Right there is the reason why there is a serious supply issue when it comes to a flu pandemic. What is already available, will likely not be effective against a pandemic because the reason the flu is pandemic, is because it is able to bypass all available methods of treatment/prevention. In order to combat a pandemic, a formula must be developed to specifically address this particular instance. Currently, the pharma industry does not have the manufacturing capacity to rapidly produce and distribute a viable vaccine/treatment before it's already too late. Stockpiling will have no effect and expanding production capacities enough is not only extremely costly, but you would have all of this non-utilized manufacturing capacity sitting around waiting for the pandemic.
If you think you're paying too much for your cable/internet/etc. package, just do what I did with Comcast. Call them up, complain about the rate, try to work out a new package (with possibly decreased services), but be unreasonable about it, so that they can never satisfy you. You'll be put on hold in India several times. Eventually, get "fed up" and say you want to cancel your service. At this point they will transfer you over to the cancellation people (this is usually more local). Before they cancel your service, they are going to ask you why you want to cancel. Explain that you were trying to save a little money on your bill, but THEY were being unreasonable, so rather than deal with them anymore, you want to cancel one or all of your services and go with another provider. Since I use Comcast's VOIP service, I said I wanted to cancel that and just use my cell phone or switch to Vonage or something, which was cheaper anyway. At this point, the rep will say "I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. I can offer you "this". "This" will be everything you were originally paying for, but at a greatly reduced rate. I cut my monthly internet/phone/tv bill from $150 to $112. Essentially, they find whatever promotions that are only available to new customers as well as the "promotions" no one knows about, and combine them in ways that the India reps will tell you are not allowed. But before you hang up, make sure you get the name and employee ID, and any other pertinent information about the "good" rep, just in case your next bill doesn't reflect what they told you over the phone. If you do get screwed, don't worry, cause when you call up to complain again, you will knock another chunk of change off your bill. Sometimes being a total jerk is the only way to get justice around here.
For players like me who are simply awful at moving their mouse quickly and shooting people in the head, TF2's combination of unique classes and thoughtful point crediting makes the game incredibly appealing.
This is the main reason I play as engineer most of the time (and how I really got sucked in a couple years back). Knowing how to place a sentry gun and keep it running made sure I was usually ranked in the top 3 on my team in a given match. My shotgun skills are pretty shaky though. On maps where I have easy access to grenades, I could do even more damage, even offensively. I was really playing a first person shooter so much anymore. Which was great for me cause I would be kicking ass. I'm a lousy sniper and just as bad as a soldier. That's the great part about TF*. There's a role for everyone.
You make an interesting point with TF2. A lot of the things that they have tried to eliminate in TF2, were really skills that had to be mastered over time in TF1.x. Things like rocket jumping and conc. grenade jumping take a lot of skill and are certainly not the obvious maneuver for the n00b. However, I have two counterpoints to argue.
First, let me put up my own disclaimer: I have not yet tried TF2, but have been re-obsessed with TFC after I realized that even though my install CD went missing years ago at a friends house, the box with CD Key on it that I still have can be used to download through steam (and run it in Linux under WINE!).
That being said, all of the physics exploiting moves were not in wide use when these games were first released. These skills were discovered, developed, demonstrated and passed on to others until it became common practice. So while those old skill may now be bannished, who knows what new 1337 5ki11z will be discovered and then perfected until we all use them. Don't forget, there is a collective learning curve with most online multi-player games. In the beginning, the relatively new player can do pretty well for himself, but then those putting in the overtime quickly start pwning and those who don't keep up, are all of a sudden not doing so well.
My second counterpoint, is that the game developers have tried to bring each role back to basics. In the original concept, you have your offensive players (actively attacking) and defensive/supporting players (passively attacking/supporting others). The medic and the engineer were intended originally, not to be used for offense. While relatively quick, their health/armor was relatively low, and their supershotgun takes a lot of skill to be affective on offense. However, grenades seem to be the great equalizer. When grenades are available, those two classes, as well as others, have a lot of offensive firepower. Rather than having medics healing teamates (a rarity), you have medics conc. jumping across maps and grenade spamming the defense. On maps like 2fort, engineers are possibly the most powerful player offensively thanks to the EMP grenades (I should know, I'm a devout TFC engineer). After a while, the teams stop working together, and start working for themselves. Everyone wants to have the high ranking (which means lots of kills), and forgetting about your other duties, like healing and building support devices like dispensers and teleporters. There's no "i" in Team Fortress (except Team Fortress Classic, but I guess that supports my argument of what the game had turned into).
Those who have played TF2 can certainly comment better than I on whether any of these things are happening, but I see a more authentic team experience, and don't worry, the moves people will be pulling off in two years, the developers would have never imagined.
Please mod parent up. The GP needs to stop smelling his own farts.
As for me, when I was in college, I always saved as ODF unless I knew the document was going to leave my hard drive. If a professor asked for something submitted through e-mail, or if I was collaborating with a peer, I'd convert it. Now that I'm in the working world, I do most work on my work supplied laptop running XP, and most of what I do is very collaborative anyway. At home, for personal use, it's ODF all the way. My fiance, who is now a linux and OO.o user, always saves as ODF, unless the circumstances demand an alternate format.
