The argument is not that a corporation itself is a conscious being. An enormous number of people think that is the argument, but it's not. It's a huge straw man argument that's repeated ad nauseam, especially since Citizens United.
The *actual* argument is that corporations are *groups of people* (the shareholders) and that groups of people have the same rights as individuals. Doesn't that seem a lot more reasonable?
Your other argument is that they're not trying to ban speech, they're trying to ban the 'funding of speech'. It's the same thing. What you are saying is this: 'a group of people, in the form of shareholders, should not be allowed to pool their resources in order to get a message to the public.' Why do you want this? Because you don't want the public to be influenced by their message. You are trying to *abridge* their freedom of speech. Cutting the funding is just your *method* of preventing the speech. It's like saying "I'm not preventing your freedom of speech, I'm just duck-taping your mouth."
It's not about driving quality down or even changing the products at all. It's about distribution. Neither Amazon nor mom and pop shops generally make the goods they sell. Amazon is more efficient at distributing goods, thus consumers save money and their standard of living increases without earning more money.
Walmart may be on the lower end of the quality spectrum, but that's besides the point. Go with Amazon if you want higher quality (or low quality, or anything). The point is that having thousands of mom and pop shops is not an efficient way to distribute goods, and that is why large retailers like Walmart and Amazon have lower prices. That may not be good for the moms and pops, but it is good for everyone else.
It does work out for the US because low prices improve our standard of living, even if our income doesn't increase. As crazy as it sounds, efficiently distributing goods through Walmart and Amazon is better than doing it inefficiently through thousands of mom and pop shops.
Instead of your 4 typed keys; then hunting through the list that pops up from the search (after waiting whatever time the search took - maybe your hard drive had to spin up to read the index?)
The 4 typed keys for me are the Window key, first two letters of program, and then the enter key. Occasionally I have to type the first 3 letters of the program for a total of 5 keys. I'm not hunting through a list at all. And for me, the search has never taken longer than it takes me to type the 4-5 keys (a second or less). I know that at least some things in Windows search are constantly stored in memory and do not require the hard drive. I'd guess that the names and locations of programs make the cut, just as I assume they'd do when you click on All Programs in Windows 7's start menu.
Also; there is no guarantee that there aren't other matches for the word "Control" in your apps; and thus no guarantee that *typing* to search for something will quickly find what you want.
Honestly, how often do you think the first word in an app matches the first word in another app? Maybe 1% of the time? And even in that case, are you honestly saying it takes more time to hit window key and type 2 words than it takes to navigate your mouse to the start button, left click, navigate to All Programs, left click, look for program name in list, navigate mouse to it, and left click?
.
Back in the real world, if your GRAPHICAL User Interface requires you to type the name of a program to start it, it's a lousy UI.
It takes less time to type 4 keys than it does to navigate your mouse to the start button, left click, navigate to All Programs, left click, look for program name in list, navigate mouse to it, and left click.
We don't do word processing by clicking letters with our mouse, even in a GRAPHICAL User Interface.
I think you really underestimate people. I think the general public understands that movies consume a lot of data, and I certainly think most smart phone owners do. Even if some of them didn't, people generally don't stare at their shrinking wallet as drool drips of their chin. They can learn.
Entities like youtube can adapt too. If people feel constrained by their data limits, they will demand that content providers be cognizant of this. Many content providers already are, simply because it's too fucking slow to watch hi-quality videos on a cell phone (because of people like you who use 10 GB a month!!).
"but it sure doesn't do anything good for the customers."
Slashdotters probably use more data than most, so capping is always seen as a bad thing. But anyone who was staying below the cap before it existed (probably most people) will not be negatively impacted and in fact will benefit from increased speeds.
What I'm saying is that the use of an economizer doesn't add much complexity to the system. If the A/C system requires precise control, then the control system will be complex whether you use an economizer or not. A data center load can easily fluctuate more than the outdoor air. Adding an economizer to an already complex system such as this does not add that much complexity.
Talk to me about the issue if you want to talk.
(IOW: I get really annoyed by immature dicks.)
Well, I'm an HVAC engineer so I do have at least a slight clue.
If the electronics require extremely precise control, then the A/C system will be tricky no matter what. Involving an economizer is not going to cause a giant leap in trickiness.
It's really not that tricky. All you need are temperature/humidity probes for the outdoor air and the return air and a control sequence that knows to use outdoor air instead of return air whenever the temp/humidity of the outdoor air is better.
