Yeah, American coins can do some pretty amazing stuff. For example, did you know that any time they strike a coin of denomination greater than $1, it vaporizes within ten seconds? Strange but true.
Do the politicians actually answer any questions these days?
I think that's a good question, about the need for politicians to better address voter needs. In my campaign, we have had a tremendous, just, two-way dialogue with the voters in this country and that is definitely the way to go. That's why I have always been a big supporter of education. If I'm elected, I will give a lifetime tax exemption to anyone who pursues a PhD in anything. And that's what America needs right now.
When you say "better", I assume you mean "better as per an internal consensus of the musical elite and indistinguishable to anyone else"?
Don't mean to sound bitter or anything, it's just that there was the whole thing with Joshua Bell playing on the subway. I think if you have to tell someone something is good for them to appreciate it, it's not really good. Placebo principle and all.
Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income.... Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."
Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?
I do appreciate your insight, and I will work to better explain the market of supply and demand:)
Thanks, although I think I have a handle on those >:-/
In any case, I agree that the internet has fundamentally changed the nature of "content creation" (for lack of a better term) and I admit it often seems quaint now when people sell a (relatively) small amount of content for a (relatively) large amount of money, when I can read reams of more nuanced, verifiable analysis on blogs or sites like this one. I'm just not as convinced of the merit of either position on copyright.
Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*
On a more serious note:
I believe in [property rights for] real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.
This is a subtle but significant leap a lot of people don't notice. (Think Fifth-Axiom-ish.) The information *itself* has infinite supply; the good of excluding people from it, does not. My desire not to have my writings infintiely copied conflicts with your desire to copy them. STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, GET THAT CURSOR AWAY FROM THE REPLY BUTTON. Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.
How about instead of rejecting the eventual return of royalties, we "support it", but keep extending the future date when they are supposed to start applying?
You know, like Disney always seems to manage with copyright expiration.
I agree, but remember, I was just being sarcastic in my previous post, in trying to make a point about the non-sensical use of the term "personally". Note how I used the term in the part you quoted, compared to how I used it in the previous sentence.
So in other words, I *personally* told my assistant to find somebody to think that this makes a very strong statement about... etc. (I don't have an assistant, but you get the point.)
No no no, it means that when someone told him about a nasty email that referenced a month-long support problem, he personally told his assistant to find someone in the support division to do whatever it takes to resolve the situation. I personally think that makes a very strong statement about Mr. Jobs's commitment to superior customer service.
There's a much more direct way to make money off of FPS skills.
1) Be female and sort of good looking. 2) Be sort of good at a popular multiplayer FPS. 3) Get boatloads of sponsorship to play in tournaments. 4) Profit!
I wish. I wish people didn't read Time, either (the publisher), but they do. Time's writing style is the dumbed down, try-to-be-hip crap I wouldn't have gotten away with in sixth grade. Seriously. Like I said before, to understand why its writing is like fingernails on a blackboard for me, consider how the same information would be conveyed by two sources:
8-year-old: "6 divided by 3 is 2."
Time magazine: "Okay, imagine you've got a half-dozen widgets, churned out of the ol' Widget Factory on Fifth and Main. Now, say you've gotta divvy 'em up into little chunklets -- a doable three, let's say -- and each chunklet has the same number that math professor Gregory Beckens at Overinflated Ego University calls a 'quotient'. The so-called 'quotient' in this case? Dos."
Based on how that post got modded, I'm not alone in this.
That was very informative, and I hope you get modded up to five. It's nothing original of course, but being able to condense long-known information that people should be aware of (but aren't), into something understanable, is itself difficult.
With respect to making talk of PKE easier to understand, I've never understood why, other than history, they use the term "public key". It seems a "public key" is more analagous to a physical lock than a physical key. When you apply a public key, you are, in essence, locking the data, and can be done whether or not you have the key (the private key, that is). So, I just think it would be easier to call it a "public lock".
Google probably has included directionality in the their "graph" of the relationship between the sites, or will soon, so having all kinds of bad links pointing your way, and none of yours pointing to the bad links (except through extremely roundabout paths) will probably have a neutral affect on your ranking.
"Forbes has up an article on the consequences of being dumped into a claimed 'spam index', also known as 'Mail Hell'. It uses the example of e360, a site selling mortgage refis and anatomical enlargement, which has dropped in graylist rankings and saw a $500,000 drop in revenue in only three months after the company paid a marketing consultant to improve the emails. The article claims that sites in the supposed 'spam index' may be re-evaluated as infrequently as once per year. The problem? The site was reevaluated as recently as late April. 'Mail Hell is the worst fear of the untold numbers of spammers that depend on breaking spam filters to keep their business visible online. Getting stuck there means most users will never see their emails. And getting out can be next to impossible--because spammers often don't know what they did to get placed there.'"
important enough for his name to get into a Slashdot summary. Oh well, at least he wasn't referred to as "the French Linux driver guy", like how Ramanujan was "the Indian math guy".
