However, your argument fails to account for 2009 technology. Recycling creates pollution, recycling many times takes much more energy then just dumping them in a landfill. Landfills can over time be turned into parks, housing developments, etc. Plus the US has a ton of land, particularly land that has no current use. Technology will eventually get to the point where theres no need to use toxic substances (not because of regulation but because if you want to have decent performance you just don't use them). Eventually all the mercury and such gets diluted down to manageable levels. In the USA this simply doesn't make sense, perhaps in Europe where space is at a premium it does, but due to the fact that recycling requires more energy than simply dumping it and there is tons of space in the US, I see little point in harming the economy with this.
So please tell me oh wise AC how you are supposed to make something that doesn't get obsoleted in a few years? Should we all be using Pentium CPUs right now because if we upgrade to a Pentium II there will be a Pentium III eventually and then a Pentium 4, etc. And even during the times that Intel stalled on making CPUs, AMD took the lead and advanced new technologies (like x86-64). Should we all be playing on Atari 2600s? Because you know if we get a NES we would eventually have to upgrade to a SNES, then a N64 then a GameCube then a Wii.
Technology changes. What is current today will not be current 3 years from now.
While this post is written in an inflammatory style, I would have to say that I agree with it. It makes no sense for companies to have to recycle things that they made years down the line. There are some things that/will/ go obsolete no matter how "green" you design them. Heck, governments create part of it too (look at the DTV transition). You make a product and you sell it, once it is sold you should have no liability for the product unless it was defective or unsafe along with limits on when you can get damages. For example, 30 years from now if we find that the glass used in the iPhone caused skin deformities but Apple could have no knowledge of that, it makes no sense to sue Apple for that. Similarly, when I want to throw away an old computer, its not the computer makers fault that I want to throw it away.
One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.'"
How the crap do you do that? Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end. So what is Intel to do? Stop making CPUs until they manage to make the fastest one ever then abandon the CPU market? Heck, most of the waste was caused by the government mandating the DTV switch. Technology evolves independent of the manufacturer.
Yes, because there is no need to use iCab when you can use Safari or Firefox. iCab pretty much renders the same as Safari and all the UI can be done in Firefox (or Chrome or an OSS webkit browser).
I'm not sure if multiprocess architectures are really the way to go. Yes, they stop memory leaks but still take up more memory in the short run. Firefox is used heavily on older computers where IE doesn't cut it and the max memory is 512 MB or less.
But all those things still link a huge chain together that can be used to harm you in a lawsuit. If all they have is an IP, there are a million ways someone who isn't you could be using that IP. If they have your IP linked to several of your accounts that you referenced, then it becomes harder. With every site referenced more than the tracker and the swarm, the option of denial quickly fade away.
But there are a lot of games released on Wii that use motion controls for no apparent reason. In fact, I'd say that about 85% of the Wii's games use motion control for no real reason and the gameplay suffers because of it.
Right, because I really want Twitter linked to my downloads? When I download I want to be as anonymous as possible, that means no personal information save for my IP (which most people should use a proxy anyways). Having Twitter which might have info on my phone number which then would make it trivial to place a 100% undeniable blame on someone.
You can't counter a really well built up proprietary method with another equally proprietary method. The way you counter it is opening up, like Android or the partially OSS WebOS from Palm. You don't beat the iPhone by making an iPhone, rather you beat them by making an open platform that by definition will have a ton more adoption than a phone on one network with only a few devices that are supported outside of the phone (such as the iPod touch)
I think that the classic controller feels very much like a slightly thicker version of the SNES controller. And if you want a SNES controller for the Wii Nintendo made some in Japan and you can probably get them on e-bay or similar.
The problem with that is... cable bundling. Theres about 5 networks I watch regularly, and out of them about 2 have way too many ads that I would give up watching them if I could send feedback. However, if I cancel those networks, I end up canceling the 3 other networks that I do watch.
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program, but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I'm already paying for their content?
monitoring his finances to the level that you propose would probably cost as much as locking him up.
How would it be? First his name would be ruined to a point where no one is going to lend to him. Are you going to give Madoff a loan? I wouldn't think so. Are you going to hire Madoff for anything major? I wouldn't think so. So his finances boil down to basically what you and me make which ends up being food, rent, car payment, etc.
i think in this case, life in prison is the only fitting outcome for this scumbag.
Why? He is not violent. There is no point in putting him in prison except for your own self-enjoyment. He did nothing prison-worthy. He should be forced to work like the rest of us and pay back those he scammed.
So, you think thieves don't belong in prison? How is stealing a shit-load of money not a danger to society? It ruined all kinds of people's lives. It may not be overtly violent, but it still has a massive, devastating impact to a sector of the community and to the economy.
