That's BS. There has been astroturfing for a very long time, and the best ones at it are the ones who are true believers, and are also subtle.
McCain asking his supporters to blog on DailyKos is like MS or Apple asking their PR firms to work on web presence. I'm fairly certain that PR firms hired by companies like MS and Apple astrofturf -- but at least on Slashdot we have moderation to tune out some of it (and a realtively informed readbase), so it has to be fairly subtle to work well. I'm not sure I can say the same for DailyKos or some of the other targeted sites.
Say there were 200 cases, 100 each over two years. During year 1, there were 13 cases due to business partners. During year two, there were 65 cases due to business partners.
The percentage went up five-fold between year 1 and year 2, but the total percentage over the study is 39%.
I have yet to see any proof of falsified voting results.
How can there be proof when the document trail is broken and the vote tallies are unverifiable?
Just the inaccuracy of the exit polling in the last presidential election should be enough to raise a crapload of red flags. In no other election were the exit polls so far from the election results in so many precincts.
FTFY. When steps 1 and 2 are "make money", step 3 becomes meaningless. I think you've solved the great mystery of dotcom VC-chasing business plans, you genius.
You're kidding, right? The health of the nation's banking system is not a legislative issue?
I think you underestimate the breadth and depth of the problem, and how serious the implications are.
It was legislative deregulation that allowed the banking crisis to develop... I for one do not want to let it play out without interference, since I value maintaining the strength of the economy and the job market whenever possible.
Then again, you might be a free market idealist, in which case my words fall on deaf ears... not sure about your views.
My point is that letting things play out (via fraud litigiation, etc) will be much more costly than taking preventitive action. Is it right? Probably not. Is it just? Almost definitely not. Is it the best course of action for the economic health of everyone, including those such as you and me who were not idiots? IMO, yes. In the opinion of most economists, yes.
Either way, there's no reason for me to pay for that mistake and they need to learn their lesson.Someone has to pay for that lesson. It's either the lending banks, or the public.
Who do you think carries more weight with legislators? Expecially considering that if the lending backs suffer too much, the public will end up paying when they fail?
Study Links Storm Botnet's Growth To Illegal Drugs
It is obvious that Storm Botnet has been implicated in the Balco scandal. Expect Congressional hearings any day to determine if Storm's use of 'the clear' and 'the cream' has resulted in the extraordinary growth of Storm Botnet, and the resultant increase in HRs, RBIs, and TDs.
Never underestimate the power of fear, doubt, and money.
Also, never underestimate the power of unverifiable electronic vote capturing in key districts.
And never underestimate the power of election tampering by directing poor urban voters to the wrong site... or by undersupplying voting machines in poor urban districts...
I'm not talkig about what tools you shold choose to use... I'm talking about what tools will be available for your use. If proprietary tools are unprofitable, they eventually cease to exist. To keep them profitable, the price of using them may be too high. It will take time for OS tools to bridge the gap, and until that time, the tools available to you may be reduced.
It's not insane... it's the nature of business economics.
You might as well rail that God is insane, or that gravity is insane.
I would say, go see a psychiatrist yourself -- but I think you'd be better off reading some texts on the subject, maybe it will help your reading comprehension.
First there is no assumption of "informed" in economics
For optimal performance of a free market model, full access to information by all actors is required. Any misinformation becomes an inefficiency.
Additionally, you have both forgotten that "rational" is relative to the values of the person making the decision.
Not so. Why do you assume that I did not mean rational in the economic sense?
You have also forgotten about resource scarcity
Resource scarcity has no bearing on my argument. Reduced choice means that there will be fewer suppliers of equivalent goods.
Capitalism does not reduce choices consumers - if actually practiced (good luck with that one) it would efficiently maximize choice to the greatest extent a market could bear
And here's where you missed my point entirely.
First, are you saying that capitalism == free market economy? Please confirm, otherwise your point makes no sense.
Second, any economist of any repute will qualify the statement that a free market economy will efficiently maximize choice. In the case of a natural monopoly (such as telehpone service), an unregulated market leads to monopoly. The inherent inefficiency (in this case, barriers to entry) cause this. This does, in no way, increase choice for the consumer.
Scarcity of all resources imposes burdens on choice - there can be no infinite panoply of options except maybe "in heaven."
Agian, scarcity of resources has nothing at all to do with my point. So there are finite resources... how exactly does that change the fact that barriers to entry reduce choice? And where did I ever discuss an infinite panopoly of choices? Did you set up a straw man by accident, or on purpose?
I'm not sure what your background in economics is... but it appears that either your reading comrehension needs some work, or you have very little background in economics and are trying to discuss something over your head.
It's legal and free to download, and IF, *IF* you like an album or a song, you can pay the artist direct from the site. You are not compelled to pay for any of it. I believe you can even share it around, encouraged even. Put that on a p2p net and wait (and pray) that they pick on you. You would laugh them outta court.