Well if you have method for defeating Gozer that doesn't involve crossing the streams, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'll stick with the Kaspersky Anti-Demigod suite.
I see removing all of the bad drivers while taking me and the rest of the good drivers down with them a bad thing. The reason people hate drunk drivers so much is not because they could hurt themselves, it's because they could hurt other people.
I think safety is the key concern with the practicality of the flying car. Comparing a flying car to a Cesna or an ultra-lite plane is a pretty scary comparison in my mind. While the airline industry in general (you know the big jets that fly you from New York to California, etc.) has the best safety record out of all of the forms of transportation (you know the whole, more likely to die on the way to airport than on your actual flight saying), the track record for small airplanes is not so stellar. I've heard that one of the most dangerous sports you can participate in is flying ultra-lites (a hang glider with a motor). Just in the past month or two I can think of a several small aircraft crashes. Cesnas crashing into forests, houses, buildings, and that's just the ones that make the news. Reason? Two things, small aircraft are much more susceptible to changing weather conditions, and there is not as much regulation. A commercial jet has a set route it follows, only changing that route when told to by ground control. A small aircraft goes wherever it wants for the most part, not necessarily an established route. Kinda like driving a car.
Now imagine the same number of small aircraft in the air as there already are cars on the road. One reason we don't all crash into each other (as much) is because we have roads that tell us where we can go. Not so in the air. We would probably all collide with each other on a regular basis, and not just fender benders. I'm talking smashing together and then dropping from the sky like a stone and destroying/killing whatever/whoever you land on. The only way I can see a flying car in regular use is if the flying part was completely automated. Once you take off, you are a passenger, never a driver. Put in your destination and then the autopilot would follow a virtual road of sorts to get to your destination.
I've been wishing for a system like this, but on a much more mandatory basis for some time now. It is one reason I am in favor of a universal health care system, where all hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. have access to a single health care information system. Anyone who's been to an emergency room can see the benefits of such a system. Instead of playing 20 questions with the emergency room docs and hoping you don't leave out anything important, they can instantly download your file. They don't' have to request it from your doctor and they get an instant snapshot of your health records. What are you allergic to? Did you have surgery recently? Were there any complications with said surgery? The point being that if I am on vacation and need medical assistance, the doctors will have all of the same information my personal doctor has. Given equally skilled doctors and equally equipped facilities, I will get the same quality care.
Of course, there are some downsides, but they are mostly the tin-foil-hat-wearing kind. A central database of your health records could be infiltrated, thus compromising your privacy. There are a lot of people who would want to know how healthy you are, but it's really none of their business. This could be potential employers, political competitors, etc. Security would have to be a number one priority of such a system. Unfortunately, you can never be 100% secure. That's why I'm unhappy Microsoft had to be the one with the initiative. Any Slashdotter worth his salt is aware of Microsoft's security track record. And of course all of those electronic documents will be in a proprietary format (and yes OOXML might as well be proprietary). But at least maybe someone else who knows how to do it right will decide to compete. At least the issue is being raised.
One thing that I feel is essential in this scheme is to prevent the scalpers from holding all of the tickets hostage. As you point out, a "Buy it Now" option would probably aide this problem. The Stub Hub model might fit better, but I don't know a lot about how their model works. Existing models might not fit and a new Artist Endorsed Ticket Auctioning model would have to be introduced. Maybe take a queue from the Ahmet Ertigan memorial concert (aka the return of Zeppelin) where only a ticket that has been purchased under the agreed terms (i.e. not scalped) is valid. Again I don't know all of the details on how their model works, or if it will even work. Clearly more thought needs to be done on this.
It's an interesting idea, but as an anonymous reply states, there are a lot of logistical hurtles when you are talking about concert tours. There is a lot more overhead to worry about, so right away, you need some kind of minimum price. The venue has it's own operating costs and is looking to make a profit, as well as all of the transportation and the roadies (the unsung heroes of rock 'n roll). At the end of the day, what you're really ending up with is the same system you have already. A lot of people don't see this side, but let's say a college or university (or any other organization) wants an artist to perform on their campus. There is a list out there with the price of every performer with official representation. It costs $X for this band and $Y for that band. The more in-demand or established an artist, the higher the price. The organization then buys a performance and sets the ticket price based on the venue capacity/expected attendence. With your model, you are doing the same thing, but not at your own venue and not everyone pays the same price (not even a tiered pricing).
What I would like to see is moving to an auction based model. Essentially the band sets up a tour schedule, figures out how much they need to charge in order to break even. The band would then sell the tickets through something like eBay or Stub Hub. Under the eBay model, the tickets would start fairly low (below market value). You could "Buy it Now" for a fairly high price (or leave it open) and as the demand rises, so does the price. If the demand does rise, the tickets will sell for a fairly low price. I think Stub Hub is probably set up better for this, as the price will actually drop over time if no one buys them. I dont' have all the details, but the main point is that the band itself hosts the selling of the tickets without someone like Ticketmaster, just like a band could host their online music sales without the need for a record company. The prices would be based on demand, not what Ticketmaster decides is the proper markup.
