My second law of 'density' states that that the PR intelligence quotient is randomly modulated by Schroedingers' cat in the next room, and is only measurable when not actually listening to it.
Wow, you deserve a Nobel Prize. You've figured out how to directly measure a null value!
While most people believe it means that you double the speed and the power of processors every 18 to 24 months, that notion is in fact wrong, Gammage said. "Moore's Law is all about the density...the density of those transistors, and not what we choose to do with it."
Hmmm. Seems to me Gammage might have it backwards, the misunderstanding of Moore's Law by most people is due to the density... the density of those people.
So I clicked through the whole list, and #11 is a car ad for me. Summary should read top 14 lame-o mascots. Though if they included the standard alternates to Clippy (I have no idea what the planet, cat, and dog are named) they could bump the list up a bit.
Please explain. I still am not getting why reduced cost of an input results in reduced price of a product, even *in time*. This is what your prediction is based on, if I'm reading it clearly, and it just doesn't fit in with economic theory and observed results.
You mean the demand for Z increases as the price of Z decreases? OK.
But the pricing of a commodity is independent of the cost of production. That means that cost of production does not affect demand for a good, therefore there will be no upward pressure on the cost of Y based on a reduction in the cost of X.
That's why I was asking for clarification. It seemed to me you were saying that reduced cost of an input leads directly to increased expenditure on other inputs, which is obviously not the case -- so I was hoping you could explain what you were saying.
Wait. Are you talking about Knight Rider (the talking car show) or Knight Ridder (the newspaper/internet media company that was recently bought out by McClatchy)?
So, let me get this straight, in basic econ terms -- you're saying that inputs will be interchanged based on cost of those inputs? I'm with you there.
And specifically, that since free software is cheaper, as an input, companies will decide to spend more on expensive inputs? That doesn't compute.
I think what you might be getting at is that free software will, over time, increase the demand for software, and thus the demand for developers and other IT workers. So, in other words, you predicted IT to be a growth indutry, but based your prediction on the reduced cost of a limited input. I'm not sure I follow.
Even if your boss seems to be cut from Dilbert you should give him the respect that they deserve.
Something tells me maybe I should give them more respect than they really deserve, since it wouldn't be professional of me to spit in their face every time they make a suggestion.
and when arguing your point try not to make it personal.
Not really. Stalin was a fascist-in-communist-clothing, he was fully cognizant of, and amenable to, corporate interests, he just labeled them differently.
AeA was founded to lobby the US Government for contracts for HP and HP suppliers.
Today they lobby the US government for increased H1-B quotas to keep employment costs down, in addition to lobbying for contracts. It is in the best interests of tech companies to have an increased supply of qualified labor. Great -- although there will be a lag, if pay and prestige increase for these high-demand positions, more students will enter comp sci and engineering programs. Instead, AeA is asking the US government to subsidize their industry by increasing the labor supply.
I'm not saying there wasn't job growth in tech sectors the past couple years. What I am saying is that AeA has an agenda to push, and it's not one necessarily aligned with tech workers.
How about not generalizing? I can't help the fact that many of my country-mates believe the dogma they are fed through the corporate media. Everything they see tells them that the EU and the UN are giant screw-ups because the media coporations want them to think that. It's no coincidence that people are typically only exposed to points of view that coincide with the interests of big business, since the media is big business.
I'd say few Americans believe this is a direct attack on their country. The problem is that those who do believe so are going to be loud about it.
A: Is it really necessary that every Slashdot summary ends with a very polarizing question?
Yes. If it didn't end with a question, how would we know what issue to direct our comments to?
I mean, this article, if summarized without that question, might lead to people discussing the merits of Microsoft's question, when it's rather obvious to the editors that what needs to be discussed is whether the EU represents unwonted goverment interference in a capitalist economic system. By properly addressing the question given, we can all rest assured that the question of what level of goverment interference into economic systems is finally answered, in this article's comments.
We can also be assured that since the question is phrased so nicely, there will be no vitriolic comments between proponents of unfettered free trade and proponents of government 'moderation' of corporate activity.
Overly oaked wine surrounded by an impervious wall of tannin is a very California Cab thing. I can't drink the stuff. There's zero fruit to the wine and no chance for subtleness because of the oak and tannins.
Try a Cal Zinfandel if you want fruit... there's a reason they're called "California Fruit Bombs". And look for less oak-y cabs, there are quite a few out there if you're willing to spend a few bucks. It's the cheap mass-produced wines that are so heavily oaked, to disguise their lack of balance.
This is a fallacious argument, because government did not develop from the family unit. Modern governments descended from various gangs of bandits, who settled in the areas they oppressed.
