Java isn't really slow when you consider that it is an emulator. As emulators go, Java is down right zippy. Of course everyone seems to forget that it IS an emulator.
"Also, multi-tasking and time-saving is a crutch for those who are unable to be tidy and/or manage their time well."
And there we have it. Efficiency is generally viewed as doing many things in a short period of time, not as being tidy and having a plan. It seems that you are not arguing that tidy is efficient, but that tidy is tidy.
"But it doesn't make on whit of difference if I file now or file later"
Yes, it does. It is a contradiction to say that it is faster to file an item immediately because you filed it later.
"You're visualizing something far different from what I do; again, interpreting what you want to, without regard for actuality."
Then you described it very badly. Although given that you say you file things later AND immediately, that seems to fit.
"Now you're being daft. I would bet my life savings that if you were to drop that piece of paper on your desk, then pick it back up later to file it, the total time you spend on that piece of paper will be longer than if you just filed it immediately (again, for the type of file that doesn't require you to move in order to file it)."
Name calling doesn't make you right. If you point is that a piece of paper that will never need to be accessed again, can be filed with no movement is faster than I can drop the piece of paper on my desk and then file it later, you are probably right. Of course I have yet to see a filing system that requires no movement. That would truly be an innovation. If you mean that you don't have to get up out of your seat, you are still correct as long as you never need that paper again. The first time you have to go back to that file, and I just pick the piece of paper up off of my desk, you have lost any gains you made. Then when you put it back in the file, you are behind.
Your example relies on the idea that each piece of paper will be handle only once. This is a very rare situation, and I would say that when it is the case, the best filing system is to just file it all into the circular file. Most paperwork either goes into archives which are not going to be in your desk drawer, or are used repeatedly, with makes the 'I only handle the paper once' argument an invalid argument.
You seem to be basing your argument on some ill-defined special case scenario. There are large quantities of paperwork that will never need to be filed. They will simply be destroyed or disposed of at the end of their useful life. As for looking for misplaced document three months down the road, that only happens if you can't remember where you put the documents. Tidiness can certainly be used as a crutch for an inability to remember things, but that certainly doesn't argue against the original premise that messy people are more productive. That just argues that tidy people who try to be messy will fail.
I would say that tidiness is a crutch for an inability to multi-task and remember where things are. The time it takes to put something away is only gained back if you don't have the ability to remember where you put it on your desk the last time you used it. Remembering the state of things is a key factor in being able to multi-task.
If by an entire day, you mean 6 or 7 hours, and by less than an hour a day, you mean 59 minutes, you have gained no time. I would argue though that it would not take all day to clean up. You will have a hard time convincing me that if my son spends three minutes picking up his checkers each day, that he will save time over spending three minutes picking them up at the end of the week. You are also not going to convince me that taking my families clothes each night and running them through the wash is going to save time over waiting until the end of the week, and doing 3 loads on Saturday. While there might be benefits to being tidy, efficiency is definitely not one of them. Thinking that it is, is just bad accounting.
"Not at all. The filing can wait -- but I choose to do it immediately. The concern is efficiency, not immediacy at all."
Why you feel something needs to be done immediately does not change how long it takes to actually do it, or the fact that you want it done immediately.
"Just because I have a file folder labeled "archives" at my desk, where I place archival documents until I bother crossing the hall to the archives so I can file them all at once, doesn't mean that I'm not tidy."
Yes it does. Stuffing all of your papers into a folder or piling them on the desk is no different, other than the fact that your "hiding your mess in the folder, and taking longer to do it in the process.
No, since filing it where it belongs replaces putting it down on the desk, but mostly saves time by not having to visually rescan the item to determine where to file it. Do you understand the time savings there, by not duplicating efforts?"
There is no time savings. You are just spending time rescanning the files instead of rescanning the items. You have not saved any time in that. Your bad accounting is clear in that you claim filing something takes the same amount of time as just setting it on your desk. Filing something, even if it is a file sitting on your desk is going to take at least twice as long. If it is in a drawer, it will take you five times as long, if it is on the other side of your office, it will take you 10 times as long, and if it is in the cabinet in the hall, can take a hundred times as long. I would honest to goodness be willing to bet real money on my ability to win a race between me dropping a piece of paper on my desk, and another persons ability to file that same piece of paper. To say they take the same amount of time is just bad accounting.
