After decades upon decades and billions upon billions spent on finding a cure for cancer, you close your eyes to the question of what made such an enormity of effort possible, and advocate its destruction.
This stuff has to be invented, and that's hard, hard work which requires investments of capital--investments which are terribly risky even with the knowledge that you can patent the invention if you ever find it. Remove the patent, and you remove even the chance of profitability (you spent your money on research and manufacture; your competition spent money on manufacture alone; guess who loses), and thus also remove huge amounts of the effort spent on this. Cancer research is not done by some guy in his garage in his spare time.
This is the reality. Your myopia would destroy most of the experimental work in medicine, if you had your way. I'd rather pay half my income to a pharmacuetical firm for the rest of my life than die because the treatment that would have saved my life hasn't been invented.
Spammers don't care. I had an email address which I nuked due to a spam problem. I revived it several months later because I had used it on some website and forgot my password, and during the time I had the address alive, I received more spam to it than at any such time period before nuking it. So months of bouncing messages didn't result in spammers discontinuing sending to that address.
"The Return of the King" is the third and final chapter in what's likely to be a nearly $3 billion franchise that should, according to sources familiar with Jackson's deal, net the director at least $150 million.
I just want to say, Peter Jackson deserved every penny of it. Bravo.
If the public realized for useful NASA is, Congress wouldn't need to give them funding because the public would fund it itself. You only need Congress to do it when the public doesn't think it's worth doing.
Say I acquire the CD. I buy it used, even (heaven forbid) at a garage sale. I pay $1.99 for it. I realize that now I am "allowed" to have these MP3s, and to do with them whatever I please... But *why* exactly? My owning the CD certainly hasn't contributed to the flow of royalties.
Actually, it has. There's a limited number of physical CDs. When you buy the CD from the used store, you prevent someone else from buying that CD, and make it more likely that they will buy a copy which *will* contribute to the flow of royalties. Further, the CD already has contributed to the flow of royalties when it was bought originally, so the creator got his money for that particular copy.
Business is a game where the winners turn a profit- which is to say, sell things for more than they are "worth," where "worth" is what these things actually cost to produce.
Completely wrong. Businesses sells products or services to customers to whom the product or service is worth more than the price of it. You commit the fallacy of the intrinsic value. There's no such thing as a value independent of a valuer.
You can equally validly state "Being a customer means buying things for less than they are 'worth,' where 'worth' is how much the product or service will enrich the customer's life. Thus, being a customer is not nice and never has been."
So isn't he (amongst others) using child labor? How ingenious to make work look like play.
So what if it is child labor? The arguments against child labor are based on the assumption that children are needlessly being forced to work in unsafe conditions. There is nothing unsafe about gaming.
The more powerful the chips intel pushes the less effcient the coder becomes.
This is a good thing. When less skill and effort is needed to code, the more programs get released, because designers take the time they would have spent on code optimization, and spend it on other things.
I read your post. You said a number of things. Your pretending that I somehow missed what you said because I pointed out why some of your claims were fuckwitted, but not others, is disingenuous. Your argument against allowing companies to lumber as a way of forest management rests on the evading the fact that breach of contract is a punishable offense in every civilized society. Companies which cut more than they're allowed to can be prosecuted. Your argument amounts to saying "you shouldn't buy from Amazon because they might ship a bomb instead of book to you."
If CEI as a rule made true statements, and those statements as a rule furthered the interests of the companies you cite, it would make sense for those companies to sponsor CEI. The sponsorship is not evidence that Smith is wrong. You have not shown that he was paid to lie, merely that he was paid. You have not refuted Smith's claims. You seem to believe in polylogism and think that to refute a claim, one need merely point to a person's affiliation, which is presumably arbitrarily chosen. Your position is irrational to the core.
The result of 2 seconds on googling. "Combining a natural sciences background, geology at Stanford University, with social sciences, economics at New York University, Mr. Smith began to apply market and property rights solutions to environmental issues when he was president of an Audubon society chapter in 1970. In his book, Earth's Resources: Private Ownership vs. Public Waste, he coined the term "free market environmentalism." He was consultant to the Department of the Interior and the President's Council on Environmental Quality and a special assistant at the EPA. He was a consultant to the Edison Electric Institute. He was Director of Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute. Currently he works on wildlife, endangered species, property rights and property stewardship."
These are industry flacks. People who are PAID by big corporations to put out stuff.
