The biggest factor that determines the likelihood for success of any attempt to defraud people is this: How similar is the fraudulent thing to the real thing? After reading TFA and watching the demonstration, this particular exploit would allow a person to modify the text content of an authentication dialog box to fool people into thinking it comes from a trusted source.
To be honest, I can't remember the last time a website I use for personal purposes required a browser authentication dialog for login (including banking, investing, buying stuff with my debit or credit card, etc.). I'm going to speculate wildly here, and assert that most secure logins for personal use occur in HTML forms, and that this exploit doesn't approximate the login activity of most websites, used my most people. Now, some people when confronted with this weird, never-before-seen login "thing" will give it their login and password, but others won't because either they're tech-savvy enough to realize that something's wrong, or because their untrained interweb-spidey-sense goes off. Point is, it's at least an individually-significant issue until the info gets out to enough people.
But the really dangerous potential of this exploit isn't to get somebody's bank login info, or PayPal, or Amazon, or eBay login, or whatever. Think about all the logins that *do* normally use a browser authentication dialog box, like corporate, government, and defense portal sites. This exploit actually more closely approximates a legitimate login identity challenge to systems that impact not just one person, but *lots* of people. Imagine that you're corporate-drone #637, and you've been working on a super-serial secret something-or-other and you get an email from "your IT folks" asking you to log in to the VPN. Oh, they also included a helpful link to do so, and oh, you also happen to be using Firefox.
I think that's the real problem with this exploit.
So you have no problem letting the free market decide?
Nope. But a free market economic system requires as a precondition the rule of law, just like any other economic system. I don't understand why whenever anyone says they support a free market economy, that all of a sudden it's assumed that they don't believe in laws.
Even if companies choose to:
Drum roll, please:
hire child laborers
Illegal.
pay below minimum wage
Illegal.
padlock all the doors
Illegal.
pollute to their hearts content
Illegal.
Why should a consumer be forced to donate to protect children from companies who would exploit them, eh?
They don't have to donate anything. Exploitation of children is illegal, and enforcement of the laws that prevent it is already paid for by our taxes.
It's not my place to challenge you on your ethics or morality, but I admire your consistency for that position.
In order to challenge either my ethics, or my morality, you'd have to actually know what they are, instead of making them up in your own mind and stuffing them all into a big, fat, Straw Man, like you have.
So what is your alternative? My position is really close to your #1 option:
1) Are you saying that the current system works? I.e. that well-informed consumers are making the proper choices now and that the $3 pickles are not being bought?
It's this:
The current system works. Consumers who choose to buy the $3.50 pickles instead of the $3.00 pickles, in doing so, freely choose to subsidize (i.e., charitably donate to) whatever the cause represented by the additional cost. Consumers who choose to buy the $3.00 pickles choose not to.
Just because *you* choose to donate, does that mean it's OK to force all others to donate as well?
So, I read TFA and I have a hard time seeing how they can claim that their results aren't just a result of extended sleep-deprivation. The researcher's claim is that they've managed to deprive their test subjects of *only* their dreams, without also sleep-depriving them, and then, based on their pure "dream-but-not-sleep-deprivation" they offer a whole lot of speculation about the value of dreams. However, from TFA here's essentially what they did to deprive their rats of "dreams" (but NOT sleep, mind you!):
Imagine yourself, stranded in the ocean for a week, and the only thing you have to sleep on is an innertube that was juu-uu-uust a bit too big for you, so that just when you really fell asleep, you'd fall through the middle and get wet and wake up (and have to climb up again, dry off, and start all over again on falling asleep).
Um. OK. If you think about it, What they claim is kind of a Big Deal: How do you differentially prevent somebody from dreaming, without also preventing them from sleeping? Given our current understanding of the electrochemical nature of the brain, we can, based solely on an EEG, tell when a person is awake, asleep-but-not-dreaming, and asleep-and-dreaming. I think there *might* be a more precise and specific way to do this.
I don't think that their "dream-but-not-sleep deprivation" methodology is specific enough to claim that the effects on their subjects were caused purely by lack of "dreaming."
Really? If I robbed George Bush/Warren Buffet/Bill Gates/Michelle Malkin/George Steinbrenner's home while they were out, and don't think the reaction would be "Gee, I guess I should've taken more care with my money. Oh, well, so goes capitalism.
Not really. What you're describing is more like, "Oh well, so goes anarchy." I think a more accurate statement of free market capitalism would be, "Your choice of how to exchange your money, goods, or services - your responsibility."
I'd think they'd ask the police to help them get their stuff back.
That's not a valid criticism of capitalism. All systems of exchange require as a precondition, the rule of law. Communism would fail just as horribly as capitalism without it.
Of course, there are no specific answers because the problem hasn't been worked out fully and it will be constantly evolving.
So... "Some."
Can you honestly suggest one significant change to me that supports all the criteria that you expect of me?
Hey, I just expect that you would take a look at the burdens of the regulatory system you're proposing and let us all know what they are. The null hypothesis is "Don't do anything else." It's up to you to show that we ought to.
How about instead we take this more sensible approach. We both agree on something that is a "nice idea" and we both try to figure out if there are any flaws that completely break it (or make it worse than the current system). Do you have any reason to believe that the number of experts is too high, well then why don't we together (i.e. all of society) pursue the idea a little further rather than declaring it dead without further review?
Calm down - I just asked you a few simple questions that are crucial to its overall success or failure, which you didn't answer.
Look, the idea of regulation is not always "bad," but it's also not always the best solution. All economics aside, one big thing you've got to take into consideration is that you're saying we ought to force people to make choices that they wouldn't normally make. You can't just discard people's free will so lightly - there had better be a really convincing reason to do so, and it's up to you, the person proposing that we restrict people's free will, to show it!
In addition to demonstrating why you think restricting everyone's economic freedom is OK, you've got to compare the costs of regulating versus the costs of not regulating. And since you're the one proposing that regulation of pickles (or lightbulbs) is a "good idea," then you're the one who has to show that it's better than what we're doing right now, which is allowing people to buy whatever pickles or lightbulbs they want.
It seems to me that the non-"educated, thoughtful consumers" in our free market have a different value system than you do. You look at that jar of Wal*Mart pickles and see lost jobs, so you buy the local jar instead for more money
If one of the jobs you'd help eliminate is yours or someone's who you care about by buying the cheaper pickles (or lightbulbs), then buying the more expensive pickles (or lightbulbs) is just another purely economic decision, and you'd be foolish not to make it. For example, if incandescent lightbulbs were really, in all aspects, inferior to the flourescent, energy-saving alternatives (cheaper in total purchase price and energy costs, and at least equivalent in the quality of illumination they provided), everyone would be buying them and this discussion wouldn't be happening.
But that's not what you're arguing. Clearly, there's a choice that you want other people to make that's against their own best interests here - You personally believe that people ought to want to willingly engage in some behavior that, infuriatingly, not enough people want to do, and that's obviously not economically advantageous (otherwise, like I said, we'd all be doing it, and you and I wouldn't be having this discussion).
I mean, I *get* it. When people don't agree with you, they're just too stupid to realize that what you believe is the best thing for them, and you ought to force them to do what is best for them.
But pretend for a second that the people who choose not to do what you do are just as intelligent, rational, and informed as you are, and they simply choose to disagree with you about the best behavior in this given situation, and do something else, of which you don't approve.