Theft != fraud. With fraud someone is willfully handing out money, with theft someone thought their money/stuff was secure when it wasn't. With theft you never know when it can strike, with fraud the only time it can happen is when you willfully give out money. Yes, fraud needs to be prosecuted but its not the same as theft especially violent theft.
Yes, it has a devastating impact, I'm not saying his crimes weren't severe I'm saying he doesn't belong in prison. Prison should not be the place where we keep people at taxpayer expense that we don't like. Prison should be a place where we keep people who could cause physical harm to others if released. In a country where we can deny the rights of criminals to vote and have other "unalienable rights" taken away, I would say we could keep tabs on Madoff's finances. Heck, we could probably hire someone to keep tabs on him for the rest of his life and still have it be cheaper than maximum security prison.
What about arsonists who happen to not kill people? Just make them stay at home? Wearing a collar that presumably doesn't cost the tax-payers anything? Like it or not, your tax dollars are enforcing the law - whatever that happens to be.
Once the arsonist has paid for the damage, I see no reason to place a huge burden on the taxpayer. Until then he should be forced to sell his assets and work off the damages. And I'm sure that wearing a collar and having the person themselves paying for food/water/electricity/medical bills is a ton cheaper than throwing them in prison.
Wait, you are telling me that in a country where we can ban criminals from even voting, in an age where everything leaves paper trails a mile wide we can't get someone to watch his finances? I'm sure even hiring a dedicated person is going to be far cheaper than locking him up in maximum security where you have to provide *everything* for him.
And really, yes, he ruined a lot of lives, that part is unquestionable but he isn't violent. There is no need to lock him up especially not in a maximum security prison. What is the danger if Madoff buys a house next to yours? Are you not going to be able to sleep because you are afraid hes going to break in? That hes going to kill you when you are out checking your mail? No. Hes not violent therefore there is no reason to lock him up at taxpayer expense. Monitor his finances, perhaps give him a government job and only pay him through a traceable credit card and forbid him from getting other means of funding. Sell his house and all the rest of the finances, but lock him up at taxpayer expense effectively defrauding the public not once but twice? No.
Socialized healthcare is a violent crime in and of itself by that definition. There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure. But even in the US you can usually get on so many programs and with the aid of various non-profits and a good story in the newspaper or TV news station get enough help to get the care you need. Granted, you will probably be in debt till you die, but even if you are poor you can usually *get* the initial treatments but with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do and B) there are many other doctors/clinics. If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason, with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.
It is totally stupid and pointless we are even sending the guy to prison. Jails should be reserved for people who are a danger to society, or people who have committed violent crimes. A simple court order ordering him to pay back money, liquefy most if not all assets to pay for it, and keep a job for a few years while preventing him from owning a company would suffice. So rather than have him paying for his life, now we have to for a guy who is harmless.
Which honestly is pointless. Should Madoff be banned from operating a company? Sure. Should he have to return his stolen goods and pay back the people he scammed? Yes. Should he be forced to liquefy most of his assets to help pay back? Yes. Should he be in prison not just scamming people once but effectively scamming the taxpayers. No. Prison should be reserved for only dangerous people who committed violent crimes and need to be put away for a while so they don't go back into crime and when they get out of prison they for the most part should be rehabilitated and able to live a normal life (with perhaps a few restrictions such as banning the sale/possession of firearms form violent criminals). Madoff is not a danger to society. And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice. No matter how much he scammed, he does not belong in jail. He should be working the rest of his life making small payments to pay for those he scammed. Prison is not the place for non-violent criminals, those should be placed on house arrest, have fines, restrictions or be placed on probation. Why should my tax dollars pay to lock away someone who wouldn't threaten anyone's lives, property, etc if he was out on the streets (with again restrictions on what he can and can't do economically).
$400K for a 4 bedroom house?!?! Now I might be wrong about the costs, but here in the midwest even in the larger cities, 400K will get you a huge house where a 4 bedroom house is more like $250K, new.
In a way it does though. Did anyone really think that once the venture capitalist's funds ran out and their popularity increased that they could stay afloat? Let alone turn a profit? YouTube's business plan was to get someone to buy them. Essentially, they weren't competing with Google who's plan is to use advertising revenue to make a profit (and it works well for search and such)
Not really, if you are a socialist or communist state and rely on people making exportable goods to be taxed heavily in order to support your larger needs to "help" your citizen so anything that hampers your productivity should be eliminated or reduced in order to get more tax revenue. So if you are selling something that leads to more tax revenue it would be a good thing for the government on the other hand if you are doing nothing productive it costs money in a communist or socialist society.
Slashdot Mirror
However, your argument fails to account for 2009 technology. Recycling creates pollution, recycling many times takes much more energy then just dumping them in a landfill. Landfills can over time be turned into parks, housing developments, etc. Plus the US has a ton of land, particularly land that has no current use. Technology will eventually get to the point where theres no need to use toxic substances (not because of regulation but because if you want to have decent performance you just don't use them). Eventually all the mercury and such gets diluted down to manageable levels. In the USA this simply doesn't make sense, perhaps in Europe where space is at a premium it does, but due to the fact that recycling requires more energy than simply dumping it and there is tons of space in the US, I see little point in harming the economy with this.