This may not necessarily be a spy thing. This could just be to simplify the download of an entire album as opposed to a single track. Possibly this tool will help gather the multiple files that make up the album and possibly create a folder for the Artist/Album on the hard drive (in a location of your choice) and keep everything nice and organized. I also noticed on the site that there is a "One click and buy" feature that requires the downloader. Sounds like this thing is also like the iTunes application, where it can store all of your account information and sync up to the store so that you don't have to log in and go through the check-out process every time you buy a track.
This is once again proof that the open source model is a good thing for users and protects us from unknowingly being used as pawns. The win is two fold here. First, the source was open, so that it was available for audit by anyone. This appears to be how this functionality was discovered. Someone noticed what the code was doing and raised a red flag. Now the users are aware and can make a choice in whether they will make the upgrade, not make the upgrade or turn to a new application. In the closed source world, often we are unaware of "unsavory code" while we use it for some time, all the while being subjected to its unsavory effects.
The second way that the open source model has won, is that users who disagree with the direction the application is heading in can now fork. In fact, the head developer of the project suggests it.
Matt Mullenweg defends his actions and staunchly refuses to add an opt-in interface, telling users to 'fork WordPress' if they aren't willing to put up with this behavior."
I'm pretty confident that this will happen and happen fast. Given that people "fork" (some say hack/crack) closed source software all the time to leave out all of the "evil" modules (See Kazaa > Kazaa Lite > Kazaa Lite K++; and don't forget cracked Windows XP) forking an open source project to leave out all of the "evil" modules should be pretty easy. I'm no developer, but I could see this being as simple as taking the original source, commenting out/removing the bad stuff, and then redistributing.
He's just saying that cause he wants to score. Geeks have a hard time meeting women on their terms. He just wants to turn it around so that they meet on "geek terms".
hell, it was only two years ago that my work computer (I'm not in IT) moved from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.
My company moved to XP just this year. Unlike you, I AM in IT. I work for an IT consulting company, so EVERYONE in my company is also in IT. Given how powerful new laptops are these days, XP is zippier than ever (don't even get me started on how fast my partition of Xubuntu is).
why haven't there been any more iloveyou or other crippling vulnerabilities since SP2?
Partly due to the maturation of the criminal population. Today's criminal population is now computer literate and have discovered how much money is to be made in taking advantage of Window's vulnerabilities. The iloveyou virus was both brilliant and retarded. It was brilliant in that it could replicate itself in so many ways and so quickly, which is what caused all of the destruction. Most of the damage was not from what the code does to your machine itself, it's what it does to a mail server when it becomes overloaded. To date it is still the most destructive (in terms of money lost by companies) virus ever written. But there was one little piece of code in there that people don't really hear much about. It had the ability to search for credit card numbers and dial-up internet account numbers/usernames/passwords and save them to a remote server. Unfortunately, the brilliance of its replication was why it was also retarded. The thing spread so fast, that within hours, everyone knew it was out there and authorities had already located the remote server it was logging this information to and shut it down. If it hadn't been so destructive, the writer could have made a lot of money selling all of that information. However, not only did he not collect any sellable information, he got caught. If the guy had designed the virus to be very discreet and slowly replicate itself. Users would be infiltrated and their information would be stolen without the user every knowing it.
Today we don't see as many of those super destructive e-mail viruses because they are pointless. You can't make any money with them because they are like walking into a bank with a black mask and a gun during normal business hours. Everyone knows you're there and what you're up to. Good luck making it out of the building with a sack of cash, cause the cops already have the place surrounded. Now if you were to exploit a hole in that banks security and sneak in and out undetected, now you're talking. Even better, use "zombie" employees to do your dirty work for you. And that's what we see today. Huge botnets full of zombie computers, whose users are completely unaware. All were infected by security holes in Windows XP (yep SP1 and 2). These guys aren't hackers, they're crackers. They make a profit (illegally) by hacking. The reason they make a profit, is because you don't know they were ever there.
One of the counter arguments to the whole "video-games cause people to be violent" claim is the "video-games give people a way to act out their violent fantasies without actually doing it in real life and thus satisfying their violent urge." This is a philosophy I subscribe to. Anyone ever wanted to drive your car at full speed down the street and then pull the e-brake to slide around corners but knew you would either kill yourself or other people in the process? Sure who hasn't. Well thanks to GTA, I can do that as much as I want without endangering anyone or anything. My urge to do so in real life subsides. Ever get so frustrated with the people that you just feel like launching RPG's at random cars and having a shoot-out with the police? Or even just simply beat up a hooker for no apparent reason? Thanks to GTA, I can live out this fantasy without actually dieing in a hail of gunfire or getting beat upside the head by an angry pimp. Sometimes when you start feeling violent, the best thing to do is be violent, but on a much smaller and safer scale. Punch a pillow, play contact sports, beat your wife (okay maybe not the last one). GTA is just another outlet.