Put yourself in their shoes, if you can, and then answer me honestly if you would support this sort of legislation.
You kind of just illustrated my point of asking those questions perfectly with your answer to the question of, "How many specialists will we need?":
There will be as many as it takes [snip] but not too many...
So... "Some," is your answer to that one. And there were six other questions I asked, each fundamentally important to be answered substantially if you want to make a sound, reasoned argument supporting your idea, that you didn't answer. (The one about "Who will they work for," was kind of a gimme. Of course the Government would do it.)
My point is, nice ideas don't necessarily equal laws that are good for society as a whole unless you're willing to put actual, reasoned thought, supported by at least a little data-supported (or even assumption-supported) analysis behind it. Here's just one example of why you've got to consider the details: What if the cost of "specialists" and their support bureaucracy needed to enforce correct behavior in the pickle industry (which they will have to support through taxes) ends up putting half the pickle companies out of business? Or what if, due to your system, it's no longer profitable at all to start up a new pickle company, and only the giant, mass-producing boring pickle-makers survive? Unless you actually think things through, you can't possibly know the real impact that your good idea written into law will have on real people, and you will not be able to evaluate whether or not the consequences are worth the benefits. Phrases like, "enough..." and "not too many..." and "some portion of their income..." do not suffice for this.
They will encourage people (and corporations) to make better choices by making some activities illegal and by imposing fines and taxes on others.
So, "encourage" means: If an individual doesn't do what you want, then you put them in jail, or take their money. In order to pay for it all, you force all participants to contribute unwillingly.
I would use the word "encourage" instead of "coerce"
Coerce: to compel to an act or choice. You can call it whatever you want, but it's coercion.
You force people to take responsibility for the externalized costs and then let them make their own decisions. Maybe it's worthwhile for me to take the risk of littering and getting a $100 fine, maybe it's not for you. If the fine is properly set (and the chance of getting caught non-zero) then we can both make the decision that's best for us and society does not suffer. What's your alternative? If you don't punish litterers, because a handful of people don't feel it's wrong, then you end up with filthy streets and the majority suffers. If you make the penalty incredibly severe, then no one will litter, but you end up with grossly inefficient behavior that costs society in the long run.
You can analyze crime and punishment economically, and, don't get me wrong, it's interesting to do so. But it's important to differentiate between economic analysis, and free market exchange. Here's the difference: In your example, each choice of an individual to litter costs (Fine * Frequency of Being Caught * Frequency of Littering). Free exchange, on the other hand, isn't probabilistic - when you go into a pickle store, you expect to pay the cost of the pickles you choose to buy.
On the other hand, I think the economic analysis of crime and punishment works like this: The idea is to make the punishment severe enough that the vast majority of people would agree that the punishment is *not* worth the illegal behavior. I mean, think about it - if every time you littered, you knew that a cop would catch you you and you'd have to pay $500, would it *ever* be worth it? What if, every time someone committed murder, they *knew* that they would be caught, and sentenced to life in prison?
The only way economic analysis has any bearing on crime and punishment is wh
At first glance (and this is where most people stop), lowered prices stem from increases in efficiency. However, when real cost of production can no longer be lowered through efficiency, and significant downward pressure is still being exerted on the market (e.g., when a significant entity downstream in the supply chain dictates this)
...then they sell their pickles to someone else who's willing to pay them what they're willing to sell them for, or they go out of business. Going out of business isn't necessarily a bad thing - it just means that the person or organization making pickles isn't skilled, or hard-working, or inventive enough, as a person or organization, to be able to make money making pickles.
I mean, if you can't make money doing one particular thing (e.g., making pickles), then you should probably do something else. There isn't a third way.
manufacturers have an additional option: externalize costs.
A pickle company can make a lot of choices that will influence its profitability - raising or lowering prices, choosing to buy cheaper jars, lids, cucumbers, salt, make changes in its manufacturing process that result in a reduced pickle-curing time, forsake the mass-production market and sell "designer pickles" to a smaller market who are willing to pay more for interesting-tasting pickles, etc.
But no legal option that the pickle manufacturer can take will allow them to escape the sad truth that they've got to create value by turning cucumbers and saltwater into pickles, and that people are willing to exchange goods, services, or money for that value, and that created value has to meet or exceed what they've expended on the costs of making their pickles.
The theory that the free market is self-correcting is only true for free market models that assume that agents do not (or cannot) externalize significant costs.
You keep throwing around this phrase: "externalize costs," which implies that you seem to think there's a way for people (and, by extension, businesses) to get something for nothing. There isn't. Everything you, or Vlasic, or Walmart, or whoever, does, comes at a cost.
Imagine you're standing in the middle of a park, and the only trashcan is 100yds in the opposite direction from your destination. The cost for you to throw it away would be some additional time. Feeling that you cannot afford to spend the time (say you have an appointment to make), you have the option of externalizing the cost of disposal by simply dropping it on the ground. The cost is then borne by all other users of the park, as its value as an aesthetically pleasing environment is lessened by the presence of litter.
And the ultimate cost of your choice to litter is that you get arrested (and maybe fined) for littering, and you have to spend 100 hours of your life doing community service picking up other people's litter.
If what you mean by "externalize costs," is "do something illegal," then your comment has no actual bearing on a free market economy that exists within the framework of a system of government bound by the rule of law. I assumed that we were talking about that, but if your comment actually refers to anarchy, then please let me know - I'm sure we could have a lot to agree on about that particular system of government.
...consumers need to be educated and interested enough to investigate and realize that the hypothetical $3.00 bottle of pickles, through N degrees of separation, removes value from the economy and ends up costing them more than the $3.50 bottle.
Or, maybe consumers recognize those "secret costs" and choose to ignore them. Unless you claim to know the mind of every person in the world, it's impossible to make the claim that the masses are making the "wrong" choices because they *all* are misinformed.
In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase [snip] We have people who [snip] think it's great that pickles only cost $3 instead of $3.50.
I think I'm missing something. Why would it be better for someone to buy the $3.50 pickles instead? That sounds like a reasonable decision to me.
In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general.
OK, now you're missing something: The idea behind a free market economy is that it provides every person with the ability to freely engage in whatever trade (sale, barter, service, etc.) that they believe to be in their own best interests. Laws exist to prevent force and fraud from hindering freely chosen, non-fraudulent exchanges. That's it.
A free market economy works on the principles of emergence and self-organization. Lots of people, interacting in trades that are driven purely by individual self-interest, cause the whole, larger group of specialized, self-interested, individuals, to produce the goods and services that best fulfill the needs of everyone, all without any central planning or organization. This article is a perfect example: price of energy goes up, people will buy things that use less energy, such as CFLs instead of incandescent lightbulbs.
This brings me to the real question: Obviously, in this matter of free trade (CFLs versus regular lightbulbs), you trust the "will of the masses," at least to a certain extent:
If you don't like the laws being passed, write your congressman. Until then, they're doing the job we elected them to do. If the majority of voters don't like what an elected official does, they get voted out of office. If the majority of voters find these kinds of laws inappropriate or objectionable, they'll remove them from office.
So if you're OK with people, en masse, electing (or not) the representatives that will allow, or restrict, their ability to purchase the lightbulbs of their choice, then why don't you trust people, individually, to just simply purchase the lightbulbs of their choice?