Sure, you'd laugh them outta court... but that's an expensive laugh. Lawyers aren't free, you know, and good luck going up against the RIAA member companies without a lawyer. Maybe you can get a lawyer pro bono... maybe not. Maybe the RIAA member company suing you will have your legal fees assigned to them by the judge... maybe not.
How much is taking that risk worth to your average Joe?
PS: informed, rational decisions are an assumption in free-market economics. The fact that you don't like capitalism doesn't make this untrue, as you seem to imply.
They are not assumed, they are required. Thus any market economic model is invalidated when a non-trivial portoin of the actors do not have access to information, or do not make rational decisions. These factors can be adjusted for, but it is difficult to accurately assess.
The reason I point this out is that this is independent of free or not-free economic models. The reason free-market capitalism actually reduces choice for purchasers is that there are barriers to entry for production of a good. Some are regulatory (and thus would disappear in a true free market) but some are natural and cannot be removed from the equation.
One other thing to note... from an economists perspective, your productivity doesn't matter. Something may benefit some people and harm others, but the interests of the individual are meaningless -- what is important is the benefit to the economy (&hence, society).
Sorry if you have to take one for the team while OS tools catch up to proprietary tools, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I'm going to take a different stance, based upon the market, rather than the profit needs of the game publisher.
If you make a game, and development costs are 10 million USD, and you can't sell million copies at $10, sure you're screwed. You lost money because you made a poor choice by producing a game that costs so much to develop.
Here's the purchase deciosn:
Purchase if [cost of official game] Some important notes:
[cost of official game] includes time spent dealing with copyright protection, and is reduced by the 'good feelings' from doing-the-right-thing-and-supporting-the-publisher. [cost of pirated game] is reduced by 'good feelings' from sticking-it-to-the-man, and increased by any feelings of guilt; it also includes time spent evading copyright protection.
The point of copyright protection is to increase the costs of pirating, while keeping non-cash purchase costs to a minimum.
A little unwieldy, but the point is that game publishers should take whatever actions they can to maximize sales (in $$).
Where your comparison breaks down is that regardless of what the game developer paid to create the game, the market will bear only what the market will bear -- purchases don't care how much it cost to produce. If you can't make a game chaeply enough to make a profit with the market as it is, you have no business making games.
With numbers like these the problem is not video games or violent music, the true problem is socio-economical.
You raise a very good point about incomes, but, video games and violent music make up some of the "socio" part of socio-economical.
Your point raises the deeper question, which is what causes violence to be such a large part of poor culture in that area? Why is violence glorified?
I know, it's a big question for a Monday afternoon, but a lot of people think that glorification of violence in music and video games carries over into common life, moreso in poor areas than wealthy ones.
So, I guess my point is that while incomes in the area affect murder/violent crime rates, why is that so? And does glorification of violence in popular media contribute to the cultural (socio-) penchant for violence in poor areas?
Do you see how you are being wishy-washy with property rights? You are saying getting taxed is fine, but you don't want your taxes to pay for a smoker because you say it violates your property rights, but you would rather have them get taxed more, except that you also claim that does not violate their property rights.
I'm not being wishy-washy with property rights, if you followed the logic of tmy last post I think you might understand my position better.
It has already been determined that the right to property is not an absolute. Like it or not, that is the state of affairs.
It has already been determined that all income earners in the US will contribute to programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, etc (the social safety net).
My problem is that those who contribute more to the cost of these programs are not expected to contribute more to the funding of these programs. I believe that contribution to these programs should be based on risk factors as well as income. That is, smokers, overweight people, etc, should pay more in medicare taxes, etc, rather than have healthy people unduly punished for the unhealthy actions of others. This is in line with my belief that no state should contribute more to the federal government than they receive from the federal government (+/- a small margin of error). If you're concerned about income redistribution, just take a look at how much NJ, for example, gets back from the federal government for every dollar given to the federal government. Note that this percentage always gets higher when there are conservatives in power. Not sure if this rant is getting completely OT, but it seems that one of your main concerns is income redistribution...
It's so awesome that I've completely forgotten about China using children to make toys for my children,
China dose not use children to make toys for your kids. China just allows capitalist businessmen to do so.
or that one time, at band camp, they used some Tibetans for target practice. Amazing architecture.
And yet you seem to have forgotten that the US recently used blacks as slaves and target practice.
Countries change... but it takes time.
Meanwhile, please get off your high horse. You're the one buying those toys for your kids so you support it just as much as China does... unless of course you never buy anything made in China.
The Yuan is not pegged just to the dollar, it is now pegged to a basket of currencies, of which the USD is a component. (The Euro, Japanese Yen, and South Korean Won are the other major components).
