you missed a couple of other things, namely that tic tac toe has a completely different solution, guaranteed draw if both players make correct moves. you should go back to your Tic Tac Toe games. If you were always winning by playing center, it was because your opponents were making major mistakes. And if you lost because your opponent led with the center square, well, you need to go back and study your "brute force" method.
btw, if I remember correctly, the proper response to a center move is to take a corner. That way no matter X's repsonse, you can always block while setting up a 2 in a row. This forces x to make certain moves and the game ends. slightly more interesting is to actually take a corner as your starting move. It leads to a slightly more complex board that can fool people in the beginning.
well, you see, that involves the customer getting out there and getting informed. people do this with things like cars, but when it comes to anything computer related, they for some odd reason see absolutely no reason to get educated.
just to mention, having a global flood is not really out of the question, if you look at it with some common sense.
I large scale flood of populated areas 5 thousand years ago isn't very hard to imagine at all, everyone lived near water. If some large scale flooding occurred for one of many reasons, including postulated ideas like a meteor impact in the meditteranean sea, there could have very well been a global flood.
Just remember, global could very well mean the area that these people knew about, not with the literal meaning of the entire planet. Two separate religions have this actually, the Jewish religions(including christianity and I believe Islam holds the same belief) and Hinduism.
but of course, when people read these things out of context, of course they are going to sound absurd. thats why all these things fall under the regime of faith, if it had to be scientific we couldn't change our interpretation of these things as we our sensibilities demanded.
this isn't true either, all the rights in the constitution can be put on hold given certain circumstances. in recent memory, the detainee's at guantanamo bay come to mind.
This includes the rights of government agencies to classify a great deal of information(similar to an NDA) or that it is a felony to reveal the identity of an undercover agent. The general consensus is that all rights guarded by the constitution must be weighed against other guarantees of the constitution that have equal weight, including national security. to quote, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (it's the preamble by the way)
I had two friends work at Blockbuster and because one was manager, I could sometimes convince him to get the blockbuster in my area to get some different anime movies(I would rather rent the movie and see if I like it enouhg to invest in the series).
Most of these DVD's were relatively new, so I was looking at about 25$ for the DVD from regular stores. When he brought up the system they use to find prices of movies to invest in, these movies were over 120$ for this blockbuster to buy. It is because home movies come with different copyright allowances. Rental stores make money commericially off of these movies, so they have to get a different liscense.
That is of course, on a small set of anime movie, but it should give you some perspective of how much these movies cost them to procure.
"A common control panel? Wake me up when windows has one. The control panel works for some things, for other things you need to right click on my computer and manage, still others you have to manually load a snap in, and finally you have to muck with the registry for others. With linux everything is in/etc. If the GUI can't take care of it then you can go in and do it yourself. It may not be perfect but it's better then windows."
I pretty much only use windows, though I have tried a couple of times to switch to different linux distributions. Personally, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never had to use anything other than the control panel to do everything with my windows box. Yep, not a single time have I had to much with the registry. The problem is with your attitude that if the GUI can't do it you should go in and take care of it. Unfortunately, I have better things to do with my time that take a distribution and try to make it work for me with all that effort. A GUI is much more managable and easier to learn.
If your goal is making linux a force on the desktop, then you need to actually address these things. These are actual worries of people who do not have the time to go in and muck with everything in their distro. It is only better than windows for people who have the time to learn how to do these things. I don't, neither do most people. This is not better than windows. 95% of people never want to see a command line and if you want to cater to those people, you're going to have to find a good way to make all functionality accessible from the GUI.
I have loads of experience with the linux community, I try to be part of certain outcrops of it. Yes, there are more people looking at the linux code than at microsoft. Hell, I have looked at the linux code. But guess what, a college student finding a typo in a comment is not equivalent to testing and fixing vulernabilities.
The people in linux that put time into something that has to do with open source is vast, but most of that is not significant. Yes the spectrum exists, but what I want to know about is the patching of kernel problems, the topic of the original comment. With linux , access exists to the source code, but I don't know personally a single person who has gone into the source to fix a major problem.
All your points about just looking don't matter. Just looking doesn't really do anything as meaningful contributions to the linux code base go. having a clue doesn't do it either.
You have mentioned many of the positive aspects of open source, but the grandparent is still horribly over exagerating. The option exists, I just have yet to see the millions of people posting major fixes to the code.
read about 2 lines about the gates foundation. its starting money is 30 billion dollars from his personal finance.
don't respond without any facts or knowledge, its kinda annoying.
that's horse shit, most people who use linux aren't going into the kernel to fix major vulnerabilities and you know this. I have yet to meet a single linux user who makes major fixes to this like libraries or kernel problems. I"m sure they are out there, but they are a very small group.