As you said, this is what an economizer does. There's nothing unusual about them, in fact they're required by code in many climates that have cool/dry air.
The supply of gold is predictable, but the demand is not. While it's been pretty stable historically, it may not always be. The majority of the demand of gold is due to it being shiny and rare. That really does not make a whole lot of sense, it could be just a matter of time before people finally figure that there is no point in spending so much money on something with no utility.
Microsoft can have it copyrighted and allow you to install it on more computers, so you are limited to the terms that microsoft outlines. MS doesn't have to have a law passed for each license agreement; they can simply state what you are allowed to do for whatever purchase you make
You seem to be under the impression that commerce is limited to the exchange of property, with little or no stipulations. That is not the case. Ford can legally pull that stunt if they choose, the reason they don't is because people would purchase from someone who didn't force them to continually service their car at the same place. Contracts do exist. They are legally enforced unless they require a party to commit an illegal act. MS could easily have you come in and sign a contract saying you agree to be forced to activate your Windows everytime you turn on your computer. If it's deemed simple enough, they don't even have to have you sign; it's implied by the purchase.
And they don't even have to do that. They can simply just sell you software that requires activation to use the OS. You are not just purchasing the OS. You are purchasing an activation process with an OS. It's like the videogame analogy I gave. Do you think videogames are required to have cheat codes so users can access stuff without having to play the game for hours? I will grant you that if MS did not make the activation process clear before purchase, that could be significant enough to count as false advertising. But there is nothing illegal about the activation process.
I'll accept your analogy with Ford. And while no one would accept something like that from Ford, Ford could do that. There is nothing stopping them from selling you a car only if you agree to have it activated continually.
Products can come with contracts. A contract can be crazy, illogical, and downright unfair, but unless it requires either party to do something illegal, it is legal. You own XP, but part of buying it requires you to only install it on one computer, for instance. Activation is the same thing. There is no illegal act involved in calling MS. Therefore, if that is part of the agreement in purchasing XP, you are required to do so.
I'm not going to disagree with you that this is annoying; my only point is that it is legal. Why shouldn't it be? If I want to sell a product that makes you jump through all sorts of hoops, why would that have to be illegal? Just don't buy it. I think the reason you find this irksome is because while most companies couldn't get away with being that annoying, MS can because they have a near-monopoly.
Nah, it's not like that because you are not required to perpetually activate Windows. In both cases it's a one time thing. You need the initial gas from Ford in order to get your car to other gas stations.
If you just want to simply argue the effectiveness of my analogies, go ahead. Here's another: CD keys. Most software you pay for requires you to enter a CD key to use it. Is that illegal? Is there a significant difference between entering a CD key and contacting MS, other than degree of effort required? Here's another: many games require you to advance in the game in order to obtain new weapons and such. Is that illegal? Part of what I paid for is those weapons, so why should I have to play the game for hours to get them?
My main point is that the activation is part of the product and they can sell that product if they choose. You didn't choose to show how this is illegal, so I assume that either you can't or you agree that it is legal, but perhaps annoying. I'm not going to argue that it is not annoying, my only point in replying at all was to inform you that MS is allowed to do this. If you disagree, show me why, otherwise I think we should end this.
Actually, you do typically buy the gas from Ford; have you ever bought a car that was empty? Maybe if you asked, Ford would empty the gas tank for you and deduct the cost, but if they want to sell the gas too, they can do that. Do you think it is illegal for Ford to not have an option where you can empty the gas tank? Also, it's not like activation costs money.
There is nothing wrong about requiring you to activate Windows, as I said, that is a part of the product. When you buy Windows, you are not buying the OS by itself and then being forced to activate property you already own. The property you own includes an activation requirement, you know that when you buy it. If they did not make it clear that activation was not part of the product, you would have an argument and be entitled to a refund.
Your previous three posts give the impression that you think it is illegal to require activation. I think that is incorrect, but if you can show otherwise, please do.
They can do all of that. The reason they don't is because there is no benefit and they would lose customers.
Ford sells you a car that must be filled with gasoline before it works. Microsoft sells an OS that must be activated to work. It's not that they're keeping you from using property you own. The activation is part of the property you bought. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Re:Interesting press coverage of this.
on
Water Ice On Mars
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, it can be annoying, but I think it's necessary. Scientists can make mistakes, and we sure wouldn't want the press to report everything said by any scientist as definite truth.
I actually hear them say allegedly any time a celebrity is arrested. They probably wouldn't be sued if this didn't turn out to be ice, so at least they do it to be accurate.
