You mean like how it's about liberation from proprietary software (except when the install is so badly engineered that they tell you to just "go find your Windows disc"). Yeah, expect those principles to die out pretty quickly when you actually call their bluff...
We spent all that effort mining the gold, and then we put 95% of it back underground intentionally!
Yes, this is one of the reasons economists don't like a gold standard: you have to hold a lot of gold out of production, just to use as money. (The other major reasons are that it imposes gold's price volatility on the entire economy, and that it restricts liquidity.)
Now, if there is a genuine, catastrophic financial collapose, you are correct that gold will not immediately have value. People will be most concerned with necessitities, so canned food, pure water, farming/hunting equipment, and guns will probably be more likely currencies in the immediate wake. Then, cigarettes. Then, people will start accepting gold. But remember: if you *really* think there's going to be such a collapse, you absolutely must physically possess the gold on your person or in your home. Gold in a faraway bank's vault ain't gonna cut it, since they'll just take your stuff and run.
Oh, and: dada21's spiel about the gold standard in 3...2...1...
I'm a merchant who lacks any sophisticated technology (well, not really, just a hypothetical). Does this ruling mean, that if I'm sued for something involving my business, I may be required to write down abacus states mid-calculation?
Well, maybe you or someone can explain to me: What exactly is so great about BioShock? What makes it so much more than "just another FPS"? It got very good (and consistently good) reviews, but it's been my experience that I end up not liking games that get reviews like that, or at least "merely considering them good and not awesome". (Examples: RE4, Twilight Princess, Beyond Good and Evil, Star Ocean 3) I end up liking games that get 6-7s.
Is BioShock just "an FPS, but better along all dimensions"? (Improved AI, graphics, story) Or is there something fundamentally revolutionary about it?
me: it's unclear how *any* high-yielding energy source, including the hypothetical one you listed, can ever count as safe.
you:Well, wind and solar power would make the cut
Read that over again.
As far as why people are against fission reactors... why not ask the Bush administration
Right, because if I disagree with you on environmental policy, obviously I must find Bush convincing.
so if fission technology is "perfectly safe",
For someone critical of caricatures, you'd do well not to attribute to me the position that fission is "perfectly safe". More generally, you should recognize that nothing is perfectly safe, and by holding any technology you already decided you don't like, to that standard, you are becoming the caricature.
for any energy technology, you will find someone making an argument against it on environmental grounds.... That doesn't mean that every argument on environmental ground is... representative of "what environmentalists all think".
And another caricature. Obviously, nothing can be attributed to each and every self-described environmentalist, except that he/she is a self-described environmentalist. And I should have corrected the "you think ALL environmentalists..." strawman earlier. However, if we are to take a more common sense view of what you meant, such as "the overwhelming majority of environmentalists" or "the most visible, credible environmental groups", then I believe my statement holds. Can you name even one notable environmentalist who thinks any amount of carbon emissions is okay, as long as the emitter pays to have it sunk? No? Then you agree that for most of them, controlling others is more important than protecting the environment.
Only in your propaganda-addled mind. Here's a little thought experiment for you: imagine the physics wizards at ITER have a major breakthrough that leads to an inexpensive, safe fusion reactor that can provide cheap electricity for all without any carbon emissions. Now imagine all the environmentalists rejecting that technology because it doesn't allow them to properly "control your life". Does that scenario sound ridiculous to you? If not, please adjust your tinfoil hat, it is on too tight.
We obviously have very different priors here, because that absolutely does not sound ridiculous at all. For one thing, we already have cheap, inexpensive, safe, carbon-free fission reactors, and environmentalists most certainly do oppose them. ("But not me! I'm not like *those* nutballs. I take more reasonable positions, like opposition to all DDT use in the third world.")
Environmentalists typically claim that the nuclear power option isn't safe because it could get into the hands of terrorists. But if you can count that as a reason to be unsafe, it's unclear how *any* high-yielding energy source, including the hypothetical one you listed, can ever count as safe. You might as well ask for a knife that can only cut during surgical operations, but can't be used to kill someone.