The Linux community has its ups, and I'm a big fan of it, but lets not over exagerate its greatness. It is actually getting much closer to competing on those terms though. If IBM ever actually rolls over to Linux, they will beable to contribute a great deal more as major fixes go.
if you know anything about how he gets his money, most of it isn't taxable. his actual salary is quite modest, as a great deal of it used to be in options in the company.
he could easily not pay any taxes rather than give 30 billion dollars. People who say he gives that much just for tax write offs obviously have no idea how taxes work in this country.
He could give just a million or so a year to avoid most of his taxes, so I ask you this, why the 30 billion dollars???
it could very well be only for the local area(the few townships around me) but I can't be sure if its a state law. but I was just pointing out that these controls do exist in the US at varying degrees.
at least every credit I ever wanted worked exactly like that.
the bill doesn't come in my name, it comes in both of our names and if my mom or dad want, they could call hte company and get a copy of all transactions on the card in their name.
On another interesting point, it actually also builds credit for your child. I didn't realize I had credit until I went to buy my first car at 20(always borrowed parents car at home, nad in college didn't need one till now).
I actually had a credit rating because of the few purchases I made with that credit card and they were always paid off.
NOw, I guess there might be a credit card company that works differently, but this was my experience with both Visa and American Express.
this is a tad bit more complicated as many parents want to install the idea of hte value of money through work in their children. If you are going to do this, you have to allow your child to do the work. And if the child wants to save up to buy something expensive(there are lots of non-mature video games out there) if they really want it.
this isn't true at all(at least everywhere). In My hometown area, there were large signs that only a parent could take someone 17 or under to an R rated movie and this has been very carefully enforced. This is because the local police would get them if they didn't enforce in.
I don't know about all stores, but I know at blockbuster, they are very strict with their markings of things that you can or cannot get and require that a parent sign off on you checking out whatever you want or restricting the account. I believe on most accounts, you can just ask and they are quite diligent in my area about check this.
Everyone has different experiences with enforcement of laws.
hte competitor isn't using the trademark in advertising!!! read somet stuff on these lawsuits. they stem from the fact that google is selling the name Louis Vutton. They auction off these names and that is where people are coming up with their suits.
Other than that, I don't really understand exactly how its illegal except they are making money on trademarks they don't own. on a quick few searches, one can see that the advertisements don't actually use the name louis vutton. oh well, it will be appealed. we will see where it goes. I"m surprised they can sue google, which is an american company. but I ugess if google has servers somewhere in the EU they are open to those suits.
could all of you be patient?
I think this guy knows all of this. But this is 4 parts, and he is only doing what everyone would consider part one. small to medium sized business need to look at everything, but this is always the first step, how much do I need to spend up front to get my systems.
I just hope you all read the other 3 parts just to see where he goes with it.
I was saying this with a couple of assumptions, mainly that if you are studying Japanese at what most people consider a reasonable rate(the speed most regular college programs go at) your understanding of hte spoken language will be that good aroudn the time you have finished studying 400 kanji.
forgive that being unclear. As you said, you could learn only the spoken language and get more than good enough to understand anime.
importing, damn expensive, but legal in all senses of the word.
note that 50 $ a dvd is standard price in japan for anything that isn't a complete F grade production, and those are usualy around 20 or 25
actually, I have been giving you a hard time so I"m going to stop with this one(as goes giving you a hard time). I will very much admit that private charities give a great deal of money and do great work. I will also agree that a great deal of polio research was done with private organizations. It just happens to be the man who actually found the cure got most of his funding from the government. This isn't to say NGO's didn't do a great deal of work, it just also shows that they definitely didn't do it without a great deal of effort by our government.
I have a good idea where you read the article you are trying to remember; there is a very influential liberatarian think tank that comes out with findings that show this all the time. There are also very conservative ones that will show this and very liberal ones that disagree. I have yet to actually read a econometrics paper that shows this or otherwise.
The WHO does almost all its work with NGO's. This is probably because it is a combination of two things that work really well, the efficiency of NGO's on small projects with the ability to coordinate between the entire world that the WHO brings to the table.
I actually feel there is a place for both in our society, the complete abolition of either one is not for the good but each has strengths the other doesn't. As education goes, I do not know what is the best solution but I doubt it is removing governments from this work.
to note your first source, which is from the cato foundation. Just realize that is the premier liberatarian think tank. I'm not bashing the article as much as you should realize anything you read there will select facts to show how the government needs to not be in almost anything. As a prime example, it doesn't tell you that the National Foundation on Infantile paralysis was started by the federal government.