I'm not sure which is worse: links to the stupid minicity thing, or the stories about eating poop.
I think that if they managed to make a miniature city where everyone was into eating poop, and the more clicks, the more poop was eaten, then maybe *that* would be the worst slashdot trollspam ever.
Parent Moderation, 2007-12-23, 18:20 (GMT-1):
50% Doesn't know when to shut up
50% Whiny
50% About to get roundhoused in the groin by the entire model of what it means to be male
625% Chuck Disapproves.
Parent Moderation, 2007-12-23, 18:20 (GMT-1):
50% Doesn't know when to shut up
50% Whiny
50% About to get roundhoused in the groin by the entire model of what it means to be male
We've been giving people the the "freedom" to be morons
In other words, we've been giving people the freedom to disagree with you, and do things that you wouldn't have done had you been in their place which, in your mind, makes them "morons." So, unless people do and think the things you believe are correct and right, then they are morons. OK, that's perfectly fine - I happen to think that people who believe that they know what other people *ought* to do and think are morons.
and then dismantling the government agencies that would have allowed them not to be
Here's where your train derails: Government doesn't "allow" anything - it forces people to *not* do things, through imprisonment, fines, and violence. So, let me restate your assertion:
"We've been giving people the the freedom to disagree with me and do things that I don't want them to do, and then dismantling the government agencies that would have forced them to think the things that I think are right, and do the things that I want them to do."
Gee - that actually sounds like a good idea! I don't want Government telling me what to do, even if you personally think it's moronic.
I'm sure there are a lot of things in your life that you do that I would think were stupid, and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I tried to legislate and regulate my way of thinking and acting onto you.
So why do you think it's OK to legislate and regulate your way of thinking and acting onto me (and everyone else)?
Actually, online banking has *never* implemented two-factor verification. It's just a bunch of different things that you know - password, mom's maiden name, first pet's name, etc.
At best, they can only use this weird psuedo-2-factor thing where there's one thing you know, that others may try to obtain through various technological means - your password - and then another thing that they just kind of figger that nobody but you will probably know, and that those same "others" who may have obtained your password through technological means, won't be able to get (security questions, etc.).
Online banking won't be able to implement 2-factor verification until card readers, or some other method to verify that you have something in your possession become standard.
The first use they think of is advertising.
No. From TFA:
The technology, ideal for museums and libraries or environments that require a quiet atmosphere for isolated audio slideshows, has rarely been used on such a scale before.
And if you go to the Holosonics website, you would have seen that the first uses for it were in libraries and museums, with the intent of allowing people to hear audio without disturbing other patrons. The first use "they" thought of was to maximize the enjoyment of multiple people visiting typically quiet places.
Cut to the chase and skip "what can we use this for" and go straight to "how can we make money with this".
Um. OK, what imaginary entity that creates new technology applications works like that? Seriously, other than a 100% Government-funded research lab, *everybody* who makes something new has to think "how can we make money with this?" or they stop being able to afford... well, the ability to make cool new stuff!
I think you're angry about the use of this for advertising, and I agree, it would be annoying if used on a large scale - like, for example, if *everything* you walked by on the street tried to whisper stuff in your ear. On a funny note, if you read the comments from the original article, it appears as though several commentators believe that this technology actually (somehow?) beams energy directly into your brain which causes you to "hear" stuff.
Another side of the story is that the faulty engineer with _hurt_ people, whereas the faulty surgeon with fail to heal. That is not an insignificant difference.
Well, that kind of muddies the issue... We're trying to compare situations where a reasonably competent engineer or surgeon has made an error that causes an adverse outcome that otherwise would not have happened. Now, for surgeons, they've set the bar pretty low - the stuff they consider to be a "mistake" for the statistics I gave above are things like leaving stuff inside people (duh), stabbing them in the wrong place (whoops), not closing them up right (crap), etc. Pretty mundane mistakes - stuff that *all* surgeons should know to do correctly.
What most of the "engineering is tougher" crowd is saying is that, not only should we consider the "duh" mistakes (that are probably exceedingly rare - like making a building or bridge that just falls down on its own), but we should also consider the not-so-duh mistakes, too, like, why weren't the WTC towers made jet fuel resistant, too? Or, why didn't we make that particular building tsunami-proof, somehow?
If you wanted to compare apples to apples in that case, you'd need to pretty much include every time a person who has ever had surgery dies on the table, in post-op due to a complication, and at any time later in life of the thing that the surgery was supposed to correct.
I think that if you did that, surgery would come out as being *massively* more dangerous and potentially costly than engineering.
In any case, engineers have had automated tools to help prevent the fuckups that lead to catastrophe for years. Nice to see the surgeons getting some backup as well.
Yeah, I totally agree. Man. By saying the *real* point of this whole thing, you kind of made me feel stupid for wasting my time arguing about this... Thanks!;P
Depending on how broadly you want to look at the situation it could be dozens or even hundreds per year. What about the twin towers in New York? One could, by extension, chaulk that up to an engineering failure. After all the buildings were literally designed to resist the impact of a 747 jetliner. They apparently forgot about all the fuel contained on board said jet liners.
Bridge collapses, building/structural failures, many fires, road failures etc. can all lead back to a decision that can boil down to engineering failure or "nobody's perfect" or "engineers didn't know enough about ${problem} at the time of design" which, by extension, can count as an engineering failure.
Well if it would help prove your point, we could also consider accidental deaths when people fall down stairs, or run themselves through plate glass doors and stuff like that as "engineering failures." All you've said is that you *could* arbitrarily include lots of other stuff in the "death-by-engineering" category. Not helpful, unless you're proposing *where* to draw that line.
Which happens more frequently; surgery or people driving across said bridge?
No. You've totally missed it here: Surgeon (or surgical team) to patient is a one-to-one mapping. Engineer (or engineering team) to failure event is a one-to-one mapping. Engineer to use-of-structure is a one-to-many mapping. This does not support your point.
Nothing major, thank God, just a broken thumb, a broken jaw, and a broken nose. Nothing life threatening.
I had a totally non-major surgery once, and it SUCKED. My apologies, though - my comment wasn't really germane to what your point was...
I'm saying that one fuckup in surgery is less dangerous than one fuckup in engineering. Hell, one hundrend fuckups is less dangerous
Well, that's my point - If you compare a single failure event in surgery to a single failure event in engineering, clearly, engineering failures appears to be more of a significant problem. But how many?
This report states that roughly 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors - now, "medical errors" encompasses a lot of stuff, so it's not all surgery. But if you narrow it down to deaths and expenses caused by a few specific factors, $9.3 billion in additional expenses and 32,591 deaths occur annually that are attributable to 16, very specific indicators. Of those 16, 13 are surgical errors, and the other three could be surgery associated.
I mean, I looked around for a while. I saw lots of claims from overzealous-appearing watchdog organizations with even bigger numbers. So the above is the most impartial and conservative estimate I found.
In addition, when I tried to find stats on deaths caused by engineering failures, I couldn't find numbers for anything that fits the situation you've described - a pure engineering error that causes a catastrophic failure. While I agree that a single failure of that type will always be potentially more damaging than a surgical error due to the fact that surgery's just on one person at a time, I disagree that in aggregate, failures of a purely drawing-board-engineering nature are of lesser impact overall, in both cost of life and monetary cost.