Now here is why I really hope Jack Thompson's argument is correct and that I am wrong. If I am right, and Jack Thompson successfully blocks the release of GTA IV, or has his likeness removed, then people who feel like killing Jack Thompson will not have an outlet. The only thing to do will be to kill Jack Thompson...for real. So simply because I don't wish anyone to be killed in real life, I don't want Jack to be killed. I guess I'm just a nice guy. Even though he does suck ass. Now if the game does release as is, then anyone who feels the urge to kill Jack Thompson can do so in the game...over and over again, until the urge to kill has faded.
So Jack, for your own sake, I really hope you're right.
I'm not really sure what's not to understand about these. In fact, capitalism is your best defense against a large majority of the things you point out. Lets take them one by one.
- unsafe products
If a product is unsafe, don't buy it. True capitalism works because of competition. If you don't like one company's product because of either price or quality, buy someone else's. No one has a product that meets your needs? Start your own company to fill that niche.
- unhealthy products
See above
- unsustainable processes
Not sure how to address this one (I'm only human)
-suppression of the truth about unsafe product
Once again, see my first point, but to go even further, this is why we have consumer advocacy groups. Ralph Nader comes to mind. I also don't see how this is exclusive to capitalism. Let's say you live in communist Russia. The shoes you've waited in line for all day turn out to cause severe damage to peoples arches that could require surgery to fix. You complain to your government that has provided these shoes to you and they say, "At least you have shoes!" Then they throw you in the trunk of a car. You wake up in Siberia.
- exploitation of the poor and the uninformed
What can I say, people are jerks. No system is perfect. However, this is something you can combat by staying informed. As for the poor, sometimes there isn't a lot you can do, but in a capitalist society, at least you have the freedom to try to climb the economic ladder. The term Rags to Riches comes to mind.
- outsourcing (abandonment of the community)
Do you mean outsourcing or off-shoring. Cause there's a huge difference. Outsourcing just means you don't do something in house. Coca-cola outsources its bottling in some regions and they certainly don't manufacture aluminum cans. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm outsourcing to India or China, though. In fact it could mean I'm outsourcing to someone across the street in the same community. If you're beef is about losing American jobs, then working for one of the sources should solve that problem. Are you an aluminum can manufacturing specialist? Then don't be mad that Coke doesn't make aluminum cans. Go work for someone who does. Outsourcing, in general, is a good thing. You end up with a better product for a lower cost. Off-shoring on the other hand is another matter. I'm not going to get into whether its good or bad because it depends on who you ask. But essentially, that is when Dell outsources its customer service line to somewhere not in the United States. Like India. I'm not sure if Canada counts, but its at least a separate economy. This raises issues about American jobs and often the quality might not be as good. Sometimes the reason they can do it faster and cheaper is because of poor labor laws and cutting corners. But you don't necessarily get poor service/product.
- tax evasion
Um yeah...that's illegal. If you're caught, you go to jail. Just ask Al Capone. Not sure what capitalism has to do with it.
- consumerism
Once again, no system is perfect. If this is the worst you can come up with, then you shouldn't lose any sleep over it. In a free country, you can either be materialistic, or you can not be materialistic. No one is forcing you one way or the other, but you do have the freedom to chose you're own path in that respect. Me, I want to make money so I can afford nice things. I want to buy food that tastes better. I want a car that doesn't fall apart in the middle of my morning commute. I want to do entertaining things that cost money (movies, travel, concerts). I want my kids to be able to go to college. I dont' want to live in a cardboard box. Just because I don't need these things to sur
I agree that this is a task best handled by your students. If you can actually get this guy to come talk to your class, you as the teacher (and in this case the moderator of the discussion) are not in any position to ask these kinds of questions. It needs to come from the students or from the speaker. Your job is to make sure the discussion stays on topic and keep track of the time. The homework idea above is a good way to get the students to ask the questions. I have a way to make your speaker ask the questions.
First, prior to his arrival, I would come up with an anonymous survey for your students to fill out. The questions on the survey would essentially be designed to get an understanding of how much your students know about your speaker and what he does and also understand what issues your students are concerned about the most. In it, you might also have a question about movie piracy. For instance, "Have you ever downloaded a movie from the internet using a filesharing program?" with choices "Yes" or "No". This is where the anonymity of the survey is important. Then have a follow-up question like, "If Yes, what were your primary reasons for doing so." Here give several possible reasons one might download a movie illegally. For instance: "Price", "No previews or commercials", "I can watch it on my iPod", and "I just don't care". Now compile the results. Most likely, at least 50% of your students said yes and gave a reason. Before your speaker arrives or is set to address the class, give the results to him. Basically, just tell him that you made up this survey so that he can focus his talk on what the students are most interested in and how much they already know about you. You might even highlight the piracy question as having "interesting" results and that you were hoping he could address this one particularly. This should begin the discussion. At the very least, you would at least have a better understanding of what his philosophy is on the issue. Hopefully, it will make your students think about it a little more. And really, that's all you can really ask.
This is great for people who like to brag that they were listening to a band before they were popular. Now you can say, "Oh yeah, I was listening to them when their tracks were free. The fact that you paid $0.98 for them shows how much of a poser you are."
