I'm not so sure about that. With the current spin the story has (evil oil companies astroturf) it will be seen in this context by two kind of people. The people that already agree and the people that already do not agree. The people that don't agree will most certainly not walk away from it thinking "hmm, maybe they are on to something". Sometimes there is actually such a thing as bad publicity. Now, the publicity that it generates for the PR firm, that's a completely different matter. They have gained exposure worth plenty of money. Just not their client(s).
In other words, if they do not credit the creator of Tux (and they did it) then he has a case. If they do credit him then it is 'out there' that they did in fact do it. Unless of course it falls under the 'parody' umbrella. I'm not sure if that protects the entire parody production or just the target of the parody, ie the 'likeness of Al Gore' would be fair to use, the non-related Linux penguin would not. Nor am I sure if this is in fact a parody of anything. Except perhaps of YouTube and user content in general, although unintentional.
And more importantly, was it needed at all. I mean, duh, of course it will change it. It's just a question of _when_ it will, not _if_. I'd try and come up with some witty analogy here, but I'm to lazy. It is left as an exercise to the reader.
On some level you might even be able to argue that this is what gonzoism (?) evloved in to. Packaged for the 5-second mindset of what is the general public.
I couldn't agree more. I'd go as far as to say it should be easier to write about hings that people don't know everything these days. I have as much hubris as the next guy, probably even more, but I'm more then willing to admit that I do not know everything. Does this make an article less worth reading? No, just the opposite! If you stumble across something you do not understand then head over to google, wikipedia or your other favourite place-of-all-mankinds-knowledge. Read up on things, gain a better understanding and then read the article again. People need to start realising that YOU CAN LEARN NEW THINGS.
This stupid status quo of knowlege needs to be booted out with other ingorant views.
To be fair, I think much of that was outrage at pointless killing more then sympathy for the US. And you shoul dprobably keep in mind that there was quite a lot of non-US citizens in those buildings.
You have to agree that it's not as clear cut as that though. Just because you feel that something is wrong doesn't make it tmorally so. Judging from this thread, it's clear that many people do in fact feel that it's ok for strangers to use their access-point. Thus there has to be some ambiguity.
Using someone elses (un-used) bandwidth is more akin to someone breathing the air that was just expunged from your lungs. Sure, you can make an argument that the air is yours. After all, it came from you, it was chemically altered by you and it sure was not in that other persons lungs a moment ago. Of course, this is an extreme analogy, but it shows that not all use of what you (or I) consider to be "mine" is wrong. It might be better or worse for society if it wasn't used. Just don't come dragging with some moral compass stuff. Leave your moral at church or live by it yourself, just don't try to make it seem like it's the only way and most cetrainly don't use it to justify how others should behave.
"Rightwing" might be a bit of a misnomer though. It's not like they are way, way right. Also, given that this is a fairly US centric site it could probably be seen as a center/left paper.
Well, if you can borrow for under the going rate of a 'no risk' investment (such as a savings account or a govt. bond) then it's a no brainer. You don't run across that very often though, as it is sort of the Perpetum Mobile of economics.
Investing isn't about finding companies that won't lose money. Nor is it even about finding companies that will make money. all these things (when 'abvious') will be disscounted for by the market. If everyone thinks security companies will make billions during the next 10 years then you can bet that will be reflected in the stock price. The 'trick' is to analyse and see where there is an over or undervaluation of the stock.
What's more funny though is the fact that people seem to be recommended 'low risk, secure' investments. While I tend to agree, there is one obvious thing that is being missed. Don't borrow the money to start with! If you plan on taking any kind of risks (that may or may not be rewarded) then make damn sure the expected rate of return beats that of your loan, else you're just throwing money out the window.
It's sort of like the people that borrow money to buy a car and then have a pile of cash sitting in their savings account. Sure, rainyday money is nice to have, but if you can afford to borrow for a car then most likely you could borrow the rainyday money instead. If not, I have some prime land to sell over in them there marshes...
Or could it be that he tried to paint a mental picture where, instead of pumping money in to wars, you were to pump it in to infrastructure? I'm sure he, as well as most of us, suspect that would not have been the case.
Also, I'm getting rather tired of this 'small European country' talk. If an entire continent with small countries can get good connections then why would not an entire 'continent' of one country be able too? It's not like it gets easier since you are a small country. News flash: that means less people in the country! As for rural areas. low population density and the likes of it. I live in Sweden, in what by not even the laxest of standards would be called a metropolitan city. My ISP is a commercial entity and I pay $15 per month for my 100MBit non-adsl connection.
This reminds me of another security plan. One that was implemented in the UK. In order to make the trains safer they raised the prices by some amount that right now eludes me. This so they could pay for the aditional safety features and such. It wasn't security as in more guard or anything like that. Anyways, the end result? Due to the increase in ticket prices more people used cars to travel instead, thus resulting in far more overall deaths. [1]
People always seem so focused on short term planing that they never see the long term consequences.