I can't argue too many facts put forward by cato because I haven't researched this so deeply. but I suggest if your interested in reading some opposing view, you should check out the other two major think tanks in the US> http://www.heritage.org/ http://www.brooking s.edu/
I don't have the time to actually find articles, but in my public economics class, we are encouraged to read all three to see arguments made from people with the 3 major sets of beliefs. I think you might find it enjoyable if you are wiling to actually discuss things. but I"m outta here.
So in other words its too expensive for you to buy it so you don't want to?? sounds like a good plan to me, unfortunately it is illegal. But its your choice to do it so I'm not gonna get into that. Just remember getting the money to legitimately buy what you want isn't supposed to be easy and fun, its called work by most people.
as always, if a market has prices that are high enough, a black market will always emerge. Its a general rule of economics. Just as you can break the law though, these companies can eforce their rights under the laws of today.
But I really find problems with your last paragraph. You are saying things that, while true on the surface, don't reflect the meaning you are conveying. Yes, to get a 100% on the JLPT 1 test, you need to learn approximately 1960 kanji(jyouyou kanji). but just to let you know, most japanese people don't know all the kanji or all the pronounciations, or how to right them all correctly. I've met Japanese people in college who were writing relatively simple Kanji incorrectly and not realizing it. but these people seem to be able to understand anime. In actuality if you want to watch anime, you will probably only know about 400 kanji by the time you can begin to understand it and maybe 600 or so by the time it just starts to make sense. This of course takes a lot of effort but then you can watch whatever you want.
I suggest it actually, you might learn something. all those people who say the fan subs are more accurate than the studios, they aren't. I've found numerous problems with translations after only 1 year of studying, in both of them. What most people call errors are actually problems with Japanese not being nearly as exact of a language. words have multiple meanings and in different situations, mean very differnt things to different people. thats how stylized the language is.
I met people from europe who learned japanese by buying a dictionary and manga and a basic grammar book and just kept with it for 3 or 4 years. Its not easy, but it can be very fun. It has been and still is for me. I actually now look forward to when I have enough free time to learn a couple more kanji and some more words.
note first that all the taxes you mentioned are taken into account and if you use the final number I did, personal income, you are only using what people have, not businesses. you should check out the Economic Report of the President, the tables in the back end can tell you where these numbers come from.
next point: the rockefeller foundation was founded in 1913(just scan there site for a reference). Follow the next link and try to get a little educated about what you are creditting them. namely, whoever told you the rockefellers bankrolled the cure for smallpox is a complete moron. The first type of cure was around for almost 200 years before the foundation existed and the most well known one(using cowpox to infect people first) was around for over 100 years before the foundation. The foundation may have helped speed up its implementation in the developing world, but a lot of that credit really goes to the world health organization.
further, as polio goes, the man creditted with the discovery of the cure(Jonas Salk) did so while working at the University of Pittsburg with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis(started by our president who had polio, roosevelt(sp?)).
The Rockefellers didn't bankroll anything you have claimed. They are creditted with building schools. If you are talking about major contributions to rebuilding Europe after WW II, our government did that to and in much larger quantities.
I have no idea where the original ideas for social programs of the government came from and while you don't provide a single source where I can learn this, you do a good job of intimating where you think it came from.
so I'll give you this chance to try again, we'll act like this last rebuttal never happened and I'll wait for something with some proof to it. Normative analyses are all fun and good unless you wnat to actually convince people.
just to correct some horribly flawed statistics you are throwing around:
The average tax burden of an American citizen is around 30%(give or take, it was about 33% before Bush's tax cuts so I'm sure its fallen). as a general idea, about 550 billion are collected by the states(http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/0300uss tax.html)and the federal government in 2003 collected was about 1.78 trillion, so in total we have only 2.3 trillion.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequen ce =0
do you honestly believe that in 2003 local governments took in nears 2.7 trillion dollars. This is what is needed to have a tax burden of 50 % as you said. but unfortunately, I can't find that number readily.
Eve if we say it matches state outlays, we are then talking about less htan 2.9 trillion in tax revenues. Our GDP was 10.8 trillion dollars. in the ERP, it says that our personal income in 2002 was 8.9 trillion, so even if we use this number, which is smaller than the 2003 number(thought I can't get a complete year's data, only quarterly seasonal estimates) , we are talking about 32%. and this number already subtracts out some taxes that are paid.
so no, most people would not see there income double, a much more meager increase of 50 %(from levels they see now),and this is including the very wealthy who would see there incomes double.
why do I go through all of this? because using just complete BS and trying to use it as support of your argument is just bad form.
