Yzupnick

>They're lawyers, not engineers, and I don't see any reason for lawyers to conclude "It's fundamentally complex, impossible to get right, and going to have problems"

Very true, my brother who, is the press secretary for a relatively prominent senator, said to me when we were debating the health care bill, "Complex problems have complex solutions." and then... "Getting to the moon was a complex problem, and I'm sure it took lot more than 2000 pages to explain the process of getting there."

Being a part of the Orthodox Jewish community, I'm not so sure this is true. I live in NY, and while my experience is largely anecdotal, it is very rare for me to meet an Ex-Soviet, and I'm pretty confident I can say that I've come in contact with a significant percentage of the other Orthodox kids my age when I was in High School (three years ago.)

The truth is the Orthodox Jewish community pushes education a very much. In the Modern Orthodox community this translates into both Academic and Torah learning. While in the Ultra Orthodox communities, this often times (not always) translates into learning Torah for most if not all of the day.

It is also very expensive to live an Orthodox Jewish life. Kosher food is more expensive, living in an Orthodox community is more expensive, and Jewish private school tuition is a minimum of $19,000 a year per kid for high school. It is pretty much a prerequesite to make over a hundred thousand in order to live in the Orthodox community.

Why should you feel bad about supporting him because he has different political views?

>Someone please tell me what the record labels have done to deserve 75%

1)Make a really good quality recoding. I know it is possible to do it without a label, and I know that it has even been done, but the vast majority of non-label recordings are really bad.

2) Really good distribution system. I know, you didn't find your music from a record company. But, having a record companies resources behind you makes your chance of hitting it big orders of magnitude greater.

I would even say that the reverse is possible. That because of it's extremely strong private sector, the state was able to afford these bad policies.

I'm pretty sure that this is not true, I'm just emphasizing your point of not reading into it that much. Pretty much any theory you want could be proved from two seemingly related pieces of data.(broad generalization I know.)

>Why talk in such absolute terms?

I'm not saying that I agree with her, but this is exactly the type of language Ayn Rand hates, and frequently makes fun of in Atlas Shrugged.

I am pretty sure the author of this article has a very bad case of Romanticizing the Past.

>Enough people would rather go to a movie theater then get on Bittorrent

True, but i guarantee that Movie theaters would rather get on Bittorrent rather than pay millions of dollars in fees to James Cameron. The only thing stopping them is IP laws.

> A little fud now and then is a good thing

This, my friend, is the problem with politics and science today.(And probably all of human history, but I was going for affect.)

> This is where the main discrepancy comes in. You guys are talking about two different things: 'value' within a capitalist framework and 'nobility' within your particular moral one. Neither one is necessarily 'better', but that's the core difference.

I think this is something that is confused all the time, even by people who realize the distinction. It is something I (and I suspect others) find hard to keep track of without actively thinking about it.

I'm not sure he realizes what money is. Listia credits are money. It is actually the same system we use today. Dollars have no inherent use, but people value them because you can trade them for physical items that do have use. This is exactly what the Listia credits are. The only difference is that there has been no exchange rate set up between that and other forms of money, but I am willing to bet that this will come to.

Money is a mode of trade. When you sell somebody a computer, and use that money to buy a hamburger (a really expensive gourmet one) you are in essence trading that computer for a hamburger. (Ok, it is a little more complicated, but not much.)

Money is a good thing. To quote a certain author (who I won't name because it will cause more debate than it really deserves.) "Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value."

This so called "Age of abundance" is a dream that can not exist. And even if it could, I am not sure I would want to live in it. To live in a world in which everything is provided for me, with no work and no effort, is to live in a world with no purpose. It sounds more like hell to me.

There were other issues, but I don't have time right now to deal with them.

Why not let the community decide whether your posts add value? Isn't that why we have an upvoting system?

I'm willing to bet that the best Poker player, piano player and marketer are all very intelligent people. Being the best at something often takes both extreme intelligence and a lot of practice.

Really cool. On my system the flash is way faster than the HTML5

In Israel election day is a national holiday and everyone is off from work/school.

EDIT: Spelling

I'm pretty sure your reasoning is the entire basis of the Tea Party movement. It is people fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties' outrageous spending, and want a new group of Politicians to be voted in. It is why many of the Tea Partiers running for office have little or no experience and it is what propelled people like Governor Chris Christie to a win last year.

I'm pretty sure that the service is designed to call the phone so that it rings, and you will be able to find it. Like if can't remember where in your house you put down the phone. Not that the service actually finds a phone you left in a public area.

I think people mean pyramid scheme.

So if it takes a large number of programmers a very long time to produce a product, the valuation is higher than a small amount of programmers creating a viable product quickly?

You might have been the smartest kid I have ever heard of.

Totally understandable, but $20 seems high for this kind of thing. For me at least...

Just make sure it is not anyone who can add something to your list. Great job on the app.

You seem to have a preconceived notion on the way the world works: Woman get paid less than men. But when encountering data that would imply the contrary, instead of simply correcting your premise, you rework the analysis of the data in a convoluted way, in order that you keep your preconceived notion about how the world works: "Woman should really be earning even more, but because of prejudices they are only earning x more than men."

> whenever someone comes up with a X-killer they've usually already lost.

You mean like an Altavista killer, MySpace killer, or Blockbuster killer? Companies fail. Just because Apple is hot right now does not mean that it is immune to this fact. It probably won't happen six months after the ipad's release, but like everything else, something new will take its place.

I up voted both these comments because it just goes to show that different people care about different things. It is not a matter of better, just a matter of preference.

> If one of the principal reasons for choosing your product is an opportunity to maximise profits, then an organisation that doesn't actually have that motivation arguably derives less value from it and logically ought to be less willing to pay market price.

An NPO doesn't work that much differently than FPO in this regard. NPO does not mean they can just waste money, if they have an opportunity to be more productive and save save money, they are going to take it. While their salary is not directly tied the amount of money brought in, NPOs have boards that hire,fire, and set wages for employees just like any other business, and they do this based on performance.

The difference being that freemium pricing is a loss leader that does not "discriminate" based on who the user is. Rather, it "discriminates" based on amount of the product being used, a perfectly acceptable and unbiased reason to charge a user more. Charging less to NPOs would be "discriminating" based on who the user is, which is not acceptable.

I'm not sure I agree with the OP, just trying to explain his position.

This could be actually be a good way to recommend new articles to people. Have suggested articles on the side, based on previous search terms. This could become pretty accurate as the user logs in over time.

Not for me, exact same setup.

I'm not so sure you're being objective about it. He responds with a logical response that explains why he makes the claim that the OP is missing the point. Your response to him is; "Really? A 4% increase on 2% of the population is going to destroy the country?" Which doesn't say anything at all, especially in response to what the poster said.

Furthermore, in my experience it is exactly the opposite. Most of the people who advocate raising taxes do so for ideological reasons. While those in favor of lowering it are for practical. I'm not saying everyone, there are people who believe raising taxes will stimulate the economy, and there are people who are ideologically opposed to taxes; Ayn Rand for example (although she is opposed for practical reasons also.) That's just been my experience.