[1] If you want a source for this you are out of luck. All I can remember is that it was from a reputable book on economics.
Sure, the specifics were accidental. How about the 'visions'?
"Electricity through frog" - Non-living things moving. Controlling other beings movements. I seem to remember quite a few legens and myths that deal with this.
"Preventing sickness" - Naah, who would have thought about that before 1879.
"X-rays" - Litterally "seeing through objects". That's just UMpossible to imagine!
"Preventing sickness" - again, the same as the previous one.
Implemention might be tricky to get right but the end result can usually be speculated about way ahead of time.
Oh, I see. I take it your are reading your Shakespeare from his original manuscripts? DRM is many things and good is not one of them. What it is not, however, is keeping people from RE-interpret old works.
I never said it couldn't be spent wiser. I was pointing out that it's not like the money is gone after the 15 minutes are up. Of course you can spend it on better things. You post brings out a slightly tangent point though. Should aid be spent on helping to feed starving people or should it be spend on preventing starvation by making sure people can feed themselves. A bit of-topic though, and better saved for a future thread.
Sure it does, but you are in essence removing it from earth, burning it (which you do not do for the labor and you don't need (much more) material for the non-fuel parts of the mission). Look at it this way. If I build a 60 meter tall building and people move in to it, no destruction of money has happened. Now, if I build a 60 meter tall building and the moment I'm done set of some nice charges to demolish it, then all of a sudden value has been destroyed even though money has been funneled in to the local economy through the labor costs.
Of course, I don't have even a clue as to the true non-labor value of rocket fuel. If it's anything like pumping regular oil out of the ground then it's not much to bother with. If it is more along the lines of making aluminium in the good old days, then it's on hell of a value destruction to burn it.
It's not like they are taking a pile of $15M and setting it on fire. I would assume that most of the cost related to this will go back in to the economy in one way or another. Labor costs for constructing the EVA suit, material costs, labor costs for digging the material out of the ground et cetera. In other words, the money will just be allocated to some other place in the economy. Recommended reading would be Macroeconomics 101, Velocity of Money and perhaps something by Modigliani or Friedman.
Now as for the price of the additional rocket fuel (not included in the $15M) is a completely different matter. Now that is, literally. burning money.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure about that. With the current spin the story has (evil oil companies astroturf) it will be seen in this context by two kind of people. The people that already agree and the people that already do not agree. The people that don't agree will most certainly not walk away from it thinking "hmm, maybe they are on to something". Sometimes there is actually such a thing as bad publicity. Now, the publicity that it generates for the PR firm, that's a completely different matter. They have gained exposure worth plenty of money. Just not their client(s).
In other words, if they do not credit the creator of Tux (and they did it) then he has a case. If they do credit him then it is 'out there' that they did in fact do it. Unless of course it falls under the 'parody' umbrella. I'm not sure if that protects the entire parody production or just the target of the parody, ie the 'likeness of Al Gore' would be fair to use, the non-related Linux penguin would not. Nor am I sure if this is in fact a parody of anything. Except perhaps of YouTube and user content in general, although unintentional.
And more importantly, was it needed at all. I mean, duh, of course it will change it. It's just a question of _when_ it will, not _if_. I'd try and come up with some witty analogy here, but I'm to lazy. It is left as an exercise to the reader.
CGi in horror movies are like big breast implants on a woman. Pretty to look at, but they ain't fooling no one.
Enter the derivatives markets.
We're working on changing quite a few laws right now. Might as well throw that one in. Thanks for the heads up.
GWB
Most americans don't. ;)
On some level you might even be able to argue that this is what gonzoism (?) evloved in to. Packaged for the 5-second mindset of what is the general public.
I couldn't agree more. I'd go as far as to say it should be easier to write about hings that people don't know everything these days. I have as much hubris as the next guy, probably even more, but I'm more then willing to admit that I do not know everything. Does this make an article less worth reading? No, just the opposite! If you stumble across something you do not understand then head over to google, wikipedia or your other favourite place-of-all-mankinds-knowledge. Read up on things, gain a better understanding and then read the article again. People need to start realising that YOU CAN LEARN NEW THINGS.
This stupid status quo of knowlege needs to be booted out with other ingorant views.
To be fair, I think much of that was outrage at pointless killing more then sympathy for the US. And you shoul dprobably keep in mind that there was quite a lot of non-US citizens in those buildings.
You have to agree that it's not as clear cut as that though. Just because you feel that something is wrong doesn't make it tmorally so. Judging from this thread, it's clear that many people do in fact feel that it's ok for strangers to use their access-point. Thus there has to be some ambiguity.
Using someone elses (un-used) bandwidth is more akin to someone breathing the air that was just expunged from your lungs. Sure, you can make an argument that the air is yours. After all, it came from you, it was chemically altered by you and it sure was not in that other persons lungs a moment ago. Of course, this is an extreme analogy, but it shows that not all use of what you (or I) consider to be "mine" is wrong. It might be better or worse for society if it wasn't used. Just don't come dragging with some moral compass stuff. Leave your moral at church or live by it yourself, just don't try to make it seem like it's the only way and most cetrainly don't use it to justify how others should behave.
