Does anyone else see this as an attempt to make an issue out of a non-issue? Games are marketed towards guys because guys make up the vast majority of the gaming market. Why don't they target the elderly with hiphop music? Becuase its more cost effective to target the younger crowd.
Men drive more than women, too. Should we not market cars towards women?
As it turns out, women are increasing their Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) far faster than men. It's an untapped market, not a non-existent one. As a result, a majority of cars are marketed towards women more than men these days.
Elderly people like *different* music than young people. There are plenty of music collections targeted at them (fewer, perhaps, but they don't tend to be as consumerist overall). The number of computer games targeted at women, however, is only recently starting to become a positive integer. And since it's an untapped market, there's potential for great success. Unfortunately, since it's also an unknown market, there's still guys fumbling around trying to work out what women want from games, and failing pretty miserably with it.
Game companies should be sponsoring scholarships for female computer science and interface design majors, seriously. They *need* it.
Similarily, the best female Counterstrikers can undoubtedly beat the average male. They can however in general NOT hold their own against the *best* male players, and that's what they have to do to avoid getting crushed in competitions.
There's something you're forgetting about the dynamics of women entering male-dominated competition.
Generally, they're not well-received. So while a guy who's "good" might get into a professional clan just fine (even if it's not one of the best), a woman is not even going to pursue membership in a professional clan unless she's VERY good. Therefore, the "average" woman competing at this level is probably quite a bit better than the "average" man competing at the same level.
Reminds me of when I used to play Magic with a group of guys I knew.
We'd play these big 5 or 6-person games, and I'd often win or come in second. Why? Because they spent the first half of the game beating each other up, while I just would stock up land and get my creatures out. Then, when they noticed I was still there and at 20 health, they were all down quite a bit.
It's not that women are crafty. We don't have to be when it comes to male egos.;-)
Actually, that is not entirely true. A guy can be receiving a blowjob, using the computer, eating a slice of pizza, and drinking a beer, all at the same time. A woman would have to sit there and concentrate while getting head, and would not be able to do anything simultaneously.
One other difference, though: the woman is getting hers from a real live partner. The guy who's eating pizza, drinking beer, and using the computer while getting a blowjob is using one of those silicone molds of some porn star's mouth.
When *I* give a blowjob, I expect undivided attention. Whether or not my partner considers it "necessary."
CONTROL: For hours played per week, number of years spent playing video games, and equipment.
For women who really like FPS games (I'm not one of them... I'll stick to MMOGs, thanks) these factors are still going to make a difference. My husband and ex-husband both practically grew up on strafing and turning. Me, I could learn, but it would take me a while, and having years of experience synchronizing the mouse and keyboard is a definite advantage, even if there's no "innate" advantage.
The one I got in July 1998? Hardly. The cop was more than generous; they made sure it was low enough that I could go to traffic school. Of course, I was white and female.
I know quite a few cops and people just love to cling on to the image of corrupt cops from TV. most cops are cops because they do want to make a difference. They want the world to be safer.
Which is why they use the dropsy method to arrest people that they, in their heart, know should be behind bars. They may be right. It's still illegal and unethical for them to do it.
They don't all do it, but it is a pretty common practice, especially in large urban areas.
how many cops do you know personally?
It matters exactly how that I only know two or three cops personally? Analysis of our legal and law enforcement systems isn't necessarily helped or hindered by this bias.
How many "criminals" do you know personally? By that I mean people who have done jail or prison time, whether or not they actually committed a crime. Is that relevant to your perceptions of the criminal justice system? Why or why not?
Well, I do guess the US aren't forcing other countries to sell them goods? Maybe the US actually pay for the goods they import? We trade on the open market because both parties actually benefit from it.
1) This is irrelevant, since my point in the other post was that no, most of our consumption isn't being bought up by other countries.
2) The trade deficit *does* hurt us, and doesn't always benefit our trade partners. It's a drain on our economy in several ways, mostly because stuff that used to be manufactured here, by Americans, is manufactured overseas where it's cheaper. We lose jobs, people overseas often end up in exploitative work environments, and the only people who benefit are the companies that are making lots of money off the deal.
I don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car, I don't need to be an astronomer or astrophysicist to look through a telescope, and I shouldn't have to be a network security expert just to surf the web and send & receive email.
