I think the best analogy here would be if a gun salesman overheard someone say: "I want to shoot my wife" and ran over to them and said: "I sell the cheapest best guns in town! The following bullets would be most likely to kill your wife if you were so inclined. I can also sell you targets which look exactly like your wife so you can practice before shooting here if that's what you want." I'm not sure whether that's legal or not, but it sure as hell shouldn't be.
Re: Re: Re: Re: So the book itself is not enough, you want them to entertain you in every way.. meet your every desire.
The above scenario simply requires author participation. The publisher or some third party could be handling the nitty-gritty details in the background.
I try to avoid ad-hominems, but your reaction is what we call stupid. Yes, some days, some people try to enjoy themselves and be entertained and relaxed. If you don't like that, well, keep going to board meetings. Nothing stopping you from that. But expecting everybody to spend their whole day working just because that's what you want is just plain stupid.
Oh, I just noticed who you are. I would just like to point out Mr. Improving Human Status that there is a word for what you do in economics: Transaction costs. In other words: It's that thing that we really wish would go away because it gets in the way of producing value.
I have to say, I kind of hate about 80% of what he says. I'm the kind of reader who likes to curl up in bed and read pretending the rest of the world has just disappeared. But hey, I'm sure some people will love whatever comes out of this and there will probably be something for people like me too. The flip side: I think it is really innovative and for that reason alone exciting. I really like this idea of the author releasing the book and adding more. To a point. I kind of like being able to go back and re-read old books. If the author has changed it in the mean-time, I'm going to be kind of confused, but who knows? It could be great.
Hm... The fact that tax incidence does not perfectly mirror who actually transfers the money does not mean that businesses (which means ultimately their shareholders) do not pay some portion of the taxes. To argue that businesses can pass on all tax increases directly to their customers is to argue that businesses can increases their prices without limit. This is obviously false in the vast majority of cases.
I find the calculator idea particularly absurd. Doing math on paper especially is nothing more than the rote application of an algorithm using a few memorized rules and a few memorized tables. To the extent your IQ represents your ability to blindly apply simple rules and memorize tables of numbers, nothing could be more useless. In life, almost nothing of importance can be solved by blindly following an algorithm. Inventing an algorithm and using creative new ways to apply old algorithms, those are skills that can get you very far. But I suppose the current state of journalism shows it does it not? Most pieces are nothing more than a brain-dead application of a few simple rules. Look up the two "sides" of the topic. Call up representatives from both sides for a sound-bite. Put a bit of fluff to fill the rest. O(3). I guess you can do it in O(1): copy paste press release. This seems to explain why "journalism" is doing so poorly. It's done by people who think memorizing multiplication tables is the height of human creativity and ingenuity.
No offense meant to the actual journalists out there who actually report in intelligent manners and sometimes in very dangerous circumstances.
He is making the same point as those who say blogs are destroying spelling, grammar, good writing and puppies. If there was no Twitter, the people who responded "Um, wrong." or "Nuh-uh!!" would not have sparred with him as the pamphleteers of yore. They would not have attempted to match his wit through the ancient art of Socratic debate. Those people would have never heard of him and if they did, they would have gone back to their daily activities never mentioning this event to anyone. If conversation did happen, it would have happened with their family or friends out of Mr. Keller's earshot. And guess what? There is nothing that tells us that such deep conversation did not actually happen today.
Mr. Keller is simply embracing a most pedestrian fallacy. The pre-Twitter data at which he looks is a body of literature composed by the highly selected group who were able to access the traditional media + his family and friends. That group is most likely composed of people whom he finds to be "not stupid" and most likely did not respond without carefully considering what they were saying/writing. (I can hardly imagine anyone remaining friends with Mr Keller for long if they did not display intelligence he would find of an acceptable level) However, his Twitter response must have elicited responses from a very large group of people who because of the lower barrier to entry are not up to the high standards of Mr. Keller. This says nothing about what Twitter does to your intelligence. All it says is that more of us can be heard by Mr. Keller and many of us might be inferior half-wits.
This experimental flaw is otherwise known in the sciences are mucking things up. In fact, given the obvious way Mr. Keller is simply trying to confirm his biases by deliberately creating a flawed experiment, it would probably give rise to an ethical violation. Thankfully, he is not a scientist but merely a scrivener of whom one could expect no better.
This of course all ignores the fact that if it was not for Twitter, Mr. Keller would have looked positively foolish when trying to discuss Twitter. One could quite probably have described him as a twit.
One theory in favor of elections is that it prevents violence. If most people don't like the way things are going, they don't need to pull out guns, instead, they vote for a change in policies. In other words, it aligns official political power with real power. (more so at least than systems in which a small minority has absolute official political power) From that point of view, that system may make some sense. Past a certain age, your contribution to an armed rebellion would be close to nill. Therefore, we could probably ignore the voices of the elderly. Should they rebel, we could withdraw wheelchair ramps and turn off elevators effectively confining them to a rather small operational theater.
One-party systems never simply arise out of demographic distribution. Democrats and republicans have very heterogeneous views. If the voting rights of all republicans were revoked, the democratic party would split along some lines into two or more parties.
