Clearly, since the tickets weren't being auctioned off, the primary seller is attempting to remove market pressures. If someone wants to give something away (such as selling tickets below market value), their ability to limit their gifts to one/person is paramount to that transaction being able to take place. Since the permissibility of scalping causes desired transactions not to be able to performed, we have to choose which type of transaction is allowed.
You're right, shitty implementations of no-fly lists are shitty. You don't need to do that. Hell, the no-fly list could be entirely photograph based with digital photography at security/checkin. Or better than my 10 seconds of thinking allows.
You're right that age/gender/ethnicity/etc needs to be part of the description.
I wasn't talking about the risk of knives or bats being used to hijack a plane. It's just pretty dangerous in a confined space with an inability of law enforcement to respond. Just like most nightclubs wouldn't let you bring a knife, gun, or bat in.
I agree with your first point; hence, the third paragraph in my post. Which said the same thing as your first paragraph.
But I disagree with your second paragraph. There are a lot of other safety measures that work. Israel has had a huge amount of success with behavior profiling and security through obscurity. Sky marshals are capable of bringing deadly force to bear. Magnometers seem like a reasonable precaution to stop people from bringing guns on planes and pulling a Columbine because they're sad. No-fly lists make perfect sense for people we're pretty sure about, but cannot convict.
but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them.
I don't know why they wouldn't have: TSA regulations at the time said anyone was allowed to.
So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.
Well, the first step when they forbid boxcutters, bats, scissors and darts made some sense. The rest, not as much.
Of course, you're right that a change in public attitude (and official hijack response doctrine) from "give the hijackers control" to "risk everyone onboards' lives to stop the hijacking" solves a huge number of problems. And common sense efforts by a few other people have closed the rest of the gaps.
Correct, it's not a problem for me. I mocked those "innovations" on the Mac OS and turn them off when I can. I really don't need transparent windows and 3d ripple effects. Hell, I find them annoying and would turn them off even if they required no resources.
But that's tangential to my point and you're going after the wrong issue. Because I wasn't talking about what I want. I was talking about why it was poorly received. And the reason it was poorly received was because they allowed people to ship computers that couldn't handle the software with it preloaded. Whether those computers should have been able to run it doesn't really matter, because when those computers were sold they couldn't.
I don't understand from the left side of American politics is how they pick these targets for political "assassination."
That's because you're trying to understand the motivations of a random phenomenon. Whatever story develops first tends to stick. I mean, "Gore exaggerated his importance" is a common story with no proof (I mean, he bragged, but factually). Dan Quayle cannot spell potatoe. Palin got picked on because she wasn't intelligent and had gotten promoted beyond her ability to deal. O'Donnell said a bunch of absolutely retarded things on camera. It's not "a Democratic plot to manipulate the media", it's "the media lazily going after low-hanging fruit".
. She came out saying your average Republican catch phrases, smaller governement, less taxes, etc. I still didn't see her as helping McCain all that much.
She portrayed herself as an expert on foreign affairs because Alaska is geographically close to Russia. She wasn't able to describe the Bush Doctrine. She gave embarrassingly inept interviews. And she may have cost McCain the election.
the left came out viciously against her, more so than they were against McCain.
Have you ever heard McCain speak? He's thoughtful. Look at some of the bills he sponsored and wrote. Listen to him speak (well, before and early in the election). The reason is because people respected McCain.
Her daughter's pregnant and unwed, how's that for Republican "values" for ya.
Yes, hypocrisy is a good story. That's why gay Democrats are openly gay, and gay Republicans get arrested in airport bathrooms. That's also why Republicans cheating on taxes get fined, but Democrats get stories written about them.
A duck is stupid. Therefore she's a witch!
For fuck's sake, she said she dabbled in witchcraft on TV. She was a moron.
Honestly, what are you going to find?
Her talking points, correspondence with the Governator, and more. But he was hoping to find definite proof she violated recordkeeping laws. I don't know if he did, but I do know that they brought out some crazy technical problem of multiple aliases on some devices merging or getting confused or something to explain the e-mails.
