Wow, a teragram. What an unusual unit. You'd have thought someone would have invented a way of talking about large metric weights.
Some sort of metric equivalent to a ton... say, a tonne. Which would equal about 1000 kilograms, or a 'gigagram'.
Why, then we could say that one teragram would be equal to a kilotonne. Which is, y'know, a real unit.
You know what, you're right!
It IS better to execute them than waste all that money! Who cares that they might be innocent!
Hey, wait a minute, you know what would save LOADS of money? If we shot EVERYONE who was costing the state money!
So long, single mum! BANG!
Eat dirt, bum! BANG!
You're at a public school? Oh dear... BANG!
I'd just like to point out that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" does not hold up. Apart from the myriad of things which, while not wrong, any sane person would want to hide, we need to keep it clear in judges minds that hiding something does not mean one was performing illegal activities.
The comment by Matt Phillips hints at a worrying application of just that principle, and I can quite easily imagine the BPI or RIAA suing someone who they think was sharing copyrighted material, and using an encrypted torrent (which could contain anything) as evidence of that activity.
What do you mean, "patent"?
Look, I know the copyleft movement, and most of Slashdot, are against software and business patents, and it is true that most of the world's patent offices really need tightening up. But that doesn't mean a patent can't be very real, and very deserved. These researchers laboured for years to crack this, and after they did, they managed to find a genuine practical application for a piece of groundbreaking new science. And you would deny them the right to get paid for it?
To answer your question, the way this patent relates to the $100 drives you can buy is: they pay the licence fees. Not that hard, just because some companies price gouge, doesn't mean every patent holder has to.
There is no way Apple can manufacture as many Macs
Um, what? Yes there is. Unless you are suggesting that they would triple their market share overnight, they just ramp up production, use the money from the increased sales to build more factories. I'm pretty sure they already have this in their business plan already, and a large amount of cash set back in case they need to.
OSX can replace Windows only if Apple sells it as Microsoft does
Bullshit. Tell me what is different between the PC market, where microsoft's strategy dominates, and music player/mobile phone market, where apple's strategy dominates (albeit, used by Nokia for phones).
Mac clones started to be successful in the past
Well, yes. But they were successful by taking the money Apple would have got. They didn't grow market share.
Thank you very much. That was a perfect explanation, and I genuinely feel enlightened.
I'm from London, and so our system is actually very similar to yours (as one would expect). We have our separatists (Scottish National Party), our newish rightwingers (UK Independence Party - began as a single-issue, quit-the-EU party, but rapidly became a fully fledged alternative - and everyone else (Labour (Left), Conservatives (Right) and Liberal Democrats (Centre)) is moving towards the centre.
I think the crucial differences, though, are that
1. We don't have a libertarian tradition. Generally speaking, no one in the UK believes that "leave me alone" is a viable political option. We have small-government conservatives, which is probably the closest, but even they believe strongly in pushing their social agenda (generally comparable to GOP), just privatising everything else while they do it.
2. We have a viable third party. Similar to NDP, except the Lib Dems are a loony centre - if you think that is an oxymoron, look at some of their policies. Nevertheless, they are a genuine third party, and more and more recently they have threatened to become the official opposition, as the number of people disenfranchised by the similarity between Labour and Tory grows. The thing that is really holding them back is lack of a strong leader. Ever since Charles Kennedy was revealed to be a hopeless alcoholic, they've struggled on that front.
You are correct; a free market cannot lead to increased overall poverty (although of course some will get poorer, just as digicams bankrupted polaroid), and this is the result of increased market efficiency. The problem is, of course, that a truly efficient market is impossible. A truly efficient market relies on every trade being an informed one. Since that can't happen, market failures occur.
A truly efficient market relies on competition to drive down prices, and on monopolies not abusing their power. In reality, monopolies are near uniform in doing just that, and these days, even oligopolies are dangerous. Witness the printer cartridge lawsuits.
Of course, abusive monopolies can be and are protected against by anti-trust laws. BUT. That is no longer a truly free market.
So. Maximum theoretical efficiency comes from a truly free market. Maximum real efficiency comes from something slightly more controlled, more regulated than that. And once we accept that some regulation can increase efficiency, then it is possible that a true free market could increase poverty from where we are know, IF we are closer to that sweet spot than we know.
See, I think your final paragraph reveals something interesting about Libertarians, and more specifically, why there are so many in America. You are right, the two political parties are awful. But I wonder if you would vote libertarian if you were in another country, with a slightly less monopolised, right wing two party system.
I'm not saying "its just a phase" or anything, but I do think that "if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone" is only a sensible option if the government can't be trusted to do anything right. Now, whether it is possible for any government to do anything really right is a different question, but I've a feeling that if a government came into power that shared your views about what society should be like, you'd vote for them.