Stupid question I don't know how to find the answer to myself:
Isn't Google owned 50% + 1 share by the two founders?
So can't they pretty much tell the shareholders to stuff themselves regarding these proposals?
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
I see your point, so a better analogy would be saying,
"Hey, if you've just robbed a bank, put the money back, because at this rate, you'll be caught!"
That's analagous to "speed trap ahead" because in both cases:
-It doesn't apply to all listeners of the message. -To the people to whom it does apply, they've already broken the law, no matter what they do after this point. -If people heed the message, it will reduce the (supposed) harm of what they're doing, which the law was intended to remedy. -If people heed the message, they are less likely to be caught. -Unlike in your analogy, it *does not* suggest ways to better avoid capture while continuing lawbreaking, it just says *what you're doing now* will lead to capture.
And the bank-robbing statement, I believe would be legal.
Sometimes I wonder if that's the case or if it's a case of slash and burn marketing - the spammers just keep signing up folks (especially overseas) who don't know any better, take their money, the folks who "advertised" realize it doesn't work and stop, the spammer just moves on and keeps signing folks up.
Then why would the "spammer" have to actually send emails? Wouldn't that just be extra effort, since they're lying to the client anyway?
Your earning potential in the modern world is largely dependant on your Math and Language skills; regardless on whether you think you are wasting your time because you "suck" at these subjects, you need to learn the material for your own good.
From what I understand, they aren't being discouraged from learning basic math that you'd have to use every day, but rather from higher level stuff not necessary for all people. If you're great with a drill press and have a hard time learning calculus, forcing yourself through it won't do much for your earning power.
Slashdot Mirror
How about ditching the "lese majeste", and trying some "laissez faire"?
Yeah, American coins can do some pretty amazing stuff. For example, did you know that any time they strike a coin of denomination greater than $1, it vaporizes within ten seconds? Strange but true.
Do the politicians actually answer any questions these days?
I think that's a good question, about the need for politicians to better address voter needs. In my campaign, we have had a tremendous, just, two-way dialogue with the voters in this country and that is definitely the way to go. That's why I have always been a big supporter of education. If I'm elected, I will give a lifetime tax exemption to anyone who pursues a PhD in anything. And that's what America needs right now.
interesting ... funny ... offtopic ... Yeah, if you didn't know it was an UbuntuDupe post before, that should have tipped you off.
When you say "better", I assume you mean "better as per an internal consensus of the musical elite and indistinguishable to anyone else"?
Don't mean to sound bitter or anything, it's just that there was the whole thing with Joshua Bell playing on the subway. I think if you have to tell someone something is good for them to appreciate it, it's not really good. Placebo principle and all.
Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income. ... Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."
:)
Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?
I do appreciate your insight, and I will work to better explain the market of supply and demand
Thanks, although I think I have a handle on those >:-/
In any case, I agree that the internet has fundamentally changed the nature of "content creation" (for lack of a better term) and I admit it often seems quaint now when people sell a (relatively) small amount of content for a (relatively) large amount of money, when I can read reams of more nuanced, verifiable analysis on blogs or sites like this one. I'm just not as convinced of the merit of either position on copyright.
Who uses e-mail anymore?
Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*
On a more serious note:
I believe in [property rights for] real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.
This is a subtle but significant leap a lot of people don't notice. (Think Fifth-Axiom-ish.) The information *itself* has infinite supply; the good of excluding people from it, does not. My desire not to have my writings infintiely copied conflicts with your desire to copy them. STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, GET THAT CURSOR AWAY FROM THE REPLY BUTTON. Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.
How about instead of rejecting the eventual return of royalties, we "support it", but keep extending the future date when they are supposed to start applying?
You know, like Disney always seems to manage with copyright expiration.
I agree, but remember, I was just being sarcastic in my previous post, in trying to make a point about the non-sensical use of the term "personally". Note how I used the term in the part you quoted, compared to how I used it in the previous sentence.
... etc. (I don't have an assistant, but you get the point.)
So in other words, I *personally* told my assistant to find somebody to think that this makes a very strong statement about
No no no, it means that when someone told him about a nasty email that referenced a month-long support problem, he personally told his assistant to find someone in the support division to do whatever it takes to resolve the situation. I personally think that makes a very strong statement about Mr. Jobs's commitment to superior customer service.
There's a much more direct way to make money off of FPS skills.
1) Be female and sort of good looking.
2) Be sort of good at a popular multiplayer FPS.
3) Get boatloads of sponsorship to play in tournaments.
