Sounds reasonable, except that it overlooks many nasty facts that exist in the real world. Notably, the nature of monopolistic capitalism and the sheer malignancy of the petrochemical industry.
While yes, they may be able to develop a new tech to synthesize oil cheaper than it costs to pump, but the problem isn't one of simply pushing their own costs down; their profitability is dependent upon the total domination of the entire global operation.
A new technology could be held onto for a while. Once variants are developed (no tech monopoly lasts long, patent protection is a whack a mole game that patent holders can never win) they lose the position of total global domination that they enjoy now. Thus, they know that their best long term proposition is to hold onto the monopoly that they hold now, as it can and is physically enforced by a) insurmountable barriers to entry and b) a myopic US government willing to protect Big Oil's interests politically and if necessary, militarily.
In other words, I see your tinfoil hat, and raise you a tinfoil codpiece.
On those days when everything that can go wrong does go wrong, your home network will die for no reason as soon as you get home, requiring you to spend 3 hours diagnosing the problem, in order to spend one hour relaxing. - Murphy.
Article summary: "Hello, my name is Richard Bennett, and I'm an industry insider who's been bought off by big money to say net neutrality is bad in the same way climate scientists got bought off by big money to say environmental protection is bad."
Agreed. Also, what exactly are "unfriendly vehicles" ? I know geeks live in some kind of fantasy land, but if they are outgoing enough to be geohashing then shouldn't they know the difference between reality and the Transformers movie? I guess not.
Why is it that when criticism is leveled at SUVs, every SUV owner takes it personally? If you own an SUV and use it effectively, you're not the problem. The legions of people who drive it solo to and from work on a daily basis are.
Criticism of x does not require a better solution, even if one exists. In fact, abstaining from turning a "X is bad" debate into a "Y is better than X" debate often results in a less dogmatic, confrontational debate while reducing the tendency of a discussion to stray too far from objectivite assessment of the main issues.
I don't believe I ever said that nobody needs an SUV, just that most people don't. If you actually do, and are not just imagining the need like the majority of other SUV owners, then get one. It really doesn't bother me now that I know you actually get charged in a manner more representative of the overall cost to the planet that running an SUV incurs.
Those whose economic liberty is undermined by parties greatly more powerful than themselves. Capitalism is fine if you assume that all parties in the game start off on equal footing. But that assumption is as unrealistic as "frictionless" is in physics, making capitalism as a model as useful as the theoretical models that high school physics students discuss.
No, I won't be baited into rooting for communism, so don't go asking me what the alternative is. I'm saying "capitalism is broken". I don't need to suggest an alternative in order to make that assertion.
Thanks to the marketplace now, the word "necessary" will no longer mean "compensates for my small penis", and start meaning "justifies the costs of running it".
In other words, people who need it will be those who use it as part of a transportation business, and thus have an income from the vehicle that justifies its use.
If you need one due to your environment or business, good on you. We're laughing at the suburban twats who bought them because they thought their 2.4 children were too large to fit in a normal sedan.
Personally, I think this is one of the dumbest questions ever to grace the pages of Ask Slashdot.
If you're buying a machine and are savvy enough to know a) what hardware components you want and b) install Linux yourself after a format, why on Earth don't you just buy the parts and build it yourself?
Even if you have an off mix of skills whereby you can do all the above except assemble a PC, you can go to a your local small office geek shop, select the parts and pay them a nominal fee to assemble. Where I live, it's $50 for assembly. Going this route represents a third to half saving on similar specced hardware from Dell.
Are there really Slashdot readers not savvy enough to do this? Or is this a MS sponsored story to get Windows into the hands of potential Linux users to make the jump just that much less appealing? I recently jumped to Linux, and I can tell you (presumably MS knows this too) that inertia is a big part in people not switching to Linux. I'm not usually given to Slashspiracies, but this question really pushes the bounds of Hanlon's Razor; someone able to install Linux on bare metal is unlikely to also be unskilled enough to find cheap bare metal boxes. Thus, I think we have the strongest proof yet that Slashdot does make quiet back room deals about its content.
I wish I had the maturity and self-control you have to reply in as steady, polite and non-condescending way to someone who belligerently says something that is obviously wrong.
Well done, I nominate you to be my representative in the Slashdot Congress.
Re:Excuse me while I gouge my eyes out with a spoo
on
I Will Derive
·
· Score: 1
Come, friend, let us lament the integration of nerd culture with that part of the bell curve where dy/dx is a small positive value.
Yes, because nobody ever gets riled up about what Middle Easterners say. It gets taken so lightly.
Hehe, that Ahmedinejad, he's such a joker. He made another joke about the holocaust. We should give him a seat in the Security Council just for his comedic value. How about as a prank I'll send a crate of non-alcoholic beer, only, I'll actually put alcoholic beer in it! Imagine that! We'll have the whole General Assembly in stitches!
Slashdot Mirror
That is both scientifically invalid and tasteless. But like the OP said...
Sounds reasonable, except that it overlooks many nasty facts that exist in the real world. Notably, the nature of monopolistic capitalism and the sheer malignancy of the petrochemical industry.
While yes, they may be able to develop a new tech to synthesize oil cheaper than it costs to pump, but the problem isn't one of simply pushing their own costs down; their profitability is dependent upon the total domination of the entire global operation.
