it may be to believe, most people do not wake up in the morning and say "gee wis, how can I fuck the american people today?" that includes politicians. As much as you'd like to blame you problems on the government, the fact is that is long as you don't want to take responsibility for yourself, the government is your only option. The problem here is not corrupt, evil politicians, it is lazy, apathetic citizens who are unwilling take that responsibility for themselves.
I just had a problem with the whole intellectual property is a crime thing, that's all.