You should have to do whatever they tell you to do. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Why can't someone sell a product with the condition that you must activate it?
I think that is one strong possibility the author didn't mention. It seems logical that you can effectively rule out life emerging up until the past few billion years. Unless you can form life out of hydrogen and helium (which seems unlikely based on the lack of chemistry involving these two atoms), you at least need to wait for the first generation stars to produce heavier elements, explode, and form new solar systems. You then have to wait for the asteroid bombardment to slow down and life to form and evolve. Our sun is a pretty averaged age star in the milky way. Stars near us are generally close to the sun's age; a civilization forming much earlier would typically have to travel much further to reach us.
So the real questions are: what is the age distribution of advanced civilizations and how old are they when they colonize other stars? When you see that life began almost immediately on Earth, it doesn't seem likely that there are many civilizations much older than us. There may be many total, but they would probably make up a low percentage of planets that formed intelligent life, so they may be very far away. The older a civilization, the larger it's sphere of influence may be, but the rarer it is.
We have no idea how to detect aliens in distant solar systems. The only thing we can say about the lack of aliens is that it appears none have been to our solar system yet. All we can realistically say is that there is probably a significant number of solar systems not visited by extrasolar aliens. We really just got here. We are like guests that show up early to a party and wonder where everyone is.
Maybe it's inevitable that intelligent civilizations produce self replicating robots, but I don't think it's inevitable that many choose to.
Larger fridge with dehumidifier inside? Even better: a stand-alone freezer with a dehumidifier that draws water for the ice tray and helps eliminate frost. Seriously, can I site slashdot message boards for IP?
Killing XP will hurt Microsoft? Do you really think you have a better idea how to retain power and make money than MS? XP will not die until 2014. MS has three options to retain control by then: make Vista acceptable, forget Vista and make Win7 acceptable, or just decide to lengthen the life of XP. People are happy with XP right now, so I don't see many people switching until support is cutoff in 2014. I also don't see MS not having a decent alternative product by then. Maybe people will start opening up to other options, and I hope they do, but I don't think killing XP 6 years from now will be the reason.
I partially agree with you. People use computers for the third party software (or other software provided by MS), not to use the operating system itself. The whole point of the operating system is to provide reliable and efficient access to that software, so I agree that a successful OS is simply one that doesn't hinder the work to be done.
However, I don't think MS is selling the same solutions for the same problems over and over again. MS is really as much a service company as it is a product manufacturer. When you buy the OS from MS, you're also paying for a number of years of technical support and product updates. Unless you can build an OS that never needs support, I think this is an essential part of the business. Instead of charging a monthly fee to get this service, they make you pay a larger fee every few years. I think big changes to the OS, sometimes bloat ware, are in an attempt to help people digest this large fee every few years. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with this business model, it's just one way to do it. The product and service are both required, and you're going to have to pay over time to get the service. The only other business models I can think of right now would be a subscription service or an free OS with ads, neither of which I would prefer, personally.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument is not that a corporation itself is a conscious being. An enormous number of people think that is the argument, but it's not. It's a huge straw man argument that's repeated ad nauseam, especially since Citizens United.
The *actual* argument is that corporations are *groups of people* (the shareholders) and that groups of people have the same rights as individuals. Doesn't that seem a lot more reasonable?
Your other argument is that they're not trying to ban speech, they're trying to ban the 'funding of speech'. It's the same thing. What you are saying is this: 'a group of people, in the form of shareholders, should not be allowed to pool their resources in order to get a message to the public.' Why do you want this? Because you don't want the public to be influenced by their message. You are trying to *abridge* their freedom of speech. Cutting the funding is just your *method* of preventing the speech. It's like saying "I'm not preventing your freedom of speech, I'm just duck-taping your mouth."
It's not about driving quality down or even changing the products at all. It's about distribution. Neither Amazon nor mom and pop shops generally make the goods they sell. Amazon is more efficient at distributing goods, thus consumers save money and their standard of living increases without earning more money.
Walmart may be on the lower end of the quality spectrum, but that's besides the point. Go with Amazon if you want higher quality (or low quality, or anything). The point is that having thousands of mom and pop shops is not an efficient way to distribute goods, and that is why large retailers like Walmart and Amazon have lower prices. That may not be good for the moms and pops, but it is good for everyone else.
It does work out for the US because low prices improve our standard of living, even if our income doesn't increase. As crazy as it sounds, efficiently distributing goods through Walmart and Amazon is better than doing it inefficiently through thousands of mom and pop shops.