Uh...Immediately filing things does fall under the category of "immediacy was still a concern". You are also now back peddling and saying that you don't REALLY stay in a state of tidiness. This still leaves us with the fact that tidying up immediately is just hiding the time by counting it as part of another task. Calling it a time savings is just bad accounting.
"I have trouble focusing when things are too much of a mess."
And there is the crux of the issue. There are a large portion of the population that simply cannot concentrate. If you cannot remember where a hundred items are, what do you do? You put them in some kind of system that allows you to figure out where they are when you need them. This is why messy people often seem smarter. People with good memories don't NEED to be tidy. They might choose to be tidy, but it is not a requirement. The other side of that is when people who have poor memories have a messy desk. These people can never find anything. Not because their desk is messy, but because their desk is messy AND they can't remember where they put stuff. A tidy desk is a crutch. This is only a problem when you have someone who needs the crutch, and refuses to use it.
We see this same issue with noise. Some of use can work quite well with all sorts of noise going on around out, as we do have the ability to focus on our task at hand. Others get confused and disoriented when there is noise around them. They are often heard complaining about noisy offices.
"Once you're done using something, put it back where it came from (or where it is supposed to go) rather than just placing it wherever. You never have to actually set aside time to tidy up, since you're in a perpetual state of tidiness."
This is one of the myths that tidy people tend to believe. It looks like a truth on the face, as the statements are technically true, but you must remember that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. If you spend one minute each time you put something away, you didn't save that time, you just hide the time you spent tidying up in other tasks.
My anecdote is about when my wife was a waitress. She would stop at all of her tables to find out if they needed anything, then go and get the stuff. This would seem to be the messy method, as she could have a dozen requests all just stuck up in her head. The waitresses that would take a request, and fulfill that request before getting another, simply could not keep up. They could only handle half as many tables, and then were constantly rushed on top of that. The point was to make as few trips as possible. This saves huge amounts of time. The principle does not change when your talking about little trips to your filing cabinet. You may gain other benefits from tidying up after every step, but it is not a time savings based on no cleaning time.
I don't know what country you live in, and what their dancing situation is there, but here in the US, there are millions of dancers who do it for free every day. Of course it is very rare for anyone to starve to death here, so that might be the difference between the US, and where ever it is you happen to live.
Saying that creativity would stop without copyright is simply a lie.
"If Thompson wants to help prevent copyright infringement, there are better ways to do it, such as financial support for civil lawsuits against pirates."
Of course if Thompson REALLY wanted to help prevent copyright infringement, they could lobby to have copyright lessened or repealed. Repealing copyright would instantaneously stop 100% of copyright infringement.
The real solution is to include a LiveCD that has all the drivers for the hardware. When we talk about OS support, we are generally really talking about hardware support, but you can't prove that the hardware works without software. I've never bought a Dell, so I'll have to ask. Would they really help you install Half-Life? Would they walk you through changing your OS theme? How about removing the pre-installed AOL software?
A LiveCD would be perfect for verifying that the hardware is not the problem. You could test it without erasing your existing hard drive install, and the user would have a bootable OS available to download any other OS they might want to run. The issue with Linux support isn't about supporting the OS. It is in verify that the hardware isn't broken, and that there are drivers for it.
If being an arrogant son of a bitch was what caused people to hate you, athletes would be the most hated group in society. So, obviously arrogance is not even in play as a factor.
Your statement of "It was an attempt to explain to the "stupid" that the intelligent are only smarter at things like math tests." just proves the point. You are trying to dismiss the smart peoples abilities as being non-existent. Your attitude is a perfect example of just how anti-intellectual our society is. It is so prevalent, that you can't even see that you are doing it. Your blatant anti-intellectual attitude is considered moderate in our society. Heck. just look at how you wrote stupid. You put it in quotes, as a way of saying that you wouldn't use the word, but were humoring me with it. Do you put "lazy", "out of shape", "non-athletic", "weak", or "unhealthy" in quotes also? I highly doubt it.
Wrong. "Smartness" is no more subjective than athletic superiority. Although not everyone is smart enough to understand that. Yes, their are different areas of intellectual expertise. Some people will be superior with mathematics, and others with vocabulary. This doesn't change the fact that they are superior in their field, and some people are intellectually superior across the board compared to others. This is no different than seeing an athlete that can bench press 500 pounds compared to a sprinter.