So please tell me oh wise AC how you are supposed to make something that doesn't get obsoleted in a few years? Should we all be using Pentium CPUs right now because if we upgrade to a Pentium II there will be a Pentium III eventually and then a Pentium 4, etc. And even during the times that Intel stalled on making CPUs, AMD took the lead and advanced new technologies (like x86-64). Should we all be playing on Atari 2600s? Because you know if we get a NES we would eventually have to upgrade to a SNES, then a N64 then a GameCube then a Wii.
Technology changes. What is current today will not be current 3 years from now.
While this post is written in an inflammatory style, I would have to say that I agree with it. It makes no sense for companies to have to recycle things that they made years down the line. There are some things that /will/ go obsolete no matter how "green" you design them. Heck, governments create part of it too (look at the DTV transition). You make a product and you sell it, once it is sold you should have no liability for the product unless it was defective or unsafe along with limits on when you can get damages. For example, 30 years from now if we find that the glass used in the iPhone caused skin deformities but Apple could have no knowledge of that, it makes no sense to sue Apple for that. Similarly, when I want to throw away an old computer, its not the computer makers fault that I want to throw it away.
One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.'"
How the crap do you do that? Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end. So what is Intel to do? Stop making CPUs until they manage to make the fastest one ever then abandon the CPU market? Heck, most of the waste was caused by the government mandating the DTV switch. Technology evolves independent of the manufacturer.
Yes, there is one. http://nintendo.joystiq.com/2008/11/21/super-famicom-classic-controller-available-at-play-asia/
Yes, because there is no need to use iCab when you can use Safari or Firefox. iCab pretty much renders the same as Safari and all the UI can be done in Firefox (or Chrome or an OSS webkit browser).
I'm not sure if multiprocess architectures are really the way to go. Yes, they stop memory leaks but still take up more memory in the short run. Firefox is used heavily on older computers where IE doesn't cut it and the max memory is 512 MB or less.
But all those things still link a huge chain together that can be used to harm you in a lawsuit. If all they have is an IP, there are a million ways someone who isn't you could be using that IP. If they have your IP linked to several of your accounts that you referenced, then it becomes harder. With every site referenced more than the tracker and the swarm, the option of denial quickly fade away.
But there are a lot of games released on Wii that use motion controls for no apparent reason. In fact, I'd say that about 85% of the Wii's games use motion control for no real reason and the gameplay suffers because of it.
Right, because I really want Twitter linked to my downloads? When I download I want to be as anonymous as possible, that means no personal information save for my IP (which most people should use a proxy anyways). Having Twitter which might have info on my phone number which then would make it trivial to place a 100% undeniable blame on someone.
You can't counter a really well built up proprietary method with another equally proprietary method. The way you counter it is opening up, like Android or the partially OSS WebOS from Palm. You don't beat the iPhone by making an iPhone, rather you beat them by making an open platform that by definition will have a ton more adoption than a phone on one network with only a few devices that are supported outside of the phone (such as the iPod touch)
But I think that would raise lots of doubt (were the logs planted? Did the IPs change owner? Etc)
I think that the classic controller feels very much like a slightly thicker version of the SNES controller. And if you want a SNES controller for the Wii Nintendo made some in Japan and you can probably get them on e-bay or similar.
You are assuming that the appeals fails which I doubt it will once they get a judge who is halfway decent.
The problem with that is... cable bundling. Theres about 5 networks I watch regularly, and out of them about 2 have way too many ads that I would give up watching them if I could send feedback. However, if I cancel those networks, I end up canceling the 3 other networks that I do watch.
I don't understand why cable networks think that we need to pay for their content twice. I mean, I'm already paying for their content via the cable subscription fee so why should I even have ads? Either get rid of the licensing fees or get rid of the ads. This is like paying for a "premium" website only to get hit by pop ups on every page. I mean, I could even understand an ad or two at the start and after the end of the program, but why do they think they need to have 9 minutes of ads for every show when I'm already paying for their content?
monitoring his finances to the level that you propose would probably cost as much as locking him up.
How would it be? First his name would be ruined to a point where no one is going to lend to him. Are you going to give Madoff a loan? I wouldn't think so. Are you going to hire Madoff for anything major? I wouldn't think so. So his finances boil down to basically what you and me make which ends up being food, rent, car payment, etc.
i think in this case, life in prison is the only fitting outcome for this scumbag.
Why? He is not violent. There is no point in putting him in prison except for your own self-enjoyment. He did nothing prison-worthy. He should be forced to work like the rest of us and pay back those he scammed.