You are correct, companies do like to standardize. However, RTFA. The conclusion addresses your concerns.
Halamka's plans to support three different desktop operating systems may sound crazy. After all, the decision flies in the face of standardization, which seeks to decrease costs and complexity. But deploying different operating systems makes sense for the enterprise his IT group is supporting.
"Hospitals and academic medical centers and universities are like the United Nations," he says. Just as you can't force all the diplomats at the UN to speak English, Halamka can't force all of his users to use the same OS. He realizes they have different computing needs and some, such as the researchers at the medical school, have their own grant money that they use to purchase whatever computers they want.
The "multicultural" computing environment that CareGroup and Harvard Medical School maintain may become more common as Linux-based operating systems improve and as IT departments bump up against tech-savvy users who increasingly bring their personal devices into the workplace. Standardization may one day become a relic of the corporate IT's crusty past.
Standardization may be good for some, but technological diversity may be better for others. Afterall, your employees should use the best tool for the job. That may be Windows or it may be Linux. Also, the more enterprises start mixing OS's, the more demand there will be for them to communicate with one another. This means a higher demand for open standards. While most of the savings of standardization is from only needing an IT staff with a knowledge of one system, another big chunk of it is from not having to make many different OS's and devices play nice together. If it became expected that your IT staff have a working knowledge of all of the most popular OS's, then standardization starts saving less and less money over a diverse IT environment.
When I read the summary, the whole time I'm thinking that the OLPC is targeting their machine at $100, but at the moment, they have only been able to bring it down to about $170. If a well known non-profit organization, with special partnerships with all of their suppliers cannot achieve under $170 until the economies of scale kick in, then how in the world does a Swedish start-up with no partnerships and using a for-profit model hit that price without being bankrupt in 2 weeks? Plus, Intel's Classmate was another attempt at a super low cost laptop running Linux that only made to around $200. This has got to be a scam.
Slashdot Mirror
Right there is the reason why there is a serious supply issue when it comes to a flu pandemic. What is already available, will likely not be effective against a pandemic because the reason the flu is pandemic, is because it is able to bypass all available methods of treatment/prevention. In order to combat a pandemic, a formula must be developed to specifically address this particular instance. Currently, the pharma industry does not have the manufacturing capacity to rapidly produce and distribute a viable vaccine/treatment before it's already too late. Stockpiling will have no effect and expanding production capacities enough is not only extremely costly, but you would have all of this non-utilized manufacturing capacity sitting around waiting for the pandemic.
If you think you're paying too much for your cable/internet/etc. package, just do what I did with Comcast. Call them up, complain about the rate, try to work out a new package (with possibly decreased services), but be unreasonable about it, so that they can never satisfy you. You'll be put on hold in India several times. Eventually, get "fed up" and say you want to cancel your service. At this point they will transfer you over to the cancellation people (this is usually more local). Before they cancel your service, they are going to ask you why you want to cancel. Explain that you were trying to save a little money on your bill, but THEY were being unreasonable, so rather than deal with them anymore, you want to cancel one or all of your services and go with another provider. Since I use Comcast's VOIP service, I said I wanted to cancel that and just use my cell phone or switch to Vonage or something, which was cheaper anyway. At this point, the rep will say "I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. I can offer you "this". "This" will be everything you were originally paying for, but at a greatly reduced rate. I cut my monthly internet/phone/tv bill from $150 to $112. Essentially, they find whatever promotions that are only available to new customers as well as the "promotions" no one knows about, and combine them in ways that the India reps will tell you are not allowed. But before you hang up, make sure you get the name and employee ID, and any other pertinent information about the "good" rep, just in case your next bill doesn't reflect what they told you over the phone. If you do get screwed, don't worry, cause when you call up to complain again, you will knock another chunk of change off your bill. Sometimes being a total jerk is the only way to get justice around here.
There's a Queen song that comes to mind...
You make an interesting point with TF2. A lot of the things that they have tried to eliminate in TF2, were really skills that had to be mastered over time in TF1.x. Things like rocket jumping and conc. grenade jumping take a lot of skill and are certainly not the obvious maneuver for the n00b. However, I have two counterpoints to argue.
First, let me put up my own disclaimer: I have not yet tried TF2, but have been re-obsessed with TFC after I realized that even though my install CD went missing years ago at a friends house, the box with CD Key on it that I still have can be used to download through steam (and run it in Linux under WINE!).
That being said, all of the physics exploiting moves were not in wide use when these games were first released. These skills were discovered, developed, demonstrated and passed on to others until it became common practice. So while those old skill may now be bannished, who knows what new 1337 5ki11z will be discovered and then perfected until we all use them. Don't forget, there is a collective learning curve with most online multi-player games. In the beginning, the relatively new player can do pretty well for himself, but then those putting in the overtime quickly start pwning and those who don't keep up, are all of a sudden not doing so well.
