follows capitalism, in which people who work hard and make good choices are rewarded while the lazy and stupid are not.
That's not an accurate description of capitalism at all. Capitalism doesn't reward those who work hard; it rewards those who have money to work hard for them. Capitalism doesn't reward those who make good choices, it rewards those who make choices that are good within a restricted value set. That value set includes wealth accumulation, which is of debateable value. It's a tautology to say that capitalism rewards those who make good choices, since the choices you are referring to are only 'good' because of the capitalist system they are made in.
True communism, for example, rewards those who work hard and make good choices as well. How? Their society benefits, so the individual does as well. Marxist Communism also rewards those who work hard and make good choices -- the difference being that choices are made by a group, rather than an individual.
I don't think you'll ever be able to grasp the concept of Communism until you let go of the primacy of personal wealth accumulation. For example,
"class struggle" (code for wealth envy)
Class struggle isn't about wealth envy, it's about self-determinism. In a pure capitalist society, wealth outweighs or defines all other factors of self-determinism (education, access to influence, etc).
Sometimes the lazy and stupid wind up rich (think about the rich liberal living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of the Hamptons)
What about the rich conservative living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of Houston? Your bias is very clear, and subtracts from your logic.
Capitalism isn't designed to cure all problems. It's merely that which exists without government intervention,
Not so. Cooperation (the basis of communism) happens without government intervention -- capitalism is a system dependent upon a stable money supply, which does not exist without government interference. One could say that totalitarianism is what is most likely to happen without government intervention -- but then at what point is the totalitarian become the government?
government intervention, which always creates more problems than it solves (and it never solves anything).
Well, that's just wrong, as most absolutes are. It's a pithy saying based on faith that has few foundations in fact or in theory. Government intervention can solve the tragedy of the commons, for example. Sure, governments can (and often do!) intervene poorly, but that's a matter of execution, not of a theoretical impossibility of positive interference. If you reduce government to its most basic level (that of the family), would you still argue that interference by the decision-makers cannot solve problems?
By the way, did Marx ever define what a "class" was?
Yes, he did -- and the tendency for those not to have studied what he wrote is to not be able to make sense of his class distinctions, since they are not defined by wealth, as classes are defined under capitalism. Instead they are defined by their relationship to the means of production. Here's a primer for you, so you can get a basic view of how the "middle class" fits into Marxist theory.
I'm not a communist, but I think it's important to understand the communist point of view if I want to have a meaningful discussion of capitalism. It's also important to understand basic theories of government, and the differences between economic systems from political systems, as well as how they interrelate.
and now an entity that was once meant to govern interstate commerce and defend the boarders now interferes in peoples lives
Defend the boarders? I thought the Constitution specifically forbade billeting troops.
Seriously, though, the Federal government was intended to do more than those two things (think international trade, patents, etc). Has it overstepped the restrictions placed on it? Yes. However, I'm not sure the US was intended to be a 'strong alliance' instead of a unification of states, to most of the framers... there's a notable difference.
I agree that the US federal government is intrusive, and overwhelming in its reach. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it, if there was honesty about it -- e.g., amend the Constitution to allow it. I'm sure the amendment would pass (given the amount of money and power at stake) but a system built on a lie has big problems.
I paid cash for a car, and the people wanted my social security number. Why?
So the cash transaction can be reported to the IRS, as required by law (depending on the amount). This is supposedly to help detect money-laundering and drug trafficking.
A health club near me wants my social security number to lift weights and stuff. Why?
For a credit check, to make sure that you'll be likely to make the monthly installment payments on that annual membership, and probably to see if you're a high risk for stealing equipment.
At any rate, I think we've passed the point where we can hope that our private data will remain private. Realistically, we've got to take steps to prevent stolen data from being used for identity theft. This means tighter regulations on lenders, so it isn't going to happen, IMO, but it's the only option left from a systemic perspective.
I'll agree that there are two levels of personal information, and one should be sacrosanct. The problem, though, is that if the data is collected, it is vulnerable. The law won't stop malicious attempts to get your personal information, nor will it stop some idiot from accidentally making the data available. So what do we do once our data is out there?