Sorry, that was a bit unclear. I'll try an example.
John believes in causes A B and C. Since parties X and Y fuck up these causes whenever they lay their grubby little mits on them, John is libertarian. He just wants them to leave the fuck alone.
John moves to Country R. In R, there is political party Z. Z is not libertarian, but does believe in causes A B and C, and has a proven track record in dealing with them.
My question, I guess, is if you were john, would you vote for Z? Or would you stay Libertarian?
I don't doubt there are people who are libertarian on principle, but I would guess that there are more who are libertarian for the same reason as John.
BTW, this is a genuine question, not for karma whoring. I'd be really interested to get a reply, I don't get much chance for this where I live.
1) your quip about "betting their life" on climatologists being wrong is quite bone headed. People bet their lives every day, and on things much more certain. You bet your life every time you get in a car. Guaranteed 50k people will die this year in the US riding in cars. Why don't you stop betting your life on that "sacred" convenience?
How many people is climate change going to kill this year?
I don't know. Shall we just say in the last month? Unheard of levels of flooding in UK, India and Bangladesh, forest fires in Italy. I don't know how many people have died in these; I think around 500. But millions have lost their homes.
Even if the "worst case" happens how many people is climate change going to kill? What are the chances you are one of those people?
Now that's more like it. Worst case? Everyone dies. This is an entirely feasible worst case scenario. Climate change leads into a feedback loop, which causes more and more greenhouse gases to be released, until the earth becomes uninhabitable.
Why should I spend my life's savings buying an electric car, putting solar panels on my roof (that I'll have to replace every 20 years), and in general destroying my standard of living to avoid a calamity that NO ONE can even put anything like a percentage on.
Because if it is that worst case scenario, you are dead.
2) Why not assume they are right? Because the costs are astronomical! It's not a "sacred" lifestyle, its a lifestyle that has lengthened life expectancy by 30 years in just 100. You go live "sustainably" for a few years in africa, come back and tell me how that was for you. Modern life requires the use of energy. I would be more than happy to have an electric car, to not use fossil fuels, but, if it means that I have to work longer hours, or harder to maintain the same amount of freedom, then no its not worth it. And that is what it means today because it is way more expensive. Now, if you environmentalists would let us build some nuclear power plants, we could probably solve all the problems.
I would ask you to read the book Heat by George Monbiot. Don't worry, I'm kidding, I know you don't actually want to challenge your viewpoint. I'll summarise it for you.
The premise: unless we reduce CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030, some sort of runaway climate change will occur, which we will be powerless to stop.
The solution: We can reduce the emissions caused by our electricity production by a combination of carbon scrubbing on gas and oil power stations, nuclear power plants, and solar and wind power, using a variety of new technologies (such as high voltage DC cables, and carbon sequestration) to improve the speed of production and efficiency of these sources. We can reduce the residential demand by using combined heat and power linked up to a peer to peer electricity network (rather than a grid) with a couple of power stations as backup in case of increased demand.
The bittersweet ending: Life can continue as it has.. almost. Electricity prices will increase by around 90% (in the last 30 years, they have increased by around 200%), and, most importantly, flight will end. There is no way to make it sustainable.
Nuclear power plants would not solve all of our problems. They would be able to contribute a tiny amount to solving one of our problems. And remember, the fastest ever plant took 12 years to build from inception to completion. Also, not a single one has ever made a profit. They are EXPENSIVE.
Analysts in turmoil over "people buy more at Christmas shock"! Fireworks makers puzzle over mysterious early-summer surge in demand! Sales of Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers down 100%!
Well, not everything in the world is done for love of money (the root of all evil, doncha know).
Maybe, just maybe, these studios decided not to preserve their bottom line, but the artistic endeavours of their employees and partners.
If I write a song about my girlfriend, I don't care how much money it loses me, I don't want someone to edit out her name. It is a core part of the experience the artist presents.
Same with movies. If you decide you don't want to see the violent anal rape scene in Pulp Fiction (god, I love Tarantino...), then don't watch it. But it is integral to the story, humour, and overall atmosphere of the entire film. If you watch it without it, it seems like a different film, one that may not be as good. And BAM! The studio has lost money. Because now, someone who once had no view of Tarantino will go around saying "Man, he's a boring director, isn't he? No tension, the movie makes like its all dark, but in fact its just a few people trying to be witty about burgers, and dancing to 50s music".
Was that rambling?
Still, I hope you get my point. Artists should be allowed to choose how to present their work, and at the same time, these edits can hurt the bottom line, by reducing the overall quality of the works.
Surely the reason why microsoft would never do that is the fact that not in a million years would that product stay on Mac. I would give it two weeks before it was given enhancements, ported to windows, and released as a compatible alternative to IE 7, eating away at ever more market share.
Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade and we lose our constitutional right to privacy, that is.
I'm sorry, I may be confused, but how does a court case that guarantees a right to abortion bare any relation to a right to privacy? Is someone venting?
and CERN invented the World Wide Web. So if you want to go back to your lovely BBS, so be it. Otherwise, realise that it's a pointless argument; the internet is international now, and so should the control be.
Technology can only go so far. It seems that most of us Londoners have forgotten the lessons we learnt from the IRA.
Ten years ago, you would never, ever let an unattended bag go ignored, and you would never leave bags unattended. Until three days ago, you saw both happening all the time.
We need to remind people how easy it is to beat terrorism if everyone works together.
I would also like to add a personal view on this, which is; these guys are pathetic. We have grown up with the IRA, and there is nothing special about these. Why the fuss?
And so, in being a flash nazi, you have caused yourself to miss out on one of the most entertaining and original websites for a while.
Sure, flash is annoying for when HTML will do, but in this case, it won't.
Linus is basing what he thinks will happen on his experience of past monopolies.
How many of these have there been? Really? Maybe 10, 20? Nowhere near enough to start predicting the future on. We have had four and a half billion years of weather, and we still can't get that right, and god knows, big business is nearly as complex.
The other problem, of course, is microsoft is learning every day how to protect itself from those other companies fates.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, a teragram. What an unusual unit. You'd have thought someone would have invented a way of talking about large metric weights. Some sort of metric equivalent to a ton... say, a tonne. Which would equal about 1000 kilograms, or a 'gigagram'. Why, then we could say that one teragram would be equal to a kilotonne. Which is, y'know, a real unit.
You know what, you're right! It IS better to execute them than waste all that money! Who cares that they might be innocent! Hey, wait a minute, you know what would save LOADS of money? If we shot EVERYONE who was costing the state money! So long, single mum! BANG! Eat dirt, bum! BANG! You're at a public school? Oh dear... BANG!
I'd just like to point out that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" does not hold up. Apart from the myriad of things which, while not wrong, any sane person would want to hide, we need to keep it clear in judges minds that hiding something does not mean one was performing illegal activities. The comment by Matt Phillips hints at a worrying application of just that principle, and I can quite easily imagine the BPI or RIAA suing someone who they think was sharing copyrighted material, and using an encrypted torrent (which could contain anything) as evidence of that activity.
What do you mean, "patent"? Look, I know the copyleft movement, and most of Slashdot, are against software and business patents, and it is true that most of the world's patent offices really need tightening up. But that doesn't mean a patent can't be very real, and very deserved. These researchers laboured for years to crack this, and after they did, they managed to find a genuine practical application for a piece of groundbreaking new science. And you would deny them the right to get paid for it? To answer your question, the way this patent relates to the $100 drives you can buy is: they pay the licence fees. Not that hard, just because some companies price gouge, doesn't mean every patent holder has to.
Thank you very much. That was a perfect explanation, and I genuinely feel enlightened. I'm from London, and so our system is actually very similar to yours (as one would expect). We have our separatists (Scottish National Party), our newish rightwingers (UK Independence Party - began as a single-issue, quit-the-EU party, but rapidly became a fully fledged alternative - and everyone else (Labour (Left), Conservatives (Right) and Liberal Democrats (Centre)) is moving towards the centre.
I think the crucial differences, though, are that
1. We don't have a libertarian tradition. Generally speaking, no one in the UK believes that "leave me alone" is a viable political option. We have small-government conservatives, which is probably the closest, but even they believe strongly in pushing their social agenda (generally comparable to GOP), just privatising everything else while they do it.
2. We have a viable third party. Similar to NDP, except the Lib Dems are a loony centre - if you think that is an oxymoron, look at some of their policies. Nevertheless, they are a genuine third party, and more and more recently they have threatened to become the official opposition, as the number of people disenfranchised by the similarity between Labour and Tory grows. The thing that is really holding them back is lack of a strong leader. Ever since Charles Kennedy was revealed to be a hopeless alcoholic, they've struggled on that front.
You are correct; a free market cannot lead to increased overall poverty (although of course some will get poorer, just as digicams bankrupted polaroid), and this is the result of increased market efficiency.
The problem is, of course, that a truly efficient market is impossible. A truly efficient market relies on every trade being an informed one. Since that can't happen, market failures occur.
A truly efficient market relies on competition to drive down prices, and on monopolies not abusing their power. In reality, monopolies are near uniform in doing just that, and these days, even oligopolies are dangerous. Witness the printer cartridge lawsuits.
Of course, abusive monopolies can be and are protected against by anti-trust laws. BUT. That is no longer a truly free market.
So. Maximum theoretical efficiency comes from a truly free market. Maximum real efficiency comes from something slightly more controlled, more regulated than that. And once we accept that some regulation can increase efficiency, then it is possible that a true free market could increase poverty from where we are know, IF we are closer to that sweet spot than we know.