My second counterpoint, is that the game developers have tried to bring each role back to basics. In the original concept, you have your offensive players (actively attacking) and defensive/supporting players (passively attacking/supporting others). The medic and the engineer were intended originally, not to be used for offense. While relatively quick, their health/armor was relatively low, and their supershotgun takes a lot of skill to be affective on offense. However, grenades seem to be the great equalizer. When grenades are available, those two classes, as well as others, have a lot of offensive firepower. Rather than having medics healing teamates (a rarity), you have medics conc. jumping across maps and grenade spamming the defense. On maps like 2fort, engineers are possibly the most powerful player offensively thanks to the EMP grenades (I should know, I'm a devout TFC engineer). After a while, the teams stop working together, and start working for themselves. Everyone wants to have the high ranking (which means lots of kills), and forgetting about your other duties, like healing and building support devices like dispensers and teleporters. There's no "i" in Team Fortress (except Team Fortress Classic, but I guess that supports my argument of what the game had turned into).
Those who have played TF2 can certainly comment better than I on whether any of these things are happening, but I see a more authentic team experience, and don't worry, the moves people will be pulling off in two years, the developers would have never imagined.
Please mod parent up. The GP needs to stop smelling his own farts.
As for me, when I was in college, I always saved as ODF unless I knew the document was going to leave my hard drive. If a professor asked for something submitted through e-mail, or if I was collaborating with a peer, I'd convert it. Now that I'm in the working world, I do most work on my work supplied laptop running XP, and most of what I do is very collaborative anyway. At home, for personal use, it's ODF all the way. My fiance, who is now a linux and OO.o user, always saves as ODF, unless the circumstances demand an alternate format.
Well if you have method for defeating Gozer that doesn't involve crossing the streams, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'll stick with the Kaspersky Anti-Demigod suite.
I see removing all of the bad drivers while taking me and the rest of the good drivers down with them a bad thing. The reason people hate drunk drivers so much is not because they could hurt themselves, it's because they could hurt other people.
I think safety is the key concern with the practicality of the flying car. Comparing a flying car to a Cesna or an ultra-lite plane is a pretty scary comparison in my mind. While the airline industry in general (you know the big jets that fly you from New York to California, etc.) has the best safety record out of all of the forms of transportation (you know the whole, more likely to die on the way to airport than on your actual flight saying), the track record for small airplanes is not so stellar. I've heard that one of the most dangerous sports you can participate in is flying ultra-lites (a hang glider with a motor). Just in the past month or two I can think of a several small aircraft crashes. Cesnas crashing into forests, houses, buildings, and that's just the ones that make the news. Reason? Two things, small aircraft are much more susceptible to changing weather conditions, and there is not as much regulation. A commercial jet has a set route it follows, only changing that route when told to by ground control. A small aircraft goes wherever it wants for the most part, not necessarily an established route. Kinda like driving a car.
Now imagine the same number of small aircraft in the air as there already are cars on the road. One reason we don't all crash into each other (as much) is because we have roads that tell us where we can go. Not so in the air. We would probably all collide with each other on a regular basis, and not just fender benders. I'm talking smashing together and then dropping from the sky like a stone and destroying/killing whatever/whoever you land on. The only way I can see a flying car in regular use is if the flying part was completely automated. Once you take off, you are a passenger, never a driver. Put in your destination and then the autopilot would follow a virtual road of sorts to get to your destination.
I've been wishing for a system like this, but on a much more mandatory basis for some time now. It is one reason I am in favor of a universal health care system, where all hospitals, clinics, doctors, etc. have access to a single health care information system. Anyone who's been to an emergency room can see the benefits of such a system. Instead of playing 20 questions with the emergency room docs and hoping you don't leave out anything important, they can instantly download your file. They don't' have to request it from your doctor and they get an instant snapshot of your health records. What are you allergic to? Did you have surgery recently? Were there any complications with said surgery? The point being that if I am on vacation and need medical assistance, the doctors will have all of the same information my personal doctor has. Given equally skilled doctors and equally equipped facilities, I will get the same quality care.
Of course, there are some downsides, but they are mostly the tin-foil-hat-wearing kind. A central database of your health records could be infiltrated, thus compromising your privacy. There are a lot of people who would want to know how healthy you are, but it's really none of their business. This could be potential employers, political competitors, etc. Security would have to be a number one priority of such a system. Unfortunately, you can never be 100% secure. That's why I'm unhappy Microsoft had to be the one with the initiative. Any Slashdotter worth his salt is aware of Microsoft's security track record. And of course all of those electronic documents will be in a proprietary format (and yes OOXML might as well be proprietary). But at least maybe someone else who knows how to do it right will decide to compete. At least the issue is being raised.
One thing that I feel is essential in this scheme is to prevent the scalpers from holding all of the tickets hostage. As you point out, a "Buy it Now" option would probably aide this problem. The Stub Hub model might fit better, but I don't know a lot about how their model works. Existing models might not fit and a new Artist Endorsed Ticket Auctioning model would have to be introduced. Maybe take a queue from the Ahmet Ertigan memorial concert (aka the return of Zeppelin) where only a ticket that has been purchased under the agreed terms (i.e. not scalped) is valid. Again I don't know all of the details on how their model works, or if it will even work. Clearly more thought needs to be done on this.