4) Profit!
(No, there is no step between 3 and 4.)
nobody reads Business 2.0 anyway.
I wish. I wish people didn't read Time, either (the publisher), but they do. Time's writing style is the dumbed down, try-to-be-hip crap I wouldn't have gotten away with in sixth grade. Seriously. Like I said before, to understand why its writing is like fingernails on a blackboard for me, consider how the same information would be conveyed by two sources:
8-year-old: "6 divided by 3 is 2."
Time magazine: "Okay, imagine you've got a half-dozen widgets, churned out of the ol' Widget Factory on Fifth and Main. Now, say you've gotta divvy 'em up into little chunklets -- a doable three, let's say -- and each chunklet has the same number that math professor Gregory Beckens at Overinflated Ego University calls a 'quotient'. The so-called 'quotient' in this case? Dos."
Based on how that post got modded, I'm not alone in this.
Do you think any marriage could survive the couple being together 24 hours a day in an enclosed space for several years?
Please, do us all a favor, and stay the **** away from any reality TV producer you see. You don't want to give them any ideas.
That's not a mirror; that's a URL that forces the data to be loaded in the linked si...
Oh, forget it.
That was very informative, and I hope you get modded up to five. It's nothing original of course, but being able to condense long-known information that people should be aware of (but aren't), into something understanable, is itself difficult.
With respect to making talk of PKE easier to understand, I've never understood why, other than history, they use the term "public key". It seems a "public key" is more analagous to a physical lock than a physical key. When you apply a public key, you are, in essence, locking the data, and can be done whether or not you have the key (the private key, that is). So, I just think it would be easier to call it a "public lock".
Google probably has included directionality in the their "graph" of the relationship between the sites, or will soon, so having all kinds of bad links pointing your way, and none of yours pointing to the bad links (except through extremely roundabout paths) will probably have a neutral affect on your ranking.
"Forbes has up an article on the consequences of being dumped into a claimed 'spam index', also known as 'Mail Hell'. It uses the example of e360, a site selling mortgage refis and anatomical enlargement, which has dropped in graylist rankings and saw a $500,000 drop in revenue in only three months after the company paid a marketing consultant to improve the emails. The article claims that sites in the supposed 'spam index' may be re-evaluated as infrequently as once per year. The problem? The site was reevaluated as recently as late April. 'Mail Hell is the worst fear of the untold numbers of spammers that depend on breaking spam filters to keep their business visible online. Getting stuck there means most users will never see their emails. And getting out can be next to impossible--because spammers often don't know what they did to get placed there.'"
important enough for his name to get into a Slashdot summary. Oh well, at least he wasn't referred to as "the French Linux driver guy", like how Ramanujan was "the Indian math guy".
Stupid question I don't know how to find the answer to myself:
Isn't Google owned 50% + 1 share by the two founders?
So can't they pretty much tell the shareholders to stuff themselves regarding these proposals?
I see your point, so a better analogy would be saying,
"Hey, if you've just robbed a bank, put the money back, because at this rate, you'll be caught!"
That's analagous to "speed trap ahead" because in both cases:
-It doesn't apply to all listeners of the message.
-To the people to whom it does apply, they've already broken the law, no matter what they do after this point.
-If people heed the message, it will reduce the (supposed) harm of what they're doing, which the law was intended to remedy.
-If people heed the message, they are less likely to be caught.
-Unlike in your analogy, it *does not* suggest ways to better avoid capture while continuing lawbreaking, it just says *what you're doing now* will lead to capture.
And the bank-robbing statement, I believe would be legal.
Creative works made with only profit as a motive are not culturally fundamental.
Please, please tell me you're joking.
Sometimes I wonder if that's the case or if it's a case of slash and burn marketing - the spammers just keep signing up folks (especially overseas) who don't know any better, take their money, the folks who "advertised" realize it doesn't work and stop, the spammer just moves on and keeps signing folks up.
Then why would the "spammer" have to actually send emails? Wouldn't that just be extra effort, since they're lying to the client anyway?
Your earning potential in the modern world is largely dependant on your Math and Language skills; regardless on whether you think you are wasting your time because you "suck" at these subjects, you need to learn the material for your own good.
From what I understand, they aren't being discouraged from learning basic math that you'd have to use every day, but rather from higher level stuff not necessary for all people. If you're great with a drill press and have a hard time learning calculus, forcing yourself through it won't do much for your earning power.
So, basically, people who suck at math are advised not to waste their time and everyone else's money, pursuing something they suck at anyway.
What's the catch?
Next:
-But who confirms Netcraft? (5, Funny)
-In Soviet Russia, Netcraft confirms YOU! (5, Funny)
-That doesn't even make sense, dude. (5, Funny)