No really how is that different to someone hacking the email of the randomer next door or anyone else?
PR. When DAs care more about getting a conviction, they are less likely to plead out, and will devpte more resources to the trial. There's a lot more political pressure on the DA to convict when people care about the crime. And people cared about the crime because they cared about Sarah Palin.
the rest of them we should be coming up with ways to restore the loss to the victims of these crimes.
Or helping society. I tend to really think it's a strength of our system that the prosecutor is the state, not the person the crime was committed against. The person the crime was committed against should get restitution if applicable, but the person's punishment should benefit the state.
Sentence and felony status aren't connected in that way... now felonies tend to have longer sentences (usually misdemeanors are less than a year, by statute in some states, and felonies are strictly longer than a year), but whether something is a felony or not is determined by the jury. The judge coming along later has nothing to do with it.
Now, a year and a day may be the shortest sentence the judge can give for a crime. And considering the judge sentenced him to go to a halfway house, it seems reasonable to think the judge wasn't being an ass.
Do you think an email from another government official title "veep talking points" is personal?
Actually, kinda. I mean, it's not "personal" but it's not "government business". That is, the purpose of the official accounts are to conduct state business through. But her running for another office (or maybe even re-running for governor) is actually done as Sarah Palin(R) not Gov. Sarah Palin.
Hell, remember the hell Gore got in for using his office phone to make a call about his campaign?
I'm saying it was poorly received because their software has minimum requirements, and they allowed companies to sell their OS preloaded on machines that didn't. If you're saying "Vista was clearly bloated", sure. But the reason Vista was poorly received had nothing to do with the bloat. It had to do with the fact that it was installed on computers that couldn't handle the bloat.
Also, the timeframes are different. The MS phones launched on a Monday. Comparing that to an opening weekend or the first six months is ridiculous. Also, as you pointed out, they looked at the first smart phone on AT&T and then the first smart phone on T-mobile. That's a biased sample.
Heck, I was going to go to the store to see if my next phone was going to run iOS, Android or WM7 on Monday, but I won't have the time til this weekend.
Seriously, is there any reason to think that one of those is superior?
What are the reasons to think that? It's not like WP7 is the first or second of Microsoft's forays into phones -- just look at the aptly named WinCE or the recent Microsoft Kin flop.
They are exercising much more control over the hardware. Just like one of the main reasons Vista got a shit reputation was that it was put on insufficent hardware (and people hate dialogs that grey out the rest of the screen), this is the first phone that they actually make meet hardware specs.
Sony and MS both bought their way into the video game market.
Starting wars may also be good for the economy. But ending a war certainly leaves a huge amount of production capacity and accumulated capital to jump start the roaring twenties or a middle class expansion into suburbs.
Times when there has been a Republican Congress and a Democratic President:
For two years immediately following the Civil War.
From 1895-1897, a time marked by nationwide bank failures and a plummeting economy.
For two years immediately following WWI.
For two years immediately following WWII.
During most of the 90's, when there was this internet thing.
I think we can safely say that "ending wars" and "inventing radical new infrastructure" are good for the economy. The only time one of those wasn't happening, and there was a Republican Congress and Democratic President, the results were disastrous.
Microsoft was willing to share their source code. Apparently Google was not. I back the government getting a copy of the source code for bug fixes, etc.
Let me start by summarizing the differences in our opinions. My hypothesis is more young people watch MythBusters than watch the President. My further thought is that MythBusters sans Obama is more educational than MythBusters with Obama, given a) the repeated nature of the experiment, b) the mandatory social niceties/suck-upage.
Rather than recognizing the importance of any and all efforts to promote science and technology as interesting to kids and our citizenry in its own right, you would rather see the president fail and his appearance in support of such an effort become a political football.
