IE6 was a decent browser, aside from the fact it was a pain to code for and insecure.
Car analogy:
IE8 is your your new car. It runs smooth, and there are no real complaints about the reliability. The seats are little on the hard side, and you'd like more leg room.
IE6 is your old car. It broke down every other week, belched poisonous black smoke into the cars around it, and the doors didn't close properly. But the seats were soft and you had more leg room.
Your old car was 'decent' the same way IE6 was decent.
And lets face it, IE8's UI isn't terrible. You might not be used to it, or like it as much, but its objectively not all that bad. They've moved things around, and hid a lot of stuff almost nobody used. But the tab support and integrated search alone make the UI superior. I don't find it slow (but I have lots of RAM). I still prefer Firefox, but I no longer loathe using (or developing for) Internet Explorer.
BOINC uses 571,534 computers. The indirect cost of supporting and maintaing the software, hardware, etc is borne by the volunteers but it still has to be paid.
Additionally, they claim it uses between $3 and $8 a month extra in energy in the US*, and double to triple that in Europe.
* This number is poorly derived. They based it on an 'average' electrical rate in the US, e.g. it looks like they added up all the rates and divided by 50. The average American however pays more than the average rate, because the majority live in the dense states where electricity costs most. Florida, New York, Caifornia, etc vs the relatively tiny populations in North Dakota where electricity is cheap.
Further, I'm confident that the skew is weighted towards broadband users, which further skews things away from rural North Dakota where electricity is cheap.
Further, they fail to account the extra cooling required as a result of generating more heat. Granted in -some- places where you need more heat this will offset your heating bill in your favor, but again, most people are clustered in areas that require more cooling than heating.
So, bottom line, I'd say their assessment of electrical costs is on the low side.
For the sake of argument, lets say it averaged out to 10$/mo. (Including europe.) What kind of computing power could you build and run with $5.7M/month.
Especially when you have the freedom to install it where you want, and factoring in that industrial electricity is cheaper than residential. With a $68M/year budget, could you beat boinc?
-Replace HTTP with HTTPS (at least for sensitive data and/or authentication)
Not easy.
https is just not that easy to swap in. Its harder to work with because you can't have multiple https sites listening on the same port on the same ip address, which is a common-as-dirt situation.
And then the certificates themselves are a hassle, and have a cost on top of that, and if you don't get it from the right place half your users will have a giant warning screen when they try to access it.
Have you actually looked at the PCs in those office buildings full of thousands upon thousands of cubicles. The current hardware refresh is 1GB XP (or 2GB Vista) entry level core 2 duos.
Most big IT shops supporting thousands of users wants standardized PCs that they can swap the monitor out when it dies without having to touch the pc. And if the hard drive goes they want something they can open, plug a new one in, image it, and send it back. ditto the power supply and optical drive. And if the motherboard fails they just replace the PC.
So the imac and mac mini are both out of the running.
The problem isn't that the mac pro isn't good value for what's in the box. The problem is that almost nobody needs what's in that box. And Apple doesn't sell a box with the stuff business needs the way business wants it. They want imac specs in an easily maintained box, separate from the screen.
Apple refuses to make one, and simply puts themselves out of the running in this market.
It's *normal* for humans to be social beings. Since when did 'has a social life' become an accusation? Where did the stereotype of the 'heroic lonely individual' come from? That's the dysfunctional syndrone, not the online chatter.
Yes its "natural". When I said base I meant just that, we're hardwired for it, it occurs at a lower level than conscious. Its instinctive.
Its normal for people to be social and build relationships. The sort of superficial stuff that facebook enables however isn't all that productive. Its like gossip... its a natural outgrowth of our healthy desire to be social and interact. But taken too far its destructive and pointless. Facebook takes it too far... its sole purpose in fact has nothing to do with relationships, and everything to do to ensure you have a reason to check facebook so they can show you more ads. The superficial relationships are just the bait.
Are we talking about facebook, most of the internet, sports, celebrity gossip, work*, TV (as you mentioned), or heroin, because to different people, that would apply to various degrees.
Facebook is different from the internet, sports, celebrity gossip, etc.
If I turn off the TV or stop looking at pron it doesn't start sending me messages asking where I was, why am I ignoring them, am I mad at them, why didn't I comment on their picture, or fill out their survey, or play their game.
With TV etc the compulsion is just me... I might obsess over it, but if I can stop obsessing and master the urge its over. Its not like dozens of other people expect me to watch TV. But Facebook, like those annoying electric pets, or mmorpgs is a lot more 'addictive' because there is a social pressure to keep participating.
So the social system works, at least for a certain subset of people.
Yes, its a great waste of time. A bit of pointless fun is one thing, and I'm all for it. Hell I engage in lots myself;./ included. But the end result of facebook for too many people is to become a slave to it... its got to be on your phone, and you've got to check it 100 times a day, and reply to all those 2nd degree friends...
And at the end of the day, they've done nothing worthwhile, and have nothing but a bunch of superficial relationships, a collection of lolcats, and mastery of some idiotic flash game.
