I'm a techie, and it seems to me, that this is what they call a hybridization problem.
To be a people person, managing people, is a JOB, it takes alot of getting used to, and a lot of work.
Same with programming, or IT in general, there's a lot of skills to keep on top of, and a continually changing marketplace.
So getting a hybrid person who's great at managing people and knowing who to put in charge of what, but who's also great at knowing exactly how to harness and guide technology, you're probably going to have to sacrifice parts of one aspect or another.
So better someone strong at getting the right people under him in the right positions (*coughs*) than someone who knows all their technology, but not how to delegate to get things -done-.
While I get what you were trying to say, your illustration sucks because you posit some product that costs the company 0$ to make. If the product costs 10$, then the company sells 10 and makes 900$ in the first case and sells 1000 and makes 0$ in the second case.
The direct connection between lowered taxes and increased spending equaling increased government revenue is similarly much more complicated than you suggest.
For my part, I don't know of many people who have the luxury of basing their spending habits on the insignificant changes to the federal tax rate. If they are going to buy something, they don't wait for the federal tax rate to lower, that's for sure.
I believe you're ignoring what it would eventually devolve into: Each candidate would end up linking directly from the evoting location to 1 minute youtube-like clip of themselves espousing whatever their issue of the hour was.
No, worse than that, it's like Ford acknowledging that they have defective brakes, then providing a life-saving brake pad "fix" that you'll need to pay them to receive, and then preventing anyone else from making as effective of brake-pads.
Much like buying "protection" from the mob, it does not encourage the seller to ever solve the root problem.
Its patent is currently registered with C Corp, but the patent has been contested in the past by such notaries as Neptune LLC, Jonah Ltd, Pinocchio Inc, and Raffi (he filed in referrence to a blue version which has been reduced to 40-80,000 remaining models world-wide, and the production of which has been mostly halted).
...to the reading/detecting helmet, at least. 'cause I doubt it'd be strong enough to read your brain waves through the tin-foil interference. But then, why are you putting it on over your tin-foil hat anyway? Maybe you're already under "their" control.
When the mind control version comes out, you may have to upgrade your "mind-virus" protection to "iron foil" Service Pack 1.
I would argue the opposite, odds are that any lifeform adapted to earth will die immediately on mars, but it's more likely that any micro-organism able to live on mars would be able survive earth extremes than vice versa.
Though, I do agree that most likely they both would simply die.
Re: Microsoft's Spam Reliability-They are spammers
on
The Webmail Wars
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft -sends- spam to the hotmail account that I have (for throwaway purposes, not that I seem to need it with gmail's spam filtering system) so that every time I infrequently check that account to see if some person or list doesn't know about my new account, there's another "important announcement" from hotmail. Which says exactly the same thing (in full flash glory) as all the other "important announcements".
I only ever recieved one unsolicited message from google, and that was the introduction that was in my inbox when I signed up.
"I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers."
Law Enforcement agents sign on to risk their lives to uphold the laws of the government. Citizens sign do not sign up to have their lives taken from them by government action.
Thus, all else being equal, the death of a law enforcement agent or soldier can be seen as something that they and those around them have prepared for while a civilian death cannot.
Neither life is worth more, but one is a result of choice, and therefore less of an accident.
What we really need is for a respected anti-virus company to join forces with one of the respected anti-spyware companies and churn out something that has automated protection from viruses and at least -the option- to turn on automated protection from spyware. (lists of spyware programs that trigger neon red warnings when they're being installed, or are simply blocked from installation, anyone?)
If the users need to be protected from themselves because they are installing malicious programs, then there should be the option for that protection.
I guess, though, that the very concept of the system giving warnings on things that shouldn't be installed would require -Microsoft- to take action. And the fact that they haven't done that already makes me wonder whether there is some angle to it that makes it an advantage for them not to label problematic programs for their users... But then again, I should remember that I'm talking about people who made a built-in firewall and then didn't turn it on until they released a patch.
Now the only question is whether they (both yahoo -and- msn) can follow the -meaning- that underlies those search pages. Simplicity of interface. A purpose directed at -exactly- what their users want, with only the minimum obtrusiveness for self-interest (i.e. the text-based ads) getting in the way.
Anyone who has seen their portal pages would assume that a simple interface ranks very low on their priority list. If they haven't really grasped the overall concept of simplicity, then they will simply continue to follow after google like a loyal puppy or shoot their attempt at simplicity in the foot somehow.
Personally, I can only hope that they follow but do not unrightfully pass by google's lead. Spreading the best aspects of google can be good for everyone that uses the internet, but stifling google's innovation would be a good means to a bad end.
Even more interesting, though, will be the fact that as the competition grows more unruly, google will have to keep being innovative to stay ahead.
In the end, I'm looking forwards to what they all will do next.
An excellent point. Such an excellent one, in fact, that I am rather horrified to have not seen it up until now.
So in the end, what we have weighing against each-other are two factors:
The ability of the masses, in the event of a failure of representation (which we will for an instant call justice) to rise up and overthrow the injust.
Vs.
The ability of the masses to have a better quality of life, due to the absence of the never-ending spot instances of misuse of guns that will occur when the rabid masses have easy access to them.
I have never, ever seen a reasonable benefit of self defense through guns when it meant that by being accessable to everyone, a criminal can gain easy power over the innocent simply by getting a gun.
But the viewpoint of the countrywide survival of liberty, makes me willing to endure the concept of guns in the hands of the idiots that I see every day. 'cause at least I know that they'll be just as rabidly patriotic in revolting against an invader as they are in following a stubbornly uncomprehending leader.