And where did the group dynamics of those bandit gangs come from? The family and tribal unit. Coercion is not the only source of government.
Stable money supplies exist exclusively in the absence of government interference.
And I'd say what are you smoking? That's a load of bull -- without government, the money supply is extremely volatile, since it's dependent on the relative scarcity of whatever is being used as currency. It also fluctuates extremely based on market perceptions of the economy; look at the economic cycles of the late 1800s to the early 1930s.
To understand what government does to the money supply, picture yourself at an auction. You brought money, and you know what you intend to bid on, and what you can afford. Then, a counterfeiter arrives. Even if he doesn't bid on anything you personally wanted, now you have to bid against everyone else who has extra money (since they didn't win the items the counterfeiter got). Ad infinitum.
That's one possibility, but not what happens in reality. Take away government "interference" and any individual could do the same as your government bogeyman.
Meaningful cooperation is the basis of a Capitalist economy, and derives directly from the notion of private property and the division of labor.
Er, no. Cooperation has nothing to do a capitalist economy. Capitalist economies are built on exchange of capital for goods and labor.
In a primitive state, even solitarily, as a single individual with no society (read: other people) with which to live, man is still a capitalist. He produces capital, ie shelter and tools, and in doing so he saves his labor in expectation of a future return on his investment.
And two men will cooperate to build shelter -- that makes them communist, right? Even though they are producing capital -- how does that work? You're conflating production of capital with capitalist economic systems, and the two are not the same. It's a simple mistake to make for someone who doesn't have a foundation in economics, but I understand how you'd get a mistaken impression.
You've read way too much hogwash that ignores fundamental principles of economics. Claiming that my logic is full of holes, and so it's not worth debating, tells me that you cannot defend what you're writing.
I'd write more, but it's not worth my time. It just seems stupid to even be talking about this crap a hundred and fifty years later
You're right, it is stupid to debate it now -- but when someone (such as yourself) promotes a false understanding, it's important to point out how what they wrote is incorrect. If you truly understood capitalism and communism, it wouldn't be necessary to point out the holes in your logic.
So hardystonite (calcium zinc silicate) is an oxide of hemate? And melanophlogite (SiO2 + organics) is an oxide of melanophlog? How about hematite (iron oxide)? Shouldn't that be ferrite?
Minerals tend to not conform to SI naming conventions for compounds.
When will goverments and corps realize that the internet doesn't belong to them.
When they are forced to admit it at gunpoint.
Seriously, the persepctive of modern corporations and governments is that there is no such thing as public property in the traditional sense -- everything has to be owned by someone. Government ownership != public ownership anymore (if it ever did).
If you can't compete on your own merits as a company, ideology, or political system this is not the place for you.
Well, if they can legislate ownership, and force their citizens to comply, wouldn't that mean that their political system/ideology outcompeted other systems? By virtue of being able to implement control of the internet, they have demonstrated the superiority of their system (within China) to a distributed control system. If, in the long run, the "extranet" in China becomes more important than the internet, then we'll have seen distributed control outcompete.
So let's stop calling it communism-with-a-small-c, and call a spade a spade: Totalitarian China. Or maybe Fascist China?
If that's a little too far, then we should make the distinction between communism and the Communist Party Government of China -- we shouldn't allow the Chinese to pretend they are something they are not (and in the same vein, we should stop referring to the US as a democracy). Labels have power, and the Chinese political machine knows it.
Slashdot Mirror
I did... and got the same ad. Who knows, I'm not used to seeing ads at all, but this PC is locked-down...
So I clicked through the whole list, and #11 is a car ad for me. Summary should read top 14 lame-o mascots. Though if they included the standard alternates to Clippy (I have no idea what the planet, cat, and dog are named) they could bump the list up a bit.
At any rate, I thought I'd point out that ; winner gets a Wii.
Please explain. I still am not getting why reduced cost of an input results in reduced price of a product, even *in time*. This is what your prediction is based on, if I'm reading it clearly, and it just doesn't fit in with economic theory and observed results.
But SSN? That's not on a check.
You mean the demand for Z increases as the price of Z decreases? OK.
But the pricing of a commodity is independent of the cost of production. That means that cost of production does not affect demand for a good, therefore there will be no upward pressure on the cost of Y based on a reduction in the cost of X.
That's why I was asking for clarification. It seemed to me you were saying that reduced cost of an input leads directly to increased expenditure on other inputs, which is obviously not the case -- so I was hoping you could explain what you were saying.
Wait. Are you talking about Knight Rider (the talking car show) or Knight Ridder (the newspaper/internet media company that was recently bought out by McClatchy)?
