You're right, I wish my DVD player had one button for everything, and I could use the remote if I wanted more functionality...which would be sold seperate.
And I wish my console in my car had one button for all it's functions too, and if some people want to graduate to a multi button console it doesn't mean Ford should bundle them with my car.
If Gates gave all his money away he'd have no capital to continue making money. Therefore, the chairty he provides would be done. One shot, the world gets a lot of money, and then its over. If, instead, he gives *some* of his money, while retaining capital to make more money, he is able to donate throughout the course of his entire life.
C02 levels have been increasing steadily since 1900, there's been no drop in them. Global Warming predicts as C02 levels increase, temperature increase, but for 30 years it did just the opposite. C02 levels didnt decrease, so why did the temp?
I'm not saying there's no causation, but not only does correlation != causation, but incompete correlation certainly != causation.
When did I say Apple was copying MS? I didn't. I was stating MS *wasnt* copying Apple.
Though, having reread my analogy perhaps that was a bit unfair, it did imply copying and I didnt want to. Let's say someone coincidently hands it in first, but after you already told your teacher you were doing it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/csmimg/p17a.g if
Those are temps in antartica for the past tons of years. As you can see, Our current phase is actually *less* hot than it "should" be if the trend were to continue the way it has been. And the temperature Goes up and down between 10 degrees celsius and people didn't perish:)
The general trend in america is NOT upwards, it's flat. Had I been less generous and not started from 1880 I could make this statement:
Since the 1930's there has been NO increase in temperature in America. None. In fact, it was hotter in the 1930's than it is now, though very slightly.
Global temperature has risen, fallen, and risen since 1880, even though carbon dioxide levels have steadily risen. In fact, for 30 years between 1940 and 1970 the temperature dropped all that it had gained in the past 50 years. Overall in the past 120 years global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius.
One brings into question the level of accuracy from third world countries in the early 1900's. When one looks at the average temperature in America it tells a different story. From 1880 to 1920 temperatures dropped 0.5 degrees celsius. From 1920 to 1934 temperatures rose 0.9 degree celsius. From 1934 to 1976 temperatures dropped 0.8 degrees celsius. From 1976 to present temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees celsius, for a net total of 0.3 degrees celsius in 124 years.
If Microsoft saw the idea, but got behind track and couldn't get it out, and Apple saw the idea and implemented it, and then MS gets it out, how, exactly is Microsoft copying Apple?
If I say to a Professor "Professor, I'm going to write my thesis on why some people are so blind to the truth", and some kid behind me hears me and goes and ahead and writes it up before me and hands it into the teacher first, should the teacher punish me for not having an original idea?
It's all fuzzy logic, and I mean fuzzy in the hairy way not the logical way.
What's a shame is that Microsoft announced this as a feature of longhorn a couple years ago, but 10 bucks, no 100 bucks says when Longhorn comes out the slashdot crowd will scream copycat.
That's all well and true but what do file standards have to do with integration with the OS? That's what we were talking about, Apple's integration of an office suite into the OS, and someone said that when MS does it, they lock others out. That would imply that MS Office's integration with MS Windows locks others out of other office suites, which it does not. If the grandfather poster *was* referring to what you're talking about, it was off topic and unclear.
The difference is quality degrades each time one copies a casette. It makes it impossible for a chain of copying to exceed past a certain point. Once one lowers the quality with the MP3, it maintains that quality forever.
A house is an investment. If one were to buy a house, and spend all that money on it, he can do whatever he wants with it, include renting it out for 1000 a month. Oh and if you think 12,000 dollars is a great amount of money to live off of, you're mistaken.
Second, what about the people who DON'T work. We're going to assume their ancestors worked hard and therefore give them an equal share of the wealth? Why don't the people who work *harder* deserve *more*?
I think you're a Leftist nut job who really has no idea how life works. Go ahead, share everything equally, and then watch as the lazy get lazier and the motivated lose all their motivation. I'll tell you what, you give me as much as everyone else and I sure as hell am not going to work as hard.
Let's say I develop a product, it cost me 100 dollars to make it. I charge 110 dollars because, well, I need to make some money off of it. Everyone loves it though and I sell 1 million of them. Now I have 10 million dollars. How did I steal that money? I worked hard, and because I have *freedom* I was able to sell what I did for profit.
Why does the person who sits on his ass all day doing nothing deserve as much money as this man? Why does the college drop out pot head deserve as much?
Furthermore, why does anyone *deserve* money? How is it someones 'fair cut' of the juice?