The trouble with it, is that it "never sleeps". Its constantly poking you for attention, like those annoying electronic pets. So even when you've got something else to do, too many people can't put it down. At least with the pets the batteries die or you take them out. With facebook... its especially hard... because among that constant distractions there's some real people there too. Your best friend, or your mom, or whatever, so it becomes impossible to quit.
Its like the way reality TV preys on some base human voyeuristic instinct. Most of us know its pointless rubbish and we could be doing anything else and it would be more worthwhile... and yet too many people can't look away, can't not watch.
I was impressed when the concept of achievements came out, providing a nice way to present the things you've done in games to others.
I wasn't. I thought it was stupid. I still do. I don't care in the slightest whether my friends know what I've done in the game. If I thought it was that interesting I'd tell them. Most of the achievments in most games aren't things I'd find worth mentioning, and in most cases, calling them an 'acheivement' at all is bit of a stretch.
As for steam, I'm not sold on their DRM, and there denial of my right of first sale, by calling my purchases "subscriptions" with a one time payment. And they certainly aren't going to win me over with some sort of achievement API.
Persnally, I think the Wii gets it mostly right. Its online could be stronger, but I like that Nintendo isn't trying to become my "social platform" or whatever Sony/Microsoft are trying to do.
Unless of course you are left handed, in which case this mouse, like so many others, is useless junk.
I used to use ambi Microsoft wireless mice, which were ok, but then they took the detents out of the scroll wheel, and I want detents.
These days I use a Razer Copperhead, which after a couple years constant use, is starting to die. (left mouse button is failing), but its been a good mouse, and I've ordered a replacement. Its wired, but its still the best mouse I've ever used.
It would be nice if there was more selection of high quality ambidextrous mice. I don't really even care for an ergo-left mouse -- my wife uses our PCs too and she's right handed so an ergo-left mouse would be as much a bother to her as an ergo right one is to me.
I'm really surprised there isn't better ambi-mice selection. All the cheap crap is ambi, but as soon as you get into higher end stuff, the ambi selection drops off to just a few.
Neither microsoft nor logitech make any of their best products in an ambidextrous format. I realize only 10% of us are left handed... but still that's a lot of people. And if you have even one leftie in your household you'll probably want an ambi mouse on the family pc.
Why bother responding to your questions when you rarely even half answer mine?
The question here is one of relatives. I don't claim a hybrid socialism with capitalist elements is somehow perfect or fair. I know its not. I only claim its morally better than pure capitalism.
Your staunch refusal to even look at the consequences of what you claim to advocate, while perpetually exaggerating the flaws in what I advocate makes this debate pointless.
What happens in your ideal capitalism if you lose your job and face starvation? Get a new job? You tried, no one you spoke to would hire you, and now your even hungrier. Ask someone to volunteer some help? You tried that, and no one gave to you. Another day hungrier. Relocate and try again? Moving requires resources you don't have. Start your own business? Resources you don't have. What is your next move? You need to eat =now=.
Pure capitalism doesn't magically eliminate this scenario. So what is your fate?
If not working will lead to starvation, how is that a voluntary arrangement?
Suppose some crack whore blew her welfare check at a steakhouse, but now needs to eat and can't get more government money. Is it OK for her to steal whatever she needs from your house? But she NEEDS it!
No its not ok. She needs to be incarcerated, weaned off the crack, and educated. A crack whore thief isn't going to function in ANY society.
What's your alternative? I take it your alternative is she should "get a job which is a voluntary arrangement". Do you hire crack whores? Do you pay them well? No? Do you know anyone that does? How exactly does a pure Capitalism fix the problem of crack whore thieves?
How do you avoid living in a state of constant guilt,
Its not hard.
knowing that you are enjoying your life while 75% of the world is worse off than you, and you could be sacrificing until you get down to their level, too?
Where I have ever suggested you ought sacrifice until you are down to the lowest level? And why should I feel guilt or shame?
What moral principle is served by being guilty for not being able to solve all the worlds problems?
So, for my part, while I'd like the world to be a better place, and think its a moral endeavour to seek to improve it for everyone. But, like a normal person, I balance my time with other moral endeavors, including achieving personal happiness and success. So, no, I don't sit around feeling guilty, and have no reason to. Do you?
I mean, you evidently think a pure capitalism is an ideal moral world, and you claim you 'fight for it'. Do you feel constant all consuming guilt and shame for failing to achieve it, and even, in your mind losing ground, day by day? Somehow I doubt it. How is that any different?
Really, your whole inquiry implying I should need to feel perpetual guilt or shame is absurd.
you've got to be kidding - you don't know of any useful apps? let me name one or two:
Remember, this is in the context of the original post I was replying to, which defended the app store (vs the blackberry and winmobile and palm worlds) because it ensured the apps were 'genuinely useful'. My argument was that the app store ensures nothing of the sort. It is stuffed with utter shit.
That's not to say their isn't a single useful app in the store, but the the fact that apple has dumped it all into an app store hasn't ensured that its generally useful, and in many cases they actively block things that actually would be useful.
