Did you really write "misunderstanding"? WTF? The plot allows that the U.S. was quite willing to sacrifice an airport full of Russians in order to maintain one operative's cover. Maybe it would have saved more lives had he succeeded, maybe not. But all those people would still be dead. The operative may not have planned the attack, but he sure helped execute it. Undercover or not, he was still culpable for his actions that day. Answer me this... since "only" ~2k people died on 9/11, if one of the Terrorists had been a Russian agent working to infiltrate a cell, and he succeeded and has, directly because of the success of 9/11, saved a million Russians, would the deaths on 9/11 have been worth it or not?
Actually, if you let the terrorists get far enough ahead of you then you can shoot them dead; but then the game stops and tells you that your mission failed because you're not supposed to shoot the bad guys. Your idea where you could you die trying to stop them is great as an American Terrorist body in the sky mall area of the airport would be just as good as a body at the end of the mission in terms of the plot line. I believe that this game has brought up wonderful questions, in a format for people who don't normally think of "philosophical" things. And I can imagine a new Meme where your sig tells what you did during your first run-through of the mission.
As far as the Russian Gov't? They'd best remember that they got into their current position because the Russian People can only put up with so much of being treated like their government's pawns. It's always possible that the Velvet Revolution isn't over yet, and it may yet turn even more violent that the occupation of Moscow back in '93.
I'm pretty sure that you're trolling, but you're a fun troll; not very inventive trolling mac users, but, well...
It fills this hole: if the hardware and software "just work", and that combination can save me about 2 hours over the lifetime of the computer, then it's paid for the cost difference already even if the price difference is a couple of hundred dollars. Depending on your calculated wage and the resulting opportunity cost, and depending on how much you enjoy messing with computers when they go south (an intangible + or -, but usually a positive factor here at/.), then your equation for what's reasonable changes. For you OS X may not fill any hole and would be stupid to buy. However, it's even more silly to think that your cost/benefit equation is the only one that makes sense in the whole world.
...except for all the reasonable people who have needs which do not change much, if at all, and for which almost any single vendor suits them. See, what you did there was take an proposition in which the operative word was "my" and conflate that with a proposition in which the operator is "any reasonable person". You are a specific case, accept that we're not all the same, acknowledge that people with needs other than yours are reasonable, and you'll see why your argument is rubbish.
I have a friend who only buys HP, my sister is still using a 9 year old Mac because it suits her just fine, at work we buy Dell and Apple, and I use a Mac since it will load any OS I care to and I can afford a new one if my needs change that drastically (and I enjoy the build quality in the meantime). All reasonable for their purpose. Cause they're tools; not every job requires a hammer, and a multi-tool sometimes sucks despite having the "tool for the job" on it because it's just not the full fledged thing.
The problem here is that both consumers and producers want value for their money/time spent, but neither have a good way to measure that value. Producers of copyright content want to get paid, but instead of always charging upfront for the total cost of production they want it to be paid over time; the problem has crept in where in hope of getting more and more money the time that they "require" for full payment had become too long to outweigh its possible benefits to the creator versus its toll on society as a whole. The consumer, OTOH, want to pay as little as possible for as much as possible. Now that content can be distributed so cheaply that most consider it "free", we've hit smack up against the creators wanting to get their payment over time as people won't keep paying. The solution? Patronage. Pay up front for creations which are societally valuable; either through NEA grants, or private co-operatives (like businesses) that pay for the production of a product and first release, then let the product be copied at will. The creator gets paid (maybe not what they'd like to get paid, but they can always find another job), and the consumer gets the price that they want. There would be a contracting effect on content creation in that it will drive out the people who are only in it for the money, but can't you tell when a product has been created out of love (Primer) rather than greed (*cough*Transformers*cough*)already ?
The measured value problem doesn't go away completely, but it's alleviated to a great degree. After all, right now people think that they get their music and movies for free and try to ignore (or get angry with) the deferred cost of worrying about prosecution for copyright violation, the cost of having their politicians bought by media interest groups that otherwise wouldn't have been motivated to buy so many congresscritters, and by the more and more draconian laws that are developed. As you pointed out above, people disconnect between the taxes they pay and what is purchased with that money. Everyone loves roads, but no one likes to pay tolls. And people really forget that they are voting every time they pay or don't pay for a product which they consume, when they ignore political debate, and even when they decide not to vote.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but their marketing research probably found that anyone who wanted to watch Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray probably couldn't figure out the menus and would return the disk after 2 minutes without explosions before the movie started.