That said, surgery is in my opinion a minor event. ...said the person who must have never had surgery;)
If a surgeon fucks up, somebody dies. Big deal, and there will be some medical explanation to get the offending surgeon off the hook anyway. If an engineer fucks up, two hundred people die. And there will be millions of dollars worth of inquiries to find and hang that same engineer.
Ah, but how many bridges or whatever does one engineer contribute significantly enough where his or her fuckup would cause a catastrohpic failure? Maybe one or two in a year? Plus, I'm guessing you don't get to have that significant of an impact on a project until you're a seasoned engineer of some sort, right? I'm guessing that not even until you're well into your engineering career do you get to be the engineer equivalent of a dev lead.
And how many patients does a surgeon operate on where his or her fuckup would cause a catastrophic failure? Um, I dunno, say four to eight in a day (call it six), maybe? So that's, what, 6 * 50 = 300 people a year, give or take?
I don't think you can dismiss surgery as somehow being of lesser impact than major engineering feats, simply for the fact that surgery happens a lot more frequently than building a bridge.
Think about it, if you can use OpenOffice, you can use MS Office. If you can find your way in KDE, you will find your way in Windows, etc. Young people also are very adept, don't compare their learning skills to your grandparent's. Also behind every software it's learning the principles that counts. Needless to say, M$ would rather have you believe otherwise... Your argument would make sense if the OLPC laptop had a standard, windowed OS interface, and included some form of office productivity software. Unfortunately for your argument, it does not.
BTW, you cannot just "hack" the Linux kernel but every program on the laptop most of which are written in higher-level languages than C/C++. Wow. Um. "Hack the Linux kernel" means "able to write OS-level code."... If I could write the rest of this post in crayon, I would. Sorry that I can't.
Sorry but the rest of your post is a bit too verbose to debate point-by-point but really
Verbose == I DON GET DOSE BIG WERDS.... Right?
OK, so at the risk of this comment being modded to oblivion, I'd like to respond to this part of your post:
But, come on people, knowing Microsoft the software will be aimed at making good consumers and MS Office-drones out of the poor children and not so much features like editing the source-code that have the potential of some kid in the third world suddenly learning to program like OLPC has.
Which would benefit a third-world nation more?
1) Having an exceedingly small minority of its children be able to hack the Linux kernel while the rest of them kind of know what a computer is, but *not* know how to use any software or OS interface that the majority of the rest of the world uses, and is the de facto standard in business.
or
2) Having the majority of their children familiar with the OS interface (and maybe even some of the common productivity software) used by the rest of the world to conduct its business, providing a stepping stone for a large number of people to get their foot in the door working *anywhere*, doing *anything*, however low-level, and even *still* having an exceedingly small minority know how to program?
If the goal is overall economic prosperity, then line these kids up, teach them Windows and Office, and unleash them on the world. If the goal is to maybe have a few kids kind of figure out how to write C, then I think you're right - OLPC is the way to go. You've got to admit, no matter how much you or I may or may not like the idea of these kids being assimilated into the MS hive-mind, it really *is* the quickest way to get them into mainstream technology, and able to work in most first-world settings.
If you're really interested in helping these kids in the short term as quickly as possible, consider this - which set contains more jobs? Jobs requiring familiarity with Windows and Office? Or jobs requiring programming skill, but that do *not* require any familiarity with Windows? Now, I know it's easy to say that this isn't about getting these kids jobs in the corporate world, but I think it's not a bad idea. And before you say, "OLPC wasn't about jobs!" I would ask, WHY NOT?!!? I mean, I *get* the sublime joy that OLPC provides us for providing all these otherwise computer-illiterate children with computers, for computers-sake. But why not provide them computers-for-computers-sake that could also act as a springboard to real prosperity, in their lifetimes?
I hate to frame it like this, but, which do you prefer? Linux? Or the children? (he he)
the big boys are smothering XO in the crib with half-assed attempts at being cheap (but DRM and IP laden).
From TFA...
In 2005, Nicholas Negroponte unveiled an idea for bridging the technology divide between rich nations and the developing world. It was captivating in its utter simplicity: design a $100 laptop and, within four years, get it into the hands of up to 150 million of the world's poorest schoolchildren.
OK, so if the intent of the idea was to get cheap laptops into the hands of poor school kids everywhere, then why is it bad if a private corporation manages to do it better than this guy? I mean, you and I complain about DRM because one out of every, what, I don't know, 100,000 people who buy a game or movie can't play it for some bizarre technological corner-case?
These are the same kids that might starve to death if their dad gets sick for like a week, and YOU are complaining that Intel and Microsoft *might* be putting (OMG, NO00OEZZ!1! DO NOT WANT!1!1!!) Windows onto a laptop that a private company can provide that is BETTER than the all-donations "free" laptop that Negroponte is trying to hawk?
Look - here's the truth in this: Negroponte has a great idea - make and sell cheap laptops to third-world countries. His intent was to bridge the technological gap. Maybe MS and Intel's intent is to make lots of money. Either way, Negroponte's intent (getting cheap laptops into the hands of the next potential Donald Knuth, or maybe just giving a cheap technological primer to kids who wouldn't otherwise be exposed to it) is met.
You, and many other posters, missed the boat on this one. Negroponte's dream has been realized - he got the people and companies who *actually* do this for a living to sit up and take notice, and start making really, really cheap laptops to sell to third-world countries. Of *course* MS and Intel's laptops are going to be better. Of *course* MS and Intel's laptops are going to be eventually cheaper.
Why, instead of cheering that millions of kids are going to get good technology into their hands, regardless of who it comes from, are you bitching about the fact that they might not be able to r1ppZ0rzz the latest Britney Spears album even though they already own it? (Which they don't.) I'm sorry, but you totally missed the point on this one.
Are slashdot writers truly this hypocritical ?
Sooo.... I'm guessing by your surprise that you don't read the comments on this site much.
Here's what it boils down to:
1) When a private corporation tries to prevent you from doing illegal things with their content through technological means, which prevents them from having to employ legal means to protect their rights, that's "Bad." (e.g., DRM)
2) When a corporate entity produces copyrighted material which is used in an illegal manner, and subsequently tries to use legal means to protect their rights, it may be "Good," or "Bad," depending on the following conditions:
a) If the illegal user is an entity that espouses beliefs that I agree with and like, or to which I am otherwise indifferent, then use of those legal means is "Bad."
b) If the illegal user is an entity that espouses beliefs that I do *not* agree with and I dislike them, then use of those legal means is "Good."
Those are the/. rules, dude. MOD PARENT DOWN FOR NOT KNOWING THE RULES!
I think you (and most other posters) missed the point by oversimplifying it. I don't think this is a system that gives more frequent customers better treatment, and less-frequent ones worse. Here's why I think that - take a look at this:
The system allows them to prioritize delivery methods according to potential goodwill cost. Here's a simple example: Say Amazon has only two customers - you and me. We both frequently buy expensive stuff. I don't really care when it arrives, just so it arrives. You, on the other hand, complain if things arrive late. The system would allow Amazon to know that they should prioritize your shipments over mine.