Instead of your 4 typed keys; then hunting through the list that pops up from the search (after waiting whatever time the search took - maybe your hard drive had to spin up to read the index?)
The 4 typed keys for me are the Window key, first two letters of program, and then the enter key. Occasionally I have to type the first 3 letters of the program for a total of 5 keys. I'm not hunting through a list at all. And for me, the search has never taken longer than it takes me to type the 4-5 keys (a second or less). I know that at least some things in Windows search are constantly stored in memory and do not require the hard drive. I'd guess that the names and locations of programs make the cut, just as I assume they'd do when you click on All Programs in Windows 7's start menu.
Also; there is no guarantee that there aren't other matches for the word "Control" in your apps; and thus no guarantee that *typing* to search for something will quickly find what you want.
Honestly, how often do you think the first word in an app matches the first word in another app? Maybe 1% of the time? And even in that case, are you honestly saying it takes more time to hit window key and type 2 words than it takes to navigate your mouse to the start button, left click, navigate to All Programs, left click, look for program name in list, navigate mouse to it, and left click? .
Back in the real world, if your GRAPHICAL User Interface requires you to type the name of a program to start it, it's a lousy UI.
It takes less time to type 4 keys than it does to navigate your mouse to the start button, left click, navigate to All Programs, left click, look for program name in list, navigate mouse to it, and left click.
We don't do word processing by clicking letters with our mouse, even in a GRAPHICAL User Interface.
Then why did they try so hard to make a drastically different operating system?
I think you really underestimate people. I think the general public understands that movies consume a lot of data, and I certainly think most smart phone owners do. Even if some of them didn't, people generally don't stare at their shrinking wallet as drool drips of their chin. They can learn.
Entities like youtube can adapt too. If people feel constrained by their data limits, they will demand that content providers be cognizant of this. Many content providers already are, simply because it's too fucking slow to watch hi-quality videos on a cell phone (because of people like you who use 10 GB a month!!).
AT&T is planning on putting a cap at 2GB a month. According to AT&T, 98% of their customers use less than that (and 65% use only 200 MB!). http://www.wirelessweek.com/News/2010/06/Business-ATT-Data-Use-New-Plans-Data-Services/
Five year average, after tax profit margin:
Verizon: 7.6%
AT&T: 10.5%
Sprint: (17.4%)
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=vz
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=T
http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=s
"but it sure doesn't do anything good for the customers." Slashdotters probably use more data than most, so capping is always seen as a bad thing. But anyone who was staying below the cap before it existed (probably most people) will not be negatively impacted and in fact will benefit from increased speeds.
What I'm saying is that the use of an economizer doesn't add much complexity to the system. If the A/C system requires precise control, then the control system will be complex whether you use an economizer or not. A data center load can easily fluctuate more than the outdoor air. Adding an economizer to an already complex system such as this does not add that much complexity. Talk to me about the issue if you want to talk. (IOW: I get really annoyed by immature dicks.)
Well, I'm an HVAC engineer so I do have at least a slight clue. If the electronics require extremely precise control, then the A/C system will be tricky no matter what. Involving an economizer is not going to cause a giant leap in trickiness.
It's really not that tricky. All you need are temperature/humidity probes for the outdoor air and the return air and a control sequence that knows to use outdoor air instead of return air whenever the temp/humidity of the outdoor air is better. As you said, this is what an economizer does. There's nothing unusual about them, in fact they're required by code in many climates that have cool/dry air.
The supply of gold is predictable, but the demand is not. While it's been pretty stable historically, it may not always be. The majority of the demand of gold is due to it being shiny and rare. That really does not make a whole lot of sense, it could be just a matter of time before people finally figure that there is no point in spending so much money on something with no utility.
You seem to be under the impression that commerce is limited to the exchange of property, with little or no stipulations. That is not the case. Ford can legally pull that stunt if they choose, the reason they don't is because people would purchase from someone who didn't force them to continually service their car at the same place. Contracts do exist. They are legally enforced unless they require a party to commit an illegal act. MS could easily have you come in and sign a contract saying you agree to be forced to activate your Windows everytime you turn on your computer. If it's deemed simple enough, they don't even have to have you sign; it's implied by the purchase.
And they don't even have to do that. They can simply just sell you software that requires activation to use the OS. You are not just purchasing the OS. You are purchasing an activation process with an OS. It's like the videogame analogy I gave. Do you think videogames are required to have cheat codes so users can access stuff without having to play the game for hours? I will grant you that if MS did not make the activation process clear before purchase, that could be significant enough to count as false advertising. But there is nothing illegal about the activation process.
