i know relatively few people who would ever buy haute fashion (that being an economically illiterate decision), but i know of at least one and she would not fit your point of view: if her next Louis Vuitton bag fell apart i'm confident she would return it and/or stop buying. maybe she's an exception, but she's the only data point i have.
personally, i despise branding of any sort. if i like a product well enough to recommend it, i will. (and the channel bags with a bunch of 'C's all over them are the height of ugly imo, making the decision to buy that much stranger to me.)
you are presupposing quality - which is imbued by people other than her.
all those sales would turn to returns and permanently tarnish her brand if her company's products started falling apart due to poor quality resulting from her treating her subordinates like dogs or interchangeable parts.
The throngs of people could be replaced by robots; the designer can't.
and where do robots come from? a designer? who uses robots rather than throngs of people? is it robots all the way down?
besides i like the idea of replacing designers. it doesn't take a design genius to design the concrete monstrosities that have passed for contemporary architecture for the past 30 years. but here's an example of algorithmic design.
how about a heads-up display on the windshield (which one could also use for other things, like speedometer, etc.) then put a pressure-based chorded keyboard in the steering wheel. eyes are on the road. hands are on the wheel. when something changes wrt road or traffic conditions you are able to notice and react to it quickly. kinda like has been really effective for military aircraft for quite some time now.
make them bluetooth peripherals for your phone and viola, *safer* texting. it recognizes that people will do it and allows the behavior in the safest manner possible.
Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen have a long and strange history together. Both were convicted of felonies relating to computer hacking: Poulsen in 1994 (when he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, ironically because a friend turned government informant on him), and Lamo in 2004 for hacking into The New York Times. When the U.S. Government was investigating Lamo in 2003, they subpoenaed news agencies for any documents reflecting conversations not only with Lamo, but also with Poulsen. That's because Lamo typically sought media publicity after his hacking adventures, and almost always used Poulsen to provide that publicity.
And Poulsen is the author of the latest piece on wikileaks. I smell a rat. Not that Assange isn't a jerk. Clearly he is. But there are far bigger egos in the news editing business than his. You don't see stories about their tirades and autocratic impulses that often.
I think it'd be better to get wikileaks news elsewhere, given that the Wired well appears to have been poisoned.
The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible. . . ..If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election.
At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.
AI is still crap, it seems. i'll stick with prior civs i already have, thanks.
Diplomacy is hit-and-miss. You'll often have multiple opposing AIs perform the exact same action at the same time. Sometimes it's offers for cooperation or trade agreements. Sometimes it's threats and war. Occasionally it seems like the AI massively overestimates your military capacity, and tries to buy peace from you for much, much more than you would accept. Conversely, proposing a trade is often futile, as they tend to make much higher demands than are reasonable. In a game with several strong opponents, these events can balance out, but other times it will make the game impossible to win or impossible to lose. Oh, and Montezuma's still a jerk.
For someone who is color blind and can't differentiate red and blue, then they will perceive the color arriving at each eye to be the same. For them, the 3D effect will be even better.
so you're claiming that there are some for whom red/blue "3d" doesn't suck? because i'm pretty sure it sucks universally.
p.s. what i'm really hearing is that the next Hubble should be a binocular telescope.
"winding down" here having the value of:s/US military/mercenaries/g oh, i'm sorry we call mercs "security consultants" these days. i almost missed that memo.
we haven't had a declared war in 60 years, so it's kinda hard to draw those lines anymore. i know you were trying to reductio the GP, but instead you look foolish for not considering that the MIC was happy to supply the arms for the not war.
and to think those of us who objected to PATRIOT, state fusion centers, and the rest of the expansion of the surveillance / police state were called wingnuts: after all, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, and so what's the harm in letting the government spy on you? oh wait. and to think that this is merely the tip of the police state iceberg. i foresee far darker days ahead on our society's current path.
i think hands-off regulation is acceptable, like the ownership, owners also owning industrial concerns, etc. but not direct editorial control. that's as good as having no media, just a bigger propaganda arm of the government. then how does one even come to know of the government's abuses? look at pravda and xinhua and their past history. look at North Korea's "media".
i also think that individual action is needed, and that wikileaks and charity-driven groups like propublica are crucial to a news renaissance. http://www.propublica.org/about
but that's supply side thinking. we need to find a way to up the demand for news as facts rather than polemic.
independent like the federal court system which used to review classified submissions in camera, ex parte? sorry, but Bush and Obama put the kaibash on that safety valve.
i'm glad someone on the inside gives a hoot, but there are far too many who aren't just over cautious, but maliciously or cravenly overclassify. even things that had been in the public domain for years:
The briefing book that the Archive published today includes 50 year old documents that CIA had impounded at NARA but which have already been published in the State Department's historical series, Foreign Relations of the United States, or have been declassified elsewhere. These documents concern such innocuous matters as the State Department's map and foreign periodicals procurement programs on behalf of the U.S. intelligence community or the State Department's open source intelligence research efforts during 1948.
Other documents have apparently been sequestered because they were embarrassing, such as a complaint from the Director of Central Intelligence about the bad publicity the CIA was receiving from its failure to predict anti-American riots in Bogota, Colombia in 1948 or a report that the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community badly botched their estimates as to whether or not Communist China would intervene in the Korean War in the fall of 1950. It is difficult to imagine how the documents cited by Aid could cause any harm to U.S. national security.