Of course as the previous poster pointed out... We are supposed to be humble about our intellect, and are actively attacked for taking pride in it. Your comment is just another attempt to try to convince the intelligent that they are not really smarter than the stupid. It is unfortunate that this kind of attitude is very prevalent in our schools, as it actively discourages kids from trying to excel. Why would students bother trying to excel intellectually when the best they can hope for is to be told that "smartness is subjective", so no matter how hard they try, they will never be smarter than the football player that can barely keep up with the mentally retarded kids. At worst, their very safety can be in danger.
Yeah, Teach them to hurt the other kids as badly as possible. Physical pain is necessary to teach kids how to compete. After all, teaching kids to compete intellectually is evil. We don't want schools telling kids that the smartest kids are the best. It's the ones that can inflict the most damage that should be set above.
Because THAT is what you are saying. You DO have things you do not want people to see. So do I. Yours might be your pretty body. Mine might be the fact that I am gay. And a member of the legalize marijuana political action group. And a member of the "Send the Africans back to Africa" Charity. Also, I routinely travel 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. And get drunk 1/month in my closet. And I once masturbated while looking at pictures of dead dogs. And I collect my own snot and eat it. I still wet my bed. I won't do business with those dirty, thieving Jews. And I am a card carrying member of the ACLU. And I despise children. All of these things are legal (or at least not serious crimes worthy of being investigated). Now, assuming I was not being sarcastic, do you think I would have a job tomorrow if my boss knew them?
Well... as long as you don't go denying Global Warming...
Add to it, that whenever anyone starts throwing legalies FUD around concerning Linux infringing on 'IP', most people will now just think it is more 'SCO type Tactics'.
I have always thought that if the 'corporation' as an entity commits a crime, then it should face the same penalty that a real person does. The corporation should be locked up, and deprived of the ability to make money. Of course it should be much cheaper to house a piece of paper than a human criminal, but that just works in our favor. Now, one might say that the shareholders are the ones being punished. Well, maybe they shouldn't be so quick to invest in a criminal organization. We all face financial loses because of human error. Whether it is making a driving mistake and having to pay for the damage to another persons car, or saying the wrong thing to your boss and getting fired. It certainly is a lot easier to diversify in investment than it is in your job. Most people have everything on the line in just one job. You might also say that stopping the corp from doing business hurts their customers. Well, that is no different than if my building contractor goes to jail. You might say that people will loose their jobs. That is no different than if my building contractor goes to jail. You might say that it will likely force the corp into bankruptcy. That is no different than if my building contractor goes to jail. While I do have a problem with a fictional entity being given the rights of a person, at the very least, if we are going to do that, we should be holding them to the same standards as a real person.
Well, given that the schools system was crap when I was in school, and the kids I am getting a lot of contact with are worse off than I was in k-3rd, yes, it is a great metric. The metric I am using is my expectations. I expect 2nd graders to be able to read. I expect 1st graders to know their alphabet without problems. I expect kindergarteners to know their colors and shapes. I expect 3rd graders (8 year olds) to be farther along on virtually every subject than my 2 year old.
It isn't just math that is so poor. Math is just one of the few subjects that has a definite right and wrong answer. People that are poor in a subject would much rather have the answers fuzzy. I believe your rational for why math is a problem, but it definitely is not just math. I don't expect every kid to keep up with mine, but I do expect kids that are twice his age to keep up. I don't think that is an unrealistic expectation.
You speak the truth. I have a 2 year old son, (turns 3 this month) so recently I have been talking to a lot of parents, and watching what other kids and parents do. I am appalled. The problem goes all the way from the parent, through the teachers, to the local, state, and federal governments. Here is a link I found for a previous comment in a different story. CDC chicken pox recommendation The CDC themselves state that the death rate among children from chicken pox before the vaccine was introduced was ~50 a year. That is 1/5 of the number of swimming pool deaths a year. This means that of their two part reason for the vaccine, risk of death is clearly FUD. What does that leave? Only that you should vaccinate your child with a high failure rate vaccine to save your week of vacation for something fun, and so that the schools won't loose a weeks revenue from your child.
We have a system where parents take no responsibility for their children, and point to so called 'experts' to make all of the decisions and to educate their children. These 'experts' often have their own pocket books in mind. My wife and I, this year, actually decided to give up her income for the next decade because we found that preschools will simply not tolerate a 2 year old that can read and write. My school experiences, as well as hers, in both poor and wealthy neighborhoods, combined with what we were seeing in the preschools, and the poor levels we see from other kids in k-3rd grade, convinced us that the American school system is only a step above worthless. This includes the private schools. There may be some specialty or magnet schools that are worth while, but if there are, they are few and far between.