Are you saying that everyone who needs something cannot get it by dealing with other people voluntarily? That is obviously not true, in general.
Yes, actually it is. They cannot get it by dealing with other people =voluntarily=. They can get it by dealing with other people, but its not voluntary. They can't choose not to.
If you happen to WANT to to deal with those people that doesn't make it voluntary. Its only voluntary if you could have chosen not to.
Sure it does - if you are required to give someone something, then they in turn have a right to demand that you give it to them.
And that is not a claim on your life. That is a claim on property. And in this case, a claim on property you don't even actually need.
If an innocent person is forced at gunpoint to do things against their will, then to that extent, they are a slave.
All societies have laws, that doesn't make you a slave. And further, if you break the rules and you aren't innocent.
You mean the case where massive corporation IBM is wearing SCO down into insolvency?
Not quite. IBM's suit against SCO has been played to win, not played to wear SCO into insolvency through endless proceedings and delaying tactics. At this point insolvency is the likely endgame for SCO, but I genuinely don't think that was IBMs strategy.
They've never done anything to really deliberately drag the case out or to maximize its expense.
The fact that somebody needs something does not give them a moral claim on your life to give it to them.
1) The fact that somebody needs something means they aren't entering into a relationship voluntarily to get it. So your ideals are not being met.
2) There you go off again on how I must think you should sacrifice your life and hang on a cross. Get over it already. Their need doesn't give them a moral claim on your LIFE. I never said otherwise. It doesn't give them a moral claim on the things you need. It does however give them a moral claim to a bit of your excess wealth.
Instead, people are merely servants, to be controlled and told what to do by their government masters.
And the people master the government. Servants don't control their masters. You aren't a slave.
If they fail to do so (and they're likely to fail if they're suing on false pretenses), then they're the ones who end up paying your court costs.
And if I de of old age before they actually give up trying its a Pyrrhic victory. Just look at SCO vs IBM... if IBM were an individual person instead of the massive corporation it is, SCO would have one simply by wearing them down into insolvency.
I believe force should be abolished from human relationships, and people should deal with one another voluntarily.
Me too. But as long as people need to eat that ideal can't be achieved. Massive segments of society are working jobs solely for basic sustenance. That's not a voluntary relationship. Removing what little safety net their is won't make the arrangement more voluntary.
You believe people should be forced against their will to do the things you want them to.
Its actually not against our will. And you can leave if you don't like it. You aren't a slave.
and you must sacrifice your life as God sacrificed his perfect son for the lowly, sinning human race.
The problem isn't just getting the hydrogen, its storing and using it safely. This might make hydrogen dirt cheap, but it still doesn't really solve the problems that make hydrogen cars unworkable.
Are you the sort who gets up in the morning, observes that you are out of clean shirts, and trots off to do a quick load of laundry. But then say... "Hey, the problem here isn't just getting dressed, the car needs a boost and I can't remember where my wallet is." And then you lie back down in bed in defeat. The whole getting to work problem is just unworkable.;)
When you have two problems and you solve one of them I'd call that progress.
The most common element in the universe is hydrogen. It will pay off in the long run to master using it for energy.
To put it simply, you're arguing that bloat is a user-driven 'feature', and that performance, standards implementation and techinical features like process seperation are 'trivial features'?
No. He didn't say that at all. He argued that that the bloat features are trivial, and should be left for extensions, so that the core developers can focus on the big technical features.
However, the developers are too user driven, and focus on the trivial bloat that the users request instead of the big technical features.
I don't think you could have read it any more wrong.
Forgive me if I can't take the rest of what you said seriously after that.
You should be apologizing to him.
No wonder IE and Chrome have managed to become better than Firefox so quickly.
I hope you can appreciate how hard it is for me to take what you've said seriously now.
Let me be plain: one person's failure is not a moral claim on another person.
Right. You have been very clear. If a fellow citizen miscalculates a business risk, and loses everything, and has nothing left to his name but debt. He can starve to death in a ditch for all you care.
If someone fails, and you want to help them - fine.
No. Not fine. According to Rand there is no moral ideal served by doing so. Sure I am 'free' to help them, but were I a 'true beleiver' I'd have no reason to.
Notice that under Capitalism, you are free to practice your altruism, if you want to.
What altruism would there be to notice? If I subscribe to Rand's Capitalism, helping someone in need is morally equivalent to going to a movie. Indeed, if its a good movie that I'd enjoy, taking in the movie would be the morally superior choice. A society of Rand Capitalists would pack the theatre while the people in need starved to death outside, and they'd congratulate themselves on their enlightened moral decision.
Sure they'd be 'free' to help the destitute. They'd be equally free to put a pickle up their ass. Morally the two would be equivalent. And the vast majority of Rand Capitalists would do neither terribly often.
But under your system, I am not free to not be an altruist. You believe it is proper to force people to sacrifice themselves.
I do. Of course, you make it sound like its a significant sacrifice. But that's not the case at all. You persistently mis-characterize to an absurd extreme the sort of society I want.
Your system exists today.
No. No it doesn't. I don't see a working implementation of what I want to see anymore than you see a working implementation of what you want to see. There are systems out there today that embody some of what I agree with, but they are all deeply flawed.