Slashdot Mirror
i know relatively few people who would ever buy haute fashion (that being an economically illiterate decision), but i know of at least one and she would not fit your point of view: if her next Louis Vuitton bag fell apart i'm confident she would return it and/or stop buying. maybe she's an exception, but she's the only data point i have.
personally, i despise branding of any sort. if i like a product well enough to recommend it, i will. (and the channel bags with a bunch of 'C's all over them are the height of ugly imo, making the decision to buy that much stranger to me.)
you are presupposing quality - which is imbued by people other than her.
all those sales would turn to returns and permanently tarnish her brand if her company's products started falling apart due to poor quality resulting from her treating her subordinates like dogs or interchangeable parts.
and where do robots come from? a designer? who uses robots rather than throngs of people? is it robots all the way down?
besides i like the idea of replacing designers. it doesn't take a design genius to design the concrete monstrosities that have passed for contemporary architecture for the past 30 years. but here's an example of algorithmic design.
http://www.oberlin.edu/math/faculty/bosch/tspart-page.html
see... designers are replaceable with robots (or mathematicians).
how about a heads-up display on the windshield (which one could also use for other things, like speedometer, etc.) then put a pressure-based chorded keyboard in the steering wheel. eyes are on the road. hands are on the wheel. when something changes wrt road or traffic conditions you are able to notice and react to it quickly. kinda like has been really effective for military aircraft for quite some time now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heads_up_display
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard
make them bluetooth peripherals for your phone and viola, *safer* texting. it recognizes that people will do it and allows the behavior in the safest manner possible.
if you build it, they will come.
but they are, unfortunately, an interested party:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks
And Poulsen is the author of the latest piece on wikileaks. I smell a rat. Not that Assange isn't a jerk. Clearly he is. But there are far bigger egos in the news editing business than his. You don't see stories about their tirades and autocratic impulses that often.
I think it'd be better to get wikileaks news elsewhere, given that the Wired well appears to have been poisoned.
to too many of us, the state/president is our religion, and they worship it unthinkingly, no matter its actions or their hypocrisy.
as pointed out by greenwald yet again:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/28/obama/index.html
Obama in Rolling Stone:
compare against:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html
AI is still crap, it seems. i'll stick with prior civs i already have, thanks.
Plus, they needed a money pit (big hole) with a money pit (big facility) to put their money pit (supercomputer) in.
err... yeah. change that first line to "had been"
would you prefer it hadn't been found and exposed so it can be fixed?
or would you prefer that unknown criminals were the ones exploiting it fraudulently?
because with a latent bug like this, those are the choices.
And so is Springfield. Even with those insane taxes, Illinois is so deep in the red that vendors are halting services after months of non-payment.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/illinois-careens-towards-bankruptcy.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/illinois-doesnt-pay-bills-crisis-pushes.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/illinois-leaps-ahead-of-california-in.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/shared-sacrifice-illinois-style-40000.html
"C is for cookie. That's good enough for me."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye8mB6VsUHw
"Oh! Cookie! Cookie! Cookie starts with C."
all our kids need to know about internet privacy at an early age.
don't tell me, tell the GP.
so increase the distance between them?
use our experience with the mars rovers and protocols like NTP to coordinate them?
so you're claiming that there are some for whom red/blue "3d" doesn't suck? because i'm pretty sure it sucks universally.
p.s. what i'm really hearing is that the next Hubble should be a binocular telescope.
"winding down" here having the value of :s/US military/mercenaries/g
oh, i'm sorry we call mercs "security consultants" these days. i almost missed that memo.
we haven't had a declared war in 60 years, so it's kinda hard to draw those lines anymore. i know you were trying to reductio the GP, but instead you look foolish for not considering that the MIC was happy to supply the arms for the not war.
delicious. trolling accusations of cowardice from the AC.
and to think those of us who objected to PATRIOT, state fusion centers, and the rest of the expansion of the surveillance / police state were called wingnuts: after all, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, and so what's the harm in letting the government spy on you? oh wait. and to think that this is merely the tip of the police state iceberg. i foresee far darker days ahead on our society's current path.
i think hands-off regulation is acceptable, like the ownership, owners also owning industrial concerns, etc. but not direct editorial control. that's as good as having no media, just a bigger propaganda arm of the government. then how does one even come to know of the government's abuses? look at pravda and xinhua and their past history. look at North Korea's "media".
i also think that individual action is needed, and that wikileaks and charity-driven groups like propublica are crucial to a news renaissance. http://www.propublica.org/about
but that's supply side thinking. we need to find a way to up the demand for news as facts rather than polemic.
independent like the federal court system which used to review classified submissions in camera, ex parte? sorry, but Bush and Obama put the kaibash on that safety valve.
i'm glad someone on the inside gives a hoot, but there are far too many who aren't just over cautious, but maliciously or cravenly overclassify. even things that had been in the public domain for years:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB179/
if they hadn't released raw data... then this wouldn't have been possible:
http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pec/johno/afpak/docs/OLoughlin_Wiki.pdf
i hear you. i'm convinced that every year Cronkite turns in his grave when the Cronkite award is given to some ideologue schmuck.