Not in a 4 minute piece. I'm sure if he had half an hour he'd love to do that for you. And I'd love to see him do it.
If you can't do an accurate piece in the allotted time, then pick another topic. Don't do some half-assed job that just spreads misinformation and FUD.
I think their best bet is to become something of an all-around techno-hobbyist store. All the usual electronic components and radio equipment, as well as things like remote-control devices, robotics kits and parts, rocketry, etc. I think that's the area where they could really carve out a niche for themselves. People would start going there just to check out what they have, instead of being afraid that someone is gonna try to sell them a cell phone plan.
Having worked at several large companies (including a fortune 50 company), I can state from experience that many companies simply wouldn't know you attached an external drive to your machine, let alone an iPod!
Having worked in a few secure facilities, I can state from experience that you probably wouldn't make it into the building with such a device.
They spend time promoting these bands, out of 10 bands one makes it big
Yep, usually the one that can come up with enough payola money. They hedge and squirm and don't use that word anymore, but that's what they still do. There was an interesting thing on ABC a few nights ago about it. Yet another reason that the industry is beneath contempt. Maybe consider that and other of their illegal practices when you deliberate on the morality of the people running that industry. These are the same people that scream about the immorality of copyright infringment, or piracy if you're given to hyperbole. Kind of reminds me of the theif that gets injured breaking into someone's home, and then sues them for it. Really hate to see such people win.
There's plenty of places where running around with an external harddive would seem very suspicious (or an outright violation), but a music player is, well, just a music player, right?
In every secure area I've been in, any sort of external data-storing device is banned, unless you are given explicit permission to bring it in, or you have the proper credentials to be allowed to bring them in on your own (which subject you to a higher level of scrutiny). So, unless the security people and system admins are completely retarded, then yes, this is a non-issue.
What am I saying? People brought DRM upon themselves by acting like a bunch of thieves - they have proven time and again that they can't be trusted.
But we're now supposed to trust the music industry? Which has been convicted of robbing its customers (price-fixing) twice now? We're supposed to trust Sony, who was hacking people's computers? We're supposed to trust Microsoft, who produces software that is not what I, or any sane person, would consider secure.
That is probably 99% of personal computer usage right there.
I think that's pretty ridiculous. Most people I know use their computers mostly for work, web-browsing, games, email, and finances. Yes, I know people that download music. Yes, it's copyright infringement. But I have a hard time seeing it as being all that wrong considering the kinds of practices that the entertainment industry engages in at the expense of their customers. People may not be able to explain it in 200 words or less, but they generally know when they're getting screwed. They've done it overtly through price-fixing and other such shenannigans, and covertly through lobbying for copyright extensions (read: government handouts at the expense of consumers). Nobody really punishes them, so I don't see why copyright infringers should be punished either. I consider it something like the invisible hand creating balance.:)
That's your own fault for running proprietary software that you have no control over.
Sad thing is, most people didn't think they were running anything. They thought they were just playing a CD in their computer. Not everyone understands what all is going on in their computer. Hackers will take advantage of that, even corporate hackers.
Besides, noone is suggesting that you should be FORCED to buy hardware, but in your example you are talking about forcing people to implant whatever tracking devices.
So basically you're saying that if I choose to work in a field that requires me to use a computer (which is just about any decent paying occupation these days), then I must submit to having my privacy invaded on a constant basis in order to pursue my career. Yeah, I'm not liking the sound of that. I give a rats ass if the entertainment industry thinks they have problems. They don't run the country, and I think that once the implications of their schemes sink in with the rest of the populace, the shit will truly hit the fan. Hollywood an the record industry get themselves on a lot of people's shit lists for one reason or another on a regular basis. They've gotten called before congress on more than a couple of occaisions because of that. I wonder what will happen when they're suddenly on everyone's shit list all at once. I'm thinking a rather severe congressional bitchslap. Sony may have screwed things up for them pretty good by getting caught hacking people's computers and invading their privacy, and thus providing precedent so that they can't claim that it won't happen. It already has. Once the DRM crap is in full swing, we won't even be able to know exactly what's happening. We won't have control over our own computers. I think there are enough people in this country that value their privacy (especially those with wealth and power), that they won't accept such a situation. I only hope I'm not being too optimistic here.