Yeah, that was a joke, and it was funny for everyone except you.
It's not the driving in the middle of the road so much as it's the lack of turn signals, inability to read signs (especially the pictures that indicate that their lane is ending), and the fact that you can get plates for any vehicle no matter its road-worthiness in these states (If a cop catches you, he might mention that it's unsafe to drive without any fenders, but he might just ask if you're his cousin). And yeah, I live in one of those states. Believe it or not, it really is safer to drive in the middle out here. It gives you more escape routes to get away from the farm equipment when it turns suddenly into your lane from the field you're driving along. Also the Amish just HAD to make their slow-moving buggies black. That and the frakking deer. God, I hate this place.
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter if I could. This is why I won't go digital for books. Music, who cares if a note is changed very slightly? (ducks as the audiophiles here throw things) If I read a book, I want it to be as the author intended. I don't want synonyms, and I certainly don't want misspellings! The reason the printed word is so great, other than convenience, is that it's the same frakking thing no matter what copy you're using. It allows discourse based on common experience. Remove that and you're taking away the greatest legacy of the press.
Ok, now want to really get riled up? Is every variation covered by the one copyright? If it is, then can I write a sentence like "I've grown to hate Amazon" and automatically have a copyright to every variation of that sentence in any medium? Or, if this is based on the tech allowing the change to be made, if I write an infinite number of monkeys script and just let it run on a server somewhere, can I then have the copyright on any possible work? I mean, I'll have written the patentable software to generate it someday, right?
They're not plague diseases because antibiotics can take care of them. There will always be some number of cases of these diseases because, being treatable, they aren't worth the extra effort that would be required for complete eradication. Swine flu is dangerous more because of the hype surrounding it than due to the actual disease, yes, but christ, what are you on about? Everyone take a deep breath, wash their hands once in a while, and get about your day.
Also, why are they charging again? Don't they run commercials?
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
I already pay for internet service and a computer. That should be like paying for a TV and an antenna. Anything that people put out there should be "free" to the end user, paid for through ads, related (offline) services, or donations. Like broadcast TV, since running any type of website is just the online version of running a small radio or TV station, but cheaper.
You want me to pay? Make it NetFlix streaming quality and get rid of the commercials; but wait, NetFlix already does that... just with even older material. But at least they do it really, really well. Hey, Hulu, you want to really make money? Team up with NetFlix, combine your content, get rid of your commercials, keep the $10/month price, and you guys would be the only game anyone needs.
Google smoking and schizophrenia. For certain conditions the benefits of smoking may far outweigh the risk of cancer down the road. It's like driving in that sense; it makes sense for me to use a car to go to work because, while I could die, it's relatively safe and the benefits outweigh the risks. That analysis may be flopped for someone's 89 year old myopic grandmother's use of a car to get to bingo when her church group could get her there. Take if further, and some "normal" people may find that the beneficial feeling that they get from smoking is worth the risk to them. As long as I don't have to pay for their cancer treatment (eg tax them so they pre-pay for their future medical bills), it should be up to the individual what risks they want to take. And I am and have always been a non-smoker.
Uh, the way to "fix" this security flaw may be to remove JAVA and.NET (and that alone is a good joke in some crowds, maybe this one even), but for most people that'll cripple their browsing experience. It's one of those "We can stop the bleeding if we cut off his head!" type jokes.
It's socialized to the extent that when someone goes into a private hospital right now, and doesn't pay, I wind up paying more for my few simple services to make up the hospital's shortfall. Likewise, when someone goes into the hospital and my insurance company does pay, then I pay more in premiums to cover their costs. Medicare is socialized to the extent that everyone pays but only the old get to partake. There's a big difference between "socialized" and "socialist". Likewise the "big S" versions. Also, even if the gov't "owns" the hospitals, it still very much does matter who pays. In the end, we all do. No matter how doctors and hospitals are paid (for the record I back Obama's attempt at reform), true reform won't come until we begin to account for who uses what service, how much, and why. Once that accounting is made, then we can concentrate on reducing the cost through efficiencies, "incentivising" people to use only what they need, and working to make sure we all need less overall health care through preventative measures.