Now, extend this to many, many customers with widely varying buying habits, and varying attitudes to early, on-time, and late deliveries. It's kind of cool, if you think about it. Say I buy stuff from Amazon very infrequently, but when I do, it's always *really* expensive, and I *hate* it when stuff arrives late. Then there's this other guy who buys less expensive stuff, but buys all the time, and *he* LOOOOOVES it when stuff shows up early, but doesn't much care if it's late. Then there's this chick who buys, on average, one book every month and never says anything positive if it's early, never complains if it's up to a week late, but rants and raves and swears to never buy again from Amazon when something's over a week late...
The system allows Amazon to prioritize shipment plans among their millions of customers, all with varying buying styles and delivery-time cares. They do it because it allows them to maximize their profits, which, it seems, most people on here don't like. But look at the effects - you get, not only *what* you want, but you get it within a timeframe that's acceptable to you!
That having been said, in a very simple sense, you and most others are right that it rewards "frequent customers," but in a limited way. The only way this system gives frequent customers preferential treatment is because frequent purchasers provide more information about buying habits and delivery-time cares to enable Amazon to prioritize. A more accurate statement would be: "This system will give preferential treatment to customers who spend the most money and complain the most if stuff is late and like it when stuff is early." Which makes sense.
Another thing to consider is that Amazon has a limited pool of shipping resources. This system is a method to accurately distribute those resources, but not just according to pure cost - it actually takes into consideration "goodwill cost!" For crying out loud, it takes into account your feelings!
This is an application of free-market principles to an internal resource distribution problem, and it's actually a clever solution. They increase their profit, and you get what you want. I don't see the down side to this. (Other than the patent.)
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest factor that determines the likelihood for success of any attempt to defraud people is this: How similar is the fraudulent thing to the real thing? After reading TFA and watching the demonstration, this particular exploit would allow a person to modify the text content of an authentication dialog box to fool people into thinking it comes from a trusted source.
To be honest, I can't remember the last time a website I use for personal purposes required a browser authentication dialog for login (including banking, investing, buying stuff with my debit or credit card, etc.). I'm going to speculate wildly here, and assert that most secure logins for personal use occur in HTML forms, and that this exploit doesn't approximate the login activity of most websites, used my most people. Now, some people when confronted with this weird, never-before-seen login "thing" will give it their login and password, but others won't because either they're tech-savvy enough to realize that something's wrong, or because their untrained interweb-spidey-sense goes off. Point is, it's at least an individually-significant issue until the info gets out to enough people.
But the really dangerous potential of this exploit isn't to get somebody's bank login info, or PayPal, or Amazon, or eBay login, or whatever. Think about all the logins that *do* normally use a browser authentication dialog box, like corporate, government, and defense portal sites. This exploit actually more closely approximates a legitimate login identity challenge to systems that impact not just one person, but *lots* of people. Imagine that you're corporate-drone #637, and you've been working on a super-serial secret something-or-other and you get an email from "your IT folks" asking you to log in to the VPN. Oh, they also included a helpful link to do so, and oh, you also happen to be using Firefox.
I think that's the real problem with this exploit.
Nope. But a free market economic system requires as a precondition the rule of law, just like any other economic system. I don't understand why whenever anyone says they support a free market economy, that all of a sudden it's assumed that they don't believe in laws.
Even if companies choose to:
Drum roll, please:
hire child laborers
Illegal.
pay below minimum wage
Illegal.
padlock all the doors
Illegal.
pollute to their hearts content
Illegal.
Why should a consumer be forced to donate to protect children from companies who would exploit them, eh?
They don't have to donate anything. Exploitation of children is illegal, and enforcement of the laws that prevent it is already paid for by our taxes.
It's not my place to challenge you on your ethics or morality, but I admire your consistency for that position.
In order to challenge either my ethics, or my morality, you'd have to actually know what they are, instead of making them up in your own mind and stuffing them all into a big, fat, Straw Man, like you have.
1) Are you saying that the current system works? I.e. that well-informed consumers are making the proper choices now and that the $3 pickles are not being bought?
It's this:
The current system works. Consumers who choose to buy the $3.50 pickles instead of the $3.00 pickles, in doing so, freely choose to subsidize (i.e., charitably donate to) whatever the cause represented by the additional cost. Consumers who choose to buy the $3.00 pickles choose not to.
Just because *you* choose to donate, does that mean it's OK to force all others to donate as well?
So, I read TFA and I have a hard time seeing how they can claim that their results aren't just a result of extended sleep-deprivation. The researcher's claim is that they've managed to deprive their test subjects of *only* their dreams, without also sleep-depriving them, and then, based on their pure "dream-but-not-sleep-deprivation" they offer a whole lot of speculation about the value of dreams. However, from TFA here's essentially what they did to deprive their rats of "dreams" (but NOT sleep, mind you!):
Imagine yourself, stranded in the ocean for a week, and the only thing you have to sleep on is an innertube that was juu-uu-uust a bit too big for you, so that just when you really fell asleep, you'd fall through the middle and get wet and wake up (and have to climb up again, dry off, and start all over again on falling asleep).
Um. OK. If you think about it, What they claim is kind of a Big Deal: How do you differentially prevent somebody from dreaming, without also preventing them from sleeping? Given our current understanding of the electrochemical nature of the brain, we can, based solely on an EEG, tell when a person is awake, asleep-but-not-dreaming, and asleep-and-dreaming. I think there *might* be a more precise and specific way to do this.
I don't think that their "dream-but-not-sleep deprivation" methodology is specific enough to claim that the effects on their subjects were caused purely by lack of "dreaming."
Not really. What you're describing is more like, "Oh well, so goes anarchy." I think a more accurate statement of free market capitalism would be, "Your choice of how to exchange your money, goods, or services - your responsibility."
I'd think they'd ask the police to help them get their stuff back.
That's not a valid criticism of capitalism. All systems of exchange require as a precondition, the rule of law. Communism would fail just as horribly as capitalism without it.
So... "Some."
Can you honestly suggest one significant change to me that supports all the criteria that you expect of me?
Hey, I just expect that you would take a look at the burdens of the regulatory system you're proposing and let us all know what they are. The null hypothesis is "Don't do anything else." It's up to you to show that we ought to.
How about instead we take this more sensible approach. We both agree on something that is a "nice idea" and we both try to figure out if there are any flaws that completely break it (or make it worse than the current system). Do you have any reason to believe that the number of experts is too high, well then why don't we together (i.e. all of society) pursue the idea a little further rather than declaring it dead without further review?
Calm down - I just asked you a few simple questions that are crucial to its overall success or failure, which you didn't answer.
Look, the idea of regulation is not always "bad," but it's also not always the best solution. All economics aside, one big thing you've got to take into consideration is that you're saying we ought to force people to make choices that they wouldn't normally make. You can't just discard people's free will so lightly - there had better be a really convincing reason to do so, and it's up to you, the person proposing that we restrict people's free will, to show it!
In addition to demonstrating why you think restricting everyone's economic freedom is OK, you've got to compare the costs of regulating versus the costs of not regulating. And since you're the one proposing that regulation of pickles (or lightbulbs) is a "good idea," then you're the one who has to show that it's better than what we're doing right now, which is allowing people to buy whatever pickles or lightbulbs they want.
If one of the jobs you'd help eliminate is yours or someone's who you care about by buying the cheaper pickles (or lightbulbs), then buying the more expensive pickles (or lightbulbs) is just another purely economic decision, and you'd be foolish not to make it. For example, if incandescent lightbulbs were really, in all aspects, inferior to the flourescent, energy-saving alternatives (cheaper in total purchase price and energy costs, and at least equivalent in the quality of illumination they provided), everyone would be buying them and this discussion wouldn't be happening.