Now if we are to argue the low income classes, there tax burden is much, much less that 33%. taking into account the federal government and income taxes, the lowest classes see either 10 or 15% of htere money taxed as compared to the middle class which sees around 25%.
This means you are talking about a lot less money than you originally thought.
There aren't 20 people in this country that can start gate's foundations and the gate's foundation doesn't give nearly the money our government does for relief efforts. Name a social cause the Gate's foundation has made a lasting effect on.
If you want a way to improve public education, give the public educators some competition. It has worked wonders in certain places(same book I noted earlier). You don't need to get rid of them(as long as you feel everyone deserves a certain minimum as education goes). but it is shown that in districts which voucher programs, many schools get in gear to compete.
just wondering where you think the state education board comes from? and actually, they are most controlled by local education boards, which means the community has a huge impact on it. Anyways, if this couldn't be done, we wouldn't have the problem of fundamental religious people wanting things that aren't science(ie. religious beliefs) taught in class and succeeding. My school system didn't teach evolution in biology class because my community didn't like its results(which in no way mean there isn't a god, only that certain religions might have some falsehoods in them).
further, if a parent wanted, they could take the same action, put there kid in private school.
there is absolutely no proof that private school provide a superior education with less. What is certain is that private schools maximize efficiency. education is a private good and so the private markets can always come up with the most efficient solution. If you are referring to higher scores generated by private schools, this is usually a factor of the greater affluence of the average person who goes to private school. Those same people do better in public schools than the public school average.
Of course, a lot of you might take case with me saying that education can be provided efficiently by the private markets so just to put you at ease, it wouldn't be equitable as people have come to understand it. There isn't a basic minimum that everyone would recieve, people would recieve what they are willing to pay for, which could mean elementary or almost nothing for the very poor and business as usual for the wealthy. This isn't an efficiency problem, everyone is doing exactly what they would given basic constraints and their tastes and preferences. If you really want a proof, I direct you to Public Finance, ed. 7, by Harvey S. Rosen, starting at pg. 70.
the law is a vehicle for whatever you want it to be. Yes people use it to both get rich and stay rich, and I say why not? having all that money is like most things in this world, you will probably hate those with it until you join their ranks.
You have never had to use proprietary software as you said and that doesn't make you economically crippled, not in the slightest. If you can find some other way to be just as efficient your fine, but on the other hand, if the software is the best option to maximize your profitability you go with it.
the alternatives did not come into being in 1991, unless you mean "no one gave away a free, usable operating system until 1991" which I still would believe is incorrect. And there have been loads of proprietary software options well before that. That Mac OS/2 so many people hail as being better htan microsoft was out there as well(I actually have no idea, never used either program from that era).
the job issue is one you walk into. If you are willing, go start your own business where you don't use proprietary software or better yet, you could leave the industries where such a thing is forced on you. oh , wait, you don't want the risk that comes with the freedom do you? Its understandable, most people done.
even with copyright and all that bad stuff you hate so much, you argument is still moot. You want people making competing products with excel, I point you to open office. guess what, it was reinvented in a different and very new way. Not only that, I feel there reinvention is much superior. Then if you really want to replace excel, you could just go with the better programs like SAS or Intercooled Stata. both are proprietary and I use them instead of excel any day of the week. of course, they could have just copied the MS office code if they wanted and began from there and Linus could have just started with the DOS code and developed from there. It is of course the path that you want open for everyone to take.
Anyways, Microsoft has a competitor in every single one of its divisions. and usually, its a pretty major one. They seem to be reinventing those wheels just fine. Better yet, I see people choosing those alternatives more and more often.
If the only problem free software makers faced was the possibility of all the ideas being bought up by MS, etc, then you have completely invalidated the idea that "creativity isn't scarce". you can only buy it all up when it is scarce.
try not to contradict or ignore obvious flaws. If all your saying is you would rather see all the source code adn have a world where people program together in harmony and those that don't program feed you somehow, I suggest a socialist state. They are nice, none of that wealth inequality or the law holding the little person down.
just wondering, do you support any kind of patent or copyright, or are you just against them in softwares case?
just to answer for me, I feel copyrights are out of control but in general a very good idea. I think we should really enforce copyright by requiring all code to be open, no one can hide anything they don't have the rights to. patents are a great thing but only if you require a working model, I don't like this teachable diagram BS.