Well, think about it for a second.
When you learned to drive a car, you probably knew a little about it. There's an engine, it burns gas, that causes the wheels to go around. The gas pedal must have something to do with that burn rate. The brake makes the wheels stop.
Now, imagine that we all treated that "under the hood" as a black box, and that typical people commonly confused the engine with the carburetor. Some cars would even come with holographic stickers closing the hood shut, so you couldn't open it without voiding the warranty. When someone teaches you to drive a car, they say:
"Turn that key. Now, press in this button and move this lever until it clicks four times. Turn the wheel about 60 degrees, and slowly press on the right pedal. Turn the wheel back 60 degrees, but slowly... SLOWLY! See, you almost ran into that car! Now give it a little more gas... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to fall into jargon. Press harder on that right pedal. Use the big one on the left when we get to that white line on the pavement up there."
This is how people are taught to use computers. Click this, press that, drag here, type there. Meanwhile, when the computer tells them it's running out of memory, they start deleting stuff from their hard drive to free up space, because they don't know the difference between RAM and the C: drive.
If we (meaning, those of us who know this stuff) all took a different tack, instead of teaching people procedurally how to get through a particular function or application, we might have a much easier time educating folks about not running trojans. But as long as we (again, speaking to the community that has the knowledge) keep acting like people can't and shouldn't be taught this stuff in the way that we learn EVERYTHING ELSE, we'll keep having this problem.
Ok fine, what if someday, a student doing research in microbiology decides, just for the sake or fine arts, I'll release a mutant plague bacteria...
If you RTFA (which I did the first time it was posted, but haven't the two times since), you'd know that it goes more like this: these virus writers are artists in the same way that microbiology student is a scientist. *Neither* has the goal of releasing their creations into the wild. However, *both* create things which are subject to abuse by others. The teenage virus writers are a bit more, er, stupid about it maybe (publishing their code), but then again, the microbio student will have a decent career when she graduates.
shows that he has little clue about the fact, that typography is about designing thing containg text in such a way, that makes them aesthetically pleasing.
The question now is, of course, what have I screwed up?:-)
Try...
"shows that he has little clue about the fact that 'typography' is about designing things containing text, in such a way as to make them aesthetically pleasing."
The comma is still awkward, but it's a little better now. The entire sentence should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, but I'll leave that for someone else.
Much of that consumption is used in building things that end up in other countries anyway.
Ever heard of the trade deficit?
The southwestern US is the only segment that exports more than it imports (and almost all of that is in Southern California). Most of the US is buying stuff up from other countries much faster than they are producing it for them.
I have plenty of hate for the police as well, but you can't blame them when someone gets caught stealing or selling crack.
No.
You also can't blame them when the laws for stealing or selling crack are way out of line compared to the laws for stealing or selling cocaine (though you can blame our legislators).
You *can* blame them when they use the 'dropsy' method of coming up with a reason to arrest someone (the police officer drops a bag of a 'suspicious substance' on the ground, claims the suspect dropped it, and now has probable cause to search and arrest them). You can also blame the judges who know that this is full of crap but go along with it anyway.
"Chicago rates have dropped 16 percent in the last three years" - absolute rubbish. Seems more to me like a guy trying desperately to spice up his article.
Do you have a citation for this? Granted, my math shows only a 13.5% decline from 2000 to 2003, based on the City of Chicago's own reported statistics. But that doesn't really make it "rubbish." To me, it says that we're using different numbers, so I wish I knew what numbers they're using (I went by total Index crime reports, and as I said, from 2000 to 2003).
What is your take on the crime rate in Chicago? And where is your data from?
technology develops best in a free society. But we shouldn't forget that, once developed, technology is easily transferred to less free societies.
It all depends on who your government is... and, in the US, we technically still have power over that.
Take a look at everyone's favorite incident, 9/11. The CIA knew that at least two of the guys who flew those planes were linked to Al Qaeda, and were tracing them. At the same time, the INS didn't know this, and renewed their student visas. The FBI didn't know this, and had other opportunities to arrest them for other things, but didn't.
In that case, the CIA just kind of wanted to do their own little thing and didn't think they needed any other TLA's help. They're paid to be paranoid. But a lot of folks have said that if our information correlation was better at that level, 9/11 could not have happened (at least, not as badly as it did).