If a parent is counting on the public/private school system to educate their child, they have already condemned their child to a life well below their potential.
A) Returning the video is NOT DRM.
B) Perhaps you lived in a cave through the 80, but people having HUGE collections of movies they copied from VHS rentals was common. It's just that the vast majority of people that rented didn't care to keep the data permanently.
"You can't show that, it's not even an argument. You can't support that line of thinking because there is no version of iTunes without DRM to compare to. Saying iTunes succeeded "in spite of" DRM is more wishful thinking than any kind of argument, it's sort of like climate change denial: "we can't affect the polar ice caps, that's silly! oh, we are? well it would have happened anyway"."
Chewbacca Defense.
"you can't have a non-scarce concept"
I really have no idea how you came up with that. A 'concept' is an idea formed from a specific incident. I would bet that the 'concept' of people living on the moon was about as 'non-scarce' as you could get, when the moon landing was broadcast on television. That is just uniquely generated concepts. When you tell someone your idea, you have reproduced that concept, and by definition, once it has been reproduced enough times, it is 'non-scarce'.
"Finally, his argument (I use the term loosely) is invalidated by counter-example - DRM clearly does let you create 'new' business models because it lets you rent things that otherwise you'd have to buy. For instance you can get all-you-can-eat access to a large music library for as long as you pay a subscription. Whether these business models will succeed or not, I cannot say. I know people who subscribe to them and are happy with them. Nonetheless it's impossible to argue that this is not a business model enabled by DRM - if your access did not expire then it'd be equivalent to giving away huge amounts of content for free."
Um..Then the video rental business neither exists, nor has ever existed? Non-DRM rentals of products have been happening for a very long time. In fact, I can't think of any business other than software and (recently) music that has ever used DRM. With software, it is well known that DRM hurts sales unless you have a monopoly. I won't comment on music, as that would be a self referencing argument.
"But we already know what happens when something becomes non-scarce - it's price drops to zero,"
Water.
"Basically, he claims there's an economic solution to non-scarcity of information that doesn't involve DRM. I've been looking for such a theory for some time, and never found one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and he presents none."
Slashdot Mirror
Java isn't really slow when you consider that it is an emulator. As emulators go, Java is down right zippy. Of course everyone seems to forget that it IS an emulator.
"Also, multi-tasking and time-saving is a crutch for those who are unable to be tidy and/or manage their time well."
And there we have it. Efficiency is generally viewed as doing many things in a short period of time, not as being tidy and having a plan. It seems that you are not arguing that tidy is efficient, but that tidy is tidy.
"But it doesn't make on whit of difference if I file now or file later"
Yes, it does. It is a contradiction to say that it is faster to file an item immediately because you filed it later.
"You're visualizing something far different from what I do; again, interpreting what you want to, without regard for actuality."
Then you described it very badly. Although given that you say you file things later AND immediately, that seems to fit.
"Now you're being daft. I would bet my life savings that if you were to drop that piece of paper on your desk, then pick it back up later to file it, the total time you spend on that piece of paper will be longer than if you just filed it immediately (again, for the type of file that doesn't require you to move in order to file it)."
Name calling doesn't make you right. If you point is that a piece of paper that will never need to be accessed again, can be filed with no movement is faster than I can drop the piece of paper on my desk and then file it later, you are probably right. Of course I have yet to see a filing system that requires no movement. That would truly be an innovation. If you mean that you don't have to get up out of your seat, you are still correct as long as you never need that paper again. The first time you have to go back to that file, and I just pick the piece of paper up off of my desk, you have lost any gains you made. Then when you put it back in the file, you are behind.
Your example relies on the idea that each piece of paper will be handle only once. This is a very rare situation, and I would say that when it is the case, the best filing system is to just file it all into the circular file. Most paperwork either goes into archives which are not going to be in your desk drawer, or are used repeatedly, with makes the 'I only handle the paper once' argument an invalid argument.