I am not a libertarian, so we're not going to agree on this.
I believe that taxation with consent is justified. I believe that social safety networks are justified, necessary, and profitable to the country at large.
Given these items, I believe it is unjustified for people who willingly take action that has costs the public, not to have to contribute towards those costs.
Those who speed should pay fines. Those who drive drunk should pay fines. Those who pollute should pay for remediation. Those who kill should pay restitution. See where I'm going here?
Your point makes sense only if considered in the abstract; given that we do indeed have a social safety network funded via taxes, it *is* depriving me of my property when someone smokes their entire life without contributing more than me to their healthcare.
Just as 2girls1cup (which I haven't seen, but I've read descriptions of) hasn't led to an outbreak of cropophilia, and the growth of the internet hasn't led to mass increases in the amount of sex people are having, images aren't forcing behavior.
Obviously we circulate in different social groups... because my friend says that he has been giving a lot more Cleveland steamers lately.
Or a tiered system. Universal access to care to a certain threshold, then private insurance will need to take care of the rest. It'll suck when people die when we have the means to save them, but it's a harsh fact that one person's value to society can be tiny compared to the cost of extending that person's life.
You said the quoted situation sounded like a good idea. The quoted situation involved the regulation of what people can and cannot choose to do to their own bodies. Are you saying this does not violate their natural liberty?
I expanded on the original quote from TFA. What makes sense is that people should need to pay the cost for their decisions, rather than getting to externalize it to the general population.
You are proposing replacing one rights violation with another. Rights are universal and should never be violated by anyone.
No, I am proposing removing one rights violation and replacing it with something that doesn't violate rights. How does making people responsible for the effetcs of their actions violate their rights? They can still exercise their rights... but they need to make sure that exercise of their rights does not impinge on others' rights. Isn't that how the system works? All I am suggesting is that some of the less obvious ways peoples' rights are infringed upon by others are accounted for.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you give too much credit to the swarming mouthbreathers that represent your typical internet user.
That's BS. There has been astroturfing for a very long time, and the best ones at it are the ones who are true believers, and are also subtle.
McCain asking his supporters to blog on DailyKos is like MS or Apple asking their PR firms to work on web presence. I'm fairly certain that PR firms hired by companies like MS and Apple astrofturf -- but at least on Slashdot we have moderation to tune out some of it (and a realtively informed readbase), so it has to be fairly subtle to work well. I'm not sure I can say the same for DailyKos or some of the other targeted sites.
Here's an example to make some sense of it:
Say there were 200 cases, 100 each over two years. During year 1, there were 13 cases due to business partners. During year two, there were 65 cases due to business partners.
The percentage went up five-fold between year 1 and year 2, but the total percentage over the study is 39%.
Just the inaccuracy of the exit polling in the last presidential election should be enough to raise a crapload of red flags. In no other election were the exit polls so far from the election results in so many precincts.
Are you trolling, or are you serious?
Do you really believe that there have been no attempts to tamper with elections in the US? Do you even read the papers?
I suggest you stop drinking the kool-aid.
FTFY. When steps 1 and 2 are "make money", step 3 becomes meaningless. I think you've solved the great mystery of dotcom VC-chasing business plans, you genius.
I think you underestimate the breadth and depth of the problem, and how serious the implications are.
It was legislative deregulation that allowed the banking crisis to develop... I for one do not want to let it play out without interference, since I value maintaining the strength of the economy and the job market whenever possible.
Then again, you might be a free market idealist, in which case my words fall on deaf ears... not sure about your views.
My point is that letting things play out (via fraud litigiation, etc) will be much more costly than taking preventitive action. Is it right? Probably not. Is it just? Almost definitely not. Is it the best course of action for the economic health of everyone, including those such as you and me who were not idiots? IMO, yes. In the opinion of most economists, yes.
Or it is "Joomla"!
I'm confused. Why do you spell out "not" in your statement once when you use "!" so many other times?
And never underestimate the power of election tampering by directing poor urban voters to the wrong site... or by undersupplying voting machines in poor urban districts...
You miss the point entirely.
I'm not talkig about what tools you shold choose to use... I'm talking about what tools will be available for your use. If proprietary tools are unprofitable, they eventually cease to exist. To keep them profitable, the price of using them may be too high. It will take time for OS tools to bridge the gap, and until that time, the tools available to you may be reduced.
It's not insane... it's the nature of business economics.
You might as well rail that God is insane, or that gravity is insane.
I would say, go see a psychiatrist yourself -- but I think you'd be better off reading some texts on the subject, maybe it will help your reading comprehension.
Not so. Why do you assume that I did not mean rational in the economic sense?
Resource scarcity has no bearing on my argument. Reduced choice means that there will be fewer suppliers of equivalent goods.
And here's where you missed my point entirely.
