then open source is no longer the cheapest and best option

If it's not the best, then cheapest is really a false benefit, for any kind of software that is an enabling tool for one's productivity.

Proprietary software costs are almost always set below the value they bring, so if they're really better they're worth paying for.

FWIW, I use open source because it's the best (and contribute code and non-code).

Aside: whenever I've suggested the opportunity to a "starving artist" I've been informed that artists don't work for free but coders can do so "as a hobby". Sometimes you see arguments that just aren't worth having, though I've always thought it must be awful to be an artist as a profession and not enjoy art enough to do it as a hobby too.

Banks don't care at all about that. The reserve requirement for savings accounts and CDs is 0 anyhow - only checking accounts (among consumer accounts) currently have any reserve requirements, and that's quite low.

And despite all that, bank have voluntarily deposited about $2 Trillion with the Fed, because the Fed is paying better interest on that money than T-Bills pay. Banks just aren't seeking to reduce their reserves right now, though that will change as the economy expands, I expect.

Here we go again.... WTF is "video chat" a core feature instead of an addon? It really doesn't even have anything to do with web browsing. And I can't imagine the code is small, either. Ug.

For that I'll refer here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

That is not correct and I can prove it. I don't know which dictionary you prefer, but in the US, Merriam-Webster pretty much sets the standard for English:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

If you're British, then Oxford sets your standard:

http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Both dictionaries seem to agree that female refers to the sex that can bear young or lay eggs. The person wouldn't fully meet that definition (and in fact still carries organs that are part of the male reproductive system, such as the prostate.)

The definition for male may not be, but in terms of female, the definition is pretty straightforward: Must be capable of laying eggs or bearing offspring. In most non-mammalian species, there isn't XY chromosome (reptiles, birds, and fish for example have ZW instead) but there's still a common trait for females: capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs.

Now if you want to look at the extreme and one off examples where a human has XXY (or any other variation) it still boils down to being capable of bearing offspring or laying eggs. If that person can not, or if they can't produce male gametes, then they really aren't either sex.

As far as the cultural impact of everything I've said above: Culturally a person might identify as man or woman, and whichever they choose is their choice of course, however it isn't possible to change one's sex (or at least, the technology doesn't exist.)

That also being said, even if the technology comes along that allows females to produce male sperm or males to bear offspring or lay eggs, that doesn't change the anatomy of a person's brain.

"-man" as a suffix is gender neutral, usually. "-person" etc just misunderstand the etymology.

The old English roots are:
* "man", meaning roughly "human", any age or sex
* "wer", adult male (survives in a few words like virile and werewolf)
* "wif", adult female (of any marital status)

Over time we lost the male-specific word, with "man" doing double-duty for male and neuter meanings, while the original meaning of "wif" became "wif-man" became "woman".

The one startup I worked for in Silly Valley was run by an Indian guy, not so young, but extraordinarily colorful - not so much "flamboyantly gay" as "the Cat from Red Dwarf". I half expected him to click his heels and spin around every time he walked past. I'm sure he was rich, as this wasn't his first time as a startup CEO, but that's all he had in common with "rich white frat boy".

OTOH, my interview with him consisted of us discussing who I had worked for in the past that he knew - not quite a clique, but some overlap with people he trusted was key.

I highly recommend Elizabeth Moon's book Speed of Dark which discussed exploiting in both senses of the word in a fictional context, along with the moral questions around a cure for autism. It's well-researched, at least, and sensitive to its topic.

Well, not really. I was looking to see what might be causing the government concern. I started at the top of my decision analysis tree with the first node, "Remember: Government just wants your money." If yes, done.

So, done.

No, and I don't need to be.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/f...

'Nuff said. And yes, I'll keep the word dramatic.

They were lamented because they attempted to create a monopoly on labor. They still attempt to do the same thing today (look at the screen actor's guild for example.)

Actually corporations in his time had even more power than they do today. For example, they had the power to jail and even execute people who were in arrears, in addition to being able to raise an army and declare war. The East Indian Trading Company did all of these things in fact.

Why suddenly the issue with "selfie sticks"?

And Bluetooth too - the 30' menace. When it doesn't make sense on a technology level, look at politics.

Probably super-cheap Bluetooth electronics are becoming popular, and the last thing you want to do is to have people realize that they don't need to be regulated by a government. So, you need to launch a crackdown operation, but you do it to a group that has very little political power, so you don't have to catch hell from your boss when you crack down on some thing that he uses.

In this case, one presumes that the median age of the selfie stick users is well under 30 and for the bureaucrats near 50, so the selfie-stick users are an easy target as an 'out group' for a political action by the 'in group'.

Chimps do the same thing - it's only the details that differ.

Those jobs don't matter anyhow - they'll all be done by robots. The conversation was about skilled jobs that pay well. That's what we want America to be centered on! Not crap jobs that are going away soon anyhow.

It's not that simple. When labor costs scale with the number of items sold, then sure. But when labor costs are your R&D budget (or whatever you call the cost of producing, say, a film), and you have vast economies of scale, then it's all about making a great product, not cutting labor costs. When what's on the line is the difference between iPhone sales and Zune/Kin/Fire phone sales, or a film with $1B vs $10 MM sales, the goal isn't cutting an extra million off R&D, but on hiring the best you can find.

And if unicorn giggles cured cancer, all we'd need is more unicorns. But here in the realm of the possible, subsidizing health care for illegals is net cheaper for me. I'm not going to pay more just to watch them suffer, sorry.

Again, if the goal is reducing my chance of injury, subsidizing recovery clinics is the cost-effective way. I'm not going to pay more just to watch them suffer, sorry. Now, if you want to also fine those convicted the cost of that care, sure, go for it, but that only addresses those caught an convicted, not the many others who might seek free help when they got some other form of reality check.

The point of laws is not to bless or condemn specific actions, but to provide in incentives that produce a society best for each of us.

Why should we provide health care for illegal aliens? Because diseases are contagious. Whether the person receiving the preventive care deserves it is entirely irrelevant - I'm paying to keep me from getting infected by some broke asshole.

Why should we provide rehab clinics for drunken drivers? Because drunk drivers are dangerous to others. Whether the person receiving the preventive care deserves it is entirely irrelevant - I'm paying to keep me from getting hit by some drunk asshole.

Worked for me. Can work for you. Stop making excuse and invest.

You accumulate wealth by investing, you don't accumulate wealth by magic and then invest it. The reason wealth is so concentrated is the mass investing is new, and it takes decades to grow wealth. More investing, and more understanding of wealth by more people, will certainly fix the concentration issues.

If this is important to you, first get your own house in order before complaining about others. Discount brokers and the internet has basically leveled the playing field - more than leveled, as the broker-manged-accounts are basically a scam anyhow. It's not rocket science, it just takes patience and the determination to avoid get-rich-quick scams and advisers.