You seem to be basing your argument on some ill-defined special case scenario. There are large quantities of paperwork that will never need to be filed. They will simply be destroyed or disposed of at the end of their useful life. As for looking for misplaced document three months down the road, that only happens if you can't remember where you put the documents. Tidiness can certainly be used as a crutch for an inability to remember things, but that certainly doesn't argue against the original premise that messy people are more productive. That just argues that tidy people who try to be messy will fail.
I would say that tidiness is a crutch for an inability to multi-task and remember where things are. The time it takes to put something away is only gained back if you don't have the ability to remember where you put it on your desk the last time you used it. Remembering the state of things is a key factor in being able to multi-task.
If by an entire day, you mean 6 or 7 hours, and by less than an hour a day, you mean 59 minutes, you have gained no time. I would argue though that it would not take all day to clean up. You will have a hard time convincing me that if my son spends three minutes picking up his checkers each day, that he will save time over spending three minutes picking them up at the end of the week. You are also not going to convince me that taking my families clothes each night and running them through the wash is going to save time over waiting until the end of the week, and doing 3 loads on Saturday. While there might be benefits to being tidy, efficiency is definitely not one of them. Thinking that it is, is just bad accounting.
"Not at all. The filing can wait -- but I choose to do it immediately. The concern is efficiency, not immediacy at all."
Why you feel something needs to be done immediately does not change how long it takes to actually do it, or the fact that you want it done immediately.
"Just because I have a file folder labeled "archives" at my desk, where I place archival documents until I bother crossing the hall to the archives so I can file them all at once, doesn't mean that I'm not tidy."
Yes it does. Stuffing all of your papers into a folder or piling them on the desk is no different, other than the fact that your "hiding your mess in the folder, and taking longer to do it in the process.
No, since filing it where it belongs replaces putting it down on the desk, but mostly saves time by not having to visually rescan the item to determine where to file it. Do you understand the time savings there, by not duplicating efforts?"
There is no time savings. You are just spending time rescanning the files instead of rescanning the items. You have not saved any time in that. Your bad accounting is clear in that you claim filing something takes the same amount of time as just setting it on your desk. Filing something, even if it is a file sitting on your desk is going to take at least twice as long. If it is in a drawer, it will take you five times as long, if it is on the other side of your office, it will take you 10 times as long, and if it is in the cabinet in the hall, can take a hundred times as long. I would honest to goodness be willing to bet real money on my ability to win a race between me dropping a piece of paper on my desk, and another persons ability to file that same piece of paper. To say they take the same amount of time is just bad accounting.
Uh...Immediately filing things does fall under the category of "immediacy was still a concern". You are also now back peddling and saying that you don't REALLY stay in a state of tidiness. This still leaves us with the fact that tidying up immediately is just hiding the time by counting it as part of another task. Calling it a time savings is just bad accounting.
"I have trouble focusing when things are too much of a mess."
And there is the crux of the issue. There are a large portion of the population that simply cannot concentrate. If you cannot remember where a hundred items are, what do you do? You put them in some kind of system that allows you to figure out where they are when you need them. This is why messy people often seem smarter. People with good memories don't NEED to be tidy. They might choose to be tidy, but it is not a requirement. The other side of that is when people who have poor memories have a messy desk. These people can never find anything. Not because their desk is messy, but because their desk is messy AND they can't remember where they put stuff. A tidy desk is a crutch. This is only a problem when you have someone who needs the crutch, and refuses to use it.
We see this same issue with noise. Some of use can work quite well with all sorts of noise going on around out, as we do have the ability to focus on our task at hand. Others get confused and disoriented when there is noise around them. They are often heard complaining about noisy offices.
"Once you're done using something, put it back where it came from (or where it is supposed to go) rather than just placing it wherever. You never have to actually set aside time to tidy up, since you're in a perpetual state of tidiness."
This is one of the myths that tidy people tend to believe. It looks like a truth on the face, as the statements are technically true, but you must remember that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. If you spend one minute each time you put something away, you didn't save that time, you just hide the time you spent tidying up in other tasks.
My anecdote is about when my wife was a waitress. She would stop at all of her tables to find out if they needed anything, then go and get the stuff. This would seem to be the messy method, as she could have a dozen requests all just stuck up in her head. The waitresses that would take a request, and fulfill that request before getting another, simply could not keep up. They could only handle half as many tables, and then were constantly rushed on top of that. The point was to make as few trips as possible. This saves huge amounts of time. The principle does not change when your talking about little trips to your filing cabinet. You may gain other benefits from tidying up after every step, but it is not a time savings based on no cleaning time.