So, you think thieves don't belong in prison? How is stealing a shit-load of money not a danger to society? It ruined all kinds of people's lives. It may not be overtly violent, but it still has a massive, devastating impact to a sector of the community and to the economy.
Theft != fraud. With fraud someone is willfully handing out money, with theft someone thought their money/stuff was secure when it wasn't. With theft you never know when it can strike, with fraud the only time it can happen is when you willfully give out money. Yes, fraud needs to be prosecuted but its not the same as theft especially violent theft.
Yes, it has a devastating impact, I'm not saying his crimes weren't severe I'm saying he doesn't belong in prison. Prison should not be the place where we keep people at taxpayer expense that we don't like. Prison should be a place where we keep people who could cause physical harm to others if released. In a country where we can deny the rights of criminals to vote and have other "unalienable rights" taken away, I would say we could keep tabs on Madoff's finances. Heck, we could probably hire someone to keep tabs on him for the rest of his life and still have it be cheaper than maximum security prison.
What about arsonists who happen to not kill people? Just make them stay at home? Wearing a collar that presumably doesn't cost the tax-payers anything? Like it or not, your tax dollars are enforcing the law - whatever that happens to be.
Once the arsonist has paid for the damage, I see no reason to place a huge burden on the taxpayer. Until then he should be forced to sell his assets and work off the damages. And I'm sure that wearing a collar and having the person themselves paying for food/water/electricity/medical bills is a ton cheaper than throwing them in prison.
Wait, you are telling me that in a country where we can ban criminals from even voting, in an age where everything leaves paper trails a mile wide we can't get someone to watch his finances? I'm sure even hiring a dedicated person is going to be far cheaper than locking him up in maximum security where you have to provide *everything* for him.
And really, yes, he ruined a lot of lives, that part is unquestionable but he isn't violent. There is no need to lock him up especially not in a maximum security prison. What is the danger if Madoff buys a house next to yours? Are you not going to be able to sleep because you are afraid hes going to break in? That hes going to kill you when you are out checking your mail? No. Hes not violent therefore there is no reason to lock him up at taxpayer expense. Monitor his finances, perhaps give him a government job and only pay him through a traceable credit card and forbid him from getting other means of funding. Sell his house and all the rest of the finances, but lock him up at taxpayer expense effectively defrauding the public not once but twice? No.
Socialized healthcare is a violent crime in and of itself by that definition. There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure. But even in the US you can usually get on so many programs and with the aid of various non-profits and a good story in the newspaper or TV news station get enough help to get the care you need. Granted, you will probably be in debt till you die, but even if you are poor you can usually *get* the initial treatments but with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do and B) there are many other doctors/clinics. If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason, with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.
It is totally stupid and pointless we are even sending the guy to prison. Jails should be reserved for people who are a danger to society, or people who have committed violent crimes. A simple court order ordering him to pay back money, liquefy most if not all assets to pay for it, and keep a job for a few years while preventing him from owning a company would suffice. So rather than have him paying for his life, now we have to for a guy who is harmless.
Which honestly is pointless. Should Madoff be banned from operating a company? Sure. Should he have to return his stolen goods and pay back the people he scammed? Yes. Should he be forced to liquefy most of his assets to help pay back? Yes. Should he be in prison not just scamming people once but effectively scamming the taxpayers. No. Prison should be reserved for only dangerous people who committed violent crimes and need to be put away for a while so they don't go back into crime and when they get out of prison they for the most part should be rehabilitated and able to live a normal life (with perhaps a few restrictions such as banning the sale/possession of firearms form violent criminals). Madoff is not a danger to society. And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice. No matter how much he scammed, he does not belong in jail. He should be working the rest of his life making small payments to pay for those he scammed. Prison is not the place for non-violent criminals, those should be placed on house arrest, have fines, restrictions or be placed on probation. Why should my tax dollars pay to lock away someone who wouldn't threaten anyone's lives, property, etc if he was out on the streets (with again restrictions on what he can and can't do economically).
$400K for a 4 bedroom house?!?! Now I might be wrong about the costs, but here in the midwest even in the larger cities, 400K will get you a huge house where a 4 bedroom house is more like $250K, new.
In a way it does though. Did anyone really think that once the venture capitalist's funds ran out and their popularity increased that they could stay afloat? Let alone turn a profit? YouTube's business plan was to get someone to buy them. Essentially, they weren't competing with Google who's plan is to use advertising revenue to make a profit (and it works well for search and such)
Not really, if you are a socialist or communist state and rely on people making exportable goods to be taxed heavily in order to support your larger needs to "help" your citizen so anything that hampers your productivity should be eliminated or reduced in order to get more tax revenue. So if you are selling something that leads to more tax revenue it would be a good thing for the government on the other hand if you are doing nothing productive it costs money in a communist or socialist society.