But that's not what you're arguing. Clearly, there's a choice that you want other people to make that's against their own best interests here - You personally believe that people ought to want to willingly engage in some behavior that, infuriatingly, not enough people want to do, and that's obviously not economically advantageous (otherwise, like I said, we'd all be doing it, and you and I wouldn't be having this discussion).
I mean, I *get* it. When people don't agree with you, they're just too stupid to realize that what you believe is the best thing for them, and you ought to force them to do what is best for them.
But pretend for a second that the people who choose not to do what you do are just as intelligent, rational, and informed as you are, and they simply choose to disagree with you about the best behavior in this given situation, and do something else, of which you don't approve.
Put yourself in their shoes, if you can, and then answer me honestly if you would support this sort of legislation.
There will be as many as it takes [snip] but not too many...
So... "Some," is your answer to that one. And there were six other questions I asked, each fundamentally important to be answered substantially if you want to make a sound, reasoned argument supporting your idea, that you didn't answer. (The one about "Who will they work for," was kind of a gimme. Of course the Government would do it.)
My point is, nice ideas don't necessarily equal laws that are good for society as a whole unless you're willing to put actual, reasoned thought, supported by at least a little data-supported (or even assumption-supported) analysis behind it. Here's just one example of why you've got to consider the details: What if the cost of "specialists" and their support bureaucracy needed to enforce correct behavior in the pickle industry (which they will have to support through taxes) ends up putting half the pickle companies out of business? Or what if, due to your system, it's no longer profitable at all to start up a new pickle company, and only the giant, mass-producing boring pickle-makers survive? Unless you actually think things through, you can't possibly know the real impact that your good idea written into law will have on real people, and you will not be able to evaluate whether or not the consequences are worth the benefits. Phrases like, "enough..." and "not too many..." and "some portion of their income..." do not suffice for this.
They will encourage people (and corporations) to make better choices by making some activities illegal and by imposing fines and taxes on others.
So, "encourage" means: If an individual doesn't do what you want, then you put them in jail, or take their money. In order to pay for it all, you force all participants to contribute unwillingly.
I would use the word "encourage" instead of "coerce"
Coerce: to compel to an act or choice. You can call it whatever you want, but it's coercion.
You force people to take responsibility for the externalized costs and then let them make their own decisions. Maybe it's worthwhile for me to take the risk of littering and getting a $100 fine, maybe it's not for you. If the fine is properly set (and the chance of getting caught non-zero) then we can both make the decision that's best for us and society does not suffer. What's your alternative? If you don't punish litterers, because a handful of people don't feel it's wrong, then you end up with filthy streets and the majority suffers. If you make the penalty incredibly severe, then no one will litter, but you end up with grossly inefficient behavior that costs society in the long run.
You can analyze crime and punishment economically, and, don't get me wrong, it's interesting to do so. But it's important to differentiate between economic analysis, and free market exchange. Here's the difference: In your example, each choice of an individual to litter costs (Fine * Frequency of Being Caught * Frequency of Littering). Free exchange, on the other hand, isn't probabilistic - when you go into a pickle store, you expect to pay the cost of the pickles you choose to buy.
On the other hand, I think the economic analysis of crime and punishment works like this: The idea is to make the punishment severe enough that the vast majority of people would agree that the punishment is *not* worth the illegal behavior. I mean, think about it - if every time you littered, you knew that a cop would catch you you and you'd have to pay $500, would it *ever* be worth it? What if, every time someone committed murder, they *knew* that they would be caught, and sentenced to life in prison?
The only way economic analysis has any bearing on crime and punishment is wh
At first glance (and this is where most people stop), lowered prices stem from increases in efficiency. However, when real cost of production can no longer be lowered through efficiency, and significant downward pressure is still being exerted on the market (e.g., when a significant entity downstream in the supply chain dictates this)
I mean, if you can't make money doing one particular thing (e.g., making pickles), then you should probably do something else. There isn't a third way.
manufacturers have an additional option: externalize costs.
A pickle company can make a lot of choices that will influence its profitability - raising or lowering prices, choosing to buy cheaper jars, lids, cucumbers, salt, make changes in its manufacturing process that result in a reduced pickle-curing time, forsake the mass-production market and sell "designer pickles" to a smaller market who are willing to pay more for interesting-tasting pickles, etc.
But no legal option that the pickle manufacturer can take will allow them to escape the sad truth that they've got to create value by turning cucumbers and saltwater into pickles, and that people are willing to exchange goods, services, or money for that value, and that created value has to meet or exceed what they've expended on the costs of making their pickles.
The theory that the free market is self-correcting is only true for free market models that assume that agents do not (or cannot) externalize significant costs.
You keep throwing around this phrase: "externalize costs," which implies that you seem to think there's a way for people (and, by extension, businesses) to get something for nothing. There isn't. Everything you, or Vlasic, or Walmart, or whoever, does, comes at a cost.
Imagine you're standing in the middle of a park, and the only trashcan is 100yds in the opposite direction from your destination. The cost for you to throw it away would be some additional time. Feeling that you cannot afford to spend the time (say you have an appointment to make), you have the option of externalizing the cost of disposal by simply dropping it on the ground. The cost is then borne by all other users of the park, as its value as an aesthetically pleasing environment is lessened by the presence of litter.
And the ultimate cost of your choice to litter is that you get arrested (and maybe fined) for littering, and you have to spend 100 hours of your life doing community service picking up other people's litter.
If what you mean by "externalize costs," is "do something illegal," then your comment has no actual bearing on a free market economy that exists within the framework of a system of government bound by the rule of law. I assumed that we were talking about that, but if your comment actually refers to anarchy, then please let me know - I'm sure we could have a lot to agree on about that particular system of government.
...consumers need to be educated and interested enough to investigate and realize that the hypothetical $3.00 bottle of pickles, through N degrees of separation, removes value from the economy and ends up costing them more than the $3.50 bottle.
Or, maybe consumers recognize those "secret costs" and choose to ignore them. Unless you claim to know the mind of every person in the world, it's impossible to make the claim that the masses are making the "wrong" choices because they *all* are misinformed.
T
I think I'm missing something. Why would it be better for someone to buy the $3.50 pickles instead? That sounds like a reasonable decision to me.
In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general.
OK, now you're missing something: The idea behind a free market economy is that it provides every person with the ability to freely engage in whatever trade (sale, barter, service, etc.) that they believe to be in their own best interests. Laws exist to prevent force and fraud from hindering freely chosen, non-fraudulent exchanges. That's it.
A free market economy works on the principles of emergence and self-organization. Lots of people, interacting in trades that are driven purely by individual self-interest, cause the whole, larger group of specialized, self-interested, individuals, to produce the goods and services that best fulfill the needs of everyone, all without any central planning or organization. This article is a perfect example: price of energy goes up, people will buy things that use less energy, such as CFLs instead of incandescent lightbulbs.
This brings me to the real question: Obviously, in this matter of free trade (CFLs versus regular lightbulbs), you trust the "will of the masses," at least to a certain extent:
If you don't like the laws being passed, write your congressman. Until then, they're doing the job we elected them to do. If the majority of voters don't like what an elected official does, they get voted out of office. If the majority of voters find these kinds of laws inappropriate or objectionable, they'll remove them from office.