I view this as more of Obama trying to drive up his own numbers, than help MythBusters, so I reject your claim that this promotes either science or technology. I certainly think the federal government should do more to promote it, but I think this will have no to negative impact.
What is truly sad is that the average American kid's education in math and science has fallen so far, that it now takes the President going on an entertainment-based "science" program to even get their interest.
The only thing more boring to an American kid than pure science is politics. And MythBusters makes science fun already, by breaking stuff, explosions and building a sailboat out of duct tape.
My own sense is that if the President does go on the show and this leads to just one kid growing up to make an important scientific discovery, it will be a far greater accomplishment than anything republicans have done in the past 20 years combined
Well, that's retarded. Assuming you grant that during times when the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress (as well as de facto control over the Supreme Court), think early 2002-2006ish here, you say that anything the federal government did was done by the Republicans, you have to admit that billions was doled out to scientists to continue all varieties of work. Now, assume that some kid out there really did care about Obama, but not science... yet was somehow gifted in science (hint, people tend to care about what they are prodigies at), and somehow that made him think "You know, if I cure cancer then I'll get to meet the President," and that made him cure cancer 30 years from now... that's a great result (absent the 30 years until the cure). At that point I'll apologize to you. But I really think what will happen differently from any other episode is a bunch of adults will tune in, watch one episode, and then talk about the politics of it. Probably on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News... time they should be devoted to the fact that a Bad Thing happened to a blond teenager!
They have the potential to make more than doctors, and I can't imagine anyone would argue that doctors contribute much more to society than lawyers ever could.
I would on a couple of grounds.
Lawyers can stop polluters (see Erin Brockovich). Surely the prevention of tens of thousands of people from getting cancer is more societally beneficial than treating the cancer of 1/10 of those cases after the fact. This can extend to other dangerous products. It's a natural outgrowth of refusing to let the government act as preemptive regulators, and instead privatizing the punishment of misdeeds.
Most of the time I've gone to see a doctor, it's to get standard bloodtests done or prescriptions written. I don't really think most doctors are worth their salaries. Of course, the antibiotics they control are worth the markup they add for their time.
Why exactly should they have to make any less than they do? Is there anti-competitive action in the market, besides the mandatory licensing (and corresponding expensive education)?
Well, a high initial investment is a limiting factor on competition, so that alone should be sufficient. Also, the fact that most contingency fees are at least 1/4, usually at least 1/3, is a form of price-fixing. Lastly, you have the conflict of interests (also inherent to doctors, etc.) where the person you are hiring to advise you on the purchase of a specialty item is also the vendor for that item, that is the cost of information makes free market conditions hard to achieve.
Also, you used the word "deserve". That creates a whole series of conditions that you have to prove. Was the transaction without duress (like the possibility of falsely going to prison)? Was the purchase fully informed (since the purchase was knowledge, it seems unlikely that the purchaser really could know everything about it)? Was the purchase made with money that the person had a valid claim to (start at the validity of their receipt, then recurse back through to original acquisition of land, etc. that were sold)? And that's just for a single transaction to be valid. You made a larger claim, that the lawyer "deserves" this money. Since more people want to be lawyers than are lawyers, or are admitted to law school, you have to demonstrate that this person "deserves" to be a lawyer. Which means defending the admission policies without which they would not have been admitted. So the validity of standardized testing (LSATs), the fairness of grading (e.g. the obscene grade inflation at Harvard), possibly race based/gender-based/need a football player or saxophonist based admission, and recurse through on admission to undergraduate school/elite high schools/etc.
It's a big claim to make that they "deserve" what they get. You probably want to restrict yourself to a results based "it is better for society to allow a free-floating price for legal services", which is a far easier case to make. A free (or rather fair) market has a lot of advantages, but moral deservedness is not one of them.
It seems to me if somethign wasn't shot in 3D, the conversion is going to be very bad.
Possibly. But then again Ted Turner made a fortune colorizing black and white movies. If Lucas has a technique, then showcasing it on Star Wars makes sense.