If you had shown that Smith was wrong, his being paid by corporations would be an explanation of the causes that led him to issue erroneous statements. But since you are not in a position to refute any of what he said, no appeal to the concept of bribery can possibly explode the validity of what he's saying. Further, where is your evidence that he was bribed?
their only expert is somebody from something called the "Competitive Enterprise Institute"
So what? Maybe his affiliation is a result of his independently arrived at conclusions, rather than his conclusions being a result of his blind devotion to his affiliation, as you would have us infer.
it makes a lot more sense than spendig $360 billion of the taxpayers money per year on people and technology whose sole purpose it is to kill other human beings.
I take it you're referring to the 16% spent on protecting America from human beings who want to enslave or murder Americans (or are we pretending those don't exist?) as opposed to the 23% spent on social security, 19% spent on medicare and medicaid, 6% spent on "Other Means-Tested Entitlements", and 19% spent on "Non-Defense
Discretionary" (whatever that means).
No, fittest refers to the evolutionary niche it evolved in. Humans can enter just about any evolutionary niche at will and destroy anything in it, so we're somewhat outside of the model at this point. Unless, of course, you consider every lifeform on earth 'unfit'.
There's nothing that's outside of the model. Other organisms count as part of the environment. As for the human factor, there are plenty of organisms we couldn't destroy if we tried: mice, cockroaches, mosquitoes.
Q. Is Microsoft required to ship JNI [Java Native Interface]?
There is no provision in the contract that requires Microsoft to ship JNI.
Q. Can Microsoft make changes to the licensed technology?
Section 2.1(a) describes Microsoft's irrevocable rights to modify and adapt the licensed technology. Section 2.8(d) only restricts changes to the names of certain public classes; it does not affect Microsoft's right to add methods and fields to Java classes.
on Slashdot, if you complain about someone who does something rude or inconsiderate, the inevitable response is: "It's a free country. What are you, some kinda communist?"
Presumably this is because of the other type of person on Slashdot, that thinks "If it's immoral, it should be illegal."
Slashdot Mirror
Everywhere from schools to offices to sports to global politics... everyone competes with everyone else.
Not me! I'm less competitive than anyone here.
After decades upon decades and billions upon billions spent on finding a cure for cancer, you close your eyes to the question of what made such an enormity of effort possible, and advocate its destruction.
This stuff has to be invented, and that's hard, hard work which requires investments of capital--investments which are terribly risky even with the knowledge that you can patent the invention if you ever find it. Remove the patent, and you remove even the chance of profitability (you spent your money on research and manufacture; your competition spent money on manufacture alone; guess who loses), and thus also remove huge amounts of the effort spent on this. Cancer research is not done by some guy in his garage in his spare time.
This is the reality. Your myopia would destroy most of the experimental work in medicine, if you had your way. I'd rather pay half my income to a pharmacuetical firm for the rest of my life than die because the treatment that would have saved my life hasn't been invented.
Spammers don't care. I had an email address which I nuked due to a spam problem. I revived it several months later because I had used it on some website and forgot my password, and during the time I had the address alive, I received more spam to it than at any such time period before nuking it. So months of bouncing messages didn't result in spammers discontinuing sending to that address.
"The Return of the King" is the third and final chapter in what's likely to be a nearly $3 billion franchise that should, according to sources familiar with Jackson's deal, net the director at least $150 million.
I just want to say, Peter Jackson deserved every penny of it. Bravo.
If the public realized for useful NASA is, Congress wouldn't need to give them funding because the public would fund it itself. You only need Congress to do it when the public doesn't think it's worth doing.
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000192.html
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000192.html
Say I acquire the CD. I buy it used, even (heaven forbid) at a garage sale. I pay $1.99 for it. I realize that now I am "allowed" to have these MP3s, and to do with them whatever I please... But *why* exactly? My owning the CD certainly hasn't contributed to the flow of royalties.
Actually, it has. There's a limited number of physical CDs. When you buy the CD from the used store, you prevent someone else from buying that CD, and make it more likely that they will buy a copy which *will* contribute to the flow of royalties. Further, the CD already has contributed to the flow of royalties when it was bought originally, so the creator got his money for that particular copy.
Psychotics aren't born in a day.
Long labor? Your child might be a psychotic
Business is a game where the winners turn a profit- which is to say, sell things for more than they are "worth," where "worth" is what these things actually cost to produce.
Completely wrong. Businesses sells products or services to customers to whom the product or service is worth more than the price of it. You commit the fallacy of the intrinsic value. There's no such thing as a value independent of a valuer.
You can equally validly state "Being a customer means buying things for less than they are 'worth,' where 'worth' is how much the product or service will enrich the customer's life. Thus, being a customer is not nice and never has been."