Without fail, any time an alternative that sidesteps environmentalists' official objection is proposed, they invent another concern that moves the goalposts *just* far enough.
-Windmills? Uh, that kills birds. -Hydroelectric? Uh, that messes up sea life. -Ethanol? Uh, that's monoculture. -Solar? Uh, that involves destructive mining and industrial processes. Well, *maybe* if you cap the usage at an arbitrary level.
Any policy that would help the environment, but hinder the broader social goals of environmentalists is likewise opposed. For example, the carbon tax + sink subsidy that I mentioned before. Environmentalists don't even care if you'll sink your emissions right out of the air, or pay the full externality; they think you shouldn't do it, except as they dictate. How can you reconcile that with a genuine concern for the environment rather than controlling people?
Why nobody buys them? Because outside of Russia, people realize, money has interest cost. If I spend 1000 to install panel, but I must borrow at 7 percent, I pay 70 additional dollars in first year for to borrow money to save on energy! Even if I buy with own money, I am giving up chance to lend money at interest, which is opportunity cost to me.
If you want to get rich and don't care about time, you put money in savings account and wait infinite time. Then you buy Russia!
a) Bail out lenders who made crappy loans and idiot speculators (scalpers, actually) who took mortgages they couldn't afford, in the process making living costs surge.
So it *is* a form of government protectionism when the government bans you from copying something of mine, but it's NOT a form of government protectionism when the government bans you from stealing something of mine.
I think that's a great analogy, since it shows the circularity of your claim. "But physical property theft is different because I don't like that!"
Also, I would argue (am arguing) that [1]the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. [2]There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, [3]it has nothing to do with making money.
Yes, yes, and no. Some people will create, irrespective of the monetary return. Some creations, however, need a monetary return to justify, and if a lack of IP will not allow sufficient returns, these creations simply will not exist and we will all be poorer for it.
You could just as easily say, "[1]the drive to perform science is separate from the drive for money. [2]There would still be science (in the sense of individuals acquiring knowledge through the scientific method) if science was punishable by death, [3]it has nothing to do with making money."
But it would be hard to deny that our collective scientific knowledge is significantly enhanced by the fact that intelligent people can earn a living doing it.
The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.
It would also have been capitalism if the artists distributed it. The only difference is that the artists preferred the payment structure a distributor offered.
The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember?
Of course. But compensation models that don't require IP, can co-exist with IP. Compensation models that DO require IP, however, cannot co-exist with "no-IP". Discovering the former doesn't prove the case against IP unless it can show how it's superior in all cases.
What are you talking about? My online gambling site is subject to stringent regulations to make sure they don't overstate payouts or take an undisclosed share of my funds. It's based in America, but I access it online. For most of the games I play, the payout is REALLY high, too, above 99.5%.
It's Vanguard Investments, in case anyone's wondering.
I understand you may have a legitimate complaint against the methodology of private space companies, but do you really have to compare them to Nazis? Sheesh, I only thought I'd see Godwin's Law on really emotional issues...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu is Linux for human beings,
You mean like how it's about liberation from proprietary software (except when the install is so badly engineered that they tell you to just "go find your Windows disc"). Yeah, expect those principles to die out pretty quickly when you actually call their bluff...
We spent all that effort mining the gold, and then we put 95% of it back underground intentionally!
Yes, this is one of the reasons economists don't like a gold standard: you have to hold a lot of gold out of production, just to use as money. (The other major reasons are that it imposes gold's price volatility on the entire economy, and that it restricts liquidity.)
Now, if there is a genuine, catastrophic financial collapose, you are correct that gold will not immediately have value. People will be most concerned with necessitities, so canned food, pure water, farming/hunting equipment, and guns will probably be more likely currencies in the immediate wake. Then, cigarettes. Then, people will start accepting gold. But remember: if you *really* think there's going to be such a collapse, you absolutely must physically possess the gold on your person or in your home. Gold in a faraway bank's vault ain't gonna cut it, since they'll just take your stuff and run.
Oh, and: dada21's spiel about the gold standard in 3...2...1...