While I'm not a fan of this 3D trend overall and I think it'll be a passing fad
Until people get over it being a gimmick, it won't work. But people will get less impressed by just 3D, and it'll then start getting used for something interesting.
I can't see any way of making it anything else. The original films were shot with only one camera, there just isn't the stereoscopic data there.
Keep in mind that the original films were shot in 3D, and "3D" movies are really 4D. I've seen some amazing work (Microsoft Labs) at extracting the third spatial dimension from video, by measuring changing parallax on an object by object basis. I really hope this means tons of resources are going into machine vision.
Humans are the most arrogant idiotic species on the planet: we're so damn arrogant we actually think we can save species of animals from the normal course of change, e.g. extinction.
And we can.
We can talk about cost/benefit, although that almost entirely based on hard to define values (like the likelihood some species will be able to help cure a disease or convert waste to biofuel, and how predictable that would be.)
But seriously, we have a crazy amount of control over the planet. Why couldn't we save a species?
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly, since the tickets weren't being auctioned off, the primary seller is attempting to remove market pressures. If someone wants to give something away (such as selling tickets below market value), their ability to limit their gifts to one/person is paramount to that transaction being able to take place. Since the permissibility of scalping causes desired transactions not to be able to performed, we have to choose which type of transaction is allowed.
You're right, shitty implementations of no-fly lists are shitty. You don't need to do that. Hell, the no-fly list could be entirely photograph based with digital photography at security/checkin. Or better than my 10 seconds of thinking allows.
You're right that age/gender/ethnicity/etc needs to be part of the description.
I wasn't talking about the risk of knives or bats being used to hijack a plane. It's just pretty dangerous in a confined space with an inability of law enforcement to respond. Just like most nightclubs wouldn't let you bring a knife, gun, or bat in.
But you should. And update when you go out of town too.
I agree with your first point; hence, the third paragraph in my post. Which said the same thing as your first paragraph.
But I disagree with your second paragraph. There are a lot of other safety measures that work. Israel has had a huge amount of success with behavior profiling and security through obscurity. Sky marshals are capable of bringing deadly force to bear. Magnometers seem like a reasonable precaution to stop people from bringing guns on planes and pulling a Columbine because they're sad. No-fly lists make perfect sense for people we're pretty sure about, but cannot convict.
I don't know why they wouldn't have: TSA regulations at the time said anyone was allowed to.
Well, the first step when they forbid boxcutters, bats, scissors and darts made some sense. The rest, not as much.
Of course, you're right that a change in public attitude (and official hijack response doctrine) from "give the hijackers control" to "risk everyone onboards' lives to stop the hijacking" solves a huge number of problems. And common sense efforts by a few other people have closed the rest of the gaps.
Unopened doesn't mean unused. For instance, if you replace your vegetable crisper with phone books, your fridge can now hold a keg level.
Correct, it's not a problem for me. I mocked those "innovations" on the Mac OS and turn them off when I can. I really don't need transparent windows and 3d ripple effects. Hell, I find them annoying and would turn them off even if they required no resources.
But that's tangential to my point and you're going after the wrong issue. Because I wasn't talking about what I want. I was talking about why it was poorly received. And the reason it was poorly received was because they allowed people to ship computers that couldn't handle the software with it preloaded. Whether those computers should have been able to run it doesn't really matter, because when those computers were sold they couldn't.
That's because you're trying to understand the motivations of a random phenomenon. Whatever story develops first tends to stick. I mean, "Gore exaggerated his importance" is a common story with no proof (I mean, he bragged, but factually). Dan Quayle cannot spell potatoe. Palin got picked on because she wasn't intelligent and had gotten promoted beyond her ability to deal. O'Donnell said a bunch of absolutely retarded things on camera. It's not "a Democratic plot to manipulate the media", it's "the media lazily going after low-hanging fruit".
She portrayed herself as an expert on foreign affairs because Alaska is geographically close to Russia. She wasn't able to describe the Bush Doctrine. She gave embarrassingly inept interviews. And she may have cost McCain the election.