I think. Damn you, lack of economic training!
See, I think your final paragraph reveals something interesting about Libertarians, and more specifically, why there are so many in America. You are right, the two political parties are awful. But I wonder if you would vote libertarian if you were in another country, with a slightly less monopolised, right wing two party system. I'm not saying "its just a phase" or anything, but I do think that "if I'm not hurting you, leave me the hell alone" is only a sensible option if the government can't be trusted to do anything right. Now, whether it is possible for any government to do anything really right is a different question, but I've a feeling that if a government came into power that shared your views about what society should be like, you'd vote for them.
Sorry, that was a bit unclear. I'll try an example.
John believes in causes A B and C. Since parties X and Y fuck up these causes whenever they lay their grubby little mits on them, John is libertarian. He just wants them to leave the fuck alone.
John moves to Country R. In R, there is political party Z. Z is not libertarian, but does believe in causes A B and C, and has a proven track record in dealing with them.
My question, I guess, is if you were john, would you vote for Z? Or would you stay Libertarian?
I don't doubt there are people who are libertarian on principle, but I would guess that there are more who are libertarian for the same reason as John.
BTW, this is a genuine question, not for karma whoring. I'd be really interested to get a reply, I don't get much chance for this where I live.
I'd love if Google had designed it this way. This is really, really bad for promoters of DRM, of which Google, conspicuously, isn't one.
Analysts in turmoil over "people buy more at Christmas shock"!
Fireworks makers puzzle over mysterious early-summer surge in demand!
Sales of Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers down 100%!
I'm sorry to be the harsh voice of reality, but have you considered the possibility that it's just music that no one wants? I buy plenty...
Well, not everything in the world is done for love of money (the root of all evil, doncha know). Maybe, just maybe, these studios decided not to preserve their bottom line, but the artistic endeavours of their employees and partners. If I write a song about my girlfriend, I don't care how much money it loses me, I don't want someone to edit out her name. It is a core part of the experience the artist presents. Same with movies. If you decide you don't want to see the violent anal rape scene in Pulp Fiction (god, I love Tarantino...), then don't watch it. But it is integral to the story, humour, and overall atmosphere of the entire film. If you watch it without it, it seems like a different film, one that may not be as good. And BAM! The studio has lost money. Because now, someone who once had no view of Tarantino will go around saying "Man, he's a boring director, isn't he? No tension, the movie makes like its all dark, but in fact its just a few people trying to be witty about burgers, and dancing to 50s music". Was that rambling? Still, I hope you get my point. Artists should be allowed to choose how to present their work, and at the same time, these edits can hurt the bottom line, by reducing the overall quality of the works.
Well, the IRA and ETA (the biggest Basque group) have both renounced violence recently. But the others still exist...
Surely the reason why microsoft would never do that is the fact that not in a million years would that product stay on Mac. I would give it two weeks before it was given enhancements, ported to windows, and released as a compatible alternative to IE 7, eating away at ever more market share.
Until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade and we lose our constitutional right to privacy, that is.
I'm sorry, I may be confused, but how does a court case that guarantees a right to abortion bare any relation to a right to privacy? Is someone venting?
and CERN invented the World Wide Web. So if you want to go back to your lovely BBS, so be it. Otherwise, realise that it's a pointless argument; the internet is international now, and so should the control be.
Wait, he's serious? I was about to mod him +1 funny...
Check the dates before you make accusations. Your link is two comments pasted together.
Technology can only go so far. It seems that most of us Londoners have forgotten the lessons we learnt from the IRA. Ten years ago, you would never, ever let an unattended bag go ignored, and you would never leave bags unattended. Until three days ago, you saw both happening all the time. We need to remind people how easy it is to beat terrorism if everyone works together. I would also like to add a personal view on this, which is; these guys are pathetic. We have grown up with the IRA, and there is nothing special about these. Why the fuss?
Or possibly just the difference between stations with tens of thousands of people going through them each day, and those with ten.
And so, in being a flash nazi, you have caused yourself to miss out on one of the most entertaining and original websites for a while. Sure, flash is annoying for when HTML will do, but in this case, it won't.
Linus is basing what he thinks will happen on his experience of past monopolies. How many of these have there been? Really? Maybe 10, 20? Nowhere near enough to start predicting the future on. We have had four and a half billion years of weather, and we still can't get that right, and god knows, big business is nearly as complex. The other problem, of course, is microsoft is learning every day how to protect itself from those other companies fates.
So you will find your way to debian_iso.avalanche, download it, and find that it has transformed into a handy little PDF explaining why linux bites...
RTFA, the calculators had to have that function disabled to comply with Virginia's tests.