Another example of how information played a role in 9/11 is the fourth plane. The folks on it found out from their friends and families (via cell phones) what happened to the first three planes, and knowing they weren't likely to survive this no matter what they did, took the plane back from the hijackers.
Information is a powerful tool. How it is used depends entirely on who is using it, like any other powerful tool. Who watches the watchers? We do. And we should scream loudly when they don't want to be watched, because it's a sign they aren't acting in our interests.
Really? What city with similar demographics to Chicago that didn't implement this technology served as the control for this comparison?
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Data Online only goes up to 2000, so I can't give you their numbers. But according to LAPDonline, Los Angeles experienced an 8% increase in violent crimes from 2000-2002 (they changed reporting in 2003, so the numbers aren't comparable). As the article says, the nation as a whole experienced a 2% increase in crime during the same period.
I spent a lot of time as an undergrad in Sociology learning that correlation is not causation. However, when you look at a major program being put into place, and you see that, during the time it's been available, there has been a MAJOR drop in crime vs. other municipalities and the nation as a whole, and you haven't experienced anything else that might explain it, chances are a large part of the drop can be attributed to the new program.
And it does make some sense. For example, they cite that their arrest rate for sexual assault is up to 69% from 43% before the CLEAR program rolled out. This (a) increases the risk of being caught if you commit this particular type of crime; and (b) removes people from the streets who might be more likely to commit crimes again.
There's a whole lot of skepticism to this report, but I'm not sure why. This isn't profiling every frickin' citizen (a la Department of Homeland Security wet dreams). It's taking information about crimes and putting it into an easily accessible format, so that multiple reports can be correlated more effectively and suspects can be more easily and quickly identified.
In Los Angeles, we have things happen where someone's arrested for something like tagging, is held for a few hours, then released because there's no point in prosecuting them for such a minor crime... and then the next day, they find out the same guy is wanted for a drive-by. When a drunk driver rear-ended me in a stolen vehicle (and then hit a parked car while fleeing the scene), it not only took 90 minutes for them to produce a couple officers to take a report (by which time the guy might have killed someone, I dunno), it also took two days to find out the car was stolen, and a week and a half to give me some mug shots to look at (by which time, my memory was getting hazy). Putting the info together faster is *crucial* in solving crimes.
As long as the information is incident-based (which from everything here it sounds like it is) and not individual-based, it's less prone to abuse (I said LESS... there's *always* risk, and should always be precautions), and sounds like it's been very useful. I hope Chief Bratton somehow manages to get LAPD using it, though it seems unlikely since we can't even afford to hire the officers we *know* we need.
This is an unreasonable example, and i suspect you know it. If the manufactureres REALLY did that, DVD-ROM would never have hit mainstream. We'd all be using blue-laser CDs, or faslh or SOMETHING - that doesn't cost 2 grand.
Very true. What we wouldn't be doing is buying DVD-ROMs at a reasonable price. We would simply believe that they couldn't be *had* at a reasonable price. And the consumer, the economy, etc. would be worse off for it.
The example is dysfunctional, but it still proves the point.
I suggest you download the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer and see just how vulnerable you have been running your machine.
Thanks for the reminder. I ran it on my mom's XP box last time I was there, but forgot to run it here until now.
It was kind of funny. First, it wouldn't work because the Server service wasn't started. Well, it's not running because I don't need it, and it's stupid to run it if you don't need it.;-) But I was able to turn it on and run the analyzer (and then turn it off as soon as it was done).
It found three security updates I needed (including the MDAC one, which did show up on Windows Update for me, for some reason). So I was a bit out of date. But the other stuff it found was all "Yeah, I know, I set it up that way on purpose." Stuff like:
- One of the accounts has a blank or short password. (That's the Guest account, which is disabled.)
- None of the passwords are set to auto expire.
- Auto-logon is configured for at least one account. (This is my home machine. If my hubby needs to get into my computer account, I don't want to have to give him one of my passwords. If someone breaks into our apartment, I have bigger worries than whether they can get into my Windows box.)
- Automatic Updates is not configured properly. (I'm philosophically opposed to having my computer download things without me telling it to, and I know that in some cases this makes me more vulnerable... it's a risk I chose to take.)