Have you ever heard McCain speak? He's thoughtful. Look at some of the bills he sponsored and wrote. Listen to him speak (well, before and early in the election). The reason is because people respected McCain.
Yes, hypocrisy is a good story. That's why gay Democrats are openly gay, and gay Republicans get arrested in airport bathrooms. That's also why Republicans cheating on taxes get fined, but Democrats get stories written about them.
For fuck's sake, she said she dabbled in witchcraft on TV. She was a moron.
Her talking points, correspondence with the Governator, and more. But he was hoping to find definite proof she violated recordkeeping laws. I don't know if he did, but I do know that they brought out some crazy technical problem of multiple aliases on some devices merging or getting confused or something to explain the e-mails.
PR. When DAs care more about getting a conviction, they are less likely to plead out, and will devpte more resources to the trial. There's a lot more political pressure on the DA to convict when people care about the crime. And people cared about the crime because they cared about Sarah Palin.
Or helping society. I tend to really think it's a strength of our system that the prosecutor is the state, not the person the crime was committed against. The person the crime was committed against should get restitution if applicable, but the person's punishment should benefit the state.
Sentence and felony status aren't connected in that way... now felonies tend to have longer sentences (usually misdemeanors are less than a year, by statute in some states, and felonies are strictly longer than a year), but whether something is a felony or not is determined by the jury. The judge coming along later has nothing to do with it.
Now, a year and a day may be the shortest sentence the judge can give for a crime. And considering the judge sentenced him to go to a halfway house, it seems reasonable to think the judge wasn't being an ass.
Actually, kinda. I mean, it's not "personal" but it's not "government business". That is, the purpose of the official accounts are to conduct state business through. But her running for another office (or maybe even re-running for governor) is actually done as Sarah Palin(R) not Gov. Sarah Palin.
Hell, remember the hell Gore got in for using his office phone to make a call about his campaign?
I'm saying it was poorly received because their software has minimum requirements, and they allowed companies to sell their OS preloaded on machines that didn't. If you're saying "Vista was clearly bloated", sure. But the reason Vista was poorly received had nothing to do with the bloat. It had to do with the fact that it was installed on computers that couldn't handle the bloat.
Also, the timeframes are different. The MS phones launched on a Monday. Comparing that to an opening weekend or the first six months is ridiculous. Also, as you pointed out, they looked at the first smart phone on AT&T and then the first smart phone on T-mobile. That's a biased sample.
Heck, I was going to go to the store to see if my next phone was going to run iOS, Android or WM7 on Monday, but I won't have the time til this weekend.
Seriously, is there any reason to think that one of those is superior?
They are exercising much more control over the hardware. Just like one of the main reasons Vista got a shit reputation was that it was put on insufficent hardware (and people hate dialogs that grey out the rest of the screen), this is the first phone that they actually make meet hardware specs.
Sony and MS both bought their way into the video game market.
Starting wars may also be good for the economy. But ending a war certainly leaves a huge amount of production capacity and accumulated capital to jump start the roaring twenties or a middle class expansion into suburbs.
That's a bullshit statistic.
Times when there has been a Republican Congress and a Democratic President:
I think we can safely say that "ending wars" and "inventing radical new infrastructure" are good for the economy. The only time one of those wasn't happening, and there was a Republican Congress and Democratic President, the results were disastrous.
Microsoft was willing to share their source code. Apparently Google was not. I back the government getting a copy of the source code for bug fixes, etc.
Let me start by summarizing the differences in our opinions. My hypothesis is more young people watch MythBusters than watch the President. My further thought is that MythBusters sans Obama is more educational than MythBusters with Obama, given a) the repeated nature of the experiment, b) the mandatory social niceties/suck-upage.
I view this as more of Obama trying to drive up his own numbers, than help MythBusters, so I reject your claim that this promotes either science or technology. I certainly think the federal government should do more to promote it, but I think this will have no to negative impact.