We currently pay in a socialist way. Laws like these, while crappy in execution, are based on the capitalist ideal that the people who use a service more should pay more for that service. If you eat crap, smoke, and drink to excess, your health will suffer in the long run. Right now I use about $100 a year in insurance (not a typo). How much does someone with lung cancer use? I'm willing to socialize the cost to an extent, but there's nothing wrong with a direct tax on the items that cost others more money down the road. I shouldn't have to pay for your bad habits, just mine.
There's a line between devil's advocate and troll. That line is clearly marked by by the answer to the question "does my argument make sense". If it does not make sense, then it's trolling. If you have valid points that even you may not agree with in the end, then it's playing devil's advocate. You don't make sense, so follow the syllogism.
You're right Google isn't to blame in this case. Not given the fact that the judge could have told the bank to suck it up, transfer the account to new numbers, and pay a fine to their customer for failing to live up to their security responsibilities. Instead he decided to punish the innocent people in this case. The bank screwed up, the bank should be held accountable. Anything less is yet another miscarriage of justice.
Before the people which you're trolling get here... 1) The department already exists, it was the head of that department who gave the speech; congress has nothing to do with it as it's already the law for the FCC to regulate communication lines and has been since its inception, oh, a hundred odd years ago. 2) The problem exists; denial ain't just a river in Egypt. DNS hijacking is just a tip of a very big iceberg if you care to look. 3) You have no idea what "behest" means; try not to use it until you do.
Heck, just mandate that CarFax has to give the gov't a report on your car every year... they're one case where a private company is way better at spying on your car already than the federal government could ever hope to be.
More like millions if you divide the population of just the U.S. by 83.
Just a back of the envelope thing here, but with ~350M U.S. residents and ~37K traffic deaths per year (using a low year, 2008), that works out to a 1/9,500 chance of dying in an auto accident in any given year in the U.S. With ~1200 airplane related deaths in the entire world per year...well, let's say that 2% of the world's population has the wherewithal to buy an airplane ticket; that leaves odds of 1/113,000. Now, you can argue over safety per mile, or safety per trip, but these numbers indicate that you're 12 times more likely to die in traffic than you are in the air.
For comparison, the odds of getting hit by lightening are around 1/500,000. The odds of winning the lottery often fall around 1/120,000,000. And the obligatory 1/57 of all statistics are complete fabrications.
Back to the direct topic at hand, however, and we need to separate out what we'd like to happen when we explore to what will happen...and what will happen is that people will die. As long as those people are smart enough to understand the risks, we should not only encourage them but we should fund them to take those risks for us all. I think that with a news cycle that makes a huge deal out of every lost kitten we've lost sight of the fact that living life entails risk. We accept some risk, or we don't live. Feels like we've stopped living since we're even having this discussion.
... and me without my mod points. So I'll chime in. Right now the CDC recommends NOT going to the doctor if you think you have the flu (why spread it at all? They can't give you anything for it.) Just stay at home, watch the fever, drink lots of fluids and rest. Call your doctor and get a remote diagnosis if you need it for work or school but otherwise just keep away from the healthy people!
I think you've just about nailed it. Computer's and OS's are now mature with the differences being mostly on the fringes. We've hit the point where computers are like cars; everyone's got one, and you buy (for home at least) based more on personal style than real differences. Now if MicroSoft would just wake up and sell their upgrades accordingly I wouldn't have to explain to friends that no-you-need-the-version- that's-$150-more-expensive to use the fax capabilities in your modem (is it me or is that like having to pay extra for a car with windshield wipers?). Apple did it right for a commercial OS by giving everyone the same thing and making the server version different mainly through the support you get for the cost. Ubuntu, of course, goes that one step further in that direction and makes all support ala carte so you really only pay for what you need help with. Interesting that it's the free OS that has the most market driven model (you pay only for what you use, in terms of support anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Did you really write "misunderstanding"? WTF? The plot allows that the U.S. was quite willing to sacrifice an airport full of Russians in order to maintain one operative's cover. Maybe it would have saved more lives had he succeeded, maybe not. But all those people would still be dead. The operative may not have planned the attack, but he sure helped execute it. Undercover or not, he was still culpable for his actions that day. Answer me this... since "only" ~2k people died on 9/11, if one of the Terrorists had been a Russian agent working to infiltrate a cell, and he succeeded and has, directly because of the success of 9/11, saved a million Russians, would the deaths on 9/11 have been worth it or not?