It's an interesting idea, but as an anonymous reply states, there are a lot of logistical hurtles when you are talking about concert tours. There is a lot more overhead to worry about, so right away, you need some kind of minimum price. The venue has it's own operating costs and is looking to make a profit, as well as all of the transportation and the roadies (the unsung heroes of rock 'n roll). At the end of the day, what you're really ending up with is the same system you have already. A lot of people don't see this side, but let's say a college or university (or any other organization) wants an artist to perform on their campus. There is a list out there with the price of every performer with official representation. It costs $X for this band and $Y for that band. The more in-demand or established an artist, the higher the price. The organization then buys a performance and sets the ticket price based on the venue capacity/expected attendence. With your model, you are doing the same thing, but not at your own venue and not everyone pays the same price (not even a tiered pricing).
What I would like to see is moving to an auction based model. Essentially the band sets up a tour schedule, figures out how much they need to charge in order to break even. The band would then sell the tickets through something like eBay or Stub Hub. Under the eBay model, the tickets would start fairly low (below market value). You could "Buy it Now" for a fairly high price (or leave it open) and as the demand rises, so does the price. If the demand does rise, the tickets will sell for a fairly low price. I think Stub Hub is probably set up better for this, as the price will actually drop over time if no one buys them. I dont' have all the details, but the main point is that the band itself hosts the selling of the tickets without someone like Ticketmaster, just like a band could host their online music sales without the need for a record company. The prices would be based on demand, not what Ticketmaster decides is the proper markup.
This may not necessarily be a spy thing. This could just be to simplify the download of an entire album as opposed to a single track. Possibly this tool will help gather the multiple files that make up the album and possibly create a folder for the Artist/Album on the hard drive (in a location of your choice) and keep everything nice and organized. I also noticed on the site that there is a "One click and buy" feature that requires the downloader. Sounds like this thing is also like the iTunes application, where it can store all of your account information and sync up to the store so that you don't have to log in and go through the check-out process every time you buy a track.
The second way that the open source model has won, is that users who disagree with the direction the application is heading in can now fork. In fact, the head developer of the project suggests it. I'm pretty confident that this will happen and happen fast. Given that people "fork" (some say hack/crack) closed source software all the time to leave out all of the "evil" modules (See Kazaa > Kazaa Lite > Kazaa Lite K++; and don't forget cracked Windows XP) forking an open source project to leave out all of the "evil" modules should be pretty easy. I'm no developer, but I could see this being as simple as taking the original source, commenting out/removing the bad stuff, and then redistributing.
He's just saying that cause he wants to score. Geeks have a hard time meeting women on their terms. He just wants to turn it around so that they meet on "geek terms".
Today we don't see as many of those super destructive e-mail viruses because they are pointless. You can't make any money with them because they are like walking into a bank with a black mask and a gun during normal business hours. Everyone knows you're there and what you're up to. Good luck making it out of the building with a sack of cash, cause the cops already have the place surrounded. Now if you were to exploit a hole in that banks security and sneak in and out undetected, now you're talking. Even better, use "zombie" employees to do your dirty work for you. And that's what we see today. Huge botnets full of zombie computers, whose users are completely unaware. All were infected by security holes in Windows XP (yep SP1 and 2). These guys aren't hackers, they're crackers. They make a profit (illegally) by hacking. The reason they make a profit, is because you don't know they were ever there.
One of the counter arguments to the whole "video-games cause people to be violent" claim is the "video-games give people a way to act out their violent fantasies without actually doing it in real life and thus satisfying their violent urge." This is a philosophy I subscribe to. Anyone ever wanted to drive your car at full speed down the street and then pull the e-brake to slide around corners but knew you would either kill yourself or other people in the process? Sure who hasn't. Well thanks to GTA, I can do that as much as I want without endangering anyone or anything. My urge to do so in real life subsides. Ever get so frustrated with the people that you just feel like launching RPG's at random cars and having a shoot-out with the police? Or even just simply beat up a hooker for no apparent reason? Thanks to GTA, I can live out this fantasy without actually dieing in a hail of gunfire or getting beat upside the head by an angry pimp. Sometimes when you start feeling violent, the best thing to do is be violent, but on a much smaller and safer scale. Punch a pillow, play contact sports, beat your wife (okay maybe not the last one). GTA is just another outlet.
Now here is why I really hope Jack Thompson's argument is correct and that I am wrong. If I am right, and Jack Thompson successfully blocks the release of GTA IV, or has his likeness removed, then people who feel like killing Jack Thompson will not have an outlet. The only thing to do will be to kill Jack Thompson...for real. So simply because I don't wish anyone to be killed in real life, I don't want Jack to be killed. I guess I'm just a nice guy. Even though he does suck ass. Now if the game does release as is, then anyone who feels the urge to kill Jack Thompson can do so in the game...over and over again, until the urge to kill has faded.
So Jack, for your own sake, I really hope you're right.
Jury is still out on Spector. While I understand what you are saying, let's at least uphold the "innocent until proven guilty" ethos.
If a product is unsafe, don't buy it. True capitalism works because of competition. If you don't like one company's product because of either price or quality, buy someone else's. No one has a product that meets your needs? Start your own company to fill that niche.