The only thing more boring to an American kid than pure science is politics. And MythBusters makes science fun already, by breaking stuff, explosions and building a sailboat out of duct tape.
Well, that's retarded. Assuming you grant that during times when the Republicans controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress (as well as de facto control over the Supreme Court), think early 2002-2006ish here, you say that anything the federal government did was done by the Republicans, you have to admit that billions was doled out to scientists to continue all varieties of work. Now, assume that some kid out there really did care about Obama, but not science... yet was somehow gifted in science (hint, people tend to care about what they are prodigies at), and somehow that made him think "You know, if I cure cancer then I'll get to meet the President," and that made him cure cancer 30 years from now... that's a great result (absent the 30 years until the cure). At that point I'll apologize to you. But I really think what will happen differently from any other episode is a bunch of adults will tune in, watch one episode, and then talk about the politics of it. Probably on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News... time they should be devoted to the fact that a Bad Thing happened to a blond teenager!
I would on a couple of grounds.
Lawyers can stop polluters (see Erin Brockovich). Surely the prevention of tens of thousands of people from getting cancer is more societally beneficial than treating the cancer of 1/10 of those cases after the fact. This can extend to other dangerous products. It's a natural outgrowth of refusing to let the government act as preemptive regulators, and instead privatizing the punishment of misdeeds.
Most of the time I've gone to see a doctor, it's to get standard bloodtests done or prescriptions written. I don't really think most doctors are worth their salaries. Of course, the antibiotics they control are worth the markup they add for their time.
Well, a high initial investment is a limiting factor on competition, so that alone should be sufficient. Also, the fact that most contingency fees are at least 1/4, usually at least 1/3, is a form of price-fixing. Lastly, you have the conflict of interests (also inherent to doctors, etc.) where the person you are hiring to advise you on the purchase of a specialty item is also the vendor for that item, that is the cost of information makes free market conditions hard to achieve.
Also, you used the word "deserve". That creates a whole series of conditions that you have to prove. Was the transaction without duress (like the possibility of falsely going to prison)? Was the purchase fully informed (since the purchase was knowledge, it seems unlikely that the purchaser really could know everything about it)? Was the purchase made with money that the person had a valid claim to (start at the validity of their receipt, then recurse back through to original acquisition of land, etc. that were sold)? And that's just for a single transaction to be valid. You made a larger claim, that the lawyer "deserves" this money. Since more people want to be lawyers than are lawyers, or are admitted to law school, you have to demonstrate that this person "deserves" to be a lawyer. Which means defending the admission policies without which they would not have been admitted. So the validity of standardized testing (LSATs), the fairness of grading (e.g. the obscene grade inflation at Harvard), possibly race based/gender-based/need a football player or saxophonist based admission, and recurse through on admission to undergraduate school/elite high schools/etc.
It's a big claim to make that they "deserve" what they get. You probably want to restrict yourself to a results based "it is better for society to allow a free-floating price for legal services", which is a far easier case to make. A free (or rather fair) market has a lot of advantages, but moral deservedness is not one of them.
Possibly. But then again Ted Turner made a fortune colorizing black and white movies. If Lucas has a technique, then showcasing it on Star Wars makes sense.
Until people get over it being a gimmick, it won't work. But people will get less impressed by just 3D, and it'll then start getting used for something interesting.
Keep in mind that the original films were shot in 3D, and "3D" movies are really 4D. I've seen some amazing work (Microsoft Labs) at extracting the third spatial dimension from video, by measuring changing parallax on an object by object basis. I really hope this means tons of resources are going into machine vision.
You mean a positive omen according to most cultures?
And we can.
We can talk about cost/benefit, although that almost entirely based on hard to define values (like the likelihood some species will be able to help cure a disease or convert waste to biofuel, and how predictable that would be.)
But seriously, we have a crazy amount of control over the planet. Why couldn't we save a species?