Isn't outlawing card counting kind of like outlawing a certain thought process?
Card counting isn't illegal. The casino will simply insist that you leave, which is within their rights.
So isn't he (amongst others) using child labor? How ingenious to make work look like play.
So what if it is child labor? The arguments against child labor are based on the assumption that children are needlessly being forced to work in unsafe conditions. There is nothing unsafe about gaming.
Netnose lets the users decide which keywords a web page should be listed under.
Nooo! Don't do it! It's powered by PEOPLE!
My WinMe box is stable.
The more powerful the chips intel pushes the less effcient the coder becomes.
This is a good thing. When less skill and effort is needed to code, the more programs get released, because designers take the time they would have spent on code optimization, and spend it on other things.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0114594 Great sense of humor, and a surprising, thought-provoking ending.
That doesn't make them cheaper--it just makes people who won't necessarily use the certs pay for them while hiding the costs.
I read your post. You said a number of things. Your pretending that I somehow missed what you said because I pointed out why some of your claims were fuckwitted, but not others, is disingenuous. Your argument against allowing companies to lumber as a way of forest management rests on the evading the fact that breach of contract is a punishable offense in every civilized society. Companies which cut more than they're allowed to can be prosecuted. Your argument amounts to saying "you shouldn't buy from Amazon because they might ship a bomb instead of book to you."
If CEI as a rule made true statements, and those statements as a rule furthered the interests of the companies you cite, it would make sense for those companies to sponsor CEI. The sponsorship is not evidence that Smith is wrong. You have not shown that he was paid to lie, merely that he was paid. You have not refuted Smith's claims. You seem to believe in polylogism and think that to refute a claim, one need merely point to a person's affiliation, which is presumably arbitrarily chosen. Your position is irrational to the core.
This man is not a scientist!
The result of 2 seconds on googling. "Combining a natural sciences background, geology at Stanford University, with social sciences, economics at New York University, Mr. Smith began to apply market and property rights solutions to environmental issues when he was president of an Audubon society chapter in 1970. In his book, Earth's Resources: Private Ownership vs. Public Waste, he coined the term "free market environmentalism." He was consultant to the Department of the Interior and the President's Council on Environmental Quality and a special assistant at the EPA. He was a consultant to the Edison Electric Institute. He was Director of Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute. Currently he works on wildlife, endangered species, property rights and property stewardship."
These are industry flacks. People who are PAID by big corporations to put out stuff.
If you had shown that Smith was wrong, his being paid by corporations would be an explanation of the causes that led him to issue erroneous statements. But since you are not in a position to refute any of what he said, no appeal to the concept of bribery can possibly explode the validity of what he's saying. Further, where is your evidence that he was bribed?
their only expert is somebody from something called the "Competitive Enterprise Institute"
So what? Maybe his affiliation is a result of his independently arrived at conclusions, rather than his conclusions being a result of his blind devotion to his affiliation, as you would have us infer.
This is an interesting article about why some forest fires are more destructive than they could be.
it makes a lot more sense than spendig $360 billion of the taxpayers money per year on people and technology whose sole purpose it is to kill other human beings.
I take it you're referring to the 16% spent on protecting America from human beings who want to enslave or murder Americans (or are we pretending those don't exist?) as opposed to the 23% spent on social security, 19% spent on medicare and medicaid, 6% spent on "Other Means-Tested Entitlements", and 19% spent on "Non-Defense Discretionary" (whatever that means).
No, fittest refers to the evolutionary niche it evolved in. Humans can enter just about any evolutionary niche at will and destroy anything in it, so we're somewhat outside of the model at this point. Unless, of course, you consider every lifeform on earth 'unfit'.
There's nothing that's outside of the model. Other organisms count as part of the environment. As for the human factor, there are plenty of organisms we couldn't destroy if we tried: mice, cockroaches, mosquitoes.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/java/contractfa q.asp
Q. Is Microsoft required to ship JNI [Java Native Interface]?
There is no provision in the contract that requires Microsoft to ship JNI.
Q. Can Microsoft make changes to the licensed technology?
Section 2.1(a) describes Microsoft's irrevocable rights to modify and adapt the licensed technology. Section 2.8(d) only restricts changes to the names of certain public classes; it does not affect Microsoft's right to add methods and fields to Java classes.
The actual license agreement.
on Slashdot, if you complain about someone who does something rude or inconsiderate, the inevitable response is: "It's a free country. What are you, some kinda communist?"
Presumably this is because of the other type of person on Slashdot, that thinks "If it's immoral, it should be illegal."