Slashdot Mirror
you missed a couple of other things, namely that tic tac toe has a completely different solution, guaranteed draw if both players make correct moves. you should go back to your Tic Tac Toe games. If you were always winning by playing center, it was because your opponents were making major mistakes. And if you lost because your opponent led with the center square, well, you need to go back and study your "brute force" method.
btw, if I remember correctly, the proper response to a center move is to take a corner. That way no matter X's repsonse, you can always block while setting up a 2 in a row. This forces x to make certain moves and the game ends. slightly more interesting is to actually take a corner as your starting move. It leads to a slightly more complex board that can fool people in the beginning.
well, you see, that involves the customer getting out there and getting informed. people do this with things like cars, but when it comes to anything computer related, they for some odd reason see absolutely no reason to get educated.
just to mention, having a global flood is not really out of the question, if you look at it with some common sense.
I large scale flood of populated areas 5 thousand years ago isn't very hard to imagine at all, everyone lived near water. If some large scale flooding occurred for one of many reasons, including postulated ideas like a meteor impact in the meditteranean sea, there could have very well been a global flood.
Just remember, global could very well mean the area that these people knew about, not with the literal meaning of the entire planet. Two separate religions have this actually, the Jewish religions(including christianity and I believe Islam holds the same belief) and Hinduism.
but of course, when people read these things out of context, of course they are going to sound absurd. thats why all these things fall under the regime of faith, if it had to be scientific we couldn't change our interpretation of these things as we our sensibilities demanded.
this isn't true either,
all the rights in the constitution can be put on hold given certain circumstances. in recent memory, the detainee's at guantanamo bay come to mind.
This includes the rights of government agencies to classify a great deal of information(similar to an NDA) or that it is a felony to reveal the identity of an undercover agent. The general consensus is that all rights guarded by the constitution must be weighed against other guarantees of the constitution that have equal weight, including national security.
to quote,
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
(it's the preamble by the way)
I had two friends work at Blockbuster and because one was manager, I could sometimes convince him to get the blockbuster in my area to get some different anime movies(I would rather rent the movie and see if I like it enouhg to invest in the series).
Most of these DVD's were relatively new, so I was looking at about 25$ for the DVD from regular stores. When he brought up the system they use to find prices of movies to invest in, these movies were over 120$ for this blockbuster to buy. It is because home movies come with different copyright allowances. Rental stores make money commericially off of these movies, so they have to get a different liscense.
That is of course, on a small set of anime movie, but it should give you some perspective of how much these movies cost them to procure.
"A common control panel? Wake me up when windows has one. The control panel works for some things, for other things you need to right click on my computer and manage, still others you have to manually load a snap in, and finally you have to muck with the registry for others. With linux everything is in /etc. If the GUI can't take care of it then you can go in and do it yourself. It may not be perfect but it's better then windows."
I pretty much only use windows, though I have tried a couple of times to switch to different linux distributions. Personally, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never had to use anything other than the control panel to do everything with my windows box. Yep, not a single time have I had to much with the registry. The problem is with your attitude that if the GUI can't do it you should go in and take care of it. Unfortunately, I have better things to do with my time that take a distribution and try to make it work for me with all that effort. A GUI is much more managable and easier to learn.
If your goal is making linux a force on the desktop, then you need to actually address these things. These are actual worries of people who do not have the time to go in and muck with everything in their distro. It is only better than windows for people who have the time to learn how to do these things. I don't, neither do most people. This is not better than windows. 95% of people never want to see a command line and if you want to cater to those people, you're going to have to find a good way to make all functionality accessible from the GUI.
I have loads of experience with the linux community, I try to be part of certain outcrops of it. Yes, there are more people looking at the linux code than at microsoft. Hell, I have looked at the linux code. But guess what, a college student finding a typo in a comment is not equivalent to testing and fixing vulernabilities.
The people in linux that put time into something that has to do with open source is vast, but most of that is not significant. Yes the spectrum exists, but what I want to know about is the patching of kernel problems, the topic of the original comment. With linux , access exists to the source code, but I don't know personally a single person who has gone into the source to fix a major problem.
All your points about just looking don't matter. Just looking doesn't really do anything as meaningful contributions to the linux code base go. having a clue doesn't do it either.
You have mentioned many of the positive aspects of open source, but the grandparent is still horribly over exagerating. The option exists, I just have yet to see the millions of people posting major fixes to the code.
read about 2 lines about the gates foundation. its starting money is 30 billion dollars from his personal finance. don't respond without any facts or knowledge, its kinda annoying.
that's horse shit, most people who use linux aren't going into the kernel to fix major vulnerabilities and you know this. I have yet to meet a single linux user who makes major fixes to this like libraries or kernel problems. I"m sure they are out there, but they are a very small group.