I don't know what country you live in, and what their dancing situation is there, but here in the US, there are millions of dancers who do it for free every day. Of course it is very rare for anyone to starve to death here, so that might be the difference between the US, and where ever it is you happen to live.
Saying that creativity would stop without copyright is simply a lie.
"If Thompson wants to help prevent copyright infringement, there are better ways to do it, such as financial support for civil lawsuits against pirates."
Of course if Thompson REALLY wanted to help prevent copyright infringement, they could lobby to have copyright lessened or repealed. Repealing copyright would instantaneously stop 100% of copyright infringement.
The real solution is to include a LiveCD that has all the drivers for the hardware. When we talk about OS support, we are generally really talking about hardware support, but you can't prove that the hardware works without software. I've never bought a Dell, so I'll have to ask. Would they really help you install Half-Life? Would they walk you through changing your OS theme? How about removing the pre-installed AOL software?
A LiveCD would be perfect for verifying that the hardware is not the problem. You could test it without erasing your existing hard drive install, and the user would have a bootable OS available to download any other OS they might want to run. The issue with Linux support isn't about supporting the OS. It is in verify that the hardware isn't broken, and that there are drivers for it.
If being an arrogant son of a bitch was what caused people to hate you, athletes would be the most hated group in society. So, obviously arrogance is not even in play as a factor.
Your statement of "It was an attempt to explain to the "stupid" that the intelligent are only smarter at things like math tests." just proves the point. You are trying to dismiss the smart peoples abilities as being non-existent. Your attitude is a perfect example of just how anti-intellectual our society is. It is so prevalent, that you can't even see that you are doing it. Your blatant anti-intellectual attitude is considered moderate in our society. Heck. just look at how you wrote stupid. You put it in quotes, as a way of saying that you wouldn't use the word, but were humoring me with it. Do you put "lazy", "out of shape", "non-athletic", "weak", or "unhealthy" in quotes also? I highly doubt it.
Wrong. "Smartness" is no more subjective than athletic superiority. Although not everyone is smart enough to understand that. Yes, their are different areas of intellectual expertise. Some people will be superior with mathematics, and others with vocabulary. This doesn't change the fact that they are superior in their field, and some people are intellectually superior across the board compared to others. This is no different than seeing an athlete that can bench press 500 pounds compared to a sprinter.
Of course as the previous poster pointed out... We are supposed to be humble about our intellect, and are actively attacked for taking pride in it. Your comment is just another attempt to try to convince the intelligent that they are not really smarter than the stupid. It is unfortunate that this kind of attitude is very prevalent in our schools, as it actively discourages kids from trying to excel. Why would students bother trying to excel intellectually when the best they can hope for is to be told that "smartness is subjective", so no matter how hard they try, they will never be smarter than the football player that can barely keep up with the mentally retarded kids. At worst, their very safety can be in danger.
Yeah, Teach them to hurt the other kids as badly as possible. Physical pain is necessary to teach kids how to compete. After all, teaching kids to compete intellectually is evil. We don't want schools telling kids that the smartest kids are the best. It's the ones that can inflict the most damage that should be set above.
Well... as long as you don't go denying Global Warming...
Add to it, that whenever anyone starts throwing legalies FUD around concerning Linux infringing on 'IP', most people will now just think it is more 'SCO type Tactics'.
I set mine (WRT54G) up with DD-WRT. It also has IPv6 support, and is a breeze to set up.
I have always thought that if the 'corporation' as an entity commits a crime, then it should face the same penalty that a real person does. The corporation should be locked up, and deprived of the ability to make money. Of course it should be much cheaper to house a piece of paper than a human criminal, but that just works in our favor. Now, one might say that the shareholders are the ones being punished. Well, maybe they shouldn't be so quick to invest in a criminal organization. We all face financial loses because of human error. Whether it is making a driving mistake and having to pay for the damage to another persons car, or saying the wrong thing to your boss and getting fired. It certainly is a lot easier to diversify in investment than it is in your job. Most people have everything on the line in just one job. You might also say that stopping the corp from doing business hurts their customers. Well, that is no different than if my building contractor goes to jail. You might say that people will loose their jobs. That is no different than if my building contractor goes to jail. You might say that it will likely force the corp into bankruptcy. That is no different than if my building contractor goes to jail. While I do have a problem with a fictional entity being given the rights of a person, at the very least, if we are going to do that, we should be holding them to the same standards as a real person.