No, that's just the file extension *.rm. That's not the same thing as RAM.
:-)
I kid, I kid
I'm a merchant who lacks any sophisticated technology (well, not really, just a hypothetical). Does this ruling mean, that if I'm sued for something involving my business, I may be required to write down abacus states mid-calculation?
You think MS can legally weasel out of the GPL obligations? What are you, some astroturfer or something?
Yes, they will sue Apple over everything they do to promote AT&T-free iPhones ... that can be traced to Apple.
So, Apple is forced to half-heartedly admonishing people not to do it, removing discussion of how to unlock on Apple-run websites, etc.
But I'm sure Steve Jobs would love it if people bought iPhones and unlocked them, if otherwise they wouldn't buy one. He just can't talk about it.
Well, maybe you or someone can explain to me: What exactly is so great about BioShock? What makes it so much more than "just another FPS"? It got very good (and consistently good) reviews, but it's been my experience that I end up not liking games that get reviews like that, or at least "merely considering them good and not awesome". (Examples: RE4, Twilight Princess, Beyond Good and Evil, Star Ocean 3) I end up liking games that get 6-7s.
Is BioShock just "an FPS, but better along all dimensions"? (Improved AI, graphics, story) Or is there something fundamentally revolutionary about it?
me: it's unclear how *any* high-yielding energy source, including the hypothetical one you listed, can ever count as safe.
... That doesn't mean that every argument on environmental ground is ... representative of "what environmentalists all think".
you:Well, wind and solar power would make the cut
Read that over again.
As far as why people are against fission reactors... why not ask the Bush administration
Right, because if I disagree with you on environmental policy, obviously I must find Bush convincing.
so if fission technology is "perfectly safe",
For someone critical of caricatures, you'd do well not to attribute to me the position that fission is "perfectly safe". More generally, you should recognize that nothing is perfectly safe, and by holding any technology you already decided you don't like, to that standard, you are becoming the caricature.
for any energy technology, you will find someone making an argument against it on environmental grounds.
And another caricature. Obviously, nothing can be attributed to each and every self-described environmentalist, except that he/she is a self-described environmentalist. And I should have corrected the "you think ALL environmentalists..." strawman earlier. However, if we are to take a more common sense view of what you meant, such as "the overwhelming majority of environmentalists" or "the most visible, credible environmental groups", then I believe my statement holds. Can you name even one notable environmentalist who thinks any amount of carbon emissions is okay, as long as the emitter pays to have it sunk? No? Then you agree that for most of them, controlling others is more important than protecting the environment.
(Reminder: I'm not the GP)
Only in your propaganda-addled mind. Here's a little thought experiment for you: imagine the physics wizards at ITER have a major breakthrough that leads to an inexpensive, safe fusion reactor that can provide cheap electricity for all without any carbon emissions. Now imagine all the environmentalists rejecting that technology because it doesn't allow them to properly "control your life". Does that scenario sound ridiculous to you? If not, please adjust your tinfoil hat, it is on too tight.
We obviously have very different priors here, because that absolutely does not sound ridiculous at all. For one thing, we already have cheap, inexpensive, safe, carbon-free fission reactors, and environmentalists most certainly do oppose them. ("But not me! I'm not like *those* nutballs. I take more reasonable positions, like opposition to all DDT use in the third world.")
Environmentalists typically claim that the nuclear power option isn't safe because it could get into the hands of terrorists. But if you can count that as a reason to be unsafe, it's unclear how *any* high-yielding energy source, including the hypothetical one you listed, can ever count as safe. You might as well ask for a knife that can only cut during surgical operations, but can't be used to kill someone.
Without fail, any time an alternative that sidesteps environmentalists' official objection is proposed, they invent another concern that moves the goalposts *just* far enough.
-Windmills? Uh, that kills birds.
-Hydroelectric? Uh, that messes up sea life.
-Ethanol? Uh, that's monoculture.
-Solar? Uh, that involves destructive mining and industrial processes. Well, *maybe* if you cap the usage at an arbitrary level.