Actually, if you let the terrorists get far enough ahead of you then you can shoot them dead; but then the game stops and tells you that your mission failed because you're not supposed to shoot the bad guys. Your idea where you could you die trying to stop them is great as an American Terrorist body in the sky mall area of the airport would be just as good as a body at the end of the mission in terms of the plot line. I believe that this game has brought up wonderful questions, in a format for people who don't normally think of "philosophical" things. And I can imagine a new Meme where your sig tells what you did during your first run-through of the mission.
As far as the Russian Gov't? They'd best remember that they got into their current position because the Russian People can only put up with so much of being treated like their government's pawns. It's always possible that the Velvet Revolution isn't over yet, and it may yet turn even more violent that the occupation of Moscow back in '93.
I'm pretty sure that you're trolling, but you're a fun troll; not very inventive trolling mac users, but, well...
It fills this hole: if the hardware and software "just work", and that combination can save me about 2 hours over the lifetime of the computer, then it's paid for the cost difference already even if the price difference is a couple of hundred dollars. Depending on your calculated wage and the resulting opportunity cost, and depending on how much you enjoy messing with computers when they go south (an intangible + or -, but usually a positive factor here at /.), then your equation for what's reasonable changes. For you OS X may not fill any hole and would be stupid to buy. However, it's even more silly to think that your cost/benefit equation is the only one that makes sense in the whole world.
...except for all the reasonable people who have needs which do not change much, if at all, and for which almost any single vendor suits them. See, what you did there was take an proposition in which the operative word was "my" and conflate that with a proposition in which the operator is "any reasonable person". You are a specific case, accept that we're not all the same, acknowledge that people with needs other than yours are reasonable, and you'll see why your argument is rubbish.
I have a friend who only buys HP, my sister is still using a 9 year old Mac because it suits her just fine, at work we buy Dell and Apple, and I use a Mac since it will load any OS I care to and I can afford a new one if my needs change that drastically (and I enjoy the build quality in the meantime). All reasonable for their purpose. Cause they're tools; not every job requires a hammer, and a multi-tool sometimes sucks despite having the "tool for the job" on it because it's just not the full fledged thing.
The problem here is that both consumers and producers want value for their money/time spent, but neither have a good way to measure that value. Producers of copyright content want to get paid, but instead of always charging upfront for the total cost of production they want it to be paid over time; the problem has crept in where in hope of getting more and more money the time that they "require" for full payment had become too long to outweigh its possible benefits to the creator versus its toll on society as a whole. The consumer, OTOH, want to pay as little as possible for as much as possible. Now that content can be distributed so cheaply that most consider it "free", we've hit smack up against the creators wanting to get their payment over time as people won't keep paying. The solution? Patronage. Pay up front for creations which are societally valuable; either through NEA grants, or private co-operatives (like businesses) that pay for the production of a product and first release, then let the product be copied at will. The creator gets paid (maybe not what they'd like to get paid, but they can always find another job), and the consumer gets the price that they want. There would be a contracting effect on content creation in that it will drive out the people who are only in it for the money, but can't you tell when a product has been created out of love (Primer) rather than greed (*cough*Transformers*cough*)already ?
The measured value problem doesn't go away completely, but it's alleviated to a great degree. After all, right now people think that they get their music and movies for free and try to ignore (or get angry with) the deferred cost of worrying about prosecution for copyright violation, the cost of having their politicians bought by media interest groups that otherwise wouldn't have been motivated to buy so many congresscritters, and by the more and more draconian laws that are developed. As you pointed out above, people disconnect between the taxes they pay and what is purchased with that money. Everyone loves roads, but no one likes to pay tolls. And people really forget that they are voting every time they pay or don't pay for a product which they consume, when they ignore political debate, and even when they decide not to vote.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but their marketing research probably found that anyone who wanted to watch Transformers 2 on Blu-Ray probably couldn't figure out the menus and would return the disk after 2 minutes without explosions before the movie started.