You seem to forget that his job isn't really mayor, but politician. It like freelance, you don't really get hired or fired, you just get a client and have to do what's necessary to keep that client.
I'll go ahead and assume you're being sarcastic, but you just highlighted what's wrong with our political system. Politicians care more about getting re-elected than actually doing their jobs. There's something wrong with a system when the incentives are so backwards as to produce the sort of corruption and waste that we see today.
Uhhhh are you that naive that you don't get that a large part of politics is this type of bullshit? Look at Bush... Part of the job of being a public figure is to... be a... public figure.
Posing for pictures isn't a large part of his job, it's a large part of keeping your picture and name in everyone's mind so that hopefully you'll get re-elected. As far as I'm concerned, that crap should be done on his own time, not when he should be working. They should fire his ass.
See, I read those words, but the only thing that enters my mind is, "waaaaaah! waaaaaaaaaaaah! there's people who don't think like me! And enough other people who don't think like me voted for them that they hold high positions in the government! waaaaaaaah!"
Hmm.. who here needs to act like an adult? I simply said that they should pretend to deserve respect. The way our government has performed, and continues to perform, is simply unacceptable. Even a lot of the people who voted for Bush are pissed, as evidenced by his dwindling approval rating. What will we be left with when he leaves office? A mess in Iraq and an unbelievably huge deficit. This by the party that claims to be for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Hah!
Then people can put their money they earn IRL into the game to spend the same way they would if they were going to another country (or pull money out to buy their groceries).
Then the current farmers will find their jobs offshored to someplace cheaper so that the companies selling the game-money can undercut the current rate of the game company.
Not really. They aren't making nearly that much headway on that war. Maybe that's why they're starting a new one. Fresh start and all that. It'll be another 20-30 years or so before people really start questioning that one.
You answer your own question - they take offense because they're homophobes.
They take offense at not being welcome in a guild that they would have absolutely no desire to join? That's like me being pissed that the Southern Baptist Orcs won't let me in their guild. It ain't gonna happen. I really wouldn't give a damn.
I know if I started an Asian-American friendly guild (but open to everyone), it's very likely someone's going to complain (especially with all the "CHINESE GOLD FARMER" racism that goes on). But an Australian-friendly guild recruitment would have no problem (and it's something I see quite regularly). In a popularity contest, any minority group is just going to lose. No, it's not quite racism/sexism/etc., but to the minorities, it certainly may *feel* like it.
Actually, it most certainly is racism/sexism/etc. It's just done for the sake of expediency and profit rather than out of hate/fear/etc. In some people's opinion, that makes it ok. For others, it doesn't matter what the reason is, descrimination is discrimination. If they aren't going to allow guilds based on religion, then they need to ban guilds of ALL religions. Same goes for any other category. Anything less is discrimination. Sure, they may be able to get away with it legally, but that doesn't make it right.
That's useful for catching someone who doesn't have a story made up, or doesn't have a good one, but probably isn't really any harder to defeat than a polygraph. If you have your cover down and know it like your favourite book, your brain patterns aren't likely to give anything but normal memory recall.
Only a lot more testing will tell us for sure. I'm not saying that this thing is foolproof, or that the results it produces should be taken as gospel. It seems to be a step up from the polygraph though, and a 90% success rate isn't bad. Sure, it's probably possible to beat it if you can kind of brainwash yourself, but I don't think that very many people could do that well enough to beat the machine. Hell, if they did do it well enough, they might not even believe that they were lying. At that point though, I think they would have other problems. See, the main advantage to lying is usually that you know you're doing it and the other party doesn't. That's not always the case, but then maybe the machine shouldn't be used in every case. In any event, when someone is accused of a crime and has to make up some kind of defense, I don't think they'll have time to come up with any truly good lie. People have to constantly reevaluate their lies to make sure they haven't missed something or that the lie doesn't need to be modified in light of some piece of evidence. I think the machine should detect that kind of thing. I think that makes it useful in a large number of cases.