So if you're OK with people, en masse, electing (or not) the representatives that will allow, or restrict, their ability to purchase the lightbulbs of their choice, then why don't you trust people, individually, to just simply purchase the lightbulbs of their choice?
I'm not sure which is worse: links to the stupid minicity thing, or the stories about eating poop.
I think that if they managed to make a miniature city where everyone was into eating poop, and the more clicks, the more poop was eaten, then maybe *that* would be the worst slashdot trollspam ever.
Sorry - I did that wrong:
Parent Moderation, 2007-12-23, 18:20 (GMT-1):
50% Doesn't know when to shut up
50% Whiny
50% About to get roundhoused in the groin by the entire model of what it means to be male
625% Chuck Disapproves.
(Guess who the last 2 are from...)
Parent Moderation, 2007-12-23, 18:20 (GMT-1): 50% Doesn't know when to shut up 50% Whiny 50% About to get roundhoused in the groin by the entire model of what it means to be male
In other words, we've been giving people the freedom to disagree with you, and do things that you wouldn't have done had you been in their place which, in your mind, makes them "morons." So, unless people do and think the things you believe are correct and right, then they are morons. OK, that's perfectly fine - I happen to think that people who believe that they know what other people *ought* to do and think are morons.
and then dismantling the government agencies that would have allowed them not to be
Here's where your train derails: Government doesn't "allow" anything - it forces people to *not* do things, through imprisonment, fines, and violence. So, let me restate your assertion:
"We've been giving people the the freedom to disagree with me and do things that I don't want them to do, and then dismantling the government agencies that would have forced them to think the things that I think are right, and do the things that I want them to do."
Gee - that actually sounds like a good idea! I don't want Government telling me what to do, even if you personally think it's moronic.
I'm sure there are a lot of things in your life that you do that I would think were stupid, and I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I tried to legislate and regulate my way of thinking and acting onto you.
So why do you think it's OK to legislate and regulate your way of thinking and acting onto me (and everyone else)?
Actually, online banking has *never* implemented two-factor verification. It's just a bunch of different things that you know - password, mom's maiden name, first pet's name, etc.
At best, they can only use this weird psuedo-2-factor thing where there's one thing you know, that others may try to obtain through various technological means - your password - and then another thing that they just kind of figger that nobody but you will probably know, and that those same "others" who may have obtained your password through technological means, won't be able to get (security questions, etc.).
Online banking won't be able to implement 2-factor verification until card readers, or some other method to verify that you have something in your possession become standard.
No. From TFA:
The technology, ideal for museums and libraries or environments that require a quiet atmosphere for isolated audio slideshows, has rarely been used on such a scale before.
And if you go to the Holosonics website, you would have seen that the first uses for it were in libraries and museums, with the intent of allowing people to hear audio without disturbing other patrons. The first use "they" thought of was to maximize the enjoyment of multiple people visiting typically quiet places.
Cut to the chase and skip "what can we use this for" and go straight to "how can we make money with this".
Um. OK, what imaginary entity that creates new technology applications works like that? Seriously, other than a 100% Government-funded research lab, *everybody* who makes something new has to think "how can we make money with this?" or they stop being able to afford... well, the ability to make cool new stuff!
I think you're angry about the use of this for advertising, and I agree, it would be annoying if used on a large scale - like, for example, if *everything* you walked by on the street tried to whisper stuff in your ear. On a funny note, if you read the comments from the original article, it appears as though several commentators believe that this technology actually (somehow?) beams energy directly into your brain which causes you to "hear" stuff.
Well, that kind of muddies the issue... We're trying to compare situations where a reasonably competent engineer or surgeon has made an error that causes an adverse outcome that otherwise would not have happened. Now, for surgeons, they've set the bar pretty low - the stuff they consider to be a "mistake" for the statistics I gave above are things like leaving stuff inside people (duh), stabbing them in the wrong place (whoops), not closing them up right (crap), etc. Pretty mundane mistakes - stuff that *all* surgeons should know to do correctly.
What most of the "engineering is tougher" crowd is saying is that, not only should we consider the "duh" mistakes (that are probably exceedingly rare - like making a building or bridge that just falls down on its own), but we should also consider the not-so-duh mistakes, too, like, why weren't the WTC towers made jet fuel resistant, too? Or, why didn't we make that particular building tsunami-proof, somehow?
If you wanted to compare apples to apples in that case, you'd need to pretty much include every time a person who has ever had surgery dies on the table, in post-op due to a complication, and at any time later in life of the thing that the surgery was supposed to correct.
I think that if you did that, surgery would come out as being *massively* more dangerous and potentially costly than engineering.
In any case, engineers have had automated tools to help prevent the fuckups that lead to catastrophe for years. Nice to see the surgeons getting some backup as well.
Yeah, I totally agree. Man. By saying the *real* point of this whole thing, you kind of made me feel stupid for wasting my time arguing about this... Thanks!
Well if it would help prove your point, we could also consider accidental deaths when people fall down stairs, or run themselves through plate glass doors and stuff like that as "engineering failures." All you've said is that you *could* arbitrarily include lots of other stuff in the "death-by-engineering" category. Not helpful, unless you're proposing *where* to draw that line.
Which happens more frequently; surgery or people driving across said bridge?
No. You've totally missed it here: Surgeon (or surgical team) to patient is a one-to-one mapping. Engineer (or engineering team) to failure event is a one-to-one mapping. Engineer to use-of-structure is a one-to-many mapping. This does not support your point.
I had a totally non-major surgery once, and it SUCKED. My apologies, though - my comment wasn't really germane to what your point was...
I'm saying that one fuckup in surgery is less dangerous than one fuckup in engineering. Hell, one hundrend fuckups is less dangerous
Well, that's my point - If you compare a single failure event in surgery to a single failure event in engineering, clearly, engineering failures appears to be more of a significant problem. But how many?
This report states that roughly 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors - now, "medical errors" encompasses a lot of stuff, so it's not all surgery. But if you narrow it down to deaths and expenses caused by a few specific factors, $9.3 billion in additional expenses and 32,591 deaths occur annually that are attributable to 16, very specific indicators. Of those 16, 13 are surgical errors, and the other three could be surgery associated.
I mean, I looked around for a while. I saw lots of claims from overzealous-appearing watchdog organizations with even bigger numbers. So the above is the most impartial and conservative estimate I found.
In addition, when I tried to find stats on deaths caused by engineering failures, I couldn't find numbers for anything that fits the situation you've described - a pure engineering error that causes a catastrophic failure. While I agree that a single failure of that type will always be potentially more damaging than a surgical error due to the fact that surgery's just on one person at a time, I disagree that in aggregate, failures of a purely drawing-board-engineering nature are of lesser impact overall, in both cost of life and monetary cost.
If a surgeon fucks up, somebody dies. Big deal, and there will be some medical explanation to get the offending surgeon off the hook anyway. If an engineer fucks up, two hundred people die. And there will be millions of dollars worth of inquiries to find and hang that same engineer.
Ah, but how many bridges or whatever does one engineer contribute significantly enough where his or her fuckup would cause a catastrohpic failure? Maybe one or two in a year? Plus, I'm guessing you don't get to have that significant of an impact on a project until you're a seasoned engineer of some sort, right? I'm guessing that not even until you're well into your engineering career do you get to be the engineer equivalent of a dev lead.