Quite honestly if the sum total of their work on the project is to have the more or less well-formed idea of a show that follows people who "hunt ghosts", I'm not sure why that deserves any compensation when someone else uses that idea. I've mentioned idea to friends who then went on to actually make something of it, but I would never dream of getting anything more than "thanks". They are the ones that did the hard part.
On the other hand, if this becomes common, it will kill the big studios. Then, hopefully the balance of power will shift towards the likes of Google who have anti-copyright interests and we can stomp copyright abuse.
I really want them to. Boy will they have bitten more than they can chew if they seize the Mozilla domain. That would mean that nobody is safe from ICE seizures. Under such circumstances, just about the entire tech industry would be willing to go to the mat for Mozilla because they know they might be next. Ideally, they would seize Google. If they do that they will piss off enough basic computer users that we very well might see the head of the DHS resign.
AFAIK the IRS doesn't make demands without citing law. If it does make demands without citing laws, asking them to cite law is simply common sense. As far as the cutesy nature, I'm pretty sure Mozilla could fight back pretty hard against the DHS in court. And honestly, the courts will simply have to agree that if the DHS does not cite law, being cutesy in your questions is not an offense.
This makes total sense. Then we should raise a new "poor" tax because those freeloaders are paying less income tax. And perhaps a tax on renters for not paying property taxes. And also a tax on bicycles because bicyclists don't pay any DMV registration fees. Let's not forget a thrifty tax on people who spend their money wisely because they don't pay as much sales tax.
Those suits make more and more sense. Because so many people settle or are simply scared away from using brands and real people in their works, it is becoming more and more reasonable to assume that the use of a brand implies endorsement.
What you say is technically correct. But it's also irrelevant. People aren't suddenly going to stop voting for the Republicans or Democrats just because they are corrupt ineffective and in many cases stupid. The population at large had plenty of opportunities to do that and still has not done it and there are very good reasons for that. One reason is that political promises are nothing more than words. So ultimately, politicians can simply lie and get elected. Another reason is that politicians do a LOT (much of it bad) and most of us don't have time to keep track of every one of their screw ups. Finally it is very difficult to change your mind especially when it has such an insignificant effect. (Imagine the last election with your vote changed, think it would have made a difference?) What all of this conspires to is ensure that people will vote based on who sounds the best with no regard for anything else.
On the post: Cisco Sued For Helping China Repress Falun Gong
Re: Cisco lawsuit
On the post: What If Every eBook Was Its Own Social Network?
Re: Re: Re: Re: So the book itself is not enough, you want them to entertain you in every way.. meet your every desire.
On the post: What If Every eBook Was Its Own Social Network?
Re: interactive e-books
Oh, I just noticed who you are. I would just like to point out Mr. Improving Human Status that there is a word for what you do in economics: Transaction costs. In other words: It's that thing that we really wish would go away because it gets in the way of producing value.
On the post: What If Every eBook Was Its Own Social Network?
On the post: US ITC Uses Ridiculous Methodology To Claim 'Piracy' In China Costs US Firms $48 Billion In 2009
Re: The Executive Hipocracy
On the post: Bezos: Attempts To Collect State Sales Tax On Amazon Sales Is Unconstitutional
Re:
On the post: NY Times Editor Claims Twitter Killing Conversation, While His Tweets Spawn Conversation
Re:
No offense meant to the actual journalists out there who actually report in intelligent manners and sometimes in very dangerous circumstances.
On the post: NY Times Editor Claims Twitter Killing Conversation, While His Tweets Spawn Conversation
Mr. Keller is simply embracing a most pedestrian fallacy. The pre-Twitter data at which he looks is a body of literature composed by the highly selected group who were able to access the traditional media + his family and friends. That group is most likely composed of people whom he finds to be "not stupid" and most likely did not respond without carefully considering what they were saying/writing. (I can hardly imagine anyone remaining friends with Mr Keller for long if they did not display intelligence he would find of an acceptable level) However, his Twitter response must have elicited responses from a very large group of people who because of the lower barrier to entry are not up to the high standards of Mr. Keller. This says nothing about what Twitter does to your intelligence. All it says is that more of us can be heard by Mr. Keller and many of us might be inferior half-wits.
This experimental flaw is otherwise known in the sciences are mucking things up. In fact, given the obvious way Mr. Keller is simply trying to confirm his biases by deliberately creating a flawed experiment, it would probably give rise to an ethical violation. Thankfully, he is not a scientist but merely a scrivener of whom one could expect no better.
This of course all ignores the fact that if it was not for Twitter, Mr. Keller would have looked positively foolish when trying to discuss Twitter. One could quite probably have described him as a twit.
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Re: Re: Dumbest concept EVER.
On the post: Appeals Court Effectively Opens The Floodgates For People To Claim Hollywood 'Stole' Their Ideas
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Effectively Opens The Floodgates For People To Claim Hollywood 'Stole' Their Ideas
On the post: Appeals Court Effectively Opens The Floodgates For People To Claim Hollywood 'Stole' Their Ideas
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains
Re: Poor Mozilla...
On the post: Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Blames Anonymous For Latest Hack...
On the post: Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles
On the post: Tolkien Estate 'Settles' Dispute Over Historical Fiction Book With JRR Tolkien As A Character
On the post: Why Is The Obama Administration Putting Billions Of People At Risk With Patent Pressure From The USTR?
Re: Re:
Next >>