You know what I love? How it's assumed that money should be used as an equalizer. I think sex should. I'm sick and tired of the good looking men of america disproportionately getting the hotter women. I think we should share the women, that way we all get our fair cut of the juice.
I'm also tired of people doing better academically then other people. I think we need to equalize tests to so we all preform the same. It's just *not fair* that some do better than others.
Now, I know some of the wealthy unfairly got their money, but most of them got it because we, the American people, *gave* them that money, willingly. The only thing you're forced to buy (and not really as you could grow your own) is food, and I don't see the world's richest people being farmers. The world's richest people are there because they make something you want. So you give them money.
What incentive is there to do well if we tax the rich so much that they are just as wealthy as all of us? I'm an engineer and I can tell you right now I wouldn't have gone through all the shit it takes to be one if it wasn't for the salary advantage I get over most other professions. That's right, I'm greedy, as are you, as well as jealous it seems from your post.
There would no doubt be issues, but it would be no different then everyone just saving up money on their own for their own retirement, except this would be forced, and more equalized (money is distributed equally at retirement)
While it's not perfect it's much better than what we have now...which doesn't work...at all.
Wanna bet? I can devise a retirement system that doesn't ever go broke.
Each paycheck X% of your paycheck gets taken out by the government and put into something that is safe in terms of financial gain (bonds, etc). When you retire, you get all of that money back in a monthly check.
You could gradually switch between people paying for others to people paying for themselves very slowly. The first year you could have 99% of social security go towards currently retired people, and 1% towards your future retirement, and then each year increase the ratio. You can do that, because as more people retire they will have more money that they themselves were forced to save, thus requiring less from the currently working system.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, I wish my DVD player had one button for everything, and I could use the remote if I wanted more functionality...which would be sold seperate.
And I wish my console in my car had one button for all it's functions too, and if some people want to graduate to a multi button console it doesn't mean Ford should bundle them with my car.
No idea how the world works, do you?
If Gates gave all his money away he'd have no capital to continue making money. Therefore, the chairty he provides would be done. One shot, the world gets a lot of money, and then its over. If, instead, he gives *some* of his money, while retaining capital to make more money, he is able to donate throughout the course of his entire life.
Oh hum...I just noticed that....that was a typo, seriously Im sorry.
It meant to read 30 years not 50 years, too many numbers, hehe. You can see in the graph that 1970 == 1910, so that statement is correct.
But why would there be a drop at all?
C02 levels have been increasing steadily since 1900, there's been no drop in them. Global Warming predicts as C02 levels increase, temperature increase, but for 30 years it did just the opposite. C02 levels didnt decrease, so why did the temp?
I'm not saying there's no causation, but not only does correlation != causation, but incompete correlation certainly != causation.
Woah woah WOAH
When did I say Apple was copying MS? I didn't. I was stating MS *wasnt* copying Apple.
Though, having reread my analogy perhaps that was a bit unfair, it did imply copying and I didnt want to. Let's say someone coincidently hands it in first, but after you already told your teacher you were doing it.
Sorry for another post, but one more thing.
g if
:)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/csmimg/p17a.
Those are temps in antartica for the past tons of years. As you can see, Our current phase is actually *less* hot than it "should" be if the trend were to continue the way it has been. And the temperature Goes up and down between 10 degrees celsius and people didn't perish
Oops, correction, I was looking at 4 year old data for that one. The temperature is *slightly* hotter now than it was in the 1930's, but not by much:
a ph s/Fig.D.gif
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/gr
There's temperature in America since 1880.
The general trend in america is NOT upwards, it's flat. Had I been less generous and not started from 1880 I could make this statement:
Since the 1930's there has been NO increase in temperature in America. None. In fact, it was hotter in the 1930's than it is now, though very slightly.
How about we go with the more standard numbers: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graph s/
Definitely a drop for 30 years
Piles are *NOT* smart folders.
Global temperature has risen, fallen, and risen since 1880, even though carbon dioxide levels have steadily risen. In fact, for 30 years between 1940 and 1970 the temperature dropped all that it had gained in the past 50 years. Overall in the past 120 years global temperature has risen 1 degree celsius.
One brings into question the level of accuracy from third world countries in the early 1900's. When one looks at the average temperature in America it tells a different story. From 1880 to 1920 temperatures dropped 0.5 degrees celsius. From 1920 to 1934 temperatures rose 0.9 degree celsius. From 1934 to 1976 temperatures dropped 0.8 degrees celsius. From 1976 to present temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees celsius, for a net total of 0.3 degrees celsius in 124 years.
Not really, not in terms of copying.