Personally, I just accept the fact that I need to check my credit report every month. What I'd like to see is better free access to one's own credit report, so that the various credit bureaus don't make out like bandits from the justified fears of individuals. One free credit report a year (as mandated by law in most states) is almost useless, given the speed with which an identity thief can ruin your credit and make your life a living hell for years. One a month would be much better.
Just a reminder to ACCEPT jury duty if you get called.
Admissibility of evidence is not determined by the jury, it's determined by the judge. Jurors using inadmissible evidence in deliberations, or refusing to use admitted evidence, is grounds for a mistrial.
I agree that serving on a jury is great, but it affects the output, not the process (which is where the most serious problems are).
Go ahead and justify to yourself why you write what you do. I know the truth.
Your lack of reading comprehension suggests that you are complaining because you get this kind of treatment on a regular basis and don't know why.
I'm not going to bother addressing this in full, since it's a crock (look who is doing the complaining in this thread); and I'm guessing that it's a projection, judging by your response to any criticism of yourself.
You could limit the scope of federal power to prevent it from being a hassle while still letting you pool resources when it is beneficial.
Really? That's something I could do?
There is no limiting the scope of the federal government -- it's a juggernaut on a downhill rumble, and anything that gets in its way gets crushed (including so-called inalienable rights).
The US government is so large that it has lost the trait of being a collection of individuals; it is a bureacracy that exists to grow, and to enrich those who control it. As such, as long as what some interested party on the government wants serves the purpose of increasing the extent or growing the scope of the government, they will get what they want. Our rights are suffering the death of a thousand papercuts, but as long as we have American Idol and the NFL, it is allowed to happen.
Sorry for the rant. Wrt the specific issue of open WAP being considered probable cause, summary is quite a bit off. What is explained in TFA is that an open WAP is not enough to exclude probable cause that a crime has been committed at a location. That is, an open WAP doesn't sever the link between IP address and physical address (say, the street address provided by an ISP upon being served with a warrant). Because of this, the physical evidence (CDs of child porn) found at the location the warrant was served were judged to be admissible in court.
So, this isn't really an example of federal government expanding its provenance. It's an example of government applying several-hundred-year-old principles to a modern crime. In this one case it appears my tinfoil-hattedness is inappropriate.
I make myself feel better by being a jackass, which is of ultimate importance
Now I understand where you're coming from, and why you write the way you do. Not that I think it's valid (you act like an ass because it makes you feel superior? Please, deal with your root insecurities and you won't need to act like an ass in order to feel good about yourself).
There is every need to be a condescending jackass when I hear the same tired and incorrect explanations from people who have been here long enough to know better.
Sorry, there are other ways to get a valid point across. All you do by being a jackass is cause people to disregard your point, no matter how valid it is.
Read a little deeper into the moderation section of the FAQ. There is discussion of "flamey" posts and downmodding; of posts that fall into multiple categories. I congratulate you on your inability to read more than one line in the FAQ; it shows that you didn't even bother to comprehend my post (since I refer to the FAQ, it's pretty obvious that there's something in the FAQ that supports what I was saying -- but in your race to spout off, you didn't bother to check more than the surface) before firing off your retarded reply. At any rate, even so, moderation is a matter of interpretation by the moderator, and the post you're referring to could be construed as FB.
It's not my post, buddy. But thank you for playing.
Sorry, I missed that, but no need to be a condescending jackass.
Just because it's sarcasm doesn't mean it's not flamebait. Likely to incite a flamewar == flamebait; a post can be both funny and flamebait
Also, moderators shouldn't have to check your post history before moderating your comments -- first, it's too much to ask, and second, comments are contextural.
I wouldn't have modded your post flamebait, but I've no points today. Then again, it seems that your complaint is about someone 'flaming' you via moderation -- so the flamebait moderation would be valid. How's that for a tautology?