That said, I prefer their flaws to Rand's. I see too much welfare, too much corruption, too much inept bureaucratic government interference in existing governments. But I still prefer that to the alternative Rand sends up.
Morally I despise both the inefficiency and corruption of modern society and the indifference to the dignity and life of others in Rand Capitalism. Given the choice though, I'll take inefficiency and corruption as the lesser evil.
Thus we have the spectacle of banks that should have failed becoming moochers of government loot. Car companies that should have failed are moochers, too.
No one, anywhere, thinks that is how things should have played out in an ideal economic system.
Instead of allowing people that should fail, fail - and making room for the people that should succeed, the government is rewarding the failures, crowding out what should have been up and coming new successes.
To an extent, yes. But in doing so they are also keeping people sheltered and fed. Many of these people are innocent victims. Wage workers and even pensioners and the like. They did not take the risks. They could not now the risks or even properly account for them. I am not willing to bankrupt them and turn them out into the street homeless merely for having worked for GM for 30 years and then retiring, and failing to anticipate and hedge against both GM who paid their pension and AIG who insured it would fail spectacularly within a couple months of each other.
It is absurd to call these pensioners 'moochers'. It is absurd to say they 'deserve to fail' and be turned out on the street to starve. And yes, if we as society have to "reward" the twits who clusterfucked the economy as a side effect of protecting the innocent. Then as distasteful as it is, I am for it. But don't for a second think that I do't find it distasteful. I'm really not some champion of "punishing the successful and rewarding the incompetent" despite how much you seem to like to characterize me as one.
Well Capitalism is nothing like Monopoly because in Capitalism, most relationships are "win-win", people trade and both parties profit from it.
Not all of them are win-win, and even when its win-win, they are rarely balanced. One party generally comes out further ahead. Eventually that advantage allows him to push other relationships in his favor, and eventually they aren't remotely win-win anymore.
PS - And I see that despite repeating the question some dozen times, you still didn't state what happens to the losers in your ideal capitalism.
If there were a free country, I would go there. There is not, but America is closest, so I fight for what the founding father's fought for: the right of the individual as against the group.
There is no such country because no real society wants it. However there are LOTS of places you can go and live out your life paying virtually no tax, and having virtually no interaction with government.
I don't actually promote that you do that, because I am no interested in being rude or disrespectful. I am just conveying a logical argument based on the facts of reality. If we can't have a discussion without cursing, or saying "why don't you just leave", then let's just end the conversation.
You are a bit late too late to take the high road on that one. What with your "fear of personal responsibility" nugget. Furthermore, "feel free to leave" was not an attack. It was to make a point: you aren't "enslaved". You can leave at any time.
You think you understand Capitalism or Ayn Rand's philosophy because you played Monopoly?
No. Monopoly is a simple metaphor for the essential flaw of Ayn Rand / Capitalism. You think you understand Capitalism and Ayn Rand's philosophy better than I do? Then what keeps Capitalism from devolving into the same end game as Monopoly? Don't dodge the question by ridiculing its simplicity: Just answer it.
And When I asked "What happens when failures occur?"
In a free society, if you want to help someone who needs help, you are free to do so.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked what happens to them? I did not ask, "What might happen to them if they are lucky?"
The banks that made bad decisions should have gone bankrupt and/or bought out, instead of being bailed out. Same for GM and Chrysler. Same for any individual.
And then what happens to them? What actually happens to the elderly people living off their GM or Chrysler pension had the companies simply failed? Those pensions would have stopped. Oh, but the pensions are insured so they're ok... insured by the likes of AIG and the banks that were also failing. So what happens to these people?
Homeless and destitute scrounging around in the garbage? If not, why not?
But the moral message of today is clear: no matter how bad, inept, incompetent, and self-destructive you are - you will be rewarded at the expense of those who are good, competent, and effective.
So you'd prefer that the incompetent and unlucky live in total degradation... or die? Is that your moral message?
You keep dodging the question of what happens when people fail in your ideal society. Is this it? Degradation, destitution, starvation, exposure, disease, and death. If not, why not?
All society has done is said,"Even the incompetent, unlucky, infirm, shall be fed, clothed, and sheltered." Why exactly do you find this offensive? You'd rather they were homeless and destitute? Just so that you can drive an Aston Martin instead of having to settle for a Lexus?
Actually, I think the fastest way to see a change would be if a senator's/governor's/etc. son/daughter was caught pirating their favorite song/movie/whatever.
Unfortunately not. The copyright holders would treat them with kid gloves, drop the case, and give them a gentle, 'hey don't do it again speech'.
Slashdot Mirror
IE6 was a decent browser, aside from the fact it was a pain to code for and insecure.
Car analogy:
IE8 is your your new car. It runs smooth, and there are no real complaints about the reliability. The seats are little on the hard side, and you'd like more leg room.
IE6 is your old car. It broke down every other week, belched poisonous black smoke into the cars around it, and the doors didn't close properly. But the seats were soft and you had more leg room.