I guess that's why the summary said that attorneys said this would be more useful for civil cases -- the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. However, you may not get that protection in civil suits.
They also say it could be useful for people who are innocent and want to prove it to the court. We could at least make a public request for the Enron guys to submit to the test, since they claim they are innocent. Then when they refuse, we can ridicule them further. It's not much, but I think those guys deserve every bit of ridicule we can lay on them. Lord knows the courts are horrible at punishing white-collar crime. That couple that put the finger in the Wendy's chili will probably do more time than any of the Enron guys.
You're not a good liar. When I lie, I rapidly convince myself that whatever I'm saying is the truth. Doublethink, basically. I make the falsehood real.
Well, submit yourself for testing. See if you can convince yourself faster than the machine can detect your brain activity. That might be entertaining:)
If the subject truly believes the response to a question regardless of it's validity, there's much you can do in the way of physical monitoring.
If the subject is telling you what they believe to be true, then they aren't lying. They may be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. This device is useful for detecting when someone is knowingly giving untrue responses. Seems to me it would be highly useful. I'd like to see the Enron execs hooked up to this thing for a little Q&A.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in a 4 minute piece. I'm sure if he had half an hour he'd love to do that for you. And I'd love to see him do it.
If you can't do an accurate piece in the allotted time, then pick another topic. Don't do some half-assed job that just spreads misinformation and FUD.
You forgot to add: The ability to transfer any text file to it for reading.
It's made by Sony, so it goes without saying that it will have some sort of draconian DRM scheme to make it next to useless.
I think their best bet is to become something of an all-around techno-hobbyist store. All the usual electronic components and radio equipment, as well as things like remote-control devices, robotics kits and parts, rocketry, etc. I think that's the area where they could really carve out a niche for themselves. People would start going there just to check out what they have, instead of being afraid that someone is gonna try to sell them a cell phone plan.
Having worked at several large companies (including a fortune 50 company), I can state from experience that many companies simply wouldn't know you attached an external drive to your machine, let alone an iPod!
Having worked in a few secure facilities, I can state from experience that you probably wouldn't make it into the building with such a device.
They spend time promoting these bands, out of 10 bands one makes it big
Yep, usually the one that can come up with enough payola money. They hedge and squirm and don't use that word anymore, but that's what they still do. There was an interesting thing on ABC a few nights ago about it. Yet another reason that the industry is beneath contempt. Maybe consider that and other of their illegal practices when you deliberate on the morality of the people running that industry. These are the same people that scream about the immorality of copyright infringment, or piracy if you're given to hyperbole. Kind of reminds me of the theif that gets injured breaking into someone's home, and then sues them for it. Really hate to see such people win.
There's plenty of places where running around with an external harddive would seem very suspicious (or an outright violation), but a music player is, well, just a music player, right?
In every secure area I've been in, any sort of external data-storing device is banned, unless you are given explicit permission to bring it in, or you have the proper credentials to be allowed to bring them in on your own (which subject you to a higher level of scrutiny). So, unless the security people and system admins are completely retarded, then yes, this is a non-issue.
What am I saying? People brought DRM upon themselves by acting like a bunch of thieves - they have proven time and again that they can't be trusted.
:)
But we're now supposed to trust the music industry? Which has been convicted of robbing its customers (price-fixing) twice now? We're supposed to trust Sony, who was hacking people's computers? We're supposed to trust Microsoft, who produces software that is not what I, or any sane person, would consider secure.
That is probably 99% of personal computer usage right there.