- Not all hard drives are using the NTFS file system. (No, my 8GB 5400 RPM drive that I keep around for backups when I reinstall the OS is still FAT32. I'm lazy. One of these days, I'll get a new SATA hard drive, and my current main drive will become backup. Everything will be all better then. For one thing, I'll probably switch to Linux at that point, unless another cool MMOG comes out.)
- Restrict Anonymous. This is the ONLY surprise that showed up on here. I'd never heard of this before, and have since changed the registry setting.
- Telnet service is installed. But it's disabled, so no worries there.
So, I feel fairly good about how secure my box is. The MBSA served to reassure me in this case. I'll still feel safer when I switch away from Windows, if only because I'll be less of a target.
I understand that anytime somebody publishes a Top N List the urge to compete externally is great, but why not ignore the others and simply use this as a data point to improve oneself?
Absolutely.
Next year, let's make it 90% of the survey total on Linux!
Joe user isn't running an internet server. If he is, the OS is automatically exempt from being blamed for any damages.:)
If Joe User is running Windows 2000 or XP, he is running an internet server (until he turns it off). If he is running Linux, he probably isn't running a server (until he turns it on). So I'll still hold the OS somewhat responsible.
When do the fat people get in on the class action suit against Judy Kroc's estate? Will they get vouchers from PBS? Will there suddenly be new quietness on PBS station about the 'civil rights' of these fat people?
Either way, National Public Radio now is involved in the obesity industry.
Oh, now you're just confusing PBS and NPR on purpose to bug me, aren't you?;-)
Besides which, NPR isn't entangled in McDonald's business at all. If Judy Kroc had to pay out a huge bunch of money, the money she already gave away to NPR and the Salvation Army wouldn't matter... though it might make it harder for her to pony up (hey, maybe that's why she gave it away!)
Just throwing this out there... don't gas stations do this very thing?
I know several gas stations in the area use bino's to see what the other gas station is selling for down the street and they change their prices to match.
If I check out my competitor's prices, and set my prices to the same (or a cent higher or a cent lower... often what gas stations do) to compete better with them, there's nothing wrong with that.
If Chevron, Union 76, Mobil/Exxon, and Arco all have a big pow-wow and decide "We're going to charge $2.00/gallon plus applicable taxes, and we'll set our wholesale prices so that independent stations can't go any lower than that" that's collusion.
You'd change your fucking mind if you had to live in the Soviet Union for a few years. See how you like standing in line to get your bread.
Excuse me, but where did you get "Soviet Union" from "more socialistic world?" Sounds like you've never set foot in any of Western Europe, which is far more socialistic than the US.
In a blended socialistic/capitalistic economy, everyone gets the minimum they need, but anyone can pay more for more if they have the money. And you don't trip over homeless children whenever you take a walk downtown, either.
I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.
But in the case of collusion, you don't necessarily *know* they're being unreasonable. Because they've fixed prices industry-wide, the consumer's perception is that "this is how much this costs," not "this is how much they think I'll pay."
Competition is one of the essentials of the free-market economy. This is anti-competitive behavior. Adam Smith also identified other essentials, such as perfect information and perfect mobility. Technically, we're already hampered by the fact that we can't possibly know what price everyone's selling a particular good at, and we can't necessarily go buy it from them even if we *do* know. The internet is starting to change this, but industry collusion can counteract that, both by removing competitive behavior *and* removing information.
So at the end of the day, there's the question of what you think is reasonable to pay. Is it reasonable to pay $2,000 for a DVD-ROM? Probably not... but it was in 1998, if you *really* wanted one and could afford it. Nowadays, people would laugh at that price. But what if everyone who makes them had decided never to lower the prices, regardless of how costs changed? People would have no reason to believe that was an "unreasonable" price, just that they might not be able to pay it. Market competition helps inform the consumer about what is "reasonable," by pushing prices down to a point somewhere between normal profits (i.e., the same amount you could make by putting your money into a typical investment) and the most the retailer would like to charge. Removing competition removes that ability to gauge what is "reasonable."
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone else see this as an attempt to make an issue out of a non-issue? Games are marketed towards guys because guys make up the vast majority of the gaming market. Why don't they target the elderly with hiphop music? Becuase its more cost effective to target the younger crowd.
Men drive more than women, too. Should we not market cars towards women?