Your old car was 'decent' the same way IE6 was decent.
And lets face it, IE8's UI isn't terrible. You might not be used to it, or like it as much, but its objectively not all that bad. They've moved things around, and hid a lot of stuff almost nobody used. But the tab support and integrated search alone make the UI superior. I don't find it slow (but I have lots of RAM). I still prefer Firefox, but I no longer loathe using (or developing for) Internet Explorer.
BOINC uses 571,534 computers. The indirect cost of supporting and maintaing the software, hardware, etc is borne by the volunteers but it still has to be paid.
Additionally, they claim it uses between $3 and $8 a month extra in energy in the US*, and double to triple that in Europe.
* This number is poorly derived. They based it on an 'average' electrical rate in the US, e.g. it looks like they added up all the rates and divided by 50. The average American however pays more than the average rate, because the majority live in the dense states where electricity costs most. Florida, New York, Caifornia, etc vs the relatively tiny populations in North Dakota where electricity is cheap.
Further, I'm confident that the skew is weighted towards broadband users, which further skews things away from rural North Dakota where electricity is cheap.
Further, they fail to account the extra cooling required as a result of generating more heat. Granted in -some- places where you need more heat this will offset your heating bill in your favor, but again, most people are clustered in areas that require more cooling than heating.
So, bottom line, I'd say their assessment of electrical costs is on the low side.
For the sake of argument, lets say it averaged out to 10$/mo. (Including europe.) What kind of computing power could you build and run with $5.7M/month.
Especially when you have the freedom to install it where you want, and factoring in that industrial electricity is cheaper than residential. With a $68M/year budget, could you beat boinc?
-Replace Telnet/RSH with SSH
Easy.
-Replace FTP with SFTP or SCP
Easy.
-Replace HTTP with HTTPS (at least for sensitive data and/or authentication)
Not easy.
https is just not that easy to swap in. Its harder to work with because you can't have multiple https sites listening on the same port on the same ip address, which is a common-as-dirt situation.
And then the certificates themselves are a hassle, and have a cost on top of that, and if you don't get it from the right place half your users will have a giant warning screen when they try to access it.
That phrase certainly didn't originate during the campaign.
They never said it did.
I heard it in the context of ...
Ah context. That's precisely what's at issue here. The article was referring to the phrase strictly in the context of the Obama campaign news cycle.
I'll bite, you troll.
Have you actually looked at the PCs in those office buildings full of thousands upon thousands of cubicles. The current hardware refresh is 1GB XP (or 2GB Vista) entry level core 2 duos.
Most big IT shops supporting thousands of users wants standardized PCs that they can swap the monitor out when it dies without having to touch the pc. And if the hard drive goes they want something they can open, plug a new one in, image it, and send it back. ditto the power supply and optical drive. And if the motherboard fails they just replace the PC.
So the imac and mac mini are both out of the running.
The problem isn't that the mac pro isn't good value for what's in the box. The problem is that almost nobody needs what's in that box. And Apple doesn't sell a box with the stuff business needs the way business wants it. They want imac specs in an easily maintained box, separate from the screen.
Apple refuses to make one, and simply puts themselves out of the running in this market.
Yes, but whatever Linux distro I install, I can make it work like any other without having to pay extra.;)
That's why I use rpm pointed at the fedora repos with my Kubuntu install. Your right I don't have to pay extra.
But I haven't gotten it to work either. Maybe I'm not not l33t enough. ;)
It's *normal* for humans to be social beings. Since when did 'has a social life' become an accusation? Where did the stereotype of the 'heroic lonely individual' come from? That's the dysfunctional syndrone, not the online chatter.
Yes its "natural". When I said base I meant just that, we're hardwired for it, it occurs at a lower level than conscious. Its instinctive.
Its normal for people to be social and build relationships. The sort of superficial stuff that facebook enables however isn't all that productive. Its like gossip... its a natural outgrowth of our healthy desire to be social and interact. But taken too far its destructive and pointless. Facebook takes it too far... its sole purpose in fact has nothing to do with relationships, and everything to do to ensure you have a reason to check facebook so they can show you more ads. The superficial relationships are just the bait.
Are we talking about facebook, most of the internet, sports, celebrity gossip, work*, TV (as you mentioned), or heroin, because to different people, that would apply to various degrees.
Facebook is different from the internet, sports, celebrity gossip, etc.
If I turn off the TV or stop looking at pron it doesn't start sending me messages asking where I was, why am I ignoring them, am I mad at them, why didn't I comment on their picture, or fill out their survey, or play their game.
With TV etc the compulsion is just me... I might obsess over it, but if I can stop obsessing and master the urge its over. Its not like dozens of other people expect me to watch TV. But Facebook, like those annoying electric pets, or mmorpgs is a lot more 'addictive' because there is a social pressure to keep participating.
So the social system works, at least for a certain subset of people.
Yes, its a great waste of time. A bit of pointless fun is one thing, and I'm all for it. Hell I engage in lots myself; ./ included. But the end result of facebook for too many people is to become a slave to it... its got to be on your phone, and you've got to check it 100 times a day, and reply to all those 2nd degree friends...