I think that's pretty ridiculous. Most people I know use their computers mostly for work, web-browsing, games, email, and finances. Yes, I know people that download music. Yes, it's copyright infringement. But I have a hard time seeing it as being all that wrong considering the kinds of practices that the entertainment industry engages in at the expense of their customers. People may not be able to explain it in 200 words or less, but they generally know when they're getting screwed. They've done it overtly through price-fixing and other such shenannigans, and covertly through lobbying for copyright extensions (read: government handouts at the expense of consumers). Nobody really punishes them, so I don't see why copyright infringers should be punished either. I consider it something like the invisible hand creating balance.
That's your own fault for running proprietary software that you have no control over.
Sad thing is, most people didn't think they were running anything. They thought they were just playing a CD in their computer. Not everyone understands what all is going on in their computer. Hackers will take advantage of that, even corporate hackers.
Besides, noone is suggesting that you should be FORCED to buy hardware, but in your example you are talking about forcing people to implant whatever tracking devices.
So basically you're saying that if I choose to work in a field that requires me to use a computer (which is just about any decent paying occupation these days), then I must submit to having my privacy invaded on a constant basis in order to pursue my career. Yeah, I'm not liking the sound of that. I give a rats ass if the entertainment industry thinks they have problems. They don't run the country, and I think that once the implications of their schemes sink in with the rest of the populace, the shit will truly hit the fan. Hollywood an the record industry get themselves on a lot of people's shit lists for one reason or another on a regular basis. They've gotten called before congress on more than a couple of occaisions because of that. I wonder what will happen when they're suddenly on everyone's shit list all at once. I'm thinking a rather severe congressional bitchslap. Sony may have screwed things up for them pretty good by getting caught hacking people's computers and invading their privacy, and thus providing precedent so that they can't claim that it won't happen. It already has. Once the DRM crap is in full swing, we won't even be able to know exactly what's happening. We won't have control over our own computers. I think there are enough people in this country that value their privacy (especially those with wealth and power), that they won't accept such a situation. I only hope I'm not being too optimistic here.
You seem to forget that his job isn't really mayor, but politician. It like freelance, you don't really get hired or fired, you just get a client and have to do what's necessary to keep that client.
I'll go ahead and assume you're being sarcastic, but you just highlighted what's wrong with our political system. Politicians care more about getting re-elected than actually doing their jobs. There's something wrong with a system when the incentives are so backwards as to produce the sort of corruption and waste that we see today.
If you take the time to read the FAQs and terms of use on the web site they acutally do tell you about their throttling practices.
Yeah, that's really wonderful of them.
"Join Netflix and get unlimited* rentals for just $17.99 a month!"
*Rentals not really unlimited. In fact it's stupid to even use that word. We're mostly just talking out our asses here.
Even something along those lines would be a lot better. It's deceptive advertising, plain and simple.
Uhhhh are you that naive that you don't get that a large part of politics is this type of bullshit? Look at Bush... Part of the job of being a public figure is to ... be a ... public figure.
Posing for pictures isn't a large part of his job, it's a large part of keeping your picture and name in everyone's mind so that hopefully you'll get re-elected. As far as I'm concerned, that crap should be done on his own time, not when he should be working. They should fire his ass.
See, I read those words, but the only thing that enters my mind is, "waaaaaah! waaaaaaaaaaaah! there's people who don't think like me! And enough other people who don't think like me voted for them that they hold high positions in the government! waaaaaaaah!"
Hmm.. who here needs to act like an adult? I simply said that they should pretend to deserve respect. The way our government has performed, and continues to perform, is simply unacceptable. Even a lot of the people who voted for Bush are pissed, as evidenced by his dwindling approval rating. What will we be left with when he leaves office? A mess in Iraq and an unbelievably huge deficit. This by the party that claims to be for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Hah!
You could at least pretend to have some respect for the other side.
Maybe the other side should at least pretend to be worthy of it.
Then people can put their money they earn IRL into the game to spend the same way they would if they were going to another country (or pull money out to buy their groceries).