As it turns out, women are increasing their Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) far faster than men. It's an untapped market, not a non-existent one. As a result, a majority of cars are marketed towards women more than men these days.
Elderly people like *different* music than young people. There are plenty of music collections targeted at them (fewer, perhaps, but they don't tend to be as consumerist overall). The number of computer games targeted at women, however, is only recently starting to become a positive integer. And since it's an untapped market, there's potential for great success. Unfortunately, since it's also an unknown market, there's still guys fumbling around trying to work out what women want from games, and failing pretty miserably with it.
Game companies should be sponsoring scholarships for female computer science and interface design majors, seriously. They *need* it.
Similarily, the best female Counterstrikers can undoubtedly beat the average male. They can however in general NOT hold their own against the *best* male players, and that's what they have to do to avoid getting crushed in competitions.
There's something you're forgetting about the dynamics of women entering male-dominated competition.
Generally, they're not well-received. So while a guy who's "good" might get into a professional clan just fine (even if it's not one of the best), a woman is not even going to pursue membership in a professional clan unless she's VERY good. Therefore, the "average" woman competing at this level is probably quite a bit better than the "average" man competing at the same level.
What's more, women who compete at these sorts of levels do tremendous permanent damage to their ability to safely reproduce.
And... so? As long as they know they're making that choice, how does that figure?
Reminds me of when I used to play Magic with a group of guys I knew.
;-)
We'd play these big 5 or 6-person games, and I'd often win or come in second. Why? Because they spent the first half of the game beating each other up, while I just would stock up land and get my creatures out. Then, when they noticed I was still there and at 20 health, they were all down quite a bit.
It's not that women are crafty. We don't have to be when it comes to male egos.
Actually, that is not entirely true. A guy can be receiving a blowjob, using the computer, eating a slice of pizza, and drinking a beer, all at the same time. A woman would have to sit there and concentrate while getting head, and would not be able to do anything simultaneously.
One other difference, though: the woman is getting hers from a real live partner. The guy who's eating pizza, drinking beer, and using the computer while getting a blowjob is using one of those silicone molds of some porn star's mouth.
When *I* give a blowjob, I expect undivided attention. Whether or not my partner considers it "necessary."
CONTROL: For hours played per week, number of years spent playing video games, and equipment.
For women who really like FPS games (I'm not one of them... I'll stick to MMOGs, thanks) these factors are still going to make a difference. My husband and ex-husband both practically grew up on strafing and turning. Me, I could learn, but it would take me a while, and having years of experience synchronizing the mouse and keyboard is a definite advantage, even if there's no "innate" advantage.
"I prefer the term extortion because the X makes it sound cool!" - Bender on SCO IP fundraising
Actually, it's...
"Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion. The X makes it sound cool!"
I totally agree, by the way. If you want a word to be cooler, add an X to it. Works every time, as I'm sure all you 1337 h4X0rs would agree, right?
still mad about that speeding ticket?
The one I got in July 1998? Hardly. The cop was more than generous; they made sure it was low enough that I could go to traffic school. Of course, I was white and female.
I know quite a few cops and people just love to cling on to the image of corrupt cops from TV. most cops are cops because they do want to make a difference. They want the world to be safer.
Which is why they use the dropsy method to arrest people that they, in their heart, know should be behind bars. They may be right. It's still illegal and unethical for them to do it.
They don't all do it, but it is a pretty common practice, especially in large urban areas.
how many cops do you know personally?
It matters exactly how that I only know two or three cops personally? Analysis of our legal and law enforcement systems isn't necessarily helped or hindered by this bias.
How many "criminals" do you know personally? By that I mean people who have done jail or prison time, whether or not they actually committed a crime. Is that relevant to your perceptions of the criminal justice system? Why or why not?
Well, I do guess the US aren't forcing other countries to sell them goods? Maybe the US actually pay for the goods they import? We trade on the open market because both parties actually benefit from it.
1) This is irrelevant, since my point in the other post was that no, most of our consumption isn't being bought up by other countries.
2) The trade deficit *does* hurt us, and doesn't always benefit our trade partners. It's a drain on our economy in several ways, mostly because stuff that used to be manufactured here, by Americans, is manufactured overseas where it's cheaper. We lose jobs, people overseas often end up in exploitative work environments, and the only people who benefit are the companies that are making lots of money off the deal.