And at the end of the day, they've done nothing worthwhile, and have nothing but a bunch of superficial relationships, a collection of lolcats, and mastery of some idiotic flash game.
The trouble with it, is that it "never sleeps". Its constantly poking you for attention, like those annoying electronic pets. So even when you've got something else to do, too many people can't put it down. At least with the pets the batteries die or you take them out. With facebook... its especially hard... because among that constant distractions there's some real people there too. Your best friend, or your mom, or whatever, so it becomes impossible to quit.
Its like the way reality TV preys on some base human voyeuristic instinct. Most of us know its pointless rubbish and we could be doing anything else and it would be more worthwhile... and yet too many people can't look away, can't not watch.
I was impressed when the concept of achievements came out, providing a nice way to present the things you've done in games to others.
I wasn't. I thought it was stupid. I still do. I don't care in the slightest whether my friends know what I've done in the game. If I thought it was that interesting I'd tell them. Most of the achievments in most games aren't things I'd find worth mentioning, and in most cases, calling them an 'acheivement' at all is bit of a stretch.
As for steam, I'm not sold on their DRM, and there denial of my right of first sale, by calling my purchases "subscriptions" with a one time payment. And they certainly aren't going to win me over with some sort of achievement API.
Persnally, I think the Wii gets it mostly right. Its online could be stronger, but I like that Nintendo isn't trying to become my "social platform" or whatever Sony/Microsoft are trying to do.
There simply isn't a better mouse in the world.
Unless of course you are left handed, in which case this mouse, like so many others, is useless junk.
I used to use ambi Microsoft wireless mice, which were ok, but then they took the detents out of the scroll wheel, and I want detents.
These days I use a Razer Copperhead, which after a couple years constant use, is starting to die. (left mouse button is failing), but its been a good mouse, and I've ordered a replacement. Its wired, but its still the best mouse I've ever used.
It would be nice if there was more selection of high quality ambidextrous mice. I don't really even care for an ergo-left mouse -- my wife uses our PCs too and she's right handed so an ergo-left mouse would be as much a bother to her as an ergo right one is to me.
I'm really surprised there isn't better ambi-mice selection. All the cheap crap is ambi, but as soon as you get into higher end stuff, the ambi selection drops off to just a few.
Neither microsoft nor logitech make any of their best products in an ambidextrous format. I realize only 10% of us are left handed... but still that's a lot of people. And if you have even one leftie in your household you'll probably want an ambi mouse on the family pc.
Why bother responding to your questions when you rarely even half answer mine?
The question here is one of relatives. I don't claim a hybrid socialism with capitalist elements is somehow perfect or fair. I know its not. I only claim its morally better than pure capitalism.
Your staunch refusal to even look at the consequences of what you claim to advocate, while perpetually exaggerating the flaws in what I advocate makes this debate pointless.
What happens in your ideal capitalism if you lose your job and face starvation?
Get a new job? You tried, no one you spoke to would hire you, and now your even hungrier.
Ask someone to volunteer some help? You tried that, and no one gave to you. Another day hungrier.
Relocate and try again? Moving requires resources you don't have.
Start your own business? Resources you don't have.
What is your next move? You need to eat =now=.
Pure capitalism doesn't magically eliminate this scenario. So what is your fate?
They can work, which is a voluntary arrangement
If not working will lead to starvation, how is that a voluntary arrangement?
Suppose some crack whore blew her welfare check at a steakhouse, but now needs to eat and can't get more government money. Is it OK for her to steal whatever she needs from your house? But she NEEDS it!
No its not ok. She needs to be incarcerated, weaned off the crack, and educated. A crack whore thief isn't going to function in ANY society.
What's your alternative? I take it your alternative is she should "get a job which is a voluntary arrangement". Do you hire crack whores? Do you pay them well? No? Do you know anyone that does? How exactly does a pure Capitalism fix the problem of crack whore thieves?
How do you avoid living in a state of constant guilt,
Its not hard.
knowing that you are enjoying your life while 75% of the world is worse off than you, and you could be sacrificing until you get down to their level, too?
Where I have ever suggested you ought sacrifice until you are down to the lowest level? And why should I feel guilt or shame?
What moral principle is served by being guilty for not being able to solve all the worlds problems?
So, for my part, while I'd like the world to be a better place, and think its a moral endeavour to seek to improve it for everyone. But, like a normal person, I balance my time with other moral endeavors, including achieving personal happiness and success. So, no, I don't sit around feeling guilty, and have no reason to. Do you?
I mean, you evidently think a pure capitalism is an ideal moral world, and you claim you 'fight for it'. Do you feel constant all consuming guilt and shame for failing to achieve it, and even, in your mind losing ground, day by day? Somehow I doubt it. How is that any different?
Really, your whole inquiry implying I should need to feel perpetual guilt or shame is absurd.
you've got to be kidding - you don't know of any useful apps? let me name one or two:
Remember, this is in the context of the original post I was replying to, which defended the app store (vs the blackberry and winmobile and palm worlds) because it ensured the apps were 'genuinely useful'. My argument was that the app store ensures nothing of the sort. It is stuffed with utter shit.