Any policy that would help the environment, but hinder the broader social goals of environmentalists is likewise opposed. For example, the carbon tax + sink subsidy that I mentioned before. Environmentalists don't even care if you'll sink your emissions right out of the air, or pay the full externality; they think you shouldn't do it, except as they dictate. How can you reconcile that with a genuine concern for the environment rather than controlling people?
Why nobody buys them? Because outside of Russia, people realize, money has interest cost. If I spend 1000 to install panel, but I must borrow at 7 percent, I pay 70 additional dollars in first year for to borrow money to save on energy! Even if I buy with own money, I am giving up chance to lend money at interest, which is opportunity cost to me.
If you want to get rich and don't care about time, you put money in savings account and wait infinite time. Then you buy Russia!
Seriously, who the hell talks like that anymore?
Hey Schumer -- 17th century England called. They want their verbs back.
Wow, that totally opened my eyes. Look at this damning summary of the evils Wal-Mart has perpetrated by intelligently using bar codes.
Right, because college students are well known for hating Walmart in the way that Linux users hate Microsoft.
Yeah, that's a tough call.
a) Bail out lenders who made crappy loans and idiot speculators (scalpers, actually) who took mortgages they couldn't afford, in the process making living costs surge.
or
b) Space exploration.
(Now replace a) with "Iraq War"!)
Yeah, and now some assholes are training them to use bionic arms for when they attack humans!
Who could be behind all this?
Apparently, the monkeys are too smart for that trick. From the article:
"Unfortunately, the monkeys have even been killing the residents' livestock and dogs, evading traps and avoiding poisoned food."
So it *is* a form of government protectionism when the government bans you from copying something of mine, but it's NOT a form of government protectionism when the government bans you from stealing something of mine.
I think that's a great analogy, since it shows the circularity of your claim. "But physical property theft is different because I don't like that!"
Copyright is a form of government protectionism.
So are property rights. Now, explain why we should abolish them.
I can't even imagine how many death threats I would have gotten by now for saying bad things about Ubuntu, if people had my real contact information.
Also, I would argue (am arguing) that [1]the drive to create is separate from the drive for money. [2]There would still be artists if creating art was punishable by death, [3]it has nothing to do with making money.
Yes, yes, and no. Some people will create, irrespective of the monetary return. Some creations, however, need a monetary return to justify, and if a lack of IP will not allow sufficient returns, these creations simply will not exist and we will all be poorer for it.
You could just as easily say, "[1]the drive to perform science is separate from the drive for money. [2]There would still be science (in the sense of individuals acquiring knowledge through the scientific method) if science was punishable by death, [3]it has nothing to do with making money."
But it would be hard to deny that our collective scientific knowledge is significantly enhanced by the fact that intelligent people can earn a living doing it.
The connection between creating art and becoming rich and famous was propagated by the middle men who looked at artists and said, "You know, I could really make a killing by distributing this." That is capitalism.
It would also have been capitalism if the artists distributed it. The only difference is that the artists preferred the payment structure a distributor offered.
The ideal solution would be to find a way to reward artists, without restricting the distribution of art. That is the goal, remember?
Of course. But compensation models that don't require IP, can co-exist with IP. Compensation models that DO require IP, however, cannot co-exist with "no-IP". Discovering the former doesn't prove the case against IP unless it can show how it's superior in all cases.
What are you talking about? My online gambling site is subject to stringent regulations to make sure they don't overstate payouts or take an undisclosed share of my funds. It's based in America, but I access it online. For most of the games I play, the payout is REALLY high, too, above 99.5%.
It's Vanguard Investments, in case anyone's wondering.
I was joking with you. Did you catch the wink? " ;-) "
I understand you may have a legitimate complaint against the methodology of private space companies, but do you really have to compare them to Nazis? Sheesh, I only thought I'd see Godwin's Law on really emotional issues... ;-)
Equally mandatory: If Linux made cars.
(Actually, freely-downloadable car assembly instruction sets, but same concept.)
Oh, man, I almost forgot: debates about the justice of wireless freeriding are the single most effective way to start analogy wars. :-P
I think all wireless-leeching stories should be tagged "analogyalert".