I don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car, I don't need to be an astronomer or astrophysicist to look through a telescope, and I shouldn't have to be a network security expert just to surf the web and send & receive email.
Well, think about it for a second.
When you learned to drive a car, you probably knew a little about it. There's an engine, it burns gas, that causes the wheels to go around. The gas pedal must have something to do with that burn rate. The brake makes the wheels stop.
Now, imagine that we all treated that "under the hood" as a black box, and that typical people commonly confused the engine with the carburetor. Some cars would even come with holographic stickers closing the hood shut, so you couldn't open it without voiding the warranty. When someone teaches you to drive a car, they say:
"Turn that key. Now, press in this button and move this lever until it clicks four times. Turn the wheel about 60 degrees, and slowly press on the right pedal. Turn the wheel back 60 degrees, but slowly... SLOWLY! See, you almost ran into that car! Now give it a little more gas... I'm sorry, I didn't mean to fall into jargon. Press harder on that right pedal. Use the big one on the left when we get to that white line on the pavement up there."
This is how people are taught to use computers. Click this, press that, drag here, type there. Meanwhile, when the computer tells them it's running out of memory, they start deleting stuff from their hard drive to free up space, because they don't know the difference between RAM and the C: drive.
If we (meaning, those of us who know this stuff) all took a different tack, instead of teaching people procedurally how to get through a particular function or application, we might have a much easier time educating folks about not running trojans. But as long as we (again, speaking to the community that has the knowledge) keep acting like people can't and shouldn't be taught this stuff in the way that we learn EVERYTHING ELSE, we'll keep having this problem.
Ok fine, what if someday, a student doing research in microbiology decides, just for the sake or fine arts, I'll release a mutant plague bacteria...
If you RTFA (which I did the first time it was posted, but haven't the two times since), you'd know that it goes more like this: these virus writers are artists in the same way that microbiology student is a scientist. *Neither* has the goal of releasing their creations into the wild. However, *both* create things which are subject to abuse by others. The teenage virus writers are a bit more, er, stupid about it maybe (publishing their code), but then again, the microbio student will have a decent career when she graduates.
shows that he has little clue about the fact, that typography is about designing thing containg text in such a way, that makes them aesthetically pleasing.
:-)
The question now is, of course, what have I screwed up?
Try...
"shows that he has little clue about the fact that 'typography' is about designing things containing text, in such a way as to make them aesthetically pleasing."
The comma is still awkward, but it's a little better now. The entire sentence should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, but I'll leave that for someone else.
Much of that consumption is used in building things that end up in other countries anyway.
Ever heard of the trade deficit?
The southwestern US is the only segment that exports more than it imports (and almost all of that is in Southern California). Most of the US is buying stuff up from other countries much faster than they are producing it for them.
I have plenty of hate for the police as well, but you can't blame them when someone gets caught stealing or selling crack.
No.
You also can't blame them when the laws for stealing or selling crack are way out of line compared to the laws for stealing or selling cocaine (though you can blame our legislators).
You *can* blame them when they use the 'dropsy' method of coming up with a reason to arrest someone (the police officer drops a bag of a 'suspicious substance' on the ground, claims the suspect dropped it, and now has probable cause to search and arrest them). You can also blame the judges who know that this is full of crap but go along with it anyway.
"Chicago rates have dropped 16 percent in the last three years" - absolute rubbish. Seems more to me like a guy trying desperately to spice up his article.
Do you have a citation for this? Granted, my math shows only a 13.5% decline from 2000 to 2003, based on the City of Chicago's own reported statistics. But that doesn't really make it "rubbish." To me, it says that we're using different numbers, so I wish I knew what numbers they're using (I went by total Index crime reports, and as I said, from 2000 to 2003).
What is your take on the crime rate in Chicago? And where is your data from?
technology develops best in a free society. But we shouldn't forget that, once developed, technology is easily transferred to less free societies.
It all depends on who your government is... and, in the US, we technically still have power over that.
Take a look at everyone's favorite incident, 9/11. The CIA knew that at least two of the guys who flew those planes were linked to Al Qaeda, and were tracing them. At the same time, the INS didn't know this, and renewed their student visas. The FBI didn't know this, and had other opportunities to arrest them for other things, but didn't.