Apparently Dell, HP, and Sony don't make laptops either.
So, would that make a hacked version of Windows that has code to force a crash every 15 minutes a parody, and legal to distribute?
Well, given that the schools system was crap when I was in school, and the kids I am getting a lot of contact with are worse off than I was in k-3rd, yes, it is a great metric. The metric I am using is my expectations. I expect 2nd graders to be able to read. I expect 1st graders to know their alphabet without problems. I expect kindergarteners to know their colors and shapes. I expect 3rd graders (8 year olds) to be farther along on virtually every subject than my 2 year old.
It isn't just math that is so poor. Math is just one of the few subjects that has a definite right and wrong answer. People that are poor in a subject would much rather have the answers fuzzy. I believe your rational for why math is a problem, but it definitely is not just math. I don't expect every kid to keep up with mine, but I do expect kids that are twice his age to keep up. I don't think that is an unrealistic expectation.
You speak the truth. I have a 2 year old son, (turns 3 this month) so recently I have been talking to a lot of parents, and watching what other kids and parents do. I am appalled. The problem goes all the way from the parent, through the teachers, to the local, state, and federal governments. Here is a link I found for a previous comment in a different story. CDC chicken pox recommendation The CDC themselves state that the death rate among children from chicken pox before the vaccine was introduced was ~50 a year. That is 1/5 of the number of swimming pool deaths a year. This means that of their two part reason for the vaccine, risk of death is clearly FUD. What does that leave? Only that you should vaccinate your child with a high failure rate vaccine to save your week of vacation for something fun, and so that the schools won't loose a weeks revenue from your child.
We have a system where parents take no responsibility for their children, and point to so called 'experts' to make all of the decisions and to educate their children. These 'experts' often have their own pocket books in mind. My wife and I, this year, actually decided to give up her income for the next decade because we found that preschools will simply not tolerate a 2 year old that can read and write. My school experiences, as well as hers, in both poor and wealthy neighborhoods, combined with what we were seeing in the preschools, and the poor levels we see from other kids in k-3rd grade, convinced us that the American school system is only a step above worthless. This includes the private schools. There may be some specialty or magnet schools that are worth while, but if there are, they are few and far between.
If a parent is counting on the public/private school system to educate their child, they have already condemned their child to a life well below their potential.
A) Returning the video is NOT DRM. B) Perhaps you lived in a cave through the 80, but people having HUGE collections of movies they copied from VHS rentals was common. It's just that the vast majority of people that rented didn't care to keep the data permanently.
"You can't show that, it's not even an argument. You can't support that line of thinking because there is no version of iTunes without DRM to compare to. Saying iTunes succeeded "in spite of" DRM is more wishful thinking than any kind of argument, it's sort of like climate change denial: "we can't affect the polar ice caps, that's silly! oh, we are? well it would have happened anyway"."
Chewbacca Defense.
"you can't have a non-scarce concept"
I really have no idea how you came up with that. A 'concept' is an idea formed from a specific incident. I would bet that the 'concept' of people living on the moon was about as 'non-scarce' as you could get, when the moon landing was broadcast on television. That is just uniquely generated concepts. When you tell someone your idea, you have reproduced that concept, and by definition, once it has been reproduced enough times, it is 'non-scarce'.
"Finally, his argument (I use the term loosely) is invalidated by counter-example - DRM clearly does let you create 'new' business models because it lets you rent things that otherwise you'd have to buy. For instance you can get all-you-can-eat access to a large music library for as long as you pay a subscription. Whether these business models will succeed or not, I cannot say. I know people who subscribe to them and are happy with them. Nonetheless it's impossible to argue that this is not a business model enabled by DRM - if your access did not expire then it'd be equivalent to giving away huge amounts of content for free."
Um..Then the video rental business neither exists, nor has ever existed? Non-DRM rentals of products have been happening for a very long time. In fact, I can't think of any business other than software and (recently) music that has ever used DRM. With software, it is well known that DRM hurts sales unless you have a monopoly. I won't comment on music, as that would be a self referencing argument.
"But we already know what happens when something becomes non-scarce - it's price drops to zero,"
Water.
"Basically, he claims there's an economic solution to non-scarcity of information that doesn't involve DRM. I've been looking for such a theory for some time, and never found one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and he presents none."
Red Hat.