Then the current farmers will find their jobs offshored to someplace cheaper so that the companies selling the game-money can undercut the current rate of the game company.
sounds like the war on drugs....
Not really. They aren't making nearly that much headway on that war. Maybe that's why they're starting a new one. Fresh start and all that. It'll be another 20-30 years or so before people really start questioning that one.
I might take Blizzard more seriously if they didn't themselves introduce real-life religious festivals into the games
Got a link?
You answer your own question - they take offense because they're homophobes.
They take offense at not being welcome in a guild that they would have absolutely no desire to join? That's like me being pissed that the Southern Baptist Orcs won't let me in their guild. It ain't gonna happen. I really wouldn't give a damn.
Are other such words, like "nigger" socially acceptable in such a context?
Only if you're black.
I know if I started an Asian-American friendly guild (but open to everyone), it's very likely someone's going to complain (especially with all the "CHINESE GOLD FARMER" racism that goes on). But an Australian-friendly guild recruitment would have no problem (and it's something I see quite regularly). In a popularity contest, any minority group is just going to lose. No, it's not quite racism/sexism/etc., but to the minorities, it certainly may *feel* like it.
Actually, it most certainly is racism/sexism/etc. It's just done for the sake of expediency and profit rather than out of hate/fear/etc. In some people's opinion, that makes it ok. For others, it doesn't matter what the reason is, descrimination is discrimination. If they aren't going to allow guilds based on religion, then they need to ban guilds of ALL religions. Same goes for any other category. Anything less is discrimination. Sure, they may be able to get away with it legally, but that doesn't make it right.
That was seriously one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. Thanks for that :)
That's useful for catching someone who doesn't have a story made up, or doesn't have a good one, but probably isn't really any harder to defeat than a polygraph. If you have your cover down and know it like your favourite book, your brain patterns aren't likely to give anything but normal memory recall.
Only a lot more testing will tell us for sure. I'm not saying that this thing is foolproof, or that the results it produces should be taken as gospel. It seems to be a step up from the polygraph though, and a 90% success rate isn't bad. Sure, it's probably possible to beat it if you can kind of brainwash yourself, but I don't think that very many people could do that well enough to beat the machine. Hell, if they did do it well enough, they might not even believe that they were lying. At that point though, I think they would have other problems. See, the main advantage to lying is usually that you know you're doing it and the other party doesn't. That's not always the case, but then maybe the machine shouldn't be used in every case. In any event, when someone is accused of a crime and has to make up some kind of defense, I don't think they'll have time to come up with any truly good lie. People have to constantly reevaluate their lies to make sure they haven't missed something or that the lie doesn't need to be modified in light of some piece of evidence. I think the machine should detect that kind of thing. I think that makes it useful in a large number of cases.
I guess that's why the summary said that attorneys said this would be more useful for civil cases -- the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. However, you may not get that protection in civil suits.
They also say it could be useful for people who are innocent and want to prove it to the court. We could at least make a public request for the Enron guys to submit to the test, since they claim they are innocent. Then when they refuse, we can ridicule them further. It's not much, but I think those guys deserve every bit of ridicule we can lay on them. Lord knows the courts are horrible at punishing white-collar crime. That couple that put the finger in the Wendy's chili will probably do more time than any of the Enron guys.
You're not a good liar. When I lie, I rapidly convince myself that whatever I'm saying is the truth. Doublethink, basically. I make the falsehood real.
:)
Well, submit yourself for testing. See if you can convince yourself faster than the machine can detect your brain activity. That might be entertaining
If the subject truly believes the response to a question regardless of it's validity, there's much you can do in the way of physical monitoring.
If the subject is telling you what they believe to be true, then they aren't lying. They may be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. This device is useful for detecting when someone is knowingly giving untrue responses. Seems to me it would be highly useful. I'd like to see the Enron execs hooked up to this thing for a little Q&A.