In that case, the CIA just kind of wanted to do their own little thing and didn't think they needed any other TLA's help. They're paid to be paranoid. But a lot of folks have said that if our information correlation was better at that level, 9/11 could not have happened (at least, not as badly as it did).
Another example of how information played a role in 9/11 is the fourth plane. The folks on it found out from their friends and families (via cell phones) what happened to the first three planes, and knowing they weren't likely to survive this no matter what they did, took the plane back from the hijackers.
Information is a powerful tool. How it is used depends entirely on who is using it, like any other powerful tool. Who watches the watchers? We do. And we should scream loudly when they don't want to be watched, because it's a sign they aren't acting in our interests.
Really? What city with similar demographics to Chicago that didn't implement this technology served as the control for this comparison?
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Data Online only goes up to 2000, so I can't give you their numbers. But according to LAPDonline, Los Angeles experienced an 8% increase in violent crimes from 2000-2002 (they changed reporting in 2003, so the numbers aren't comparable). As the article says, the nation as a whole experienced a 2% increase in crime during the same period.
I spent a lot of time as an undergrad in Sociology learning that correlation is not causation. However, when you look at a major program being put into place, and you see that, during the time it's been available, there has been a MAJOR drop in crime vs. other municipalities and the nation as a whole, and you haven't experienced anything else that might explain it, chances are a large part of the drop can be attributed to the new program.
And it does make some sense. For example, they cite that their arrest rate for sexual assault is up to 69% from 43% before the CLEAR program rolled out. This (a) increases the risk of being caught if you commit this particular type of crime; and (b) removes people from the streets who might be more likely to commit crimes again.
There's a whole lot of skepticism to this report, but I'm not sure why. This isn't profiling every frickin' citizen (a la Department of Homeland Security wet dreams). It's taking information about crimes and putting it into an easily accessible format, so that multiple reports can be correlated more effectively and suspects can be more easily and quickly identified.
In Los Angeles, we have things happen where someone's arrested for something like tagging, is held for a few hours, then released because there's no point in prosecuting them for such a minor crime... and then the next day, they find out the same guy is wanted for a drive-by. When a drunk driver rear-ended me in a stolen vehicle (and then hit a parked car while fleeing the scene), it not only took 90 minutes for them to produce a couple officers to take a report (by which time the guy might have killed someone, I dunno), it also took two days to find out the car was stolen, and a week and a half to give me some mug shots to look at (by which time, my memory was getting hazy). Putting the info together faster is *crucial* in solving crimes.
As long as the information is incident-based (which from everything here it sounds like it is) and not individual-based, it's less prone to abuse (I said LESS... there's *always* risk, and should always be precautions), and sounds like it's been very useful. I hope Chief Bratton somehow manages to get LAPD using it, though it seems unlikely since we can't even afford to hire the officers we *know* we need.
This is an unreasonable example, and i suspect you know it. If the manufactureres REALLY did that, DVD-ROM would never have hit mainstream. We'd all be using blue-laser CDs, or faslh or SOMETHING - that doesn't cost 2 grand.
Very true. What we wouldn't be doing is buying DVD-ROMs at a reasonable price. We would simply believe that they couldn't be *had* at a reasonable price. And the consumer, the economy, etc. would be worse off for it.
The example is dysfunctional, but it still proves the point.
I suggest you download the Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer and see just how vulnerable you have been running your machine.
;-) But I was able to turn it on and run the analyzer (and then turn it off as soon as it was done).
Thanks for the reminder. I ran it on my mom's XP box last time I was there, but forgot to run it here until now.
It was kind of funny. First, it wouldn't work because the Server service wasn't started. Well, it's not running because I don't need it, and it's stupid to run it if you don't need it.
It found three security updates I needed (including the MDAC one, which did show up on Windows Update for me, for some reason). So I was a bit out of date. But the other stuff it found was all "Yeah, I know, I set it up that way on purpose." Stuff like:
- One of the accounts has a blank or short password. (That's the Guest account, which is disabled.)
- None of the passwords are set to auto expire.
- Auto-logon is configured for at least one account. (This is my home machine. If my hubby needs to get into my computer account, I don't want to have to give him one of my passwords. If someone breaks into our apartment, I have bigger worries than whether they can get into my Windows box.)