The Linux community has its ups, and I'm a big fan of it, but lets not over exagerate its greatness. It is actually getting much closer to competing on those terms though. If IBM ever actually rolls over to Linux, they will beable to contribute a great deal more as major fixes go.
if you know anything about how he gets his money, most of it isn't taxable. his actual salary is quite modest, as a great deal of it used to be in options in the company.
he could easily not pay any taxes rather than give 30 billion dollars. People who say he gives that much just for tax write offs obviously have no idea how taxes work in this country.
He could give just a million or so a year to avoid most of his taxes, so I ask you this, why the 30 billion dollars???
it could very well be only for the local area(the few townships around me) but I can't be sure if its a state law. but I was just pointing out that these controls do exist in the US at varying degrees.
at least every credit I ever wanted worked exactly like that.
the bill doesn't come in my name, it comes in both of our names and if my mom or dad want, they could call hte company and get a copy of all transactions on the card in their name.
On another interesting point, it actually also builds credit for your child. I didn't realize I had credit until I went to buy my first car at 20(always borrowed parents car at home, nad in college didn't need one till now).
I actually had a credit rating because of the few purchases I made with that credit card and they were always paid off.
NOw, I guess there might be a credit card company that works differently, but this was my experience with both Visa and American Express.
this is a tad bit more complicated as many parents want to install the idea of hte value of money through work in their children. If you are going to do this, you have to allow your child to do the work. And if the child wants to save up to buy something expensive(there are lots of non-mature video games out there) if they really want it.
this isn't true at all(at least everywhere). In My hometown area, there were large signs that only a parent could take someone 17 or under to an R rated movie and this has been very carefully enforced. This is because the local police would get them if they didn't enforce in.
I don't know about all stores, but I know at blockbuster, they are very strict with their markings of things that you can or cannot get and require that a parent sign off on you checking out whatever you want or restricting the account. I believe on most accounts, you can just ask and they are quite diligent in my area about check this.
Everyone has different experiences with enforcement of laws.
yes, and its cosigned with her parent. I had a credit card since I started driving but until I turned 18, no company would let me have one on my own.
hte competitor isn't using the trademark in advertising!!! read somet stuff on these lawsuits. they stem from the fact that google is selling the name Louis Vutton. They auction off these names and that is where people are coming up with their suits.
Other than that, I don't really understand exactly how its illegal except they are making money on trademarks they don't own. on a quick few searches, one can see that the advertisements don't actually use the name louis vutton. oh well, it will be appealed. we will see where it goes. I"m surprised they can sue google, which is an american company. but I ugess if google has servers somewhere in the EU they are open to those suits.
could all of you be patient? I think this guy knows all of this. But this is 4 parts, and he is only doing what everyone would consider part one. small to medium sized business need to look at everything, but this is always the first step, how much do I need to spend up front to get my systems. I just hope you all read the other 3 parts just to see where he goes with it.
I was saying this with a couple of assumptions, mainly that if you are studying Japanese at what most people consider a reasonable rate(the speed most regular college programs go at) your understanding of hte spoken language will be that good aroudn the time you have finished studying 400 kanji.
forgive that being unclear. As you said, you could learn only the spoken language and get more than good enough to understand anime.
importing, damn expensive, but legal in all senses of the word. note that 50 $ a dvd is standard price in japan for anything that isn't a complete F grade production, and those are usualy around 20 or 25
actually, I have been giving you a hard time so I"m going to stop with this one(as goes giving you a hard time). I will very much admit that private charities give a great deal of money and do great work. I will also agree that a great deal of polio research was done with private organizations. It just happens to be the man who actually found the cure got most of his funding from the government. This isn't to say NGO's didn't do a great deal of work, it just also shows that they definitely didn't do it without a great deal of effort by our government.
g s.edu/
I have a good idea where you read the article you are trying to remember; there is a very influential liberatarian think tank that comes out with findings that show this all the time. There are also very conservative ones that will show this and very liberal ones that disagree. I have yet to actually read a econometrics paper that shows this or otherwise.
The WHO does almost all its work with NGO's. This is probably because it is a combination of two things that work really well, the efficiency of NGO's on small projects with the ability to coordinate between the entire world that the WHO brings to the table.
I actually feel there is a place for both in our society, the complete abolition of either one is not for the good but each has strengths the other doesn't. As education goes, I do not know what is the best solution but I doubt it is removing governments from this work.
to note your first source, which is from the cato foundation. Just realize that is the premier liberatarian think tank. I'm not bashing the article as much as you should realize anything you read there will select facts to show how the government needs to not be in almost anything. As a prime example, it doesn't tell you that the National Foundation on Infantile paralysis was started by the federal government.