Yeah, that was a joke, and it was funny for everyone except you.
Because no one's paying for that.
It's not the driving in the middle of the road so much as it's the lack of turn signals, inability to read signs (especially the pictures that indicate that their lane is ending), and the fact that you can get plates for any vehicle no matter its road-worthiness in these states (If a cop catches you, he might mention that it's unsafe to drive without any fenders, but he might just ask if you're his cousin). And yeah, I live in one of those states. Believe it or not, it really is safer to drive in the middle out here. It gives you more escape routes to get away from the farm equipment when it turns suddenly into your lane from the field you're driving along. Also the Amish just HAD to make their slow-moving buggies black. That and the frakking deer. God, I hate this place.
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter if I could. This is why I won't go digital for books. Music, who cares if a note is changed very slightly? (ducks as the audiophiles here throw things) If I read a book, I want it to be as the author intended. I don't want synonyms, and I certainly don't want misspellings! The reason the printed word is so great, other than convenience, is that it's the same frakking thing no matter what copy you're using. It allows discourse based on common experience. Remove that and you're taking away the greatest legacy of the press.
Ok, now want to really get riled up? Is every variation covered by the one copyright? If it is, then can I write a sentence like "I've grown to hate Amazon" and automatically have a copyright to every variation of that sentence in any medium? Or, if this is based on the tech allowing the change to be made, if I write an infinite number of monkeys script and just let it run on a server somewhere, can I then have the copyright on any possible work? I mean, I'll have written the patentable software to generate it someday, right?
They're not plague diseases because antibiotics can take care of them. There will always be some number of cases of these diseases because, being treatable, they aren't worth the extra effort that would be required for complete eradication. Swine flu is dangerous more because of the hype surrounding it than due to the actual disease, yes, but christ, what are you on about? Everyone take a deep breath, wash their hands once in a while, and get about your day.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
I already pay for internet service and a computer. That should be like paying for a TV and an antenna. Anything that people put out there should be "free" to the end user, paid for through ads, related (offline) services, or donations. Like broadcast TV, since running any type of website is just the online version of running a small radio or TV station, but cheaper.
You want me to pay? Make it NetFlix streaming quality and get rid of the commercials; but wait, NetFlix already does that... just with even older material. But at least they do it really, really well. Hey, Hulu, you want to really make money? Team up with NetFlix, combine your content, get rid of your commercials, keep the $10/month price, and you guys would be the only game anyone needs.
Google smoking and schizophrenia. For certain conditions the benefits of smoking may far outweigh the risk of cancer down the road. It's like driving in that sense; it makes sense for me to use a car to go to work because, while I could die, it's relatively safe and the benefits outweigh the risks. That analysis may be flopped for someone's 89 year old myopic grandmother's use of a car to get to bingo when her church group could get her there. Take if further, and some "normal" people may find that the beneficial feeling that they get from smoking is worth the risk to them. As long as I don't have to pay for their cancer treatment (eg tax them so they pre-pay for their future medical bills), it should be up to the individual what risks they want to take. And I am and have always been a non-smoker.
Uh, the way to "fix" this security flaw may be to remove JAVA and .NET (and that alone is a good joke in some crowds, maybe this one even), but for most people that'll cripple their browsing experience. It's one of those "We can stop the bleeding if we cut off his head!" type jokes.
Thanks for the laugh. I'm not sure that the guy who modded you "informative" really got that one though.
It's socialized to the extent that when someone goes into a private hospital right now, and doesn't pay, I wind up paying more for my few simple services to make up the hospital's shortfall. Likewise, when someone goes into the hospital and my insurance company does pay, then I pay more in premiums to cover their costs. Medicare is socialized to the extent that everyone pays but only the old get to partake. There's a big difference between "socialized" and "socialist". Likewise the "big S" versions. Also, even if the gov't "owns" the hospitals, it still very much does matter who pays. In the end, we all do. No matter how doctors and hospitals are paid (for the record I back Obama's attempt at reform), true reform won't come until we begin to account for who uses what service, how much, and why. Once that accounting is made, then we can concentrate on reducing the cost through efficiencies, "incentivising" people to use only what they need, and working to make sure we all need less overall health care through preventative measures.