And I also find it amusing to think Jefferson used manure humor to make a point. Almost humor, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a techie, and it seems to me, that this is what they call a hybridization problem. To be a people person, managing people, is a JOB, it takes alot of getting used to, and a lot of work. Same with programming, or IT in general, there's a lot of skills to keep on top of, and a continually changing marketplace. So getting a hybrid person who's great at managing people and knowing who to put in charge of what, but who's also great at knowing exactly how to harness and guide technology, you're probably going to have to sacrifice parts of one aspect or another. So better someone strong at getting the right people under him in the right positions (*coughs*) than someone who knows all their technology, but not how to delegate to get things -done-.
While I get what you were trying to say, your illustration sucks because you posit some product that costs the company 0$ to make. If the product costs 10$, then the company sells 10 and makes 900$ in the first case and sells 1000 and makes 0$ in the second case. The direct connection between lowered taxes and increased spending equaling increased government revenue is similarly much more complicated than you suggest. For my part, I don't know of many people who have the luxury of basing their spending habits on the insignificant changes to the federal tax rate. If they are going to buy something, they don't wait for the federal tax rate to lower, that's for sure.
I believe you're ignoring what it would eventually devolve into: Each candidate would end up linking directly from the evoting location to 1 minute youtube-like clip of themselves espousing whatever their issue of the hour was.
No, worse than that, it's like Ford acknowledging that they have defective brakes, then providing a life-saving brake pad "fix" that you'll need to pay them to receive, and then preventing anyone else from making as effective of brake-pads. Much like buying "protection" from the mob, it does not encourage the seller to ever solve the root problem.
Its patent is currently registered with C Corp, but the patent has been contested in the past by such notaries as Neptune LLC, Jonah Ltd, Pinocchio Inc, and Raffi (he filed in referrence to a blue version which has been reduced to 40-80,000 remaining models world-wide, and the production of which has been mostly halted).
...to the reading/detecting helmet, at least. 'cause I doubt it'd be strong enough to read your brain waves through the tin-foil interference.
But then, why are you putting it on over your tin-foil hat anyway? Maybe you're already under "their" control.
When the mind control version comes out, you may have to upgrade your "mind-virus" protection to "iron foil" Service Pack 1.
I would argue the opposite, odds are that any lifeform adapted to earth will die immediately on mars, but it's more likely that any micro-organism able to live on mars would be able survive earth extremes than vice versa.
Though, I do agree that most likely they both would simply die.
Microsoft -sends- spam to the hotmail account that I have (for throwaway purposes, not that I seem to need it with gmail's spam filtering system) so that every time I infrequently check that account to see if some person or list doesn't know about my new account, there's another "important announcement" from hotmail. Which says exactly the same thing (in full flash glory) as all the other "important announcements".
I only ever recieved one unsolicited message from google, and that was the introduction that was in my inbox when I signed up.
"I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers."
Law Enforcement agents sign on to risk their lives to uphold the laws of the government. Citizens sign do not sign up to have their lives taken from them by government action.
Thus, all else being equal, the death of a law enforcement agent or soldier can be seen as something that they and those around them have prepared for while a civilian death cannot.
Neither life is worth more, but one is a result of choice, and therefore less of an accident.
What we really need is for a respected anti-virus company to join forces with one of the respected anti-spyware companies and churn out something that has automated protection from viruses and at least -the option- to turn on automated protection from spyware. (lists of spyware programs that trigger neon red warnings when they're being installed, or are simply blocked from installation, anyone?)
If the users need to be protected from themselves because they are installing malicious programs, then there should be the option for that protection.
I guess, though, that the very concept of the system giving warnings on things that shouldn't be installed would require -Microsoft- to take action. And the fact that they haven't done that already makes me wonder whether there is some angle to it that makes it an advantage for them not to label problematic programs for their users...
But then again, I should remember that I'm talking about people who made a built-in firewall and then didn't turn it on until they released a patch.
Now the only question is whether they (both yahoo -and- msn) can follow the -meaning- that underlies those search pages. Simplicity of interface. A purpose directed at -exactly- what their users want, with only the minimum obtrusiveness for self-interest (i.e. the text-based ads) getting in the way.
Anyone who has seen their portal pages would assume that a simple interface ranks very low on their priority list.
If they haven't really grasped the overall concept of simplicity, then they will simply continue to follow after google like a loyal puppy or shoot their attempt at simplicity in the foot somehow.
Personally, I can only hope that they follow but do not unrightfully pass by google's lead. Spreading the best aspects of google can be good for everyone that uses the internet, but stifling google's innovation would be a good means to a bad end.
Even more interesting, though, will be the fact that as the competition grows more unruly, google will have to keep being innovative to stay ahead.
In the end, I'm looking forwards to what they all will do next.
You're working for them, aren't you.
So in the end, what we have weighing against each-other are two factors:
The ability of the masses, in the event of a failure of representation (which we will for an instant call justice) to rise up and overthrow the injust.
Vs.
The ability of the masses to have a better quality of life, due to the absence of the never-ending spot instances of misuse of guns that will occur when the rabid masses have easy access to them.
I have never, ever seen a reasonable benefit of self defense through guns when it meant that by being accessable to everyone, a criminal can gain easy power over the innocent simply by getting a gun.
But the viewpoint of the countrywide survival of liberty, makes me willing to endure the concept of guns in the hands of the idiots that I see every day. 'cause at least I know that they'll be just as rabidly patriotic in revolting against an invader as they are in following a stubbornly uncomprehending leader.
And I also find it amusing to think Jefferson used manure humor to make a point. Almost humor, at least.