"Rightwing" might be a bit of a misnomer though. It's not like they are way, way right. Also, given that this is a fairly US centric site it could probably be seen as a center/left paper.
Well, if you can borrow for under the going rate of a 'no risk' investment (such as a savings account or a govt. bond) then it's a no brainer. You don't run across that very often though, as it is sort of the Perpetum Mobile of economics.
Investing isn't about finding companies that won't lose money. Nor is it even about finding companies that will make money. all these things (when 'abvious') will be disscounted for by the market. If everyone thinks security companies will make billions during the next 10 years then you can bet that will be reflected in the stock price. The 'trick' is to analyse and see where there is an over or undervaluation of the stock.
What's more funny though is the fact that people seem to be recommended 'low risk, secure' investments. While I tend to agree, there is one obvious thing that is being missed. Don't borrow the money to start with! If you plan on taking any kind of risks (that may or may not be rewarded) then make damn sure the expected rate of return beats that of your loan, else you're just throwing money out the window.
It's sort of like the people that borrow money to buy a car and then have a pile of cash sitting in their savings account. Sure, rainyday money is nice to have, but if you can afford to borrow for a car then most likely you could borrow the rainyday money instead. If not, I have some prime land to sell over in them there marshes...
"My name is Deja Vu. Have we met before?"
Now, now. To be fair, I'm sure the Bell's gave the govt a sweet deal on some wire tapping and data gathering services.
Or could it be that he tried to paint a mental picture where, instead of pumping money in to wars, you were to pump it in to infrastructure? I'm sure he, as well as most of us, suspect that would not have been the case.
Also, I'm getting rather tired of this 'small European country' talk. If an entire continent with small countries can get good connections then why would not an entire 'continent' of one country be able too? It's not like it gets easier since you are a small country. News flash: that means less people in the country! As for rural areas. low population density and the likes of it. I live in Sweden, in what by not even the laxest of standards would be called a metropolitan city. My ISP is a commercial entity and I pay $15 per month for my 100MBit non-adsl connection.
Any other excuses?
This reminds me of another security plan. One that was implemented in the UK. In order to make the trains safer they raised the prices by some amount that right now eludes me. This so they could pay for the aditional safety features and such. It wasn't security as in more guard or anything like that. Anyways, the end result? Due to the increase in ticket prices more people used cars to travel instead, thus resulting in far more overall deaths. [1]
People always seem so focused on short term planing that they never see the long term consequences.
[1] If you want a source for this you are out of luck. All I can remember is that it was from a reputable book on economics.
"I" "tried" "to read" your "post" but all that I could "see"
were "tons and tons" of "apostrophe".
Sure, the specifics were accidental. How about the 'visions'?
"Electricity through frog" - Non-living things moving. Controlling other beings movements. I seem to remember quite a few legens and myths that deal with this.
"Preventing sickness" - Naah, who would have thought about that before 1879.
"X-rays" - Litterally "seeing through objects". That's just UMpossible to imagine!
"Preventing sickness" - again, the same as the previous one.
Implemention might be tricky to get right but the end result can usually be speculated about way ahead of time.
Let me guess. Yu are an aspiring Slashdot editor, right?
Oh, I see. I take it your are reading your Shakespeare from his original manuscripts? DRM is many things and good is not one of them. What it is not, however, is keeping people from RE-interpret old works.
I never said it couldn't be spent wiser. I was pointing out that it's not like the money is gone after the 15 minutes are up. Of course you can spend it on better things. You post brings out a slightly tangent point though. Should aid be spent on helping to feed starving people or should it be spend on preventing starvation by making sure people can feed themselves. A bit of-topic though, and better saved for a future thread.
Sure it does, but you are in essence removing it from earth, burning it (which you do not do for the labor and you don't need (much more) material for the non-fuel parts of the mission). Look at it this way. If I build a 60 meter tall building and people move in to it, no destruction of money has happened. Now, if I build a 60 meter tall building and the moment I'm done set of some nice charges to demolish it, then all of a sudden value has been destroyed even though money has been funneled in to the local economy through the labor costs.
Of course, I don't have even a clue as to the true non-labor value of rocket fuel. If it's anything like pumping regular oil out of the ground then it's not much to bother with. If it is more along the lines of making aluminium in the good old days, then it's on hell of a value destruction to burn it.
It's not like they are taking a pile of $15M and setting it on fire. I would assume that most of the cost related to this will go back in to the economy in one way or another. Labor costs for constructing the EVA suit, material costs, labor costs for digging the material out of the ground et cetera. In other words, the money will just be allocated to some other place in the economy. Recommended reading would be Macroeconomics 101, Velocity of Money and perhaps something by Modigliani or Friedman.
Now as for the price of the additional rocket fuel (not included in the $15M) is a completely different matter. Now that is, literally. burning money.