If Microsoft saw the idea, but got behind track and couldn't get it out, and Apple saw the idea and implemented it, and then MS gets it out, how, exactly is Microsoft copying Apple?
If I say to a Professor "Professor, I'm going to write my thesis on why some people are so blind to the truth", and some kid behind me hears me and goes and ahead and writes it up before me and hands it into the teacher first, should the teacher punish me for not having an original idea?
It's all fuzzy logic, and I mean fuzzy in the hairy way not the logical way.
What's a shame is that Microsoft announced this as a feature of longhorn a couple years ago, but 10 bucks, no 100 bucks says when Longhorn comes out the slashdot crowd will scream copycat.
It's a good thing I've got the patch downloa
That's all well and true but what do file standards have to do with integration with the OS? That's what we were talking about, Apple's integration of an office suite into the OS, and someone said that when MS does it, they lock others out. That would imply that MS Office's integration with MS Windows locks others out of other office suites, which it does not. If the grandfather poster *was* referring to what you're talking about, it was off topic and unclear.
Right because I can't use Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, or Opera on Windows...wait...
Or I can't use OpenOffice either, right? I've got to use MS Office.
No....actually....the copyright owners sued people who were *sharing* content on p2p networks. Not even downloading, uploading.
The difference is quality degrades each time one copies a casette. It makes it impossible for a chain of copying to exceed past a certain point. Once one lowers the quality with the MP3, it maintains that quality forever.
1600 2.263 Pentium M
He clearly means in the general time, as in anywhere from Jesus to 100 years or so after his death. He doesn't mean in the time of Jesus' birth.
Youre story about the man made no fucking sense.
A house is an investment. If one were to buy a house, and spend all that money on it, he can do whatever he wants with it, include renting it out for 1000 a month. Oh and if you think 12,000 dollars is a great amount of money to live off of, you're mistaken.
Second, what about the people who DON'T work. We're going to assume their ancestors worked hard and therefore give them an equal share of the wealth? Why don't the people who work *harder* deserve *more*?
I think you're a Leftist nut job who really has no idea how life works. Go ahead, share everything equally, and then watch as the lazy get lazier and the motivated lose all their motivation. I'll tell you what, you give me as much as everyone else and I sure as hell am not going to work as hard.
How did they steal it?
Let's say I develop a product, it cost me 100 dollars to make it. I charge 110 dollars because, well, I need to make some money off of it. Everyone loves it though and I sell 1 million of them. Now I have 10 million dollars. How did I steal that money? I worked hard, and because I have *freedom* I was able to sell what I did for profit.
Why does the person who sits on his ass all day doing nothing deserve as much money as this man? Why does the college drop out pot head deserve as much?
Furthermore, why does anyone *deserve* money? How is it someones 'fair cut' of the juice?
You know what I love? How it's assumed that money should be used as an equalizer. I think sex should. I'm sick and tired of the good looking men of america disproportionately getting the hotter women. I think we should share the women, that way we all get our fair cut of the juice.
I'm also tired of people doing better academically then other people. I think we need to equalize tests to so we all preform the same. It's just *not fair* that some do better than others.
Now, I know some of the wealthy unfairly got their money, but most of them got it because we, the American people, *gave* them that money, willingly. The only thing you're forced to buy (and not really as you could grow your own) is food, and I don't see the world's richest people being farmers. The world's richest people are there because they make something you want. So you give them money.
What incentive is there to do well if we tax the rich so much that they are just as wealthy as all of us? I'm an engineer and I can tell you right now I wouldn't have gone through all the shit it takes to be one if it wasn't for the salary advantage I get over most other professions. That's right, I'm greedy, as are you, as well as jealous it seems from your post.
I may be young, but I read plenty and have an open mind.
You're right, everyone has an agenda, including governments.
Just as corporations make mass produced consumers, governments can make mass produced electorate sheep.
There would no doubt be issues, but it would be no different then everyone just saving up money on their own for their own retirement, except this would be forced, and more equalized (money is distributed equally at retirement)
While it's not perfect it's much better than what we have now...which doesn't work...at all.
Wanna bet? I can devise a retirement system that doesn't ever go broke.
Each paycheck X% of your paycheck gets taken out by the government and put into something that is safe in terms of financial gain (bonds, etc). When you retire, you get all of that money back in a monthly check.
You could gradually switch between people paying for others to people paying for themselves very slowly. The first year you could have 99% of social security go towards currently retired people, and 1% towards your future retirement, and then each year increase the ratio. You can do that, because as more people retire they will have more money that they themselves were forced to save, thus requiring less from the currently working system.