And how many patients does a surgeon operate on where his or her fuckup would cause a catastrophic failure? Um, I dunno, say four to eight in a day (call it six), maybe? So that's, what, 6 * 50 = 300 people a year, give or take?
I don't think you can dismiss surgery as somehow being of lesser impact than major engineering feats, simply for the fact that surgery happens a lot more frequently than building a bridge.
BTW, you cannot just "hack" the Linux kernel but every program on the laptop most of which are written in higher-level languages than C/C++. Wow. Um. "Hack the Linux kernel" means "able to write OS-level code."
Sorry but the rest of your post is a bit too verbose to debate point-by-point but really
Verbose == I DON GET DOSE BIG WERDS.
OK, goodnight and thanks for playing.
But, come on people, knowing Microsoft the software will be aimed at making good consumers and MS Office-drones out of the poor children and not so much features like editing the source-code that have the potential of some kid in the third world suddenly learning to program like OLPC has.
Which would benefit a third-world nation more?
1) Having an exceedingly small minority of its children be able to hack the Linux kernel while the rest of them kind of know what a computer is, but *not* know how to use any software or OS interface that the majority of the rest of the world uses, and is the de facto standard in business.
or
2) Having the majority of their children familiar with the OS interface (and maybe even some of the common productivity software) used by the rest of the world to conduct its business, providing a stepping stone for a large number of people to get their foot in the door working *anywhere*, doing *anything*, however low-level, and even *still* having an exceedingly small minority know how to program?
If the goal is overall economic prosperity, then line these kids up, teach them Windows and Office, and unleash them on the world. If the goal is to maybe have a few kids kind of figure out how to write C, then I think you're right - OLPC is the way to go. You've got to admit, no matter how much you or I may or may not like the idea of these kids being assimilated into the MS hive-mind, it really *is* the quickest way to get them into mainstream technology, and able to work in most first-world settings.
If you're really interested in helping these kids in the short term as quickly as possible, consider this - which set contains more jobs? Jobs requiring familiarity with Windows and Office? Or jobs requiring programming skill, but that do *not* require any familiarity with Windows? Now, I know it's easy to say that this isn't about getting these kids jobs in the corporate world, but I think it's not a bad idea. And before you say, "OLPC wasn't about jobs!" I would ask, WHY NOT?!!? I mean, I *get* the sublime joy that OLPC provides us for providing all these otherwise computer-illiterate children with computers, for computers-sake. But why not provide them computers-for-computers-sake that could also act as a springboard to real prosperity, in their lifetimes?
I hate to frame it like this, but, which do you prefer? Linux? Or the children? (he he)
From TFA...
In 2005, Nicholas Negroponte unveiled an idea for bridging the technology divide between rich nations and the developing world. It was captivating in its utter simplicity: design a $100 laptop and, within four years, get it into the hands of up to 150 million of the world's poorest schoolchildren.
OK, so if the intent of the idea was to get cheap laptops into the hands of poor school kids everywhere, then why is it bad if a private corporation manages to do it better than this guy? I mean, you and I complain about DRM because one out of every, what, I don't know, 100,000 people who buy a game or movie can't play it for some bizarre technological corner-case?
These are the same kids that might starve to death if their dad gets sick for like a week, and YOU are complaining that Intel and Microsoft *might* be putting (OMG, NO00OEZZ!1! DO NOT WANT!1!1!!) Windows onto a laptop that a private company can provide that is BETTER than the all-donations "free" laptop that Negroponte is trying to hawk?
Look - here's the truth in this: Negroponte has a great idea - make and sell cheap laptops to third-world countries. His intent was to bridge the technological gap. Maybe MS and Intel's intent is to make lots of money. Either way, Negroponte's intent (getting cheap laptops into the hands of the next potential Donald Knuth, or maybe just giving a cheap technological primer to kids who wouldn't otherwise be exposed to it) is met.
You, and many other posters, missed the boat on this one. Negroponte's dream has been realized - he got the people and companies who *actually* do this for a living to sit up and take notice, and start making really, really cheap laptops to sell to third-world countries. Of *course* MS and Intel's laptops are going to be better. Of *course* MS and Intel's laptops are going to be eventually cheaper.
Why, instead of cheering that millions of kids are going to get good technology into their hands, regardless of who it comes from, are you bitching about the fact that they might not be able to r1ppZ0rzz the latest Britney Spears album even though they already own it? (Which they don't.) I'm sorry, but you totally missed the point on this one.
Sooo.... I'm guessing by your surprise that you don't read the comments on this site much.
Here's what it boils down to:
1) When a private corporation tries to prevent you from doing illegal things with their content through technological means, which prevents them from having to employ legal means to protect their rights, that's "Bad." (e.g., DRM)
2) When a corporate entity produces copyrighted material which is used in an illegal manner, and subsequently tries to use legal means to protect their rights, it may be "Good," or "Bad," depending on the following conditions:
- a) If the illegal user is an entity that espouses beliefs that I agree with and like, or to which I am otherwise indifferent, then use of those legal means is "Bad."
- b) If the illegal user is an entity that espouses beliefs that I do *not* agree with and I dislike them, then use of those legal means is "Good."
Those are theI think you (and most other posters) missed the point by oversimplifying it. I don't think this is a system that gives more frequent customers better treatment, and less-frequent ones worse. Here's why I think that - take a look at this:
Sample table from patent
The system allows them to prioritize delivery methods according to potential goodwill cost. Here's a simple example: Say Amazon has only two customers - you and me. We both frequently buy expensive stuff. I don't really care when it arrives, just so it arrives. You, on the other hand, complain if things arrive late. The system would allow Amazon to know that they should prioritize your shipments over mine.
Now, extend this to many, many customers with widely varying buying habits, and varying attitudes to early, on-time, and late deliveries. It's kind of cool, if you think about it. Say I buy stuff from Amazon very infrequently, but when I do, it's always *really* expensive, and I *hate* it when stuff arrives late. Then there's this other guy who buys less expensive stuff, but buys all the time, and *he* LOOOOOVES it when stuff shows up early, but doesn't much care if it's late. Then there's this chick who buys, on average, one book every month and never says anything positive if it's early, never complains if it's up to a week late, but rants and raves and swears to never buy again from Amazon when something's over a week late...
The system allows Amazon to prioritize shipment plans among their millions of customers, all with varying buying styles and delivery-time cares. They do it because it allows them to maximize their profits, which, it seems, most people on here don't like. But look at the effects - you get, not only *what* you want, but you get it within a timeframe that's acceptable to you!
That having been said, in a very simple sense, you and most others are right that it rewards "frequent customers," but in a limited way. The only way this system gives frequent customers preferential treatment is because frequent purchasers provide more information about buying habits and delivery-time cares to enable Amazon to prioritize. A more accurate statement would be: "This system will give preferential treatment to customers who spend the most money and complain the most if stuff is late and like it when stuff is early." Which makes sense.
Another thing to consider is that Amazon has a limited pool of shipping resources. This system is a method to accurately distribute those resources, but not just according to pure cost - it actually takes into consideration "goodwill cost!" For crying out loud, it takes into account your feelings!
This is an application of free-market principles to an internal resource distribution problem, and it's actually a clever solution. They increase their profit, and you get what you want. I don't see the down side to this. (Other than the patent.)