All that aside, bitching about being downmodded is pointless, even if you have a valid concern. It's a meta-comment, and thus should be modded OT pretty quickly (as should this one); if you're concerned about mod abuse, follow the procedures in the faq.
So it's silly to believe that a bunch of monkeys would just see a bunch of worthless (for them) washers and immediately come up with the exact same concept. "Hey, we'll use these as tokens whose value is dictated by supply and demand." Nope, sorry, it's just not going to happen.
Well, TFA does state that the monkeys were trained to use the washers as currency.
It took a Great Depression to finally decouple money from an intrinsic value in precious metals, and some people _still_ can't really wrap their mind around it.
What gets me is that the same leap-of-faith has to have been taken for precious metals to be precious; they have no more intrinsic value (other than industrial uses) than paper currency does.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was discussing elasticity of demand in the consumer energy market -- I'm fully aware that good pricing is independent of production cost.
If electricity price rises, more will turn to gas, there is also an effect that keep the price of power sources together.
We're still talking about the energy market, though, regardless of source. Gas is a use-restricted energy source, so not completely interchangeable with electricity, but their prices are interdependent.
It is actually a dead-on example of the fact that price charged to a customer is not related directly (it is not a linear relation) to the prices occured in development phase.
Just so you know, direct relation != linear relation. Second, there is no relation at all, let alone a direct or linear one, between dev cost and price in a perfectly priced good.
Software is only different by the fact that producing another copy has virtually no cost, once the development has been made.
...As I stated in my post...
Do this tomorrow:
Why? What purpose would that huge waste of time serve? If you've a point, make it.
Without regulation we wouldn't have had the railroad monopoly era. (Or did you forget that the railroad monopolies were the result of tax-funded public-works projects?)
That's totally misleading. The railroads themselves were the result of public works projects. The monopolies were the result of the huge cost of building railroad lines (i.e. a natural monopoly
); without the public works projects, there would have been no railroads, let alone railroad monopolies.
Without legislation we wouldn't have had the railroad era.
The black market (piracy) for Windows keeps the demand for legit copies somewhat elastic. Supply is immaterial, it's infinite -- except that as a non-commodity good, Windows is not tradeable and therefore doesn't act as if it had infinite supply.
On the case of energy, if it is expensive enough people will freeze, but won't be able to buy it. That's sad, but the model works.
As the cost of energy rises, the demand becomes more elastic. Non-essential uses of energy are curtailed. Of course, as you say, if that price gets high enough, people will freeze (or move to warmer locales).
Only a tinfoil-hat-wearing free software zealot would wonder about an agenda of slowing the OLPC project and the spread of open source in general.
Well, not exactly. Slowing the spread of open source is on Microsoft's agenda. They want to maintain or increase market share, which means preventing the loss of markets to competitors -- including open source alternatives.
As for OLPC, I doubt they want to slow the project -- they want to make the pie bigger and OLPC will help them do that. They would, however, like to make sure that those children eventually migrate to Windows, which is where the $3 SIS comes in.
Since we all know that pirates' sons always takeover the family business
I beg to differ: (emphasis mine)
"The man I inherited it from was not the real Dread Pirate Roberts, either - his name was Cumberbun. [...] So we sailed ashore, took on an entirely new crew and he stayed aboard for awhile as first mate, all the time calling me Roberts. Once the crew believed, he left the ship and I have been Roberts ever since. Except now that we're together, I shall retire and hand the name over to someone else. Is everything clear to you?
Sometimes simple farmboys takeover the family piracy business, or potentially even master fencers whose lifelong quests for vengeance have been fulfilled.
Could it be, that the RIAA lawyers actually think that what the RIAA is doing is a really bad idea so they are purposely doing really inflammatory things to get the American populous and judicial system fed up with their antics?
Now, I'm normally a bit cynical, so maybe I'm off base here...
But holy crap, is it really possible to be that optimistic, and if so, where can I get some of what you're on?:)
The RIAA lawyers are doing really inflammatory things because it keeps the issue of copyright infringement in the news. It's to intimidate those who might consider downloading some music instead of being good little consumers and spending $15 at the record store.
