I find it interesting that people in software think they are the first ones to ever design complicated things. It seems there are so many arguments over design styles and paths. All they need to do is look at what other engineering fields have done for the past 100+ years. It's pretty simple. When you are working in a small project where the cost for failure and rework is low you can do it however you want. Try out new styles and push technology and techniques forward. When it comes to critical infrastructure and projects where people will die or lose massive amounts of money you have to stick with what works. This is where you need all of the management overhead of requirements, schedules, budgets, testing, verification, operation criteria, and the dozens of other products besides the "design".
I'm a mechanical and a software engineer. When I'm working on small projects with direct contact with the customers it's easy and very minimal documentation is needed. But as more people are involved the documentation required increases exponentially.
I oppose euthanasia because history shows that time and time again it leads to the devaluing of human life and the horrors it brings with it like eugenics and genocides.
If you want to kill yourself go ahead. If you want to kill your paralyzed loved one go ahead and face a jury.
You can't ask a family of 4 to spend over $60 to go to the movies when so many are unemployed or making next to nothing. I hate to wire it buy when I was a kid movies cost less than minimum wage. Now they are close to double.
They just need to do what Disney did. Make yourself a city and get jurisdiction over all improvements. Disney has done a good job at managing growth on their property. Their roads are better than most in Central Fl.
How does a company decide which product to copy in the first place? Why not go into buggy whip manufacturing? Why not start cranking out Apple Newton clones? Why aren't there designers cranking out parachute pants?
The answer is profit. When a company can sell a product for much more than it costs to produce they can generate profits. This is how consumers direct production. Entrepreneurs come up with ideas all of the time and try to market and sell them. It is the consumers in a free market that decide which succeed and which fail.
It is only AFTER a product is shown to be profitable does it attract imitators. This allows for a natural limited duration monopoly in which to recoup R&D costs. The market rewards innovation. If you keep innovating you will keep market share. If you stop innovating eventually the profit drop to the cost of manufacturing plus enough profit to account for the natural interest rates.
Patents cause a market distortion by setting an artificial hurdle for innovation. If you jump this high you get a 17 year monopoly. So instead of slow constant innovation to keep improving and stay ahead of the market lots are R&D are spend to clear that hurdle with the hopes that there will be profit. That is very inefficient because it doesn't allow for a smooth feedback from the consumers.
Like most political problems it seems neither side recognizes what can be a right. A right has to be universal and non contradictory. This removes all "positive rights" because they contradict the rights of the people forces to provide for it. So take marriage. The parts of two or more people living together and having sex and pledging some sort of common ownership of property etc are all rights. They require nothing of other people but to but out and leave them alone. But when the state starts granting special privlage a like tax benefits and inheritance without taxes this is a special treatment. This requires forcing other people to subsidize it.
This is the heart of the problem. Instead of granting more people special privileges we should work to remove them all so we are all treated equally and all of our rights as individuals (the only consistent basis for rights) are respected.
A group of people should never have more rights than the individual members of the group. This should apply to unions and companies. It seems in the US there are either pro-labor or right to work states. Both have it wrong. A company shouldn't be forced to negotiate with a union. On the other hand a person shouldn't have the right to work for an employeer that agreed to only hire union members. Giving unions special rights to strike without fear of being fired and allowing unions to physically block access to companies to prevent replacement workers give them too much power which leads to corruption.
Unions without that power would actually have to provide benefits to members AND employeers. This used to be the case where trade unions would have programs to teach welding, pipe fitting, steel construction, etc. When people hired union members they knew they were getting well trained people. With laws forcing governments and companies to use union members there is no long any need to probide these benefits.
Economics should be classified similar to Logic and Math. They are constructs of the human mind that are great tools to model the way the world works. But like any model you have to know the limitations.
There are natural patent monopolies that are rewarded to innovators in the market. If you are the first on the scene with a desirable product or service the consumers may reward you with monopoly prices. But as time goes on and other producers notice those outrageous profits it will lead others to enter that market and competition will reduce those profits to around the natural interest rate of the economy.
The nice part about natural monopolies is that they adjust well to how great an innovation is. The more the consumers like it the higher the profit and the more advanced it is over the state of the art the longer it will take competitors to catch up.
There is no reason why an artificial patent monopoly should increase innovation. It just breaks what would be small continuous innovations into step increases. With all of the bloat and overhead of the patent system it should be obvious it is a net negative on production.
I always thought trolling came from the fishing term. It is where you put out a bunch of lines with bait and drag them through the water seeing if something will bite.
You are correct. This is where taking freedom to the extreme makes some people squeamish. If you are truly a free person you have the freedom not only to associate but to not associate. The OP is exercising his rights by banning people from his blog. Now if he was trying to get a law passed to use force to ban fanboys from all blogs that would be a different matter.
You don't have to track political donations just look at how the politicians vote. If you vote for bank bailouts I am going to assume you or someone you know is getting rich off it. If you vote for a hunded billion dollar Air Force fighter contract I wil assume the same.
I always thought it would be interesting to run for office on the platform that during my term I will have a camera on me at all times broadcasted live. Unfortunately I belong to the one class of citizens prohibited from running for political office.
You are not allowed to make the deal because you previous agreed not to. You had a contract to do something so if you violate it you are subject to whatever is in the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Animals take what they want using violence so I assume you equate socialized medicine with animals and voluntary trade of a free market with humans.
Should is a very loaded term. Do you mean should as in it's the right thing to do or should as in men with guns will come and make you do it?