See above
Not sure how to address this one (I'm only human)
Once again, see my first point, but to go even further, this is why we have consumer advocacy groups. Ralph Nader comes to mind. I also don't see how this is exclusive to capitalism. Let's say you live in communist Russia. The shoes you've waited in line for all day turn out to cause severe damage to peoples arches that could require surgery to fix. You complain to your government that has provided these shoes to you and they say, "At least you have shoes!" Then they throw you in the trunk of a car. You wake up in Siberia.
What can I say, people are jerks. No system is perfect. However, this is something you can combat by staying informed. As for the poor, sometimes there isn't a lot you can do, but in a capitalist society, at least you have the freedom to try to climb the economic ladder. The term Rags to Riches comes to mind.
Do you mean outsourcing or off-shoring. Cause there's a huge difference. Outsourcing just means you don't do something in house. Coca-cola outsources its bottling in some regions and they certainly don't manufacture aluminum cans. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'm outsourcing to India or China, though. In fact it could mean I'm outsourcing to someone across the street in the same community. If you're beef is about losing American jobs, then working for one of the sources should solve that problem. Are you an aluminum can manufacturing specialist? Then don't be mad that Coke doesn't make aluminum cans. Go work for someone who does. Outsourcing, in general, is a good thing. You end up with a better product for a lower cost. Off-shoring on the other hand is another matter. I'm not going to get into whether its good or bad because it depends on who you ask. But essentially, that is when Dell outsources its customer service line to somewhere not in the United States. Like India. I'm not sure if Canada counts, but its at least a separate economy. This raises issues about American jobs and often the quality might not be as good. Sometimes the reason they can do it faster and cheaper is because of poor labor laws and cutting corners. But you don't necessarily get poor service/product.
Um yeah...that's illegal. If you're caught, you go to jail. Just ask Al Capone. Not sure what capitalism has to do with it.
Once again, no system is perfect. If this is the worst you can come up with, then you shouldn't lose any sleep over it. In a free country, you can either be materialistic, or you can not be materialistic. No one is forcing you one way or the other, but you do have the freedom to chose you're own path in that respect. Me, I want to make money so I can afford nice things. I want to buy food that tastes better. I want a car that doesn't fall apart in the middle of my morning commute. I want to do entertaining things that cost money (movies, travel, concerts). I want my kids to be able to go to college. I dont' want to live in a cardboard box. Just because I don't need these things to sur
I agree that this is a task best handled by your students. If you can actually get this guy to come talk to your class, you as the teacher (and in this case the moderator of the discussion) are not in any position to ask these kinds of questions. It needs to come from the students or from the speaker. Your job is to make sure the discussion stays on topic and keep track of the time. The homework idea above is a good way to get the students to ask the questions. I have a way to make your speaker ask the questions.
First, prior to his arrival, I would come up with an anonymous survey for your students to fill out. The questions on the survey would essentially be designed to get an understanding of how much your students know about your speaker and what he does and also understand what issues your students are concerned about the most. In it, you might also have a question about movie piracy. For instance, "Have you ever downloaded a movie from the internet using a filesharing program?" with choices "Yes" or "No". This is where the anonymity of the survey is important. Then have a follow-up question like, "If Yes, what were your primary reasons for doing so." Here give several possible reasons one might download a movie illegally. For instance: "Price", "No previews or commercials", "I can watch it on my iPod", and "I just don't care". Now compile the results. Most likely, at least 50% of your students said yes and gave a reason. Before your speaker arrives or is set to address the class, give the results to him. Basically, just tell him that you made up this survey so that he can focus his talk on what the students are most interested in and how much they already know about you. You might even highlight the piracy question as having "interesting" results and that you were hoping he could address this one particularly. This should begin the discussion. At the very least, you would at least have a better understanding of what his philosophy is on the issue. Hopefully, it will make your students think about it a little more. And really, that's all you can really ask.
This is great for people who like to brag that they were listening to a band before they were popular. Now you can say, "Oh yeah, I was listening to them when their tracks were free. The fact that you paid $0.98 for them shows how much of a poser you are."
Standardization may be good for some, but technological diversity may be better for others. Afterall, your employees should use the best tool for the job. That may be Windows or it may be Linux. Also, the more enterprises start mixing OS's, the more demand there will be for them to communicate with one another. This means a higher demand for open standards. While most of the savings of standardization is from only needing an IT staff with a knowledge of one system, another big chunk of it is from not having to make many different OS's and devices play nice together. If it became expected that your IT staff have a working knowledge of all of the most popular OS's, then standardization starts saving less and less money over a diverse IT environment.
When I read the summary, the whole time I'm thinking that the OLPC is targeting their machine at $100, but at the moment, they have only been able to bring it down to about $170. If a well known non-profit organization, with special partnerships with all of their suppliers cannot achieve under $170 until the economies of scale kick in, then how in the world does a Swedish start-up with no partnerships and using a for-profit model hit that price without being bankrupt in 2 weeks? Plus, Intel's Classmate was another attempt at a super low cost laptop running Linux that only made to around $200. This has got to be a scam.