Also, it's billable hours -- and when legal actions are contested, it leads to more billable hours. So unless they are working completely off retainer, or a percentage of settlements, it makes good financial sense for lawyers to occasionally take action that they know will be contested, or at least require additional time to deal with. This holds as long as the client doesn't get pissed off, and I'm guessing that the RIAA is not unhappy with the results so far (various pending disputes notwithstanding).
It's funny, though, TFA has little to say about marketing -- except for asymmetrical information theory. Marketing ties into this because it is how companies take advantage of buyers, who have less accurate info than sellers.
The problem is not just marketing. The problem is that since buyers aren't well-informed, they choose mediocre products, which prices out the best products. This starts a nasty cycle, since with the best products out of the market, buyers then choose even poorer solutions to save a buck, which ends up pricing out the best remaining products, and so on.
Marketing takes advantage of asymmetrical information -- but the root cause is the buyer's lack of information. Given that most decision-makers do not have the resources to adequately research every purchase they make, how can this be fixed? How much should a company spend on researching products, in relation to the cost of those products? Many people can't justify spending a lot of time researching the options for a $2000/yr solution. When the proposals come in, and several[1] of the vendors offer a seemingly-equivalent solution for $1500, how can I justify spending $2000? Purchasing is about choosing products that meet your requirements at the lowest cost. It's not feasible for every purchase to undergo a full TCO analysis that includes factored risk of loss -- how many businesses employ actuaries?
Multiply this scenario by thousands, and the best solutions are driven out of business.
[1] It's important that there are multiple options at that price point, since it makes each of the products at that level seem acceptable.
Re:I'll see your girlie 81 and raise you 1000
on
IT's Big Spenders
·
· Score: 1
For a bit of fun perspective, China spent $136 billion on R&D in 2006.
That's overall R&D, not software R they just passed Japan for the #2 spot, (Japan spent $130Bn in 2006).
The US R&D spending amount was far higher -- $330Bn approximately. US pharma companies alone spent $55.2Bn on R&D in 2006.
but as long you are not interested in this kind of things, you'll still type in "boobs" instead of "global warming".
Maybe it's just me, but even for those of us interested in those type of things, we still find our fingers typing in "boobies" despite commands from our brain to type in $SERIOUS_TOPIC. It's the unavoidable curse of being male and on the internet.
That said, I agree that it's not likely to draw a huge amount of interest among people without prior interest -- except by referral. If someone sends me a link to a good video, I'm likely to look for additional videos from that source. This is where the high signal-to-noise ratio pays off in attracting and keeping users.
I'm just curious how check fraud, at 4.3% of complaints, qualifies as internet crime. Even if someone writes a fraudulent check for goods purchased online, I'm not sure it should be classed as internet crime, since the internet is incidental to the crime.
Slashdot Mirror
True communism, for example, rewards those who work hard and make good choices as well. How? Their society benefits, so the individual does as well. Marxist Communism also rewards those who work hard and make good choices -- the difference being that choices are made by a group, rather than an individual.
I don't think you'll ever be able to grasp the concept of Communism until you let go of the primacy of personal wealth accumulation. For example,Class struggle isn't about wealth envy, it's about self-determinism. In a pure capitalist society, wealth outweighs or defines all other factors of self-determinism (education, access to influence, etc).
What about the rich conservative living-on-trust-fund brat denizens of Houston? Your bias is very clear, and subtracts from your logic.
Not so. Cooperation (the basis of communism) happens without government intervention -- capitalism is a system dependent upon a stable money supply, which does not exist without government interference. One could say that totalitarianism is what is most likely to happen without government intervention -- but then at what point is the totalitarian become the government?Well, that's just wrong, as most absolutes are. It's a pithy saying based on faith that has few foundations in fact or in theory. Government intervention can solve the tragedy of the commons, for example. Sure, governments can (and often do!) intervene poorly, but that's a matter of execution, not of a theoretical impossibility of positive interference. If you reduce government to its most basic level (that of the family), would you still argue that interference by the decision-makers cannot solve problems?