That's not to say their isn't a single useful app in the store, but the the fact that apple has dumped it all into an app store hasn't ensured that its generally useful, and in many cases they actively block things that actually would be useful.
Are you saying that everyone who needs something cannot get it by dealing with other people voluntarily? That is obviously not true, in general.
Yes, actually it is. They cannot get it by dealing with other people =voluntarily=. They can get it by dealing with other people, but its not voluntary. They can't choose not to.
If you happen to WANT to to deal with those people that doesn't make it voluntary. Its only voluntary if you could have chosen not to.
Sure it does - if you are required to give someone something, then they in turn have a right to demand that you give it to them.
And that is not a claim on your life. That is a claim on property. And in this case, a claim on property you don't even actually need.
If an innocent person is forced at gunpoint to do things against their will, then to that extent, they are a slave.
All societies have laws, that doesn't make you a slave. And further, if you break the rules and you aren't innocent.
You mean the case where massive corporation IBM is wearing SCO down into insolvency?
Not quite. IBM's suit against SCO has been played to win, not played to wear SCO into insolvency through endless proceedings and delaying tactics. At this point insolvency is the likely endgame for SCO, but I genuinely don't think that was IBMs strategy.
They've never done anything to really deliberately drag the case out or to maximize its expense.
That seemed to be SCO's game from the start.
The fact that somebody needs something does not give them a moral claim on your life to give it to them.
1) The fact that somebody needs something means they aren't entering into a relationship voluntarily to get it. So your ideals are not being met.
2) There you go off again on how I must think you should sacrifice your life and hang on a cross. Get over it already. Their need doesn't give them a moral claim on your LIFE. I never said otherwise. It doesn't give them a moral claim on the things you need. It does however give them a moral claim to a bit of your excess wealth.
Instead, people are merely servants, to be controlled and told what to do by their government masters.
And the people master the government. Servants don't control their masters. You aren't a slave.
If they fail to do so (and they're likely to fail if they're suing on false pretenses), then they're the ones who end up paying your court costs.
And if I de of old age before they actually give up trying its a Pyrrhic victory. Just look at SCO vs IBM... if IBM were an individual person instead of the massive corporation it is, SCO would have one simply by wearing them down into insolvency.
I believe force should be abolished from human relationships, and people should deal with one another voluntarily.
Me too. But as long as people need to eat that ideal can't be achieved. Massive segments of society are working jobs solely for basic sustenance. That's not a voluntary relationship. Removing what little safety net their is won't make the arrangement more voluntary.
You believe people should be forced against their will to do the things you want them to.
Its actually not against our will. And you can leave if you don't like it. You aren't a slave.
and you must sacrifice your life as God sacrificed his perfect son for the lowly, sinning human race.
I'm not advocating any such thing.
The problem isn't just getting the hydrogen, its storing and using it safely. This might make hydrogen dirt cheap, but it still doesn't really solve the problems that make hydrogen cars unworkable.
Are you the sort who gets up in the morning, observes that you are out of clean shirts, and trots off to do a quick load of laundry. But then say... "Hey, the problem here isn't just getting dressed, the car needs a boost and I can't remember where my wallet is." And then you lie back down in bed in defeat. The whole getting to work problem is just unworkable. ;)
When you have two problems and you solve one of them I'd call that progress.
The most common element in the universe is hydrogen. It will pay off in the long run to master using it for energy.
To put it simply, you're arguing that bloat is a user-driven 'feature', and that performance, standards implementation and techinical features like process seperation are 'trivial features'?
No. He didn't say that at all. He argued that that the bloat features are trivial, and should be left for extensions, so that the core developers can focus on the big technical features.
However, the developers are too user driven, and focus on the trivial bloat that the users request instead of the big technical features.
I don't think you could have read it any more wrong.
Forgive me if I can't take the rest of what you said seriously after that.
You should be apologizing to him.
No wonder IE and Chrome have managed to become better than Firefox so quickly.
I hope you can appreciate how hard it is for me to take what you've said seriously now.
Let me be plain: one person's failure is not a moral claim on another person.
Right. You have been very clear. If a fellow citizen miscalculates a business risk, and loses everything, and has nothing left to his name but debt. He can starve to death in a ditch for all you care.
If someone fails, and you want to help them - fine.
No. Not fine. According to Rand there is no moral ideal served by doing so. Sure I am 'free' to help them, but were I a 'true beleiver' I'd have no reason to.
Notice that under Capitalism, you are free to practice your altruism, if you want to.
What altruism would there be to notice? If I subscribe to Rand's Capitalism, helping someone in need is morally equivalent to going to a movie. Indeed, if its a good movie that I'd enjoy, taking in the movie would be the morally superior choice. A society of Rand Capitalists would pack the theatre while the people in need starved to death outside, and they'd congratulate themselves on their enlightened moral decision.
Sure they'd be 'free' to help the destitute. They'd be equally free to put a pickle up their ass. Morally the two would be equivalent. And the vast majority of Rand Capitalists would do neither terribly often.