- Automatic Updates is not configured properly. (I'm philosophically opposed to having my computer download things without me telling it to, and I know that in some cases this makes me more vulnerable... it's a risk I chose to take.)
- Not all hard drives are using the NTFS file system. (No, my 8GB 5400 RPM drive that I keep around for backups when I reinstall the OS is still FAT32. I'm lazy. One of these days, I'll get a new SATA hard drive, and my current main drive will become backup. Everything will be all better then. For one thing, I'll probably switch to Linux at that point, unless another cool MMOG comes out.)
- Restrict Anonymous. This is the ONLY surprise that showed up on here. I'd never heard of this before, and have since changed the registry setting.
- Telnet service is installed. But it's disabled, so no worries there.
So, I feel fairly good about how secure my box is. The MBSA served to reassure me in this case. I'll still feel safer when I switch away from Windows, if only because I'll be less of a target.
I understand that anytime somebody publishes a Top N List the urge to compete externally is great, but why not ignore the others and simply use this as a data point to improve oneself?
Absolutely.
Next year, let's make it 90% of the survey total on Linux!
More market share is good, right?
Joe user isn't running an internet server. If he is, the OS is automatically exempt from being blamed for any damages. :)
If Joe User is running Windows 2000 or XP, he is running an internet server (until he turns it off). If he is running Linux, he probably isn't running a server (until he turns it on). So I'll still hold the OS somewhat responsible.
When do the fat people get in on the class action suit against Judy Kroc's estate? Will they get vouchers from PBS? Will there suddenly be new quietness on PBS station about the 'civil rights' of these fat people?
;-)
Either way, National Public Radio now is involved in the obesity industry.
Oh, now you're just confusing PBS and NPR on purpose to bug me, aren't you?
Besides which, NPR isn't entangled in McDonald's business at all. If Judy Kroc had to pay out a huge bunch of money, the money she already gave away to NPR and the Salvation Army wouldn't matter... though it might make it harder for her to pony up (hey, maybe that's why she gave it away!)
Just throwing this out there... don't gas stations do this very thing?
I know several gas stations in the area use bino's to see what the other gas station is selling for down the street and they change their prices to match.
If I check out my competitor's prices, and set my prices to the same (or a cent higher or a cent lower... often what gas stations do) to compete better with them, there's nothing wrong with that.
If Chevron, Union 76, Mobil/Exxon, and Arco all have a big pow-wow and decide "We're going to charge $2.00/gallon plus applicable taxes, and we'll set our wholesale prices so that independent stations can't go any lower than that" that's collusion.
You'd change your fucking mind if you had to live in the Soviet Union for a few years. See how you like standing in line to get your bread.
Excuse me, but where did you get "Soviet Union" from "more socialistic world?" Sounds like you've never set foot in any of Western Europe, which is far more socialistic than the US.
In a blended socialistic/capitalistic economy, everyone gets the minimum they need, but anyone can pay more for more if they have the money. And you don't trip over homeless children whenever you take a walk downtown, either.
I believe those who make stuff have the right to set the price. They can collude, conspire, or whatever. I don't care. if they're being unreasonable, I won't buy.
But in the case of collusion, you don't necessarily *know* they're being unreasonable. Because they've fixed prices industry-wide, the consumer's perception is that "this is how much this costs," not "this is how much they think I'll pay."
Competition is one of the essentials of the free-market economy. This is anti-competitive behavior. Adam Smith also identified other essentials, such as perfect information and perfect mobility. Technically, we're already hampered by the fact that we can't possibly know what price everyone's selling a particular good at, and we can't necessarily go buy it from them even if we *do* know. The internet is starting to change this, but industry collusion can counteract that, both by removing competitive behavior *and* removing information.
So at the end of the day, there's the question of what you think is reasonable to pay. Is it reasonable to pay $2,000 for a DVD-ROM? Probably not... but it was in 1998, if you *really* wanted one and could afford it. Nowadays, people would laugh at that price. But what if everyone who makes them had decided never to lower the prices, regardless of how costs changed? People would have no reason to believe that was an "unreasonable" price, just that they might not be able to pay it. Market competition helps inform the consumer about what is "reasonable," by pushing prices down to a point somewhere between normal profits (i.e., the same amount you could make by putting your money into a typical investment) and the most the retailer would like to charge. Removing competition removes that ability to gauge what is "reasonable."