I can't argue too many facts put forward by cato because I haven't researched this so deeply. but I suggest if your interested in reading some opposing view, you should check out the other two major think tanks in the US>
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.brookin
I don't have the time to actually find articles, but in my public economics class, we are encouraged to read all three to see arguments made from people with the 3 major sets of beliefs. I think you might find it enjoyable if you are wiling to actually discuss things. but I"m outta here.
So in other words its too expensive for you to buy it so you don't want to?? sounds like a good plan to me, unfortunately it is illegal. But its your choice to do it so I'm not gonna get into that. Just remember getting the money to legitimately buy what you want isn't supposed to be easy and fun, its called work by most people.
as always, if a market has prices that are high enough, a black market will always emerge. Its a general rule of economics. Just as you can break the law though, these companies can eforce their rights under the laws of today.
But I really find problems with your last paragraph. You are saying things that, while true on the surface, don't reflect the meaning you are conveying. Yes, to get a 100% on the JLPT 1 test, you need to learn approximately 1960 kanji(jyouyou kanji).
but just to let you know, most japanese people don't know all the kanji or all the pronounciations, or how to right them all correctly. I've met Japanese people in college who were writing relatively simple Kanji incorrectly and not realizing it. but these people seem to be able to understand anime. In actuality if you want to watch anime, you will probably only know about 400 kanji by the time you can begin to understand it and maybe 600 or so by the time it just starts to make sense. This of course takes a lot of effort but then you can watch whatever you want.
I suggest it actually, you might learn something. all those people who say the fan subs are more accurate than the studios, they aren't. I've found numerous problems with translations after only 1 year of studying, in both of them. What most people call errors are actually problems with Japanese not being nearly as exact of a language. words have multiple meanings and in different situations, mean very differnt things to different people. thats how stylized the language is.
I met people from europe who learned japanese by buying a dictionary and manga and a basic grammar book and just kept with it for 3 or 4 years. Its not easy, but it can be very fun. It has been and still is for me. I actually now look forward to when I have enough free time to learn a couple more kanji and some more words.
note first that all the taxes you mentioned are taken into account and if you use the final number I did, personal income, you are only using what people have, not businesses. you should check out the Economic Report of the President, the tables in the back end can tell you where these numbers come from.
y /a bpi/history/history9.html
next point: the rockefeller foundation was founded in 1913(just scan there site for a reference).
Follow the next link and try to get a little educated about what you are creditting them. namely, whoever told you the rockefellers bankrolled the cure for smallpox is a complete moron. The first type of cure was around for almost 200 years before the foundation existed and the most well known one(using cowpox to infect people first) was around for over 100 years before the foundation. The foundation may have helped speed up its implementation in the developing world, but a lot of that credit really goes to the world health organization.
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biolog
further, as polio goes, the man creditted with the discovery of the cure(Jonas Salk) did so while working at the University of Pittsburg with the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis(started by our president who had polio, roosevelt(sp?)).
The Rockefellers didn't bankroll anything you have claimed. They are creditted with building schools. If you are talking about major contributions to rebuilding Europe after WW II, our government did that to and in much larger quantities.
I have no idea where the original ideas for social programs of the government came from and while you don't provide a single source where I can learn this, you do a good job of intimating where you think it came from.
so I'll give you this chance to try again, we'll act like this last rebuttal never happened and I'll wait for something with some proof to it. Normative analyses are all fun and good unless you wnat to actually convince people.
just to correct some horribly flawed statistics you are throwing around:
s tax.html)and the federal government in 2003 collected was about 1.78 trillion, so in total we have only 2.3 trillion.
n ce =0
m e_ tax_rates.html
The average tax burden of an American citizen is around 30%(give or take, it was about 33% before Bush's tax cuts so I'm sure its fallen). as a general idea, about 550 billion are collected by the states(http://www.census.gov/govs/statetax/0300us
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&seque
do you honestly believe that in 2003 local governments took in nears 2.7 trillion dollars. This is what is needed to have a tax burden of 50 % as you said. but unfortunately, I can't find that number readily.
Eve if we say it matches state outlays, we are then talking about less htan 2.9 trillion in tax revenues. Our GDP was 10.8 trillion dollars. in the ERP, it says that our personal income in 2002 was 8.9 trillion, so even if we use this number, which is smaller than the 2003 number(thought I can't get a complete year's data, only quarterly seasonal estimates) , we are talking about 32%. and this number already subtracts out some taxes that are paid.
so no, most people would not see there income double, a much more meager increase of 50 %(from levels they see now),and this is including the very wealthy who would see there incomes double.
why do I go through all of this? because using just complete BS and trying to use it as support of your argument is just bad form.