Yes, he did -- and the tendency for those not to have studied what he wrote is to not be able to make sense of his class distinctions, since they are not defined by wealth, as classes are defined under capitalism. Instead they are defined by their relationship to the means of production. Here's a primer for you, so you can get a basic view of how the "middle class" fits into Marxist theory.
I'm not a communist, but I think it's important to understand the communist point of view if I want to have a meaningful discussion of capitalism. It's also important to understand basic theories of government, and the differences between economic systems from political systems, as well as how they interrelate.
Seriously, though, the Federal government was intended to do more than those two things (think international trade, patents, etc). Has it overstepped the restrictions placed on it? Yes. However, I'm not sure the US was intended to be a 'strong alliance' instead of a unification of states, to most of the framers... there's a notable difference.
I agree that the US federal government is intrusive, and overwhelming in its reach. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it, if there was honesty about it -- e.g., amend the Constitution to allow it. I'm sure the amendment would pass (given the amount of money and power at stake) but a system built on a lie has big problems.
For a credit check, to make sure that you'll be likely to make the monthly installment payments on that annual membership, and probably to see if you're a high risk for stealing equipment.
At any rate, I think we've passed the point where we can hope that our private data will remain private. Realistically, we've got to take steps to prevent stolen data from being used for identity theft. This means tighter regulations on lenders, so it isn't going to happen, IMO, but it's the only option left from a systemic perspective.
I'll agree that there are two levels of personal information, and one should be sacrosanct. The problem, though, is that if the data is collected, it is vulnerable. The law won't stop malicious attempts to get your personal information, nor will it stop some idiot from accidentally making the data available. So what do we do once our data is out there?
Personally, I just accept the fact that I need to check my credit report every month. What I'd like to see is better free access to one's own credit report, so that the various credit bureaus don't make out like bandits from the justified fears of individuals. One free credit report a year (as mandated by law in most states) is almost useless, given the speed with which an identity thief can ruin your credit and make your life a living hell for years. One a month would be much better.
I agree that serving on a jury is great, but it affects the output, not the process (which is where the most serious problems are).
I'm not going to bother addressing this in full, since it's a crock (look who is doing the complaining in this thread); and I'm guessing that it's a projection, judging by your response to any criticism of yourself.
There is no limiting the scope of the federal government -- it's a juggernaut on a downhill rumble, and anything that gets in its way gets crushed (including so-called inalienable rights).
The US government is so large that it has lost the trait of being a collection of individuals; it is a bureacracy that exists to grow, and to enrich those who control it. As such, as long as what some interested party on the government wants serves the purpose of increasing the extent or growing the scope of the government, they will get what they want. Our rights are suffering the death of a thousand papercuts, but as long as we have American Idol and the NFL, it is allowed to happen.
Sorry for the rant. Wrt the specific issue of open WAP being considered probable cause, summary is quite a bit off. What is explained in TFA is that an open WAP is not enough to exclude probable cause that a crime has been committed at a location. That is, an open WAP doesn't sever the link between IP address and physical address (say, the street address provided by an ISP upon being served with a warrant). Because of this, the physical evidence (CDs of child porn) found at the location the warrant was served were judged to be admissible in court.
So, this isn't really an example of federal government expanding its provenance. It's an example of government applying several-hundred-year-old principles to a modern crime. In this one case it appears my tinfoil-hattedness is inappropriate.
Sorry, I missed that, but no need to be a condescending jackass.
Just because it's sarcasm doesn't mean it's not flamebait. Likely to incite a flamewar == flamebait; a post can be both funny and flamebait
Also, moderators shouldn't have to check your post history before moderating your comments -- first, it's too much to ask, and second, comments are contextural.
I wouldn't have modded your post flamebait, but I've no points today. Then again, it seems that your complaint is about someone 'flaming' you via moderation -- so the flamebait moderation would be valid. How's that for a tautology?
All that aside, bitching about being downmodded is pointless, even if you have a valid concern. It's a meta-comment, and thus should be modded OT pretty quickly (as should this one); if you're concerned about mod abuse, follow the procedures in the faq.