First, are you saying that capitalism == free market economy? Please confirm, otherwise your point makes no sense.
Second, any economist of any repute will qualify the statement that a free market economy will efficiently maximize choice. In the case of a natural monopoly (such as telehpone service), an unregulated market leads to monopoly. The inherent inefficiency (in this case, barriers to entry) cause this. This does, in no way, increase choice for the consumer.
Agian, scarcity of resources has nothing at all to do with my point. So there are finite resources... how exactly does that change the fact that barriers to entry reduce choice? And where did I ever discuss an infinite panopoly of choices? Did you set up a straw man by accident, or on purpose?
I'm not sure what your background in economics is... but it appears that either your reading comrehension needs some work, or you have very little background in economics and are trying to discuss something over your head.
How much is taking that risk worth to your average Joe?
The reason I point this out is that this is independent of free or not-free economic models. The reason free-market capitalism actually reduces choice for purchasers is that there are barriers to entry for production of a good. Some are regulatory (and thus would disappear in a true free market) but some are natural and cannot be removed from the equation.
One other thing to note... from an economists perspective, your productivity doesn't matter. Something may benefit some people and harm others, but the interests of the individual are meaningless -- what is important is the benefit to the economy (&hence, society).
Sorry if you have to take one for the team while OS tools catch up to proprietary tools, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I'm going to take a different stance, based upon the market, rather than the profit needs of the game publisher.
If you make a game, and development costs are 10 million USD, and you can't sell million copies at $10, sure you're screwed. You lost money because you made a poor choice by producing a game that costs so much to develop.
Here's the purchase deciosn:
Purchase if [cost of official game]
Some important notes:
[cost of official game] includes time spent dealing with copyright protection, and is reduced by the 'good feelings' from doing-the-right-thing-and-supporting-the-publisher.
[cost of pirated game] is reduced by 'good feelings' from sticking-it-to-the-man, and increased by any feelings of guilt; it also includes time spent evading copyright protection.
The point of copyright protection is to increase the costs of pirating, while keeping non-cash purchase costs to a minimum.
A little unwieldy, but the point is that game publishers should take whatever actions they can to maximize sales (in $$).
Where your comparison breaks down is that regardless of what the game developer paid to create the game, the market will bear only what the market will bear -- purchases don't care how much it cost to produce. If you can't make a game chaeply enough to make a profit with the market as it is, you have no business making games.
Your point raises the deeper question, which is what causes violence to be such a large part of poor culture in that area? Why is violence glorified?
I know, it's a big question for a Monday afternoon, but a lot of people think that glorification of violence in music and video games carries over into common life, moreso in poor areas than wealthy ones.
So, I guess my point is that while incomes in the area affect murder/violent crime rates, why is that so? And does glorification of violence in popular media contribute to the cultural (socio-) penchant for violence in poor areas?
It has already been determined that the right to property is not an absolute. Like it or not, that is the state of affairs.
It has already been determined that all income earners in the US will contribute to programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, etc (the social safety net).
My problem is that those who contribute more to the cost of these programs are not expected to contribute more to the funding of these programs. I believe that contribution to these programs should be based on risk factors as well as income. That is, smokers, overweight people, etc, should pay more in medicare taxes, etc, rather than have healthy people unduly punished for the unhealthy actions of others. This is in line with my belief that no state should contribute more to the federal government than they receive from the federal government (+/- a small margin of error). If you're concerned about income redistribution, just take a look at how much NJ, for example, gets back from the federal government for every dollar given to the federal government. Note that this percentage always gets higher when there are conservatives in power. Not sure if this rant is getting completely OT, but it seems that one of your main concerns is income redistribution...
And yet you seem to have forgotten that the US recently used blacks as slaves and target practice.
Countries change... but it takes time.
Meanwhile, please get off your high horse. You're the one buying those toys for your kids so you support it just as much as China does... unless of course you never buy anything made in China.
I am not a libertarian, so we're not going to agree on this.
I believe that taxation with consent is justified. I believe that social safety networks are justified, necessary, and profitable to the country at large.
Given these items, I believe it is unjustified for people who willingly take action that has costs the public, not to have to contribute towards those costs.
Those who speed should pay fines. Those who drive drunk should pay fines. Those who pollute should pay for remediation. Those who kill should pay restitution. See where I'm going here?
Your point makes sense only if considered in the abstract; given that we do indeed have a social safety network funded via taxes, it *is* depriving me of my property when someone smokes their entire life without contributing more than me to their healthcare.
Or a tiered system. Universal access to care to a certain threshold, then private insurance will need to take care of the rest. It'll suck when people die when we have the means to save them, but it's a harsh fact that one person's value to society can be tiny compared to the cost of extending that person's life.
Harsh, yes. Cruel, maybe. Necessary, I think so.