I find it interesting that people in software think they are the first ones to ever design complicated things. It seems there are so many arguments over design styles and paths. All they need to do is look at what other engineering fields have done for the past 100+ years. It's pretty simple. When you are working in a small project where the cost for failure and rework is low you can do it however you want. Try out new styles and push technology and techniques forward. When it comes to critical infrastructure and projects where people will die or lose massive amounts of money you have to stick with what works. This is where you need all of the management overhead of requirements, schedules, budgets, testing, verification, operation criteria, and the dozens of other products besides the "design".
I'm a mechanical and a software engineer. When I'm working on small projects with direct contact with the customers it's easy and very minimal documentation is needed. But as more people are involved the documentation required increases exponentially.
I oppose euthanasia because history shows that time and time again it leads to the devaluing of human life and the horrors it brings with it like eugenics and genocides.
If you want to kill yourself go ahead. If you want to kill your paralyzed loved one go ahead and face a jury.
http://youtu.be/gTS0Vv3yS6U
You can't ask a family of 4 to spend over $60 to go to the movies when so many are unemployed or making next to nothing. I hate to wire it buy when I was a kid movies cost less than minimum wage. Now they are close to double.
They just need to do what Disney did. Make yourself a city and get jurisdiction over all improvements.
Disney has done a good job at managing growth on their property. Their roads are better than most in Central Fl.
How does a company decide which product to copy in the first place? Why not go into buggy whip manufacturing? Why not start cranking out Apple Newton clones? Why aren't there designers cranking out parachute pants?
The answer is profit. When a company can sell a product for much more than it costs to produce they can generate profits. This is how consumers direct production. Entrepreneurs come up with ideas all of the time and try to market and sell them. It is the consumers in a free market that decide which succeed and which fail.
It is only AFTER a product is shown to be profitable does it attract imitators. This allows for a natural limited duration monopoly in which to recoup R&D costs. The market rewards innovation. If you keep innovating you will keep market share. If you stop innovating eventually the profit drop to the cost of manufacturing plus enough profit to account for the natural interest rates.
Patents cause a market distortion by setting an artificial hurdle for innovation. If you jump this high you get a 17 year monopoly. So instead of slow constant innovation to keep improving and stay ahead of the market lots are R&D are spend to clear that hurdle with the hopes that there will be profit. That is very inefficient because it doesn't allow for a smooth feedback from the consumers.
Like most political problems it seems neither side recognizes what can be a right. A right has to be universal and non contradictory. This removes all "positive rights" because they contradict the rights of the people forces to provide for it. So take marriage. The parts of two or more people living together and having sex and pledging some sort of common ownership of property etc are all rights. They require nothing of other people but to but out and leave them alone. But when the state starts granting special privlage a like tax benefits and inheritance without taxes this is a special treatment. This requires forcing other people to subsidize it.
This is the heart of the problem. Instead of granting more people special privileges we should work to remove them all so we are all treated equally and all of our rights as individuals (the only consistent basis for rights) are respected.
They need a lander for this mission to explore the permanently shadowed region of the lunar poles.
http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/lsf2013/content/resource-prospector-lunar-volatiles-prospecting-and-isru-demonstration-mission
A group of people should never have more rights than the individual members of the group. This should apply to unions and companies. It seems in the US there are either pro-labor or right to work states. Both have it wrong. A company shouldn't be forced to negotiate with a union. On the other hand a person shouldn't have the right to work for an employeer that agreed to only hire union members. Giving unions special rights to strike without fear of being fired and allowing unions to physically block access to companies to prevent replacement workers give them too much power which leads to corruption.
Unions without that power would actually have to provide benefits to members AND employeers. This used to be the case where trade unions would have programs to teach welding, pipe fitting, steel construction, etc. When people hired union members they knew they were getting well trained people. With laws forcing governments and companies to use union members there is no long any need to probide these benefits.
I thought he meant that the VC's would steal the idea before it got to market.
By being the first to market you have a lead on competition.
Economics should be classified similar to Logic and Math. They are constructs of the human mind that are great tools to model the way the world works. But like any model you have to know the limitations.
There is nothing to stop a private non-disclosure agreement between you and the VC's before you pitch your idea.
There are natural patent monopolies that are rewarded to innovators in the market. If you are the first on the scene with a desirable product or service the consumers may reward you with monopoly prices. But as time goes on and other producers notice those outrageous profits it will lead others to enter that market and competition will reduce those profits to around the natural interest rate of the economy.
The nice part about natural monopolies is that they adjust well to how great an innovation is. The more the consumers like it the higher the profit and the more advanced it is over the state of the art the longer it will take competitors to catch up.
There is no reason why an artificial patent monopoly should increase innovation. It just breaks what would be small continuous innovations into step increases. With all of the bloat and overhead of the patent system it should be obvious it is a net negative on production.
You get the "leaders" you deserve.
I always thought trolling came from the fishing term. It is where you put out a bunch of lines with bait and drag them through the water seeing if something will bite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing)
You are correct. This is where taking freedom to the extreme makes some people squeamish. If you are truly a free person you have the freedom not only to associate but to not associate. The OP is exercising his rights by banning people from his blog. Now if he was trying to get a law passed to use force to ban fanboys from all blogs that would be a different matter.
You don't have to track political donations just look at how the politicians vote. If you vote for bank bailouts I am going to assume you or someone you know is getting rich off it. If you vote for a hunded billion dollar Air Force fighter contract I wil assume the same.
I always thought it would be interesting to run for office on the platform that during my term I will have a camera on me at all times broadcasted live. Unfortunately I belong to the one class of citizens prohibited from running for political office.
Lots of things are against the law. I am trying to figure out the logic why.
But this is the publisher (owner of copyright) licensing it's copyright for some price they and Apple agreed to.
That's what you get when you allow the monopoly of IP.
You are not allowed to make the deal because you previous agreed not to. You had a contract to do something so if you violate it you are subject to whatever is in the contract.
I'm not an Apple apologist I just don't see a problem with this.