What gets me is that the same leap-of-faith has to have been taken for precious metals to be precious; they have no more intrinsic value (other than industrial uses) than paper currency does.
It seems also to be some new definition for the word "upgrade" with which we're not familiar.
Increasing storage capacity (when current capacity not close to exhaustion)? Non-critical.
Fixing the shut-down system that resulted from the upgrade? Critical.
Watching the sales reps in my office apoplectically try to figure out how to get in touch with their clients? Priceless.
We're still talking about the energy market, though, regardless of source. Gas is a use-restricted energy source, so not completely interchangeable with electricity, but their prices are interdependent.
Just so you know, direct relation != linear relation. Second, there is no relation at all, let alone a direct or linear one, between dev cost and price in a perfectly priced good.
...As I stated in my post...
Why? What purpose would that huge waste of time serve? If you've a point, make it.
Without legislation we wouldn't have had the railroad era.
As the cost of energy rises, the demand becomes more elastic. Non-essential uses of energy are curtailed. Of course, as you say, if that price gets high enough, people will freeze (or move to warmer locales).
As for OLPC, I doubt they want to slow the project -- they want to make the pie bigger and OLPC will help them do that. They would, however, like to make sure that those children eventually migrate to Windows, which is where the $3 SIS comes in.
Gag. Can't believe I didn't think of that, the most likely option. Thanks.
But holy crap, is it really possible to be that optimistic, and if so, where can I get some of what you're on?
The RIAA lawyers are doing really inflammatory things because it keeps the issue of copyright infringement in the news. It's to intimidate those who might consider downloading some music instead of being good little consumers and spending $15 at the record store.
Also, it's billable hours -- and when legal actions are contested, it leads to more billable hours. So unless they are working completely off retainer, or a percentage of settlements, it makes good financial sense for lawyers to occasionally take action that they know will be contested, or at least require additional time to deal with. This holds as long as the client doesn't get pissed off, and I'm guessing that the RIAA is not unhappy with the results so far (various pending disputes notwithstanding).
It's funny, though, TFA has little to say about marketing -- except for asymmetrical information theory. Marketing ties into this because it is how companies take advantage of buyers, who have less accurate info than sellers.
The problem is not just marketing. The problem is that since buyers aren't well-informed, they choose mediocre products, which prices out the best products. This starts a nasty cycle, since with the best products out of the market, buyers then choose even poorer solutions to save a buck, which ends up pricing out the best remaining products, and so on.
Marketing takes advantage of asymmetrical information -- but the root cause is the buyer's lack of information. Given that most decision-makers do not have the resources to adequately research every purchase they make, how can this be fixed? How much should a company spend on researching products, in relation to the cost of those products? Many people can't justify spending a lot of time researching the options for a $2000/yr solution. When the proposals come in, and several[1] of the vendors offer a seemingly-equivalent solution for $1500, how can I justify spending $2000? Purchasing is about choosing products that meet your requirements at the lowest cost. It's not feasible for every purchase to undergo a full TCO analysis that includes factored risk of loss -- how many businesses employ actuaries?
Multiply this scenario by thousands, and the best solutions are driven out of business.
[1] It's important that there are multiple options at that price point, since it makes each of the products at that level seem acceptable.
The US R&D spending amount was far higher -- $330Bn approximately. US pharma companies alone spent $55.2Bn on R&D in 2006.
That said, I agree that it's not likely to draw a huge amount of interest among people without prior interest -- except by referral. If someone sends me a link to a good video, I'm likely to look for additional videos from that source. This is where the high signal-to-noise ratio pays off in attracting and keeping users.
I think that would be wire fraud, not check fraud, if you provide them with info for ACH debit and they use your account info to make other purchases.
I'm just curious how check fraud, at 4.3% of complaints, qualifies as internet crime. Even if someone writes a fraudulent check for goods purchased online, I'm not sure it should be classed as internet crime, since the internet is incidental to the crime.