So, let me get this straight, in basic econ terms -- you're saying that inputs will be interchanged based on cost of those inputs? I'm with you there.
And specifically, that since free software is cheaper, as an input, companies will decide to spend more on expensive inputs? That doesn't compute.
I think what you might be getting at is that free software will, over time, increase the demand for software, and thus the demand for developers and other IT workers. So, in other words, you predicted IT to be a growth indutry, but based your prediction on the reduced cost of a limited input. I'm not sure I follow.
You must be new here, you jackass.
AeA was founded to lobby the US Government for contracts for HP and HP suppliers.
Today they lobby the US government for increased H1-B quotas to keep employment costs down, in addition to lobbying for contracts. It is in the best interests of tech companies to have an increased supply of qualified labor. Great -- although there will be a lag, if pay and prestige increase for these high-demand positions, more students will enter comp sci and engineering programs. Instead, AeA is asking the US government to subsidize their industry by increasing the labor supply.
I'm not saying there wasn't job growth in tech sectors the past couple years. What I am saying is that AeA has an agenda to push, and it's not one necessarily aligned with tech workers.
How about not generalizing? I can't help the fact that many of my country-mates believe the dogma they are fed through the corporate media. Everything they see tells them that the EU and the UN are giant screw-ups because the media coporations want them to think that. It's no coincidence that people are typically only exposed to points of view that coincide with the interests of big business, since the media is big business.
I'd say few Americans believe this is a direct attack on their country. The problem is that those who do believe so are going to be loud about it.
I mean, this article, if summarized without that question, might lead to people discussing the merits of Microsoft's question, when it's rather obvious to the editors that what needs to be discussed is whether the EU represents unwonted goverment interference in a capitalist economic system. By properly addressing the question given, we can all rest assured that the question of what level of goverment interference into economic systems is finally answered, in this article's comments.
We can also be assured that since the question is phrased so nicely, there will be no vitriolic comments between proponents of unfettered free trade and proponents of government 'moderation' of corporate activity.
Either way, if minerals were named according to convention, then ferr- would still be the root, not hema-.
People who want to be able to work out at home? Barbells disappear quickly from gyms if they are not watched carefully.
Well, that's why I made the "true communism" distinction. I'm talking theory, not practice.
And I'd say what are you smoking? That's a load of bull -- without government, the money supply is extremely volatile, since it's dependent on the relative scarcity of whatever is being used as currency. It also fluctuates extremely based on market perceptions of the economy; look at the economic cycles of the late 1800s to the early 1930s.
That's one possibility, but not what happens in reality. Take away government "interference" and any individual could do the same as your government bogeyman.
Er, no. Cooperation has nothing to do a capitalist economy. Capitalist economies are built on exchange of capital for goods and labor.
And two men will cooperate to build shelter -- that makes them communist, right? Even though they are producing capital -- how does that work? You're conflating production of capital with capitalist economic systems, and the two are not the same. It's a simple mistake to make for someone who doesn't have a foundation in economics, but I understand how you'd get a mistaken impression.
You've read way too much hogwash that ignores fundamental principles of economics. Claiming that my logic is full of holes, and so it's not worth debating, tells me that you cannot defend what you're writing.
You're right, it is stupid to debate it now -- but when someone (such as yourself) promotes a false understanding, it's important to point out how what they wrote is incorrect. If you truly understood capitalism and communism, it wouldn't be necessary to point out the holes in your logic.
So hardystonite (calcium zinc silicate) is an oxide of hemate?
And melanophlogite (SiO2 + organics) is an oxide of melanophlog?
How about hematite (iron oxide)? Shouldn't that be ferrite?
Minerals tend to not conform to SI naming conventions for compounds.
Seriously, the persepctive of modern corporations and governments is that there is no such thing as public property in the traditional sense -- everything has to be owned by someone. Government ownership != public ownership anymore (if it ever did).
Well, if they can legislate ownership, and force their citizens to comply, wouldn't that mean that their political system/ideology outcompeted other systems? By virtue of being able to implement control of the internet, they have demonstrated the superiority of their system (within China) to a distributed control system. If, in the long run, the "extranet" in China becomes more important than the internet, then we'll have seen distributed control outcompete.
So let's stop calling it communism-with-a-small-c, and call a spade a spade: Totalitarian China. Or maybe Fascist China?
If that's a little too far, then we should make the distinction between communism and the Communist Party Government of China -- we shouldn't allow the Chinese to pretend they are something they are not (and in the same vein, we should stop referring to the US as a democracy). Labels have power, and the Chinese political machine knows it.