Products can come with contracts. A contract can be crazy, illogical, and downright unfair, but unless it requires either party to do something illegal, it is legal. You own XP, but part of buying it requires you to only install it on one computer, for instance. Activation is the same thing. There is no illegal act involved in calling MS. Therefore, if that is part of the agreement in purchasing XP, you are required to do so.
I'm not going to disagree with you that this is annoying; my only point is that it is legal. Why shouldn't it be? If I want to sell a product that makes you jump through all sorts of hoops, why would that have to be illegal? Just don't buy it. I think the reason you find this irksome is because while most companies couldn't get away with being that annoying, MS can because they have a near-monopoly.
If you just want to simply argue the effectiveness of my analogies, go ahead. Here's another: CD keys. Most software you pay for requires you to enter a CD key to use it. Is that illegal? Is there a significant difference between entering a CD key and contacting MS, other than degree of effort required? Here's another: many games require you to advance in the game in order to obtain new weapons and such. Is that illegal? Part of what I paid for is those weapons, so why should I have to play the game for hours to get them?
My main point is that the activation is part of the product and they can sell that product if they choose. You didn't choose to show how this is illegal, so I assume that either you can't or you agree that it is legal, but perhaps annoying. I'm not going to argue that it is not annoying, my only point in replying at all was to inform you that MS is allowed to do this. If you disagree, show me why, otherwise I think we should end this.
There is nothing wrong about requiring you to activate Windows, as I said, that is a part of the product. When you buy Windows, you are not buying the OS by itself and then being forced to activate property you already own. The property you own includes an activation requirement, you know that when you buy it. If they did not make it clear that activation was not part of the product, you would have an argument and be entitled to a refund.
Your previous three posts give the impression that you think it is illegal to require activation. I think that is incorrect, but if you can show otherwise, please do.
Ford sells you a car that must be filled with gasoline before it works. Microsoft sells an OS that must be activated to work. It's not that they're keeping you from using property you own. The activation is part of the property you bought. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
I actually hear them say allegedly any time a celebrity is arrested. They probably wouldn't be sued if this didn't turn out to be ice, so at least they do it to be accurate.
You should have to do whatever they tell you to do. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Why can't someone sell a product with the condition that you must activate it?
So the real questions are: what is the age distribution of advanced civilizations and how old are they when they colonize other stars? When you see that life began almost immediately on Earth, it doesn't seem likely that there are many civilizations much older than us. There may be many total, but they would probably make up a low percentage of planets that formed intelligent life, so they may be very far away. The older a civilization, the larger it's sphere of influence may be, but the rarer it is.
We have no idea how to detect aliens in distant solar systems. The only thing we can say about the lack of aliens is that it appears none have been to our solar system yet. All we can realistically say is that there is probably a significant number of solar systems not visited by extrasolar aliens. We really just got here. We are like guests that show up early to a party and wonder where everyone is.
Maybe it's inevitable that intelligent civilizations produce self replicating robots, but I don't think it's inevitable that many choose to.
Larger fridge with dehumidifier inside? Even better: a stand-alone freezer with a dehumidifier that draws water for the ice tray and helps eliminate frost. Seriously, can I site slashdot message boards for IP?
Killing XP will hurt Microsoft? Do you really think you have a better idea how to retain power and make money than MS? XP will not die until 2014. MS has three options to retain control by then: make Vista acceptable, forget Vista and make Win7 acceptable, or just decide to lengthen the life of XP. People are happy with XP right now, so I don't see many people switching until support is cutoff in 2014. I also don't see MS not having a decent alternative product by then. Maybe people will start opening up to other options, and I hope they do, but I don't think killing XP 6 years from now will be the reason.
However, I don't think MS is selling the same solutions for the same problems over and over again. MS is really as much a service company as it is a product manufacturer. When you buy the OS from MS, you're also paying for a number of years of technical support and product updates. Unless you can build an OS that never needs support, I think this is an essential part of the business. Instead of charging a monthly fee to get this service, they make you pay a larger fee every few years. I think big changes to the OS, sometimes bloat ware, are in an attempt to help people digest this large fee every few years. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with this business model, it's just one way to do it. The product and service are both required, and you're going to have to pay over time to get the service. The only other business models I can think of right now would be a subscription service or an free OS with ads, neither of which I would prefer, personally.