A new technology could be held onto for a while. Once variants are developed (no tech monopoly lasts long, patent protection is a whack a mole game that patent holders can never win) they lose the position of total global domination that they enjoy now. Thus, they know that their best long term proposition is to hold onto the monopoly that they hold now, as it can and is physically enforced by a) insurmountable barriers to entry and b) a myopic US government willing to protect Big Oil's interests politically and if necessary, militarily.
In other words, I see your tinfoil hat, and raise you a tinfoil codpiece.
On those days when everything that can go wrong does go wrong, your home network will die for no reason as soon as you get home, requiring you to spend 3 hours diagnosing the problem, in order to spend one hour relaxing.
- Murphy.
Never fear, the government is willing to protect us so that we never again have to deal with such trash. Hooray!
There is no shortage of people willing to beat a dead horse.
Article summary: "Hello, my name is Richard Bennett, and I'm an industry insider who's been bought off by big money to say net neutrality is bad in the same way climate scientists got bought off by big money to say environmental protection is bad."
Agreed. Also, what exactly are "unfriendly vehicles" ? I know geeks live in some kind of fantasy land, but if they are outgoing enough to be geohashing then shouldn't they know the difference between reality and the Transformers movie? I guess not.
Did you confirm it with any source in particular?
Why is it that when criticism is leveled at SUVs, every SUV owner takes it personally? If you own an SUV and use it effectively, you're not the problem. The legions of people who drive it solo to and from work on a daily basis are.
Criticism of x does not require a better solution, even if one exists. In fact, abstaining from turning a "X is bad" debate into a "Y is better than X" debate often results in a less dogmatic, confrontational debate while reducing the tendency of a discussion to stray too far from objectivite assessment of the main issues.
I don't believe I ever said that nobody needs an SUV, just that most people don't. If you actually do, and are not just imagining the need like the majority of other SUV owners, then get one. It really doesn't bother me now that I know you actually get charged in a manner more representative of the overall cost to the planet that running an SUV incurs.
Those whose economic liberty is undermined by parties greatly more powerful than themselves. Capitalism is fine if you assume that all parties in the game start off on equal footing. But that assumption is as unrealistic as "frictionless" is in physics, making capitalism as a model as useful as the theoretical models that high school physics students discuss.
No, I won't be baited into rooting for communism, so don't go asking me what the alternative is. I'm saying "capitalism is broken". I don't need to suggest an alternative in order to make that assertion.
Thanks to the marketplace now, the word "necessary" will no longer mean "compensates for my small penis", and start meaning "justifies the costs of running it".
In other words, people who need it will be those who use it as part of a transportation business, and thus have an income from the vehicle that justifies its use.
If you need one due to your environment or business, good on you. We're laughing at the suburban twats who bought them because they thought their 2.4 children were too large to fit in a normal sedan.
Agreed, because RMS and Linus are both destitute penniless wanderers.
Personally, I think this is one of the dumbest questions ever to grace the pages of Ask Slashdot.
If you're buying a machine and are savvy enough to know a) what hardware components you want and b) install Linux yourself after a format, why on Earth don't you just buy the parts and build it yourself?
Even if you have an off mix of skills whereby you can do all the above except assemble a PC, you can go to a your local small office geek shop, select the parts and pay them a nominal fee to assemble. Where I live, it's $50 for assembly. Going this route represents a third to half saving on similar specced hardware from Dell.
Are there really Slashdot readers not savvy enough to do this? Or is this a MS sponsored story to get Windows into the hands of potential Linux users to make the jump just that much less appealing? I recently jumped to Linux, and I can tell you (presumably MS knows this too) that inertia is a big part in people not switching to Linux. I'm not usually given to Slashspiracies, but this question really pushes the bounds of Hanlon's Razor; someone able to install Linux on bare metal is unlikely to also be unskilled enough to find cheap bare metal boxes. Thus, I think we have the strongest proof yet that Slashdot does make quiet back room deals about its content.
I wish I had the maturity and self-control you have to reply in as steady, polite and non-condescending way to someone who belligerently says something that is obviously wrong.
Well done, I nominate you to be my representative in the Slashdot Congress.
Come, friend, let us lament the integration of nerd culture with that part of the bell curve where dy/dx is a small positive value.
Easy. The adversarial legal system: We find out who can afford to hire a bigger team of lawyers.
That mod option is right next to the "-1 Resists Education" one.
'elium 4?! That's 'eresy that is!
George W. Bush? Is that you?
Such is the state of "modern" society that concepts like this are acceptable fare for potential humor. I too, am sickened.
Damn, it was supposed to have Bush: at the start in triangle brackets, but it got stripped. Hmm... Bush got stripped...
Yes, because nobody ever gets riled up about what Middle Easterners say. It gets taken so lightly.
Hehe, that Ahmedinejad, he's such a joker. He made another joke about the holocaust. We should give him a seat in the Security Council just for his comedic value. How about as a prank I'll send a crate of non-alcoholic beer, only, I'll actually put alcoholic beer in it! Imagine that! We'll have the whole General Assembly in stitches!
So Limewire lacks inconsistent download times and quality? Fantastic! Just what I've been looking for in a P2P app!