Now if we are to argue the low income classes, there tax burden is much, much less that 33%. taking into account the federal government and income taxes, the lowest classes see either 10 or 15% of htere money taxed as compared to the middle class which sees around 25%.
http://www.pgaol.msu.edu/html/2004_federal_inco
This means you are talking about a lot less money than you originally thought.
There aren't 20 people in this country that can start gate's foundations and the gate's foundation doesn't give nearly the money our government does for relief efforts. Name a social cause the Gate's foundation has made a lasting effect on.
If you want a way to improve public education, give the public educators some competition. It has worked wonders in certain places(same book I noted earlier). You don't need to get rid of them(as long as you feel everyone deserves a certain minimum as education goes). but it is shown that in districts which voucher programs, many schools get in gear to compete.
just wondering where you think the state education board comes from? and actually, they are most controlled by local education boards, which means the community has a huge impact on it. Anyways, if this couldn't be done, we wouldn't have the problem of fundamental religious people wanting things that aren't science(ie. religious beliefs) taught in class and succeeding. My school system didn't teach evolution in biology class because my community didn't like its results(which in no way mean there isn't a god, only that certain religions might have some falsehoods in them).
further, if a parent wanted, they could take the same action, put there kid in private school.
there is absolutely no proof that private school provide a superior education with less. What is certain is that private schools maximize efficiency. education is a private good and so the private markets can always come up with the most efficient solution. If you are referring to higher scores generated by private schools, this is usually a factor of the greater affluence of the average person who goes to private school. Those same people do better in public schools than the public school average.
Of course, a lot of you might take case with me saying that education can be provided efficiently by the private markets so just to put you at ease, it wouldn't be equitable as people have come to understand it. There isn't a basic minimum that everyone would recieve, people would recieve what they are willing to pay for, which could mean elementary or almost nothing for the very poor and business as usual for the wealthy. This isn't an efficiency problem, everyone is doing exactly what they would given basic constraints and their tastes and preferences. If you really want a proof, I direct you to Public Finance, ed. 7, by Harvey S. Rosen, starting at pg. 70.
the law is a vehicle for whatever you want it to be. Yes people use it to both get rich and stay rich, and I say why not? having all that money is like most things in this world, you will probably hate those with it until you join their ranks.
You have never had to use proprietary software as you said and that doesn't make you economically crippled, not in the slightest. If you can find some other way to be just as efficient your fine, but on the other hand, if the software is the best option to maximize your profitability you go with it.
the alternatives did not come into being in 1991, unless you mean "no one gave away a free, usable operating system until 1991" which I still would believe is incorrect. And there have been loads of proprietary software options well before that. That Mac OS/2 so many people hail as being better htan microsoft was out there as well(I actually have no idea, never used either program from that era).
the job issue is one you walk into. If you are willing, go start your own business where you don't use proprietary software or better yet, you could leave the industries where such a thing is forced on you. oh , wait, you don't want the risk that comes with the freedom do you? Its understandable, most people done.
even with copyright and all that bad stuff you hate so much, you argument is still moot. You want people making competing products with excel, I point you to open office. guess what, it was reinvented in a different and very new way. Not only that, I feel there reinvention is much superior. Then if you really want to replace excel, you could just go with the better programs like SAS or Intercooled Stata. both are proprietary and I use them instead of excel any day of the week. of course, they could have just copied the MS office code if they wanted and began from there and Linus could have just started with the DOS code and developed from there. It is of course the path that you want open for everyone to take.
Anyways, Microsoft has a competitor in every single one of its divisions. and usually, its a pretty major one. They seem to be reinventing those wheels just fine. Better yet, I see people choosing those alternatives more and more often.
If the only problem free software makers faced was the possibility of all the ideas being bought up by MS, etc, then you have completely invalidated the idea that "creativity isn't scarce". you can only buy it all up when it is scarce.
try not to contradict or ignore obvious flaws. If all your saying is you would rather see all the source code adn have a world where people program together in harmony and those that don't program feed you somehow, I suggest a socialist state. They are nice, none of that wealth inequality or the law holding the little person down.
just wondering, do you support any kind of patent or copyright, or are you just against them in softwares case?
just to answer for me, I feel copyrights are out of control but in general a very good idea. I think we should really enforce copyright by requiring all code to be open, no one can hide anything they don't have the rights to. patents are a great thing but only if you require a working model, I don't like this teachable diagram
BS.