But under your system, I am not free to not be an altruist. You believe it is proper to force people to sacrifice themselves.
I do. Of course, you make it sound like its a significant sacrifice. But that's not the case at all. You persistently mis-characterize to an absurd extreme the sort of society I want.
Your system exists today.
No. No it doesn't. I don't see a working implementation of what I want to see anymore than you see a working implementation of what you want to see. There are systems out there today that embody some of what I agree with, but they are all deeply flawed.
That said, I prefer their flaws to Rand's. I see too much welfare, too much corruption, too much inept bureaucratic government interference in existing governments. But I still prefer that to the alternative Rand sends up.
Morally I despise both the inefficiency and corruption of modern society and the indifference to the dignity and life of others in Rand Capitalism. Given the choice though, I'll take inefficiency and corruption as the lesser evil.
Thus we have the spectacle of banks that should have failed becoming moochers of government loot. Car companies that should have failed are moochers, too.
No one, anywhere, thinks that is how things should have played out in an ideal economic system.
Instead of allowing people that should fail, fail - and making room for the people that should succeed, the government is rewarding the failures, crowding out what should have been up and coming new successes.
To an extent, yes. But in doing so they are also keeping people sheltered and fed. Many of these people are innocent victims. Wage workers and even pensioners and the like. They did not take the risks. They could not now the risks or even properly account for them. I am not willing to bankrupt them and turn them out into the street homeless merely for having worked for GM for 30 years and then retiring, and failing to anticipate and hedge against both GM who paid their pension and AIG who insured it would fail spectacularly within a couple months of each other.
It is absurd to call these pensioners 'moochers'. It is absurd to say they 'deserve to fail' and be turned out on the street to starve. And yes, if we as society have to "reward" the twits who clusterfucked the economy as a side effect of protecting the innocent. Then as distasteful as it is, I am for it. But don't for a second think that I do't find it distasteful. I'm really not some champion of "punishing the successful and rewarding the incompetent" despite how much you seem to like to characterize me as one.
Well Capitalism is nothing like Monopoly because in Capitalism, most relationships are "win-win", people trade and both parties profit from it.
Not all of them are win-win, and even when its win-win, they are rarely balanced. One party generally comes out further ahead. Eventually that advantage allows him to push other relationships in his favor, and eventually they aren't remotely win-win anymore.
PS - And I see that despite repeating the question some dozen times, you still didn't state what happens to the losers in your ideal capitalism.
If there were a free country, I would go there. There is not, but America is closest, so I fight for what the founding father's fought for: the right of the individual as against the group.
There is no such country because no real society wants it. However there are LOTS of places you can go and live out your life paying virtually no tax, and having virtually no interaction with government.
I don't actually promote that you do that, because I am no interested in being rude or disrespectful. I am just conveying a logical argument based on the facts of reality. If we can't have a discussion without cursing, or saying "why don't you just leave", then let's just end the conversation.
You are a bit late too late to take the high road on that one. What with your "fear of personal responsibility" nugget. Furthermore, "feel free to leave" was not an attack. It was to make a point: you aren't "enslaved". You can leave at any time.
You think you understand Capitalism or Ayn Rand's philosophy because you played Monopoly?
No. Monopoly is a simple metaphor for the essential flaw of Ayn Rand / Capitalism. You think you understand Capitalism and Ayn Rand's philosophy better than I do? Then what keeps Capitalism from devolving into the same end game as Monopoly? Don't dodge the question by ridiculing its simplicity: Just answer it.
And When I asked "What happens when failures occur?"
In a free society, if you want to help someone who needs help, you are free to do so.
That doesn't answer the question. I asked what happens to them? I did not ask, "What might happen to them if they are lucky?"
The banks that made bad decisions should have gone bankrupt and/or bought out, instead of being bailed out. Same for GM and Chrysler. Same for any individual.
And then what happens to them? What actually happens to the elderly people living off their GM or Chrysler pension had the companies simply failed? Those pensions would have stopped. Oh, but the pensions are insured so they're ok... insured by the likes of AIG and the banks that were also failing. So what happens to these people?
Homeless and destitute scrounging around in the garbage? If not, why not?
But the moral message of today is clear: no matter how bad, inept, incompetent, and self-destructive you are - you will be rewarded at the expense of those who are good, competent, and effective.
So you'd prefer that the incompetent and unlucky live in total degradation... or die? Is that your moral message?
You keep dodging the question of what happens when people fail in your ideal society. Is this it? Degradation, destitution, starvation, exposure, disease, and death. If not, why not?
All society has done is said,"Even the incompetent, unlucky, infirm, shall be fed, clothed, and sheltered." Why exactly do you find this offensive? You'd rather they were homeless and destitute? Just so that you can drive an Aston Martin instead of having to settle for a Lexus?
Actually, I think the fastest way to see a change would be if a senator's/governor's/etc. son/daughter was caught pirating their favorite song/movie/whatever.
Unfortunately not. The copyright holders would treat them with kid gloves, drop the case, and give them a gentle, 'hey don't do it again speech'.