We currently pay in a socialist way. Laws like these, while crappy in execution, are based on the capitalist ideal that the people who use a service more should pay more for that service. If you eat crap, smoke, and drink to excess, your health will suffer in the long run. Right now I use about $100 a year in insurance (not a typo). How much does someone with lung cancer use? I'm willing to socialize the cost to an extent, but there's nothing wrong with a direct tax on the items that cost others more money down the road. I shouldn't have to pay for your bad habits, just mine.
There's a line between devil's advocate and troll. That line is clearly marked by by the answer to the question "does my argument make sense". If it does not make sense, then it's trolling. If you have valid points that even you may not agree with in the end, then it's playing devil's advocate. You don't make sense, so follow the syllogism.
You're right Google isn't to blame in this case. Not given the fact that the judge could have told the bank to suck it up, transfer the account to new numbers, and pay a fine to their customer for failing to live up to their security responsibilities. Instead he decided to punish the innocent people in this case. The bank screwed up, the bank should be held accountable. Anything less is yet another miscarriage of justice.
You would expect it, which is why free-market capitalism fails. Most people aren't smart enough to act in their own best interest.
Before the people which you're trolling get here... 1) The department already exists, it was the head of that department who gave the speech; congress has nothing to do with it as it's already the law for the FCC to regulate communication lines and has been since its inception, oh, a hundred odd years ago. 2) The problem exists; denial ain't just a river in Egypt. DNS hijacking is just a tip of a very big iceberg if you care to look. 3) You have no idea what "behest" means; try not to use it until you do.
Heck, just mandate that CarFax has to give the gov't a report on your car every year... they're one case where a private company is way better at spying on your car already than the federal government could ever hope to be.
More like millions if you divide the population of just the U.S. by 83.
Just a back of the envelope thing here, but with ~350M U.S. residents and ~37K traffic deaths per year (using a low year, 2008), that works out to a 1/9,500 chance of dying in an auto accident in any given year in the U.S. With ~1200 airplane related deaths in the entire world per year...well, let's say that 2% of the world's population has the wherewithal to buy an airplane ticket; that leaves odds of 1/113,000. Now, you can argue over safety per mile, or safety per trip, but these numbers indicate that you're 12 times more likely to die in traffic than you are in the air.
For comparison, the odds of getting hit by lightening are around 1/500,000. The odds of winning the lottery often fall around 1/120,000,000. And the obligatory 1/57 of all statistics are complete fabrications.
Back to the direct topic at hand, however, and we need to separate out what we'd like to happen when we explore to what will happen...and what will happen is that people will die. As long as those people are smart enough to understand the risks, we should not only encourage them but we should fund them to take those risks for us all. I think that with a news cycle that makes a huge deal out of every lost kitten we've lost sight of the fact that living life entails risk. We accept some risk, or we don't live. Feels like we've stopped living since we're even having this discussion.
... and me without my mod points. So I'll chime in. Right now the CDC recommends NOT going to the doctor if you think you have the flu (why spread it at all? They can't give you anything for it.) Just stay at home, watch the fever, drink lots of fluids and rest. Call your doctor and get a remote diagnosis if you need it for work or school but otherwise just keep away from the healthy people!
I think you've just about nailed it. Computer's and OS's are now mature with the differences being mostly on the fringes. We've hit the point where computers are like cars; everyone's got one, and you buy (for home at least) based more on personal style than real differences. Now if MicroSoft would just wake up and sell their upgrades accordingly I wouldn't have to explain to friends that no-you-need-the-version- that's-$150-more-expensive to use the fax capabilities in your modem (is it me or is that like having to pay extra for a car with windshield wipers?). Apple did it right for a commercial OS by giving everyone the same thing and making the server version different mainly through the support you get for the cost. Ubuntu, of course, goes that one step further in that direction and makes all support ala carte so you really only pay for what you need help with. Interesting that it's the free OS that has the most market driven model (you pay only for what you use, in terms of support anyway).
Haven't there been a couple of discussions already this year regarding people who try to scam stores and warrantee service?